We're doing just fine, Steve. One has got to be pretty dumb to think that you can buy a property for $100,000. Watch it go up to $225,000 in 6 years and think that it's going to stay at that level. The house values are just correcting themselves. My house's market value is currently at around $175,000-$185,000 after owning it for 9 years. (Bought at $109,000) That's not a bad return on an investment.
The ones not doing well? Those fools that bought at $200,000 two years ago, couldn't ever reallly afford the payments and now can't sell it for what they bought it for.
So those millions of Americans who’s biggest investment in their lives is their home are doing just fine right? Wrong. We all are getting screwed.
Housing is a longterm investment. Things up 100% come down 10% go up 100% come down 10%. Thats how the economics work. All those people who you think are going to be so screwed will fine in a few years when their houses go back up and past what they paid for.
Ya Ace you are one person out of how many MILLIONS?
Just use that brain and education of yours and think about it. Think about how many people who have bought homes in the last few years who didn’t buy beyond their means. They paid more than they are worth.
Now people like you and I who bought just a few years before that have a larger cushion. That does not mean we are immune from what is happening, just in a better position to weather this type of thing.
Not everyone who bought homes in the last few years bought beyond their means, but we are all feeling the bite being taken out by those who did, and the MBA’s who have degrees and said this is never going to happen.
------------------ Technology is great when it works, and one big pain in the ass when it doesn't. Detroit iron rules all the rest are just toys.
Steve, I am one of millions of people that are doing just fine. You're doing just fine with your investment in a double-wide and a 5 acres of land, right?
Steve, if those people bought 2 years ago for $200,000 and today it's worth $185,000 in 7 years it'll probably be worth $250,000-$275,000.
Owning/living in a house should be viewed as a long-term investment.
If you're looking at buying the house to flip it.....Risky investment.
If you're buying a house and you know that your only going to be living in it for 2-3 years.......Risky investment
If you're buying a house HOPING you can make the payment in 2-3 years......Risky investment (Hope is not a course of action)
The ones not doing well? Those fools that bought at $200,000 two years ago, couldn't ever reallly afford the payments and now can't sell it for what they bought it for.
That's one of my concerns. I bought my house in Jan. 2006 - right at the beginning of the downturn. I was expecting there to be a downturn, but was also concerned about rising interest rates. Do I buy now to lock in a low rate, or wait to see if prices drop, but interest rates go up?
I gambled and went for the low rate; however, I got a fixed rate mortgage, so regardless of how much value (if any) my house loses in the short term, I don't have to worry about my payments changing. The only way I can get bit now is if I lose value and have to sell before it regains the loss. Luckily I have no plans to move in the forseeable future, and my area has fortunately been spared much of the downturn. (we didn't get the explosive growth either, so the correction has been less severe)
But the big thing is - I went with a fixed affordable payment. No matter what else the housing or lending markets do, I can count on that payment staying the same. I've always viewed ARMs as just way too big a gamble on that big of a purchase.
Originally posted by Formula88: Luckily I have no plans to move in the forseeable future, and my area has fortunately been spared much of the downturn. (we didn't get the explosive growth either, so the correction has been less severe)
This is important. They areas that had the highest growth rate were the most risky investments, and now things are adjusting.
This is important. They areas that had the highest growth rate were the most risky investments, and now things are adjusting.
Exactly. If we'd been having the huge explosion in growth, I'm not sure what I would have done. I would have been more likely to wait to see if the bubble burst, I think. Hard to say, but again the key would be how long I plan to stay in one place. If I had plans to move within 7 years, I'd probably have kept renting in those markets.
The recent down turn is just a correction in the market like it did in 1972, 1984, 1987, 2002 etc. I sold my house in NY after 27 years of ownership and sold it for about 2.5x what I paid for it not adjusted for inflation. My house in Florida was ordered in '03 at an affordable price for me. I was fortunate to get a good price before the market went crazy and the house is now appraised (by the taxman) at about 40% more than I paid for it.
The Dow shows that for the past 5 years that this index is up ~50%. You cannot evaluate the economy health just by looking at the last two or three months activities.
When I retired in '02, I got into a little panic because the market (my retirement income) decreased for a while, but it did turn around and I'm ahead of the game. That is my situation. I let the money managers of my investments take care of my portfolio. There are too many variables with investment stratagies for me to become a day trader and jump around with my investments.
[This message has been edited by Old Lar (edited 12-27-2007).]
