Hereby I will prove how the realty boomers arguments are false.

What are the boomers arguments?

1.) Buy today, houses always increase in value in the long run.
WRONG. House prices cannot increase more than incomes in the long run. This is obvious if you think about it. If house prices go up more than people can afford to pay, buying stops, like it has stopped now.
Even Warren Buffett have pointed out that houses don't increase in intrinsic value. Unless there's a bubble or a crash, house prices simply reflect current salaries and interest rates. If a house is 100 years old, it's value in sheltering you is exactly the same as it was 100 years ago. Then came the maintenance as the house didn't renovate itself. It also has taxes, and insurance - costs that always increase and never go away. The price of the house went up about as much as salaries went up.
To put this is simple perspective, vegetable were costing Rs.5-6/kg when 5 digit salary was a rarity.
Today, the prices have gone up by about 4 times but so have the salaries. So, sounds very much like the reasoning people use now when they talk about how much their father's house appreciated "in the long run" without considering that salaries rose a proportional amount.

2.) Renting is just wastage of money.
WRONG. As said before renting is now much cheaper per month than owning. If you don't rent, you either:

* Have a mortgage, in which case you are throwing away money on interest, tax, insurance, maintenance, costs that increase forever.
* Own outright, in which case you are throwing away the extra income you could get by converting your house to cash, investing in bonds, and renting a similar place to live for much less money. This extra income is sufficient for emergency expenses,retirement etc.

Either way, owners lose much more money every month than renters and that's assuming prices don't correct to very high level & everything is smooth in the economy.

3.) As a renter, you won't have any money left as you will spend them on vacations,cars & hence won't have equity/savings etc.
WRONG. Equity is just money. Renters are actually in a better position to build equity/savings through investing in anything but housing. Renters can get rich much faster than owners, just by investing in conservative stocks & bonds.

* Owners are losing every month by paying much more for interest than they would pay for rent. The tax deduction does not come close to making owing competitive with renting.
* Owners must pay taxes simply to own a house. That is not true of stocks, bonds, or any other asset that can build equity/savings. Only houses are such a guaranteed drain on cash.
* Owners must insure a house, but not most other investments.
* Owners must pay to repair a house, but not a stock or a bond.
* Owners lose their money as house prices reduce. The EMI's remain constant in spite of reduction in rates. At the end of loan tenure, they would have paid almost twice than that of current renters who will buy at logical rates. Keep interest rates in mind. Most of the EMI is not principal amount but interest.

4.) There are great tax advantages to owning a house.
WRONG. Many people believe you can just reduce your income tax by the amount you pay in interest, but they are wrong. Buyers may not deduct interest from income tax; they deduct interest from taxable income. And even then, the tax advantage is not significant compared to the large monthly loss from owning.

If you don't own a house but want to live in one, your choice is to rent a house or rent money to buy a house. To rent money is to take out a loan. A mortgage is a money-rental agreement. House renters take no risk at all, but money-renting owners take on the huge risk of falling house prices, as well as all the costs of repairs, insurance, property taxes, etc.

5.) RE is based on local factors, it's not a national phenomenon. RE of Delhi-NCR,Bangalore & rest of the cities has nothing to do with Pune RE.
WRONG. Lending rates remain the same throughout the country. ALL loans are harder to get. This will drive prices down everywhere.

6.) A rental house provides good income. So, you can rent if you have purchased as investment.
WRONG. Rental houses provide very poor income in hyped areas and certainly cannot cover mortgage payments. Remember there is almost 300% difference between EMIs & rent for the same house.

It's pointless to do the work of being a landlord if you can make more money with no risk, no work, and no state income tax by investing in assured good returns bond.

7.) If owning is a loss in monthly cash flow, but appreciation will make up for it.
WRONG. Appreciation is negative. Prices are going down. It only adds to the injury of already high EMI's.

8.) As soon as prices drop a little, the number of buyers on the sidelines willing to jump back in increases.
WRONG. There are very few buyers left, and those who do want to buy will be limited by increasing difficulty of borrowing now that many house owners are near bankrupt as they don't save anything at the end of the month due to high EMI's.
No one has to buy, but there will be more and more people who have no choice but to sell as their payments rise. That will keep driving prices downward for a long time.

9.) House prices never fall atleast in Pune.
WRONG. If you see the RE scenario of 1996, prices crashed by 50% & took a whole 7+ years to recover.
Exact 1996 scenario may not be there today but strong correction is inevitable across the city.

