Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Seagoon on March 14, 2006, 12:10:38 AM
-
There was an interesting, if obvious, editorial in Investor's Business Daily on the 10th. The editors pointed out that while the US economy has recovered from the slump of 2000-2001 and continues to grow (+4.7 million jobs since 2003 for instance) consumer confidence continues to lag. Their conclusion is that this is largely the result of the mainstream media "no good news" approach to reporting.
Missing The Boom
Posted 3/10/2006
Economy: With rising incomes, soaring wealth, bigger and better homes, plenty of jobs and low inflation, we may be living in the most prosperous time ever. Yet chances are you don't believe it one bit.
The economy isn't perfect, of course. But it's a long way from bad — a long, long way. We ponder this as a new employment report comes out, showing 243,000 new payroll jobs in February even as the number of people re-entering the labor market swelled by nearly 350,000.
So before the data are spun beyond recognition by others, let's recount the good news: Since May 2003, when President Bush's tax cuts became law, the U.S. has created 4.7 million jobs. Payrolls have now expanded for 30 straight months. The jobless rate, though up a tick at 4.8%, is still near its five-year low.
Worker pay is also on the increase. Average weekly earnings rose 3.5% last month from a year earlier — the best gain in more than four years.
Last summer, we all were fretting about the economic impacts of higher interest rates, surging energy prices and Hurricane Katrina. But over the last year, including the hurricane season, monthly job gains have averaged 197,000 — more than enough to sop up the 130,000 to 150,000 monthly growth in the U.S. labor force.
Based on the continued job growth and powerful gains in retail spending, most analysts now expect GDP to jump at least 4.5% in the first quarter and 3% for all of 2006 — even as the Federal Reserve continues to tighten credit.
In spite of all the great news, Americans remain strangely downbeat. A Gallup Poll taken earlier this year found just 38% who viewed the economy as "excellent" or "good" — down from 46% at the start of the last recession.
Our own IBD/TIPP Polls have shown sharp drops in economic optimism and consumers' six-month outlook. (Results of our March survey are due Tuesday.)
No doubt about it, the economy keeps powering along. Yet many Americans seem to think it's all a mirage and are sold on the idea that these are the worst of times.
Why the gloom? Much of it, no doubt, stems from misreporting by the media. Against the backdrop of surging payrolls, for example, we keep seeing story after story, in print and on TV, about job "losses."
A recent study by the Media Research Center bears this out. It looked at TV news coverage of jobs in 2005 — 151 stories in all — carried on all three major networks.
This, mind you, was a year that saw the creation of 2 million new jobs, the addition of $350 billion to gross domestic product and an increase of $2 trillion in the value of household financial assets.Yet more than half of the networks' job reports focused on losses, not gains — a picture that wasn't just distorted, but wrong.
Americans deserve better. In fact, they may already know better. The same polls, including ours, in which Americans indicate they are down on the economy in general also show they are upbeat about their own financial situation.
This, more than anything else, may indicate that Americans are being influenced too much by mainstream media outlets that would rather be wrong than acknowledge that an economic boom is under way.
http://www.investors.com/editorial/IBDArticles.asp?artsec=20&issue=20060310
-
Has this "economic boom" out-paced gas prices? Heating costs? Interest rates?
Compare your electric bill now to what it was before the coup.
-
"before the coup"
:noid
-
coup
coup
cachoup
-
Oh clearly that article would never make it on the major news outlets. They'd have to give Bush credit...gasp...and the Unions would have to insist that somehow, more and more jobs are at risk, spin spin spin...
-
"boom" my ass.
I'm working harder and keeping less.
-
I give bush credit for most of the booms. Some of them would have happend anyway.
-
Originally posted by LePaul
Oh clearly that article would never make it on the major news outlets. They'd have to give Bush credit...gasp...and the Unions would have to insist that somehow, more and more jobs are at risk, spin spin spin...
