skip to Main Content
thehousingbubble@gmail.com

Don’t Panic, This Is Not A Bust, It Is Not A Crash, It’s The Great Price Deceleration

A report from CNBC. “A Federal Reserve economist says the current housing backdrop is similar to recent economic slumps, with several metrics ‘consistent with the possibility of a late 2019 or early 2020 recession. ‘Data on single-family home sales through May 2019 confirm that housing markets in all regions of the country are weakening,’ the St. Louis Fed’s William R. Emmons said. ‘The severity of the housing downturn appears comparable across regions—in all cases, it’s much less severe than the experience leading to the Great Recession but similar to the periods before the 1990-91 and 2001 recessions.'”

From Miami Agent Magazine. “Home price growth in some of the biggest markets in the U.S., including Miami, has increased at a continually slower annual rate. That has put the brakes on historic levels of price appreciation across the U.S. In a July 2 report, Kate Seabaugh, senior researcher at John Burns Real Estate Consulting, called this recent trend “The Great Price Deceleration.” That’s because year-over-year price appreciation had suddenly reversed in many metros where home prices had been skyrocketing only a year ago.”

“For example, between June 2018 and June 2019, price appreciation in San Jose went from a 20 percent average annual increase to a 6 percent average annual decrease — a 26 percent decrease in the rate of change, in other words.”

The Long Beach Business Journal in California. “Currently, the rent control solution has once again come to the forefront in California as protestors are staging demonstrations to force price controls on landlords. But if what has happened in a very similar situation on the other side of the country is any indication, it could lead to some very serious and unintended consequences that will cause a host of problems.”

“New York is much like California in that is has one of the largest populations in the country. New York’s rent reforms that are about to go into effect have already had a decided impact on lenders and banks, as three institutions have already reported a combined loss of $2.5 billion in market capitalization just since this spring, when the debate over rent control began to look bad for multi-family owners.”

“‘These stocks have really been hammered . . . in the last month and a half,’ Peter Winter, a stock analyst who covers New York Community Bank and Signature for Wedbush Securities, recently told ‘The Real Deal.'”

The Midland Reporter Telegram in Texas. “The value of construction projects started in the greater Houston area fell sharply across both the residential and nonresidential sectors in May, according to a new Dodge Data & Analytics report. Area construction totaled $1.1 billion in May, down 42 percent from the $1.8 billion the year earlier.”

“Residential construction fell 27 percent to $797.8 million, while nonresidential activity fell 61 percent to $305.7 million. Dodge did not provide an explanation for the drop.”

From D Magazine in Texas. “Mike and Tracy Voegtle are not getting back into the Dallas housing market anytime soon. It took months of constant searching for the couple to find their Far North Dallas home back in 2013. That year, the local residential property market was the hottest it had ever been. Cash offers were being made for homes all over the area. Prices soared higher by the day. Supply was limited. Demand seemed endless.”

“But something has changed in the Voegtles’ neighborhood. ‘For Sale’ signs are standing on lawns a lot longer than they used to. ‘The housing market around us feels like it is slowing down a bit,’ says Mike. We’re seeing houses sitting on the market for a long time now, for months, even. That didn’t happen a few years ago.'”

“Don’t panic. This is not a bust. It is not a crash. If you are a homeowner in the Dallas area, you will not have to start making your belt out of cardboard. Prices overall are still increasing. First-quarter home prices in North Texas increased 1.4 percent over their level in 2018, according to the National Association of Realtors.”

“That was the smallest price gain in the area since 2011. In 2011, the median home price in North Texas was $150,000. Today, it is $254,300. So if area price increases have slowed, does that mean that $254,300 is something like the top of what has been a huge upward sales market here?”

“For homeowners, it seems like good news that the demand is still out there and prices are still climbing. But, then, what’s the deal with those lingering ‘For Sale’ signs in Mike Voegtle’s neighborhood?”

“Jeff Duffey, who runs Jeff Duffey & Associates, a real estate firm that handles both existing and new home sales in Dallas, thinks that too many sellers believe Dallas is experiencing a boom market that gives them total control over pricing.”

“‘For example,’ he says, ‘two to three years ago, it was hard to find many homes in North Dallas that were listed between $400,000 and $600,000. Now I can show someone homes for five straight weekends and still not go through all of the active listings in that price range. Sellers who have overpriced their homes or who think they don’t need to go through the trouble to fix up their homes for sale are watching their properties sit on the market. Buyers don’t want those homes and they don’t need them.'”