I do think there will be some more corrections, and perhaps a recession, but I don't think it's going to be anything catastrophic. Like Lar said, similar to earlier market downturns. I'm sure there will be people who lose their shirt - but that happens to some people regardless of the state of the economy.
The housing market is just correcting itself and is just hurting from the lending fiasco.
The stockmarket is maintaining to increasing overall
The GDP and all other indicators are SLOWING thier increases but have not DECREASED at all. We have no solid indications of our economy going down the toilet or in the start of a recession.
I believe we will have a recession, in the next 12 months
so was that 4 to 1 or 3 to 2?
So your definition of "in the toilet" equals "recession". Do you think the country will *stay* in one for a long time? How long? What will the end result be? Chaos? Anarchy? Mass starvation?
FYI, this country has been in recessions before, and we're still here. So just how deep a disaster are you predicting?
Originally posted by Starfighter: I would say that they would reluctently tell you,that the economy
is not what they would call good,and are probobly hopeing to hear something positive from the news media to give them some stress
relief and hope. .
Don't look for optimistic economic forecasts from the liberal media with a republican in the top office, this is an election year and they live to get people like Steve worried and exited.
People with more money and a bigger safety net are generally always more optimistic, no surprise there. People living from paycheck to paycheck and being worried all the time is certainly nothing new, hell I used to be that way too.
Originally posted by Old Lar: You cannot evaluate the economy health just by looking at the last two or three months activities.
Which is exactly why I haven't been following this thread too closely, too much blah blah blah. I thought about sending my financial planner a link to this thread but decided against it at the risk he might puke on his keyboard after reading it....or have a heart attack from all the laughter. Don't get me wrong, I do think there is some good information in this thread.
as for the vote:
No, I don't believe there will be a recession in the next 12 months.
[This message has been edited by ditch (edited 12-27-2007).]
I read somewhere somewhere back a few pages about how the dollor has been devalued. I believed that cannot be a good thing, until this morning I happened to be watching c-span .There was a gentle man on the show taking about the economy in general.One thing that he touched on, was the value of dollor.I was pleasently surprised to hear him say that it is not a really bad thing.He explained that people from around the globe will start looking at the u.s.for manufacturing goods and then exporting these goods back to their country for consumption.In my my eyes that should give some people some hope that atl east part of the economy might start heading in a better direction in their eyes.
Originally posted by Starfighter: I read somewhere somewhere back a few pages about how the dollor has been devalued. I believed that cannot be a good thing, until this morning I happened to be watching c-span .There was a gentle man on the show taking about the economy in general.One thing that he touched on, was the value of dollor.I was pleasently surprised to hear him say that it is not a really bad thing.He explained that people from around the globe will start looking at the u.s.for manufacturing goods and then exporting these goods back to their country for consumption.In my my eyes that should give some people some hope that atl east part of the economy might start heading in a better direction in their eyes.
Sure it's great to put on rose colored glasses. The problem is the advantages of a lower valued dollar arent shared by very many.
Originally posted by 84Bill: Sure it's great to put on rose colored glasses. The problem is the advantages of a lower valued dollar arent shared by very many.
I've heard complaints about a *high* dollar and a *low* dollar. So just what the hell is a *good* value for the dollar?
If we are in a recession why is everyone here saying we are in great shape?
I'm not saying the economy is in great shape. We're in a downturn, which is part of a cycle. It has happened before, it will surely happen again. You said that the economy is "in the toilet". Did you mean a "downturn", or something worse?
Originally posted by fierobear: I've heard complaints about a *high* dollar and a *low* dollar. So just what the hell is a *good* value for the dollar?
A dollar that doesn't swing violently from high to low furthering the drive in inflation and recession.
A silver standard would have avoided this entire mess
One of the resons the US went away from the gold/silver standards is that it allowed for no growth. You had a fixed amount of metal backing the currency. One hundred years ago an ounce of gold was worth $20. Inflation says that an ounce of gold is $800 today. If you had metals backing the currency, you would never see another raise. Granted, today as your salary goes up, everything you buy goes up in price. In reality stuff you bought 100 years ago for $20 probably would cost you $800 today.
If we went back to gold/silver base there would be dramatic deflation and depression.
[This message has been edited by Old Lar (edited 12-28-2007).]
Pocketbook worries outweigh voters' concerns over war in Iraq By JIM KUHNHENN and TREVOR TOMPSON, Associated Press Writers WASHINGTON (AP) — Voters began to worry more about their pocketbooks over the last month — even more than about the war in Iraq.