Talk about spin, the article seems to forget about all the losses just after Bush took office. Is it his fault? Don't know don't care. What I do care about is all my bills have gone way up and there is less in the bank at the end of the month. That is why I know bush did nothing for me. Oh yeah thanks bush for the tax relief but by doing so you reduced the amount my state gets so they had to raise thiers.
-
Originally posted by Seagoon
There was an interesting, if obvious, editorial in Investor's Business Daily on the 10th. The editors pointed out that while the US economy has recovered from the slump of 2000-2001 and continues to grow (+4.7 million jobs since 2003 for instance) consumer confidence continues to lag. Their conclusion is that this is largely the result of the mainstream media "no good news" approach to reporting.
Perhaps the US media does have such an agenda, but I don't think the solution is printing numbers out of context, like the author does in the article you posted.
Say Canada inceases employment by 10 gazillion jobs. Looks great right? But what if 5 gazillion jobs are for digging a hole, and the other is 5 is filling it in. Hardly good for the economy.
Same thing with increase in GDP. Lets say the US GDP increase by 10 gazillion dollars. Looks great right? But what if the increase is because the US government spent 10 gazillion dollars in deficit spending. Once again hardly good for the economy.
Increases in house value based on speculation doesn't help the economy either. It just means that there's inflated value for the house that will eventually come back down. And in the mean time people are misallocating their wealth in bad investments.
-
Originally posted by Thrawn
Perhaps the US media does have such an agenda, but I don't think the solution is printing numbers out of context, like the author does in the article you posted.
Say Canada inceases employment by 10 gazillion jobs. Looks great right? But what if 5 gazillion jobs are for digging a hole, and the other is 5 is filling it in. Hardly good for the economy.
Same thing with increase in GDP. Lets say the US GDP increase by 10 gazillion dollars. Looks great right? But what if the increase is because the US government spent 10 gazillion dollars in deficit spending. Once again hardly good for the economy.
Increases in house value based on speculation doesn't help the economy either. It just means that there's inflated value for the house that will eventually come back down. And in the mean time people are misallocating their wealth in bad investments.
This, more than anything else, may indicate that Americans (and Canadians) are being influenced too much by mainstream media outlets that would rather be wrong than acknowledge that an economic boom is under way.
:rofl
-
not sure I follow some of you doom and gloomers... are you saying that energy prices would have been lower with a democrat that wanted to tax gasolione even more? or... are you saying that democrats would have got us a better price per barrel of oil?
Does anyone have proof that jobs created under republicans are not higher paying jobs that democrats create?
Is paying less taxes hurting our takehome pay?
Seems to me that other than energy... everything seems to cost a little less for me and I am bringing home more. Interest rates on homes is better than it was 7 years ago..
lazs
-
Originally posted by lazs2
not sure I follow some of you doom and gloomers... are you saying that energy prices would have been lower with a democrat that wanted to tax gasolione even more? or... are you saying that democrats would have got us a better price per barrel of oil?
Does anyone have proof that jobs created under republicans are not higher paying jobs that democrats create?
Is paying less taxes hurting our takehome pay?
Seems to me that other than energy... everything seems to cost a little less for me and I am bringing home more. Interest rates on homes is better than it was 7 years ago..
lazs
I am pretty sure that the war in Iraq is doing something to the oil prices... and not in a "good" way.
-
So you are saying that energy prices would not have risen if the sadman was still in power? Why is that?
lazs
-
Originally posted by lazs2
So you are saying that energy prices would not have risen if the sadman was still in power? Why is that?
lazs
War drives up the cost of oil lazs. Because the troops over there spend alot of it and insecurity in the marked drives up cost.
-
Originally posted by Ripsnort
:rofl
I don't use any "main stream media" for my economics information. Feel free to actually argue any of my points.
-
Originally posted by lazs2
Is paying less taxes hurting our takehome pay?
lazs
Lazs, here in Maine, our income taxes are the highest in the nation. I think we are still #1. Maybe #2 now, not sure.
The local government here loves to blame the feds versus any method of budget balancing. So while my Federal taxes and such have gone down sharply, my state taxes are out of sight, between a huge fuel tax and everything else you can imagine.
