Released after the standard five year wait; 2006 Fed members comments about the housing markets and the broader effect on the economy...

Yep, the same name the white house and others depend on now for expert economic advice...

This is disturbing news. Thanks for posting the link MTU.

__________________
CHILCUTT~
The secret to a long life. Is knowing when it is time to leave.

It's not 'news'. It's been in the forecast for decades. There is much more to come ...

__________________

Thank G-d for people like that -- without them, I wouldn't be getting ready to buy some properties at 25-50¢ on the dollar right now The boom-bust cycle is one of the ways to get richer, since it's so damn predictable.

A really fun read. It makes me want to apply for a job as a Fed Economist as I was telling folks the market would crash as far back as 2000.

A friend of mine in the real estate biz saw it coming even earlier. He based his thoughts on the type of people that were getting loans, and was telling me that if some of the folks he knew were getting loans then the standards for making home loans had been thrown out the window. And anytime you give credit to people that have proven they cannot manage it you are going to have defaults.

He is now in a pretty good mood about the whole thing since he is buying property in some cases for 33% of what the asking price was four years ago. He recently bought a $500,000 house for $250,000, installed a new dishwasher, and is renting it out at a tidy profit.

In fairness to the Fed guys though I do remember VP Cheney saying that there was an underground economy and that despite the large number of people losing their jobs there was nothing to worry about. So they either went along with Cheney or they were just as dumb as he was.

Would you be referring to President Dick "deficits don't matter" Cheney? I recall a Peter Schiff interview on Fox in December of '07 with Charles Payne. Payne insisted that "real estate was going to go up another 10% in 2008 and the dow would hit 16,000. Schiff insisted he didn't know what he was talking about. Guess who was right.

So, you are one of those who can prosper only at someone else's loss?

__________________

What exactly is the 'fun' about this read?

__________________

And whose fault was that loss? A bad investment is a bad investment, even if it happens to be a house.

Interesting development. Who would have thought, you might be reacting like 98% and deflect away from the issue. If it benefits you, it's ok. As long as you can create a blame to suit your conscience.

You already minimized the capital issue explained in the article of the OP to match your tiny little world, now you make it fit the size of your even tinier interpretation?

__________________

So no one should buy housing now that it's on average 40% cheaper than it was 4-5 years ago? Yep, let's make it's value fall to zero, since no one will buy. Goooood idea.

I have no interest in "prosperity" as opposed to "having enough investments to be comfy and not dependent on being a full-time 9-5 b*tch the rest of my life." Independence is good. I have no desire to be super wealthy, just to be in the position to I can always do what I want and not risk starvation or homelessness while doing so.

Ann Elk's theory: The market will go up and then it will go down.

My theory by A. Elk.

Did I spot a comment of yours recently about "oversimplification"?

Ok, my bad ... forgot to post the link! What is it ... hmmm, about those Cross Dressers ...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cAYDiPizDIs

__________________

Should I have suggested such a thing?
Let's get back to topic.
Do you think it's perfectly ok, that characters as described in the article, are maliciously acting, incompetent or otherwise behaving with deliberate contempt towards the wealth that actually belongs to the citizens of this nation?

__________________