[patb]

CAterpillar probably is seeing the Stimulus showing up.
all that road work is getting old cat gear off the yard and needing
spares, hoses, pads, blades,,,,

Cat probably makes more money off spares then they do for units.

[patb]

[quote=Nor-LA-SD-guy][quote=CA renter]

Here’s my prediction: from now until Q3 2010, we will see fairly stable to rising markets, both in housing and stocks. They will say Q3 2009 saw the end of the recession.

As we progress through fall of 2010, it will become evident that the “recovery” is really just the result of monetary and fiscal manupulations. People will still be afraid of losing their jobs, and try as they might, the pumping will do little to repair the cracks in the foundation of our economy. At that point, we see the next leg down in the housing and stock markets (but we’ll probably see 10,000+ on the DOW and 1,100 on the S&P before then).[/quote]

The few issue I have with this prediction

1) The Stimulus if I understand it correctly is designed to be allocated over then next three to five years, so it will last longer than 2010-11
(I think that is it’s main problem by the way, it’s going to be too slow to do much good so why bother, it’s really mostly social engineering anyway, good if you live in the inner city type stuff).

2) The rate we (the U.S.A.) are not consuming (everything cars, computers, even homes etc…) is completely unsustainable just as much as the bubble was, so just getting back to normal consumption will take us 70% of the way back to recovery.

I will add one more:

3) Once the banks think (or are fairly confident) that RE has hit bottom and has not a lot of possible downward surprise left) Credit will start to flow a lot more easily (no one wants to lend against a depreciating asset, not even the Gov.)[/quote]

I will beg to differ

1) Households are at the breaking point in debt, from here on out
household debt cannot increase, it must instead be flat or decline.
a return to normal savings rates of 10% will in return shave about 7% off of GDP. that will most likely manifest as 3 years of -2% GDP.

2) Housing consumption will decline. the 5,000 SF McMansion will either be redone as a duplex or, the homes of the 70’s will come back in vogue.
There is nothing wrong with a big house, or a nice house, but big and nice?

3) That pointless one upsmanship consumerism will decline. While perhaps people will still buy new stuff, the idea of putting a 5 grand flat screen on the credit card will go away. I bought a 42″ LCD for $325 used, that was awesome. I bought 2 suits for 250 dollars, that was awesome.

4) The banks have got some really ugly things headed their way. Jumbo Prime Failures, Option ARM failures, right now they are reporting good earnings, because they are flush with government cash and Mark-to-Model Level 3 assets. When these go bad, as they already are, the system will again convulse.

Bush and Greenspan filled the system with air, it is bound to keep leaking out.

[patb]

[quote=Nor-LA-SD-guy][quote=CA renter]

Here’s my prediction: from now until Q3 2010, we will see fairly stable to rising markets, both in housing and stocks. They will say Q3 2009 saw the end of the recession.

As we progress through fall of 2010, it will become evident that the “recovery” is really just the result of monetary and fiscal manupulations. People will still be afraid of losing their jobs, and try as they might, the pumping will do little to repair the cracks in the foundation of our economy. At that point, we see the next leg down in the housing and stock markets (but we’ll probably see 10,000+ on the DOW and 1,100 on the S&P before then).[/quote]

The few issue I have with this prediction

1) The Stimulus if I understand it correctly is designed to be allocated over then next three to five years, so it will last longer than 2010-11
(I think that is it’s main problem by the way, it’s going to be too slow to do much good so why bother, it’s really mostly social engineering anyway, good if you live in the inner city type stuff).

2) The rate we (the U.S.A.) are not consuming (everything cars, computers, even homes etc…) is completely unsustainable just as much as the bubble was, so just getting back to normal consumption will take us 70% of the way back to recovery.

I will add one more:

3) Once the banks think (or are fairly confident) that RE has hit bottom and has not a lot of possible downward surprise left) Credit will start to flow a lot more easily (no one wants to lend against a depreciating asset, not even the Gov.)[/quote]

I will beg to differ

1) Households are at the breaking point in debt, from here on out
household debt cannot increase, it must instead be flat or decline.
a return to normal savings rates of 10% will in return shave about 7% off of GDP. that will most likely manifest as 3 years of -2% GDP.

2) Housing consumption will decline. the 5,000 SF McMansion will either be redone as a duplex or, the homes of the 70’s will come back in vogue.
There is nothing wrong with a big house, or a nice house, but big and nice?

3) That pointless one upsmanship consumerism will decline. While perhaps people will still buy new stuff, the idea of putting a 5 grand flat screen on the credit card will go away. I bought a 42″ LCD for $325 used, that was awesome. I bought 2 suits for 250 dollars, that was awesome.

4) The banks have got some really ugly things headed their way. Jumbo Prime Failures, Option ARM failures, right now they are reporting good earnings, because they are flush with government cash and Mark-to-Model Level 3 assets. When these go bad, as they already are, the system will again convulse.

Bush and Greenspan filled the system with air, it is bound to keep leaking out.

[patb]

[quote=Nor-LA-SD-guy][quote=CA renter]

Here’s my prediction: from now until Q3 2010, we will see fairly stable to rising markets, both in housing and stocks. They will say Q3 2009 saw the end of the recession.

As we progress through fall of 2010, it will become evident that the “recovery” is really just the result of monetary and fiscal manupulations. People will still be afraid of losing their jobs, and try as they might, the pumping will do little to repair the cracks in the foundation of our economy. At that point, we see the next leg down in the housing and stock markets (but we’ll probably see 10,000+ on the DOW and 1,100 on the S&P before then).[/quote]

The few issue I have with this prediction

1) The Stimulus if I understand it correctly is designed to be allocated over then next three to five years, so it will last longer than 2010-11
(I think that is it’s main problem by the way, it’s going to be too slow to do much good so why bother, it’s really mostly social engineering anyway, good if you live in the inner city type stuff).

2) The rate we (the U.S.A.) are not consuming (everything cars, computers, even homes etc…) is completely unsustainable just as much as the bubble was, so just getting back to normal consumption will take us 70% of the way back to recovery.

I will add one more:

3) Once the banks think (or are fairly confident) that RE has hit bottom and has not a lot of possible downward surprise left) Credit will start to flow a lot more easily (no one wants to lend against a depreciating asset, not even the Gov.)[/quote]

I will beg to differ

1) Households are at the breaking point in debt, from here on out
household debt cannot increase, it must instead be flat or decline.
a return to normal savings rates of 10% will in return shave about 7% off of GDP. that will most likely manifest as 3 years of -2% GDP.

2) Housing consumption will decline. the 5,000 SF McMansion will either be redone as a duplex or, the homes of the 70’s will come back in vogue.
There is nothing wrong with a big house, or a nice house, but big and nice?

3) That pointless one upsmanship consumerism will decline. While perhaps people will still buy new stuff, the idea of putting a 5 grand flat screen on the credit card will go away. I bought a 42″ LCD for $325 used, that was awesome. I bought 2 suits for 250 dollars, that was awesome.

4) The banks have got some really ugly things headed their way. Jumbo Prime Failures, Option ARM failures, right now they are reporting good earnings, because they are flush with government cash and Mark-to-Model Level 3 assets. When these go bad, as they already are, the system will again convulse.

Bush and Greenspan filled the system with air, it is bound to keep leaking out.

[patb]

[quote=Nor-LA-SD-guy][quote=CA renter]

Here’s my prediction: from now until Q3 2010, we will see fairly stable to rising markets, both in housing and stocks. They will say Q3 2009 saw the end of the recession.

As we progress through fall of 2010, it will become evident that the “recovery” is really just the result of monetary and fiscal manupulations. People will still be afraid of losing their jobs, and try as they might, the pumping will do little to repair the cracks in the foundation of our economy. At that point, we see the next leg down in the housing and stock markets (but we’ll probably see 10,000+ on the DOW and 1,100 on the S&P before then).[/quote]

The few issue I have with this prediction

1) The Stimulus if I understand it correctly is designed to be allocated over then next three to five years, so it will last longer than 2010-11
(I think that is it’s main problem by the way, it’s going to be too slow to do much good so why bother, it’s really mostly social engineering anyway, good if you live in the inner city type stuff).

2) The rate we (the U.S.A.) are not consuming (everything cars, computers, even homes etc…) is completely unsustainable just as much as the bubble was, so just getting back to normal consumption will take us 70% of the way back to recovery.