I dont know how it is for other states, but in mine its simply a matter of every program for the "needy" insists on huge gains every year. In the paper, their argument is always the same, with words like "we deserve" there usual mantra.
We're currently fighting to get property values under control (very difficult for fisherman to make it when their homes are zoned on coastal/scenic outlooks that the likes of Martha Stewart will pay millions for, etc etc)
-
Originally posted by Thrawn
I don't use any "main stream media" for my economics information. Feel free to actually argue any of my points.
Heh... I'll give 5-1 odds on pigs flying out of Jesus's bellybutton as he decends to earth on a ray of light before that happens...
-
Seagoon,
Based upon your "no good news" trend of posts here, I thought you would identify more with this than not.
-
Originally posted by Thrawn
I don't use any "main stream media" for my economics information. Feel free to actually argue any of my points.
OK,
Point one
----->The jobs created are 50 percent crap.
I re-read your post and didn't see anything but your opinion so why bother.
----->The other 50 percent are slightly better than crap
(see above)
Point two
----->The GDP is crap because of deficit spending
(Same as above but what the heck)
This is not the first administration to run deficits. Until your prediction comes true and the US economy caves in from this 3.6 (or so) percentage of GDP debt, this economy is no different from any other debt wise.
Point 3
------> increased house value based on speculation is not good.
there certainly are speculators but for the most part it is a minor part of the over all market. More people own their homes now than anytime in history and the speculators are mainly in targeted markets like Miami etc. The 90s had their share of dot com/stock market jackoffs. Even with the bottom falling out the last year of the prior administration it was still less than what was made. The doom and gloomers have been calling for the bubble to burst for 3 years. My reit still has the highest return of any of my investments.
-
lepaul... I have noticed this in kalifornia also... we are a democrat socialist state and my federal taxes have gone down some but my state taxes have more than made up for the difference.
nielsen... so you can prove that the price of oil is related to this tiny little war? You would also then have to assume that not deposing the sadman would mean that at this time.... there would be no war in the middle east or any other oil region... Didn't the sadman start a war with a neighbor or three while he was in power?
lazs
-
Originally posted by Nilsen
...insecurity in the marked drives up cost.
Damn Norwegian opportunists!
I think you're behind all that mess in Iraq... :noid
-
Originally posted by lazs2
Didn't the sadman start a war with a neighbor or three while he was in power?
lazs
remember what happended with the oil prices when he went to war?
-
Originally posted by Staga
Damn Norwegian opportunists!
I think you're behind all that mess in Iraq... :noid
Well... my shares in Statoil has skyrocketed since i got em. However.. i am a socialist so i dont care about money for myself as long as my fellow brothers and sisters in the party gets their welfare money. :)
-
nielsen... I really don't recall the prices going up when he went to war. The biggest jumps I seen were when opec started getting together and setting prices...
But say you are right... wouldn't stability in the region be a good thing in the long run? one of the sadmans wars lasted a very long time and another would have taken over most of the production in the area for him if we hadn't have kicked him out of the country he invaded. speaking of which... that about commited us... he was never going to be our friend after that.. we were damned if we did and damned if we didn't and he wasn't going away on his own. practicaly speaking that is.
if only oil prices are the concern... then getting rid of the sadman was the only practical way.
now... so far as gas prices... it has been shown that with inflation... we are spending about the same or less of our income for it than we ever did except for some really low periods.
most of the your-0-peeeans here say we are paying to little anyway.
lazs
-
Originally posted by lazs2
nielsen... I really don't recall the prices going up when he went to war. The biggest jumps I seen were when opec started getting together and setting prices...
