Post New

I pride myself for understanding econ.

I do not know why the FED needs to lower rates.

What is your take on how interest rates should be treated?

Surprise me because I do not see any reasoning at all for anything up or down.

I agree with you. Read my last Control Panel to see why I think the Fed should not lower rates.
Wendy

I do not know why the FED needs to lower rates.

Right now, they don't. At least, not for economic reasons.

Inflation is still too high--and expected to go up a bit--more than we expect/desire. Tariffs are raising prices/inflation with no benefit to the general public--except to reign in the ability of the non-upper classes to spend money to stimulate the general economy.

Stagflation is definitely possible. If so, it could be a repeat of 1980-1982 to kill it. Imagine the frantic antics in the White House when THAT point arrives....

Hopefully, avoid stagflation. Definite worker shortage in the US--especially on farms that require field workers to grow, maintain, and/or harvest crops by hand. Farmers can not pay market rates for US workers. US workers will not take jobs at $7-$10/hr.

US workers will not take jobs at $7-$10/hr.

As long as a social safety net exists you may be right. But look at what is being done to that net:
snip - Medicare
snip - SNAP
snip - school lunch programs
snip - support for family planning
snip - support for labor unions

A lot of people are going to fall through that net. It's a feature not a bug.

“I do not know why the FED needs to lower rates.”

Argument I heard today was to give the housing market a kick. Housing is a huge part of the economy and the market is stagnant due to high mortgage rates. No one with a 3% mortgage wants to move.

Personally, I think they’re a bunch of whiners, my first mortgage was at 12% variable rate.
Now get off my lawn.

Argument I heard today was to give the housing market a kick. Housing is a huge part of the economy and the market is stagnant due to high mortgage rates.

But does the lowering of the fed short term rates really impact mortgage rates, which are more based on the market driven 10 year rates? Just because something is used as an excuse as to why something should be done, doesn't mean that's the real reason. It's just the acceptable goal to sell a desired outcome by those in power.

No one with a 3% mortgage wants to move.

This person with a 2% mortgage wants to sell, but most "buyers" have no desire to buy no matter what the rate. They are too busy being curled up in a sea of anxiety caused by the uncertainty that surrounds them.

IP

No one with a 3% mortgage wants to move.

To get even close to 3% mortgage rates, the economy would have to fail dramatically. Spankee knows how to do that !! However, if the economy fails, then there will be no buyers--because the economy will be so bad, nobody will want to lend--never mind borrow.

"This person with a 2% mortgage wants to sell, but most "buyers" have no desire to buy no matter what the rate. They are too busy being curled up in a sea of anxiety caused by the uncertainty that surrounds them."

IP, I know from TMF that you have a ton of experience in real estate, on both the buy side, and
the sell side ( as a realtor ). I'm seeing housing prices that are so disconnected with
what wages are, but this has been going on for awhile. But even as someone with assets, I
would have no interest in buying at these prices. But the caveat to that is that I already
own a nice house, so am not paying very high rental prices while trying to find something
to buy.

So I don't think lower mortgage rates are going to spur demand. But I admittedly do not
know the ins and outs of RE. Is the FOMO caused by paying high rents enough to keep
home prices rising from an already high level ? I understand supply and demand, so if enough new units are not being built, prices are going to rise, no matter what I think of the ability of the new buyers to carry these costs. With the so called "immigration policy" that has been unleashed, I don't think it's going to be immigrants buying housing in America, so perhaps that will provide a check on soaring prices.

Sure am glad I'm not a youngster looking to get a starter house.

I'm seeing housing prices that are so disconnected with
what wages are...

