Author Topic: The Economy  (Read 240 times)

Offline Sixpence

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5265
      • http://www.onpoi.net/ah/index.php
The Economy
« on: December 31, 2005, 01:06:02 PM »
Some changes in bankruptcy laws and a new minimum payment on your credit card bills has me thinking this could have a big effect on consumer spending. Alot has also been written about a reverse yield in bonds(where long term yield is lower than short term yield) that usually precedes a downturn in the economy. I am in the northeast and home prices have started to fall.

I have been waiting for prices to fall, is it safe to keep waiting? I would hate to see them go back up in a few months when I could have bought now. The prediction is for home prices to keep falling through the year, is this a safe assumption?
"My grandaddy always told me, "There are three things that'll put a good man down: Losin' a good woman, eatin' bad possum, or eatin' good possum."" - Holden McGroin

(and I still say he wasn't trying to spell possum!)

Offline eagl

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6769
The Economy
« Reply #1 on: December 31, 2005, 01:19:28 PM »
At some point when home prices fall, mortgage interest rates start climbing.  You gotta check your priorities.  Do you want a low monthly payment or want a lower overall cost?  Want to put a lot or just a little down?  Plan on paying it off early?  How long will you be keeping the home?

If you're going to buy in an area that's currently inflated, then you may want to wait until prices drop more even if that means you'll get stuck with higher interest rates, because that means you'll be more likely to preserve your capital in the house and be able to sell it for a profit.  But if you're in an area that's already reasonably priced, you might be better off locking in the current low interest rates even if you lose a bit short-term as the market dips.  Housing prices usually recover eventually so as long as you're not buying at the peak of an artificial boom (such as people in silicone valley who bought $300,000 condos for 3 million), you'll probably maintain your value and capital in the long term.

If it's for investment and you plan on turning around and selling in a few years, well then that's a gamble just like it is anytime.  At least right now interest rates are pretty low and that can help keep your monthly payment down without having to put a ton of cash down up front.

I think Money magazine just ran an article about the top 300 or so housing markets in the US, rating them against what they consider fair value and average income.  Apparently many locations in Texas are considered undervalued right now, but many places are up to 30% or more overpriced.  So do your research first.
Everyone I know, goes away, in the end.

Offline BlueJ1

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5826
The Economy
« Reply #2 on: December 31, 2005, 01:23:44 PM »
eagl definatly ate his wheaties this morning. Hes been giving out good advice all day.
U.S.N.
Aviation Electrician MH-60S
OEF 08-09'

Offline Sixpence

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5265
      • http://www.onpoi.net/ah/index.php
The Economy
« Reply #3 on: December 31, 2005, 01:30:03 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by eagl
At some point when home prices fall, mortgage interest rates start climbing.  You gotta check your priorities.  Do you want a low monthly payment or want a lower overall cost?  Want to put a lot or just a little down?  Plan on paying it off early?  How long will you be keeping the home?

If you're going to buy in an area that's currently inflated, then you may want to wait until prices drop more even if that means you'll get stuck with higher interest rates, because that means you'll be more likely to preserve your capital in the house and be able to sell it for a profit.  But if you're in an area that's already reasonably priced, you might be better off locking in the current low interest rates even if you lose a bit short-term as the market dips.  Housing prices usually recover eventually so as long as you're not buying at the peak of an artificial boom (such as people in silicone valley who bought $300,000 condos for 3 million), you'll probably maintain your value and capital in the long term.

If it's for investment and you plan on turning around and selling in a few years, well then that's a gamble just like it is anytime.  At least right now interest rates are pretty low and that can help keep your monthly payment down without having to put a ton of cash down up front.

I think Money magazine just ran an article about the top 300 or so housing markets in the US, rating them against what they consider fair value and average income.  Apparently many locations in Texas are considered undervalued right now, but many places are up to 30% or more overpriced.  So do your research first.


