History of Housing Prices Chart - *SHOCKING* You Need To See This!

Don't understand his chart. The average home price in 1890 was $80,000? More like $6,000. Still his basic concept is right.

1. You are listening to Fox news.
2. Downward trend started after introduction of the FED.
3. Boom in property market started before Obama.
4. You are listening to FOX news.
5. Downward trend set to continue under Obama.
6. You are listening to FOX news.

More on Fox News

More on the Fed

More on Obama, Nice post

Keep up the Good work.

So its best to get a massive mobile home and live in that, as house buying is a well volatile & unpredictable animal to ride.

The whole housing market is a rip-off anyway. Houses are built with particle board and staples. Builders cut so many corners these day, we are spending 100,000 to 200,000 on a house that will last 5 years before everything starts to fall apart.

reply to post by David9176


These are undeniable facts that just show you how hard the government is trying to make this country for the elite. A great piece of information especially if you didn't have any idea about this, I know I did but I wasn't aware that the prices were so close dating back to the late 1800's. Geez guys things are getting way out of hand. To anyone who smears Beck with another, "HE wants you to just go on the streets and protest" BS, show me that "this" information is a fabrication, otherwise I'm sure you wouldn't mind paying for my 200,000 dollar home.

reply to post by bharata


Fact of the matter is that this is the correct information and if you didn't watch the video he's saying we haven't even gotten back to our 30 year medium nevermind the hundred year medium. His point is that there is no housing crash and that the government wants to keep the housing prices up to keep us in debt. I love the "this is fox news line", I watch CNN all the time and Beck is more liberal then 98% of the people on there, so whats your point other then to post non-sense because you don't like fox news.

That chart he's using is wrong. Average price for houses were much lower for each decade, which makes me question the whole accuracy of his presentation.

In any event, each time housing prices went down they recovered and gained value over time. Everything in a market goes up and down. So what's his point?

He's just trying to spread doom/gloom and scare people, it's how he makes his money and he makes a lot of it.

There are a lot of people who are really just profiting from scaring people, there's a lot of money to be made in that.

I'd like to see what they all say in the summer when things start to turn around.

Originally posted by ReelView
Don't understand his chart. The average home price in 1890 was $80,000? More like $6,000. Still his basic concept is right.

Exactly. The average price for a house was much, much lower for each decade than what is depicted in his chart. With his chart being wrong right of the bat, than how can you trust the accuracy of the rest of his presentation?

He's not as smart as he tries to portray. Houses were around $80,00-$100,000 in the early 1980's. His chart is off by 100 years.

Thought this was interesting. In the early days catalog ordering was the way of doing business From JC Penny catalogs to Sears and Roebuck. Hell you even ordered your drugs through the catalog like herion moms little helper with included syringe.

"Between 1908-1940, more than 75,000 Sears homes werebuilt. Sears kit homes contained 30,000 pieces, including 750 pounds of nails,27 gallons of paint and a 75-page instruction book. Sears estimated that theaverage carpenter would charge $450 to aseemble those 30,000 pieces of house.The painter's fee: $34.50. Sears estimated that other skilled labor would cosst$1 an hour. Prices for these built-it-yourself kit houses ranged from $600 to$6000."

The Houses That Sears Built:
This link has pictures of the homes with prices next to them.
www.searsarchives.com...

[edit on 27-2-2009 by JBA2848]

Yes, your country is broke, and it's your own damn fault thinking that overspending is your RIGHT.
The rest of the world has pretty much shook it's head the last few years hearing the same catchphrases from both your government and yourself.

I'm a socialist, i drive a small "faggy" european car with with 4 cylinders and 96 cubic inches.
I don't need the biggest house, so every family member can have their own room when comming on for holidays. i dont need the biggest car, since my penis is avarage sized and it's just used for getting me from point a to point b in a reliable, economic way.
I don't throw a fit paying almost 50% in taxes, since those money will be used to help the elderly, get kids trough school, highschool and university, it pays for free healthcare, our roads and the needy - i know that i wont stay young and healthy for the rest of my life, so it will help me at one point as well. Like karma.

Whenever i hear an american bitch, it's always greed disguised as something else.

"im gonna buy a gun and live in the hills" - i hear that lot here, but it speaks loads about you as persons that noone ever mentions WHO they will bring a long, but instead WHAT.

