"DSK" wrote in message
.. .
Clue: it happens *everywhere* from time to time. Supply and demand are in
a constant state of seeking equilibrium.


Maxprop wrote:
Viewed pedantically, yes--that's true. From a more temporal viewpoint,
the hot real estate markets are where the term is being bandied about
most frequently. I doubt seriously if the supply and demand of land in
Bugsquat, NC, is of much concern to anyone beyond the locals.


OTOH if land less than 20 miles from Bugsquat NC is being aggressively
marketed to outsiders at huge prices, then all three parties (Bugsquat
natives, outside buyers, and sellers) all have an interest in the
situation.

Awfully big *if.*

I'm sure this makes you angry, since you are one of the outsiders who
bought high-priced land less than a stone's throw from Bugsquat.

Angry? Surely you jest. I bought when Bugsquat was cheap. It ain't any
more.


Especially those banks who've lent money on interest-only, nothing down
loans. But ultimately they tend to make out okay. They just hold the
repo'd property until the next RE boom takes the prices higher.

It's that long-term thing again. And banks do fold from time to time....
or get bailed out by the taxpayer.

Do a little research and see how many banks in the areas I mentioned (SF,
Chicago, Miami) have folded in the past 25 years. Lots of mergers,
acquisitions, takeovers, but damn few failures.

Before sticking your thumbs behind your suspenders and looking smug, you
might wish to check out the history of RE values in San Francisco, for
example. The net price trend there has outstripped inflation manifold
for the past quarter century and shows no signs of slowing. Same in the
other two markets I mentioned. No one is talking generalities here, so
save the homespun economics lesson for your neighborhood kids. Bore
them, not us.

And what is the trend for local wages over the same period, hmm? What is
the overall cost of living relative to other areas?

Chicago--wages haven't come close to staying up with RE values. Income has,
for certain groups of people, however, mostly entrepreneurs. Cost of living
(exclusive of home ownership/renting) has remained relatively on par with
the rest of the country. The cost of living index is only a few tenths of a
point higher on average in Chicago than it is in South Bend, IN, with
shelter costs removed from the equation. Add shelter expense and it's a
whole different story.


As long as it is a desirable place to live, real estate will do well. When
does that trend reverse?

I think I asked first, since you implied that RE did not always sustain an
upward trend over the long haul.

You mean like land values in the impoverished regions of NC, which
encompass about 80% of the state?


??

You don't know much about current economic trends, do you. NC is actually
doing pretty well, relatively. And we appreciate the influx of money for
swamp land, thank you.

NC is doing relatively well--I'm well aware of that, being a land owner
there and keeping up with such matters. But there is a dichotomy of
substantial proportions between the highly prosperous urban areas, such as
Raleigh-Durham, Charlotte, etc. and the outlying rural areas where poverty
is and has been continuous for decades. Subtract the urban factor and you
have a typically impoverished deep south state. As for us tidewater (we
prefer that to swamp land, thank you kindly) types, we're crying all the way
to the bank.

If you think that long term trends are *always* up, immutably &
indubitably, then I have a great investment for you in Acme Buggy Whip Co
stock.


Get with the program, Doug. Who's talking about stock?

I am. Aren't you paying attention?

The value of a stock is tied to the productivity & profitability of the
company, which in turn is tied to the wages & benefits it can offer it's
employees, which is tied to what those employees can pay for local real
estate.

LOL. We're definitely not on the same page here. Miami and San Francisco
RE, for example, is hardly tied to local employee wages. For an eye-opener,
see who owns slightly less than half the high-priced RE is the Bay Area
these days. Let me help you--Chinese money (have you been in on the trade
imbalance thread elsewhere?) is buying up property and driving the values up
at a greater rate than ever before. Yes, there are a lot of workers in the
Bay Area, and many of them own property, but they aren't the driving force
behind the RE boom there. It's investors, both Chinese and American, but
predominantly Chinese, Japanese, and other Southeast Asians.

...And I'm not talking about RE in Buggy Whip, NC, either. I'm talking
about San Francisco, Miami, and Chicago, like I stated in the first place
when you rudely had to open mouth-insert foot and proclaim, while beating
your chest as you are wont to do regularly, that the phenomenon I was
describing happened in ****kick, NC, too.

It's also happening in a number of other places. Maybe you'd rather
pretend that only city slickers like yourself (who somehow can't seem to
follow a topic, and pay money for swampland) can understand?

Of course it's happening elsewhere, but not anywhere near the same rate as
in the places mentioned. My property in Oriental has tripled in value since
Jan. '04. Waterfront property in Miami has quadrupled in that same period.
Same along Chesapeake Bay. And for the record, Oriental is hardly swamp
land. The Neuse River has deposited soil at its mouth for centuries. No
one filled swamps to create my land. Next you're going to tell me that
someone is planning to backfill the sound to create more development land
all the way to the barrier islands (Outer Banks, for those who are curious).
I think you're envious of those of us who bought when the prices were
reasonable. Or perhaps your a xenophobe who hates any outsiders moving to
his precious state. Get over it.

... But as long as you raised the point, can you show me that the Dow
Jones Industrials average is lower now than, say 20 years ago? Or 50
years.

Easy enough to look it up. There have been long periods when the stock
marcket indexes were flat or downward.

Doug--you really need to learn to comprehend what you read. Go back and
read my original post. You'll note that I never implied there weren't
cyclical trends. In fact I stated such trends were the case in SF RE. I
said "ultimately" the market in RE is always up--that would be *over the
long haul.* I'll ask again--show me any state where RE values are lower
today than 20 or 50 years ago. Same with the Dow.



How about real estate in general--can you show me any state in the
country where RE values are lower than they were 20 or 50 years ago?

You have missed the point. Is the value higher or lower *relative to
what*?

You've lost this argument, haven't you. You're grasping at straws. Are you
one of those guys who needs a definition for the word "is?" Higher means
higher, realtive to the previous numbers. Even adjusted for inflation, the
numbers are substantially higher.


... You really should give your statements some thought before citing
something your Econ 101 professor told you years ago.


Maybe I see what's irritating you. Did you flunk Econ 101? Or maybe a cute
girl in that class turned you down for date?

Sorry to bring up painful memories.

I aced it, and she went out with me. She was the grad student TA. g

Gee this thread has come a long way. Started out at the ports & worked
it's way inland, I guess.


That surprises you? Are you The Thread Nazi, the one who demands that
threads remain on track in Usenet?


No, I just give them a title which actually reflects what is being talked
about.

Thanks, but I suspect we'll do fine without your titles. We all seem to be
able to identify the obvious.

Max