This Post Has 128 Comments
  1. ‘already had a decided impact on lenders and banks, as three institutions have already reported a combined loss of $2.5 billion in market capitalization just since this spring’

    DONG!

  2. ‘two to three years ago, it was hard to find many homes in North Dallas that were listed between $400,000 and $600,000. Now I can show someone homes for five straight weekends and still not go through all of the active listings in that price range. Sellers who have overpriced their homes or who think they don’t need to go through the trouble to fix up their homes for sale are watching their properties sit on the market. Buyers don’t want those homes and they don’t need them’

    Translation: you are fooked.

      1. The last article goes on to mention builders are throwing up “thousands” of $250k shacks. When the builders undercut their recent customers, it’s over.

        1. I thought builders couldn’t profitably build homes in that price range due to regulations and materials/labor/land costs? Isn’t this what they’ve been repeating for the past several years as the reason for all of that luxury housing they dumped on the market?

          1. Unless one or more of the input costs decline, I think that might be true. DJT administration ordered a thorough review of regs and processes that add costs to building. Land price is probably the most likely to go down if/when we hit a downturn.

            But it is also probably true that more condos, row houses, duplex, fourplexes, townhouses could be built.

          2. The builders are either lying or cutting their losses ASAP. Unlike used home sellers, they understand sunk costs and aren’t emotionally attached to properties.

  3. ‘year-over-year price appreciation had suddenly reversed in many metros where home prices had been skyrocketing only a year ago. For example, between June 2018 and June 2019, price appreciation in San Jose went from a 20 percent average annual increase to a 6 percent average annual decrease — a 26 percent decrease in the rate of change’

    I don’t know Fed dude, sounds pretty rapid to me. And has this every happened in so many “red hot” cities, at exactly the same time?

    1. Theoretically, if that rate of change continues, next year should see a 32% plunge in values.

      Likely won’t be that severe, but 30% from the 2018 peak is seeming more and more likely to me.

  4. The Fed raised rates and cut its balance sheet too quickly. One rate increase on eight years under Obama and what seven in two years under Trump? It is not like inflation had even met their target never mind exceeded it.

    1. After so much Quantitative Easing-induced asset price inflation following years of ultra-low rates that fueled rampant speculation, I wish them luck in hitting their 2% inflation target.

  5. PS and that rate increase was after Trump was elected shortly before he took office.

    1. Yes, but DJT was vehemently against the easy money policies of the Fed under his predecessor as a candidate. It was only when he got elected that he changed his tune and has been clamoring for easy money.

    2. Trump is begging for another cut. Nat debt is setting new records. I guess being a debt donkey is OK?
      If we can’t raise rates back to normal in the “best economy ever” when can we? hmmmm… This wont end well.

      1. Seem like good, orthodox picks and, most importantly, qualified. There is a University of Utah grad too in one of them too.

          1. “Sen. Mitt Romney, the freshman Republican senator from Utah, said during the discussion of Moore and Cain that it was important the Fed board not be comprised of people who are highly partisan.”

            It would also be nice if they didn’t all have blue eyes.

  6. “…in all cases, it’s much less severe than the experience leading to the Great Recession but similar to the periods before the 1990-91 and 2001 recessions.’”

    So was the period leading up to the Great Recession. It looked way worse through the lens of the rearview mirror than during the runup, when officials hid from view the recession that began in December 2007 for nearly an entire year following the onset.

  7. “A Federal Reserve economist says the current housing backdrop is similar to recent economic slumps, with several metrics ‘consistent with the possibility of a late 2019 or early 2020 recession.

    Remember, the Keynesian fraudsters at the Fed are the most inept or mendacious economic prognosticators on the planet. Here is Ben Bernanke’s “Everything is Awesome!” pronouncements leading up to the 2007 housing bubble bust and 2008 financial crisis.

    https://www.businessinsider.com/bernanke-quotes-2010-12

  8. “Don’t panic. This is not a bust. It is not a crash. If you are a homeowner in the Dallas area, you will not have to start making your belt out of cardboard. Prices overall are still increasing. First-quarter home prices in North Texas increased 1.4 percent over their level in 2018, according to the National Association of Realtors.”

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zDAmPIq29ro

    1. In other words, wait until the corporates (the REO-to-Rental folks that have never turned a profit) have unloaded their tens of thousands of SFRs. Then, after they have taken their speculative gains (which is all it was about to begin with) you sell at a loss.

      Get it? Good.

      1. I have to correct myself. AMH did turn a small profit in 2018, for the first time ever.

        Now the P/E is a nice round 225. They could afford to pay out nearly 25% as much as a 1-month Treasury. Great investment!

      2. “…the REO-to-Rental folks that have never turned a profit…”

        That reminds me, whatever became of Rental Watch and his characteristic ‘real estate always goes up’ diatribes?

  9. “For example, between June 2018 and June 2019, price appreciation in San Jose went from a 20 percent average annual increase to a 6 percent average annual decrease — a 26 percent decrease in the rate of change, in other words.”

    Or in the vernacular, a brutal schlonging to speculators and FBs who overpaid.

    1. I would think news of losses would lead to further declines in speculative demand, coupled with yesterday’s speculators adding their real estate HODLings to the rapidly expanding inventory pyre. A hard landing with flippers getting burned is baked into the cake.

  10. Cant quite tell from the Realtor quote about great price deceleration if they are engaging in typical realtor speak to deemphasis or if they are being brutally honest and speaking with sarcasm. Depends on the delivery I guess. Either way, the direction that we have seen here on the blog is playing out.

    Think about this. In one week CNBC has published this article as well as the one a few days ago about new home construction falling 7% or so in May from April starts (month over month data no less!). Is it possible that they finally put Yun back in his cage or at least are seeing through him. Actually I think he had a sound byte in that article to the extent that the new data was difficult to explain given the low interest rate drops and supposed shortage.

    Press will start to report more truthful data when (1) it gets higher ratings, or (2) the credability of their prior data source is discredited, or both. Then things really begin to happen.

    Is it just me, or can all you guys feel the new direction winds starting to pick up? Get out the popcorn, this is about to get interesting!

    1. Fraudsters will say anything to rip off someone. That’s why the old adage “every closing is a crime scene” is true.

    1. I don’t understand why the employees of the tech companies are getting blamed for this. It’s the extreme left politicians running the city that own the problem, in my view.

      But then they all voted for them and their policies, I guess.

      1. “I don’t understand why the employees of the tech companies are getting blamed for this”

        I don’t either! I blame speculator foreign money launderers and the REIC / NAR for turning their heads while this was happening to pad there pockets. Anyone working in tech and making profits off the “ill gotten gains” in the process, just caught a 2nd hand high. They are not to blame by any means.

        1. Gentleman leave needles in the streets, crap on the sidewalks and break into cars. Sounds more like weed and seed was abandoned just the opposite of gentrification

    2. The key as to San Francisco’s plight, from the article:

      “That hearing was one of several pivotal moments in recent San Francisco history when public officials could have used the city’s legislative or regulatory powers to force the tech industry to contribute more to public services, but chose not to.

        1. Funny you should say that. I talked to someone from SF recently about the city’s problems. I remained neutral in the conversation because I was just interested in hearing his perspective. He proceeded to blame it all on Ronald Reagan. Seriously.

          1. Yes it was his compliance with a supreme Court decision which caused all the problems. I do think that most of our problems even mass shootings are caused by the breakdown in the mental health system and the inability to detain mentally ill people but Reagan did not cause it, and we were told that Obamacare would fix it by providing alternatives to detention.

          2. He proceeded to blame it all on Ronald Reagan. Seriously

            Having worked in behavioral-medicine units, I would say that getting rid of state run mental institutions (which happened largely under Reagan), seems like a disaster in retrospect. It would be unfair to pin all the blame on Reagan though.

            A lot of the coastal cities are punished because of their climate too. It’s a lot harder to be homeless in Fargo, ND because of, well, the weather. Enough blame to go around. We could point figures at Big Pharma for creating a opioid epidemic, the housing bubble for sky rocketing housing costs, NIMBYism, local leaders, federal policy of artificially limiting public housing vouchers (e.g. we don’t do the same for food stamps), etc. I could go on and on. But SF is wealthy and they could solve the problem if they wanted. The first step would be to create safe parking lots of vehicle sleepers. Probably the quickest way to scale a solution, and cheapest.

          3. O Connor v. Donaldson a 1975 caused mental health facilities to shutdown all over America not just in California. If Reagan caused the problem it would be easy for the Democrats to fix since they have a super majority in the legislature and have a Democrat as governor. Truly amazing how this lie gets repeated over and over.

          4. “Yes it was his compliance with a supreme Court decision which caused all the problems”

            What Supreme Court ruling?

