@Cmdr:
Fact is, MOST people are making the payments on their mortgages. Fact is, unemployment rates are WAY down. Fact is, bankruptcy rates are WAY down. Fact is, we have a growing and robust economy despite the political desires of certain individuals attempting to get power and the media’s best attempts to drive us into a depression.
Most intelligent people,…. like yourself?.. would know that the current unemployment rate is not WAY down (http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.nr0.htm). Most intelligent people… like yourself… are aware of the mass home forclosures that has plagued 2007. Most intelligent people,… yes, like yourself… would not have the economy, as their A-numero-uno concern for this election, a sick but true assessment.
Most intelligent people… eh, I’m tired of saying it… would not have just had a bi-partisan agreement for a major tax rebate if there was not concern for a recession.
Intelligent people, like myself, pulled their money OUT of the banks after reading reports on how many loans they sold at what interest rates
Something our foreign investors are showing signs of doing as well. When the banks lose money everything else begins to deteriorate. Thanks for the help proving my point…. very intelligent. :wink:
A couple of things…
1. Once the GDP has been down 2 quarters in a row, they make the recession “official”, they also BACKDATE the start date to the beginning of the first quarter of decline. The “trick” to profiting in a recession (or staying solvent in one) is to recognize it BEFORE it becomes official once you are 7 months into it (6 months to create 2 quarters, another month for the report to come out). If a recession is officially declared after the 2nd quarter GDP numbers come out 6 months from now, the start date of the recession will officially be placed as January 1, 2008 (3 weeks ago).
2. Most people are making their mortgages… most people are working. That is semantic BS because of how those numbers are normally classified. Hell, even during the Great Depression the VAST MAJORITY of people were working. Unemployment was 25%, but the vast majority WERE working. Most people don’t die of lung cancer either. Does not tell you a damn thing about cancer rates rising or falling though does it?
3. Regarding the robust and growing economy… Consumer spending down in the 4th quarter. Consumer Spending accounts for something like 90% of the current US economy for the past decade or so. We have a net negative savings rate. Median housing prices fell for the year for the first time in 40 years (Vietnam era recession). We have the biggest decline in housing construction in 25 years (early 80’s era recession). Unemployment rates are up nationally more than half a percent in 6 months (which translates to there being 20% more unemployed people than there were).
The only real question is, will the recession be classified as starting 1st quarter 2008, or will the re-stated 4th qtr 2007 numbers show that it actually began in October…
We will know with absolute retroactive finality in July…
Give me a hard number on the MASSIVE fore closures.
Because the last rate I heard was a tenth of a percent were in fore closure. Less then 3% were at risk of fore closure.
And Switch, there is a HUGE difference between 25% unemployed and 5% unemployed. We are at 5%, not 25%. 5% in the mid 1990s was deemed full employment. Thus, we are at full employment.
Furthermore, we are NOT in a recession. Not even Alan Greenspan is saying recession and I’d expect to hear him say it first of all credible sources.
Sure, the pundits who cannot get a job on Wall Street so work for ABC or CBS may be saying it. But since they arn’t good enough to be investment bankers or brokers anyway, why should I listen to them? Especially when darn near everyone is making their mortgages, darn near everyone is employed and darn near everyone feels good about their PERSONAL finances, they are just worried for their neighbors, since the economy is so bad….or so they are told by the media.
@Cmdr:
Give me a hard number on the MASSIVE fore closures.
enjoy.http://realestate.msn.com/buying/Article2.aspx?cp-documentid=5658441
I have been on Realtytrac.com for 2 months looking for more homes. Zillow has alot of stuff too.
@stuka:
@Cmdr:
Give me a hard number on the MASSIVE fore closures.
enjoy.http://realestate.msn.com/buying/Article2.aspx?cp-documentid=5658441
Wow, 100% foreclosure rate!
Oh wait, 80%, oh, they changed it again…
Ya know what, NO WHERE in that article, unless i missed it, does it say X% of homes were foreclosed.
Why? Because it’s barely a single percentage point of all homes that are mortgaged that have been foreclosed on and sold at auction. Why? Because banks DO NOT WANT TO FORECLOSE! They lose money that way! It’s much more profitable to work out deals with the owners, putting them on fixed rates at 8 or 9% and then give them 50 year notes. A thing that is happening very often to avoid foreclosures.
The whole “Everyone is homeless, we’re all going to die! Women and Children hardest hit!” is a product of the headlines. It’s not a reality.
The article says foreclosures up 30%. Okay. 30% of WHAT! 30% of 10 foreclosures is 3 foreclosures. So we went from 10 to 13? Whoopi!
Well, at the very end, they say 500-1000 home owners a month. That means that from a few years ago to today (they claim 100% increase, that means double) we’ve gone from 250-500 a month to 500-1000 a month.
We buy and sell loads more then that WEEKLY! Not to mention, we have millions and millions of families in this country. 500-1000 out of millions is what? That’s right, tenths of a percent, like I said.
Jen, I was drawing a parallel with your PHRASING about “most people are employed, most people are paying their mortgage” etc.
The reason I pooted as I did was to show that REVERSING the normal method of stating those figures creates a bogus appearance. Sure, unemployment may still be below 5%, but it IS 25% HIGHER than it was this time last year…
Okay here since you need a closer look.
http://www.boston.com/realestate/news/articles/2008/01/19/thousands_in_mass_foreclosed_on_in_07/
and: http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/metro/20080123-9999-1n23default.html
and: http://www.businessweek.com/ap/financialnews/D8U5UM800.htm
still more: http://www.modbee.com/business/story/188604.html
But you see this as nothing? Okay. You’re right Jen… the economy and housing slump is a figment of our imagination. Hell, it’s even foolin’ your president.