I will add one more:

3) Once the banks think (or are fairly confident) that RE has hit bottom and has not a lot of possible downward surprise left) Credit will start to flow a lot more easily (no one wants to lend against a depreciating asset, not even the Gov.)[/quote]

I will beg to differ

1) Households are at the breaking point in debt, from here on out
household debt cannot increase, it must instead be flat or decline.
a return to normal savings rates of 10% will in return shave about 7% off of GDP. that will most likely manifest as 3 years of -2% GDP.

2) Housing consumption will decline. the 5,000 SF McMansion will either be redone as a duplex or, the homes of the 70’s will come back in vogue.
There is nothing wrong with a big house, or a nice house, but big and nice?

3) That pointless one upsmanship consumerism will decline. While perhaps people will still buy new stuff, the idea of putting a 5 grand flat screen on the credit card will go away. I bought a 42″ LCD for $325 used, that was awesome. I bought 2 suits for 250 dollars, that was awesome.

4) The banks have got some really ugly things headed their way. Jumbo Prime Failures, Option ARM failures, right now they are reporting good earnings, because they are flush with government cash and Mark-to-Model Level 3 assets. When these go bad, as they already are, the system will again convulse.

Bush and Greenspan filled the system with air, it is bound to keep leaking out.

[patb]

[quote=Nor-LA-SD-guy][quote=CA renter]

Here’s my prediction: from now until Q3 2010, we will see fairly stable to rising markets, both in housing and stocks. They will say Q3 2009 saw the end of the recession.

As we progress through fall of 2010, it will become evident that the “recovery” is really just the result of monetary and fiscal manupulations. People will still be afraid of losing their jobs, and try as they might, the pumping will do little to repair the cracks in the foundation of our economy. At that point, we see the next leg down in the housing and stock markets (but we’ll probably see 10,000+ on the DOW and 1,100 on the S&P before then).[/quote]

The few issue I have with this prediction

1) The Stimulus if I understand it correctly is designed to be allocated over then next three to five years, so it will last longer than 2010-11
(I think that is it’s main problem by the way, it’s going to be too slow to do much good so why bother, it’s really mostly social engineering anyway, good if you live in the inner city type stuff).

2) The rate we (the U.S.A.) are not consuming (everything cars, computers, even homes etc…) is completely unsustainable just as much as the bubble was, so just getting back to normal consumption will take us 70% of the way back to recovery.

I will add one more:

3) Once the banks think (or are fairly confident) that RE has hit bottom and has not a lot of possible downward surprise left) Credit will start to flow a lot more easily (no one wants to lend against a depreciating asset, not even the Gov.)[/quote]

I will beg to differ

1) Households are at the breaking point in debt, from here on out
household debt cannot increase, it must instead be flat or decline.
a return to normal savings rates of 10% will in return shave about 7% off of GDP. that will most likely manifest as 3 years of -2% GDP.

2) Housing consumption will decline. the 5,000 SF McMansion will either be redone as a duplex or, the homes of the 70’s will come back in vogue.
There is nothing wrong with a big house, or a nice house, but big and nice?

3) That pointless one upsmanship consumerism will decline. While perhaps people will still buy new stuff, the idea of putting a 5 grand flat screen on the credit card will go away. I bought a 42″ LCD for $325 used, that was awesome. I bought 2 suits for 250 dollars, that was awesome.

4) The banks have got some really ugly things headed their way. Jumbo Prime Failures, Option ARM failures, right now they are reporting good earnings, because they are flush with government cash and Mark-to-Model Level 3 assets. When these go bad, as they already are, the system will again convulse.

Bush and Greenspan filled the system with air, it is bound to keep leaking out.

[patb]

[quote=afx114][quote=barnaby33]So what you are saying is that Piggington has become middle aged.[/quote]

Piggington is a MILF.[/quote]

Piggington is Captain Jack.

[patb]

[quote=afx114][quote=barnaby33]So what you are saying is that Piggington has become middle aged.[/quote]

Piggington is a MILF.[/quote]

Piggington is Captain Jack.

[patb]

[quote=afx114][quote=barnaby33]So what you are saying is that Piggington has become middle aged.[/quote]

Piggington is a MILF.[/quote]

Piggington is Captain Jack.