Yeah, it is overvalued here big time. I can't touch a home here in Ma., so I have been looking in Derry, NH. I looked at an old victorian last week listing at 239k with a property tax of 5500 a year. It needs alot of work, and it had a fire in the forties and there is a hole in the wall going up into the attic and you can see burnt 2x4's. It's rediculous. I looked a few other dumps like this that are listed above 200k. I need a home, but I can't pay that price because I will have no money to do the renovations.

My thinking is that if the prices come down I can afford the price and refinance when rates come back down. I am hoping that the fed will be reluctant to raise long term rates alot higher than they are
"My grandaddy always told me, "There are three things that'll put a good man down: Losin' a good woman, eatin' bad possum, or eatin' good possum."" - Holden McGroin

(and I still say he wasn't trying to spell possum!)

Offline eagl

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6769
The Economy
« Reply #4 on: December 31, 2005, 03:15:58 PM »
I don't think the fed has much control over home mortgage rates...  Plus the bond yield inversion that happened for the second time last week is supposedly a historically reliable indicator of a coming recession.  It's hard to believe given what otherwise appears to be a robust economy but I don't know enough about economics to have an opinion other than "uh oh".

The thing we can't control, no matter how low the unemployment rate and inflation, is the international money supply.  The US has racked up such a huge amount of international debt that even one of our major international creditors could spark an international run on the bank, and that would play hell with the dollar valuation.  It wouldn't be as disastrous for the US as it would be for many other nations because our national survival is not reliant on any one import good from any one nation, but it would play hell with investor and consumer confidence and the result would be wild fluctuations in value and prices.  Imagine overnight the price of a dozen eggs going to $50, the next day everyone sells all their investments to horde cash, and the following day any property you own is worth almost NOTHING because people are afraid to spend their cash on anything.  Companies go bankrupt, people lose their jobs, and the banks are stuck with the option of reposessing a million homes to try to save SOMETHING, or going under entirely and taking everyone's savings accounts along with them.

That's one way depressions and economic collapse starts and there's nothing the "little guy" can do about it except try to keep your debt load down.  The bank probably won't take your house if everyone on your block forfeits their mortgages, but that's little cosolation when you don't have any food.  Then again, who will need a car when the govt is rationing gas at $100/gal because the dollar is worth so little and oil is $5,000/barrel?

My point isn't that the economy is on the edge of collapse, rather that it's not a good idea to rely on the fed to do anything at all to help things out.  It only takes one malicious international player to ruin the whole pot.  China could ruin us overnight (for example) and the only reason they don't is because even as they fund our budget deficit, we keep shovelling dollars into their own growing economy.  They're earning from us twice, so it's not in their best interest to destroy us.  But they could.

Heck, we sorta did that to Japan leading up to WWII because we used the economic whacking stick to try to punish Japan for their territorial expansion.  They were growing by conquest, we squeezed their economy in return, and instead of backing off they started shooting.  I doubt that any nation making money off of our trade and budget deficits is willing to trade those profits for the risk of the US going into an economic crisis, although I'm sure many would enjoy watching us go down the tubes.  Most of the pain would even be self inflicted as American consumers, producers, and investors panic...

Personally, I want to own a house and not have a mortgage.  Yea I'll lose a tax writeoff, but the bank can't come repossess the house.  The worst that could happen is being unable to pay property taxes but in that case, I doubt I'd be the only one.  

For real security, take a tip from the survivalist school of thought and buy a second "summer house" somewhere that has minimal property tax and a high enough water table that you can sink your own well.  Pay cash and set up the place to be as nearly self reliant as possible.  Buy a power generating windmill, but leave it in storage until it's needed.  Dig an underground cold storage locker so if you lose power, you don't lose your refridgeration.  Learn about how to filter your own drinking water.  That sort of stuff.  So when you have no cash, there is less of a chance anyone can toss you off your own property.
Everyone I know, goes away, in the end.

Offline weaselsan

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1147
The Economy
« Reply #5 on: December 31, 2005, 05:44:09 PM »
Trade deficits especially with China actually helps the economy.
The only reason anyone cares about China's trade is because it operates within a mercantilist framework. The mercantilists preached that countries should always strive to have a trade surplus and avoid trade deficits at all cost. That is partly because they viewed the flow of gold as central to economic well-being. Deficits led to an outflow of gold, which was bad, while surpluses led to an inflow of gold, which was good.