10.) House prices don't fall to zero like stock prices, so it's safer to invest in real estate.
WRONG. House prices won't be zero, but the equity or the principal amount you paid can be zero or even negative. What you will pay as EMIs later in actual terms is not for the principal amount but only the interest as house prices dip. So, you will be only serving the bank.

11.) Prices will soften gradually, won't crash immediately.
WRONG. Prices are falling off a cliff. No one knows exactly what will happen, but it looks like prices will continue to fall for long time. These are just more manipulation of buyer emotions, to get them to buy even while prices are falling.

12.) The bubble prices were driven by supply and demand alone.
WRONG. Prices were driven by low interest rates and risky loans & good returns for investors in initial phases of boom in 2004-05.
Prices went up, interest rates went up & buyers savings went down. So prices are violating the most basic assumptions about supply and demand.

13.) There is lack of land.
WRONG. Ample of land is available & continue to be even in future in Pune. Sales volume are down. Even in Japan (small country with less land), prices went down. Current prices here are the same as that of 23 years ago. If we really had a housing shortage, there would not be so many vacant rentals.

14.) If you don't own, you'll live in a cheap neighborhood later.
WRONG. For the any given monthly payment, you can rent a much better house than you can buy. Renters live better, not worse. There are downsides to renting, such as being told to move at the end of your lease, or having your rent raised, but since there are thousands of vacant rentals, you can take your pick and be quite happy renting during the crash. There are similar but worse problems for owners anyway, such as being fired and losing your house, or having your interest rate and property taxes adjust upward. Remember, property taxes are forever.

15.) There's always someone predicting a real estate crash.
TRUE, yet irrelevant. There are very real crashes every decade or so. Even a broken clock is right twice a day.

16.) Local incomes justify the high prices.
WRONG. The mortgage should be more than your 3 years earning. It is much higher today. Most are already in danger/red zone.

17.) You have to live somewhere.
CORRECT. But that doesn't mean you should waste your life savings on a bad investment. You can live in a better house for much less money by renting during the down slide in RE.

18.) It's not a house, it's a home.
WRONG. Wherever one lives in it is home, be it apartment, condo, bungalow , mansion or house. Calling a house a "home" is a manipulation of your emotions for profit.

19.) If you don't buy now, you'll never get another chance.
WRONG. History proves otherwise.
Here's a beautiful quote from a analyst:-
"The real issue isn't whether you will be stuck being a renter all your life, she says. Its whether you'll get so scared about being shut out that you'll buy at the market's peak and be stuck in a property you can't afford or sell."

20.) It would take major economic recession or a major earthquake that wipes out this area in order for the price to fall by over 50%.
WRONG. Even today, if the prices fall by 50%, there will still be very few people who can buy at this levels due to uncertainty in jobs & most importantly high EMIs. Also, look at the rental rates for equivalent houses. Which loss per month is larger? EMI or rent?

contd....
Read more
Reply
12597 Replies
Sort by :Filter by :
  • Razer, Real Estate higher in 5 years regardless of scenario 1 or 2.

    Inflation will push up all costs including RE.

    1. MArket falls, RE is lower only temporarily. Higher interest rates will lead to higher RE costs in the long run

    2. MArket up, bubble RE of today continues.

    In inflation, Cash is terrible, it will lose its value. But you will need more of it to fill petrol and to eat.

    In inflation, housing loans are great, after five years you are paying back crap money worth nothing. Bank doesnt care, it got its money from interest rate differential.

    In inflation you get back Congress govt of 70s and 80s. Middle class will be screwed. Your saving will be worth nothing. Old people living on saving will be worst affected.

    If you have money, diversification should be

    30% FD/Individual bond
    30% RE
    30% Stocks
    5% Gold mutual fund
    5% Physical gold

    If at all any sector needs overweight, it is RE.

    With inflation, your rentals will go way up.
    CommentQuote
  • Not necessarily ...

    Originally Posted by Venkytalks
    Razer, Real Estate higher in 5 years regardless of scenario 1 or 2.

    Inflation will push up all costs including RE.

    1. MArket falls, RE is lower only temporarily. Higher interest rates will lead to higher RE costs in the long run

    2. MArket up, bubble RE of today continues.

    In inflation, Cash is terrible, it will lose its value. But you will need more of it to fill petrol and to eat.

    In inflation, housing loans are great, after five years you are paying back crap money worth nothing. Bank doesnt care, it got its money from interest rate differential.

