Home sellers by state taking their unsold home off the market rather than reduce price
- Thread starter GON
- Start date
GON
$150 Site Donor 2025
Biggest erroneous statement that will collapse any nation is what you posted.
This can be made really simple. Spend more than you take in for years, and borrow money from others to support your lifestyle. You look rich, eat well, have a nice house, nice vacations...... But am some point, the credit cards come due, you can no longer borrow the equity on your home. You simple consumed more than you produced.
Such a simple concept, would love to do a study on why so many people in the U.S buy into the lie when can consume themselves into wealth. Our how a nation can import more than they export into wealth.
In the history of the world, not a single nation ever financially survived that imported more than they exported..not one.
In times and places of economic uncertainty, investors may not be able to ride out slow times. I prefer the financial markets because there are no property taxes, repairs, etc. I own 1 1/2 such properties; I did not get involved to make money. It was to help the residents. Too much headache.
That is related to social media pushing borrowing to purchase your rental and having little to no margin if a tenant does not pay or something goes arry.
His point is quite clear, the way we’re currently heading only leads to disaster.
You on the other hand just keep repeating the same talking paints that the “experts” have been feeding us for decades. Deficit spending can be good. Well sure, but for how long. Just because we haven’t collapsed yet, doesn’t mean we won’t, but that’s essentially the argument, “the economy has been growing thus far, therefore nothing to see here”.
On the other hand, the history is littered with failed economies due to tremendous amounts of debt being incurred. The history proves that we cannot run the way we have for much longer.
Oh, I totally understand that the gov has an excess spending problem, but found it very interesting you specifically mentioned roads and education, which are a drop in the bucket when compared to other spending. All of the infrastructure expenses, which is about 2.3% of GDP, wouldn't need huge deficit spending, as you're implying.
However, spending is one thing, creating wealth is another, which manufacturing and development of technologies does exactly that. And those two have been slowly being offshored for decades now, making us a net importer, not exported, not only of goods, but also the technical know how. Therefore we need more deficit spending because we simply cannot create enough wealth to cover the spending.
We need both, sensible spending and net export to have a thriving society long term.
Haha. I would rather hang out with pretty much anyone else.Do you ever wander down the road and hang out with megan and harry?
No. Deficit spending is different from trade deficits.
I never said they were the same, but one has an impact on the other, unless you also object to that?
Read my post. I was referring to @GON post #32 about trade deficits.
Ok, fair enough. Then please show us an example from history where long term trade deficit lead to sustainable economic prosperity.
All you provided was speculation that under specific circumstances it can be beneficial, which I don’t think GON and I disagree with, but what we’re pointing out is that this is the line that has been repeated for like 50 years now.
Sure. The United States. Here are 3 important benefits:
- Greater consumption than production: the US enjoys the better side of the bargain by being able to consume more than it produces. In Econ there is a saying, "We've got the stuff."
- Usage of efficiently produced foreign-made intermediate goods is productivity-enhancing for US firms: the US makes the most effective use of the global division of labor. In manufacturing, materials are generally the highest COGS component.
- A large market that other countries are reliant on for exports enhances American bargaining power in trade negotiations. We have the might.
In the foregoing part of this chapter I have endeavoured to show, even upon the principles of the commercial system, how unnecessary it is to lay extraordinary restraints upon the importation of goods from those countries with which the balance of trade is supposed to be disadvantageous. Nothing, however, can be more absurd than this whole doctrine of the balance of trade, upon which, not only these restraints, but almost all the other regulations of commerce are founded. When two places trade with one another, this [absurd] doctrine supposes that, if the balance be even, neither of them either loses or gains; but if it leans in any degree to one side, that one of them loses and the other gains in proportion to its declension from the exact equilibrium.
Last edited:
My house just appraised for 10% more than Zillow’s most recent price estimate for my property. And it’s unfortunately not even as good as it could be, as all the comps are tiny lots inside city limits, where I have 3+ acres outside city limits. But nobody outside of the city limits has sold in the past 12 months in a 15-mile radius. It’s good to be outside the insanity of city living!
We need sensible spending. Exports greater than imports would be a positive, but not required. In fact, we might be better closing borders altogether. Regardless, as has been stated, deficit spending and trade deficits are different things.
Ahh, let’s quote the experts some more.
I don’t know about you, but all of these positives have only lead to greater and greater trade deficits, meaning we’re making less and less things and we’re transferring the knowledge as well.
On top of that our borrowing has never been greater as well, we’re breaking records year after year.
It’s one thing when the trade balance shifts from time to time between trading partners, but that hasn’t been the case at all. The trade balance has only been one way for the last 50 years and US has been on the short end of that stick.
Somehow your expert Adam Smith totally misses this.
Do you honestly believe continuing this is sustainable?
Last edited:
Not sure why you want to distance deficit spending from trade deficits. Nobody claimed they are the same, but surely you must realize that long term trade deficits can only lead to deficit spending. They pretty much go hand in hand. If you can’t bring in money from trade, you need to borrow.
Last edited:
The economic might is only enjoyed by a small percentage of the population.
Similar threads