The Spanish were the best practitioners of mercantilism. When they conquered Latin America, they sent back vast sums of gold to the mother country, for a time making Spain the most powerful country on earth. But it all fell apart in short order as the money was simply wasted. And because Spain did not invest in its colonies, they lost their value when the gold ran out.

By contrast, the British did not find any gold in their North American colonies. This was a huge disappointment to them. But in order to try and salvage some profit from their assets, they were forced to invest in the New World, creating new industries like tobacco. But, being mercantilists, the British insisted that all trade from the American colonies had to go through London, thereby increasing the cost of American goods and creating ill-will that culminated in the American Revolution.

Although many of the Founding Fathers were protectionists, they weren't mercantilists. Rather, they favored protection for the purpose of safeguarding America's "infant" industries. But it never worked very well. In his great book, The Tariff History of the United States, economist Frank Taussig concluded that high tariffs did little to stimulate domestic production. This is evident in the fact that the U.S. ran a trade deficit almost continuously from 1790 to 1875.

A key reason for the trade deficit is that the U.S. was the China of its day: a place where cheap land greatly reduced production costs, just as cheap labor reduces costs in China. This led to a flood of foreign investment into the U.S., especially in transportation technology like railroads, which were the Internet of their day. It is a simple matter of accounting: When a nation is a net capital importer, it must run a trade deficit.

Thus when a nation has good economic prospects and attracts foreign investment, it tends to run deficits. Conversely, when its prospects are bleak and capital is trying to escape the country, it will tend to run surpluses. Therefore, the existence of a surplus or deficit may tell us exactly the opposite of what the mercantilists believed. Deficits may be a sign of strength, while surpluses are a sign of weakness.

Unfortunately, mercantilism lives on at the U.S. Commerce Department, where deficits are viewed as nothing but pure evil, stealing American jobs and wealth. Hence Commerce Secretary Don Evans's increasingly shrill attacks on China for contributing heavily to the U.S. trade deficit. Implicitly, he assumes that if we could make China's costs of production higher, we would somehow benefit because production would shift back from China to here. A new report from the Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago explains why this won't happen:

Rather than displacing domestic production...rising imports may serve rising demand for some types of goods in the home country. So too, imports can consist of intermediate components that become embodied in domestic production of a final good. To the extent that such components are most cheaply sourced overseas, they may help to keep domestic production competitive for the final goods in the domestic market, or even allow domestic producers to export the final good to third country markets.
In other words, by utilizing China's cheap labor, it actually increases the competitiveness of U.S. businesses. They often export unfinished goods made here to plants they own in China and export them back here or somewhere else. When sold here, much of the gain accrues to those in the retail sector and to consumers, while U.S. investors reap the return to capital. Consequently, the vast bulk of the total gains from final sales shifts to Americans even though most of the work is done in China.

Unfortunately, China is too easy a target for unscrupulous politicians in the U.S., who are pushing for tariffs on Chinese goods. Sadly, some of these politicians work in the Bush administration. Those who know better, like Greg Mankiw, chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers, must try harder to make their voices heard.

Offline Rolex

  • AH Training Corps
  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3285
The Economy
« Reply #6 on: December 31, 2005, 06:27:52 PM »
You should give the author of your post credit, weaselsan.

You copied and pasted most of a column published in November 2003 by Bruce Bartlett.

Offline Eagler

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 18867
The Economy
« Reply #7 on: December 31, 2005, 07:09:24 PM »
housing has to go down ... a native in fl making average income cannot afford a home if they do not want to live in a high crime rate area...

I think it will reverse and many will be upside down on their home as bad as they are on their auto(s) :)
"Masters of the Air" Scenario - JG27


Intel Core i7-13700KF | GIGABYTE Z790 AORUS Elite AX | 64GB G.Skill DDR5 | 16GB GIGABYTE RTX 4070 Ti Super | 850 watt ps | pimax Crystal Light | Warthog stick | TM1600 throttle | VKB Mk.V Rudder