On the decision to re-enter...

Those who have bought say they largely wanted to take advantage of record-low interest rates and a recently expired tax credit for homeowners. They also note that prices had dropped to a point where the emotional benefits of homeownership outweighed potential losses from further price declines.

http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2010/07/us-home-ownership-rate-falls-from-69-to-67/

However, the NY Fed produced a report, however, that suggests a very different number. Back out “Home-Owers,” (Neg Equity Households) they say, and you already are at a 62% ownership rate:

“Recent years have seen a sharp rise in the number of negative equity homeowners — those who owe more on their mortgages than their houses are worth. These homeowners are included in the official homeownership rate computed by the Census Bureau, but the savings they must amass to retain their home or purchase a new home are daunting. Recognizing that these homeowners are likely to convert to renters over time, the authors of this analysis calculate an “effective” rate of homeownership that excludes negative equity households. They argue that the effective rate — 5.6% points below the official rate — may be a useful guide to the future path of the official rate.”

I like Ritholtz. There are many cross-currents going through the housing market. Some who left the market are getting restless and growing tired of renting, others have expanding families and are ready to committ, others are doubling down, by selling their old home, making up the negative equity and buying a larger home to take advantage of future rising prices. While you can find a quote anywhere to back-up any point, I did like the quote where the buyer factored in the emotional benefits of owning.

I do think the very highest priced real estate will continue to be a bad investment which for NYC. Rising tax rates and limited access to credit would not seem to be favorable for the top top properties.

a quote to prove anything? maybe. i liked the point that home ownership is still declining. and that people who own really don't. many of them probably don't even realize it yet.

even at the lower end if the FHA pulls its support, and i can't believe they've got much juice left, this market is going to fall and hard. the smaller market is getting hammered. can you imagine what would have occurred if all those condo developments in emerging markets (and a few in established) hadn't received FHA approval?

i have never denied that owning provides an emotional benefit to many. i will argue that part of that is societally imposed. which makes people feel that they "ought" to be happier owning. just as there are emotional benefits to renting, involving mobility, flexibility, and now reduced stress through lower costs. one is not better than the other (unless, of course, you find yourself suddenly unemployed without sufficient reserves), it depends entirely on a given household's situation and priorities.

btw, my economic positions, as well as a great deal of my political leanings, are extraordinarily similar to ritholtz's.

Definitely not!

wrong. they are.

i've always said i'm far less liberal than you think. i'm actually a social libertarian and slightly left of center in terms of economics, and think defense spending should be greatly reduced.

i do believe, however, that people have the right to health care. and that extraordinary times may require extraordinary measures. but the abusive spending of the bush administration? didn't like that one bit. oh, i also believe we have incorporated extreme socialist habits, albeit for corporations.

This your philosphy? And this is describes Ritholtz?

Libertarian socialism (sometimes called social anarchism,and sometimes left libertarianism is a group of political philosophies which aspire to create a society that is non-hierarchical, without private ownership of the means of production or an authoritarian state.

Adherents of libertarian socialism assert that a desirable synthesis of social equality and freedom could be achieved, at least in part, through abolishing authoritarian institutions which control certain means of production.Libertarian socialism also constitutes a tendency of thought that informs the identification, criticism and practical dismantling of illegitimate authority in all aspects of social life.

Accordingly, libertarian socialists believe that "the exercise of power in any institutionalized form– whether economic, political, religious, or sexual– brutalizes both the wielder of power and the one over whom it is exercised." Some anarchists have chosen the term "libertarian socialism" as a more explicit term to describe their philosophy.Libertarian socialists generally place their hopes in decentralized means of direct democracy such as municipalities, citizens' assemblies, trade unions and workers' councils.

Political philosophies commonly described as libertarian socialist include most varieties of anarchism (especially anarchist communism, anarchist collectivism, anarcho-syndicalism, mutualism and social ecology) as well as autonomism and council communism. Some writers use libertarian socialism synonymously with anarchism[13] and in particular social anarchism. Although there also exist varieties of libertarian socialism that are minarchist, which propose that a minimal, non-hierarchical state would be unobjectionable.

how deceptive. you knew what i meant. socially i believe the gov't has little right to dictate what we do in our lives, as long as we don't hurt others. i didn't say i was a libertarian socialist.

keep it up, RS. the day is young but there's plenty of time for you to reach the level of nastiness you attained yesterday.

Well that's completely different. Perhaps you mis-spoke. When you say "libertarian socialist" well, I had no idea what that meant, so I googled. If you can find a source that defines it as you say, I would of course be interested..

It sounds like you are a libertarian from what you just said. But libertarians don't support government health care and they don't support public housing. I'm kind of amused, because you do not strike me as a libertarian in the least.

Libertarian socialism is a political philosophy dedicated to opposing what its advocates regard as illegitimate forms of authority and social hierarchy, most famously the institution of government. It has gone by various names: libertarian communism, anarcho-communism, left-anarchism, and, most commonly, anarchism. Libertarian socialists therefore believe in the abolition of privately held means of production and abolition of the state as an unnecessary and harmful institution (anarchism/libertarianism).