Sure, as has been the case most of my 60+ years. I left the Boston area in the 1980's precisely because I knew I would never be able to afford it. Like Boston, our area is constrained to new builds, which has been further reduced because of a pulling back on new build permit requests from developers who are feeling the pain of the current market and are wisely not sticking their neck too far out to the uncertain future. More retirees are aging in place, rather than sell their home and move to the extremely priced retirement communities. Some older homes will come on the market, but they are not HGTV ready and the young buyer will turn their nose up at the properties, while the flippers will be strapped for cash given today's resale market. Not much points to improved inventory, which is what is keeping prices high. Add to that the tariffs on building materials and the decrease in construction workers due in part to ICE, and there is only one direction housing will go in...up.


So I don't think lower mortgage rates are going to spur demand.

They will at some point, but it is not primarily rates that are currently holding buyers back, IMO. It's uncertainty, which seems to be the key approach to our current gov't. When the uncertainty dissipates, or we become numb to it, that is when buyers will return. Right now all we are seeing are bargain hunters who want to pay us 3/4 of the value of the property, as established by an appraisal from last Spring. Happily our 2% mortgage and strong rental market allows us to move on without selling, giving us up to 3 years of income before risk of losing capital gains exclusion on sale. (I would rather risk the loss than donate what we could save in capital gains exclusion to a bargain hunter's pockets.) Or we just keep it as our primary and put it on Homeexchange.com and use that towards travel. Not considered an event that changes your primary residence designation.

But even as someone with assets, I would have no interest in buying at these prices.

One of the things I love about real estate is that there are inefficiencies to the market, and bargains can be found. Sadly we just lost out on one that went under contract in less than 1 day, because our agent was booked until the next day. We are concerned about having too much cash in inflationary times and are trying to buy now. We have also proposed to Eldest that we could finance the purchase of his first home, which he is in the process of looking for now. It's never easy to buy your first place.

We have changed our purchasing strategy to that of a transition home that will eventually become a rental, when we sell our existing primary and buy a replacement. That allows us to not have to worry about which property to consider as primary. And yes, we will maintain true residency here until sale of property. It's where our mail is received, cars registered, doctors visited, we vote...

IP

Personally, I think they’re a bunch of whiners, my first mortgage was at 12% variable rate.
Now get off my lawn.


My first mortgage was 7⅜. That was so long ago they hadn't even invented decimals!

IP,

Heads up, the history of tariffs leads to deflation. If unemployment soars, deflation follows.

If unemployment soars, deflation follows.

If the public is fed fake unemployment numbers, the whole system crumbles. So, WHEN we get fake numbers from BLS, the "full faith and credit" bit "goes away", shall I say....

We have always had political interference in the numbers.

The trending unemployment numbers will be apparent.

Heads up, the history of tariffs leads to deflation. If unemployment soars, deflation follows.

That sounds like the Leap I know. I've been through more than one market cycle. When there is not enough inventory, prices always escalate eventually. In the meantime, that's why I have contingency plans built in and don't skate so close to the edge that I can't wait out a down market.

I am more concerned about the consequences of the current knee jerk actions we are seeing at the highest levels. Are you really so sure that economic norms are still in play, when those making the decisions for the country are doing so for personal gain rather than for the good of the country, lying all the way? I suspect the rules of the game are no longer valid. Too much intentional uncertainty via the gov't means that the conventional trick of lowering rates won't necessarily stimulate the economy. It will just provide lying points to Trumpet.

IP,
seeing a pretty long wait ahead and not over extending with the promise of a quick solution

I would raise rates a bit, like 25 basis points now and maybe another 25 in December. Inflation is rising again and needs to be contained.

https://www.nytimes.com/2025/08/21/business/jerome...

His remarks over the past seven years have been the biggest draw of the three-day conference, which is set to kick off on Thursday. Hosted by the Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City, it has for decades served as the top forum for central bankers, government officials and academics to debate pressing economic issues.

Since Mr. Powell’s most recent public appearance in late July, the prospect of an interest rate reduction in September has risen sharply as fears about the labor market have begun to overshadow lingering concerns over inflation. So has the White House’s pressure on the Fed to substantially lower borrowing costs

>>Argument I heard today was to give the housing market a kick. Housing is a huge part of the economy and the market is stagnant due to high mortgage rates. No one with a 3% mortgage wants to move. <<

Or, maybe the "JCs" want cheap loans, so they can have their companies buy back more stock, to push the price up, to fatten their bonus? We talked, for years, on METAR, about how corporate America was addicted to the "crack" of free money.

