Economic Ideas

The Housing Dilemma

15875_7.8_000000061495XSmall
Previous ArticleKidney Markets?
Next ArticleA Smaller Safety Net?
Comments (0)
  1. Anonymous says:

    At this point in the housing market, it seems necessary to support the sellers/owners. Shock therapy would ensue less confidence in the market which is something that we are not up for. Some owners are deciding to sell their houses without paying off their mortgages. These owners are forced to do this because they have no other option but to sell. They also feel that this move will help them out in the long run. This is the reason why I believe we need a quicker solution. If the government tries to keep overextended owners in their houses, there will be less urgency and panic in the market because there will not be many buyers. In order to fix the real estate market, we need to help instill confidence. I feel that the only way to do this now is to keep owners comfortable and relaxed. Forcing sellers to sell their house at an unreasonably low price is not going to beneficial soon enough.

  2. Anonymous says:

    Right now, all we can do is hope that the market gets better, but instilling Shock therapy would cause even more havoc. There is no reassurance in that plan. With so many houses either in foreclosure or on the market, houses that are not for sale are seeing the affects as well. The longer those houses stay on the market, the more neighborhood values fall. The question that the government needs to answer is, why are buyers so reluctant to buy? If houses are being sold at a much lower rate, then why aren’t they buying? Right now, I think it is best for overextended homeowners to keep their houses and offer them assistance .

  3. Anonymous says:

    While I can understand the previous two responses I don’t think either of the options will hurt the market that much. I think that we should combine the two ideas by giving more of a grace period before a foreclosure. I think giving people jobs to pay their mortgages will help more than giving them time to pay them.

  4. Anonymous says:

    I agree with A.NDiaye 11 on this one. I think that implementing shock therapy at this point would produce the exact effect implied in the first half of the name – shock. The shock of the recession forced people to save more money instead of spending it, so introducing more shock can only make it worse.

  5. Anonymous says:

    I agree with Alex. The point she raises about the reluctant buyers troubled me too; however, I think it has to do with confidence. Buyers are not confident that they can, or will be able to afford these cheaper properties. I think that by providing assistance can help to instill some confidence back into American homeowners.

Leave a Reply

©2016 econlife. All rights reserved.

%d bloggers like this: