Is the economy be going in the dumper?

barry2952

Dedicated LVC Member
Joined
Mar 25, 2004
Messages
1,774
Reaction score
0
Recession will be nasty and deep, economist says
Housing is in free fall, pulling the economy down with it, Roubini argues

WASHINGTON (MarketWatch) -- The United States is headed for a recession that will be "much nastier, deeper and more protracted" than the 2001 recession, says Nouriel Roubini, president of Roubini Global Economics.
Writing on his blog Wednesday, Roubini repeated his call that the U.S. would be in recession in 2007, arguing that the collapse of housing would bring down the rest of the economy.

Roubini wrote after the National Association of Realtors reported Wednesday that sales of existing homes fell 4.1% in July, while inventories soared to a 13-year high and prices flattened out on a year-over-year basis.

"This is the biggest housing slump in the last four or five decades: every housing indicator is in free fall, including now housing prices," Roubini said. The decline in investment in the housing sector will exceed the drop in investment when the Nasdaq collapsed in 2000 and 2001, he said.

And the impact of the bursting of the bubble will affect every household in America, not just the few people who owned significant shares in technology companies during the dot-com boom, he said. Prices are falling even in the Midwest, which never experienced a bubble, "a scary signal" of how much pain the drop in household wealth could cause.

Roubini is a professor of economics at New York University and was a senior economist in the White House and the Treasury Department in the late 1990s. His firm focuses largely on global macroeconomics.

While many economists share Roubini's concerns about imbalances in the global economy and in the U.S. housing sector, he stands nearly alone in predicting a recession next year.

Fed watcher Tim Duy called Roubini the "the current archetypical Eeyore," responding to a comment Dallas Fed President Richard Fisher made last week in referring to economic pessimists as "Eeyores," after Winnie the Pooh's grumpy friend.

"By itself this slump is enough to trigger a U.S. recession: its effects on real residential investment, wealth and consumption, and employment will be more severe than the tech bust that triggered the 2001 recession," Roubini said.
Housing has accounted, directly and indirectly, for about 30% of employment growth during this expansion, including employment in retail and in manufacturing producing consumer goods, he said.

In the past year, consumers spent about $200 billion of the money they pulled out of their home equity, he estimated. Already, sales of consumer durables such as cars and furniture have weakened.

"As the housing sector slumps, the job and income and wage losses in housing will percolate throughout the economy," Roubini said. Consumers also face high energy prices, higher interest rates, stagnant wages, negative savings and high debt levels, he noted.

"This is the tipping point for the U.S. consumer and the effects will be ugly," he said. "Expect the great recession of 2007 to be much nastier, deeper and more protracted than the 2001 recession." He also sees many of the same warning signs in other economies, including some in Europe.

Rex Nutting is Washington bureau chief of MarketWatch.
 
It would be wise to prepare for some kind of cyclical recession in the near future. Oil prices are finally starting to creep into all other expenses now and that will cause a degree of inflation.

Compound that with growing international insecurity.

On a political note, I just find it amazing that the press made it sound like we were in a recession while we were in the middle of nearly six years of uninterupted robust growth.

Fuel prices, increasing interest rates, the housing market correction, and uncertainty will slow the economy.

And if tension with Iran flair up, or Islamics start launching successful terrorist attack within the country, our economy will be hurt very quickly. In fact, our economy is disturbingly vulnerable to terrorism.
 
"The sky is falling! The sky is falling! YEEEEAAAAAGGGHHHHH!" (Howard Dean voice)

I'm SO done with all the left's doom and gloom. Go move to France if you don't like it here, I say.
 
"This is the biggest housing slump in the last four or five decades" Sounds like they have the Clinton playbook out and are running it play by play.

Remember Clinton with the famous "worst economy in 50 years" b.s. that snowed over the uniformed masses (mental midgets)?

How did I know this guy was a foaming at the mouth lefty Democrat????? It is right there....

Roubini is a professor of economics at New York University and was a senior economist in the White House and the Treasury Department in the late 1990s. His firm focuses largely on global macroeconomics.

