FXramper From United States of America, joined Dec 2005, 7023 posts, RR: 93 Posted (5 years 4 months 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 1760 times:
President Bush on Friday urged that an economic stimulus package worth nearly $150 billion be passed immediately to head off a nationwide slump, while expressing confidence that the sagging economy will rebound.
Under a White House plan, rebates of up to $800 for individuals and $1,600 for married couples are being considered as one-time tax rebates.
AGM100 From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 5407 posts, RR: 18 Reply 3, posted (5 years 4 months 3 days ago) and read 1735 times:
We have been enjoying one of the best economies ever over the past several years. I do not give allot of credit to the administration or the federal government for this. Although some experts point to tax cuts , I believe it is more than that . The good economy has more to do with the American people and the people around the world who invent , invest and work hard to buy ,sell and market goods. The current down turn can be blamed on some bad judgements by bankers and the over-hyping by the press for political reasons. If you say recession enough ..it is going to happen and frankly the Dems need it to happen .
I for one am taking advantage of the down turn , buying a second house (cheap) and picking up stocks that were over priced. I guess I am optimistic even though I see clearly some real bad signs. The US economy may not rebound like it did in the 90's. I am worried about the world economies decoupling from ours , this may well effect the ability of the US economy to rebound like before.
The economy must go up and down ... thats it.
Quoting FXramper (Thread starter): This thread isn't intended to discuss the Presidency or lack thereof
good luck
You dig the hole .. I fill the hole . 100% employment !
Pope From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 5, posted (5 years 4 months 3 days ago) and read 1705 times:
This is a band-aid to a severed limb.
The economy is about to tank because of a negative savings rates and rampant consumer spending brought about by credit that was too easy to get and too cheaply priced.
The single best way to rest the economy is to bust the bubble that exists in the housing market so that the middle class can again go out and buy houses they can afford. The quickest way to do this is to raise interest rate NOT CUT THEM. Higher rates will force housing prices to fall as a new equilibrium is establish as the demand drops quickly in the short run and the supply grows.
As housing becomes more affordable people will buy home and as the housing market improves, the rest of the economy, including consumer spending will recover with it.
The idiots who overpaid for housing have to lose money - there's just no way around that problem. The government can't force companies to write off what in many cases is 30% of the loan value. Reckless consumers over extended themselves and now the time has come to settle up.
AndesSMF From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 6, posted (5 years 4 months 3 days ago) and read 1700 times:
Quoting FXramper (Reply 2): Bernanke: Juice the economy 'quickly'!
That is the current problem, and not just in the US. Too much juice. This current down cycle should be used to remove the excesses created and to start a new cycle, that should be based in actual production, as opposed to the rampant speculation that has occurred in the last years.
AsstChiefMark From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 7, posted (5 years 4 months 3 days ago) and read 1682 times:
Gut feeling: I ain't gonna work. It's just something to distract Americans from the country's real problems (which, according to FXramper, we aren't allowed to mention).
AirportSeven From United States of America, joined Feb 2007, 327 posts, RR: 0 Reply 8, posted (5 years 4 months 3 days ago) and read 1682 times:
Whoo hoo! Stay the course! Stay the course! If we keep doing the sames things over and over again, we can expect different results, right? Right?
Taking a quick look at our current finances, we are running a budget deficit and a trade deficit. Where will the money come from to pay for these rebates and tax cuts? Nobody's mentioned any spending cuts, so it kind of sounds like we are going to have to continue borrowing to pay for giving ourselves money.
Does anyone in this administration or the Federal Reserve have any ideas other than cutting taxes, borrowing and spending, and cutting interest rates? Anyone? We are heading towards a recession, and these are the best ideas that the people in charge can come up with?
Borrowing from one credit source to repay another credit source is called "kiting" at the consumer level. It is considered to be fraud.
Quoting Pope (Reply 5): The economy is about to tank because of a negative savings rates and rampant consumer spending brought about by credit that was too easy to get and too cheaply priced.
And we are all about to get signed up for a high interest loan and told to go blow the proceeds on shit we don't need as a short term boost to the economy without any thought to really fixing what is wrong.
CATSFAN From United States of America, joined Jan 2008, 136 posts, RR: 0 Reply 9, posted (5 years 4 months 2 days 23 hours ago) and read 1670 times:
Quoting Pope (Reply 5): The quickest way to do this is to raise interest rate NOT CUT THEM. Higher rates will force housing prices to fall as a new equilibrium is establish as the demand drops quickly in the short run and the supply grows.
By lowering interest rates you allow those people who are stuck in ARM mortgages the ability to refinance thus "affording" the house they currently have or a new house they are interested in buying. So, possibly raising interest rate could only make affordable housing less obtainable to those people with financial issues. A saturation of the housing market combined with defaulted loans has already driven down housing prices. I am thinking of buying investment properties due to the recent decline in prices.
Pope From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 10, posted (5 years 4 months 2 days 23 hours ago) and read 1662 times:
Quoting AirportSeven (Reply 8): And we are all about to get signed up for a high interest loan and told to go blow the proceeds on shit we don't need as a short term boost to the economy without any thought to really fixing what is wrong.
Quite the opposite. Global interest rates are falling. Have you seen the yield on US Treasuries lately? It's almost free to borrow money in the 5 to 10 year horizon. Heck many would argue that the real rate of interest (interest rate less inflation) is negative.
The fundamental problem is that government should not involve itself in markets. The current problem exists because the Fed kept pumping cheap money into the market and therefore created an asset pricing bubble. The answer cannot be, pump more money into the market.
I do agree that we need to address the long-term issues of deficit spending. But no person is ever going to be elected to anything by advocating and following through on the promise to cut the size of government. Government is a self-protecting institution. All branches want more power and power is largely measured by money.
AndesSMF From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 11, posted (5 years 4 months 2 days 23 hours ago) and read 1656 times:
Quoting CATSFAN (Reply 9): By lowering interest rates you allow those people who are stuck in ARM mortgages the ability to refinance thus "affording" the house they currently have or a new house they are interested in buying.
Not all of them, since a good chunk of them were not paying loan principal or even full interest. Or if they had multiple properties, it doesn't help when they are upside down on what they owe.
Quoting CATSFAN (Reply 9): So, possibly raising interest rate could only make affordable housing less obtainable to those people with financial issues.
Some investors may demand higher returns (via higher interest rates) to offset the higher risks.
Quoting CATSFAN (Reply 9): I am thinking of buying investment properties due to the recent decline in prices.
I would be very careful, as I see a saturation of both for sale and for rent units. You could purchase a house that would give you positive returns, provided you can find a renter for it.
AirCop From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 12, posted (5 years 4 months 2 days 23 hours ago) and read 1653 times:
Quoting Cfalk (Reply 4): Quoting Seb146 (Reply 1):
Will Americans have to repay the rebates like before?
Hmmm. I don't recall that. When did that happen?
The last time they did this, you were supposed to claim your rebate on your income taxes as income.
Quoting AGM100 (Reply 3): The good economy has more to do with the American people and the people around the world who invent , invest and work hard to buy ,sell and market goods.
Research and development of new ideas/concepts are the magic words..
Quoting AGM100 (Reply 3): The current down turn can be blamed on some bad judgements by bankers
One word = greed.
Quoting AGM100 (Reply 3): If you say recession enough ..it is going to happen
You are correct.
Last time the government did this, most taxpayers used the rebates to pay down credit cards, savings etc, which really didn't help the economy rebound, you really need the money spent on new consumer items.
Pope From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 13, posted (5 years 4 months 2 days 23 hours ago) and read 1648 times:
Quoting CATSFAN (Reply 9): By lowering interest rates you allow those people who are stuck in ARM mortgages the ability to refinance thus "affording" the house they currently have or a new house they are interested in buying. So, possibly raising interest rate could only make affordable housing less obtainable to those people with financial issues. A saturation of the housing market combined with defaulted loans has already driven down housing prices. I am thinking of buying investment properties due to the recent decline in prices.
I respectfully submit that there are several errors in this line of thinking:
1. People who can refinance have already done so. Every day it's becoming increasingly clear that many of the people affected by this problem cannot afford the house they're in even if it had no interest on the loan. Someone whose overpaid for a house (or for that matter any asset) has to take a loss at some point.
The National Association of Realtors claim that the median home price is $220,000 in the US. The median US income is in the low $40,000's. The problem is that the old rule of thumb was that you could afford a house that was between 2.5 and 3 times your gross earnings. Well that means that the median family should be in a house that between $100,000 and $120,000. Given the extent of the overvaluation, people are never going to be able to ride out the pregnant losses that are present. They're going to have to pop that loss.
But even if you ignore the median housing price to median income dilema. Compare rental cost to ownership costs. Cost of owning, including P&I, insurance and taxes are at historical highs versus rents. It frankly is now cheaper to rent than to own. The premium is now about 30% above its historical averages. Again, that indicates that housing is substantially overvalued.
2. It only makes sense to buy housing now if you believe we've hit bottom. My bet is that we haven't and buying tangible assets with a very tangible carrying cost (your insurance and property taxes alone) while the market is still declining is like trying to catch a falling knife.
FXramper From United States of America, joined Dec 2005, 7023 posts, RR: 93 Reply 16, posted (5 years 4 months 2 days 23 hours ago) and read 1630 times:
N174UA From United States of America, joined Jun 2006, 993 posts, RR: 0 Reply 18, posted (5 years 4 months 2 days 22 hours ago) and read 1604 times:
Quoting Pope (Reply 5): This is a band-aid to a severed limb.
The economy is about to tank because of a negative savings rates and rampant consumer spending brought about by credit that was too easy to get and too cheaply priced.
The single best way to rest the economy is to bust the bubble that exists in the housing market so that the middle class can again go out and buy houses they can afford. The quickest way to do this is to raise interest rate NOT CUT THEM. Higher rates will force housing prices to fall as a new equilibrium is establish as the demand drops quickly in the short run and the supply grows.
As housing becomes more affordable people will buy home and as the housing market improves, the rest of the economy, including consumer spending will recover with it.
The idiots who overpaid for housing have to lose money - there's just no way around that problem. The government can't force companies to write off what in many cases is 30% of the loan value. Reckless consumers over extended themselves and now the time has come to settle up.
Thank you for reminding me why I have you on my RU list. Curious as to your economics/education background? You have a great handle on macroeconomics, that's for sure.
This rebate thing was done in 2001, and here we are again. It's a band-aid, designed to get people to spend it on something, rather than encourage them to bank it (which I will do, when it arrives) and save it for a rainy day when they lose their jobs.
I don't pretend to know all the answers, not by a long shot. But I know this isn't it. We need more structural, long-term reforms in lending practices, incentives to consumers to save for a rainy day rather than live for the moment, and for retraining for those who lose their jobs due to no fault of their own, extension of unemployment benefits for those who need it, etc. Most importantly, our government, regardless of who runs Congress or is POTUS, needs to slow the rate of deficit spending. While I strongly disagree that a balanced budget amendment is needed, clearly fiscal controls need to be implemented.
I agree with your first point for the most part.....a majority of people who can refi have. The point I was trying to make was there are still people who can benefit from a reduction in interest rates (people who don't have negative equity, are still in their "fixed" term of their ARM).
I however can't agree with your second point.....The "low" point in the housing market depends on so many things (location, demand, inventory, interest rates, market trends, etc...), so the low point in your market may be different than the low point in my market. So, to say that it isn't a good time to buy in general isn't really an accurate statement. People are selling their houses for less than they paid for them 3-5 years ago in my area. A person will only bend so far before it is more advantageous for them to keep a house and eat the carrying costs.
Pope From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 20, posted (5 years 4 months 2 days 22 hours ago) and read 1595 times:
Quoting N174UA (Reply 18): Curious as to your economics/education background?
30 years of watching my parents teach me the value of a dollar and personal responsibility by the way they lived
B.S. (4 years) and M.S. (1 year) in Accounting from the University of FL; minor in finance
5 years in international M&A consulting at a Big 5 Accounting Firm
9+ years as an executive in a privately held company
Read a lot from a lot of different source.
Fundamentally most people know why this happened. They just don't want to accept that the real cure is not going to be easy or pleasant.
AirportSeven From United States of America, joined Feb 2007, 327 posts, RR: 0 Reply 21, posted (5 years 4 months 2 days 22 hours ago) and read 1589 times:
Quoting Pope (Reply 10): Global interest rates are falling. Have you seen the yield on US Treasuries lately? It's almost free to borrow money in the 5 to 10 year horizon. Heck many would argue that the real rate of interest (interest rate less inflation) is negative.
When I said it was a high interest loan, the interest I had in mind was more along the lines of the cost of implementing a short-term solution to a long term problem. Also, what good will it do the U.S. economy to stimulate consumer spending when most consumer items are manufactured in China?
Pope From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 22, posted (5 years 4 months 2 days 22 hours ago) and read 1584 times:
Quoting CATSFAN (Reply 19): I agree with your first point for the most part.....a majority of people who can refi have. The point I was trying to make was there are still people who can benefit from a reduction in interest rates (people who don't have negative equity, are still in their "fixed" term of their ARM).
The problem is that this situation can't be solved on a case-by-case basis. The structural problems involving the unsustainability of housing prices has to be fixed on a macroeconomic level.
Whenever you draw a line and create a policy it's always going to seem most unfair to the people immediately on either side of the line. While I'll accept the premise that there are some people who would benefit from a reduction in rates, I'd say that this is a relatively small number. Bank's aren't foreclosing on loans because people are $100 a month short. They're foreclosing because the vast majority of the people can't pay the principal regardless of the interest rate.