More than half the voters in an ongoing survey for The Associated Press and Yahoo! News now say the economy and health care are extremely important to them personally. They fear they will face unexpected medical expenses, their homes will lose value or mortgage and credit card payments will overwhelm them.
Events, however, can quickly change public opinion. Thursday's assassination of Pakistan opposition leader Benazir Bhutto could draw more attention to terrorism and national security, an issue that still ranked highly with the public and which 45 percent of those polled considered extremely important.
This latest AP-Yahoo! News survey of more than 1,800 people by Knowledge Networks offers a unique opportunity to track changes in public attitudes as the presidential campaign unfolds. The first poll was last month and set a base line to measure national sentiment.
In the new results, men and women approaching retirement were especially attentive to the economy and health care, with six out of 10 ranking both issues extremely important. Politically, the attention to such domestic issues hangs darkly over Republicans. Voters say they are far more likely to trust Democrats to handle the economy and health care.
Consider Linda Zimmerman, a 50-year-old sheep farmer from Thurmont, Md. Her daughter and son-in-law are having trouble keeping up with two mortgages on a town house, she said. One street in her neighborhood has five homes for sale, and one has been on the market for two years.
Registered as a Republican, she's ready to reconsider.
"We're Republicans and I'm very unhappy with them, and I've been watching the Democrats," she said. "We did better when (Bill) Clinton was in than we did with Bush. It's just terrible."
The Democratic edge on such issues illustrates the predicament Republicans face going into a presidential election. Iraq doesn't dominate the news as it used to, replaced by headlines about slumping home sales, high gasoline prices and a credit crunch.
The impact of Bhutto's assassination on public opinion depends on whether Americans perceive her death as an added threat to the United States. Terrorism was the only issue polled that Republicans were trusted to handle better than Democrats.
Republican Rudy Giuliani had benefited most from people's fears of terrorism. But over the past month his level of support dropped, even among voters who said terrorism was an important issue. Giuliani is now trying to get some of those voters back, releasing an ad Thursday that uses images of the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attack on New York.
All in all, though, voters appear to be weighing other issues at least as heavily as the country heads into the first voting of the presidential election.
Financial worries have risen in prominence. Forty-eight percent of those polled said Social Security is extremely important to them, up from 42 percent in November. That's virtually the same as the 46 percent who considered Iraq extremely important.
These new public concerns are reflected on the campaign trail, where candidates are hitting domestic topics hard. There too, Democrats have an edge over Republicans when it comes to connecting with their core voters.
Overall, 42 percent of Democrats are very or extremely satisfied with the amount of attention their favored candidates are giving to the issues that matter most to them. Only 32 percent of Republicans feel that way about their candidates. Of all the candidates, Democrat Barack Obama gets the best rating among his supporters.
Bill Hine, a 65-year-old Vietnam veteran from Warrenton, Va., considers himself a "soft Republican" who is partial to John McCain. But the nation's health system needs fixing, he said, and he's not happy with what he's hearing.
"A lot of Republicans are just anti-anything, anti-changing anything, and that's one of the things I'll be looking at," he said.
Six out of 10 people polled said they believe it is at least somewhat likely that the U.S. economy will enter a recession next year. Slightly more — 64 percent — said they worried about a major unexpected medical expense, and 55 percent worried that the value of their stocks and retirement investments would drop.
Forty-four percent said they were concerned that the value of their homes would decrease during the next six months. That sentiment was especially strong in the mountain states.
"Middle class America is being chipped away at," said Edward Lemieux, a 57-year-old pattern maker from North Smithfield, R.I., who plans to support Obama for president.
His view is influenced by the flight of manufacturing jobs from his state, by the "For Sale" signs that outnumber the "Sold" signs on neighborhood lawns and by his mother's health care needs.
"We're all of a sudden becoming a country of rich and poor," he said. "The middle class is eroding."
Despite those worries, respondents have grown slightly more optimistic about the direction of the nation during the past month. Nearly three out of 10 say the country is on the right path, compared with 24 percent last month. This uptick in the national mood is evident in both parties, though it's much stronger among Republicans. Still, more than seven out of 10 said they believe the U.S. is headed down the wrong track.
Interest in immigration — a major issue in the Republican presidential contest — remained the same as last month, with 37 percent saying it was an extremely important issue. But for all the candidates' efforts to distinguish themselves on that issue, the poll found that none of the leading contenders holds an advantage among Republicans who feel most strongly about immigration.
