What's Cramers position on gold? Cramer also likes Ron Paul and frankly a Paul/Cramer duo in the white house would straighten this country out leading to the most prosperous 4 years EVER. Then we would re-elect them. Then Paul would retire and Cramer would become the first Jewish president. All things would be great except for the socialists who would begin to disappear the day after elections.
What's Cramers position on gold? Cramer also likes Ron Paul and frankly a Paul/Cramer duo in the white house would straighten this country out leading to the most prosperous 4 years EVER. Then we would re-elect them. Then Paul would retire and Cramer would become the first Jewish president. All things would be great except for the socialists who would begin to disappear the day after elections. >>
Nice recovery. Unfortunately, this is information that would have been useful about 4,000 Dow points ago, not now. Another example of why it's tough to take Cramer seriously.
Bernake speaking now............please explain to me, referring to the $700 billion bailout bill, when he starts talking about the Fed, "paying interest on bank reserves"
Is the Fed going to start paying banks to keep reserves?
This appears to be an inconcievable new development.
Paying banks to hold reserves? How much is THAT going to cost us, the taxpayers???
Q: Are You Printing Money? Bernanke: Not Literally
<< <i>Bernake speaking now............please explain to me, referring to the $700 billion bailout bill, when he starts talking about the Fed, "paying interest on bank reserves"
Is the Fed going to start paying banks to keep reserves?
This appears to be an inconcievable new development.
Paying banks to hold reserves? How much is THAT going to cost us, the taxpayers??? >>
Only another hundred billion. What's the problem? You don't have that hanging around? Don'cha worry, good 'ol uncle Sammy's going to cover it for ya.
<< <i>Bernake speaking now............please explain to me, referring to the $700 billion bailout bill, when he starts talking about the Fed, "paying interest on bank reserves"
Is the Fed going to start paying banks to keep reserves?
This appears to be an inconcievable new development.
Paying banks to hold reserves? How much is THAT going to cost us, the taxpayers??? >>
it is an attempt to "free" up the cash that banks have and their commercial paper which is short term loans to established big big companies, a company may have a 500 million or MUCH higher LOC and the fed is going to guarantee it by paying the banks to loan it ....more as business as ususal....
yeah it's something else that could go south but these stop gap measures are getting more creative by the day
I have just glanced over them after hearing about them, but my understanding is these are the REAL numbers not the manipulated numbers, and these come out on December 15th with no announcements, as there is no spin in them. I also understand these are the only audited books of the US Government's debt.
What's Cramers position on gold? Cramer also likes Ron Paul and frankly a Paul/Cramer duo in the white house would straighten this country out leading to the most prosperous 4 years EVER. Then we would re-elect them. Then Paul would retire and Cramer would become the first Jewish president. All things would be great except for the socialists who would begin to disappear the day after elections. >>
If Cramer says its time to get out , then I am getting in ....gold stocks going down the drain look like a good buy.
Paying banks to hold reserves? How much is THAT going to cost us, the taxpayers???
Probably $TRILLIONs more in the end. The FED is now "banking" in derivatives like everyone else. Yahoo!
Steve Saville explains it in simple terms:
We understand that a provision allowing the Fed to pay interest on bank reserves was included in the Troubled Asset Relief Programme (TARP) approved by Congress late last week. This means that the Fed can now inject unlimited amounts of new money into the financial system without having to worry about pushing the Fed Funds Rate below its target.
The FED can also pay interest to foreign banks as well.
<< <i>In the "old days", weren't banks required to keep a minimum reserve in order to qualify as a member of the (non) Federal (non) Reserve System?
It's now becoming very clear what we have here. >>
There was a 3% reserve requirement.... but the $700 Billion bailout plan eliminated that. There now is no requirement for any reserves. Perhaps the FED is going to pay interest for any reserves held, as an incentive.
Perhaps the FED is going to pay interest for any reserves held, as an incentive.
That is the gist of what I heard Bernake say today. And I guess that means we are paying banks to take our dollars. OMG. They want to *pay* banks to take dollars and hold them in reserve, but they have no problem taking them from us in taxes. What will they think of next?
Not to worry - now, one of the presidential candidates wants to tack on another $300 Billion over and above the $850 Billion to pay for renegotiated mortgages, so that people who can't afford them can live in nicer houses than those who can afford them!
Hmmmmmmm............Is there anyone here who doesn't think that Sinclair is right? You can't make this stuff up.
Q: Are You Printing Money? Bernanke: Not Literally
<< <i>...so that people who can't afford them can live in nicer houses than those who can afford them! >>
At this point, many, many people are having trouble with their mortgages, not just those who borrowed beyond their means on irresponsible terms. ANYONE who bought a house in the past five to seven years, not just the sub-primers & get rich quick flippers, but nice folks who wanted a place to live and who could afford the payments on their 30 year fixed rate loans are now mostly upside down on their investments, locked into their properties because home loans are now about impossible to obtain, and still obligated to come up with their monthly payments in a rapidly contracting economy.
You want a bail out for your abuse of jelly donuts?
"Lenin is certainly right. There is no subtler or more severe means of overturning the existing basis of society(destroy capitalism) than to debauch the currency. The process engages all the hidden forces of economic law on the side of destruction, and it does it in a manner which not one man in a million is able to diagnose." John Marnard Keynes, The Economic Consequences of the Peace, 1920, page 235ff
OK, can someone please explain the seeming disconnect between minning stocks and Gold. Are they just simply getting beat up along with the total stock market, seems so- its an equity so dump it attitude.
The fundamentals don't seem support this downward action.
Or, could it be that the liquidation of 401k's 457b's etc by the public which have been scared out of the market the past couple weeks, which held large diverse funds that were partially made up of Minning stocks, thus forcing the fund managers to dump them along with every thing else?
NumbersUsa, FairUs, Alipac, CapsWeb, and TeamAmericaPac
"...the seeming disconnect between minning stocks and Gold...."
////////////////////
Apples v Oranges.
It has always been that way, to one degree or another.
Corrupt stock-promoters, incompetent BODs, crazy labor-demands, crazy government regulations, all the bad stuff that all public companies face confront mining companies.
OTOH, gold is just gold.
Folks Who Bite Get Bitten. Folks Who Don't Bite Get Eaten.
<< <i>...so that people who can't afford them can live in nicer houses than those who can afford them! >>
At this point, many, many people are having trouble with their mortgages, not just those who borrowed beyond their means on irresponsible terms. ANYONE who bought a house in the past five to seven years, not just the sub-primers & get rich quick flippers, but nice folks who wanted a place to live and who could afford the payments on their 30 year fixed rate loans are now mostly upside down on their investments, locked into their properties because home loans are now about impossible to obtain, and still obligated to come up with their monthly payments in a rapidly contracting economy. >>
If they could afford the payment 5 to 7 years ago and the loan is fixed, they should be able to afford it now, shouldn't they? Unless of course they've suffered a loss of income, and that can happen at any time, regardless of the economy or credit situation. If otoh they are in an adjustable or interest-only, it's probably because they *couldn't* afford the fixed payment, so they shouldn't have bought in the first place. With the exception of the bubble regions of the country (Vegas, Fla., parts of CA), few people who bought 7 years ago and put down a reasonable downpayment should be underwater now. A lot of the people who are in trouble are also carrying a ton of other debt on credit cards, car loans, HELOC's etc. It's hard to convince the majority who have been paying their bills that it make sense to bail out the 3% who haven't.
This IS about not living beyond your means. And this IS about bailing out irresponsible borrowers. This IS about corporate bigwigs stealing from their companies, whether it's "legal" or not. And this IS about a double-cross over Social Security.
Play the game fair and this is your reward? THAT's the question of the day.
Now that the blinders are being removed from the Public, you can expect the realization about gold as a store of value to become more pronounced. And that's an understatement.
Q: Are You Printing Money? Bernanke: Not Literally
<< <i>I don't for a second believe that everyone who bought a house 7 years ago has negative equity today.
Geesh, how ridiculous. >>
I agree, but I did just hear on the news this morning, that one in six homeowners is actually upside down. I bought my house in 2003, refinanced two years later, and I am not upside down though. Most of those upside down probably bought in the last few years in the superfast rising markets, I am in mid-America, and we didn't rise like that.
"Play the game fair and this is your reward? THAT's the question of the day."
Well, social security is not socialism unless you are giving that money to someone that hasn't put anything into it. Social security is a ROI on years of contributing your cash into the system; it was not intended to be a gift or "help" for immigrants or any of the other transmogrifications that have been added to the original legislation that created our national retirement program. We have indeed been had by our elected representatives as has our retirement program. Retire at 62-64, YOU EARNED IT, unlike many of the giftees.
If you pay your bills on time, maintain little or no retail credit balances, pay your taxes, and contribute to medicare and social security programs then you can consider yourself as a mullet as well as being the main target of legislators. To counter this, you must take every deduction you can on your taxes even if it means contributing a fair amount of your after tax income to 501 c-3 organizations, you can also utilize deferred compensation packages to keep your income protected until you retire at a lower tax rate, same for having a roth IRA, and any other thing you can do to keep your tax profile down. Another good strategy is to use cash and not credit cards (other than AMEX). Credit cards simply engrandize the issuers of the cards; what may be a moment of convenience for a shopper is little more than funding those predatory credit issuers and nice ceo bonuses. So, it costs too much to buy a stamp and mail out a check and it's just easier to pay on line...try 25% interest on all unpaid balances and don't be late or over balance or that's another $50 in addition to a nice little hickey on your credit report.com, how's that for convenience? In order to dry them up, you have to use cash. There is no reason to cooperate, there is no reason to fund their programs. So, in our present time, it's considered profoundly unpatriotic to retire before 70 and it's also unpatriotic to not pay as much as you can into the tax system. One difference between the wealthy and us cube dwellers is that they get better tax breaks and you can be sure they aren't waiting till 70 to retire. Be like the wealthy, keep your taxes low and retire as soon as you can.
So what is the big deal??? Just print more Krona, aren’t they paying attention to how we do this in the U.S.? Somebody please send these guys in Iceland an email.
U.K. Freezes Icelandic Bank Assets; Threatens Lawsuit (Update2) By Caroline Byrne and Poppy Trowbridge
Oct. 8 (Bloomberg) -- Britain froze the U.K. assets of Landsbanki Islands hf and threatened to sue Iceland on behalf of 300,000 bank customers who are blocked from accessing deposits through its online savings unit Icesave.
Iceland's biggest banks have racked up foreign debts equivalent to as much as 12 times the size of the economy, compounding investor gloom worldwide following the collapse of firms including Lehman Brothers Inc. U.K. authorities expected Landsbanki to be declared in default, the Treasury said.
Icesave's Web site said that it wasn't processing deposits or withdrawal requests for a second day. No one answered the phone at Icesave.
Iceland's banking system is buckling under the weight of debts equal to 12 times the size of the economy, with financial regulators now in charge of the second and third largest banks, Glitnir Bank hf and Landsbanki Islands hf. As the crisis mounts, the central bank today gave up an attempt to fix the exchange rate, indicating it is powerless to halt the slump in the krona.
I have said this here before many times. U.S. small business owners, and all those that really work for a living pay 50% to 60% of all their earnings in one tax or another.
This number of course did not include S.C. as this was sold to the American public as an insurance program for retirement. We all know that all the S.C. money is gone, spent by congress on pork or whatever else.
MH, Any of us that make any money form other savings or partial employment are going to get means tested out of the S.C. program over the next few years, therefore S.C. has become just another hidden TAX.
All Americans can increase their spendable incomes if they fight tooth and nail to NOT pay any tax they can avoid!
For those new here, the list is below,
We might as well add all money paid into Social Security
TAXES Accounts Receivable Tax Building Permit Tax Capital Gains Tax CDL license Tax Cigarette Tax Corporate Income Tax Court Fines (indirect taxes) Dog License Tax Federal Income Tax Federal Unemployment Tax (FUTA) Fishing License Tax Food License Tax Fuel permit tax Gasoline Tax (42 cents per gallon) Hunting License Tax Inheritance Tax Interest expense (tax on the money) Inventory tax IRS Interest Charges (tax on top of tax) IRS Penalties (tax on top of tax) Liquor Tax Local Income Tax Luxury Taxes Marriage License Tax Medicare Tax Property Tax Real Estate Tax Septic Permit Tax Service Charge Taxes Social Security Tax Road Usage Taxes (Truckers) Sales Taxes Recreational Vehicle Tax Road Toll Booth Taxes School Tax State Income Tax State Unemployment Tax (SUTA) Telephone federal excise tax Telephone federal universal service fee tax Telephone federal, state and local surcharge taxes Telephone minimum usage surcharge tax Telephone recurring and non-recurring charges tax Telephone state and local tax Telephone usage charge tax Toll Bridge Taxes Toll Tunnel Taxes Traffic Fines (indirect taxation) Trailer Registration Tax Utility Taxes Vehicle License Registration Tax Vehicle Sales Tax Watercraft Registration Tax Well Permit Tax Workers Compensation Tax
COMMENTS: Not one of these taxes existed 100 years ago and our nation was the most prosperous in the world, had absolutely no national debt, had the largest middle class in the world and only one parent had to work to support the family.
<< <i>If they could afford the payment 5 to 7 years ago and the loan is fixed, they should be able to afford it now, shouldn't they? Unless of course they've suffered a loss of income, and that can happen at any time, regardless of the economy or credit situation. >>
Yes it could happen at any time - however, the fact is that WE ARE NOW at point in the economy where MANY, MANY, MANY homeowners, even responsible ones who have locked rates, no credit debt & six months savings in the bank, ARE GOING TO BE IN REAL TROUBLE because of the way the economy is rapidly contracting RIGHT NOW.
What is making matters worse, is that these RESPONSIBLE people who may now be recognizing how the markets or their own situations may be changing DO NOT HAVE THE OPTION to sell. Even if they were willing or able to take a horrific 50% loss, the problem is there are hardly any loans out there to be had for the people they want to sell to.
