By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
superchunk on 16 July 2009
Edit Thread
Viper1 said:
superchunk said:
NJ5 said:
Viper1 is right. In the first half of 2009 alone, USA foreclosures were 1.5 million:

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aHAbmgVoHjA4

ok, and my figure was over 3.3 million.... so even if you doubled the 3% to 6% thus nearly 7m you still have barely reached the same amount of both stimulus packages and I still feel it would have been far more productive use of the money with far less risk. It would have obviously directly helped those in the most need as well.

"This 3% is more than triple the less than 1% change over the last year of homes lost."

But according to your quote ^ the figure is less than 1 percent, not 3%.  Why did your originally say it was less than 1% of homes and why now are you saying it is over 6% of homes?

If you open the source I gave it shows less than 1% change in the total amount of Vacant homes in 2008-2009. That is why I said less than 1% of homes affected. I was deducing that vacant amount was equal to newly lost homes.

However, you gave a source that said 1.5m was FIRST HALF of 2009, so I took that info and surmised that I still had that covered with 3% but, just in case (after all this is all estimation anyways) you could make it 6% of the total housing market and still be less or same as the money already spent.