Some of our commenters in today's "Bits Bucket" find the Post's "Real Estate Live" editors:
"smug and annoying"?
Nahh . . .
Friday, February 20, 2009; 1:00 PMOh, now I get it-- we all got sick, and our incomes didn't improve. So obviously, not our faults. Shew!
Re: Banking: I am not nearly as burned by the small number of bankers as I am by the massive number of people who intentionally bought houses they couldn't afford without using common sense. Now I (as a renter who was bright enough not to buy something I couldn't afford) am supposed to put my tax dollars into bailing them out of their irresponsible behavior so they can build equity. This effect me far more than whether some executive I will never meet get a couple of extra million from a 800 billion package.
Maryann Haggerty: I think back 4 or 5 years ago, to these same chats, and I don't recall a lot of people saying, "whoopee!! I'm going to irresponsibly buy a house I know I can't afford!" What I recall are a lot of people saying, "I know this house is a stretch, but I think I can make it as long as my health holds up. And with luck, my income will improve as I move along in my career."
Elizabeth Razzi: And I'm assuming you're not one of those renters who ends up getting booted from your place because the landlord lost it to foreclosure.
I seem to recall there wasn't a problem with prices. Oh yes, here it is:
Friday, July 20, 2007
Washington, D.C.: Short or long-term, do you think D.C. or it's suburban areas will come back down to earth with real estate prices of those seven to ten years ago?
Elizabeth Razzi: The prices of seven to ten years ago? That would be a whopping price decline, and I think we'd have to see a lot of job loss to get there. So far, that's not happening.
Maryann Haggerty: For prices to roll back seven or 10 years, we would need an economic cataclysm, I suspect. What's more common is for prices to stagnate or fall somewhat as incomes continue to grow, so things get back in line.