Forum Replies Created
-
AuthorPosts
-
(former)FormerSanDiegan
ParticipantThe most interesting part of this report to me is that the unemployment rate went up in a period where there were a positive number of net jobs created.
This implies that the number of people in the workforce is increasing. I believe that in ealry stages of recoveries the unemployment RATE actually increases, while new jobs are being created because of people (optimistically ?) returning to the workforce.
Seems like the internals to the unemployment numbers are consistent with economic recovery thus far.
Participant[quote=jpinpb]FormerSanDiegan – the reason why I don’t completely agree w/your comments is b/c the banks/lenders, although not receiving money on the note, are still being compensated by the government, I mean the taxpayers.
[/quote]The banks still took huge losses. 140 banks closed their doors in 2009, so their lending went to zero. Lack of available funds for lending shrunk across the board. Loans for businesses dry up.
Lenders, real estate and construction jobs were reduced/eliminated due to people not paying their mortgage.
How could the net effect be positive ?
Now, top it off with the taxpayer now having less after tax dollars to spend. The net result is negative.
Example:
Suppose there is an increase in theft in the city of San Diego. The thieves now have extra money to spend on TVs, electronics, booze, crack, or other consumer goods. This is good for the economy, right ?Mr. Jackson’s analysis only looks at one side of the equation.
Participant[quote=jpinpb]FormerSanDiegan – the reason why I don’t completely agree w/your comments is b/c the banks/lenders, although not receiving money on the note, are still being compensated by the government, I mean the taxpayers.
[/quote]The banks still took huge losses. 140 banks closed their doors in 2009, so their lending went to zero. Lack of available funds for lending shrunk across the board. Loans for businesses dry up.
Lenders, real estate and construction jobs were reduced/eliminated due to people not paying their mortgage.
How could the net effect be positive ?
Now, top it off with the taxpayer now having less after tax dollars to spend. The net result is negative.
Example:
Suppose there is an increase in theft in the city of San Diego. The thieves now have extra money to spend on TVs, electronics, booze, crack, or other consumer goods. This is good for the economy, right ?Mr. Jackson’s analysis only looks at one side of the equation.
Participant[quote=jpinpb]FormerSanDiegan – the reason why I don’t completely agree w/your comments is b/c the banks/lenders, although not receiving money on the note, are still being compensated by the government, I mean the taxpayers.
[/quote]The banks still took huge losses. 140 banks closed their doors in 2009, so their lending went to zero. Lack of available funds for lending shrunk across the board. Loans for businesses dry up.
Lenders, real estate and construction jobs were reduced/eliminated due to people not paying their mortgage.
How could the net effect be positive ?
Now, top it off with the taxpayer now having less after tax dollars to spend. The net result is negative.
Example:
Suppose there is an increase in theft in the city of San Diego. The thieves now have extra money to spend on TVs, electronics, booze, crack, or other consumer goods. This is good for the economy, right ?Mr. Jackson’s analysis only looks at one side of the equation.
Participant[quote=jpinpb]FormerSanDiegan – the reason why I don’t completely agree w/your comments is b/c the banks/lenders, although not receiving money on the note, are still being compensated by the government, I mean the taxpayers.
[/quote]The banks still took huge losses. 140 banks closed their doors in 2009, so their lending went to zero. Lack of available funds for lending shrunk across the board. Loans for businesses dry up.
Lenders, real estate and construction jobs were reduced/eliminated due to people not paying their mortgage.
How could the net effect be positive ?
Now, top it off with the taxpayer now having less after tax dollars to spend. The net result is negative.
Example:
Suppose there is an increase in theft in the city of San Diego. The thieves now have extra money to spend on TVs, electronics, booze, crack, or other consumer goods. This is good for the economy, right ?Mr. Jackson’s analysis only looks at one side of the equation.
Participant[quote=jpinpb]FormerSanDiegan – the reason why I don’t completely agree w/your comments is b/c the banks/lenders, although not receiving money on the note, are still being compensated by the government, I mean the taxpayers.
[/quote]The banks still took huge losses. 140 banks closed their doors in 2009, so their lending went to zero. Lack of available funds for lending shrunk across the board. Loans for businesses dry up.
Lenders, real estate and construction jobs were reduced/eliminated due to people not paying their mortgage.
How could the net effect be positive ?
Now, top it off with the taxpayer now having less after tax dollars to spend. The net result is negative.