Sentiments on health care and the economy could make a difference in the Democratic contest.
Hillary Rodham Clinton and John Edwards supporters have much stronger feelings about the economy and Social Security than Obama voters. Edwards has staked his campaign on a message of economic populism, while Clinton draws 40 percent of her support from people with household incomes of less than $25,000, far more than her rivals.
Clinton, Obama and Edwards have been feuding over who would provide the most comprehensive health care plan.
Nearly two-thirds of voters polled said the United States should adopt a universal health insurance program "in which everyone is covered under a program like Medicare that is run by the government and financed by taxpayers." Fewer, but still a majority at 54 percent, said they supported a single-payer system whereby all Americans would get their health insurance through a taxpayer-financed government plan.
Lynn Haynes, 42, of Huntington, W.Va., works in the state government's welfare department where she sees clients who can't afford health care. What's more, she has a 35-year-old sister who is developmentally delayed and "falls into the cracks" of government assistance programs. She's a registered Republican, likes Giuliani but supports universal health care and is giving Democrats a hard look.
"I see too many people at work especially who just don't get any health care," Haynes said. "I look at what they get for retirement and Social Security, and I don't see how they live on that and afford their prescriptions."
The survey of 1,821 adults was conducted from Dec. 14-20, and had an overall margin of sampling error of plus or minus 2.3 percentage points. Included were interviews with 847 Democrats, for whom the margin of sampling error was plus or minus 3.4 points, and 655 Republicans, with a margin of sampling error of plus or minus 3.8 points.
The poll was conducted over the Internet by Knowledge Networks, which initially contacted people using traditional telephone polling methods and followed with online interviews. People chosen for the study who had no Internet access were given it for free.
— AP News Survey Specialist Dennis Junius and Associated Press Writer Christine Simmons contributed to this report.
One of the resons the US went away from the gold/silver standards is that it allowed for no growth. You had a fixed amount of metal backing the currency. One hundred years ago an ounce of gold was worth $20. Inflation says that an ounce of gold is $800 today. If you had metals backing the currency, you would never see another raise. Granted, today as your salary goes up, everything you buy goes up in price. In reality stuff you bought 100 years ago for $20 probably would cost you $800 today.
If we went back to gold/silver base there would be dramatic deflation and depression.
I dont know how you came up with all that but the truth in a nut shell is, the standards were removed so the greedy could get more money. The government could get more taxes from incomes and not have to work to keep good relations for exports. On a gold standard the U.S. could export more goods and get that countries gold or silver.
"Those that love rumors hate a peaceful life." Unknown
Originally posted by Old Lar: Inflation says that an ounce of gold is $800 today
That would mean one dollar = 1 oz of gold which means it would be equivalent to 800 dollars.
I could buy a new car for 40 dollars which could be saved in a jar out back or a bank. My monthly mortgage would be 1 dollar on a a house that costs (= 200,000 dollar house) 280 dollars. To live a comfy life my pay would need to be about 75 cents a week cash and there would be no taxes due at the end of the year in addition there would be no inflation to speak of or worry about.
The playing field would be fairly consistent and very level... instead of the mountain ranges we all must toil through at present. So my son & daughter would have the same opportunities as I and all the previous generations of my family did at living a prosperous life in America.
[This message has been edited by 84Bill (edited 12-28-2007).]
I dont know how you came up with all that but the truth in a nut shell is, the standards were removed so the greedy could get more money. The government could get more taxes from incomes and not have to work to keep good relations for exports. On a gold standard the U.S. could export more goods and get that countries gold or silver.
"Those that love rumors hate a peaceful life." Unknown
Not quite, Bill. The primary reason was to allow for a larger money supply and fractional reserve backing by the banks. This has happened frequently when during wartime, and we finally went off the commodity backed standard completely. The idea is to create a flexible money supply that can be increased as needed.
This has upsides in allowing for business and economy expansion. More jobs, better income. The downside is it's typically done by increasing government debt and the value of the currency tends to decline.
Originally posted by Formula88: This has happened frequently when during wartime, and we finally went off the commodity backed standard completely.