    In inflation you get back Congress govt of 70s and 80s. Middle class will be screwed. Your saving will be worth nothing. Old people living on saving will be worst affected.

    If you have money, diversification should be

    30% FD/Individual bond
    30% RE
    30% Stocks
    5% Gold mutual fund
    5% Physical gold

    If at all any sector needs overweight, it is RE.

    With inflation, your rentals will go way up.



    Venky,

    The last statement assumes a bullish state of economic growth and demand exceeding supply (even if the demand is driven by easy money policy). We are talking 2004-07.

    But now, given the oversupply and weak demand, this inflation we are projecting will not be money-supply driven inflation but resource-shortage based price increase.

    Meaning, it is not too much money (based in increasing salaries and high job availability) chasing too few goods, but too few goods demanding higher prices, while income increase and purchasing power remain weak (i.e, a flat income scenario)!

    In this scenario, rentals will not necessarily increase automatically!

    cheers
    CommentQuote
  • Btw doesnt a Stronger $ means increase in exports which is desirable?
    CommentQuote
  • Originally Posted by wiseman
    Venky,

    The last statement assumes a bullish state of economic growth and demand exceeding supply (even if the demand is driven by easy money policy). We are talking 2004-07.

    But now, given the oversupply and weak demand, this inflation we are projecting will not be money-supply driven inflation but resource-shortage based price increase.

    Meaning, it is not too much money (based in increasing salaries and high job availability) chasing too few goods, but too few goods demanding higher prices, while income increase and purchasing power remain weak (i.e, a flat income scenario)!

    In this scenario, rentals will not necessarily increase automatically!

    cheers


    Your observations are spot on, Wiseman.

    Any severe downturn will put a stop to fresh supply. Current glut will be absorbed in 5 years. I do see the shortages of the 80s returning.

    However, rentals will always be linked to food price. A chap with 15000 PM rental income can live on it today.

    If it cannot fetch him enough to live on, 5 years from today, he will jack up the rent and refuse to short sell. And he will get it.

    He will also get a lot of pain- his tenant will be paying a substantial part of his salary as rent and he will be tempted to default, knowing it takes 7 years to throw out a tenant. I forsee a lot of problems between landlords and tenants, given our poor law and order and insufficient protection to proterty rights.

    If the economy does badly and inflation and interest rates rise, I have no doubt that it will make sense to own your own home.

    In fact, if you have anything like reasonable job security and dont see yourself transferring to another city, owning your own home will always be sensible, regardless of what valuation on paper your house is quoted. What matters is what you can afford, not what the house is worth.

    Our children definitely face a bleaker future than what the 90s and 2000s have been. We will have many more middle class kids looking for jobs which will dry up. There will be no more service industry growth (i.e BPO growth). There will be very little job growth in industry - we already have over employment for what little we produce.

    How are our children going to get good jobs? Without well paying jobs, how are they going to pay rent or pay a mortgage?

    I am worried - we might end up with a "lost generation" just as the Japanese generation of the 90s. And the great Indian middle class dream will die before it is even close to realisation.
    CommentQuote
  • Gulp! :(
    CommentQuote
  • cycle

    If unemployment increases, then, salaries will come down.

    Then people will make themselves willing to commute longer distance instead of paying higher rent or EMI.

    This chain will end into another RE recession.

    I guess this is cycle and will keep on happening again and again.
    CommentQuote
  • Originally Posted by Venkytalks
    However, rentals will always be linked to food price. A chap with 15000 PM rental income can live on it today.

    If it cannot fetch him enough to live on, 5 years from today, he will jack up the rent and refuse to short sell. And he will get it.


    Not so sure about linking of Rentals and Food prices. Intuitively i would say Rentals are linked to demand. If demand is not there one might have to reduce the rent. ;)

    Originally Posted by Venkytalks
    He will also get a lot of pain- his tenant will be paying a substantial part of his salary as rent and he will be tempted to default, knowing it takes 7 years to throw out a tenant. I forsee a lot of problems between landlords and tenants, given our poor law and order and insufficient protection to proterty rights.


    You have touched on why it is not right to link rentals to food prices here. Add to it that if rentals are high, the salaries might also have to get higher as it wll not make Financial sense to be employeed. i.e. outflow is more than inflow of working in a company. and the company too will have to make a higher revenue in oder to maintain profits. Otherwise it would make more sense to shut down. In that case there will not me a lot of demand for rentals.