<< <i>If otoh they are in an adjustable or interest-only, it's probably because they *couldn't* afford the fixed payment, so they shouldn't have bought in the first place. >>
I am thirty six years old. When I started thinking about buying my first house six or seven years ago, and started learning about the process & how loans work, I had banker after banker AFTER BANKER explain to me the virtues of variable rates & the benefits of paying interest only. The prevailing sentiment then - among realtors, banks, investment strategists, & regular folks on the street - was that house prices were merely keeping pace with the Dow, oil, gold, and other tangibles that had also risen 50% to 100% in the past seven years, and that if you did not do whatever it took to get into a piece of property, the possibility of home ownership would sail away for ever. In that climate, when buying my first house, I FELT PRESSURED to abandon concepts like "locking rates while they are at historic lows rather than gamble on a variable loan" and "borrow what I can afford to pay back NOT what I have been approved for." And it is not because the people I was talking to were greedy or ruin me financially - they simply believed that in a rapidly rising market, that it was in my best interest to leverage myself as much as possible.
(In case anyone cares, I did make many responsible choices when I bought my house (in some part based on perspectives I gained from participating in this thread, back before it even hit 1K posts...) but I think I am the exception to the rule of the past five to seven years - and believe me, this crisis is still hitting home in terms of options I have now lost (selling, borrowing, etc.) at a time when my job and the job market as a whole seems uncertain.)
To get back to the broader discussion at hand, to hear so many arm chair quarterbacks call it, the problem's our economy are now facing are rooted in the fact that a few greedy people bought houses they could not afford, and frankly, this assessment makes me angry, when the much, much much broader reality is that a lot of NON-GREEDY people bought into this system merely because that was the system that was in place when they stepped up to the plate. Remember: most consumers (and that includes homebuyers) are not thinking like economists, they simply are folks shopping for what they need and in that sense are as much at the mercy of their realtors & loan brokers when it comes to gathering information as they are to mattress salesman when they need a new bed and their auto mechanic when their car breaks down. It is easy to dismiss anyone who bought a house terms that are anything less than 30-year fixed as greedy and stretching beyond their means - however, I would suggest (and this perspective has not really been voiced in this thread) that the real scenarios at work are more complex & ethically ambiguous.
<< <i>With the exception of the bubble regions of the country (Vegas, Fla., parts of CA), few people who bought 7 years ago and put down a reasonable downpayment should be underwater now. >>
If buy bubble regions you mean any place where home values have fallen 35% in the last year than at this point I would suggest that virtually the whole country fits such criteria. Is Traverse City, Michigan a bubble market? My Mom lives there - and she says home prices are off by as much as 40% from their highs of two years ago.
And also, what does the down payment have to do with ANYTHING? In terms of buying and selling an asset, is the money you put down somehow worth less than the money you borrowed when assessing whether or not you are upside down on your investment? Say two guys buy two houses for $250K each - guy #1 puts down $125K, and guy #2 puts $25K - only now the houses are worth $150K - by your definition, is guy number #1 somehow less upside down than guy #2?
<< <i>A lot of the people who are in trouble are also carrying a ton of other debt on credit cards, car loans, HELOC's etc. It's hard to convince the majority who have been paying their bills that it make sense to bail out the 3% who haven't. >>
Is it the people who borrowed irresponsibly that are to blame? Or the lenders who made the bad loans? Or the politicians on both sides of the aisle whose policies in part created the economic climate of the past five to seven years? TO be clear, I am not arguing for or against the concept of a bailout, but rather for the idea that the problems WE ARE ALL FACING do not begin & end with the "3%" you are referring to.
Traverse City MI is an upscale place people bought second homes to visit during summer vacation. It was a booming area for a while with a cute little downtown for shopping.
It does not surprise me in the least that over priced land and homes in that area took a bigger crash then the rest of MI in general.
I have been to that city so many times I have forgotten. Great place to shop, get dinner, buy some taffy, and visit the art shows.
"Say two guys buy two houses for $250K each - guy #1 puts down $125K, and guy #2 puts $25K - only now the houses are worth $150K - by your definition, is guy number #1 somehow less upside down than guy #2?"
Guy #1 has 50% skin in the house and sells and has 25K proceeds (and take the write off for the rest). He's mobile and liquid and looking for a tax credit next year. Guy #2 has 10% skin in the house and can't sell, is not liquid, and is not mobile. He's stuck or walkin' and he isn't going to have any credit taxwise or otherwise.
Your argument is valid and not recognized for the probably common occurance that it was. People like to villify abusers and once the flippers and the nodoc, interest only people got identified, it was easy to cast the whole lot as one group but as you mention, there are a lot of complexities in this situation. The one thing we can probably universally agree to is that there was criminal activity that was tolerated and not prosecuted and it had a noticable effect on the national economy. Unfortunately, the term "Buyer beware" comes to mind but it is well after the fact now.
One of the more interesting phenomena that we are witnessing is that anyone can buy a car with average credit and a down payment. Same thing for a house, just have a cash downpayment and have a qualifying income and decent credit with no foreclosures and you can get a house in most instances. Nothing has really changed. The liquid that makes this economy move around is the flow of cash, not the credit with whom we have had a promiscuous relationship going for a more than a few years. The phenomena is that people are yelling that there is no credit...it has dried up, business can't operate like this. Well, put out some cash and see what happens. We are witnessing the death of the credit market in its current form and the reasons that seem conspicuous is that A.) no one trusts each other's balance books and B.) they just don't have much cash and they sure aren't going to be giving it to a competitor. So, cash is still king; show up with some cash and everything happens just like it used to. Show up waiting for credit and that's what you will be doing, waiting for credit.
As an after thought, this is a lesson or a test, depending on how you percieve the current economic situation. Our situation is good drill for those that wish to stay economically competitive, especially the younger ones. This is one of those spots on the highway where you just want to keep the car on the road and maintain a single lane of travel; if you can get to the other side with only a few rub marks and with your wad mostly intact, you probably did much better than average. If you make money, you are master level. Well, that's my opinion. Game on.
Artist, I'm not blaming just the borrowers - there's plenty of blame to go around. But at some point the homeowners who signed the contract have to take some responsibility, instead of blaming the bank and looking to the taxpayers for a bailout because they bought a house they really couldn't afford.
And also, what does the down payment have to do with ANYTHING? In terms of buying and selling an asset, is the money you put down somehow worth less than the money you borrowed when assessing whether or not you are upside down on your investment? Say two guys buy two houses for $250K each - guy #1 puts down $125K, and guy #2 puts $25K - only now the houses are worth $150K - by your definition, is guy number #1 somehow less upside down than guy #2?
By my definition guy #1 isn't upside down at all. He owes $125k on a house that's worth $150k. Yes, his home has lost value, but he has equity and probably a manageable payment. Guy #2 has a $225k mortgage on a house that's worth $150k, and a much larger payment than guy #1. That's why the down payment matters.
And it is not because the people I was talking to were greedy or ruin me financially - they simply believed that in a rapidly rising market, that it was in my best interest to leverage myself as much as possible.
I think you're being *very* kind towards people who profited and promoted from convincing others to risk financial ruin.
Home values in my area have increased every year since 2002 and are up about 40% in the last 6 years. Not stellar performance but slow and steady, the way real estate is supposed to perform. I have not heard of anyone in mortgage trouble in my area. Tax delinquent, yes, but not mortgage.
GS,
Regarding Iceland, in 1994 Mexico defaulted on its debt. In 1998 Russia defaulted. In 2002, Argentina defaulted. Looks like Iceland is just 2 years late.
