Home sellers by state taking their unsold home off the market rather than reduce price

[JeffKeryk]

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?

Trade deficits that are purely consumption can ultimately lead to reduced economic growth. Keynes argued that large and persistent trade deficits could harm domestic employment and national economic growth. He believed that growth would be slowed if workers might not find better jobs, noting that they often face unemployment. I believe this is what many posters are referring to. US manufacturing has been forced to indirectly subsidize American consumption. This is evident in the decline of American manufacturing. Look to American business outsourcing; GE's Jack Welch.

Trade deficits that are used for investment can be hugely beneficial and foster economic growth. If the deficit is allocated to productive investments (such as infrastructure, new technologies, or businesses), it can lead to higher productivity and stronger economic growth in the long run. Historically, the US experienced periods of economic growth fueled by trade deficits and foreign investment in areas like railroads and public infrastructure.

I am not sure anyone here is arguing for unfettered free trade.

 

[JeffKeryk]

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.

When deficits are used for consumption. Certainly.

 

[TomYoung]

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.

This comment, and your dismissal of “your expert Adam Smith” has me shaking my head in disbelief.

The field in question is Economics. It is from the Modern Age, but is nonetheless a rigorous field of academic pursuit. Adam Smith is the author of the seminal text “The Wealth of Nations” and is the father of economics. That textbook is studied to this day, and is directly on point to this discussion. That text dismisses your notion that long term trade deficits can only lead to deficit spending. You don’t seem to know who Adam Smith is, but have made a statement akin to “your expert on relativity, Albert Einstein” or “your expert on evolution, Charles Darwin.”

Smith explains how economies work. The idea that trade deficits can only lead to deficit spending relates two things that are barely, if at all, connected to each other, which is why they should be distanced from each other. Considering a few questions might also draw out some nuances:
A. We import one million dollars worth of bananas, and export nine hundred thousand dollars worth of mainframe computers…. Are we winning or losing?
B. We close our borders in both directions to trade, can our economy grow? C. The government commits to paying teachers across the nation a minimum salary of $65,000. Does our trade deficit increase?

Folks should know who Adam Smith is.

 

[JeffKeryk]

The economic might is only enjoyed by a small percentage of the population.

No doubt the middle class has taken a beating. I blame greed for that. Capitalism is about winners and losers.
Personally I believe in targeted tariffs and protectionism, not unfettered trade. No major Economist does, including the afrorementioned Smith and Keynes. But American business does; see Jack Welch and business MBAs.

The topic of trade imbalance is highly complex. For example, one may assume the surplus countries are benefitting, winning, whatever. But look at China, who subsidizes manufacturing at the cost of their general population.

It appears posters think I am for trade deficits; I have not made that argument. I argue it is far more complex than that and have made that case.
I believe in, and support, American entrepreneurism; I've purchased 2 Teslas.

It starts with personal finance, which starts with education.

 

[SC Maintenance]

You can’t keep exporting your wealth. That’s what you’re doing when you run a trade deficit. Shipping your money off shore.

Since you’re continually sending money off shore you must create more via debt. We have ever increasing debt - public and private. To think running a trade deficit based on debt is positive is nonsense.

The amount of debt - both public and private is at a point where it can never be repaid. It will eventually be inflated away. Between now and then is just kubuki theatre.

 

[zzyzzx]

Houses in my county Nassau county NY still no inventory selling at sticker price. Supply n demand no supply high demand

As someone who is actually from Nassau county, I find this to be a head scratcher as I don't understand why anyone would want to actually stay on Long Island.

 

[nickaluch]

As someone who is actually from Nassau county, I find this to be a head scratcher as I don't understand why anyone would want to actually stay on Long Island.

I love it here

 

[KrisZ]

This comment, and your dismissal of “your expert Adam Smith” has me shaking my head in disbelief.