          5. Yeah, California had billions of dollars to throw away on a bullet train to nowhere, too.

            The planet’s “climate” is a state issue, but the homeless living in its cities is a problem for the federal government to solve.

            And then it’s painting with a broad brush in claiming that everyone on the streets has a mental problem. I would wager that all of those folks with jobs who are sleeping in their cars because the state has turned a blind eye to the realtors and builders gentrifying them out of a roof over their heads are reasonably sane.

          6. Isn’t it like someone who has owned a house for 30 years blaming the previous owner for the fact that all the windows are broken, the lawn is overgrown with weeds, the paint is peeling, and there’s a termite problem?

          7. “O’Connor v. Donaldson, 422 U.S. 563 (1975), was a landmark decision in mental health law. The United States Supreme Court ruled that a state cannot constitutionally confine a non-dangerous individual who is capable of surviving safely in freedom by themselves or with the help of willing and responsible family members or friends.” —wiki

          8. “The Mental Health Systems Act of 1980 (MHSA) was United States legislation signed by President Jimmy Carter which provided grants to community mental health centers. During the following Ronald Reagan administration, the United States Congress repealed most of the law.[1] The MHSA was considered landmark legislation in mental health care policy.” —wiki

          9. Reagan diverted the money spent on mental health to the arms build-up leading to the end of the cold war, IIRC.

          10. The Supreme Court decision was well meaning but it did put dangerous people on the street. Many people are perfectly fine if they take their meds and thus are released. However once released they do not take their meds and are quite dangerous. Once again RMS , if Reagan created the problem, why didn’t the Democrat governor of California and the previous Democrat President fund the programs you claim would end the program. Ronald Reagan did not starve the social programs because he never had control of the house and Senate. Thus, the compromise was usually to fund defense and social programs. You are just repeating liberal talking points which have no basis in fact or logic. Reagan did nothing before 1988 which could not or would not have been undone by Obama or even Clinton if undoing it made sense.

          1. @ABQDan I agree with you that there is enough blame to go around from both sides. But Reagan’s acts, with the benefit of hindsight, appear to have the lion’s share of the blame. I also think that mental health policy is something that should be handled at a federal level, more than just a hodge-podge of state/local efforts.

            Perhaps a more fruitful discussion would be, what to do next?

    1. Housing IS the Business Cycle
      NBER research paper:

      Of the components of GDP, residential investment offers by far the best early warning sign of an oncoming recession. Since World War II we have had eight recessions preceded by substantial problems in housing and consumer durables.

      https://www.nber.org/papers/w13428

      1. Well, at least we aren’t currently having any problems with consumer durables.

        1. Oh wait!

          The Wall Street Journal
          Auto Industry
          U.S. Auto Sales Slipped in First Half of 2019 as Prices Climbed
          Shift away from sedans and compact cars helped dent sales volumes
          By Nora Naughton
          Updated July 2, 2019 5:30 pm ET

          Major auto makers saw U.S. new-vehicle sales drop in the first half, a decline expected to extend for the remainder of the year as the U.S. auto industry’s historic sales run tapers off.

          Rising car prices and higher interest rates dulled demand in the year’s first six months, with many buyers flocking to the used-car lot looking for deals. A dramatic shift away from sedans and compact cars helped dent sales volumes in the first part of the year as General Motors Co. and other auto makers discontinued these models.

          1. Tesla’s Vehicle Deliveries Soar
            Yahoo Finance
            July 2, 2019

            “Tesla delivered a record 95,200 vehicles in its second quarter. Fueled by continued growth in Model 3 production, this figure was up 134% year over year and 51% sequentially. These deliveries easily beat analysts’ average forecast for deliveries of 91,000 units during the quarter. In addition, the figure was ahead of Tesla’s previous quarterly record of about 90,966 vehicles. “

          2. “A dramatic shift away from sedans and compact cars…”

            The big three are confident that the plebs will continue buying $50k pickups and SUVs during the next recession.

          3. The big three are confident that the plebs will continue buying $50k pickups and SUVs during the next recession.

            Sad to see the news Lee Iacocca’s passing this morning. He really resurrected Ford. It will be fun to see Ford vs. Ferrari the movie this fall. But Tesla is really the only one keeping US car manufacturing from being gobbled up by Japanese and Koreans. It’s the only US-made car by sales in the top 10 best-selling in the US.

      2. “Housing IS the Business Cycle”

        It’s a big leap from noting that a housing downturn is a leading indicator of a recession to claiming that it IS the business cycle. Of course talking this way may increase the flow of funding for housing-related research projects.