Home values in my area have increased every year since 2002 and are up about 40% in the last 6 years. Not stellar performance but slow and steady, the way real estate is supposed to perform. I have not heard of anyone in mortgage trouble in my area. Tax delinquent, yes, but not mortgage.
GS,
Regarding Iceland, in 1994 Mexico defaulted on its debt. In 1998 Russia defaulted. In 2002, Argentina defaulted. Looks like Iceland is just 2 years late. >>
On that thought, let's add...in 2010, USA defaulted on its debt. Seems more plausible with 6 CB actions last night. The talk of a global currency, banking and UN financial Networks getting louder and the only thing in the way is the USA. Get rid of the USA and you have the global financial system.
Home values in my area have increased every year since 2002 and are up about 40% in the last 6 years. Not stellar performance but slow and steady, the way real estate is supposed to perform. I have not heard of anyone in mortgage trouble in my area. Tax delinquent, yes, but not mortgage.
GS,
Regarding Iceland, in 1994 Mexico defaulted on its debt. In 1998 Russia defaulted. In 2002, Argentina defaulted. Looks like Iceland is just 2 years late. >>
On that thought, let's add...in 2010, USA defaulted on its debt. Seems more plausible with 6 CB actions last night. The talk of a global currency, banking and UN financial Networks getting louder and the only thing in the way is the USA. Get rid of the USA and you have the global financial system.
Home values in my area have increased every year since 2002 and are up about 40% in the last 6 years. Not stellar performance but slow and steady, the way real estate is supposed to perform. I have not heard of anyone in mortgage trouble in my area. Tax delinquent, yes, but not mortgage.
GS,
Regarding Iceland, in 1994 Mexico defaulted on its debt. In 1998 Russia defaulted. In 2002, Argentina defaulted. Looks like Iceland is just 2 years late. >>
On that thought, let's add...in 2010, USA defaulted on its debt. Seems more plausible with 6 CB actions last night. The talk of a global currency, banking and UN financial Networks getting louder and the only thing in the way is the USA. Get rid of the USA and you have the global financial system.
Tomas Jefferson said something like this, This country belongs to the living, and the living have the right to choose whatever form of government they might like.
We are the living and we have chosen the socialist form of government.
For the first 175 years of our countries history we had a free republic form of government, and the prices of nearly everything remained the same. In fact we became so prosperous that when our governments begin to ask us, will you not just take a little of your wealth and help others, we agreed.
Perhaps we had no idea that accepting the choice to allow our governments to accelerate our taxes, and distribute our productivity would get so out of control, but then again we did agree.
A system of government control, which under penalty of imprisonment, confiscates 50 to 60% of ones hard-earned capital is not sustainable for very long. When the population can no longer be taxed more, then the governments themselves must print money out of thin air to sustain the dependency of the hungry monster that has been created.
Socialism is a cancer, and once it has reached the proportions it has in this country it is incurable. Only a complete collapse of the monetary system, and the laws that govern it will fix the problem.
Can we find real blame in an individual that must steal in order to feed their family because of lack of money?
Is this situation any different than a home builder that must charge $200 plus a square foot for a home because the price of materials, taxes, and government regulations, are so onerous that he must charge those prices just to feed his family?
What about the mortgage lender who is forced to approve those loans for people that really should never be purchasing a home, just to take care of his family?
Desperation causes people to lose their morality, and for the most part we have become a desperate people.
This countries government belongs to the living, and the majority of us have chosen a socialistic government. At every level of government the majority control rest in the hands of those that just want to give their populations more. If they cannot afford to do this via taxation, they will just create debt and burden future generations.
In nearly every election our choices have become a choice between different types of socialists, and it is no different in the upcoming election.
For those few of us that hate this system of government our only choice is to stay out of the game as much as possible, and stay small as to not attract attention.
First-the downfall started with government education...mindless and dumbing down our students. Making our young citizens hate America and become self-loathing. Sadly, we pay for this...which is illegal isn't it.
Second-taking out J&C values out of our schools, families and court system.
Third-social marxism throughout Hollywood steering impressionable minds into believing they can be a star, have an entourage, bling, and a Paris-Lifestyle on a credit card. Anti-heroes becoming heroes. I know this one close to heart...sister-in-law who is up to her gills in debt and doesn't care.
I feel like a dinosaur. I've never accepted a handout. I bought and sold many houses from 1991 through 2005. Always a fixer. I always left the house better than when I bought. I took calculated risks. Some I flipped and some I had to hold on a little longer than I would like. But I never went beyond my comfort level. In 2003 I started to worry that much in the RE market made no sense and started selling everything and by 2006 I was completely out. Same with stocks...by January 2008 I was nearly 100% out. I'm not a professional in RE or stocks. I didn't wait for the government to tell me what to do. I just read, read, and read. I take responsibility for my actions. That concept is foreign to a large percentage of our population. I told my pilot coworkers all along what I was doing and all I got was the deer-in-the-headlights look. And these guys and gals are suppose to be smart. So how can I convince the Kool Aid crowd that they are taking this country down a dead end road and at the end is a cliff.
I think this will be worse than the Great Depression. At least after the GD, America had hope and a future after defeating dictators. America was on top. This time around, the economic side of the New Great Depression may not be as bad as the 1930's dust bowl version but we may emerge as a different nation. Maybe not even a nation. One that is divided...carved up a redistributed to meld with a new world socialist order. New world currency and order are being bantered about by several nations as we speak.
I cannot in my mind vote for Brand D or Brand R this time around. Besides my "American Idol vote" means nothing anyway. Another joke put upon the sheeple that we actually pick a president. I'll let the EC do that. I'll do my part a pick new grass roots candidates.
I just got off the phone with one of my crewmembers. We are just watching the Dow go from down 180 to down more than 350. All he could say was "I should've got out. I should've got out Monday!" I feel his pain. And then he asks "what do I do now?" How in the world can you give advise in times like this and have it now bite you. At some point I would think there could be a 1,000+ point rally and then get out because our problems will not over for a long time.
I also think that the market is pricing in a Brand D win in November...anti business and higher taxes. I also heard from one of Brand D's henchman that the Bush tax cuts that were to expire in 2010 will be eliminated in 2009 with the help of Pelousy and Reid. I calculated that I personally will pay $1,000 per month if that happens. I guess I will have to pull my kids out of the local Christian school and home school because I will not put them back into g-school.
I got a Brand D tax rate from the local O-camp. The tax cut for anyone under $250,000 is bogus. It's $112,000 where Brand D starts to take a bid chunk out of one's pay. At $66,000-112,000 Brand D will "charge" us $1,290 less and under Brand R we will be charged $1,009 less. A $200 difference.
I guess it really doesn't matter, the dollar will be worthless in the end.
Since the beginning of the year, I'm wondering what part of "this is it" that most people didn't understand? At this point the PPT is completely overwhelmed. Bernanke is nowhere to be found and Paulson keeps coming up with the banking gimmick of the week.
The Dow/gold ratio has finally made it to single digits (9.4) for the first time in 10-15 years.
