|
World Stock Market in decline (pg. 2)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| madhattared |
| quote: | Originally posted by steven-neil
What's the point in getting out now???... |
The markets (equity and housing) still have plenty of room to fall. |
|
|
| steven-neil |
| quote: | Originally posted by madhattared
The markets (equity and housing) still have plenty of room to fall. |
I'm keeping hold of my houses so in that aspect it's all good..On the other hand I build houses so that's what effects me and it's all bad..Getting rid of one of my houses aint an option 'cos theyre worth nothing.. |
|
|
| jerZ07002 |
| quote: | Originally posted by steven-neil
I'm keeping hold of my houses so in that aspect it's all good..On the other hand I build houses so that's what effects me and it's all bad..Getting rid of one of my houses aint an option 'cos theyre worth nothing.. |
certain aspects of real estate are more insulated than others from these downturns. The rental market doesn't really feel the effect. Plus, you can always hedge against exposure with interest rate futures. |
|
|
| madhattared |
As long as you can hold on to your houses for at least 5 years, 10 is better, you should be okay. But if you can't afford real estate taxes, upkeep, and other housing expenses selling will seem like a bad idea in the short term. In the long term it would be beneficial given the previous assumption. This is all highly circumstantial because I obviously am not aware of your situation, but for the average American household things do not look good. There are some areas like Vegas, Miami and most of California which will be hard hit. Urban New York will take a hit as well, but it will be sheltered somewhat simply because there is little room for new developments.
If you really want to dig deep into the housing problems check out this blog http://calculatedrisk.blogspot.com/ It is highly technical, so it will take a while to absorb the information, but it has critical knowledge of the US housing bust and how it affects consumers. |
|
|
| jerZ07002 |
| quote: | Originally posted by madhattared
As long as you can hold on to your houses for at least 5 years, 10 is better, you should be okay. But if you can't afford real estate taxes, upkeep, and other housing expenses selling will seem like a bad idea in the short term. In the long term it would be beneficial given the previous assumption. This is all highly circumstantial because I obviously am not aware of your situation, but for the average American household things do not look good. There are some areas like Vegas, Miami and most of California which will be hard hit. Urban New York will take a hit as well, but it will be sheltered somewhat simply because there is little room for new developments.
If you really want to dig deep into the housing problems check out this blog http://calculatedrisk.blogspot.com/ It is highly technical, so it will take a while to absorb the information, but it has critical knowledge of the US housing bust and how it affects consumers. |
can you point to the specific discussion you are talking about? |
|
|
| madhattared |
| quote: | Originally posted by jerZ07002
can you point to the specific discussion you are talking about? |
Steven's decisions to hold on to his houses is mostly the first paragraph.
Is this what you were referencing? |
|
|
| DJ Eco |
I think the key to a good economy is the education system. It sounds stupid but hear me out, and follow these steps:
1) From the time they start school, encourage kids to enter and appreciate specializations like engineering, biochemistry, science, architecture. Outstanding students, upon finishing high school, will receive a 4-year free-ride at a good institution of higher-learning in these areas. Instead of starting college funds at the child's age of 3, start a general push for intelligence. Instead of putting kids in pageants and little league at ages they don't understand the sport, foster an appreciation for learning. Cut in half the priority that high schools have given to their sports programs, and allow kids to see the light at the end of the tunnel (free college with good grades and in certain subjects). Use the money from the new top-of-the-line football stadium to begin these programs. Let high school students get a taste of architecture, engineering, and interesting science. And most of all, make teachers' salaries competitive with everyone else's. High school coaches getting more than teachers, that's a disgrace. An independent plumber can make more than the average teacher, another disgrace. Make that an enticing job, to be a good teacher.
2) At the age of 18, the aspiring engineer, architect, or scientist, who worked hard in high school gets a grant to enroll in one of these programs for free. Under the condition that he/she follows through with the program, five years later, the trained worker is released to get a job, with no student debts to pay, and a great salary: money that goes back into society through taxes and obviously spending of that good salary.
3) Most important of all is the role that these certain areas of study play in our economy and our society. Instead of relying on Asian/Indian engineers and architects to design our country's bridges and tunnels, instead of relying on Asian/Indian scientists and doctors to move to this country and rule those trades, the American engineer, scientist, doctor, architect, is making money on his country's projects. People are put to work on these projects, jobs are made, our damaged infrastructure is ameliorated. Doctors and scientists are released and very well trained to develop new drugs, and medical breakthroughs. These are things that will sell at home as well as overseas. This = money for American companies and goes right back into our country in tax dollars.
4) What happens to the people who don't get into those fields? Nothing. Someone who wants to major and PHD in photography can pay the $30,000 a year he/she's paying now. Someone who wants to get into P.R., something our country is not in a shortage of at the moment, they can pay the $30,000 a year. Ideally, our government should make college stop being a big business, but that's another more monumental task, and besides the point. Less scholarships for athletes will help more scholarship for the people I mentioned before, and if colleges aren't willing to make that sacrifice, we tap into our national budget (which at this point hasn't been touched, because it's all self-sufficient up til now).