One of the first things i learned about conspiracies is never to trust the TV - yet you guys love clips from the tube, which validates your egocentrical points. Stop listening to what everyone wants you to think, and make up your own mind.

Your country is #ed. It's your own damn fault. And now you wont help repair it, but intead revolt. You guys make me sick.

reply to post by vigusa


Star to you!
I'm a Realtor in California and have been following this , and living this for some time now. Greed is King in the USA and still is. The REO's are selling like hot cakes ( I know because I list them ) just because they are priced at about half of what they were priced at in '06. In my opinion the prices have not fallen far enough and there are plenty of people who are in jeopardy of losing them in the near future. Why? Because they have not fallen to a point where they are truly affordable yet. in my town $ 10-$12 an hour is a good wage if you can get it and that still won't cover basic living expenses. At that rate you cannot afford your own life. Rents (both residential and commercial), food prices, health care, gas prices all have to come down or wages have got to go up in order to have an affordable life.
I don't know how anyone can fix our infrastructure, educate or kids, and improve health without spending/investing in ourselves. That investment has not been done: New Orleans levees failed because the money earmarked to fix them was spent on the Iraq War; the national Gaurd wasn't available to help because they were in Iraq.
This economic disaster is complex, you can't single out housing. The solutions are complex. I for one, am not an economist, I have to rely on someone else to fix it. And to my mind Obama has at least started to address all of it. I agree with giving him a chance.

Originally posted by poet1b
reply to post by David9176

 

Just as soon as you demonstrate how after one month in office Obama is responsible for the last 8 years of economic disaster. This all began when the repubs took over congress in 95 and created the stock bubble followed by the real estate bubble.

The economy was already heading down the tubes befre the Democrats ever took over congress.

Except in my post, I blamed him for the past month of economic disaster. But hey, it's ALL Bushes fault right? Obama hasn't directly influenced your 401k, now a 201k, and is messing around for it to be a 51k in the coming months has he?

Oh wait, he HAS.

Not to mention his part in this as a Senator before he was President of the United States.

How long has he been a politician Poet? Last I checked he was elected in into the Illinois Senate in 1996. That's 13 years ago.

Does Illinois have the same housing problem? Where was his videos about speaking up about the dangers of this bubble from 1996 to present? Where was his reform to prevent this problem from happening in Illinois? How about Illinois' budget woes? Aren't they #2 in deficit behind California, two decidedly blue states? Oh right, their shortfalls are Bushes fault.

How about in 2004, when he became a US Senator? That was 5 years ago Mr Poet. Again, where is his outrage? All I see his complacency. So yes, I DO blame him as well for at least 5 of those 8 years you claim. Where was he screaming from the top of the rooftops that housing was to expensive or the coming collapse?

That said, now he's the president of the United States TODAY poet. His actions today directly influence and direct policy of the United States TODAY. Everything past his swearing in is a direct result of his policies and choices. He didn't just become president off the street with no political ties. He is just like the other rat bastard politicians regardless of party.

For God sakes man, hold them, including Obama ACCOUNTABLE FOR THEIR ACTIONS IN THE PRESENT!

When him and his budget, including decisions to backstop Freddie/Fannie get placed on the books, effectively doubling our deficit overnight, crashes the treasury market, I'll be blaming HIM.

There's plenty of blame to go around. Mr Obama included, and moreso today than when he was a lowly senator. Just like when he or the Treasury lies to the market or attempts to bluff. That isn't Bush Sir, thats Obama and Obama's men.

Why can't you see they are all the same, including him?

how about having an all inclusive (or at least an attempted) lay out of what's on the table. The President has called himself (on television) an "eternal optimist." Those that are against his ideas focus 100% on what's wrong with them. At some point, can we just figure out what the good and the bad is, and come up with some ideas that could serve as honest best case scenarios? Why is it that we're so quick to think that there's a "right answer" for everything (and where is the value of determining that someone else's answer is wrong if we don't have a better answer ourselves), while the following unarguable truth exists?....human life is a constant state of positive/negative, managed by humans who are simply wired to want more (whatever that "more" might represent).

You know what?