Comments
Thus sayeth the Cramer:
CRAMER
What's Cramers position on gold? Cramer also likes Ron Paul and frankly a Paul/Cramer duo in the white house would straighten this country out leading to the most prosperous 4 years EVER. Then we would re-elect them. Then Paul would retire and Cramer would become the first Jewish president. All things would be great except for the socialists who would begin to disappear the day after elections.
Coin's for sale/trade.
Tom Pilitowski
US Rare Coin Investments
800-624-1870
<< <i>Get out of stocks NOW!
Thus sayeth the Cramer:
CRAMER
What's Cramers position on gold? Cramer also likes Ron Paul and frankly a Paul/Cramer duo in the white house would straighten this country out leading to the most prosperous 4 years EVER. Then we would re-elect them. Then Paul would retire and Cramer would become the first Jewish president. All things would be great except for the socialists who would begin to disappear the day after elections. >>
Nice recovery.
Is the Fed going to start paying banks to keep reserves?
This appears to be an inconcievable new development.
Paying banks to hold reserves? How much is THAT going to cost us, the taxpayers???
I knew it would happen.
<< <i>
Paying banks to hold reserves? How much is THAT going to cost us, the taxpayers??? >>
No, No. You have it all wrong. The taxpayers are going to MAKE money on this deal. Yeah, thats it.
Random Collector
www.marksmedals.com
<< <i>Bernake speaking now............please explain to me, referring to the $700 billion bailout bill, when he starts talking about the Fed, "paying interest on bank reserves"
Is the Fed going to start paying banks to keep reserves?
This appears to be an inconcievable new development.
Paying banks to hold reserves? How much is THAT going to cost us, the taxpayers??? >>
Only another hundred billion. What's the problem? You don't have that hanging around?
Don'cha worry, good 'ol uncle Sammy's going to cover it for ya.
<< <i>Bernake speaking now............please explain to me, referring to the $700 billion bailout bill, when he starts talking about the Fed, "paying interest on bank reserves"
Is the Fed going to start paying banks to keep reserves?
This appears to be an inconcievable new development.
Paying banks to hold reserves? How much is THAT going to cost us, the taxpayers??? >>
it is an attempt to "free" up the cash that banks have and their commercial paper which is short term loans to established big big companies, a company may have a 500 million or MUCH higher LOC and the fed is going to guarantee it by paying the banks to loan it ....more as business as ususal....
yeah it's something else that could go south but these stop gap measures are getting more creative by the day
US Government Financial Report
and
Summary of US Government Financial Report
I have just glanced over them after hearing about them, but my understanding is these are the REAL numbers not the manipulated numbers, and these come out on December 15th with no announcements, as there is no spin in them. I also understand these are the only audited books of the US Government's debt.
It's now becoming very clear what we have here.
I knew it would happen.
<< <i>Get out of stocks NOW!
Thus sayeth the Cramer:
CRAMER
What's Cramers position on gold? Cramer also likes Ron Paul and frankly a Paul/Cramer duo in the white house would straighten this country out leading to the most prosperous 4 years EVER. Then we would re-elect them. Then Paul would retire and Cramer would become the first Jewish president. All things would be great except for the socialists who would begin to disappear the day after elections. >>
If Cramer says its time to get out , then I am getting in ....gold stocks going down the drain look like a good buy.
Jim Sinclair says (today) that "An implosion of the banking system is coming, which means a bank holiday will occur."
I predict that it will be this Monday......
Probably $TRILLIONs more in the end. The FED is now "banking" in derivatives like everyone else. Yahoo!
Steve Saville explains it in simple terms:
We understand that a provision allowing the Fed to pay interest on bank reserves was included in the Troubled Asset Relief Programme (TARP) approved by Congress late last week. This means that the Fed can now inject unlimited amounts of new money into the financial system without having to worry about pushing the Fed Funds Rate below its target.
The FED can also pay interest to foreign banks as well.
roadrunner
<< <i>In the "old days", weren't banks required to keep a minimum reserve in order to qualify as a member of the (non) Federal (non) Reserve System?
It's now becoming very clear what we have here. >>
There was a 3% reserve requirement.... but the $700 Billion bailout plan eliminated that. There now is no requirement for any reserves. Perhaps the FED is going to pay interest for any reserves held, as an incentive.
That is the gist of what I heard Bernake say today. And I guess that means we are paying banks to take our dollars. OMG. They want to *pay* banks to take dollars and hold them in reserve, but they have no problem taking them from us in taxes. What will they think of next?
Not to worry - now, one of the presidential candidates wants to tack on another $300 Billion over and above the $850 Billion to pay for renegotiated mortgages, so that people who can't afford them can live in nicer houses than those who can afford them!
Hmmmmmmm............Is there anyone here who doesn't think that Sinclair is right? You can't make this stuff up.
I knew it would happen.
<< <i>...so that people who can't afford them can live in nicer houses than those who can afford them! >>
At this point, many, many people are having trouble with their mortgages, not just those who borrowed beyond their means on irresponsible terms. ANYONE who bought a house in the past five to seven years, not just the sub-primers & get rich quick flippers, but nice folks who wanted a place to live and who could afford the payments on their 30 year fixed rate loans are now mostly upside down on their investments, locked into their properties because home loans are now about impossible to obtain, and still obligated to come up with their monthly payments in a rapidly contracting economy.
>>>My Collection
Camelot
the stock bottom one month ago. He is an idiot.
Camelot
<< <i>Will the FED purchase my dental bills? >>
You want a bail out for your abuse of jelly donuts?
John Marnard Keynes, The Economic Consequences of the Peace, 1920, page 235ff
Are they just simply getting beat up along with the total stock market, seems so- its an equity so dump it attitude.
The fundamentals don't seem support this downward action.
Or, could it be that the liquidation of 401k's 457b's etc by the public which have been scared out of the market the past couple weeks,
which held large diverse funds that were partially made up of Minning stocks, thus forcing the fund managers to dump them along with every thing else?
////////////////////
Apples v Oranges.
It has always been that way, to one degree or another.
Corrupt stock-promoters, incompetent BODs, crazy labor-demands,
crazy government regulations, all the bad stuff that all public companies
face confront mining companies.
OTOH, gold is just gold.
i've never wanted to even try to understand charts..but here is a link that may help....even me
if anyone has a better source, i'm all eyes
<< <i>
<< <i>...so that people who can't afford them can live in nicer houses than those who can afford them! >>
At this point, many, many people are having trouble with their mortgages, not just those who borrowed beyond their means on irresponsible terms. ANYONE who bought a house in the past five to seven years, not just the sub-primers & get rich quick flippers, but nice folks who wanted a place to live and who could afford the payments on their 30 year fixed rate loans are now mostly upside down on their investments, locked into their properties because home loans are now about impossible to obtain, and still obligated to come up with their monthly payments in a rapidly contracting economy. >>
If they could afford the payment 5 to 7 years ago and the loan is fixed, they should be able to afford it now, shouldn't they? Unless of course they've suffered a loss of income, and that can happen at any time, regardless of the economy or credit situation. If otoh they are in an adjustable or interest-only, it's probably because they *couldn't* afford the fixed payment, so they shouldn't have bought in the first place. With the exception of the bubble regions of the country (Vegas, Fla., parts of CA), few people who bought 7 years ago and put down a reasonable downpayment should be underwater now. A lot of the people who are in trouble are also carrying a ton of other debt on credit cards, car loans, HELOC's etc. It's hard to convince the majority who have been paying their bills that it make sense to bail out the 3% who haven't.
