I bet if you looked at the time to sell a home the heartland would rank pretty high as there are no jobs there.

Not saying that 30% unemployment in California is any better.

Astute and very precise: "the [red-swabbed] heartland didn't have as far to fall." Exactly. Good one. Great one, Jack.

Anticipate the propaganda catapulting such sane statistics into flung lies and damn lies.

"I don't think that's worth what you think it's worth."

The root of the malaise, and often lost in all the noise about the economy. Personal (people over leveraged and/or simply paying on something that's not worth what they're paying), institutional (banks, etc. still carrying said loans at valuations that don't reflect the fact they'll not be paid), political (gov so intertwined with all facets of the housing industry that borrowing, tax, regulation, policy diktats, etc are a complete mish-mash); the fact that houses are only worth 50-75% of what they were worth five years ago is THE source of woes today.

This isn't new - asset bubbles are common. Getting through it demands that they be repriced to their real level. The longer we ignore that and attempt to manipulate them back to what they were, the longer this depression will drag on.

(And no, this isn’t a “Liquidate it all! Let the widows and orphans die!” post. We could, with the political will, easily keep both an adequate “safety net” in place at the same time realize the losses that have occurred. Of course that would force “investors” to take losses…)

Nevada and Florida were some of the biggest losers in the downturn. So as fun as it might be to find some sort of political point in the mess the hard truth is most everyone is to blame in some degree.

Gee, do you think greater restrictions on development (Yes, you, LCDC! And you too, California Coastal Commission!) in the blue states might have something to do with housing prices having "farther to fall"? If you restrict something (land available for development) with your UGB, "smart growth" policies, don't be surprised if a lot costs more in Portland or Eugene than in Nebraska or South Dakota [which, incidentally, have far lower unemployment rates than the blue states...the heartland is indeed where the jobs are]. If you have to borrow more to afford your comparable house in the "progressive" blue states, and your state tax burden is higher when the economy goes into free fall, isn't more likely that your chance of defaulting on your mortgage will be greater? There's a reason prices in the heartland didn't have as far to fall, and it's misguided "progressive" policies, not chance.

And I bet a lot of it has to do with the perceived trade on the coasts (i.e. tourism, recreation, art) versus actual trade (agricultural/timber exports, manufactured goods).

Who wants to travel to Kansas City for the heck of it? Not many people. Who travels to Los Angeles? All sorts of people. But housing prices for those who live there are more a perception rather than reality. When the going gets tough and the economy sours, you can't spend a million bucks to live on the coast, when the house itself is only worth $75,000 (and is worth the exact same in Omaha or Sioux Falls). But if you're an actor and nobody is going to pay to watch movies because it's an optional exercise...

We need to stop this crap and get back to a manufacturing base. Look at Germany - HUGE exporter of all sorts of stuff. And they're doing pretty damn well in this economy. Look at Canada and Australia - lots of natural resources that they are shipping out and making a killing on. Lots of coal leaving those two countries. Here, we fight tooth and nail for the good trade related jobs that bring in cash, and trip over ourselves for low-paying and virtually worthless "green" and recreational and art jobs. And those same folks complain why we're borrowing so much money from China!

Blame the planners for the housing bubble. Metro. Even Paul Krugman figured that out.

see http://www.portlandfacts.com/krugmanbubble.html

Thanks
JK