Blogroll
- 321 Energy
- The Archdruid Report
- ASPO Canada
- Ali Samsam Bakhtiari
- The Sir Robert Bond Papers
- Briarpatch Magazine
- Chatham House
- Paul Chefurka
- The Council of Canadians
- The Daily Canuck
- The Daily Reckoning
- The Dominion
- Energy and Capital
- Energy Bulletin
- Feasta
- Financial Sense
- Global Public Media
- Graphoilogy
- The Garret Hardin Society
- Richard Heinberg
- Thomas Homer-Dixon
- The Housing Bubble Blog
- iTulip
- James Kunstler
- LATOC
- Darryl McMahon
- George Monbiot
- Murky View
- Dmitri Orlov
- Plants for a Future
- Raise the Hammer
- Ramsay House Project
- Rigzone Canada
- R-Squared
- Nouriel Roubini
- Safe Haven
- Shack in the Middle
- Michael Shedlock
- Treehugger
- The Tyee
- Jeff Vail
- Vive le Canada
- John Warnock
- Whiskey and Gunpowder
User login
Archives
- December 2008
- November 2008
- October 2008
- September 2008
- August 2008
- July 2008
- June 2008
- May 2008
- April 2008
- March 2008
- February 2008
- January 2008
- December 2007
- November 2007
- October 2007
- September 2007
- August 2007
- July 2007
- June 2007
- May 2007
- April 2007
- March 2007
- February 2007
- January 2007
- December 2006
- November 2006
- October 2006
License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 United States License.




GAIA Host Collective
1) Current house prices are at approximately 5x incomes. Prior long run average was approximately 3x incomes. This argues for a 20 to 30% decline in house prices. But this figure may be optimistic due to:
2) US economy has been supported by consumer purchases sustained by increased mortgage debt. This source of funds will no longer be available.
3) Since wages represent 70% of corporate expenses, a downturn in the economy will result in increased unemployment, and an increasing debt service problem.
4) Labour mobilty has been the key response to a declining local economy. Relocating homeowners will be forced to sell into a declining market and this will further pressure prices.
5) The "oil crash" of the late 1980's was confined to that sector. Those outside the oil sector had no understanding of what took place (and still don't). The dot.com bust was a California problem and a telecom sector problem. Those outside these sectors were not exposed. The housing problem is very different in that 70% of the population is exposed and, apart from a few local markets, all will have concerns. Such concerns will likely lead to a retrenchment of consumer spending. This in turn reinforces 1) above and we go through the cycle again.
6) At some point the path presented above will become clear to the equities markets and these will sell off. The consequence of this is that neither one's house nor one's 401k are likely to hold value. This will occur at a time when a significant proportion of the population will be nearing retirement. This will shape the domestic political environment. With regards the US, I think there is the possibility of significant internal conflict.
7) The international system has basically hinged on US strength as a major global investor and as a safe and secure investment location. Given the above scenario this sentiment is bound to change. Within the US, I suspect rising anger over the fact of a government focus on life in Iraq while paying no attention to domestic issues impacting the citizenry.
8) I don't know how this plays out with respect to PO. I expect the price of oil to rise in US dollar terms and this will deepen the interlinked problems presented above. AGW will also exacerbate this problem set and make a postiive response to this challenge less likely.
I do not see any means for the Fed to undertake a meaningful intervention. This will not be a liquidity crisis so much as a crisis of confidence, a Minsky Moment that results in a reconceptualiztion of personal, domestic, and international relationships.
Comments and critique welcome.
Cheers!
Re#6 and significant internal conflict.
Have you seen some of the proposals making the rounds?
http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com/
It is a total outrage that they would even consider some of these things. Basically they are saying that if someone lied enough they get a free house, and many of these are illegal aliens.
Why should anyone in the US even work under these rules? Hey quit your job, claim victimhood and get a free house.
There is something very wrong when liars and criminals are rewarded.
From Mish:
Clearly this tracking agency function should be the responsibilty of the Department of Homeland Securitization.