The field in question is Economics. It is from the Modern Age, but is nonetheless a rigorous field of academic pursuit. Adam Smith is the author of the seminal text “The Wealth of Nations” and is the father of economics. That textbook is studied to this day, and is directly on point to this discussion. That text dismisses your notion that long term trade deficits can only lead to deficit spending. You don’t seem to know who Adam Smith is, but have made a statement akin to “your expert on relativity, Albert Einstein” or “your expert on evolution, Charles Darwin.”

Smith explains how economies work. The idea that trade deficits can only lead to deficit spending relates two things that are barely, if at all, connected to each other, which is why they should be distanced from each other. Considering a few questions might also draw out some nuances:
A. We import one million dollars worth of bananas, and export nine hundred thousand dollars worth of mainframe computers…. Are we winning or losing?
B. We close our borders in both directions to trade, can our economy grow? C. The government commits to paying teachers across the nation a minimum salary of $65,000. Does our trade deficit increase?

Folks should know who Adam Smith is.

Now you're just appealing to authority. Fact is that for US deficit trade has lead to deficit spending, while China has enjoyed decades of trade surplus and thus doesn't have to borrow as much. The numbers are in the pudding, USA is roughly 32T in debt while China is only 4.3T in debt.
Perhaps your boy Adam can explain this disparity?

 

[KrisZ]

No doubt the middle class has taken a beating. I blame greed for that. Capitalism is about winners and losers.
Personally I believe in targeted tariffs and protectionism, not unfettered trade. No major Economist does, including the afrorementioned Smith and Keynes. But American business does; see Jack Welch and business MBAs.

The topic of trade imbalance is highly complex. For example, one may assume the surplus countries are benefitting, winning, whatever. But look at China, who subsidizes manufacturing at the cost of their general population.

It appears posters think I am for trade deficits; I have not made that argument. I argue it is far more complex than that and have made that case.
I believe in, and support, American entrepreneurism; I've purchased 2 Teslas.

It starts with personal finance, which starts with education.

I'm not understanding your position at all. On one hand you appeal to the experts in the filed and then you say it "starts with personal finance".
We've been running this economy for the last 60 years based on the experts you are appealing to and that had lead to massive trade and massive debt. Never in the recorded history was there another nation in so much debt. Personal finances have very little to do with this.

You can't argue complexity either, that's just an attempt at dodging the issue IMO. I thought we had experts to deal with complex issues, don't we? But it appears the experts don't care about the massive debt and trade deficit. So should we not care as well? Or should we just chalk it up as being "complex" and not voice any opinions at all?

Please explain how that is sustainable? You appear to be dodging this question and just quoting the experts. Do the experts say it is sustainable?

 

[TomYoung]

Now you're just appealing to authority. Fact is that for US deficit trade has lead to deficit spending, while China has enjoyed decades of trade surplus and thus doesn't have to borrow as much. The numbers are in the pudding, USA is roughly 32T in debt while China is only 4.3T in debt.
Perhaps your boy Adam can explain this disparity?

I think we can assert that economics is not an area in which you are schooled. You are conflating the trade deficit with the national debt or budget deficit. They are not the same thing, and any relationship between them is tenuous. The trade deficit is caused by consumers buying more things from overseas than our industry exports. Government spending more than it takes in and borrowing the difference is what causes the budget deficit.

The mechanisms by which economics works are involved, but you should discern between consumer spending, and government overspending.

We probably agree that government overspending and consumer overspending are bad, and debt service places a drag on both consumer budgets and the government's budget. I think I would also offer that China in particular is engaged, essentially, in trade warfare with the U.S., and as mentioned, our national debt to the Chinese could lead to instability. And yet, our economic might and currency are such that we can service and pay the debt with printed money.

All that said, that China has less national debt than we do is not caused by the trade deficit. And, yes, "my boy Adam" has this covered and nailed down.

 

[SC Maintenance]

I think we can assert that economics is not an area in which you are schooled. You are conflating the trade deficit with the national debt or budget deficit.

I don’t know how many times we have to tell you we’re not confusing the two.

But I do know many people that erroneously believe there completely separate. There not. The economy is a balloon. You push on one side and the other side pops out.

