Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: tejek who wrote (184639)	3/14/2004 1:23:03 AM
From: Tenchusatsu	Respond to of 1574888

Ted, The argument is that with interest rates so low, people are doing whatever it takes to get into a house. The rising vacancy rate in the rental markets supports that thesis. During the past two years, the average rent has actually gone down in Seattle which housing prices continue to go up. It sounds like the situation in Seattle isn't like the situation in O.C. I haven't looked at the figures, but it seems around here, rent is going up and the vacancy rate of rental properties is going down. Sounds like a recipe for a bursting bubble in Seattle, especially if the ratio of monthly mortgage payment to rent is going up. The fear is, of course, that when interest rates go back up, demand will collapse completely, fulfilling your argument that we have a bubble like situation. However, in this case, its not increasing prices and higher profits to be realized, common bubble traits, that have drawn people in but rather, low interest rates. That's why economists don't refer to it as a bubble. The bubble is the increasing value of the existing homes. Some homeowners realize the gain in value by selling, some by refinancing, and some by taking a second mortgage. All of this new "funny money" gets pumped into the economy one way or another, and the net effect is an artificial recovery of sorts. Of course, once the prices of the homes fall, those who either bought at the higher prices or took out loans based on the formerly appreciated value will be the ones left holding the bag. Then they'll either have to stay stuck in their homes for the "long term," or they'll have to eat the difference between the loan amount and the new price. Either way, their net assets will have diminished, and the "funny money" that's been supporting the local economy will disappear. Tenchusatsu

To: tejek who wrote (184639)	3/14/2004 1:38:31 AM
From: Tenchusatsu	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1574888

Ted, re: South Korea, my wife has been reading both the Korean news sites as well as the American ones, and she noticed that the American news has totally missed the story. The way she describes it, President Roh simply made a statement supporting his own political party in the upcoming elections, which is a no-no according to Korean campaign law. Imagine Bush saying he's hoping that Republican candidates will win in November. That would be a real travesty in American politics, would it not? (Yes, that last comment was meant to be sarcastic.) Anyway, the conservative majority in the Assembly ran away with it and used it as grounds for impeachment. The only reason there were so many members not voting was not because they wanted to distance themselves from Roh, as I once thought. It's because they don't even want to recognize the impeachment vote. Meanwhile, Koreans are against the impeachment 70% to 30%, and they're protesting like mad. They're fearing that this is leading to a coup, a throwback to the days of the Banana Republic of Korea (as I call it). Anyway, that's how my wife explained things to me. My Korean is nowhere near as fluent as hers, so I can't really read what she reads for myself. But I don't have any reason to doubt her interpretation of the events. Tenchusatsu