    VK
    CommentQuote
  • Appreciate your post

    Well said Venky. Appreciate that you think long term & it is always good as one should think about long term loses incurring due to short term gains. Lost generation. Don't know. It will be true if we depend on outsourcing but if we create products indigenously, I don't think that will happen. Manufacturing sector is doing that & hopefully IT should do that too. Hence, I said develop an OS superior than MS & avoid being dependent on MS:). They created Windows, you should create Doors;).

    Real economic strength depends more on domestic market & borrowing rather than outsourcing. Fortunately or unfortunately, Chinese are not in Indian RE, else they would have sold houses at price less than cost price of the builders:D.
    CommentQuote
  • We will not face a "lost generation"!

    Originally Posted by Venkytalks
    Your observations are spot on, Wiseman.

    Any severe downturn will put a stop to fresh supply. Current glut will be absorbed in 5 years. I do see the shortages of the 80s returning.

    However, rentals will always be linked to food price. A chap with 15000 PM rental income can live on it today.

    If it cannot fetch him enough to live on, 5 years from today, he will jack up the rent and refuse to short sell. And he will get it.

    He will also get a lot of pain- his tenant will be paying a substantial part of his salary as rent and he will be tempted to default, knowing it takes 7 years to throw out a tenant. I forsee a lot of problems between landlords and tenants, given our poor law and order and insufficient protection to proterty rights.

    If the economy does badly and inflation and interest rates rise, I have no doubt that it will make sense to own your own home.

    In fact, if you have anything like reasonable job security and dont see yourself transferring to another city, owning your own home will always be sensible, regardless of what valuation on paper your house is quoted. What matters is what you can afford, not what the house is worth.

    Our children definitely face a bleaker future than what the 90s and 2000s have been. We will have many more middle class kids looking for jobs which will dry up. There will be no more service industry growth (i.e BPO growth). There will be very little job growth in industry - we already have over employment for what little we produce.

    How are our children going to get good jobs? Without well paying jobs, how are they going to pay rent or pay a mortgage?

    I am worried - we might end up with a "lost generation" just as the Japanese generation of the 90s. And the great Indian middle class dream will die before it is even close to realisation.



    The Japs are the Baap of the Western world! What the Americans are doing today, the Jap political leadership did to their own people 2 decades ago. Then, they kep their economy weak and lurching from one recession to another so that their people always had a weak wage regime. Further, they threw trillions into serial bailouts and built all those wondeful bridges and roads to nowhere, thus building a debt level to GDP which automatically makes Japan an already failed state.

    Fotunately for us, there are a few reasons why we will not become like the Japs, American, Europeans and others ...

    1. The average Indian is much more intelligent and smarter than the others (especially in the Villages).
    2. We have thousands of years of experience with such collapses (just yesterday I was teaching History to my son and learnt that Mohammed Bin Tughlaq did so many clever things in stupid fashion that there was massive losses and his entire dynasty collapsed because it basically went bankrupt). So we are untra careful and tread the middle path most times
    3. Our politician are no doubt as corrupt as those of other countries. But, because of the swift rettribution in the next elections, the aam janta is always treated carefully by them (unlike in America today where the average joe is being taken to the leaners and the money flowing to the bankers and politicians via contributions).
    4. Our Central Bankers are probably the most sensible of all of them today (there are others too who are good). In fact, I remember that, when the IMF was ruling the roost in the 70s and 80s, India was the only counttry to go against their advice (which was tied to aid) and proved them patently wrong by recovering from a bad economic situation. Most IMF aided countries continue to be basket cases

    While you may be right that we had far more opportunity in a narrow set of fields back in the 80s (after all, you could become an Engineer, Doctor or CA, maybe an architect), today, the fields are crowded, but the number of fields have opened up so much and people can make a decent living in so many different ways (Jewellery designer, Hair Stylist - can ou imagine aiming to become a "barber" back in the 80s? :)) and so many more I haven't even heard of!!!

    Nope. I have much more faith in the next generation than that, simply because people like you and me will see to it that they learn enough to stay safe. That is the Indian Way!

    cheers
    CommentQuote
  • Originally Posted by wiseman
    Fotunately for us, there are 3 reasons why we will not become like the Japs, American, Europeans and others ...