Which meant congress would need to think LONG and HARD about engaging in war. The population could support the war by buying "war bonds" which would mean congress again would need to do a lot of bond drives to sell war to the population... which BTW it doesn't need to do anymore. Congress can start a war and have it run indefinitely, industries who build war machines can get piles and piles of money for a tank that costs a few million dollars but is equal to nothing tangable but the tank itself and can be reduced to fragments on a battle field with no great loss to anyone. The dollar is now fully adjustable / inflatable or deflatable based on the volume of "dollars" or junk in circulation. And the CEO's can horde millions and millions and millions x 68 in a single bonus and lets not forget the people can be taxed due to a rise in the COL as people need to make MORE money to live on which are a result of the governments desire to start wars and maintain active hostilities throughout the world putting the american population in general under constant threat of 9/11 or pearl harbor types of attack for pissing off foreign natives.
A monetary standard avoided all of this nonsense and kept us safe.
Originally posted by Formula88: This has upsides in allowing for business and economy expansion. More jobs, better income. The downside is it's typically done by increasing government debt and the value of the currency tends to decline.
Actually the downside is in that a company may only need to pay a few specialized people and can have more automation to build a tank or car and sell it for a million dollars. The company doesnt need to spread out the money it makes on its worthless products on a bunch of peons but instead can make them really cheaply and pass the profits up the org chart. The problem would then be the cost of "specialized labor unions" or monkeys turning a ratchet and mandated minimum wage which we all know aint didly effin squat unless you plan on living in a box on a street corner. The population wont care as long as it has the "money" or credit to replace an inferior product the company makes so about all a company needs to do is balance quality with reliability and set a price anywhere it wants t. IF inflation rises then the company ceo may not get his bonus and the company may need to cut back or raise prices which the unions would demand more money causing more inflation, hell just raise the prices and screw the U.S. population... let them eat cake.
Again a monetary standard avoids all this nonsense of the dog chasing its own tail.
People would demand reliability and things would need to be maintained for a longer period of time. This "worthless" disposable product would need to last longer and it would have a real value. Companies would need to hire more people at lower rates in order to keep real "money" in circulation instead of products which have no value at all but do only in volume and sheer output of junk only but at least everyone would have a job instead of a machine which does it for them for less.
[This message has been edited by 84Bill (edited 12-28-2007).]
You're the only person I've ever seen make a direct connection between industry automation and the gold standard. Either you've missed something or you're an economic genius and you need to get Bernake on the phone and give him some pointers.
Originally posted by Formula88: You're the only person I've ever seen make a direct connection between industry automation and the gold standard.
Well lets face it. If you have a limited supply of gold and you need to make sure the people have it to live on then you need to limit HOW MUCH any one person can have to keep it going, keep it moving, keep the U.S. population alive and eating. Base money on a clamshell called a dollar which is based and a series of complex formulas and the value of products sold and volume then companies can be picky about who they hire, who eats and who doesnt and how much they might be willing to give and to whom in the company gets the biggest slice.
The "industrial revolution" has proven that if there isnt enough in circulation the people get desperate for jobs and money. Thats why labor unions were formed. Labor unions mean companies must pay the "specialized" "skilled" peons more. Companies don't want to spend money on peons, they just ant peons to spend money buying their products so if they can get rid of a peon and replace it with an electric bill which only cost a few pennies per kilowatt hr.. guess what? Peons arent needed and that 7.50 per hr + retirement and benefits - a few pennies for the kilowatts per hr. goes up the org chart to the top dogs. The rest of us can go pick cotton... oh wait, thats mechanized too.. Maybe just sit back and collect a welfare check and sell dope.. oh wait.. cant do that either. Maybe we can compete with the Mexican slaves.. Yeah yeah.. thats it slave labor.
quote
Either you've missed something or you're an economic genius and you need to get Bernake on the phone and give him some pointers.
Bernake is a banker who doesn't even give two shakes of a rats ass about the American population. His goals are to maintain the banking industry, not the peoples rights to Life, Liberty and Pursuit of happiness.
And you are correct, I dont miss very much because I'm doing exactly what the founders of this country advised me to do. Remain ever vigilant, watch the government, control the government, speak out, make it as difficult as possible for the government to strip away rights.
In addition, there is a very fine line between genius and crazy so dont blurr it Mr. Democracy. You see that way I wont look like I require a work shirt with 40 inch sleeves and everyone remains relatively happy in the Constitutional Republic of the United States of America instead of a fascists dreamland of endless ways to screw the people out of anything and everything including their Life, Liberty and Pursuit of happiness.
