OT - Long Term Economic Question - NOT Political

[Ray]

This question regards what happens after this economy finds a bottom and begins to recover. It's not about how we get there or what role the government does or does not play or what kinds of technologies we will or will not depend upon. I don't THINK it has to be political in the least - please prove me right!

So, the question is this: People are being very thrifty right now. Paying down debt, not spending beyond their means, and in some cases probably not spending to their means out of fear of losing a job. This is a very rational individual response to current circumstances, but it also fuels the downward spiral. But, at some point, we'll hit some sort of bottom. And then, this paragraph from a blog I stumbled across got me thinking:

The standing expectation is that consumers who scale down will scale back up when prosperity and credit return. But it is possible that the new, more modest, positively Amsterdamian, consumption pattern will prove sticky. This is what happened in Japan in the 1990s. Consumers gave up free spending ways and never came back. As Tabuchi put in in the New York Times, "free-spending consumers [turned] into misers, making them a dead weight on Japan's economy."

We got into this mess by spending more than we could collectively afford and taking on enormous debt. This was fueled by the housing bubble and the good economy in the 90s was similarly fueled by the dot.com bubble. In both cases, the economies were not sustainable, but they created very low unemployment and created a lot of wealth throughout the economy. These are all good things, but unsustainable when caused by a speculative bubble.

If people feel sufficiently burned by whatever this current downturn ends up being, and continue to act "miserly" or perhaps "prudently", is it inevitable that we'll have a long term stall? Is there a level at which people could spend prudently and still have the economy function well enough to create low-unemployment (say, below 5%)? Is it possible to have non-exuberant spending levels and still have a healthy economy, if not an overwhelmingly HOT economy as we have for much of the last two decades? I'm assuming people will continue to take on debt for some big ticket items like homes and cars, but can we make it work if people only take the debt they have the means to pay off? In other words, if we don't take high levels of debt based on unrealistic speculation about our home's values or the value of our dot.com mutual funds?

Again, lets just ignore, for the sake of civility if nothing else, who got us into this mess and the various good or evil ways we might get out of it. Lets just assume that at some point, we do hit bottom and we haven't collapsed as a society. What are the possibilities for the comeback to look like? Is there a sustainable way to get back to a "normal" slightly up and slightly down business cycle without WAAAAAAY up and WAAAAAAY down bubbles and popping bubbles?

I don't know if I asked this clearly enough, but I'm really interested in what people think, particularly people who think they understand economics. I clearly don't understand it very well. But I'm highly curious, given how critical these issues are these days.

-Ray

[Len J]

[I hope it ends up somewhere between the 2 extremes.....but if the US consumers reaction to higher gas prices and then a return to lower is any indication......then I suspect consumption will continue for most.

Len

[Climb01742]

[I hope it ends up somewhere between the 2 extremes.....but if the US consumers reaction to higher gas prices and then a return to lower is any indication......then I suspect consumption will continue for most.

Len

hey, welcome back, len! it's been awhile, yes? hope you're well, happy and pulling a company out of a hole. :beer:

[Len J]

hey, welcome back, len! it's been awhile, yes? hope you're well, happy and pulling a company out of a hole. :beer:

Thanks Climb......yea it has been a while......too busy. Doing pretty well all things considered. I actually was hoping to run into you at NAHBS.

Hope all is well with you also.

Len

[johnnymossville]

I for one hope people start thinking just a bit more about the purchases they make before pulling the trigger. Things like,...

1. Do I really need this?
2. Is this going to last?
3. Is it worth it?
4. What about the environmental impact?
5. Who made it?
etc,....

Ever drive or ride through just about any neighborhood and see what's in people's garages or what they throw to the curb on trash day?

[gone]

[I hope it ends up somewhere between the 2 extremes.....but if the US consumers reaction to higher gas prices and then a return to lower is any indication......then I suspect consumption will continue for most.

Len

Exactly. I recall (not that long ago) articles in the papers about how people were changing their habits because of the high cost of gas and how these changes were "permanent". I don't know if it's true nationally but it sure is true locally that as soon as regular went below $2.00 the park and rides were once again empty.

[Len J]

Exactly. I recall (not that long ago) articles in the papers about how people were changing their habits because of the high cost of gas and how these changes were "permanent". I don't know if it's true nationally but it sure is true locally that as soon as regular went below $2.00 the park and rides were once again empty.

I think it's a function of duration.....the longer people acclimate themselves to the new reality, the more likely it is to stick........it's true of changing any behavior. You have to go thru the following steps:

Unconcious old behavior to
Conscious old behavior to
Consciuos new behavior to
Unconscious nes behavior.

If the driver of the change ceases quickly, you never get from step 1 to step 3.

