economic

Here we go again.

Tuesday, September 23rd, 2008 | Investment, Money, Real Estate, The Economy | No Comments

As Congress sits around throwing accusations, people are being hurt. The only thing that I see that could be worse is that Congress does something about the economy. I was watching our Phoenix market begin the turn around. Sales were increasing, inventories were beginning to decline and BOOM! The rug gets pulled out from the buyer’s plans with the dramatic changes in seller participation.

The lower priced properties are the most important sector of the housing market. Putting people in properties with monthly payments at or below rent payments is a winning program. The average rent in Phoenix is over $800 per month. Moving into a $100,000 home makes both social and economical sense. But NO! These folks must have at least $3,500 additional money sitting in the bank for 90 days or borrowing only from family members. Remember, there are significant costs involved with moving in.

This change is only putting a band-aid where there is no cut. The band-aid is cutting off economic blood flow to the real estate market body. Of course Congress could do much more to really trash the economy. There were four significant economic downturns between 1890 – 1929. The downturns rebounded quickly and the country was stronger. In the early 1930s, Congress did the opposite of what should have been done, And the whole world felt the pain. We could still be in that depression if we hadn’t put our men to work on the battlefield. War is definitely the worst way to manage economic down turns.

Let’s put the seller and other assistance programs back in our real estate market.

Tags: , ,

Call us at 602 525-5596

~~~Email Us~~~


Real Testimonials



Random Quote

There has also been some work to allow the interesting use of macro names.
For example, if you wanted all of your "creat()" calls to include read
permissions for everyone, you could say

        #define creat(file, mode)        creat(file, mode | 0444)

        I would recommend against this kind of thing in general, since it
hides the changed semantics of "creat()" in a macro, potentially far away
from its uses.
        To allow this use of macros, the preprocessor uses a process that
is worth describing, if for no other reason than that we get to use one of
the more amusing terms introduced into the C lexicon. While a macro is
being expanded, it is temporarily undefined, and any recurrence of the macro
name is "painted blue" -- I kid you not, this is the official terminology
-- so that in future scans of the text the macro will not be expanded
recursively. (I do not know why the color blue was chosen; I'm sure it
was the result of a long debate, spread over several meetings.)
                -- From Ken Arnold's "C Advisor" column in Unix Review