[patb]

[quote=afx114][quote=barnaby33]So what you are saying is that Piggington has become middle aged.[/quote]

Piggington is a MILF.[/quote]

Piggington is Captain Jack.

[patb]

[quote=afx114][quote=barnaby33]So what you are saying is that Piggington has become middle aged.[/quote]

Piggington is a MILF.[/quote]

Piggington is Captain Jack.

[patb]

[quote=Eugene]http://whatreallyhappened.com/IMAGES/obama-1961-birth-announcement-from-honolulu-advertiser0000.gif

http://whatreallyhappened.com/IMAGES/ObamaBirthStarBulletin.jpg

(via Snopes)

There’s one thing I don’t understand about this conspiracy theory. Do these guys believe that Ann Dunham wasn’t his mother? If they don’t, where was Barack Obama born, in their opinion? Is there evidence that his mother got a passport (let alone plane tickets) that allowed her to travel outside the U.S.? Recall that she was 18 at the time. And even if she were stupid enough to go on an extended vacation abreod during the third trimester, bringing a newborn baby into the country had to involve jumping through legal hoops, like registering his birth at the local consulate. Is there any evidence that any of that happened?[/quote]

the theory is that his mother was a minor so she can’t convey citizenship
only an adult can do that, so if he was born overseas, he’s an illegal alien.

[patb]

[quote=Eugene]http://whatreallyhappened.com/IMAGES/obama-1961-birth-announcement-from-honolulu-advertiser0000.gif

http://whatreallyhappened.com/IMAGES/ObamaBirthStarBulletin.jpg

(via Snopes)

There’s one thing I don’t understand about this conspiracy theory. Do these guys believe that Ann Dunham wasn’t his mother? If they don’t, where was Barack Obama born, in their opinion? Is there evidence that his mother got a passport (let alone plane tickets) that allowed her to travel outside the U.S.? Recall that she was 18 at the time. And even if she were stupid enough to go on an extended vacation abreod during the third trimester, bringing a newborn baby into the country had to involve jumping through legal hoops, like registering his birth at the local consulate. Is there any evidence that any of that happened?[/quote]

the theory is that his mother was a minor so she can’t convey citizenship
only an adult can do that, so if he was born overseas, he’s an illegal alien.

[patb]

[quote=Eugene]http://whatreallyhappened.com/IMAGES/obama-1961-birth-announcement-from-honolulu-advertiser0000.gif

http://whatreallyhappened.com/IMAGES/ObamaBirthStarBulletin.jpg

(via Snopes)

There’s one thing I don’t understand about this conspiracy theory. Do these guys believe that Ann Dunham wasn’t his mother? If they don’t, where was Barack Obama born, in their opinion? Is there evidence that his mother got a passport (let alone plane tickets) that allowed her to travel outside the U.S.? Recall that she was 18 at the time. And even if she were stupid enough to go on an extended vacation abreod during the third trimester, bringing a newborn baby into the country had to involve jumping through legal hoops, like registering his birth at the local consulate. Is there any evidence that any of that happened?[/quote]

the theory is that his mother was a minor so she can’t convey citizenship
only an adult can do that, so if he was born overseas, he’s an illegal alien.

[patb]

[quote=Eugene]http://whatreallyhappened.com/IMAGES/obama-1961-birth-announcement-from-honolulu-advertiser0000.gif

http://whatreallyhappened.com/IMAGES/ObamaBirthStarBulletin.jpg

(via Snopes)

There’s one thing I don’t understand about this conspiracy theory. Do these guys believe that Ann Dunham wasn’t his mother? If they don’t, where was Barack Obama born, in their opinion? Is there evidence that his mother got a passport (let alone plane tickets) that allowed her to travel outside the U.S.? Recall that she was 18 at the time. And even if she were stupid enough to go on an extended vacation abreod during the third trimester, bringing a newborn baby into the country had to involve jumping through legal hoops, like registering his birth at the local consulate. Is there any evidence that any of that happened?[/quote]

the theory is that his mother was a minor so she can’t convey citizenship
only an adult can do that, so if he was born overseas, he’s an illegal alien.

[Author]

Posts