Government spending is almost 100% transfer payments to the private sector. The government pays healthcare benefits and retirement benefit's, and welfare benefits, and a massive amount of money to the military complex, which is private sector and interest payments to people like me. Who then spend all that money in the private sector. So they’re 100% connected. And much of that money is borrowed.

Now, if the government we’re building power plants like the Chinese government is, then they would be productive assets, and they would not be connected - or not as much.

 

[KrisZ]

I think we can assert that economics is not an area in which you are schooled. You are conflating the trade deficit with the national debt or budget deficit. They are not the same thing, and any relationship between them is tenuous. The trade deficit is caused by consumers buying more things from overseas than our industry exports. Government spending more than it takes in and borrowing the difference is what causes the budget deficit.

The mechanisms by which economics works are involved, but you should discern between consumer spending, and government overspending.

We probably agree that government overspending and consumer overspending are bad, and debt service places a drag on both consumer budgets and the government's budget. I think I would also offer that China in particular is engaged, essentially, in trade warfare with the U.S., and as mentioned, our national debt to the Chinese could lead to instability. And yet, our economic might and currency are such that we can service and pay the debt with printed money.

All that said, that China has less national debt than we do is not caused by the trade deficit. And, yes, "my boy Adam" has this covered and nailed down.

An educated economist I am not, but I'm not conflating the trade deficit with the national debt, you just keep making this claim.
But there is a clear correlation between us sending our jobs and manufacturing base overseas with the amounts of debt we need to incur.

I don't understand how a rational person would think they're not connected? If your exports decline, the tax revenue from that trade and the employee base also declines. This leads to more borrowing. How is this simple logical fact escaping you?

 

[GON]

I think we can assert that economics is not an area in which you are schooled. You are conflating the trade deficit with the national debt or budget deficit. They are not the same thing, and any relationship between them is tenuous. The trade deficit is caused by consumers buying more things from overseas than our industry exports. Government spending more than it takes in and borrowing the difference is what causes the budget deficit.

The mechanisms by which economics works are involved, but you should discern between consumer spending, and government overspending.

We probably agree that government overspending and consumer overspending are bad, and debt service places a drag on both consumer budgets and the government's budget. I think I would also offer that China in particular is engaged, essentially, in trade warfare with the U.S., and as mentioned, our national debt to the Chinese could lead to instability. And yet, our economic might and currency are such that we can service and pay the debt with printed money.

All that said, that China has less national debt than we do is not caused by the trade deficit. And, yes, "my boy Adam" has this covered and nailed down.

 

[alarmguy]

Tons of landlords here in Florida trying to sell their rental(s) cause property taxes, insurance, HOAs, assessments, upkeep and repairs is too much for them.

Way too much risk and hassles.

It might actually help bring prices down to affordable levels of a decade ago.
(wait, am I not I in the thread about housing!?!?? *LOL*

 

[k1xv]

If your present home has a mortgage below the present market rate, you have a disincentive to move out if the next home has to be financed at present market rates.

 

[alarmguy]

As someone who is actually from Nassau county, I find this to be a head scratcher as I don't understand why anyone would want to actually stay on Long Island.

Spent over 40 years of my life there, born and raised. I did get tired of the taxes and congestion HOWEVER I have boated the Great South Bay and Ocean off of Jones Beach, Lido Beach, Fire Island, even outside NY Harbor. There is nothing like it.
With that said, myself, wife and kids did find a much better life here in the Carolinas and I would not go back. Though I know many people there and I can understand why people stay, just not for me. Also now, I am BLOWN away by home prices which I previously posted in many areas of Wantagh NY that I loved and lived in. 2400 sq ft remolded and expanded 2 bath capes and ranches now go for 1+ million on 60x100 and 60x120 lots. A fixer upper is at least $500,000

You also need to keep in mind the salaries. Even let's say a Nassau County police officer compensation is $140,000 after 11 years. This is why people stay, everything is relative.