In my estimation, by raising rates you quickly pop the asset pricing bubble. Housing prices will fall dramatically and the economy will reset. The new equilibrium position will allow people to get into the housing market who right now are shut out because of the cost of entry.
But we are never going to solve the basic problem if we don't accept that people are going to get hurt and suffer.
Pope From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 23, posted (5 years 4 months 2 days 22 hours ago) and read 1580 times:
Quoting AirportSeven (Reply 21): When I said it was a high interest loan, the interest I had in mind was more along the lines of the cost of implementing a short-term solution to a long term problem.
But the market doesn't agree with you on that. If the market thought that there was going to be a long-term cost to this then the rate at which the US government borrows would have to reflect the fact that the investment in US government obligations carry a default risk. The Financial Times had an article on this recently.
Quoting AirportSeven (Reply 21): Also, what good will it do the U.S. economy to stimulate consumer spending when most consumer items are manufactured in China?
60% of the US trade deficit comes from our purchasing of oil. Consumer spending has a direct benefit on the US economy. The washer and dryer you buy at Sears may have been manufactured in China / Taiwan / Korea / Canada or Mexico. But it was sold to you by a US company, delivered to the warehouse by a US truck, landed on the dock by a US dock worker. You paid US sales tax on the purchase and the money Sears and everyone else earned is subject to US income tax.
It is obvious that you are well educated on the housing market. Although we have differing views on the current needs of the housing market, I respect your educated views.
I gotta have more cowbell!
25 Pope: I respect your views as well. When it comes to investment decisions there will never be an absolute right or absolute wrong answer. Two people can ha
26 BoeingFever777: Show me the $1600 married rebate tax W!
27 Seb146: I recall during Bush's first term, there were rebates sent out. Taxes went up after that. If I read the information on the GAO website, for example,
28 AndesSMF: Bingo! I still know several people and family, who see and experience the market downturn, but strongly believe that prices will go back to where the
29 MD-90: No, the downturn is the Fed's fault, namely Greenspan's fault for inflating the money supply. Bernanke naturally doesn't appear willing (like Volcker
30 767Lover: No kidding...I definitely didn't pay it back! Bingo. Too many people have been given loans because of a belief that it is a person's right to own a h
31 CATSFAN: Obviously they don't have an option to keep the house if it is being foreclosed unless they can bring the loan current.
32 AndesSMF: Many have no means to bring their loan current, regardless of income level, as they purchased a home wrongly assuming that appreciation would leave t
33 CATSFAN: Again....I was simply clarifying my previous statement. Thought it was implied that forclosure would prevent someone from keeping their house. I made
34 Seb146: So, your taxes were lowered? I wish mine would have been! But, I have just been one of the middle working class...
35 Arrow: This is the elephant in the room. The one thing the administration could do that would be useful is to curb spending and eliminate deficit financing.
36 AndesSMF: The relevant questions are these: What percentage of the world economy has grown by exporting to the US? For example, has China's economy grown expon
37 Aaron747: Couldn't agree more. This is essentially why politicians never cut it when responsible for running their own businesses (just look at the man at the
38 VonRichtofen: I heard on the news that the US economy is about 70% dependent on consumer spending. Is this true? If it is then that's pretty scary. It pretty much f
39 AndesSMF: Pretty much. Trying to prevent it will cause more damage in the future. Yes. No, it is NORMAL. Why? You make a product, you sell a product. Eventuall
40 N174UA: Wow. You and I have very similar educational backgrounds, and my parents too were very smart with their money (both retired at 58 and own their home
41 VonRichtofen: Normal for the US? Or is it "normal" because it's the way the US does it? Wasteful in that it relies on the US population buying shit they don't need
42 AndesSMF: Not in disagreement. A lot of commodities are much cheaper now than before, where it becomes cheaper to replace rather than fix. Again, other countri
43 Falcon84: Sorry, the economy in the 90's blew this one away. There were way too many sectors of the nation that didn't get any benefit from this "great" econom