But say you are right... wouldn't stability in the region be a good thing in the long run? one of the sadmans wars lasted a very long time and another would have taken over most of the production in the area for him if we hadn't have kicked him out of the country he invaded. speaking of which... that about commited us... he was never going to be our friend after that.. we were damned if we did and damned if we didn't and he wasn't going away on his own. practicaly speaking that is.
if only oil prices are the concern... then getting rid of the sadman was the only practical way.
now... so far as gas prices... it has been shown that with inflation... we are spending about the same or less of our income for it than we ever did except for some really low periods.
most of the your-0-peeeans here say we are paying to little anyway.
lazs
ok.. the men in black must have used the flashy-thing on you!
this gizmo ring any bells to you? (http://www.entertainmentearth.com/images/AUTOIMAGES/MRSY100.jpg)
of course it doesnt but that does not mean you never saw it. :D
Back to topic.. A stable region will bring stable oil prices for sure. The region will never be stable until the US is way out and the locals have have fought it out and formed some sort of government. A government can NEVER be imposed on a nation, cause it wont work in the long run.
-
so... we should have let him take kuwait and then oil prices would have been stable? Maybe we should have just continued to support on side or the other (depending) when they had their little wars?
When has the region been "stable" and how is opec raising prices not affecting the price at the pumps?
lazs
-
Originally posted by Nilsen
remember what happended with the oil prices when he went to war?
Nilsen, Lazs is correct. Oil prices didn't soar during GW2, they went up in '04 due to demand (primarily China and US).
(Source: http://www.wtrg.com/prices.htm)
(http://www.wtrg.com/oil_graphs/PAPRPOP.gif)
-
Originally posted by Krusher
OK,
Point one
----->The jobs created are 50 percent crap.
I re-read your post and didn't see anything but your opinion so why bother.
----->The other 50 percent are slightly better than crap
(see above)
Well of course it's my opinion, that's why I posted it. And the reasons why you should bother are your own, but as you decided to argue my points I assume you had one. I find it interesting that although this is just my opinion you didn't say whether you agreed with it or not. A growth in jobs alone doesn't explicitately mean an "economic boom". It could just as likely mean there is a missallocation of resources that could hurt the economy.
Point two
----->The GDP is crap because of deficit spending
(Same as above but what the heck)
This is not the first administration to run deficits. Until your prediction comes true and the US economy caves in from this 3.6 (or so) percentage of GDP debt, this economy is no different from any other debt wise.
It doesn't matter if previous governments did it or not. What matters is that taking the growth of GPD out of context is meaningless. A growth of GPD alone doesn't explicately indicate an "economic boom". I could just as likely mean a government going into debt and hurting the ecomony by doing so.
B]Point 3
------> increased house value based on speculation is not good.
there certainly are speculators but for the most part it is a minor part of the over all market. More people own their homes now than anytime in history and the speculators are mainly in targeted markets like Miami etc.[/B]
Perhaps they are just in target markets, but even if that is the case they are still having an effect on the overall aggregate.
If there indeed people own more houses now then ever before than there must be quite a supply of housing. In which case the relatively huge increase in housing value must come from increased demand due to speculation.
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/9/9e/Barrons_shiller_06-20-2005.gif)
Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Barrons_shiller_06-20-2005.gif
Alot of homeowners are tapping into the equitity they have in their present homes to buy another or spend on consumer goods.
(http://bigpicture.typepad.com/./photos/uncategorized/wsj_leverage05222005192558.gif)
Source: http://bigpicture.typepad.com/comments/2005/05/as_prices_rise_.html
What's more according to the, National Association of Realtors, 43% of entry level home buys put no money down on the purchase of new homes in 2005. The amount of debt that is fueling this growth in housing is staggering. Remember actual demand is need coupled with actually having the money to service that need. And it seems to me that alot of people don't have the money to buy these homes.
The 90s had their share of dot com/stock market jackoffs. Even with the bottom falling out the last year of the prior administration it was still less than what was made.
Even so, that means that incredible amounts of wealth was misallocated for years in ventures that didn't pay off, all due to speculation. I would also be interested in knowing how much of dot com bubble was debt financed.
The doom and gloomers have been calling for the bubble to burst for 3 years. My reit still has the highest return of any of my investments.
All good things....
