Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
They give a great portion of the population buying power. Believe it or not. The real estate bubble of the mid 2000s was economic growth. Construction went up. Unemployment decreased. What more does there need to be to indicate economic growth?
It is growth alright, of misery. We saw that kind of growth in 2004-2006.
Quote:
Originally Posted by afoigrokerkok
Getting the government out of the way and not engaging in social engineering trying to make it easier for people to become homeowners.
One of the key decisions that led to what right wingers call "great economic period of the 2000s" was the government allowing the top financial giants (none of them survived, BTW) to leverage over 30:1. I'm sure the executives sending lobbyists to Capitol Hill would have preferred no government regulated leveraging at all. Yeah, that would have been even more wonderful.
They give a great portion of the population buying power. Believe it or not. The real estate bubble of the mid 2000s was economic growth. Construction went up. Unemployment decreased. What more does there need to be to indicate economic growth?
An economic or housing bubble is artificially created, weak, the need is not not based upon anything tangible, hence the soap bubble analogy. The housing bubble burst, because it was based upon lies and fraud.
Construction did go up, but it was an artificially created bubble. We did not need all those new homes, and now we have a glut of homes, prices have plummeted, and most of those construction jobs went away.
I just don't see why net value after the bubble matters. The misallocation of resources occurs in the overhang -- too many real estate agents, too many appraisers, too many homebuilders, too many bankers, etc., whose time and resources could've been allocated to other activities; activities which were sustainable in the long term.
That is exactly right.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cletus Awreetus-Awrightus
I'm not real clear on how these rather abstract, unquantifiable costs to the labor markets and productivity would show up as "net value."
You take a net loss on the deal.
I think most [normal] people would puke if they realized the net loss on the housing bubble.
We already have lower taxes. Taxes have little to do with economic behavior. Taxes were higher under Clinton, yet there wwas economic growth.
Have you forgotten the DotCom bubble that burst after Clinton left office?? Don't forget, in the 1990s, China and India were only just starting to flex their manufacturing capability.
Everything has not remained static since the end of WWII. After WWII the US was the only country with an intact manufacturing infrastructure. We were the only game in town for decades. Remember how lousy the cars were that we manufactured in the 1970s? We had 12 month or 12,000 mile warranties, and our quality was not job #1. The cars and other products made by foreign companies were of much better quality, for the same or lesser cost. Car manufacturers were going bankrupt trying to compete with Japan and other foreign companies.
In the 1990s, we saw the rise of China and India, and we have had to adjust again. The world is not static, you cannot compare one decade to the next as if nothing has changed.
High, punitive taxes and costly, onerous regulations most certainly affect economic growth, especially when competing across state lines, and even more so internationally. Competition is what drives the market, having a better idea and product can be undone if the costs of producing it make it unprofitable, because you are unable to compete in the market.
If company A has high taxes and costly work place and EPA regulations, which artificially raise their costs of doing business, and company B has lower taxes and more sensible less costly regulations, then company B has a distinct advantage over company A. If I can manufacture the same or slightly lesser quality product as you, and do it at half the cost, I'll put you out of business.
I think most [normal] people would puke if they realized the net loss on the housing bubble.
When you say a "net loss", are you referring to some number, which exists, is rooted in good data, and can be quantified?
Or is that more of an abstract concept of "loss" ? That's what I'm trying to figure out. I can't imagine how any single number could represent the macroeconomic costs created by bubbles.
Blame the private banking institutions who gave out bad mortgages. Don't blame the federal reserve or politicians.
Why not? The politicians make the rules, create the laws and regulations, and conduct the regulatory oversight, and yet they are to remain blameless???
Why not? The politicians make the rules, create the laws and regulations, and conduct the regulatory oversight, and yet they are to remain blameless???
It is rare for a politician to not be bought out by lobbyist. For that matter, I doubt they even write the rules, they merely sign off on them. What you profess however, is just get the politicians out... nothing to buy. The people getting the rules written in their favor will simply have it all done for free.
Take the de-leveraging issue I mentioned earlier (also applies to the Corzine debacle, same issue continued).
1- The government regulates leveraging ratio for financial institutions to 8:1
2- The government regulates leveraging ratio for financial institutions to 40:1
3- The government doesn't regulate leveraging at all
The first two are both "regulations". Now, there will be an opposition from financial institutions for #1. So they buy politicians to "regulate" at 40:1. Yeah, you may call it "regulations" but I won't. To me, it is about as stupid as #3. But, it is #3 that "government shouldn't regulate" people truly desire.
Countervailing tariffs would eliminate the price advantage of the importer and should be implemented along with confiscatory taxes on the income derived from foreign investment. That would make American manufacturers profitable and American investments worthwhile. The increased jobs and wages would allow Americans to purchase goods made by their neighbors. Indeed some international financiers and investors would get hurt but so what? Most of us are not in that business.
They are growth. As much as a huge zit or a tumour is growth.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