It's my duty as a citizen and as thankless a job as it is, I will never stop till I'm in a hole in the ground.
[This message has been edited by 84Bill (edited 12-28-2007).]
Industry is going to try to maximize profits however possible. I don't see how the monetary standard would have much of an impact, other than how available credit might be for investment in the business. That could be investement in either machinery or manpower.
Industry is going to try to maximize profits however possible. I don't see how the monetary standard would have much of an impact, other than how available credit might be for investment in the business. That could be investment in either machinery or manpower.
People need money, companies need people to buy their products, companies dont need people to make them because people are expensive to maintain. So this is where the "industrial revolution" comes into play.
Once america started industrializing and the Rockefeller's and Straus's started locking up money it meant the company had less to give to the peons and there want enough money in circulation, the market investor wanted more money, more greed, not 1000 dollars but 10,000 more dollars, he needed money to buy shares but there wasn't any available so he used "credit" mine mine mine, more more more!! CRASH@! It was a credit crash that SUCKED up every real dollar America had except for the FILTHY RICH. The Rockefeller's donated VAST fortunes to the people because they HAD TO. The next time the system crashes only gold will save your ass and that "thug" with his pants hanging off his ass and all them gold chains and teeth may be your next boss.
Bankers had a better ideal for America... We will move from gold to silver then from silver to nothing and the markets will never crash again and we can have bazillions and bazillions of dollars.. so they hope but the problem is inflation and they control it by releasing money to.. Who?
Companies hate paying out, the only want income so they find better ways of "streamlining" until theres just a few "people" left. They still sell the product for the same price or more but there is less overhead. Companies like that.. a LOT! Greed money money money, more more more. The government would have to step in and unlock some cash but as demonstrated very clearly there are people who feel greed is acceptable, it is "socialist" to take money from the Rockefeller's and Straus's. Bad government BAD! Socialism BAD! my money!
Problem is those money pigs sucked it all up, fired peons but were FORCED to replaced them with a Union labor which they had no choice as the peoples REPUBLIC was pissed off as hell about getting paid sh!t which was about the only way a peon could get a paycheck all the while the Rockefeller's and Straus's lived like a monarchy in America.
This is a picture of Harland and Wolff's draftsmen who designed the Olympic class ships. They employed hundreds of designers and drafters who were all skilled workers.
Today its replaced by 1 computer, 1 guy and a printer which doesn't cost didly effin squat. The ship still costs the same if not more, the labor has been reduced to a hand full of welders and a bunch of machines and the CEO can get a really nice multi thouisand dollar an our job doing nothing but playing a few rounds of golf.
[This message has been edited by 84Bill (edited 12-28-2007).]
other than how available credit might be for investment in the business.
They no longer need to "invest" in the American peon and instead can post bazillion dollar profits which means they can make a bazillion dollars more selling shares in the company. All this while the American peon starves to death and demands cheaper products.
A standard would require the company to spend money on the population it employs or the Republic will revolt and demand better working and wages and piss and moan about the elite class which it does anyway. It ensures the economy remains level and balanced for everyone.
Right now the only thing anyone ever says is "got get a menial Job" "be a slave" and with any luck you might make a living... as long as the stock market is doing well and inflation is under control. If it suddenly rises unexpectedly then just buck up little camper and bite down on this bullet while we saw your arm off to pay your loan.
WASHINGTON (AP) — The housing market plunged deeper into despair last month, with sales of new homes plummeting to their lowest level in more than 12 years. The slump worsened even more than most analysts expected, heightening fears that the country might be thrust into a recession. New-home sales tumbled 9 percent in November from October to a seasonally adjusted annual sales pace of 647,000, the Commerce Department reported Friday. That was the worst sales pace since April 1995. "It was ugly," declared Richard Yamarone, economist at Argus Research. "It is the one sector of the economy that doesn't show any signs of life. It doesn't look like there is any resuscitation in store for housing over the next year," he said. The housing picture turned out to be more grim than most anticipated. Many economists were predicting sales to decline by 1.8 percent to a pace of 715,000.
By region, sales fell in all parts of the country, except for the West. In the Midwest, new-home sales plunged 27.6 percent in November from October. Sales dropped 19.3 percent in the Northeast and fell 6.4 percent in the South. In the West, however, sales rose 4 percent. Over the last 12 months, new-home sales nationwide have tumbled by 34.4 percent, the biggest annual slide since early 1991, and stark evidence of the painful collapse in the once high-flying housing market.
