If you listen to Schiff and buy what's he's saying, the policies of the Obama administration are making an already bad situation much worse, setting us up for calamity and the coming crash, whether in 2013 or 2014, or a bit further out, will be beyond anything we've seen recently.
Peter Schiff – The coming 2013 – 2014 U.S. crash will be worse than 2008
By HousingBoom Follow Wed, 21 Nov 2012, 6:15pm 14,047 views 203 comments
Watch (2) Share
Quote
Permalink Like (3) Dislike « First « Previous Viewing Comments 124-163 of 203 Next » Last » See most liked comments
« First « Previous comments Next comments » Last »
|
HousingBoom is moderator of this thread. |
Follow
Befriend
30 threads
1,489 comments
Bellingham, WA
Premium
Goran_K says
we don't actually need to "expand the economy" to get things back in balance.
The top 5% clear 30%+ of the national income.
There's your problem, mate.
SS checks this decade and next are ~$2T pure redistribution if the top 10% pay up on their end of the Greenspan Deal over the next 15-20 years.
Just what the doctor ordered.
Follow
Befriend
30 threads
1,489 comments
Bellingham, WA
Premium
Kevin says
yes, I'm thinking higher taxes on non FICA-hit income. That's the only thing that would be "fair". And thus the least likely, LOL.
Also we can just print the payouts somehow. That's also possible, sigh.
Follow
Befriend
40 threads
2,652 comments
Bellingham Bill says
Only accurate if SS is fixed to no longer be a regressive tax (maybe we quit the current charade and just fold it into income tax). The top 10% pay significantly less as a percentage of income in SS than the regular folks.
Bellingham Bill says
Just remove the cap and it'd have a big impact. If you move a marginal dollar from someone who wasn't spending it (or wasn't spending it efficiently anyway), and give it to someone who must spend every dollar that they get, you'll stimulate the economy.
SS taxes at present just take dollars from people who need them (those making under $115k/year or thereabouts) and gives them to people who need them slightly more.
Follow
Befriend (4)
25 threads
1,523 comments
Laguna Beach, CA
Premium
Bellingham Bill says
All of that money is just going to keep a huge geriatric boomer population (the largest percentage of old timers in U.S history) alive, and off the streets. I'm not sure how that helps your point.
Follow
Befriend
30 threads
1,489 comments
Bellingham, WA
Premium
Goran_K says
the 95%'s economy needs velocity (spending).
old people need more paid labor, which results in wage income. Every dollar of pension income -- and medicare-paid expenses -- just get passed right into the private economy.
This is going to be a TWO TRILLION PLUS flow into the private economy by 2030.
This dynamic is also why I'm not terribly bearish on Japan. They don't have much of a boomer population (compared to us) but their support burden is going to rise a lot as their working age population declines.
But this "support burden" actually translates into a much tighter job market.
Follow
Befriend
30 threads
1,489 comments
Bellingham, WA
Premium
Kevin says
I agree with your other point (that the top 10% needs to kick in the money that's paying down the SSTF) but this wealth-transfer aspect of SSA is sheer elegance.
Payroll taxes are a great way to sequester income for necessities so that we don't use all our disposable incomes to bid up rents and home values.
Regressive taxes come out of rents!
At any rate, the less we tax the masses the more the landlords can jack up their rents, and the more we all just bid up the cost of housing.
I *really* wish I had understood this back in 2001 as the Bush tax cuts were going down, sigh.
Follow
Befriend (4)
25 threads
1,523 comments
Laguna Beach, CA
Premium
Bellingham Bill says
Yes $2T in SSA payments, but many times that lost since many of the boomer population will no longer be working, or very productive. Yes the support structure for those industries may experience some growth, but I don't see how that will stabilize the economy in the theory you have put forth.
Follow
Befriend
30 threads
1,489 comments
Bellingham, WA
Premium
Goran_K says
this is a good thing since Gen Y is just now moving into working age.
If Gen Y is 1982 to 2000 they are aged 12 to 20 right now and they will take over from their parents wrt jobs.