Detroit
"SIGNS OF SAGGING DEMAND: Houses everywhere, but few buyers to close sale
Overabundance of unsold homes in the region creates a burden on owners, market"
http://www.freep.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=2006603110319&template=printart
Pheonix
"Recently, it was reported in the Phoenix market that the number of homes available had jumped from apx3400 homes January 05 to over 30,000 this January. As we watch some of the markets around the country, looking for signs of "the bubble", this number was astounding."
"There has been a lot of talk of speculation in the Phoenix market, which made me wonder, how many of these homes are vacant. Of the 33,270 active listings, 14,601 are vacant."
http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com/2006/03/bubble-busting-phoenix.html
Florida
"The median resale price of a single-family home in Brevard County plunged by $15,300 -- from $234,400 in December to $219,100 in January, the Florida Association of Realtors reported Tuesday. That's a drop of 6.5 percent in a month.
The association also said the number of single-family home resales in Brevard fell 44 percent from 532 in January 2005 to 296 in January 2006. Condominium resales fell 43 percent from 144 in January 2005 to 82 in January 2006."
http://www.floridatoday.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060301/BUSINESS/603010396/1003/rss03
Orange County
"Sales drop, prices fall on homes last month
By Michael Levensohn
Times Herald-Record
mlevensohn@th-record.com
For a limited time only, you can buy 2006 homes at 2004 prices.
OK, that might be a stretch, but Orange County's median sale price dipped to $293,500 in February, the lowest it's been since July 2004 (median $280,500)."
http://www.recordonline.com/archive/2006/03/09/news-mlrealfeb-03-09.html
And those are articles that just came out in the past week, I got them from here.
http://patrick.net/housing/crash.html
I don't think it's any longer a question of if (or even when) it's going to pop, it is popping. And as for what effect it will have...
"More Americans are losing their homes
Risky borrowing is catching up with a number of homeowners across the U.S. Foreclosures rose 45% in January compared to a year ago, and experts only expect the pace to accelerate."
http://realestate.msn.com/buying/Articlenewhome.aspx?cp-documentid=338165
-
Originally posted by Ripsnort
Nilsen, Lazs is correct. Oil prices didn't soar during GW2, they went up in '04 due to demand (primarily China and US).
What are you talking about? World demand only increase by 2% in 2004 compared to 2003.
http://www.eia.doe.gov/mer/pdf/pages/sec11_7.pdf
Unfortunately your graph doesn't reflect that at all. But it does show an almost 30% increase in price.
-
Originally posted by Thrawn
What are you talking about? World demand only increase by 2% in 2004 compared to 2003.
http://www.eia.doe.gov/mer/pdf/pages/sec11_7.pdf
Unfortunately your graph doesn't reflect that at all. But it does show an almost 30% increase in price.
Perhaps it was the decrease in production combined with the 2% increase in demand (which is quite abit more than the decrease in production)...Either way, as you can see by the graph, 2003-2004 wasn't a huge spike.
(http://www.wtrg.com/oil_graphs/crudeoilprice97_03.gif)
-
Originally posted by Ripsnort
Perhaps it was the decrease in production combined with the 2% increase in demand (which is quite abit more than the decrease in production)...
Well, your second graph doesn't show 2004 so we can't really use it to compare. And your first graph shows an increase of production of about 10% from 2003 to 2004.
Either way, as you can see by the graph, 2003-2004 wasn't a huge spike.
I guess "huge" is relative. But where we would expect to see an about 8% fall in price we see due to increased supply and little increase in demand, we see 30% increase in price...something has got to be causing it.
-
I don't see any relation to either graph that GW2 had any significant impact on oil prices, which was the subject of the post. Maybe you could show me?
Incidently, surely you can see the drop in oil prices from Jan. 2003-Jan.2004 above? The biggest spike occured during the strike in South America.
-
Originally posted by Thrawn
>Well of course it's my opinion, that's why I posted it.
well at least this time you put something behind it other than this statement.