        IIRC, Leamer was a big bubble naysayer before the 2007-2009 real estate market collapse, at which point many academic economists suddenly found religion.

        1. I tend to think that put stock in the idea that it is the business cycle, or perhaps just perfectly correlates with it. For better or worse (worse, probably), the percentage of the US economy tied to housing means that when housing and other related activity declines, a recession is not far a way. Just my observation.

          As Ben would say, we have an economy built on selling shacks to each other, or something along those lines.

          1. “As Ben would say, we have an economy built on selling shacks to each other, or something along those lines.”

            This is a historic anomaly reflecting the Housing Bubble as it has existed since 1996. Perhaps we have entered a new era where buying and selling each other houses is the key driver of wealth and prosperity from now on. But judging from the large homeless population and all the human waste and needles littering our city streets, I seriously doubt it.

    1. “Property has deferred maintenance and is being sold As Is. Don’t miss this great investment opportunity!”

      Too speculative. Tear down with expectation of two spec homes. $,$$$,$$$ in a falling market.

    2. I wonder what it sold for when it was new back in 1949. The house itself isn’t much to look at, but those Pacific views and walking distance to the beach are sensational.

    1. One should rush to their local bank branch the first thing in the morning and cash out all of the home equity that they can before falling real estate prices causes all of their magically created equity to disappear.

    2. Speaking so candidly and forthrightly could result in lifetime banishment from the National Association of Realliars!

    1. Funny video! Sadly I hear of this Cryptocurrency FOMO all to much, specifically from colleagues children whom believe they MUST HODL because this is our future. FOMO is plaguing our youth. Yet another bubble!

    1. For the first time today, I see evidence of falling prices and rising inventory in the circular distributed by our local used home sellers:

      The May 2019 detached single family home median sale price is down 6.1%, the average sale price is down 3.8%, and inventory is up by 59.7% from May 2018. The accompanying blurb conveniently cherry picked the median year-to-date sales price statistic, which is only down by 1.4% from 2018, misleadingly suggesting this was the “change from last May”, rather than the actual 6.1% decline. Nice try!

      It seems fairly significant for sales prices to already be in decline against the backdrop of a booming economy and record low unemployment. I can’t help but wonder how much further prices might fall in case the boom ever comes to an end.

      1. PS For those who don’t know, I’m in Rancho Bernardo, a North County San Diego neighborhood.

    1. These stories are just “bread and circuses” for the plebs. Next they’ll have a piece about Garrett needing a handheld GPS to find his way around the place.

  11. Another day, another multi-year low mark for Treasury yields…

    10-year Treasury yield slumps to Nov. 2016 low as global growth fears take hold

    By Sunny Oh
    Published: July 2, 2019 3:53 p.m. ET
    Reserve Bank of Australia cut rates to 1%

    U.S. Treasury yields tumbled Tuesday as major central banks indicated their openness to easier monetary policy, with the Reserve Bank of Australia cutting interest rates, amid signs of sluggish global economic growth.

    What are Treasurys doing?

    The 10-year Treasury yield (TMUBMUSD10Y, -0.91%) slumped 5.5 basis points to 1.978%, its lowest since Nov. 8, 2016. The benchmark maturity marked its biggest daily yield decline in a month.

    The 30-year bond yield (TMUBMUSD30Y, -0.51%) declined 4.9 basis points to 2.508%, its lowest since Oct. 2016. It marked its biggest daily drop in around three weeks. The 2-year note rate (TMUBMUSD02Y, -1.37%) was down 2.4 basis points to 1.765%. Bond prices move in the opposite direction of yields.

    1. PS IIRC, 2016 was the year when Treasury yields reached their lowest level, ever in history. A few more months of retracement could set new all-time record low levels.

    2. Negative sovereign bond yields seem to be spreading all over the planet like Ebola. I wonder if the US will succumb to this round of negative yield contagion?

      fastFT Italian economy
      Italy’s 2-year bond yield falls below zero on budget hopes
      Country’s debt rallies sharply on rising expectations Rome will avoid clash with EU
      Philip Georgiadis in London 20 hours ago

      Italian government debt rallied after Rome’s populist government revised its spending plans in an attempt to damp budget tensions with the EU, sending yields on its two-year bonds negative for the first time since the crisis emerged in May last year.

    3. Wake me up from hibernation when stock market valuations have adjusted to reflect the new normal in sovereign debt yields.