Play the game fair and this is your reward? THAT's the question of the day.
Now that the blinders are being removed from the Public, you can expect the realization about gold as a store of value to become more pronounced. And that's an understatement.
I knew it would happen.
I don't for a second believe that everyone who bought a house 7 years ago has negative equity today.
Geesh, how ridiculous.
Roubini 7,000 Dow
Coin's for sale/trade.
Tom Pilitowski
US Rare Coin Investments
800-624-1870
<< <i>I don't for a second believe that everyone who bought a house 7 years ago has negative equity today.
Geesh, how ridiculous. >>
I agree, but I did just hear on the news this morning, that one in six homeowners is actually upside down. I bought my house in 2003, refinanced two years later, and I am not upside down though. Most of those upside down probably bought in the last few years in the superfast rising markets, I am in mid-America, and we didn't rise like that.
Well, social security is not socialism unless you are giving that money to someone that hasn't put anything into it. Social security is a ROI on years of contributing your cash into the system; it was not intended to be a gift or "help" for immigrants or any of the other transmogrifications that have been added to the original legislation that created our national retirement program. We have indeed been had by our elected representatives as has our retirement program. Retire at 62-64, YOU EARNED IT, unlike many of the giftees.
If you pay your bills on time, maintain little or no retail credit balances, pay your taxes, and contribute to medicare and social security programs then you can consider yourself as a mullet as well as being the main target of legislators. To counter this, you must take every deduction you can on your taxes even if it means contributing a fair amount of your after tax income to 501 c-3 organizations, you can also utilize deferred compensation packages to keep your income protected until you retire at a lower tax rate, same for having a roth IRA, and any other thing you can do to keep your tax profile down. Another good strategy is to use cash and not credit cards (other than AMEX). Credit cards simply engrandize the issuers of the cards; what may be a moment of convenience for a shopper is little more than funding those predatory credit issuers and nice ceo bonuses. So, it costs too much to buy a stamp and mail out a check and it's just easier to pay on line...try 25% interest on all unpaid balances and don't be late or over balance or that's another $50 in addition to a nice little hickey on your credit report.com, how's that for convenience? In order to dry them up, you have to use cash. There is no reason to cooperate, there is no reason to fund their programs. So, in our present time, it's considered profoundly unpatriotic to retire before 70 and it's also unpatriotic to not pay as much as you can into the tax system. One difference between the wealthy and us cube dwellers is that they get better tax breaks and you can be sure they aren't waiting till 70 to retire. Be like the wealthy, keep your taxes low and retire as soon as you can.
Cash is king, gold is good, don't be a mullet.
rant: OFF
VOTE
BYE BYE ICELAND, WHAT ???
So what is the big deal???
Just print more Krona, aren’t they paying attention to how we do this in the U.S.?
Somebody please send these guys in Iceland an email.
U.K. Freezes Icelandic Bank Assets; Threatens Lawsuit (Update2)
By Caroline Byrne and Poppy Trowbridge
Oct. 8 (Bloomberg) -- Britain froze the U.K. assets of Landsbanki Islands hf and threatened to sue Iceland on behalf of 300,000 bank customers who are blocked from accessing deposits through its online savings unit Icesave.
Iceland's biggest banks have racked up foreign debts equivalent to as much as 12 times the size of the economy, compounding investor gloom worldwide following the collapse of firms including Lehman Brothers Inc. U.K. authorities expected Landsbanki to be declared in default, the Treasury said.
Icesave's Web site said that it wasn't processing deposits or withdrawal requests for a second day. No one answered the phone at Icesave.
Iceland's banking system is buckling under the weight of debts equal to 12 times the size of the economy, with financial regulators now in charge of the second and third largest banks, Glitnir Bank hf and Landsbanki Islands hf. As the crisis mounts, the central bank today gave up an attempt to fix the exchange rate, indicating it is powerless to halt the slump in the krona.
I have said this here before many times. U.S. small business owners, and all those that really work for a living pay 50% to 60% of all their earnings in one tax or another.
This number of course did not include S.C. as this was sold to the American public as an insurance program for retirement. We all know that all the S.C. money is gone, spent by congress on pork or whatever else.
MH,
Any of us that make any money form other savings or partial employment are going to get means tested out of the S.C. program over the next few years, therefore S.C. has become just another hidden TAX.
All Americans can increase their spendable incomes if they fight tooth and nail to NOT pay any tax they can avoid!
For those new here, the list is below,
We might as well add all money paid into Social Security
TAXES
Accounts Receivable Tax
Building Permit Tax
Capital Gains Tax
CDL license Tax
Cigarette Tax
Corporate Income Tax
Court Fines (indirect taxes)
Dog License Tax
Federal Income Tax
Federal Unemployment Tax (FUTA)
Fishing License Tax
Food License Tax
Fuel permit tax
Gasoline Tax (42 cents per gallon)
Hunting License Tax
Inheritance Tax Interest expense (tax on the money)
Inventory tax IRS Interest Charges (tax on top of tax)
IRS Penalties (tax on top of tax)
Liquor Tax
Local Income Tax
Luxury Taxes
Marriage License Tax
Medicare Tax
Property Tax
Real Estate Tax
Septic Permit Tax
Service Charge Taxes
Social Security Tax
Road Usage Taxes (Truckers)
Sales Taxes
Recreational Vehicle Tax
Road Toll Booth Taxes
School Tax
State Income Tax
State Unemployment Tax (SUTA)
Telephone federal excise tax
Telephone federal universal service fee tax
Telephone federal, state and
local surcharge taxes
Telephone minimum usage surcharge tax
Telephone recurring and non-recurring charges tax
Telephone state and local tax
Telephone usage charge tax
Toll Bridge Taxes
Toll Tunnel Taxes
Traffic Fines (indirect taxation)
Trailer Registration Tax
Utility Taxes
Vehicle License Registration Tax
Vehicle Sales Tax
Watercraft Registration Tax
Well Permit Tax
Workers Compensation Tax
COMMENTS:
Not one of these taxes existed 100 years ago and our nation was the most prosperous in the world, had absolutely no national debt, had the largest middle class in the world and only one parent had to work to support the family.
<< <i>If they could afford the payment 5 to 7 years ago and the loan is fixed, they should be able to afford it now, shouldn't they? Unless of course they've suffered a loss of income, and that can happen at any time, regardless of the economy or credit situation. >>
Yes it could happen at any time - however, the fact is that WE ARE NOW at point in the economy where MANY, MANY, MANY homeowners, even responsible ones who have locked rates, no credit debt & six months savings in the bank, ARE GOING TO BE IN REAL TROUBLE because of the way the economy is rapidly contracting RIGHT NOW.
What is making matters worse, is that these RESPONSIBLE people who may now be recognizing how the markets or their own situations may be changing DO NOT HAVE THE OPTION to sell. Even if they were willing or able to take a horrific 50% loss, the problem is there are hardly any loans out there to be had for the people they want to sell to.