Jen, if you do not realize what effect 1 in 100 mortgages being in foreclosure means, then I have not the time, desire, nor the space on this site to attempt to educate you on the detriment to the US Economy from such a statistic…
But when the PMI companies start to go belly up in the coming weeks, causing an insurance crisis to add to the housing crisis, the banking crisis, the stock market crisis, the lending capital crisis…
You figure it out… :roll:
4th Qtr Profits:
Bank of America: down 95%
Wachovia: down 97%
@ncscswitch:
Jen, if you do not realize what effect 1 in 100 mortgages being in foreclosure means, then I have not the time, desire, nor the space on this site to attempt to educate you on the detriment to the US Economy from such a statistic…
1% of 300 million is 3 million. I’m not sure how many mortgages there are but since % of our population is 3 million people my guess is that 1% of our homes are over 1 million. and its absurd to say that over 1 million houses foreclosed isn’t bad.
And the Federal Reserve has slashed interest rates (again) in an “emergency move”:
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aEgwdDHD5Fbs&refer=home
Gee, must be 'cause the Federal Reserve are such nice guys and decided to make less money… surely not to stave off impending economic doom. /sarcasm
More homes foreclosing means . . .
MORE STRIPPERS IN VEGAS!!!
Come on people, think about what’s important here!
That’s just it.
The NUMBER of mortgages went up to INSANE levels when the Fed was slashing interest rates to recover from the 2000 recession under the President in 2000.
They made BAD choices.
They are having issues getting people to repay now.
This is NOT an indicator of the economy. Why? Because there is a HUGE percentage of people who ARE paying their mortgages down.
Yea, it sucks for the 1 guy in 1000 who loses his home. Oh well. It sucks for the 1 guy in 1000 that mortgages his house in Vegas and loses everything too. Bad choices have bad consequences.
Yeah, bummer what happened to people in 2000 under that particular presidents watch.
So… that means this one can be blamed on the current president’s watch since you are so inclined of pinning someone’s name to it.
Can’t have your cake and eat too, Jen.
This situation cannot be back dated to anyone before Bush. It’s near the end of his second term. Just short of a decade. Remember that.
Yup. The current president should have made government warnings more forceful to the citizens warning them of the predatory practices of disreputable financial institutions.
Many of the more intelligent people in this nation KNEW that ARMs only go up and Interest Only Payments make no sense because you have no financial stack in your home. If the property DEPRECIATES, then you are upside down in your mortgage and it’s easier for the bank to foreclose.
Currently it’s a lack of public knowledge. Previously it was a lack of governmental over sight.
We are up to 1 in 100 based on the media reports I am hearing, not 1 in 1000.
And as much as my libertarian mind hates to admit it, there are factors that relate to MY wealth and wellbeing as a result of this… if a bunch of my neighbor’s homes go into foreclosure, MY home value declines.
But hey, we removed the standards from lending… mortgages, credit cards, personal loans, 0% APR car loans… you name it, the standards disappeared over the past several years. And we ended up with “false” economic growth since 2000. We robbed Peter to pay Paul, and now Paul has shown up with a civil lawsuit to get his money back…
If your home’s value is declining, then perhaps your home is not worth as much as the papers say?
However, if you look at the long run, what is going to make your home worth more? Government bail outs of people who make poor decisions and bankruptcies in the banking industry, or a brief period of time (say 5 years for argument’s sake, I honestly think 2009 will see a booming housing market again) of correction in the housing market?
I did not say I was in favor of a government bail-out (point of fact I think this check scheme is as much of a joke now as it was in 2001).
What I AM saying is that perhaps some formal standards need to be put in place regarding lending to get rid of the problem children in the system (those that survive this debacle)… the pay day lenders (that are already banned from peddling their wares with service men and women), the loan shark credit cards, the title loans, the no-equity home loans, the no-document home loans, etc.
I mean, if we are going to allow Loan Sharking, then lets be honest and above board about it and let the Mob legally get back in the business… broken knee caps are less of a detriment to the national economy the sub-prime backed loan investment vehicles :-D
But we do have standards for lending. If you are a prime candidate you get a reduced interest rate. If you are a sub-prime candidate (high debt, poor payment history, etc) you get a much higher rate. Also, sub-prime loans are not backed up by Sallie Mae but are instead backed by the bank and/or high risk investors.
If you don’t want to take the risk of losing it all, DO NOT LEND THE MONEY. Do I get a bail out for my CompUSA stock? (In case you are unaware, CompUSA is out of business.) No. Why? There are at least as many share holders of the now worthless CompUSA stock as there are people losing their homes! Maybe more!
Because it is NOT the government’s job to regulate the banks or the stocks. If you want the government to back your high risk loan, then enlist for a couple of years and get your VA Home Loan certificate. Give something to the country before you ask something from the country for a change.
Screw em. It’s harsh, but common. These are people who allegedly hold a high school diploma (or GED) so they should be expected to be able to handle basic arithmetic. They should be able to take their income and subtract their bills from it to determine if they can make the payments, right? We have such a thing as bankruptcy which will secure your house at an interest rate set by the government, right?
These people have options. They just don’t like them. Well, guess what. If I eat nothing but doritos, oreos, ice cream and sugared soda I’ll have options too, deal with obesity, change my diet and/or go to the gym. I may not like the options, but then they are the consequence of poor life choices. (BTW, that is NOT my diet. I live on almost nothing but vegetables and fruits now. Though, I do eat a lot of fish for the protein. And no, I will not come begging you to pay for my medical expenses if I get heavy metal poisoning from the fish either!)
@Cmdr:
Because it is NOT the government’s job to regulate the banks
Actually, this IS one of the defined powers of our Government and goes all the way back to Alexander Hamilton.