Goran_K says
I'm just saying the boomer retirement has some under-appreciated upsides.
If taxes are raised on the lower 95% to cover the rising cost of the boomer support, then, no, it won't be all that hot.
But the top 10% cleared $3.3T in AGI in 2010 and paid $610B in taxes. If we doubled taxes on corporations ($300B) and doubled taxes on the top 10% ($600B) and redirected $300B of our defense outlays into health expansion, we'd have a balanced budget and a much more symmetrical wealth distribution arrangement.
Or we can just print it, LOL. That's the most likely outcome I think. Who needs pain when you've got a printer.
Follow
Befriend
2 threads
18 comments
We are not definitely Japan.
But, last 5 years or so, we have been Japan who did not really reckon with problems for last 2 decades. They did it with 90% domestic debt.
So in fact, Japan could do it quite well without foreign debts.
We did it Japan style (not Gangnam Style), only worse is with foreign debts.
It's time now. Are we going to finally reckon with the problem that are worsened last 5 years ?
Are we really NOT Japan ?
Follow
Befriend
30 threads
1,489 comments
Bellingham, WA
Premium
Darrell In Phoenix says
what a bizarre assertion to make when the baby boom echo peaked exactly 20 years ago!
Population growth overall is slowing -- the population aged 25 to 64 grew ~20% in the 1980s but only 11% in the 2000s and will "only" grow 6% in this decade, but that's still growth, LOL.
Here in my Realtor Reality™ the population of age 25-34 yos grew 14% in the 1980s, actually fell 8% in the 1990s, grew 5% in the 2000s, and is going to grow 9% this decade, 2% in the 2020s, and 8-9% (per-decade) again in the 2030-2050 period.
Follow
Befriend (3)
9 threads
706 comments
Los Angeles, CA
Listening to Schiff?
LOL
Follow
Befriend (2)
8 threads
1,139 comments
Seattle, WA
David Losh's website
Premium
Darrell In Phoenix says
Do you have a link for that?
Follow
Befriend (2)
8 threads
1,139 comments
Seattle, WA
David Losh's website
Premium
Darrell In Phoenix says
Your my pet project, why ignore you.
Link, please.
Follow
Befriend (2)
8 threads
1,139 comments
Seattle, WA
David Losh's website
Premium
Darrell In Phoenix says
Link.
You either have a link to support your absurd assertion, or go away.
You've once again mirepresented what I've said, so I'll probably want a link for that also.
Follow
Befriend (5)
24 threads
1,306 comments
Premium
David
I seem to remember you writing interesting posts.
Your feud with Darell is tedious. It takes at least two to argue.
Ignore him or ignore him.
Thanks
Follow
Befriend (2)
8 threads
1,139 comments
Seattle, WA
David Losh's website
Premium
The Professor says
Oh, alrighty.
Follow
Befriend (3)
9 threads
706 comments
Los Angeles, CA
David Losh says
Darrel doesn't do links - he just says.
Follow
Befriend (4)
25 threads
1,523 comments
Laguna Beach, CA
Premium
Bellingham Bill says
I'm sorry but that theory doesn't make any sense. The retiring boomers are leaving behind mid-level to senior positions, Gen Y isn't going to be able to just walk into these jobs and take over. They are trying to get entry level positions, unfortunately, many of these jobs (if you keep up with hiring forecast) simply aren't there. Either more experienced mid-level types in their 30s and 40s are taking them, or the positions don't even exist anymore as many of them have been shipped over seas. It's one of the biggest worries for new grads these days, and more and more of them are simply not entering the job market and either 1) going back to school, or 2) moving back home and taking partial employment.
I do agree that the boomer retirement saga will have many upsides (as they die off, we can finally have some form of austerity instead of hegemonic cold war era entitlement), but SSA checks bolstering the economy just seems like a huge stretch to me.
Follow
Befriend
30 threads
1,489 comments
Bellingham, WA
Premium
Goran_K says
of course not, but every hole at the top will leave a hole at the bottom as people move up.