Steve

>>Heads up, the history of tariffs leads to deflation. If unemployment soars, deflation follows. <<

The regime wants to deport how many millions of "illegals", plus as many of the 55M legal visa holders as they can. I suspect that much of the unemployment will be exported to other countries, in the fleet of airliners that ICE wants to buy.

Steve

much of the unemployment will be exported to other countries

Migrants don't get unemployment ("off the books"), so no changes there. Rather, demand for cheap labor will skyrocket in farm country--but that is about all. Getting people from the cities to the far-away "farm jobs" is a joke--and they know it. People won't go because it is not a viable way to fill those jobs. Require the farmers to pay the cost of transportation, housing, food, etc--PLUS high wages--and the farmers will RUN from hiring those workers.

>>Getting people from the cities to the far-away "farm jobs" is a joke--and they know it.<<

Lots of low wage jobs in the cities. On my daily walks, I often pass the groundskeeping crew at the apartments next door. Spanish spoken exclusively. The basement walls of my condo are the association's problem, so a workman is sent to plug leaks. He has a Mexican flag tat on his arm, and personal calls on his cell are always in Spanish. Folks from the east side of Detroit, don't need to go outstate to replace people who were either deported, or gone to ground, to avoid being deported.

Steve

Lots of low wage jobs in the cities.

None of the "in the cities" jobs are on the farms that need workers.

Are you really so sure that economic norms are still in play

IP,

Depends on what you mean by norms.

The principles of economics won't go away.

Tearing down trade means layoffs. Layoffs mean less consumption.

Higher prices because of tariffs mean less spending on services. Layoffs.

I see no economic policies that pan out as economic growth.

Reducing interest rates is a monetary policy during a demand-side economics period. It won't lead effectively. Too many fiscal policies that dominate are in play, doing the wrong things.

The current "norms" do not hold water as being constructive. Pay me now or pay me later. Later is not that far away.

Some of Powell's speech is in this CNN editorial. What Powell is saying would be central to the reason to cut rates, but the unsaid is much worse. If layoff rocket deflation will soar.

This Congress will need to save the American economy. But the debt is untenable as this transpires.

We could have raised taxes without paying the price. We did not.

https://www.cnn.com/2025/08/22/business/video/fed-...

Higher prices because of tariffs mean less spending on services. Layoffs.

The trend I am seeing, particularly in autos, is a push up market: so the company takes more off of each of the shrinking number of people who buy from them...and they don't care about loss of volume.


VW to scrap models and focus on premium market -CFO tells FT

"The key target is not growth," Arno Antlitz told the Financial Times newspaper. "We are (more focused) on quality and on margins, rather than on volume and market share."

https://www.reuters.com/business/autos-transportat...

Ford Wants to Be 'The Porsche of Off-Road'

https://www.motor1.com/news/747639/ford-wants--to-...

It's almost as if corporate honchos look at the data that shows US economic policy is leaving lower income people behind, and the honchos are saying "OK, we'll leave lower end customers behind too".

Steve

Ford Wants to Be 'The Porsche of Off-Road'

Another bit about how Ford is walking away from the lower priced segments. Ford sold about 150,000 Escape two row SUVs last year. That's a nice piece of business. But Ford doesn't want that segment, because two row SUVs drag down their average GP. So they walk away from 150K/customers per year, to juice ATP and GP.

Ford CEO Farley Says Two Row ICE Crossovers Going Away

https://fordauthority.com/2023/02/ford-ceo-farley-...

Steve

Steve,

Not almost. The corporates are leaving affordability behind. That won't inspire wealthier people to spend more. Things are too risky.

If there is a wipeout of the US treasury market and USD, most Americans will be financially destroyed. There is a gathering shadow over the public.

