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.

Strategies & Market Trends : The Residential Real Estate Crash Index -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: CalculatedRisk who wrote (57860)	7/17/2006 10:57:24 AM
From: Think4Yourself	Respond to of 306849

If the Bush administration had any sense at all, they wouldn't even comment on the economy right now. The population already hates them and it isn't wise for them to remind us all of what has happened on their watch. History will not be kind to the republicans.

To: CalculatedRisk who wrote (57860)	7/17/2006 11:08:17 AM
From: John Vosilla	Respond to of 306849

In November 2004, when the first Stoneybrook homes were sold to "lucky" lottery-winning buyers, it was standing-room-only, recalled Re/Max Realtor Greg Sheller. Getting a Stoneybrook homesite then felt "like winning the Lotto," he said. No more. The day the music stopped was about eight months ago, and now some investor/owners are scrambling for a chair. The "For Sale" and "For Rent" signs are out in force on Dancing River Drive, in the Oak Manor subdivision of Stoneybrook. The completed neighborhoods sit amid acres and acres of upturned dirt awaiting construction of newer neighborhoods. Many homes appear uninhabited, few cars are evident and the traffic is light. The investors, now would-be flippers, are expressing their confidence and staying power with a blizzard of for sale signs at home after home. Flippers are increasingly being forced into becoming reluctant landlords. heraldtribune.com

To: CalculatedRisk who wrote (57860)	7/17/2006 12:53:18 PM
From: ChanceIs	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 306849

>>>"Typical -- the fed cutting rate to 1% did not play a role in the economic recovery -- it was all due to the supply-side tax cut.<<< It is clear to me that the Fed has really been screwing up the last eight years. Greenspan was worried about Y2K so he increased liquidity enormously. That also corresponded with the lowest crude price in decades - $10 in December '98. This was economic overstimulus, and IMO went a long way to explain the stock bubble of the late '90s. Greenspan began raising rates to compensate - at about the same time that crude snapped to $37. The very shallow recession of early '01 was inevitable, and there was still an abundance of liquidity. After 9/11, Greenspan really opened the tap. It was a gross overreaction to a very ugly, but rather economically insignificant incident. The war has been hugely stimulative, but hasn't produced anything. I can't see that there has been meaningful economic recovery. Justs lots of stimulative spending on overhead functions - homeland security and the war - neither of which produce goods. In fact, all that waiting in lines reduces productivity. Its OK to print money occasionally to stimulate, but the need has to be great (it wasn't in '01) and you have to spend it on valuable things. Guards and holes in the ground in Iraq and not fungible assets. Bernanke shouldn't be done raising rates any time soon. There is way too much liquidity out there.