Goran_K says
sure, that's a problem, but that's orthogonal to the baby boom retiring en masse as they are starting to now. There were 4 MILLION boomers born every year during the boom years of 1952-1964.
http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0005067.html
Goran_K says
it's going to be a nice tailwind, that's all. Kinda like "helicopter money". The boomers have been allegedly saving for decades, and now they finally get to spend their money!
The more this spending is being funded from the top 5-10%, the better net stimulus it will be. Hell, we can probably even print some of it if we need to. . .
Follow
Befriend (4)
25 threads
1,523 comments
Laguna Beach, CA
Premium
Bellingham Bill says
It's just not going to happen. Printing money to support a SS short fall with a little socialism thrown in for flavor? I honestly hope you're not being serious.
Follow
Befriend
2 threads
27 comments
IDK about you all but I think we are not looking at a "crash" as much as a continued reditribution of wealth from those who work to those who own. That's what the QE's have been all about and the bailouts also. We were looking at a crash in 2007 but the governing monied class took a housing market problem and turned it into a national change of direction. I don't see how this ends well unless American workers - those "in the arena" to refer to Roosevelt - start taking the country back. I didn't watch the video because I really don't have time to sit through videos when I can read the article in a minute or two. But, some points from the discussion:
1. government lowered the flourine amounts in water last year so reproduction should increase
2. no reason to replace a retiree with someone at the same pay band. In my generation, 40-somethings, I commonly see people doing the same job as their predecessor for significantly less pay.
3. We could have a crash but what we will see is a change. E.g. my neighbors in our middle class $80K household income neighborhood regularly shop at GoodWill, DollarGeneral, Aldi, and the Farmer's Market. Going and gone are the days of Sharper Image, Restoration Hardware, and Whole Foods. Maybe some people can afford them. Plus lots of sells/trades with neighbors including formal things ranging from neighborhood-wide yard sales to mother's club sales and such.
4. The retirees I personally know are NOT at all sitting on a cash pile. They are living on nearly the tightest budgets the ever have.
Follow
Befriend
2,826 comments
Monterey, CA
maxweber21 says
Spot the odd one out.
Follow
Befriend
2 threads
27 comments
Bigsby says
Thanks!. Yep, was supposed to be $80K. typo. fixed. Thanks.
http://www.usa.com/28278-nc-income-and-careers.htm
Follow
Befriend
2,826 comments
Monterey, CA
maxweber21 says
That wasn't actually what I was referring to.
Follow
Befriend (1)
250 threads
4,771 comments
Everything we think we know about the economy right now. Is only a symptom of bad economic policy from the FED. Change one, changes the other.
Follow
Befriend
2 threads
27 comments
Bigsby says
Oh. Not sure I know which one is odd. Which one? The Farmer's Market here is price competitive. By no means is it a clear price winner unless you are trying to buy grassfed beef or other healthy products. For those, it slaughters the price of WholeFoods or Earth Fare. Aldi has best prices for some boxed goods. Dollar General has best prices for some clothes (e.g. socks), some foods (DollarTree is even better), paper products (paper towels, toilet paper), etc. You can spend up to twice as much on your weekly food bill. (I know, if times were really tough then people would use rags instead of paper towels. Of course times are not tough for most Americans yet. They are trending that way though.)
$84K agerage HH income as of 2010: http://www.zipdatamaps.com/28278
Follow
Befriend
2,826 comments
Monterey, CA
Well, there's nothing bargain basement about the farmers' markets in the Monterey area.
Follow
Befriend (4)
25 threads
1,523 comments
Laguna Beach, CA
Premium
maxweber21 says
This is true. 60% of boomers think they will have to work past the age of 70!!! Incredible, really.
Follow
Befriend (48)
274 threads
12,583 comments
47 male
Lafayette, CA
Premium
Goran_K says
Electing Republicans has consequences.
Follow
Befriend (4)
25 threads
1,523 comments
Laguna Beach, CA
Premium
Also, considering that the as far back as 1994, the Clinton/Greenspan combo staunchly and successfully opposed tougher regulation on derivatives which effectively proved to be a great catalyst for the housing bubble, I'd say stupidity crosses party lines.