If there is a wipeout of the US treasury market and USD, most Americans will be financially destroyed. There is a gathering shadow over the public.

I suspect the holders of the bonds have "his" ear, so they will be protected, at any cost, just as the holders of Fanny and Freddy paper were protected.

As suggested before, the plan could be a matter of blowing bubbles to make a lot of money, fast, then get out of the way, before the collapse.

****historical context****

#40 blew a bubble by exploiting Volker's allowing rates to drop, plus a big supply side tax cut, plus massive deficit spending, the highest peacetime deficits in the history of the republic. The markets flew. Hence the narrative about the "supply side economic miracle".

In the late 90s, the country sort of regained it's financial footing.

#43 fought two wars, and enacted two rounds of supply side tax cuts, to blow another bubble, on the back of huge deficits. He only failed in that he could not keep the bubble inflated until he was out of office, so the next guy would take the blame for the collapse.

So now, I expect another bubble to be inflated. It is interesting that the money that would be used to inflate the bubble, comes from redistributing tariff revenue, rather than putting it all on the credit card. I'm not sure how that would work out. Will companies be able to hide the rising prices under their "moving upmarket" strategies? (more historical context: when I was in school, in the early 60s, we were told about some of the strategies the Soviets used to hide inflation)

Steve

At this rate, Ford is going to run out of models to cut.

At this rate, Ford is going to run out of models to cut.

Ford breaks down it's margin into three segments. "Ford Blue" is ICE consumer vehicles, "Ford Pro" is commercial vehicles, "Ford Model e" is EVs.

Margins for Q2, 2025:


Segment Performance in Q2 2025

Ford Pro (Commercial Vehicles): This segment was the strongest performer, generating $2.3 billion in EBIT with a 12.3% margin.

Ford Blue (Internal Combustion Engine Vehicles): This traditional business contributed $0.7 billion in EBIT with a modest 2.6% margin.

Ford Model e (Electric Vehicles): The electric vehicle division continued to face losses, reporting a negative EBIT of $1.3 billion, but its margin improved to -56.4% from previous quarters

I'll put on my MBA hat (scrunch), clearly, the thing to do is to incrementally phase out all ICE consumer vehicles, walking away from millions of customers, and probably closing several plants, putting tens of thousands of people out of work, and build nothing but commercial vehicles, because that maximizes margin. (removing MBA hat...splunk)

*****conspiracy theory follows. if you read it, don't complain you weren't warned, and don't waggle your finger at me!****

In the back of my mind is the thought that Ford, and several other automakers, looked at the ATP and GP (apparently 27.9% in 2018) Tesla used to report, and figured building EVs was easy money, so spent heavily, in pursuit of that fat margin. Then, Tesla started cutting prices, and accepting lower margins (17.9% in 2024) and the money didn't look so easy, given the investment required.

Ford started building three battery plants, and a greenfield EV F-150 plant in 2021. Production to start in 2025. In August of last year, Ford walked back that schedule. A few weeks ago, Ford walked back that schedule some more.

Ford delays electric pickup, van to 2028 as it chases smaller, affordable options

https://www.reuters.com/business/autos-transportat...

What makes 2028 so special? (big conspiracy theory follows)...Farley turns 65 in 2027, June 10, to be precise. He could pack up the Millions he has made off of Ford, and retire, at that time. So he has dragged out the EV program just long enough for whether to sink more money into it, or write off the Billions already spent, will be the next guy's problem.

Farley has been claiming genius foresight in not having Lincoln go heavy for EVs.