People are never satisfied. Why don't youi runs for office, Obama at least proved it can be done without being born with a silver spoon up ones ass. In the end, noone gives a flying fawk about what you say, but what you do. And this place lacks people "doing" stuff

as an example - I'm an enviroment activist. I sometimes pick up a bag, and collect trash in the forrest. I don't go whining to someone else to fix the problem because im lazy and a complete pussy.

Housing is a supply and demand market. If you can't get a decent house for 100k, you're even aiming to high, or there is a demand for more housing.

You all seem to forget that in someway or another, the # you are in trails back to you. Stop blaming everyone else. Or at least get an education or go to GLP

Originally posted by kinda kurious
Glen Beck is no economist. He is a hate monger and racist. A poor man's Rush Limbaugh on FOX.

I'm starting to understand this game.
Oppose Obama and you're a racist.
Favor Obama and you're a patriot.

Ain't our nation swell?

Where are the moderators? I just read a post that was extremely offense language. I see no reason for cursing to get one's point across.

reply to post by Not Authorized


Except you don't realize that Obama's hasn't been in office long enough to change anything, but a few laws and the budget, which mostly won't take effect until next year. It will be about two years before any of the changes taking place now begin to have any meaningful effect on the economy.

What the guy in the film forgot to mention in his propaganda piece is that the year the great depression ended, is also the year in which U.S. government debt was the highest ever in relation to GDP.




So, when looking at the example of history, Obama is doing the right thing at this moment to turn our economy around. Just the turn around hasn't begun instantly, and the economy continues to sink has nothing to do with Obama.

Here is another accurate look at whose policy has built up our nations debt the most. Those who think Reagan was so great should be paying attention this this.

zfacts.com...

Double Whammy: 50-Year Record on Sept. 22. $10 Trillion on Sept. 30, 2008.
The gross national debt compared to GDP (how rich we are) reached its lowest level since 1931 as Reagan took office in 1981. It skyrocketed for 12 years through Bush senior. Clinton reversed it at a peak of 67%. Bush junior crossed that line on Sept. 22 and hit 69% on Sept 30. That's the highest it's been since 1955.

Our huge national debt began with Reagan. Tax cuts for the rich have done nothing but increase our national debt, ship our jobs overseas, and strengthen those whose goals are to reduce the rights of man.

Originally posted by kinda kurious
BTW, His chart contains a fatal flaw. The median home prices HAVE NOT been adjusted for inflation. It cannot be a constant flat line over time. Also, there was conveniently no source for his data. "Fuzzy Math" as you Pubs call it.

He's just spewing misinformation and riling up the minions.

Sorry to rain on your little circle jerk. "Just sayin'."

regards...KK

[edit on 26-2-2009 by kinda kurious]

For the record, I hate Glenn Beck, because he's a fear monger, but basically you're saying that inflation is out of control. I mean I've seen this chart before, and it's almost parabolic, even if it isn't adjusted for inflation...what does that say about inflation?

[edit on 27-2-2009 by yellowcard]

Originally posted by poet1b
Here is another accurate look at whose policy has built up our nations debt the most. Those who think Reagan was so great should be paying attention this this.

zfacts.com...

Double Whammy: 50-Year Record on Sept. 22. $10 Trillion on Sept. 30, 2008.
The gross national debt compared to GDP (how rich we are) reached its lowest level since 1931 as Reagan took office in 1981. It skyrocketed for 12 years through Bush senior. Clinton reversed it at a peak of 67%. Bush junior crossed that line on Sept. 22 and hit 69% on Sept 30. That's the highest it's been since 1955.

Our huge national debt began with Reagan. Tax cuts for the rich have done nothing but increase our national debt, ship our jobs overseas, and strengthen those whose goals are to reduce the rights of man.

I hate to say this, but you don't have a clue as to what you're talking about, tax cuts in general usually increase tax receipts and tax revenue. Tax on labor usually makes workers less productive due to the income effect. Reagan ran up the debt with massive military spending, Bush ran up the debt with massive military spending, Obama is running up the debt with things that aren't even tangible, like healthcare insurance. Since the creation of medicaid the cost of health insurance has skyrocketed, and somehow now the government which created the problem is now going to fix it...right. It's like the wars in the gulf, the government expects to fix it's own mistakes...but is only making the problem worse, like picking at a scab