Libertarian socialists usually call themselves anarchists except when necessary to disambiguate or disassociate themselves with others who use the same term. Libertarian socialism should not be confused with libertarianism either: the two philosophies are only alike in their professed love of liberty and in their opposition to statism, hence the similarity in name. In this article, the terms libertarian socialism, libertarian communism, anarcho-communism, left-anarchism and anarchism are used as synonyms.

The basic philosophy of libertarian socialism is summed up in the name: adherents believe that management of the common good (socialism) is necessary, but that this should be done in a manner that preserves individual liberty and avoids concentration of power or authority (libertarianism). Some libertarian socialists say individual liberty and societal harmony are necessarily antagonistic, and anarchist philosophy must balance the two. Others feel that the two are symbiotic, and that the liberty of the individual guarantees the harmony of the society and vice-versa.

All the critiques that anarchists develop are based on principles of decentralization of power and authority. So, while anarchists have a critique of capitalism similar to Marxism, the basis for opposition to capitalism is that it leads to concentration of power (in the form of wealth). This critique highlights the distinction between libertarian socialists and Libertarians: libertarian socialists advocate freedom while denying, to a greater or lesser extent, the legitimacy of private property. Libertarians, by contrast, believe that liberty is impossible without the protection of private property.

that's because you're being thick. it is not at all uncommon for people to have views that are not solely within one "ism" or totally partisan.

almost all of the advanced world, regardless of ism, supports health care. no, i'm not a libertarian in that i have no problems with reasonable taxation and gov't involvement in areas that often disturb libertarians. i have yet to see even the semblence of a functioning libertarian society, and i don't think it is possible. btw, you are the one yesterday who championed the 421A program by stating it creates low-income housing. do you support public housing measures?

i didn't write "libertarian socialist." i wrote social libertarian. perhaps you need a new eyeglass perscription?

yes, you are a lying hypocrite. keep it up.

What extra "flexibility" do you have renting rather than owning? Mobility, sure, but "flexibility"? And saying you have reduced stress in a down market is not true. The counter is that you have more stress in up markets. And if you own, you have a set mortgage payment, so there is overall less stress when it comes to volatility in rents.

"When I use a word," About Ready said, in a rather scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean - neither more nor less."
"The question is," ... "whether you can make words mean so many different things."
"The question is," said About Ready, "which is to be master - that's all."

so speaks the master of deception.

lying hypocrite.

maybe you are licc, and we've just been confused as to which river. anyway, it's nice to see your bromance evolving. the two of you deserve each other.

aboutready
about 10 hours ago
ignore this person
report abuse
you have no clue. i made a promise to se that i wouldn't engage the trolls. so i'm ceasing now. it's difficult not to engage when someone is so clearly so nasty. but not engage i will do. feel free to be as horrific as you always are. cheers.

The real estate bear renters fail to consider that many of the buyers in Manhattan look at the purchase as a long term investment, they will leave to children. They view the purchase as something given enough time will grow tax-deferred. Investing in Chase money marke fund paying a taxable 0.15% may be ok for liquidity and emergency money, but given the default risk of bonds and the earnings uncertainty of stocks, real estate is certainly an alternative for a certain class of investors. I continue to see both u.s. and international investors looking at making purchases. There's a great deal of anecdotal evidence to suggest that buyers haven't given up on NYC real estate, but rather they expect value, which brings up the question of price. If they see value, they buy. No bad real estate, just bad prices.

riversider, if you aren't careful, cc is going to be referring to you as me.....seriously deluded thinking going on there..

Lithium?

jim_hones10
31 minutes ago
stop ignoring this person
report abuse
riversider, if you aren't careful, cc is going to be referring to you as me.....seriously deluded thinking going on there..

What about alanbran?

RS: If your only defense of an argument is to cut and paste from wikipedia, the discourse on this site will drop precipitously (if you can say that on a site that hfs cannot be contained). To believe that the government should not take an invasive position is citizens lives yet still believe that citizens have a right to an education and health care provided by their tax dollars, are not necessarily at odds. Every argument can be circumscribed by exception of law and ideals.

Shame on you. Not even a state university would allow you to plagiarize from wikipedia. You fail.

Defense of what argument? That someone is inventing terms? Like it or not one usually quotes dictionaries and encyclopedias in such instances.

"Shame on you. Not even a state university would allow you to plagiarize from wikipedia. You fail. "

Uh oh. I sense a call to the police to falsely report a non-existent crime.

apt23
about 3 months ago
ignore this person
report abuse
...
cc: re: police. I once lived across an alley from a man with a terrace who would masterbate on the terrace every day while he stared at our building with binoculars. Imagine raising your blinds to that every day. Everyone in the building complained for months but the police would do nothing because it wasn't illegal (imagine!). Finally I called and said we had called a dozen times and because they would do nothing, my husband went out to buy a gun (not true, he is a pacifist). The police were at my door in minutes. ...

columbiacounty ,you seem upset. Is it because aboutready wished us farewell? Conveniently timed the morning she was going on vacation?

She'll be back. She wished streeteasy farewell two years ago. Jsmith posted the link to her farewell, didn't you see it?