>Say Canada inceases employment by 10 gazillion jobs. Looks great right? >But what if 5 gazillion jobs are for digging a hole, and the other is 5 is >filling it in. Hardly good for the economy.
BTW
Monster.com disagrees (job survey), the feds disagree (labor report) and the majority of the employment stats disagree, but you are entitled to your opinion.
I hired 18 people for my projects last year, this year I have hired 8 so far. All of them pay well and have benifits. SO in my opinion 100 percent of the jobs created are great.
>It doesn't matter if previous governments did it or not.
As stated deficits are not new. The GPD has been the gold standard of economic indicators for years. I understand it is popular to redefine its worth in todays economy, but there is very little history to prove it wrong.
>Perhaps they are just in target markets, but even if that is the case they >are still having an effect on the overall aggregate.
Perhaps but its a small. Until it pops your speculating more than the investors.
>Alot of homeowners are tapping into the equitity they have in their >present homes to buy another or spend on consumer goods.
Some are some are not, most are just refinancing to get a better rate.
>And it seems to me that alot of people don't have the money to buy >these homes.
This may be true, there have always had people who buy more house than they can afford, the majority don't.
>All good things....
Detroit, Pheonix, Florida, Orange County
2 cities, a county and a state that are part of the targeted markets that may have problems. They are still a very small portion of the market. Dallas and most of Texas for instance was hardly touched by the boom.
>I don't think it's any longer a question of if (or even when) it's going to >pop, it is popping.
The sky is falling !!!!
The experts have been saying it was going to pop for 3 years now. If I was going to call the weather I would be right sooner or later. The savings and loan crissis in the mid 80's was much worse for the housing market and our economy survived and grew.
You can disagree if you care to but you only make the origional posters argument.
the facts are: (see above)
Unemployment is at 4.8 percent
Payrolls are going up. The average weekly earnings rose 3.5%
The GDP is expected to be 3% for all of 2006
2 million new jobs were created last year
$350 billion was added the gross domestic product
household financial assets added 2 trillion in value
-
Housing bubble, sure, in specific areas it will "pop", but certainly not have a large impact on the economy. Its not like it will be a nation-wide bubble burst.
I've seen our house increase in value triple in 6 years, and it show no sign of slowing down due to the economic boom in the suburban/Rural areas like ours around Seattle.
-
Originally posted by Ripsnort
I don't see any relation to either graph that GW2 had any significant impact on oil prices, which was the subject of the post. Maybe you could show me?
I guess I could, but do you really want to argue that the invasion and subsequent instability in the country that has the worlds largest oil supplies wouldn't case oil prices to rise?
Incidently, surely you can see the drop in oil prices from Jan. 2003-Jan.2004 above? The biggest spike occured during the strike in South America.
Pre-invasion sure, but after the invasion we still still a relatively steady incease in price that doesn't give with 2% increase in demand and 10% increase in production.
-
Originally posted by Krusher
>Well of course it's my opinion, that's why I posted it.
well at least this time you put something behind it other than this statement.
>Say Canada inceases employment by 10 gazillion jobs. Looks great right? >But what if 5 gazillion jobs are for digging a hole, and the other is 5 is >filling it in. Hardly good for the economy.
BTW
Monster.com disagrees (job survey), the feds disagree (labor report) and the majority of the employment stats disagree, but you are entitled to your opinion.
What do they disagree with? I'm not saying that there aren't more jobs. I'm saying that more employment in and of it self isn't necessarily good for the economy. The Canadian government could tax the hell out of current taxpayers (or go into debt) and hire all the unemployed people to dig holes and fill them in. Great Canada has a 0% unemployment rate. I wouldn't then state that economy is in a boom.
I hired 18 people for my projects last year, this year I have hired 8 so far. All of them pay well and have benifits. SO in my opinion 100 percent of the jobs created are great.
100% of jobs you and your business created are good. And even that is only true if you recieve a return on your invest that is greater than what you spent on that labour. But there is no gaurantee that that will be the case on all or even most of new hires in 2005.
>It doesn't matter if previous governments did it or not.
