And anyone who thinks that politicians can fix it are drinking orsmoking really good stuff.
The US saying that tax revenue can cover the losses incurred by Fan/ Fred is
our mouth making promises our colletive a**es can't keep. If your
conversations have been wide ranging, over the past half decade you will have heard many
times that the Congress wouldn't allow entitlements to go south because all the
retiring geezers would not vote for them,
"values" began to rise unrealistically in the early part of this decade fueled
by low interest rates and shady loans, most sober economists predicted the
housing bubble and the current (and continuing) aftermath. Others, under the
guise of being economists, such as the economic spokespersons for the NAR, kept up
a tatoo of "bottom is just around the corner", "they ain't makin' any more
land!", "it's a GREAT time to buy."
didn't agree so nobody really knows, do they?" It wasn't that economists didn't
agree, it was cheerleaders and mouthpieces didn't agree with the economists
and there was an effort to lump them together as all being experts alike.
For example, the infamous David Lereah . . . .
wrote (retitled and republished) . . . .
Having a garden is ALWAYS a good idea.
Having debt is ALWAYS a bad idea.
So the advice has been from the clay tables of ancient Sumer to Shakespeare
('neither borrower nor lender be') to the present and it has always been the
best advice. The problem came in the 'irrational exuberance' of the early part
of this decade when some became convinced that having debt was a GOOD idea.
After all, if you owned a $50K house that was rising in value 20% a year, you
were only "making" $10K. But if you borrowed $200K for a bigger house, you
would be "making" $40K a year. A no brainer, eh?
Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.