    1. The average Indian is much more intelligent and smarter than the others (especially in the Villages).

    Can't agree more.:) Everyone should stay in villages for atleast 15 days/year. You learn lot more than otherwise by simply seeing the news.
    2. We have thousands of years of experience with such collapses (just yesterday I was teaching History to my son and learnt that Mohammed Bin Tughlaq did so many clever things in stupid fashion that there was massive losses and his entire dynasty collapsed because it basically went bankrupt). So we are untra careful and tread the middle path most times

    If I can recollect, he was the one who shifted people rather than city at the time of capital change, Daulatabad:D.

    Nope. I have much more faith in the next generation than that, simply because people like you and me will see to it that they learn enough to stay safe. That is the Indian Way!

    Amen:).
    CommentQuote
  • Thanks "wisemen" of the forum for a more cheerful and optimistic view point.

    Having said that, has anyone noticed how internet discussions in India (and US - like CNN money and marketwatch) are all doom and gloom, but neighbors, friends and colleagues are all blithely optimistic and booking flats right and left?

    Vfour, decrease in salary gives you a devils alternative between paying more rent/mortgage for flats close to home vs. commuting a tough 2 hours. Unpleasant hobsons choice, both. Life becomes tougher generally.

    Decreased salary increases a landlords search time for good renter as well as making them charge a risk premium for possible loss of rent. Rents go up, not down, even if properties are left locked up.

    Remember the Paghree days in Mumbai?

    Veemkay, rent (not mortgage) is always ---aaaaallllwaaaays---- related to the cost of living, especially food costs.

    For example, good DDA flats near my place of work cost 15-18000 per month with drawing, dining, 2 beds and parking space, currently.

    Cheapest flat nearby? 11000 nowadays for plain 2 rooms, that is it, no amenities, no parking, and building will look ready to crumble any moment. You will find the same in Mumbai.

    Used to be 15000 for the DDA flat 3 years ago, 7000 for the pokey one. So as inflation crept up, the basic minimum went up significantly more than the DDA flat, which stayed practically the same.

    See, the poor guy cannot afford more than 11000 pm. Otherwise he could easily stay in a much better place.

    If he cannot afford 11000?
    Pokey flats far away are the answer. Or juggee nearby.

    Wiseman, my hat is also off for our central bankers. They correctly identified the housing bubble in 2006, flagged it and raised risk weight. Just for that, YV Reddy deserves the economics nobel.

    Agree about the increased opportunities today. But competition is also cut throat. My kid knows much more than I did at his age, but so do all his friends. Cost of education has significantly increased - cost of one flat=one higher education degree, looks like! :-)

    Real and Wise, India has definitely seen it all a long time ago. MB Tughlak was considered crazy but was ahead of his time.

    He built a fort with enough water for his soldiers to withstand a 2 year siege. Impregnable in an assault.

    But not enough water for the townpeople and common man! The capital had to be deserted in summer and there was no commerce.

    Similar thing happenned recently in north Delhi in Narela. DDA built flats and allotted them. Forgot about water! Nobody could live there!

    Instead of shifting to the Yamuna, Tughlak went to Daulatabad! Forgetting that in horseback times, one cannot control territory more than 1000 Km from the capital.

    Feroz Shah Tughlak shifted the fort back near Yamuna. All subsequent cities were near there (Purana Kila, Red fort). People of the city could live and commerce was more.

    Not so good in a siege - but if your enemy surrounds you for one year, your power is pretty much gone anyway.

    Amazingly, MBTughlak started a fiat currency like the fed and our RBI, delinkied from gold and copper prices. Soon, there was wild inflation and crazy amounts of counterfeiting. Not long after wards, the currency was crap and he had to return to the gold standard.

    Shades of todays crisis?

    Maybe he was stupid and crazy, not ahead of his time. Stupid like Greenspan.

    I wonder if they had flats in those days and how much they cost :-)
    CommentQuote
  • That was very informative and entertaining as well!

    Venky,

    I like to stir up the pot from time to time by bringing in assorted topics.

    It really brings out the best out of people and I realise how many people know so many things I don't. Very educational :D! (if there is such a word).

    I wish, while keeping to the focus on this forum (RE), once in a while we also have these points coming out.

    Only relatively recently I learnt (and continue to learn) that its almost a given that, if empires have collapsed, it was because rulers started off on a string of wars to expand their empires and raised so much debt that even the increased revenues from their conquests stopped compensating.

    Slowly they started diluting the "item of value" in their currency (like the proportion of Gold, Silver, Copper in their coins) and created "fiat" currency, i.e, this coin which was worth Rs.100 because it had gold/silver worth that much, earlier, is now made of nickel which is nearly worthless. But because I, the king says its worth Rs.100, it will be worth so much.