As stated deficits are not new. The GPD has been the gold standard of economic indicators for years. I understand it is popular to redefine its worth in todays economy, but there is very little history to prove it wrong.
What do you mean there is little "history" to prove it wrong. We can look at the forumal right here.
GDP = consumption + investment + government expenditures + exports - imports
For the time being I'll ignore the arugement the questions how spending money on consumables causes economic growth and just look at government expendatures. Every time a government spends a dollar the GDP goes up by a dollar. The government spending money will cause less growth than if a taxpayer because they will spend it or invest it only where they have a demand. If a government goes in debt to spend that dollar then they are only going to have any growth if they recieve a return on investment which is greater than the lending rate they are paying on it.
And that's why I think that GDP out of context is has very little meaning and one can't sit there and look at it and "Economic boom!".
>Perhaps they are just in target markets, but even if that is the case they >are still having an effect on the overall aggregate.
Perhaps but its a small. Until it pops your speculating more than the investors.
Not so, I can look at the changes in price versus supply and the demand and conclude that demand isn't driving the increase in price. I don't have to wait for it to fall appart for it to happen.
>Alot of homeowners are tapping into the equitity they have in their >present homes to buy another or spend on consumer goods.
Some are some are not, most are just refinancing to get a better rate.
That graph I posted doesn't reflect that.
>And it seems to me that alot of people don't have the money to buy >these homes.
This may be true, there have always had people who buy more house than they can afford, the majority don't.
Sure there have always been people that do it, but the interesting thing is that it inceased by 43% (!). That's increase in the number of people who are pissing away wealth on homes they can't afford.
>All good things....
Detroit, Pheonix, Florida, Orange County
2 cities, a county and a state that are part of the targeted markets that may have problems. They are still a very small portion of the market.
Sure, but those are articles I found on one site that were written in the past week, there are certainly others.
>I don't think it's any longer a question of if (or even when) it's going to >pop, it is popping.
The sky is falling !!!!
The experts have been saying it was going to pop for 3 years now. If I was going to call the weather I would be right sooner or later. The savings and loan crissis in the mid 80's was much worse for the housing market and our economy survived and grew.
Right it survived and grew in spite of the issue, but the crisis certainly didn't help the economy (or cause it to boom).
You can disagree if you care to but you only make the origional posters argument.
the facts are: (see above)
Unemployment is at 4.8 percent
Payrolls are going up. The average weekly earnings rose 3.5%
The GDP is expected to be 3% for all of 2006
2 million new jobs were created last year
$350 billion was added the gross domestic product
household financial assets added 2 trillion in value
Indeed, those are the facts. But those facts don't necessarily mean that the economy is booming.
-
Originally posted by Thrawn
Indeed, those are the facts. But those facts don't necessarily mean that the economy is booming.
You convinced me, we are in a state of economic failure. Any day now the depression will start and the soup lines will form!
-
Excellant, get your affairs in order accordingly.
-
Originally posted by Krusher
You convinced me, we are in a state of economic failure. Any day now the depression will start and the soup lines will form!
:rofl
A pessimist is lazy. It takes no work whatsoever to be a pessimist. To be an optimist, now that takes thought, and work!:aok
-
Originally posted by Ripsnort
:rofl
A pessimist is lazy. It takes no work whatsoever to be a pessimist. To be an optimist, now that takes thought, and work!:aok
Ha. You don't have a generator, guns, survival gear and a 10,000 year supply of food in your basement because you're an optimist Rip.
-
Originally posted by Thrawn
Ha. You don't have a generator, guns, survival gear and a 10,000 year supply of food in your basement because you're an optimist Rip.
Sure he is, he's optimistic he and his can survive the worst that can happen :)
-
I don't get what is so interesting about it. If the Investor's Business Daily wrote a non-positve 'editorial' (if that's what you want to call it), that would be interesting, since they are in the business of selling advertising to people who want fees to 'help' you invest.
Let me add a four-letter word that they seem to have forgotten about in their 'advertorial': debt.