Lincoln Was Ready To Make A Huge Electric Mistake, Until One Man Stopped It

https://carbuzz.com/ford-ceo-cancelled-lincoln-ev/

So, with Farley backpedaling on EVs like crazy, what is the deal with the dog and pony show about a midsize EV pickup, a few days ago? That pickup is supposed to be built at Lousiville Assembly, where the Escape has been built. The Escape is being dropped at the end of this year, to make room for the EV truck. (more conspiracy theory) Given that Farley said, two years ago, he wants to abandon the two row SUV market, and only build bigger, more expensive, cars, the "affordable EV pickup" narrative runs counter to everything else he is saying and doing. I propose the pickup is vaporware, whose only function is to provide political cover for dropping the Escape, closing another US plant, and putting over 2000 Americans out of work, to juice his ATP and GP. Without the EV pickup hype, closing the plant and laying everyone off would put Ford near the "Drop Dead!!" end of Trump's loyalty rankings, because autoworkers are a significant part of his base. (see? I warned you it was a conspiracy theory)

If you read all the way through, with all the warnings, don't you DARE waggle your finger at me! :^)

Steve

That sounds like the kid selling lemonade for $500 per glass. All they have to sell is one and they're done for the summer.

That sounds like the kid selling lemonade for $500 per glass. All they have to sell is one and they're done for the summer.

Ford figures they can separate people from $110,000 for this thing, so they may offer foo-foo coffee in the showroom for $500.

2026 Ford Mustang Raptor

MSRP
$90,000–$110,000 est

https://www.caranddriver.com/ford/mustang-raptor

...after all, it has a "Mustang" badge pasted on it. 171,000 people, and the businesses that they patronize, depend on the mentality running that company, for their livelihood.

Steve...watching honchos in their echo chambers for 45 years.

When there is not enough inventory, prices always escalate eventually.

IP,

Is inventory demand because of the number of homes needed?

Or inventory demand because of the number of dollars chasing?

Dollars chasing, we are about to turn a corner.

Is inventory demand because of the number of homes needed?

Or inventory demand because of the number of dollars chasing?

You omitted a major point: Price.

Demand for new housing is large because of the number of houses needed. HOWEVER, they can not be built due to extremely high prices--which are being raised even more by tariffs on building materials.

The amount of money consumers have to spend on housing is not sufficient to buy a house in today's market. PLUS, the economy is beginning to destabilize due to irrational economic claims by Spankee. Significant non-housing price increases in many areas (food, clothing, consumer goods, various appliances, and more) are beginning to show up in the prices consumers pay for everyday goods. That leaves the consumer even less money to spend on housing--or they buy less food, clothing, and so on in order to divert EVEN MORE limited funds to housing that is steadily becoming less and less affordable.

The amount of money consumers have to spend on housing is not sufficient to buy a house in today's market.

I was going to post something on another thread, but didn't. As I have the information at hand, and it picks up on your point, I'll post it here.

As I walk around my neighborhood, I see houses built in the 70s and 80s, that I deem "normal size". But, everything built since the mid 90s is a garish mcmansion. Seems that house builders have made the same decision as automakers, to move "up market", caring not one whit if some are priced out of the market, as they throw up a garish mcmansion on every lot they acquire.

In Q2 of this year, Pulte, builder of most of the garish mcmansions in my area, reported a 15.5% net profit. For 2024, the S&P 500 reported a 12.1% net profit, which, itself, was above the five year average.

If someone wanted to foster a lot of goodwill among working people, he would lean on developers like Pulte, to build houses to sell at some percentage below market average, and settle for half of their usual net margin on them...or, consequences.

The other thing that comes to mind: deportation of hundreds of thousands, or millions, of immigrants, would free up a lot of "affordable" housing.

Steve

deportation of hundreds of thousands, or millions, of immigrants, would free up a lot of "affordable" housing.

Don't expect it. The immigrants being deported tend to live in the lowest cost housing. Thus, developers will pay premium prices in order to tear down the existing buildings so they can build whatever they think will sell at a fat margin. They will have no problem combining two adjacent lots in order to have enough room for the bigger house to be built (with all its amenities). So there is actually *less* housing available than previously.

Require the McMansion owners to pick fruit and vegetables because they displaced the homes of those workers--yet those owners still want everything they desire "on demand" (i.e. fresh-picked fruits and vegetables as two examples).

