I was assured by sasquatch and the other usual suspects last November that an Obama re-election would cause economic catastrophe as all the "producers" fled taking all the jobs and money. Yet I read this yesterday:
NEW YORK -- The dizzying 2013 stock market rallywas reignited Tuesday by multiyear highs in home prices and consumer confidence, a sign the four-year bull run reflects a healing economy and not just the Federal Reserve's easy-money policies.
The Dow Jones industrial average hit its 25th record high this year, surging 106.29 points, or 0.69%, to 15,409.39. Powering the gains: A 10.9% rise in home prices in the 12 months ending in March, the biggest jump in nearly seven years. And May's consumer confidence survey hit its highest level in five years.
Obviously this is some conspiracy of lies coming from the lamestream media, so I went to the only network that is a reliable source of information and read this:
Home prices are surging. Job growth is strengthening. And stocks are setting record highs.
All of which explains why Americans are more hopeful about the economy than at any other point in five years.
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/05/29/as-stocks-housing-and-job-outlook-strengthen-us-consumer-confidence-climbs-to-5/
What gives, fellas?
- Joined
- 03 Feb 07
- Moves
- 199139
The only thing really holding the economy back right now is government spending cutbacks. Don't get me wrong, it may be good in the long run that we cut while we desperately needed money in the economy rather than cutting during an inflationary phase, but in the short run there's considerable suffering because of the obsession, which is so strong that even Oklahoma's senators will refuse tornado aid unless it is offset with other cuts. That anything might have a stimulus effect on the economy just terrifies them.
Originally posted by no1marauderIs the govt. propping up the stock market in any way? If so then it doesn't mean a hill of beans as an indicator of the real economy.
I was assured by sasquatch and the other usual suspects last November that an Obama re-election would cause economic catastrophe as all the "producers" fled taking all the jobs and money. Yet I read this yesterday:
NEW YORK -- The dizzying 2013 stock market rallywas reignited Tuesday by multiyear highs in home prices and consumer confidence, a sign th ...[text shortened]... ook-strengthen-us-consumer-confidence-climbs-to-5/
What gives, fellas?
Originally posted by joe beyserIf the government is not propping up the stock market, then do you think the performance of the stock market is some kind of indicator? I know I am glad my 401K recovered. Big time. I am very glad we did not elect McCain or Romney.
Is the govt. propping up the stock market in any way? If so then it doesn't mean a hill of beans as an indicator of the real economy.
Originally posted by KunsooYeah if avoided certain cuts and had more stimulus and the right stimulus, we could have a much stronger recovery. Yet, it is kind of soothing to see the massive drop in the federal budget deficit we are currently seeing. In any case, I am just glad we do not have Republicans with the White House m destroying the economy.
The only thing really holding the economy back right now is government spending cutbacks. Don't get me wrong, it may be good in the long run that we cut while we desperately needed money in the economy rather than cutting during an inflationary phase, but in the short run there's considerable suffering because of the obsession, which is so strong that even O ...[text shortened]... h other cuts. That anything might have a stimulus effect on the economy just terrifies them.
Originally posted by no1marauderYup, looks like things are (finally) picking up.
I was assured by sasquatch and the other usual suspects last November that an Obama re-election would cause economic catastrophe as all the "producers" fled taking all the jobs and money. Yet I read this yesterday:
NEW YORK -- The dizzying 2013 stock market rallywas reignited Tuesday by multiyear highs in home prices and consumer confidence, a sign th ...[text shortened]... ook-strengthen-us-consumer-confidence-climbs-to-5/
What gives, fellas?
I can't say I'm overly happy with the surge in housing prices, though. Housing prices were wayyy inflated in the mid 2000s. After the bubble burst, I was kind of hoping that housing prices would stay more in line with what regular people could afford without gimmick mortgages.
It's not Obama's fault of course, but I don't think that double digit home price jumps are necessarily something to celebrate.
Originally posted by sh76Housing prices fell more during the Great Recession than during the Great Depression and the wiping out of wealth had catastrophic consequences for the middle class. http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/us-house-price-fall-beats-great-depression-slide-2291491.html
Yup, looks like things are (finally) picking up.
I can't say I'm overly happy with the surge in housing prices, though. Housing prices were wayyy inflated in the mid 2000s. After the bubble burst, I was kind of hoping that housing prices would stay more in line with what regular people could afford without gimmick mortgages.
It's not Obama's fault of cour ...[text shortened]... ut I don't think that double digit home price jumps are necessarily something to celebrate.
IF your home had fallen in value by 33%, I think you would be celebrating a double digit home price jump.
Originally posted by no1marauderEasy. Quantitative easing has produced the inflation that is driving a generalized rise in prices.
I was assured by sasquatch and the other usual suspects last November that an Obama re-election would cause economic catastrophe as all the "producers" fled taking all the jobs and money. Yet I read this yesterday:
NEW YORK -- The dizzying 2013 stock market rallywas reignited Tuesday by multiyear highs in home prices and consumer confidence, a sign th ...[text shortened]... ook-strengthen-us-consumer-confidence-climbs-to-5/
What gives, fellas?
Anything else?
Originally posted by no1marauderMy house did fall in value. Maybe not 33%; but probably at least 20%.
Housing prices fell more during the Great Recession than during the Great Depression and the wiping out of wealth had catastrophic consequences for the middle class. http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/us-house-price-fall-beats-great-depression-slide-2291491.html
IF your home had fallen in value by 33%, I think you would be celebrating a double digit home price jump.
But if I want to move, I have to buy another house anyway, so I'm not overly worried about its value. An increase in the market makes my house go up, but also the house that I'll want to buy.
Things got crazy in the early part of the last decade. Prices were rising 1% a month for years and years. Suddenly, a house that once went for $250k was now $450k. People would have been priced out of the market but for the gimmick mortgages that eventually caused the whole house of cards to collapse.
In communities where most people own, it would be best if prices were such that a someone making a good salary can afford a real live mortgage on a real live home.
At least in my area, I think the 2009-2010 prices were the realistic ones. The 2005 prices were insane and I don't want to see a return to those days if we can avoid it.
The "wealth" that the "middle class" had accumulated due to the housing bubble was an unrealistic mirage propped up by the parlor games of Wall Street investment banks.
Originally posted by sh76The same "logic" applies to any asset price; do you think that your stock portfolio should fall to 2009 levels because that is what is "realistic"?
My house did fall in value. Maybe not 33%; but probably at least 20%.
But if I want to move, I have to buy another house anyway, so I'm not overly worried about its value. An increase in the market makes my house go up, but also the house that I'll want to buy.
Things got crazy in the early part of the last decade. Prices were rising 1% a month for years ...[text shortened]... was an unrealistic mirage propped up by the parlor games of Wall Street investment banks.
Unemployment is down because once you are unemployed long enough, you are no longer considered unemployed. You could have 100% unemployment, then after a short period of time have 0% unemployment as long as no one ever got a job.
I wonder how anyone can believe a thing the government says. I see that many do. Lol!