5) What happens to people who don't want to go to college or don't show signs of really having any drive to? Increase by three times the amount of technical institutes or trade schools in this country. Certain kids aren't made for college, liberal arts, or things like engineering or biochemistry. Allow kids to leave high school at the age of 16 to pursue a career in a trade schools or technical institute (by tech. inst., I mean a 2-year program for things like mechanics, etc., like Devry or ITT), after a two year program of training. There's no reason an 18 year-old who is taught well can't be a good mechanic or lay pipes or build things. Because he/she is so young, allow some of his taxed wages and his complete Social Security (until he reaches 22, which would be his graduation year in college if he went) to support the aforementioned college system. An 18 year-old making wages and getting a jumpstart on other professions is a benificiary in his own way, of this lenient 16 y/o training system, so his money tax money (an 18 year-old before this system wouldn't have to pay many taxes anyway with their part-time jobs, so $20-30,000 at age 18 is a lot for their first four years of work).... Let that support the system.
6) Just stressing again that this country doesn't have to rely on the cutthroatedness and exploitation of its corporations to bring it ahead. By filling certain necessary roles in our workforce (that we import from other countries) and doing away with others (that we export), it affects everything from our real estate to our infrastructure. Hiring a Japanese engineering team because of the lack of an American one being trained to a certain specialized structure; multiply that by thousands of projects that go to American firms when they are better trained; American firms hire and train better-trained American construction workers, which there are more of. Instead of fearing Chinese and European advances in medicine, the more numerous scientists work harder and bring about more advances, which ultimately means a new medicine, or machine, or technique that can be sold in another part of the world. What if the (more numerous and better-trained) United States' scientists discovered an immunization to cancer or AIDS. Sell that to the billions of people in India and China and that, my friends, is how this country starts seeing money again.... Gold rush. More funding and more scientists means more breakthroughs. Thomas Edison invented more and more when this country funded him. The European explorers established more and more trading posts in Canada and the US when their country funded them. |
|
|
| jerZ07002 |
On a somewhat related note, the proposed economic stimulus package is, well, unbelievably nearsighted and doesn't solve the underlying problem with this economy (well, one of the underlying problems - ignoring the glaring debtor nation issue). Giving households a rebate check in july or even later will not solve the problem that banks have less money too lend and are tightening their lending standard for those who they will lend too. Furthermore, consumers are the most nearsighted element in our economy, and they will simply buy some chinese and send alot of that money right back to china (which, not coincidentally, is the same place where we are getting it from). So, essentially, we are borrowing money from china, accruing interest, just to send the money right back. The result will be less effect on the US economy than expected, and massive interest charges being sent back to china. Great stuff. (obviously an oversimplification).
if the government wants to solve the problem it should buy the debt from the banks and transfer it to a quasi-governmental corporation to administer the debt, (it could also modify the debt to help those struggling). That would solve some of the liquidity in the market, and would also result in a return of some of the debt to the government. It wouldn't solve the housing price problems though. |
|
|
| jerZ07002 |
| quote: | Originally posted by madhattared
Steven's decisions to hold on to his houses is mostly the first paragraph.
Is this what you were referencing? |
the first paragraph talks about bond rate for insurers. i meant the part of the discussion that talks about the housing issue. |
|
|
| steven-neil |
| quote: | Originally posted by madhattared
Steven's decisions to hold on to his houses is mostly the first paragraph.
Is this what you were referencing? |
I don't know if this is the case all over but it seems to me that greedy property developers ed things up in FL..At one point it seemed like all my buddies down there had five or six mortgages and now they are totally ed and their credit rating is shot..I never bought my house with the intention of selling it so I'm OK but I've had to put renters in there in order to keep it..
Why I'm so upset is that I spent tens of thousands of dollars renovating a property that is worth less now than when I originally bought it...
I'm more worried about my neighborhood reverting back to the way it was before I bought the place..I'm sure you all know how that works.. |
|
|
| jerZ07002 |
| quote: | Originally posted by DJ Eco
........... |
that wasn't stupid at all. i didn't read the entire thing, but the part about funding engineers, architects, etc... is exactly how i feel. we need problem solvers, not athletes. but you can't totally remove that from high schools. We also can't impose technical education on everyone. You should remember that creativity is paramount to innovation. This is the main reason the US has maintained a tech advantage over other countries. A strict technical background isn't very creative and doesn't allow you to fully think outside the box.
you also need to understand how education is funded in the US. Since the federal government has limited power to actually administer things like education, there is little power to have a nation wide curriculum. States need to take the initiative and fund these things because the fed won't fully fund something if it doesn't entirely pull the strings (which it can't do for education).
although there are significant problems with funding an educational system, i think states should have more math and science schools, which could fast track students into technical universities. If unis with great technical schools like rutgers, MIT, NJIT, Cal Poly, etc... would partner up with states to form technical high school i think we could make great strides.
the one thing i don't totally agree with is your depiction of the US relying on foreign engineers. While asians are certainly a force in the technical field, the US produces some great home grown talent. If you check the top scientists and winners of the nobel price in the sciences, americans are always at the top. |
|
|
| steven-neil |
| James,,another thing that s things up is when the market is good everyone thinks they are a builder..Back home you have to be able to apply your trade to the highest level before you step one foot on a building site...You hit the nail right on the head... |
|
|
|
|