Example:
Suppose there is an increase in theft in the city of San Diego. The thieves now have extra money to spend on TVs, electronics, booze, crack, or other consumer goods. This is good for the economy, right ?Mr. Jackson’s analysis only looks at one side of the equation.
Participant[quote=jpinpb][quote=CA renter]JP,
Weren’t other posters giving us a hard time when we suggested that the economy is benefitting from massive numbers of people who suddenly have no house payments? I’ll have to find that thread…[/quote]
That’s right. I think it was FormerSanDiegan that explained his point of view and I understood it. However, in the immediate sense, money that is being spent into the economy versus their mortgage is keeping the wheels moving.
In any case, I remember saying this a long time ago when someone, I think TG, was mentioning how the economy wasn’t so bad and lines/wait were long at restaurants. I think that was the first time I said something about if one isn’t paying the mortgage, they can afford to go out to dinner.
In the end, we the taxpayers are propping up consumers who are buying things rather than paying their mortgage. Everyone paying taxes, pat yourself on the back![/quote]
Yes, that was me. Just caught this thread.
For every dollar not paid back to the lender, there is one less dollar for the holder of the note that was secured by that property. The holder of that note has one less dollar to spend, be it on pension payouts, development, venture capital or whatever.
The net sum is not positive, since we have an economic system based on credit. For every dollar lost in reserve at a bank there are several dollars not available to lend. The net effect is negative.If people NOT paying their mortgages is a net positive to the economy, why did our economy approach the brink of the next great Depression when the sub-prime borrowers stopped making payments ?
Paul Jackson’s analysis quoted in this CNBC article ignores the other side of the ledger and is thus incomplete.
Participant[quote=jpinpb][quote=CA renter]JP,
Weren’t other posters giving us a hard time when we suggested that the economy is benefitting from massive numbers of people who suddenly have no house payments? I’ll have to find that thread…[/quote]
That’s right. I think it was FormerSanDiegan that explained his point of view and I understood it. However, in the immediate sense, money that is being spent into the economy versus their mortgage is keeping the wheels moving.
In any case, I remember saying this a long time ago when someone, I think TG, was mentioning how the economy wasn’t so bad and lines/wait were long at restaurants. I think that was the first time I said something about if one isn’t paying the mortgage, they can afford to go out to dinner.
In the end, we the taxpayers are propping up consumers who are buying things rather than paying their mortgage. Everyone paying taxes, pat yourself on the back![/quote]
Yes, that was me. Just caught this thread.
For every dollar not paid back to the lender, there is one less dollar for the holder of the note that was secured by that property. The holder of that note has one less dollar to spend, be it on pension payouts, development, venture capital or whatever.
The net sum is not positive, since we have an economic system based on credit. For every dollar lost in reserve at a bank there are several dollars not available to lend. The net effect is negative.If people NOT paying their mortgages is a net positive to the economy, why did our economy approach the brink of the next great Depression when the sub-prime borrowers stopped making payments ?
Paul Jackson’s analysis quoted in this CNBC article ignores the other side of the ledger and is thus incomplete.
Participant[quote=jpinpb][quote=CA renter]JP,
Weren’t other posters giving us a hard time when we suggested that the economy is benefitting from massive numbers of people who suddenly have no house payments? I’ll have to find that thread…[/quote]
That’s right. I think it was FormerSanDiegan that explained his point of view and I understood it. However, in the immediate sense, money that is being spent into the economy versus their mortgage is keeping the wheels moving.
In any case, I remember saying this a long time ago when someone, I think TG, was mentioning how the economy wasn’t so bad and lines/wait were long at restaurants. I think that was the first time I said something about if one isn’t paying the mortgage, they can afford to go out to dinner.
In the end, we the taxpayers are propping up consumers who are buying things rather than paying their mortgage. Everyone paying taxes, pat yourself on the back![/quote]
Yes, that was me. Just caught this thread.
For every dollar not paid back to the lender, there is one less dollar for the holder of the note that was secured by that property. The holder of that note has one less dollar to spend, be it on pension payouts, development, venture capital or whatever.
The net sum is not positive, since we have an economic system based on credit. For every dollar lost in reserve at a bank there are several dollars not available to lend. The net effect is negative.If people NOT paying their mortgages is a net positive to the economy, why did our economy approach the brink of the next great Depression when the sub-prime borrowers stopped making payments ?
Paul Jackson’s analysis quoted in this CNBC article ignores the other side of the ledger and is thus incomplete.