Follow
Befriend (5)
57 threads
1,333 comments
Premium
underwaterman says
250K is often a standard minimum limit for hedge funds. Also 250K is really not that much considering it gets you a garage in the bay area and people have no problems bidding up their "dream home" into the millions because house prices can only go up.
Follow
Befriend (48)
274 threads
12,583 comments
47 male
Lafayette, CA
Premium
Truthfully your opinion that real estate is at massively inflated prices is dead wrong.
Follow
Befriend (5)
57 threads
1,333 comments
Premium
iwog says
The amount of new house owners defaulting does not seem to go well with that graph. You could argue that those are still ripple effects from the crisis, but I"m not buying it. While defaults have gone down, they will keep happening at a significant rate and could pick up again dramatically if rates rise.
Follow
Befriend (14)
764 threads
2,609 comments
63 male
Las Vegas, NV
bgamall4's website
Premium
Schiff is an idiot as far as his solutions are concerned. But it is obvious that the wealthy are buying houses and creating a bubble. Private equity is in on this. Schiff brags about being in the 1 percent, yet his 1 percent cronies are ruining America.
House prices must decline to keep track with wages. Unless private equity wants to be in the landlord business for years and years, they are going to want to sell as house prices appreciate. They are creating the churn, instead of the no doc people, this time. They are driving up the prices this time.
But the no doc folks were used by the wealthy last time. This time it is the rich club driving up house prices like they drive up oil prices in the futures market with speculation.
Will Rogers said there should be a law against these people and speculation. That was 80 years ago and we are still waiting for the law.
Follow
Befriend (8)
38 threads
2,036 comments
Pleasanton, CA
Premium
mell says
You mean "when rates rise". Momma only has so much free money in that purse. Even in today's shell game economics, there will be accountability. Wait for it...
Follow
Befriend (5)
57 threads
1,333 comments
Premium
bgamall4 says
It takes two to to tango. If you look at last election, almost 100% voted for either Obama or Romney which is basically a continuation of the cheap credit policies benefiting those who already have huge leverage. The lambs keep bringing themselves to the slaughterhouse.
Follow
Befriend (4)
25 threads
1,523 comments
Laguna Beach, CA
Premium
bgamall4 says
This is one of the things I am most interested in. How long will these major firms be willing to be "landlords" renting out shelter in low-end neighborhoods in the Sacramento burbs. I've already seen smaller firms exit the market, but maybe these major firms have more metal to keep going (aka cash).
Follow
Befriend (14)
764 threads
2,609 comments
63 male
Las Vegas, NV
bgamall4's website
Premium
mell says
But, Obama supports Dodd-Frank, which will slow the easy money no money down loans to the masses. Yes, there are the 3 percent loans. But Romney wanted the fetters taken off completely. And Romney wanted a massive housing bubble, and so did Ryan if you read up on him.
Obama=lesser of two evils. Nothing more.
Romney wanted a new cold war with Russia. Obama doesn't. Big difference there.
Follow
Befriend (48)
274 threads
12,583 comments
47 male
Lafayette, CA
Premium
mell says
Yup I argue those are ripple effects of the crisis. Lots of people are still upside down in homes they refuse to give up. My bankruptcy practice is right in the middle of this as I get people who come in every day who are willing to sacrifice almost everything to keep a home they are $100,000 upside down on. Then there are those who would love to refinance but they are still in credit jail from a bankruptcy or foreclosure or just irresponsible borrowing.
Our bubble was bush league anyway. If you want to see what might be in store for us, look at Canada:
Follow
Befriend (48)
274 threads
12,583 comments
47 male
Lafayette, CA
Premium
There's nothing wrong with the housing affordability index. There is nothing involved with the calculation of this index that relies on NAR data other than price information that is confirmed independently by many other sources.
Anyone who wants to challenge it as inaccurate should probably give a reason why. (like that's gonna happen)