      Markets
      German Yields on Brink of ECB Deposit Rate Point to Lost Decade
      By John Ainger
      July 2, 2019, 9:00 PM PDT
      – Yields on 10-year bunds are fast approaching the -0.40% rate
      – Milestone will be symbolic, may drive a push into riskier debt

      Germany’s 10-year bond yields are threatening to drop below the European Central Bank’s deposit rate for the first time.

      A surge in Europe’s safest and most liquid bond market has taken yields close to the minus 0.40% rate that the central bank pays on money parked with it. Analysts predict bunds will keep rallying on the conviction that Christine Lagarde, who is set to succeed Mario Draghi as ECB President, will increase stimulus through rate cuts or fresh quantitative easing. Goldman Sachs Group Inc. sees a slide in the benchmark yield to minus 0.55% by end-2019.

      “The bund yield falling below the deposit rate will have investors questioning what value there is in the asset,” said Peter Chatwell, head of European rates strategy at Mizuho International Plc. “For an investor who truly sees value in 10-year bunds at -0.4% then I expect they will see greater value in 30-year bunds at 0.25%, for at least there is a positive yield to maturity.”

      Ten-year German yields have fallen four basis points this week to a record-low minus 0.37%. Europe’s bonds have surged across the board this year in a hunt for returns, with Italian two-year yields touching zero on Tuesday and 10-year securities in France and the Netherlands already having joined a burgeoning global pile of negative-yielding debt.

  12. Dumb question of the day: Are bond traders seeing a dystopian economic future, which the MSM is failing to report, that makes them perfectly happy to accept negative yields whilst riding the storm out?

    1. Another one bites the dust…

      Davos
      July 3, 2019 / 6:13 AM / Updated 40 minutes ago
      “Sad” milestone as all Danish government bond yields dip below zero

      July 3 (Reuters) – Denmark has become the first developed economy in this year’s global plunge in bond yields to have negative yields on all its government bonds, in what a senior official at its central bank called a milestone on a “slightly sad” global background.

      The Nordic country, which was among the first to introduce negative rates in 2012, sold 10-year government bonds worth 1.72 billion Danish crowns ($260.40 million) at an interest rate of minus 0.32% at an auction on Wednesday, the central bank said. That marked a record low.

      At the same time, the yield on 20-year bonds dipped to minus 0.03% on Wednesday, the bank said.

      The Danish 20-year bond yield has flirted with 0% in recent sessions but pushed decisively into negative territory on Wednesday as bond yields across Europe fell sharply.

    2. This?

      Sovereign bonds
      Bond investors cheer Christine Lagarde’s nomination for ECB presidency
      IMF chief seen as dovish and likely to prolong era of ultra-loose monetary policy
      Christine Lagarde has been nominated to be the next president of the European Central Bank © AFP
      Tommy Stubbington in London 3 hours ago

      European government bonds rose across the board on Wednesday as investors bet that Christine Lagarde’s nomination to be the next president of the European Central Bank will extend an era of ultra-loose monetary policy.

      Bond prices had already rallied strongly in recent weeks, stoked by a growing conviction among investors that outgoing ECB boss Mario Draghi is readying interest rate cuts and a revival of the bank’s bond-buying quantitative easing programme. Ms Lagarde’s appointment, which has to be rubber-stamped by the European Parliament, is expected to bring more of the same.

      “Markets are unfamiliar with her academic monetary leanings,” said Seema Shah, chief strategist at Principal Global Investors. “Yet, going by her previous support of Draghi’s decisions to introduce innovative monetary policies, they are making the safe assumption that she is in the dovish camp.”

    3. Just European socialism playing out, exactly where the Democrats want to take America

    4. All the signs of a speculation on shelter bubble exists

      Like 1929 when it pops it pops. You will have greater fools on the way down , but it eventually goes to a end user market that might buy if it’s cheaper than rent.

      They didn’t even let the 2008 bubble deflate as much as it should of to be in sink with end user wages.

      I just think speculation demand is so fake.

  13. It’s a white shark market. Seals beware.

    https://www.marketwatch.com/story/trouble-is-lurking-under-the-stock-markets-surface-2019-07-03?mod=mw_theo_homepage
    By Brett Arends
    Published: July 3, 2019 6:19 a.m. ET
    Most U.S. stocks are actually down over 18 months
    Getty Images

    BOSTON — Bull market? What bull market?