The amount of money consumers have to spend on housing is not sufficient to buy a house in today's market.

Much of today's market is downsizing. Meaning people selling properties for cash and buying down for cash.

My parents 6 weeks ago sold their home in CT, and moved to be closer to my sisters in MA. With the proceeds of the sale, they will rent for the next 8 years. Dad and Mom are 86 and 85, respectively. The person who bought their home for cash had been widowed and wanted to be near their daughter in CT.

That sort of swapping was happening in a market with a tight inventory. During COVID, rates were so low that people locked into mortgages and won't move now if they can help it. The COVID-19 borrowings and retirement funds have propped up the equity markets directly and indirectly.

The resulting inflation and overconsumption after COVID is being replaced with job cuts today. The pace of layoffs will quicken.

You do not want to see the opposite. Our regional is mulling over giving us a 5% raise at work. The decision has to happen by Sept 20 with our new staffing decisions. You retired folks reading this can not enjoy that. If I am entirely wrong by Christmas, we all begin to lose to hyperinflation.

Meanwhile, housing is in trouble. Asset values are probably going to get very shaky. Consumption should contract.

Thus, developers will pay premium prices in order to tear down the existing buildings so they can build whatever they think will sell at a fat margin.

And who would developers buy those properties from?

*****historical context*****

Somewhere along the line, I read that, in the late 30s, some 25% of the German federal budget was paid with the property the government had seized from people it had deported, or tossed in a camp.

In announcing the takeover of DC, Trump was talking about clearing out the criminals and illegals, and cleaning out the places they live.

And we're getting rid of the slums, too. We have slums here, we're getting rid of them. I know it's not politically correct. You'll say, "Oh, so terrible." No, we're getting rid of the slums where they live.

https://www.rev.com/transcripts/trump-details-crim...

I would not be surprised if any protest by a landlord or mortgage holder about their property being seized would be met with "you aided and abetted an illegal/criminal. want to be prosecuted for that?" So, the government would be the seller, and, if it wished, setting conditions on what would be built on the property.

Steve

"In announcing the takeover of DC, Trump was talking about clearing out the criminals and illegals, and cleaning out the places they live.

And we're getting rid of the slums, too. We have slums here, we're getting rid of them. I know it's not politically correct. You'll say, "Oh, so terrible." No, we're getting rid of the slums where they live."

And who determines the cut line, between a slum and just a lower-class neighborhood ?

And if Trump has the NG bulldoze the slum, where do the residents go to live ?

The macro impacts of just razing a neighborhood based on Trump's opinion that it
is a slum is staggering. There already is a lack of low income housing in America.
Trump wants to make it worse ?

As with all things Trump, this is not well thought out. His dazed and confused and angry
ravings are going to hit the American taxpayer right in the wallet, assuming no TACO.

And who determines the cut line, between a slum and just a lower-class neighborhood ?

Remember all the public housing projects in the 50s and 60s? Remember the uproar when a neighborhood in Hamtramck was leveled to make room for a new GM plant?

Poletown, the Detroit neighborhood demolished for GM plant

https://www.freep.com/picture-gallery/news/local/m...

The government, on it's own, or as agent for a corporation, has a long history of tearing down neighborhoods, several city blocks at a time.

Steve

"The government, on it's own, or as agent for a corporation, has a long history of tearing down neighborhoods, several city blocks at a time."
------------------

Sure they do. But they've had a plan as to what they are going to do with the real estate
that is being leveled, ie auto plant. Is there a plan that I haven't heard of yet, by the
current regime, to raze dilapidated neighborhoods, and replace the housing stock with
affordable housing for working-class people ?? Maybe it was deep withing the OBBB, lol, I just can't see that happening, but I'll keep an open mind.

But a National Policy, such as occurred after WWII, to build affordable housing would be a popular policy. Trump's Dad made his fortune building housing for all of the returning soldiers after WWII. Lots of complaints that the housing was substandard in quality. But it was a Government Policy that Trump must surely be aware of, seeing as that is how he got his start in RE, collecting rents for his Dad.