Len

[1centaur]

There is no good answer to that question, Ray. Economic theories are a dime a dozen even if the circumstances have been experienced before, and these have not.

One of the problems is that it is not fair to suggest we swung from boom to bust as an economy. In fact the relative stability of the economy in the Greenspan era was a major factor lulling us asleep on risk. In retrospect, that our expansions were somewhat modest and our declines the same for the last quarter century may bode ill for how much growth there really was, ex credit. Assets boomed and busted, but not the economy.

Looking forward, while it's tempting to envision the perfect urban planning model of the economy (sustainable, renewable growth, modest expectations consistently achieved with clean air and time off and urban density without the pitfalls), I have to believe that just as the Great Depression formed national character so will the last quarter century mold expectations and plans, with the ever swelling baby boom retirees pitted against a narrowing pyramid of young earners facing a shrinking chance of getting out from under and behaving rationally given that prospect. Demographics are destiny, the cliche goes. I'm a broken record, but China has a better chance of using command and control to create sustainable expectations than we do because their semi-capitalist culture is so young and their population in the aggregate so able to move up in standard of living for years to come.

I think this period will help us not swing so much on asset values going forward, though I think dismal economic expectations will have more to do with that than character shift. Given the health/growth of the Japanese economy for the last decade, perhaps the same is true there.

[keno]

I think that leaving politics out of a discussion on this subject is like having a funeral without a dead body.

keno

[Pete Serotta]

:beer:

I think that leaving politics out of a discussion on this subject is like having a funeral without a dead body.

keno

[jbrainin]

I think that leaving politics out of a discussion on this subject is like having a funeral without a dead body.

keno

How about using a live one?

[93legendti]

When the stock market hits zero, the last chances to rebound from this with any semblance of our economy as we know it will have been destroyed. People will continue to save and not buy.

"What are the possibilities for the comeback to look like?"

To me it looks like a lost decade, if not more.

[DukeHorn]

I don't know if we'll have a lost generation like Japan. Remember that the Japanese endured incredible hardships after WWII during their recovery so even though in the 80s (as a whole) they had money and were traveling the world, there was still a cultural backdrop to scrimp and save that probably went a bit too far in the 90s.

I just don't think we have that in the US (except in certain minority groups). We have a society premised on comparison and there's no brownie points for showing how frugal you are. If there's an uptick in the economy, I hope that folks will save more, but I'm pretty confident that our savings rate will never be very high. I just don't know how our economy is suppose to absorb the toxic assets floating around (and I'll halt there with no political commentary).

Interesting comment on China. I think China has a severe ticking time bomb with their gender imbalance. I don't know if command and control will fix their economy. What they'll have to do (like the Brits in the 1800s) is start little (or big) wars to work off the generation of disaffected males or they'll have a civil war (that's my cynicism on the China front).

[Samster]

when euphoria peaks, the big crack is imminent.

when fears crescendo, the recovery has already begun.

i'd say fears have pretty much taken complete control.

don't worry, be happy.

[Louis]

I for one hope people start thinking just a bit more about the purchases they make before pulling the trigger. Things like,...

1. Do I really need this?
2. Is this going to last?
3. Is it worth it?
4. What about the environmental impact?
5. Who made it?


What are you talking about? To post something like this the very day after NAHMBS seems to me to be particularly cruel. ;)

[ti_boi]

Sorry Ray but nothing has changed here. We have been in the same cycle of running up and paying off debt for a long time. I think this affects the baby boomers a lot more than us at this point (gen X).

It has been a fascinating pump and dump. Boomers were encouraged to feed wall street trillions using 401k money. Work hard....invest...and retire. And the very few have dumped that money into their own coffers and vanished.

Conventional wisdom has pretty much been trashed now. Trust will not return quickly. I however, have never taken anything for granted. In the dot com boom I watched paper money vanish over night (stock options) and inept management fight over crumbs that their staff willingly gave them.

I believe in the worst nature of man and that it is being displayed for us today. Change will be fascinating. It has been like watching a train wreck in slow motion.

[majorpat]

Interesting view on Japan from NYT today:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/02/opinion/02tamamoto.html?_r=1&em

[Ray]

Assets boomed and busted, but not the economy....

....I have to believe that just as the Great Depression formed national character so will the last quarter century mold expectations and plans, with the ever swelling baby boom retirees pitted against a narrowing pyramid of young earners facing a shrinking chance of getting out from under and behaving rationally given that prospect. Demographics are destiny, the cliche goes.

Are assets and the economy really separate? Obviously, it was the boom in assets, mostly based on almost EVERYONE'S assumption that US housing prices would always go up at a very high rate and never fall, that drove it. But that boom in assets drove all sorts of new development and all sorts of spending (on home equity debt), all of which created real jobs for real people, who also spent lots of money and got in on the party. It was spiraling up - now its spiraling down. The assets were the underpinning, but didn't they take the whole economy for a ride on the same roller coaster?