<< <i>If otoh they are in an adjustable or interest-only, it's probably because they *couldn't* afford the fixed payment, so they shouldn't have bought in the first place. >>
I am thirty six years old. When I started thinking about buying my first house six or seven years ago, and started learning about the process & how loans work, I had banker after banker AFTER BANKER explain to me the virtues of variable rates & the benefits of paying interest only. The prevailing sentiment then - among realtors, banks, investment strategists, & regular folks on the street - was that house prices were merely keeping pace with the Dow, oil, gold, and other tangibles that had also risen 50% to 100% in the past seven years, and that if you did not do whatever it took to get into a piece of property, the possibility of home ownership would sail away for ever. In that climate, when buying my first house, I FELT PRESSURED to abandon concepts like "locking rates while they are at historic lows rather than gamble on a variable loan" and "borrow what I can afford to pay back NOT what I have been approved for." And it is not because the people I was talking to were greedy or ruin me financially - they simply believed that in a rapidly rising market, that it was in my best interest to leverage myself as much as possible.
(In case anyone cares, I did make many responsible choices when I bought my house (in some part based on perspectives I gained from participating in this thread, back before it even hit 1K posts...) but I think I am the exception to the rule of the past five to seven years - and believe me, this crisis is still hitting home in terms of options I have now lost (selling, borrowing, etc.) at a time when my job and the job market as a whole seems uncertain.)
To get back to the broader discussion at hand, to hear so many arm chair quarterbacks call it, the problem's our economy are now facing are rooted in the fact that a few greedy people bought houses they could not afford, and frankly, this assessment makes me angry, when the much, much much broader reality is that a lot of NON-GREEDY people bought into this system merely because that was the system that was in place when they stepped up to the plate. Remember: most consumers (and that includes homebuyers) are not thinking like economists, they simply are folks shopping for what they need and in that sense are as much at the mercy of their realtors & loan brokers when it comes to gathering information as they are to mattress salesman when they need a new bed and their auto mechanic when their car breaks down. It is easy to dismiss anyone who bought a house terms that are anything less than 30-year fixed as greedy and stretching beyond their means - however, I would suggest (and this perspective has not really been voiced in this thread) that the real scenarios at work are more complex & ethically ambiguous.
<< <i>With the exception of the bubble regions of the country (Vegas, Fla., parts of CA), few people who bought 7 years ago and put down a reasonable downpayment should be underwater now. >>
If buy bubble regions you mean any place where home values have fallen 35% in the last year than at this point I would suggest that virtually the whole country fits such criteria. Is Traverse City, Michigan a bubble market? My Mom lives there - and she says home prices are off by as much as 40% from their highs of two years ago.
And also, what does the down payment have to do with ANYTHING? In terms of buying and selling an asset, is the money you put down somehow worth less than the money you borrowed when assessing whether or not you are upside down on your investment? Say two guys buy two houses for $250K each - guy #1 puts down $125K, and guy #2 puts $25K - only now the houses are worth $150K - by your definition, is guy number #1 somehow less upside down than guy #2?
<< <i>A lot of the people who are in trouble are also carrying a ton of other debt on credit cards, car loans, HELOC's etc. It's hard to convince the majority who have been paying their bills that it make sense to bail out the 3% who haven't. >>
Is it the people who borrowed irresponsibly that are to blame? Or the lenders who made the bad loans? Or the politicians on both sides of the aisle whose policies in part created the economic climate of the past five to seven years? TO be clear, I am not arguing for or against the concept of a bailout, but rather for the idea that the problems WE ARE ALL FACING do not begin & end with the "3%" you are referring to.
>>>My Collection
to visit during summer vacation. It was a booming area for a while
with a cute little downtown for shopping.
It does not surprise me in the least that over priced land and homes
in that area took a bigger crash then the rest of MI in general.
I have been to that city so many times I have forgotten. Great place
to shop, get dinner, buy some taffy, and visit the art shows.
Guy #1 has 50% skin in the house and sells and has 25K proceeds (and take the write off for the rest). He's mobile and liquid and looking for a tax credit next year.
Guy #2 has 10% skin in the house and can't sell, is not liquid, and is not mobile. He's stuck or walkin' and he isn't going to have any credit taxwise or otherwise.
Your argument is valid and not recognized for the probably common occurance that it was. People like to villify abusers and once the flippers and the nodoc, interest only people got identified, it was easy to cast the whole lot as one group but as you mention, there are a lot of complexities in this situation. The one thing we can probably universally agree to is that there was criminal activity that was tolerated and not prosecuted and it had a noticable effect on the national economy. Unfortunately, the term "Buyer beware" comes to mind but it is well after the fact now.
One of the more interesting phenomena that we are witnessing is that anyone can buy a car with average credit and a down payment. Same thing for a house, just have a cash downpayment and have a qualifying income and decent credit with no foreclosures and you can get a house in most instances. Nothing has really changed. The liquid that makes this economy move around is the flow of cash, not the credit with whom we have had a promiscuous relationship going for a more than a few years. The phenomena is that people are yelling that there is no credit...it has dried up, business can't operate like this. Well, put out some cash and see what happens. We are witnessing the death of the credit market in its current form and the reasons that seem conspicuous is that A.) no one trusts each other's balance books and B.) they just don't have much cash and they sure aren't going to be giving it to a competitor. So, cash is still king; show up with some cash and everything happens just like it used to. Show up waiting for credit and that's what you will be doing, waiting for credit.
As an after thought, this is a lesson or a test, depending on how you percieve the current economic situation. Our situation is good drill for those that wish to stay economically competitive, especially the younger ones. This is one of those spots on the highway where you just want to keep the car on the road and maintain a single lane of travel; if you can get to the other side with only a few rub marks and with your wad mostly intact, you probably did much better than average. If you make money, you are master level. Well, that's my opinion. Game on.
Good post, Artist
And also, what does the down payment have to do with ANYTHING? In terms of buying and selling an asset, is the money you put down somehow worth less than the money you borrowed when assessing whether or not you are upside down on your investment? Say two guys buy two houses for $250K each - guy #1 puts down $125K, and guy #2 puts $25K - only now the houses are worth $150K - by your definition, is guy number #1 somehow less upside down than guy #2?
By my definition guy #1 isn't upside down at all. He owes $125k on a house that's worth $150k. Yes, his home has lost value, but he has equity and probably a manageable payment. Guy #2 has a $225k mortgage on a house that's worth $150k, and a much larger payment than guy #1. That's why the down payment matters.
I think you're being *very* kind towards people who profited and promoted from convincing others to risk financial ruin.
Home values in my area have increased every year since 2002 and are up about 40% in the last 6 years. Not stellar performance but slow and steady, the way real estate is supposed to perform. I have not heard of anyone in mortgage trouble in my area. Tax delinquent, yes, but not mortgage.
GS,
Regarding Iceland, in 1994 Mexico defaulted on its debt. In 1998 Russia defaulted. In 2002, Argentina defaulted. Looks like Iceland is just 2 years late.
Lots of areas not suffering from declining home prices.
Knowledge is the enemy of fear
<< <i>Just adding some comment...
Home values in my area have increased every year since 2002 and are up about 40% in the last 6 years. Not stellar performance but slow and steady, the way real estate is supposed to perform. I have not heard of anyone in mortgage trouble in my area. Tax delinquent, yes, but not mortgage.