While many economists share Roubini's concerns about imbalances in the global economy and in the U.S. housing sector, he stands nearly alone in predicting a recession next year.


And he stands alone but let's make this New York Times front headlines because we have someone on the record that said this and this is what we soo badly want to believe that we will take what this moron says at face value if it furthers our political agenda. :rolleyes:
 
Last edited by a moderator:
The guy blogs it, Barry goggles it, (ever on the lookout for that other shoe to drop on Bush), and now the media runs with it. Here we go again, having to prove that a lie is not the truth.
 
MonsterMark said:
The guy blogs it, Barry goggles it, (ever on the lookout for that other shoe to drop on Bush), and now the media runs with it. Here we go again, having to prove that a lie is not the truth.

Actually, the article was on CNN. I didn't GOOGLE it. I can't wait for the other shoe to drop.
 
Another source:

Getting real about the real estate bubble
Fortune's Shawn Tully dispels four myths about the future of home prices.

By Shawn Tully, Fortune editor-at-large
August 25 2006: 5:42 AM EDT

NEW YORK (Fortune) -- For the past five years, the housing bulls have been trotting out one rational-sounding argument after another to explain why the boom made perfect economic sense.

Forget about a crash, they assured homeowners. Expect a "soft landing" where your three-bedroom colonial in Larchmont or Larkspur not only holds onto its huge price gains, but keeps appreciating at a "normal," "sustainable" rate of 6 percent or so into the sunset.

Americans wanted to believe, and they did. Now, the giant popping noise you're hearing is the sound of yesterday's myths exploding like balloons pumped up with too much hot air.

The newest sign that the myth-makers were spectacularly wrong is the data on existing home sales for July. Nationwide, median prices rose .9 percent.

But even that meager number masks the real story. Prices actually fell where housing is most vulnerable, in the bubble markets in the West and Northeast. In the Northeast, they dropped 2.1 percent from July of 2005, at the same time prices nationwide rose around 3 percent, meaning that houses lost over 5 percent of their value adjusted for inflation.

Homeowners just saw their wealth shrink, by a lot. The numbers will only get worse. It's time to examine the clichés that the "experts" - chiefly analysts and economists from realtors and mortgage associations - used to convince Americans that what they're seeing now could never happen. Here are the four great housing myths - and why they never made much sense in the first place.

Myth #1: As long as job growth is strong, prices can't go down

You can almost forgive the bulls for stumbling over this one. In past housing recessions, prices fell sharply in markets with severe job losses, like Texas in the mid-80s and Boston in the early 90s.

But the argument that prices can't fall in a good job market doesn't make economic sense: To be sure, a strong employment picture helps demand. But if far more houses are pouring onto the market than can be absorbed by households lured by the new jobs, and if the sellers are pressured to sell, prices will fall.

That's precisely what's happening now in good job markets such as San Diego and Northern Virginia. In this boom, prices soared to such extraordinary levels that builders kept churning out new homes, and owners of existing houses threw a record number of units on the market to cash out. The supply grew so fast that demand, even in strong job markets, simply couldn't keep up.

As usual, for the believers, it's always easier to fall back on a cliché than read the warning signs.

Myth #2: The builders learned their lesson in the last downturn. They won't swamp the market with new houses when the market turns

You might call this the OPEC theory of homebuilders. The idea was that the builders wouldn't take a chance by building lots of unsold, "spec" units that could clog the market in a downturn. They had supposedly absorbed hard-won discipline from their excessive building in past downturns.

Well, it hasn't turned out that way. Builders are still pouring out near-record numbers of new homes as sales decline, assuring a further fall in prices. "Buyers" are walking away from deposits on houses that were supposedly pre-sold, forcing developers to throw them back on the market at a discount.

The problem is that even now, margins on new homes are still pretty good, though well below the levels of a year ago. As a result, builders will just keep building until those big margins evaporate. High prices are sewing the seeds of their own demise. They always do.

Myth #3: Low interest rates will keep values rising, or at the very least, put a floor under prices

What really matters for all assets, whether it's houses, stocks or bonds, is real interest rates - in other words, nominal rates after subtracting inflation. And real rates fell sharply starting in 2001. That caused a legitimate, one-time increase in housing prices.