This is all just a storyline right now, until I hear of bulldozers hitting the slums of Baltimore, this is all just another TACO event waiting to happen.

I was reading a couple of articles and a podcast that reported that shoppers and restaurant customers were being cleared out. Business is down "Bigly."

I was reading a couple of articles and a podcast that reported that shoppers and restaurant customers were being cleared out. Business is down "Bigly."

The local Detroit news did a piece, several weeks ago, surveying businesses in the Hispanic neighborhood of Detroit. Yes, business is down quite a bit. The presumption is a large part of the local population has gone to ground.

Steve

Sure they do. But they've had a plan as to what they are going to do with the real estate
that is being leveled, ie auto plant.

Not necessarily. I don't recall the name of the project, but, a few years ago, one of the local TV stations did a piece about how the city bought up all the properties in a particular area, and cleared everything out, to bare dirt, ready for "JCs" to move in and redevelop the area...but the "JCs", for the most part, never showed up.

Implementation of "eminent domain" can vary from state to state too. There was a case, maybe around Boston, some years ago, about the propriety of the state using eminent domain to take property, for the benefit of a private, for profit, corporation, when, iirc, the Constitution specifies the power is only to be used for "public use". Clearly, that is not a concern in Michigan. Seems I have read that Texas is much like Michigan, in that respect. If an oil company wants to put a pipeline through your back yard, you have no chance of stopping it, because the state will take the company's side.

Is there a federal law similar to Michigan's "civil forfeiture"? If there is, then the Feds could seize property, just because an illegal or criminal was using the property. No "legal due process" required.

Steve

Is there a federal law similar to Michigan's "civil forfeiture"?

Yes. The govt (city? county? state?) gets a piece of the $$$ at sale for assets used in/by/for a criminal. Assets can be seized and sold by the govt.

the propriety of the state using eminent domain to take property, for the benefit of a private, for profit, corporation

Kelo vs City of New London

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kelo_v._City_of_New_...

Yes. The govt (city? county? state?) gets a piece of the $$$ at sale for assets used in/by/for a criminal. Assets can be seized and sold by the govt.

Thanks. And since illegals, and anyone the sifting of the 55M Visas finds, will be, by definition, criminals, everything they have, becomes government property, an asset to be sold to the highest bidder. Remember the RTC?

Resolution Trust Corporation (RTC) was a U.S. government-owned asset management company first run by Lewis William Seidman and charged with liquidating assets, primarily real estate-related assets such as mortgage loans, that had been assets of savings and loan associations (S&Ls) declared insolvent by the Office of Thrift Supervision (OTS) as a consequence of the savings and loan crisis of the 1980s.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resolution_Trust_Cor...

Steve

It is aimed primarily at high-dollar criminals (i.e. real estate, cars, etc), but there is no minimum (to my knowledge).

It is aimed primarily at high-dollar criminals (i.e. real estate, cars, etc), but there is no minimum (to my knowledge).

They can make it up on volume? Supposedly, there are tens of millions they could strip and deport.

Steve

They can make it up on volume? Supposedly, there are tens of millions they could strip and deport.

That it the problem. If they did "tens of millions", then so many assets hitting the market would drive down prices massively--and reduce the amount received to an amount that would not be worthwhile. Then, with property values down so much, they would turn into instant slums. Employers leave, and so do the jobs. Then cuts to police, fire, and so on based on falling tax revenues (sales taxes DOWN, inventory taxes DOWN, payroll taxes DOWN, and so on).

Steve,

There are 11 million illegals. Perhaps 500k will be deported per year. Does not matter to this if 1 million are deported per year.

Unemployment at great depression levels will clobber the entire workforce.

Post New

Macroeconomic Trends and Risks FAQ

---

Contact Shrewd'm
Contact the developer of these message boards.