    While the S&P 500 index (SPX, +0.26%) closed at another record on Tuesday, and both the Dow Jones Industrial Average (DJIA, +0.19%) and the Nasdaq Composite (COMP, +0.29%) are within sight of their own new highs, something different is hiding beneath the surface.

    The average stock is doing much worse than most people realize, warns Andrew Lapthorne, quantitative strategist at SG Securities. In the U.S. and around the world, most stocks are “struggling,” he says, and they remain well below levels from 18 months ago.

    You wouldn’t know from looking at the indexes, because they’re dominated by a few, booming big growth-oriented names — like Apple (AAPL, +0.26%) Microsoft (MSFT, +0.18%) and Amazon.com (AMZN, +0.19%) Traditional stock market indexes weight companies by their stock-market value, not equally.

    Since January 2018, the S&P 500 has risen 11%. But among the broad universe of U.S. stocks worth more than $50 million, just over half are still in the red over that time, according to FactSet data. The median stock is down 0.7% over 18 months.

    1. Floods, Boeing and a trade war mean we will probably have an average Obama month which is 109000 increase per month. o the humanity. Boeing will be fix the 737 max, the floods are largely over and China to prevent more tariffs has agreed to buy more US products.

  14. What I have been wondering is how much did “Agenda 21” play into the political agenda for the last 30 years.

    Agenda 21 was a UN proposal in 1993 whereby there was a list of objectives that was proposed for what was sustainable earth. Some of the ideas were as follows,

    1. Only a billion or less world population is sustainable.
    2. The middle class is not sustainable in USA, therefore transfer of wealth to other countries is necessary.
    3 The populations should be moved to urban cities.
    4 Oil is bad for environment therefore anything to get rid of it …it goes on and on.

    My point is Bill Clinton signed this stupid objective in 1993. This didn’t involve any voting from the public. A bunch of regulations and agencies resulted from it. Trade deals by Clinton that didn’t favor the middle class etc.

    What this Agenda 21 looked like to me was some Commie plot to undermine USA under the guise of climate change/sustainable earth b.s. This is without the actual approval of the people.

    A lot of people feel like the Commies highjacked the Dem party starting way back in the 70’s.

    The trend of globalism and everything that would undermine the USA has been apparent in the last 30 years. Just look at how crazy the Democratic president platforms are.

    My point is that politics in USA has been a slow gradual undermining of the majority middle class.

    The reaction to Trump trying to undue some long term trends has been nuts.

    I’m just wondering how much did this nutty Agenda 21 play into policies that are so anti welfare to USA citizens that it no joke.

    1. Have you seen how much plastic and trash there are in the oceans? Middle-class lifestyle with wasteful consumption we have now clearly isn’t sustainable. Doesn’t mean we are eliminating the middle-class, just the rampant consumerism that is destroying the planet. Oil does pollute and we should move to renewables.

      1. I remember when we were told to use plastic to save trees. Never thought it was a good idea. I am not against real environmentalism, thus I agree with reducing the use of plastic s. Also agreed with most of the pollution control requirements put on coal plants. However when told that we must fund crony capitalists to reduce the emission of a beneficial gas which has existed in the atmosphere at ten times the level presently in the atmosphere when life was abundant on Earth and the impact on nature is far worse for wind turbines than coal plants I draw the line. Wind turbines are bird and bat killing machines. When it comes to killing endangered species they probably kill 100 times per kilowatt as coal. Finally while co2 had soared in the atmosphere over the last twenty years, temperatures hardly move. This divergence shows that not only is AGW science not settled it is not even credible

        1. BTW, saw that Tesla is developing a new technology battery independent of Panasonic. Thus, there maybe some hope for the company. The lithum ion battery I have always said had too little fuel density to compete with ICE vehicles but the new batteries sound promising

          1. Yeah, will be interesting. Rumor has it that the model S/X refresh is going to have over 400 miles of range. It will be interesting to see what Tesla concocts with their Maxwell acquisition. I love that the Germans are sweating a bit in high-end car market. I just saw that a model 3 owner is getting 100 miles recharged in 7 minutes on V3 chargers, which is really quite amazing.

        2. Glad to hear you support real environmentalism Dan. Human interaction with wildlife is always a delicate balance. Even the construction of highways can cause major issues. Modern wind turbine technology is getting better (and placement is better too) at reducing collateral damage.

          But to put the bird thing in perspective, turbines maybe kill 140k to 360k per year. Glass and buildings cause almost a billion bird deaths a year. So really if we want to focus our efforts somewhere, we should look at modifying our buildings to make them more bird-friendly.