The rub is that prices rose far more than could ever be justified by declining mortgage rates. That's where the bubble kicked in. Today's relatively low rates are not, and never were, a reason why prices would keep rising. Once real rates drop and stabilize, the impetus goes away - again, the gain is a one-time, not a recurring, phenomenon.

Today, real 10-year rates are still extremely low. They have nowhere to go but up. When the one-time gain of 2001-2004 reverses, housing prices could take a further hit.

By the way, a decline in rates due to a fall in inflation isn't the boom to real estate it's advertised to be. Sure, rates go down, but workers also receive lower raises. So the fall in rates turns out to be a wash. As for what matters - real rates - what goes down later goes up, and housing prices go in the other direction, namely south.

Myth #4: restriction on development in the suburbs ensure low supply, and guarantee rising prices

This argument ignores that the tough zoning laws and anti-development fervor have been a feature of America's tony towns since the early 1970s. The "not in my town" phenomenon is nothing new.

Sure, it's still difficult to get new building permits in suburbs of New Jersey, New York, Washington, Seattle and San Francisco. But America's housing market is extremely fluid. People move farther from job centers, and commute longer hours, to get bargains where housing is plentiful. Then the jobs move to the areas with the cheap houses. People in their 50s and 60s cash out early in San Diego and buy a bigger house for half the money in Texas or South Carolina.

And the cities are just as enthusiastic about developing blighted areas with new, tax-paying high-rises as the suburbs are slamming the door. In the New York area, Brooklyn, Jersey City and Hoboken - and even Manhattan - are sprouting more new housing than in decades, despite a job market that's hardly robust.

A year ago, the reigning cliché was that real estate had entered a new world of "no supply." Now, a record 3.85 million homes are up for sale, and buyers are getting scarce.

No, the world hasn't changed. And the myths haven't changed either. Next time, don't believe them.
 
I am in the housing market in the near future, how long do you think i should wait. Also, what do you all think about the interest rates, now and in the future. Last does anyone think prices will fall. I have not heard of values:D :feedback decreasing yet, but I have heard many owners themselves are cutting their own prices.
 
Barry, do you have a point?

Talking down the economy or encouraging a negative downturn is a pretty lowly thing. Are you so blinded in hate for Bush, you're just hoping something, anything, bad can be attributed to him.

But for the record, what on Earth does President Bush have to do with the housing market? After nearly a decade of escalating prices, hyper-active markets, and super low interest rates, the markets will correct itself.

Which, by the way, is a good thing, if you're a person hoping to buy a home. This emphasis on the slowing housing market is another example of an agenda driven media which has no fundamental understanding of economics.

When supply is low, prices are high. Business then increase production inorder to cash in on these high prices. As the volume available increases, the prices fall, until an equalibrium is reached.

Then you factor in the interest rates. When money is cheap, people borrow more money. Meaning they spend more money. So, with high demand, low supply, and lots of dollars, prices climb. Now, we have increasing interest rates, less money, and increased supply of homes.
 
Calabrio said:
But for the record, what on Earth does President Bush have to do with the housing market?

A. I didn't write the articles. Merely posted them to refute Bryan's assertion that everything's all rosy.

B. Where did you get that I correlated Bush with the falling housing market?

C. So, now its un-American to report bad news? Is that what's coming next?
 
barry2952 said:
A. I didn't write the articles. Merely posted them to refute Bryan's assertion that everything's all rosy.

B. Where did you get that I correlated Bush with the falling housing market?

C. So, now its un-American to report bad news? Is that what's coming next?

Reporting market speculation and trends is not the same thing as sensationalizing it. There is a distinction, and if the viewer doesn't have much knowledge or background of the subject being reported, they likely won't know the difference. The mainstream media loves to sensationalize news, especially bad news. You can attribute it to bias or ratings, which ever you'd prefer.

And, perhaps I missed it, did I say you were "un-American" anywhere for reporting bad news?? In fact, did I use the term "un-American" anywhere? Further, did I even imply anything about patriotism in my post?