44 AndesSMF: Sorry, same shit, different president. Why do you think it is now referred to as the dot.com bubble?
45 FXramper: Led by a Republican Congress. Don't hate my folks. I agree. The entire 'stimulus' package is rather silly. Are the final 11 months of the presidency
46 J_Hallgren: As soon as I heard about it, I was thinking about how the last one was so misunderstood, and this one likely would be also if similar...it was a tax r
47 ThreeIfByAir: Amen to that. I'm amazed at the extent of the media coverage on the economy, which I think is fanning the fears of "recession" to unreasonably high l
48 Falcon84: If you want to call a 7-year run on a very good economy a "bubble", then maybe you call this one a "little bubble", because that economy was was stro
49 HuskyAviation: This has already occurred in many, if not most, major markets around the US. Wrong. Actually, this would help the economy rebound, as it would ease t
50 Seb146: And a Democratic President. IIRC, it was working on cooperation and not a "my way or the highway" attitude. If (really big IF) BushCo would listen to
51 Mir: We won't. Unless Iran invades or attacks someone else, we're staying out of there. -Mir
52 PPVRA: Where is all that money gonna come from?
53 AndesSMF: I don't call it a bubble, other do. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dot.com_bubble "The "dot-com bubble" was a speculative bubble covering roughly 1995â
54 HuskyAviation: The Federal treasury. You inject the economy with short-term capital to ease the short-term pain and allow the economy time to restructure itself. I
55 RwSEA: How does this proposal inject any new money into the economy? All it does is shift from the government back to individuals. How about spending $150B o
56 HuskyAviation: In the long-term, I am in total agreement with you. In the short-term, it's not a solution or even a remedy. Even if 10% of the $100 billion (as an e
57 AndesSMF: What is it? No one read books anymore? I am not the ones calling these periods bubbles. These are now periods well accepted to have been bubbly. Here
58 FXramper: Formulation and implementation of policy in the US economy is done solely by the legislative branch; not executive. Your ideas are comical.
59 HuskyAviation: I read plenty of books, and I don't use Wikipedia as my source for economic news. But according to your source, I see no mention of the entire period
60 RwSEA: Then why doesn't the government give vouchers that can be used to pay off credit card or mortgage debt, as opposed to cash? Seems like that would hav
61 N174UA: What about the people who don't have any credit card debt, and own their homes free and clear? Do they get nothing, or would they get a check? While
62 PPVRA: If you were spending money from the treasury, your budget would be balanced. There isn't enough revenue to pay for the current spending level and thi
63 HuskyAviation: How would you correctly target those individuals who have credit card or mortgage debt, the privacy hawks would rightly go crazy if the government ha
64 RwSEA: I wholehartedly agree that everyone should be treated the same. My point is that this "stimulus package" will only have an effect if people use it to
65 ThreeIfByAir: No, you misunderstand the point. I am against every stimulus package. The tax rebate plan just happens to be the worst of the lot. The government is
66 AndesSMF: Are you saying that no bubble existed between the period 1995-2005? I have to agree. The problem was too much spending from people who had no money t
67 Pope: While that might be the case in your personal situation it doesn't mean that the country is better off by adopting that strategy. As I stated above,
68 HuskyAviation: Nope, but every single economic expansion isn't a bubble, nor was there just 1 overarching bubble that consumed every economic sector, which you clai
69 PPVRA: Ben Bernanke would argue that the Great Depression was caused, or at the least significantly worsened, by the Federal Reserve. And the Fed is certain
70 HuskyAviation: Source? The Fed Reserve didn't assume control over strict monetary policy until Paul Volcker was Chairman. Before that, the US government managed the
71 PPVRA: He has an essay on it, published by the Princeton University Press, but I believe you have to purchase it. Wikipedia has a small mention of it: http:/
72 Pope: Interesting Fortune magazine opinion piece of what the Fed should do. To summarize - hold rates steady because lowering them will create an even bigge
73 LTBEWR: If any stimulus money is to be distributed, it must have clear rules: Only US citizens can get it. Only to people with 2007 income of less than $100,0
74 Arrow: Excellent points. Unfortunately the world is casting a big thumbs-down on the stimulus package, Asian markets nosedived and today the Toronto Stock E
75 AirCop: Do you mean US residents, how about all the hard working green card holders that are here legally? Why that amount? $100,000 in Boston/San Francisco
76 LTBEWR: Yes, you make some important points I should have more carefeul describing. The stimulus monies should go to all legal residents. Yes, I understand t
77 Pope: Why? Does my $1 of spending mean any less to the economy than someone elses? If the goal is to increase consumer spending then why not give it to peo
78 AirCop: Works for me.. It would be nice to get the United States government financial house in order, instead of borrowing for everything. Personally, as an
79 Arrow: Cue the sound of a trillion chickens coming home to roost. When you run up a catastrophic debt level through continual deficit financing, you severel
Sponsor Message: 
From United States of America, joined Dec 2005, 7023 posts, 
From , joined Dec 1969, posts, 
Printer friendly format 
