|
|
Post by goGopherBill on May 19, 2009 9:14:04 GMT -5
By MARTIN CRUTSINGER, AP Economics Writer Martin Crutsinger, Ap Economics Writer – 1 hr 18 mins ago
WASHINGTON – Housing construction plunged to a record low in April as a steep drop in apartment building offset a rebound in single-family construction. Permits for new projects also hit a new low.
The Commerce Department said Tuesday that construction of new homes and apartments fell 12.8 percent last month to a seasonally adjusted annual rate of 458,000 units, the lowest pace on records going back a half-century.
In a disappointing sign for the future, applications for new building permits dropped 3.3 percent to a new record low annual rate of 494,000.
Economists had expected home construction and building permits to post modest increases in April as signs that the worst collapse in housing activity in the post-World War II period was drawing to a close.
THOSE DARN ECONOMISTS...wrong again.
|
|
|
|
Post by OverAndUnder on May 19, 2009 16:12:01 GMT -5
In order for this news item to be discussed in an intelligent manner, you need to provide a metric for correlating the number of people seeking housing of each type to the available amount of that type of housing.
Otherwise, I see no convincing reason to accept the implication that when the rate of new construction maintains or continually increases, it is the sign of a "healthy" economy. As a lifelong conservative, I'm highly suspicious of the "constant growth" economic model. Those people who always wanted more more more were pointed to as object lessons in how not to live. Growth depends on an unrighteous (and unsatisfiable) covetousness. Responsibility, restraint, and contentment with what has real value -- these are the guideposts of a true conservative mentality.
|
|
|
|
Post by goGopherBill on May 19, 2009 18:08:30 GMT -5
I don't need to present a darn thing.
I show a news story ..open for discussion..
I show MY take by the thread Name.
You can spin it any way you want ,but it is not up to anyone to present more or less for a topic.
A true conservative knows that housing is just 1 key ingredient in any economy.
But since I spent over 35 years in that business I can argue it plays a more important role than you place upon it.
FAR more than education and health care..autos.
HOUSING IS A BASIC NECESSITY.
|
|
|
|
Post by OverAndUnder on May 19, 2009 22:00:29 GMT -5
I didn't say housing wasn't very important to economic growth.
The article is written from the opinion that it is bad to see the new housing market not maintain its peak activity level or continually increase.
How many houses and apartments do we need for our population?
There has been a strong correlation between new housing starts, and economic growth. Is our goal to have a chicken in every pot and a house for every family? Or is our goal simply economic growth, and therefore encouraging home ownership is just 1 key way of stimulating economic growth?
Is economic growth always a good thing for a society? What might be some circumstances in which economic growth would actually be bad or might lead to serious financial problems?
Is increasing homebuilding - which would certainly require increasing home-ownership - always a good thing? What might be some circumstances in which increasing home-ownership rates would actually be bad or might lead to serious financial problems?
|
|
|
|
Post by goGopherBill on May 20, 2009 22:12:46 GMT -5
Associated Press
Updated: 05/20/2009 09:47:14 PM CDT
NEW YORK — Bank stocks led the market lower after the Federal Reserve cut its economic forecast and said unemployment could get worse.
The Fed's prediction Wednesday that the jobless rate could approach 9.6 percent — worse than its previous forecast of 8.8 percent — was especially ominous for banks since that data is a component of the government's recent "stress tests" designed to determine how healthy banks are.
The midafternoon release of minutes from the Fed's meeting deflated an earlier rally in financial shares, which had been rising after Bank of America Corp. said it raised $13.5 billion in a share offering.
In other parts of the market, energy stocks surged as oil topped $62 a barrel for the first time since November
|
|
|
|
Post by soothsayer on May 21, 2009 9:31:30 GMT -5
Your preference, of course, was for the banks to fail and unemployment to hit 30%?
|
|
|
|
Post by hammer on May 21, 2009 20:41:38 GMT -5
Associated Press Updated: 05/20/2009 09:47:14 PM CDT NEW YORK — Bank stocks led the market lower after the Federal Reserve cut its economic forecast and said unemployment could get worse. The Fed's prediction Wednesday that the jobless rate could approach 9.6 percent — worse than its previous forecast of 8.8 percent — was especially ominous for banks since that data is a component of the government's recent "stress tests" designed to determine how healthy banks are. In other parts of the market, energy stocks surged as oil topped $62 a barrel for the first time since November Aren't we at 8.5 already? The run rate on job losses has been over 600K every month, so 9.6 seems very doable to me and we'll probably go over 10.0 at some point. I guess the good news is higher unemployment should hold oil prices down to some degree, although it doesn't look like that is happening now. |
|
|
|
Post by soothsayer on May 21, 2009 22:34:22 GMT -5
I guarantee you that if more states follow California and Minnesota in cutting jobs, we'll be well over 10%.
|
|
|
|
Post by OverAndUnder on May 22, 2009 2:38:05 GMT -5
My suspicion is that the Fed's number is already well below the reality.
|
|
|
|
Post by OverAndUnder on Jun 23, 2009 16:50:38 GMT -5
My suspicion is that the Fed's number is already well below the reality.  |
|