Participant[quote=jpinpb][quote=CA renter]JP,
Weren’t other posters giving us a hard time when we suggested that the economy is benefitting from massive numbers of people who suddenly have no house payments? I’ll have to find that thread…[/quote]
That’s right. I think it was FormerSanDiegan that explained his point of view and I understood it. However, in the immediate sense, money that is being spent into the economy versus their mortgage is keeping the wheels moving.
In any case, I remember saying this a long time ago when someone, I think TG, was mentioning how the economy wasn’t so bad and lines/wait were long at restaurants. I think that was the first time I said something about if one isn’t paying the mortgage, they can afford to go out to dinner.
In the end, we the taxpayers are propping up consumers who are buying things rather than paying their mortgage. Everyone paying taxes, pat yourself on the back![/quote]
Yes, that was me. Just caught this thread.
For every dollar not paid back to the lender, there is one less dollar for the holder of the note that was secured by that property. The holder of that note has one less dollar to spend, be it on pension payouts, development, venture capital or whatever.
The net sum is not positive, since we have an economic system based on credit. For every dollar lost in reserve at a bank there are several dollars not available to lend. The net effect is negative.If people NOT paying their mortgages is a net positive to the economy, why did our economy approach the brink of the next great Depression when the sub-prime borrowers stopped making payments ?
Paul Jackson’s analysis quoted in this CNBC article ignores the other side of the ledger and is thus incomplete.
Participant[quote=jpinpb][quote=CA renter]JP,
Weren’t other posters giving us a hard time when we suggested that the economy is benefitting from massive numbers of people who suddenly have no house payments? I’ll have to find that thread…[/quote]
That’s right. I think it was FormerSanDiegan that explained his point of view and I understood it. However, in the immediate sense, money that is being spent into the economy versus their mortgage is keeping the wheels moving.
In any case, I remember saying this a long time ago when someone, I think TG, was mentioning how the economy wasn’t so bad and lines/wait were long at restaurants. I think that was the first time I said something about if one isn’t paying the mortgage, they can afford to go out to dinner.
In the end, we the taxpayers are propping up consumers who are buying things rather than paying their mortgage. Everyone paying taxes, pat yourself on the back![/quote]
Yes, that was me. Just caught this thread.
For every dollar not paid back to the lender, there is one less dollar for the holder of the note that was secured by that property. The holder of that note has one less dollar to spend, be it on pension payouts, development, venture capital or whatever.
The net sum is not positive, since we have an economic system based on credit. For every dollar lost in reserve at a bank there are several dollars not available to lend. The net effect is negative.If people NOT paying their mortgages is a net positive to the economy, why did our economy approach the brink of the next great Depression when the sub-prime borrowers stopped making payments ?
Paul Jackson’s analysis quoted in this CNBC article ignores the other side of the ledger and is thus incomplete.
Participant[quote=SD Transplant]
Last month, a Bank of America division called ReconTrust N.A. sent out a flurry of “notices of auction,” which alert owners of the date their homes could be sold in foreclosure proceedings.The notices went to 230 homeowners in North San Diego County, a 69 percent increase from February, and to 391 owners in Southwest Riverside County, up 67 percent from February.
[/quote]woo hoo !
Another 230 homes to choose from in NC. I suppose several momths of this will result in swelling inventory just in time for a potential seasonal/tax break expiration late Summmer/Fall slow down.Participant[quote=SD Transplant]
Last month, a Bank of America division called ReconTrust N.A. sent out a flurry of “notices of auction,” which alert owners of the date their homes could be sold in foreclosure proceedings.The notices went to 230 homeowners in North San Diego County, a 69 percent increase from February, and to 391 owners in Southwest Riverside County, up 67 percent from February.
[/quote]woo hoo !
Another 230 homes to choose from in NC. I suppose several momths of this will result in swelling inventory just in time for a potential seasonal/tax break expiration late Summmer/Fall slow down.Participant[quote=SD Transplant]
Last month, a Bank of America division called ReconTrust N.A. sent out a flurry of “notices of auction,” which alert owners of the date their homes could be sold in foreclosure proceedings.The notices went to 230 homeowners in North San Diego County, a 69 percent increase from February, and to 391 owners in Southwest Riverside County, up 67 percent from February.
[/quote]woo hoo !
Another 230 homes to choose from in NC. I suppose several momths of this will result in swelling inventory just in time for a potential seasonal/tax break expiration late Summmer/Fall slow down. -
AuthorPosts