GS,
Regarding Iceland, in 1994 Mexico defaulted on its debt. In 1998 Russia defaulted. In 2002, Argentina defaulted. Looks like Iceland is just 2 years late. >>
On that thought, let's add...in 2010, USA defaulted on its debt. Seems more plausible with 6 CB actions last night. The talk of a global currency, banking and UN financial Networks getting louder and the only thing in the way is the USA. Get rid of the USA and you have the global financial system.
Ren
are down 3% from what they sold for 5 years ago.
Those areas that had the fastest increases are
now having the biggest down sides. The areas
that have seen slow and steady increases over the
years, seem to be holding their values.
Camelot
<< <i>
<< <i>Just adding some comment...
Home values in my area have increased every year since 2002 and are up about 40% in the last 6 years. Not stellar performance but slow and steady, the way real estate is supposed to perform. I have not heard of anyone in mortgage trouble in my area. Tax delinquent, yes, but not mortgage.
GS,
Regarding Iceland, in 1994 Mexico defaulted on its debt. In 1998 Russia defaulted. In 2002, Argentina defaulted. Looks like Iceland is just 2 years late. >>
On that thought, let's add...in 2010, USA defaulted on its debt. Seems more plausible with 6 CB actions last night. The talk of a global currency, banking and UN financial Networks getting louder and the only thing in the way is the USA. Get rid of the USA and you have the global financial system.
Ren >>
England will default way before the USA.
Knowledge is the enemy of fear
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>Just adding some comment...
Home values in my area have increased every year since 2002 and are up about 40% in the last 6 years. Not stellar performance but slow and steady, the way real estate is supposed to perform. I have not heard of anyone in mortgage trouble in my area. Tax delinquent, yes, but not mortgage.
GS,
Regarding Iceland, in 1994 Mexico defaulted on its debt. In 1998 Russia defaulted. In 2002, Argentina defaulted. Looks like Iceland is just 2 years late. >>
On that thought, let's add...in 2010, USA defaulted on its debt. Seems more plausible with 6 CB actions last night. The talk of a global currency, banking and UN financial Networks getting louder and the only thing in the way is the USA. Get rid of the USA and you have the global financial system.
Ren >>
England will default way before the USA. >>
I thought they had already about 60 years ago.
R
Box of 20
WHO’S FAULT IS IT?
It’s everyone’s fault!
Tomas Jefferson said something like this, This country belongs to the living, and the living have the right to choose whatever form of government they might like.
We are the living and we have chosen the socialist form of government.
For the first 175 years of our countries history we had a free republic form of government, and the prices of nearly everything remained the same. In fact we became so prosperous that when our governments begin to ask us, will you not just take a little of your wealth and help others, we agreed.
Perhaps we had no idea that accepting the choice to allow our governments to accelerate our taxes, and distribute our productivity would get so out of control, but then again we did agree.
A system of government control, which under penalty of imprisonment, confiscates 50 to 60% of ones hard-earned capital is not sustainable for very long. When the population can no longer be taxed more, then the governments themselves must print money out of thin air to sustain the dependency of the hungry monster that has been created.
Socialism is a cancer, and once it has reached the proportions it has in this country it is incurable. Only a complete collapse of the monetary system, and the laws that govern it will fix the problem.
Can we find real blame in an individual that must steal in order to feed their family because of lack of money?
Is this situation any different than a home builder that must charge $200 plus a square foot for a home because the price of materials, taxes, and government regulations, are so onerous that he must charge those prices just to feed his family?
What about the mortgage lender who is forced to approve those loans for people that really should never be purchasing a home, just to take care of his family?
Desperation causes people to lose their morality, and for the most part we have become a desperate people.
This countries government belongs to the living, and the majority of us have chosen a socialistic government. At every level of government the majority control rest in the hands of those that just want to give their populations more. If they cannot afford to do this via taxation, they will just create debt and burden future generations.
In nearly every election our choices have become a choice between different types of socialists, and it is no different in the upcoming election.
For those few of us that hate this system of government our only choice is to stay out of the game as much as possible, and stay small as to not attract attention.
I would like to add a few points if I may:
First-the downfall started with government education...mindless and dumbing down our students. Making our young citizens hate America and become self-loathing. Sadly, we pay for this...which is illegal isn't it.
Second-taking out J&C values out of our schools, families and court system.
Third-social marxism throughout Hollywood steering impressionable minds into believing they can be a star, have an entourage, bling, and a Paris-Lifestyle on a credit card. Anti-heroes becoming heroes. I know this one close to heart...sister-in-law who is up to her gills in debt and doesn't care.
I feel like a dinosaur. I've never accepted a handout. I bought and sold many houses from 1991 through 2005. Always a fixer. I always left the house better than when I bought. I took calculated risks. Some I flipped and some I had to hold on a little longer than I would like. But I never went beyond my comfort level. In 2003 I started to worry that much in the RE market made no sense and started selling everything and by 2006 I was completely out. Same with stocks...by January 2008 I was nearly 100% out. I'm not a professional in RE or stocks. I didn't wait for the government to tell me what to do. I just read, read, and read. I take responsibility for my actions. That concept is foreign to a large percentage of our population. I told my pilot coworkers all along what I was doing and all I got was the deer-in-the-headlights look. And these guys and gals are suppose to be smart. So how can I convince the Kool Aid crowd that they are taking this country down a dead end road and at the end is a cliff.
I think this will be worse than the Great Depression. At least after the GD, America had hope and a future after defeating dictators. America was on top. This time around, the economic side of the New Great Depression may not be as bad as the 1930's dust bowl version but we may emerge as a different nation. Maybe not even a nation. One that is divided...carved up a redistributed to meld with a new world socialist order. New world currency and order are being bantered about by several nations as we speak.
I cannot in my mind vote for Brand D or Brand R this time around. Besides my "American Idol vote" means nothing anyway. Another joke put upon the sheeple that we actually pick a president. I'll let the EC do that. I'll do my part a pick new grass roots candidates.
rant out.
Ren
"I would like to add a few points if I may:"
renman95,
Thank you for your post also.
There are still alot of us out there but our minority is so small now, I believe all we can do is stand and watch, very sad!
I also think that the market is pricing in a Brand D win in November...anti business and higher taxes. I also heard from one of Brand D's henchman that the Bush tax cuts that were to expire in 2010 will be eliminated in 2009 with the help of Pelousy and Reid. I calculated that I personally will pay $1,000 per month if that happens. I guess I will have to pull my kids out of the local Christian school and home school because I will not put them back into g-school.
I got a Brand D tax rate from the local O-camp. The tax cut for anyone under $250,000 is bogus. It's $112,000 where Brand D starts to take a bid chunk out of one's pay. At $66,000-112,000 Brand D will "charge" us $1,290 less and under Brand R we will be charged $1,009 less. A $200 difference.
I guess it really doesn't matter, the dollar will be worthless in the end.
Buy gold!
Ren
Amen, preach it brother.
GoldSaint,
I know that "we are a minority" feeling. The cliff does appear closer for our socioecnomic experiment gone bad.
The Dow/gold ratio has finally made it to single digits (9.4) for the first time in 10-15 years.
roadrunner