 

[Cropduster172]

Spent over 40 years of my life there, born and raised. I did get tired of the taxes and congestion HOWEVER I have boated the Great South Bay and Ocean off of Jones Beach, Lido Beach, Fire Island, even outside NY Harbor. There is nothing like it.
With that said, myself, wife and kids did find a much better life here in the Carolinas and I would not go back. Though I know many people there and I can understand why people stay, just not for me. Also now, I am BLOWN away by home prices which I previously posted in many areas of Wantagh NY that I loved and lived in. 2400 sq ft remolded and expanded 2 bath capes and ranches now go for 1+ million on 60x100 and 60x120 lots. A fixer upper is at least $500,000

You also need to keep in mind the salaries. Even let's say a Nassau County police officer compensation is $140,000 after 11 years. This is why people stay, everything is relative.
View attachment 295280

Nassau County PD has historically been one of the highest paid departments in the country. It was when I was a cop in the 80s... probably still is in the top five today.

 

[JeffKeryk]

I'm not understanding your position at all. On one hand you appeal to the experts in the filed and then you say it "starts with personal finance".
We've been running this economy for the last 60 years based on the experts you are appealing to and that had lead to massive trade and massive debt. Never in the recorded history was there another nation in so much debt. Personal finances have very little to do with this.

You can't argue complexity either, that's just an attempt at dodging the issue IMO. I thought we had experts to deal with complex issues, don't we? But it appears the experts don't care about the massive debt and trade deficit. So should we not care as well? Or should we just chalk it up as being "complex" and not voice any opinions at all?

Please explain how that is sustainable? You appear to be dodging this question and just quoting the experts. Do the experts say it is sustainable?

I have tried to discuss trade imbalances. The key point, IMO, that people are missing is the difference between consumption and investment.

Complexity is not dodging the issue; it is examining trade in depth as compared to generalizations.

I said personal finance because that's what affects us all personally.

 

[TomYoung]

I don’t know how many times we have to tell you we’re not confusing the two.

But I do know many people that erroneously believe there completely separate. There not. The economy is a balloon. You push on one side and the other side pops out.

Government spending is almost 100% transfer payments to the private sector. The government pays healthcare benefits and retirement benefit's, and welfare benefits, and a massive amount of money to the military complex, which is private sector and interest payments to people like me. Who then spend all that money in the private sector. So they’re 100% connected. And much of that money is borrowed.

Now, if the government we’re building power plants like the Chinese government is, then they would be productive assets, and they would not be connected - or not as much.

And, again, a definition of Government deficit spending, without one word about the trade deficit. Unless you are making the case that government transfer payments wind up being spent on Chinese imports... Is that where you are going with the "press on one side of th e balloon" analogy.

You use the words "completely separate." That's not the argument. The argument is that they're two separate things, two separate concepts that people conflate, equate and confuse, probably because they both use the term "deficit." There is no economic necessity that they correlate.

A subsequent argument is that it is not possible to have a growing economy with a trade deficit in place. That's not so. The challenge was that there is no historical instance of a growing economy where a trade deficit is in place. Of course, one instance is the United States, which has had strong growth alongside trade deficits for 50 years and counting.

Still others dismiss Adam Smith, one of the top thinkers of The Modern Era, whose work underlies this entire conversation.

 

[KrisZ]

I have tried to discuss trade imbalances. The key point, IMO, that people are missing is the difference between consumption and investment.

Complexity is not dodging the issue; it is examining trade in depth as compared to generalizations.

I said personal finance because that's what affects us all personally.

I understand the difference between consumption and investment. However, your argument was that some specific deficit spending can lead to investments or technological breakthroughs, which I agree with, but we have not seen that happening at scale, in fact the opposite is happening.
And it makes sense. Where do you think more investment will go into, a country with expanding manufacturing base or one with declining manufacturing base? Manufacturing requires huge investments, from education to infrastructure to research and development. All of these things are shrinking in US. We simply don't need educated consumers, we don't need factories, we don't even need to do research anymore.