      2. OneAgainstMany,

        It’s a matter of opinion on what is sustainable. The point is that these issues are ones to be voted on by the Public, not undercurrent adgendas

    2. I don’t see any effort afoot to reduce the global population at all, let alone back to 1 billion or so.

      And the middle class lifestyle in the US would have degraded much farther if it weren’t for massive amounts of consumer debt, creating the illusion of a middle-class existence.

      1. Well, the massive pollution/garbage/plastic problem wouldn’t be so bad if we weren’t buying so much cheap crap from China. So in some sense the tariffs might be beneficial. A service-based economy seems better than selling a bunch of low-quality stuff on Wish.com.

  15. I think you are absolutely correct. Nothing is by accident, the deep state has been implementing the plan without interference until Trump was elected.

  16. Could not find a place to post elsewhere. I am still trying to hear what Reagan did thirty years ago that is impacting San Francisco now. Due to a Supreme Court case he reduced the number of people in mental health facilities as mandated and shutdown redundant facilities. As did every other governor Republican or Democrat, since the Supreme Court prohibited the detention on constitutional grounds. He also did not support an expensive bill that the same people who fought the court battles supported. However every president and Congress after him could have altered course and the state of California could have funded every program in the bill. It is nonsensical to blame the crises on Reagan. After Reagan appointed new justices and the supreme Court saw the fruits of it’s decision in has narrowed it’s ruling in subsequent decisions. However despite virtually every mass shooting involving a mentally ill person, we cannot expand the detention of these people due to liberal advocates. I guess they do not want to detain the Democrat ic base. Only half joking about that last line. However these people not only shoot people, they knife people, etc. Personally, I knew a person who was bludgeon to death by a nut case who for no apparent reason attacked her while she was walking by. If the Democrats spent 10 percent of the time they spend on gun control on nut control mass shootings would be very rare

    1. Thus the answer is simply consistent with constitutional norms we need to make it easier to detain people who are thought dangerous particularly by their own families. Ronald Reagan only followed the science and the law both before and after the 1975 decision. Actually, he was following in the 60s recommendations and policies created by JFK appointed experts, these were bipartisan policies.

      1. I don’t think it’s big governments business to do anything that hidden and not really voted on

        Over 7 billion people are sustainable right now, so what was the point of the billion or less as the figure of sustainable earth in agenda 21.

        Since the point was population control, I haven’t see much control of that. What I have seen is Globalism and the outsourcing of USA jobs elsewhere . Policies crushing the middle class for years now.

        Yes we should conserve and move toward cleaner energy etc. But the impression I got of agenda 21 was that it was a agenda that wouldn’t of gotten popular support.

        1. I work with a guy that runs a landfill that servers most of the municipalities in Utah. We talked about the economics of trash, transfer stations, incinerators, plasma arc classification, etc. He really enlightened me about how the economics of trash really are the problem. It’s just so cheap to dump garbage in landfills and cap them. I asked him for things we could do as a society and his answer was, “The single best thing we could do is ban single-use plastic that is not compostable.” I think there are other materials that we could be using for packaging that would be much less problematic than the plastic that exists for hundreds of years and never breaks down.

          1. I’m not against cleaning up the environment. The point is that having a extreme agenda of what numbers can live on this Earth, transferring wealth from USA to third world countries, and a plan to transfer the population to urban cities is a hidden agenda not voted on.

            Most Americans would be happy to get plastic out of the oceans for instance. But having a extreme agenda that involves transfer of wealth to other countries and locations people can live in and a number of population that is sustainable ,(that’s just theory) is frighting.

          2. Fair enough. I just think that the problem of pollution and destruction of the environment will take coordinated action, whether we like it or not. US is a pretty bad polluter, but there are some south east Asian nations that are even worse. It’s the “Tragedy of the Commons” whereby negative externalities are not captured. If your neighbor claims “private property” then proceeds to do trash burns and the fumes waft into your house, what are you to do? This is what is happening on a global scale with uncoordinated environmental destruction. There is no constituency to clean up the oceans, reduce trash, etc. It’s just a bunch of feel-good slogans with no teeth. I am all against boondoggles and wealth transfers too. But we need something that nudges behavior in the right direction and it will take sweeping, smart regulation otherwise we’re going to end up like Dr. Seuss’s The Lorax book.

  17. Ok, I got your position. I just made that last post because I didn’t think you were getting the part I was objecting to.

Comments are closed.

Back To Top