    Check a Rs.100 note today and compare it to a note of 50 years ago. In those days, the note was backed by gold. Today, the note is backed by an endless loop - Govt promises to pay a sum of Rs.100 in exchange for this note of Rs.100 - there is no way to figure out exactly what 1 rupee is, today!

    With confidence in the Govt going down so alarmingly, these currencies are starting to go down in real value (how much rice can it buy) rather steeply.

    In fact, RE prices have probably gone up so steeply not only because of a sharp increase in demand in select pockets, but also a sharp decline in the real purchasing power of this currency which prompts people to pay much more just to hang on to something that provides a hedge against the dramatic fall in their paper currency.

    cheers

    Originally Posted by Venkytalks
    Thanks "wisemen" of the forum for a more cheerful and optimistic view point.

    Having said that, has anyone noticed how internet discussions in India (and US - like CNN money and marketwatch) are all doom and gloom, but neighbors, friends and colleagues are all blithely optimistic and booking flats right and left?

    .........

    Amazingly, MBTughlak started a fiat currency like the fed and our RBI, delinkied from gold and copper prices. Soon, there was wild inflation and crazy amounts of counterfeiting. Not long after wards, the currency was crap and he had to return to the gold standard.

    Shades of todays crisis?

    Maybe he was stupid and crazy, not ahead of his time. Stupid like Greenspan.

    I wonder if they had flats in those days and how much they cost :-)
    CommentQuote
  • RBI tightens priority sector lending rules

    In view of banks classifying even short-term loans to housing finance companies (HFCs) as priority sector lending, the Reserve bank of India RBI has moved to end this practice....

    ]http://sify.com/finance/rbi-tightens-priority-sector-lending-rules-news-news-jmtbE6faiif.html
    CommentQuote
  • Originally Posted by wiseman
    Venky,

    I like to stir up the pot from time to time by bringing in assorted topics.

    It really brings out the best out of people and I realise how many people know so many things I don't. Very educational :D! (if there is such a word).

    I wish, while keeping to the focus on this forum (RE), once in a while we also have these points coming out.

    Only relatively recently I learnt (and continue to learn) that its almost a given that, if empires have collapsed, it was because rulers started off on a string of wars to expand their empires and raised so much debt that even the increased revenues from their conquests stopped compensating.

    Slowly they started diluting the "item of value" in their currency (like the proportion of Gold, Silver, Copper in their coins) and created "fiat" currency, i.e, this coin which was worth Rs.100 because it had gold/silver worth that much, earlier, is now made of nickel which is nearly worthless. But because I, the king says its worth Rs.100, it will be worth so much.

    Check a Rs.100 note today and compare it to a note of 50 years ago. In those days, the note was backed by gold. Today, the note is backed by an endless loop - Govt promises to pay a sum of Rs.100 in exchange for this note of Rs.100 - there is no way to figure out exactly what 1 rupee is, today!

    With confidence in the Govt going down so alarmingly, these currencies are starting to go down in real value (how much rice can it buy) rather steeply.

    In fact, RE prices have probably gone up so steeply not only because of a sharp increase in demand in select pockets, but also a sharp decline in the real purchasing power of this currency which prompts people to pay much more just to hang on to something that provides a hedge against the dramatic fall in their paper currency.

    cheers


    Agree.

    Aurangazeb gave up Akbar's policy and started the war against Marathas. His empire was the largest of the Mughals. After him it collapsed.

    US starting its stupid war in Iraq, giving up Clinton (and his own father's) nuanced policy in Iraq. The same crazy gung ho attitude prevailed in business and RE in Bushes time.

    I dont like Obama, but that Bush junior was crazy. Aurangazeb crazy.

    Our policy makers are in a hard place right now. Cant afford the stimulus, but cant live without it!

    BJP govt in 2014 for sure - provided un-votables like Advani and Gadkari die in the meantime .
    CommentQuote
  • Originally Posted by Venkytalks

    BJP govt in 2014 for sure - provided un-votables like Advani and Gadkari die in the meantime .


    Dear VK,
    you souldnt say this atleast for gadkari who has made substancial development as is called a flyover man. if not convinced then do visit nagpur some day and will realise. to add to it, pune - mumbai express way came into existence with his support only. i wud kindly request member to be polite and if i m wrong saying this then i m sorry.

    sam...
    CommentQuote