I'll answer for you, since I won't be around tonight to read the response.

NO, I didn't.
 
We all remember the go-go years of the Clinton admistration. Heck, it was the best time in American history, right? Don't look now Barry but here comes Bush, blowing away those numbers.

Clinton added 2.9 trillion in 8 years with the advent of the Internet.

Bush puts up 2.6 trillion is less than 6 years with 9/11 and an inherited recession. Hummmmmmm.

Chained to year 2000 dollars, the numbers come out 2.1 (8 years) Clinton vs 2.0 (5.5 years) Bush.

Gross Domestic Product (billions)

1992 6,337.7
1993 6,657.4
1994 7,072.2
1995 7,397.7
1996 7,816.9
1997 8,304.3
1998 8,747.0
1999 9,268.4
2000 9,817.0
2001 10,128.0
2002 10469.6
2003 10960.8
2004 11712.5
2005 12455.8
 
What does any of that have to do with the bubble bursting in real estate? Nothing, as usual. Just another distraction.

The article clearly states that a burst real estate market would have a negative impact on the economy. Do you refute that?

The information you posted is about the past. This article talks about the future, get it?
 
I guess my point is that you missed the boat the last 6 years under the Bush administration and you have been carrying a grudge with Bush ever since.

The economy has been better than the rest of the free world over the last 6 years. Period. End of Story.

If you are currently not enjoying success in this economy, stop what you are doing and find a new way. Opportunites abound.
 
Why do you have so much trouble staying on the subject? Why don't you go manipulate another thread Mr. Moderator?
 
barry2952 said:
This article talks about the future, get it?

Guess what, the housing market is going to go down. Happy. And it is all Bush's fault. Him and Halliburton are building all that low incoming housing in Iraq so it definitely is his fault.
 
Calabrio said:
And, perhaps I missed it, did I say you were "un-American" anywhere for reporting bad news?? In fact, did I use the term "un-American" anywhere? Further, did I even imply anything about patriotism in my post?

I'll answer for you, since I won't be around tonight to read the response.

NO, I didn't.

Too late, buddy. Once barry asserts that you called him something, even if you can PROVE you didn't say that, he won't stop. Now you know how I feel. Join the club. Next he'll call you a muslim extremist, like he did to me.
 
Economist are as about as reliable as a deck of Tarot cards.

While the home real estate market is getting worse guess what? The rental real estate market goes up! People still need a place to live. So it all depends where you invested your money if this is bad news or not.
 
MonsterMark said:
We all remember the go-go years of the Clinton admistration. Heck, it was the best time in American history, right? Don't look now Barry but here comes Bush, blowing away those numbers.

Clinton added 2.9 trillion in 8 years with the advent of the Internet.

Bush puts up 2.6 trillion is less than 6 years with 9/11 and an inherited recession. Hummmmmmm.

Chained to year 2000 dollars, the numbers come out 2.1 (8 years) Clinton vs 2.0 (5.5 years) Bush.

Gross Domestic Product (billions)

1992 6,337.7
1993 6,657.4
1994 7,072.2
1995 7,397.7
1996 7,816.9
1997 8,304.3
1998 8,747.0
1999 9,268.4
2000 9,817.0
2001 10,128.0
2002 10469.6
2003 10960.8
2004 11712.5
2005 12455.8


I'm not getting in the middle of this, but I do have a question since I don't have an MBA.

Do the GDP numbers adjust for inflation? It's been 16 years since 1992. One dollar (relatively speaking) doesn't buy you now what it did then.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Frogman said:
Do the GDP numbers adjust for inflation? It's been 16 years since 1992. One dollar (relatively speaking) doesn't buy you now what it did then.
The answer is in the quote from your question. Adjusted to 2000 numbers, it is about a tie as far as growth, but Bush has a couple more years left.
 
Vitas said:
Your problem ain't Barry.:D

I'm sure he quivers in his boots worrying about another unsupported, historically inaccurate argument coming from you. Oh heavens no!!! It's another vicious circle of stupid from Vitas.
 

Members online

No members online now.
Back
Top