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 Epic American Credit and Bond Bubble Laboratory -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Gib Bogle who wrote (104722)	8/30/2009 4:27:02 AM
From: Elroy Jetson	2 Recommendations Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 110194

What matters to each person is how prices compare to their income and assets. During the Great Depression prices declined. This made you wealthy if your income did not decline much. Or it made even purchasing food difficult if you were unemployed, or if the value of your assets declined sharply no matter - how wealthy you were previously. Unemployment clearly has a powerful effect on the cost of goods and services and the price of things which depend on aggregate income, such as rents. I see and hear about this in Los Angeles in a State now with reported unemployment of 11.8%. A friend with an apartment building with 2 bedroom 2 bath apartments built in a nicer older style with hardwood floors and crown moldings etc gardens, great location 1,450 sq ft, had seen her rents peak at $2,350 a month. After 14 months of vacancies she finally leased one for $1,750 a 25% decline. Her rental income is down even more, 60% because of the vacancies. This only works because her building has no mortgage. If there were a mortgage she would have needed to be far more aggressive in reducing rent rates. Some had the notion that as people left their foreclosed homes, apartment rents would rise. That idea hasn't worked out so well. I've seen the cost of most services decline and people offering "recession-proof" "must-have" goods and services have seen their sales off sharply. Many firms, such as cable television, are holding tough on their posted prices as their sales drop, but those people who call to cancel their service are offered "special discounts" of up to 50% off the posted rates. I have a friend who has been very aggressive about this and is now receiving the Los Angeles Times for 50% of his former rate and his cable for 30% less for a year with free premium channels thrown in. The GDP in America and many nations, show minor declines, but the picture changes when you exclude new governmental stimulus spending. Remove this spending and the demand for all goods and services would decline even more sharply, with corresponding reductions in price. The price of goods with a global market obviously depend on the strength of the real global economy, and locally with the strength or weakness of your home nation's currency. Many nations claim to be affected minimally, but as an example, China's economy is now also heavily a figment of their own government stimulus spending. It appears a goodly portion of this Chinese stimulus spending went into asset speculation creating the recent appearance of global price inflation, most prominently with copper prices. Chinese state owned enterprises (SOEs)have purchased mega amounts of actual copper stockpiled in warehouses and bought even more on the futures markets. Now as Snowshoe posted, "China’s State-owned Assets Supervision and Administration Commission (SASAC) has sent notice to six foreign financial institutions informing them that several state-owned enterprise will reserve the right to default on commodities contracts signed with those institutions. Some "inflation" that proved to be. english.caijing.com.cn I've estimated that removing the excess global consumer and business debt will bring income levels back to levels of eight years ago once everything has stabilized. In the interim, excluding government spending, the effect will be far worse. .

To: Gib Bogle who wrote (104722)	8/30/2009 4:36:09 AM
From: Elroy Jetson	1 Recommendation Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 110194

Some have suggested we might experience a deflation of the things you have and an inflation of the things you need, but clearly from past experience this is wrong. It is a deflation of the things you have AND the things you need. Your personal welfare is determined by whether your income deflates less than prices or far more than prices. Personally, we have seen the value of our assets rise somewhat as we were in cash during the decline, and have seen our income decline somewhat as interest rates have plunged. So, as with many during the Great Depression, the combination of the change in asset values and income were a mixed bag. We'll buy nearly everything at lower prices but we've also trimmed our spending. We decided for us this would mean we now usually eat at home compared with before when we ate virtually all meals at fairly nice restaurants. Now we're actually eating better, but we're paying a not inconsequential price with our labor. This has reduced our annual spending by about $30k annually. From a numbers standpoint it's like paying ourselves about $45 an hour, made better by the fact that it's tax-free and a creative hobby. In any event, it's one example of $30k annually removed from the GDP. The restoration of this amount of GDP depends on our level of confidence in the future and our actual current income. It also highlights the fact that deflation could possibly be better for us than it is for waiters and restaurant owners. .