I fully agree with your point on demographics. As little as I know of economics, knowing demographics has been a big part of my professional life, and well before this last couple of years, I was expecting hard times sometime in the next 10-20 years just based on the glut of large suburban housing that I figured would be available as the boomers retired, the price of oil continuing to rise, and the stock market falling as boomers started pulling money out of it to fund their twilight years. And, as you noted, the inevitable changes to the big entitlements that will have to happen one way or another. I didn't know bupkis about the credit crisis or have an inkling that we'd fall this far this fast, but I saw the demographic trends as ominous even without this crash. I suspect this just makes the same inevitable problems that much horrendously worse.

I seriously doubt we'll ever see the kind of prosperity we've seen over the last 15 years or so again, at least in any sort of foreseeable future, but I fully expect this recession/depression, unless it turns around faster than I expect it will, to inform the attitudes of pretty much everyone living through it for as long as they live. My Dad was just a kid during the Depression - he didn't have to deal with trying to be the breadwinner and his mother kept a roof over his head and food on the table. But he still had a Depression mentality until the day he died a little over three years ago. If this gets anywhere close to that level, I think it will do the same thing.

Hell, it took us better than 70 years to fully unlearn the lessons of the Depression - it could take a good long time to unlearn whatever the lessons are from this whateveritturnsouttobe.

-Ray

[eddief]

for the first time in 20 years I could actually afford to buy home in a decent neighborhood. Not great but decent. Going forward is residential CA real estate, now at prices typical of 10 years ago, a decent asset/investment to consider?

[majorpat]

The Japanese writer suggests that the Japanese, among other changes, could take more risks while we (specifically the US of A) seem to be in our current pickle due to too much risk taking.

Not sure what to think about the long term other than who can know. The US headed into the WW2 years as an emerging power and ended up (after the cold war) the only superpower, at least for a few years.

Although, an old Boy Scout leader once told me that they served great breakfasts at those CCC camps...

[Ray]

I think that leaving politics out of a discussion on this subject is like having a funeral without a dead body.

keno
You have a problem with cremation?

Hey, so far so good. The one political tangent that's unavoidable is the generational implications of our big entitlement programs. Those will be solved one way or another by making some very hard choices, whoever's in office. The sooner it happens, the less harsh the steps taken will have to be. The longer we wait, the harsher they'll be. We Americans (hell, we HUMANS) generally don't deal with problems until its just about too late or well past too late, so I'm not optimistic on this front. Regardless of who's in office. Recognizing the contribution of that portion of the train wreck is probably as far as we have to go down that road in this discussion. People can assign blame for that, but that's ancillary to the basic question.

I appreciate everyone's thoughts. I guess human nature mandates that we'll make this same fundamental mistake again at some point, but it shouldn't be anytime soon.

-Ray

[1centaur]

Ray, on assets vs. economy I mean that the stock market crash of 87, Drexel/HLT legislation blowing up the high yield market, the Russian crisis, the Asian crisis, Long-Term Capital Management, the dot com/telecom boom and bust all happened around a couple of recessions (90-92; 2001-2003) that were pretty tame in terms of GDP swings historically. It was possible for asset prices to snap back quickly because economic stability was pretty good and Greenspan was a genius. Now we don't think the economy is coming back so asset values are going to have a hard time coming back.

BTW, agree that Japan had a saving culture and US did not. My wife keeps telling me the malls are packed. There's probably a good SNL sketch in there somewhere - "Zombie Shoppers at the Mall" about people wandering up and down looking for bargains so good they can afford to open their wallets.

[eddief]

i realized my post took the thread off track. my question stands, but i realized is was not particulary relevant to Ray's original, well written concerns about the economy.

[Ray]

i realized my post took the thread off track. my question stands, but i realized is was not particulary relevant to Ray's original, well written concerns about the economy.
Nah, I didn't think it was off-track. Housing prices coming back into line with people's real incomes rather than speculative value is a big part of what I was talking / wondering about. Go to Detroit - the average price of a house selling last month or last quarter was $7500 dollars. That's right, I didn't forget the last zero. You can't buy a new (or many used) cars for that. Damn.

Go buy a house!

-Ray

[Ray]

Ray, on assets vs. economy I mean that the stock market crash of 87, Drexel/HLT legislation blowing up the high yield market, the Russian crisis, the Asian crisis, Long-Term Capital Management, the dot com/telecom boom and bust all happened around a couple of recessions (90-92; 2001-2003) that were pretty tame in terms of GDP swings historically. It was possible for asset prices to snap back quickly because economic stability was pretty good and Greenspan was a genius. Now we don't think the economy is coming back so asset values are going to have a hard time coming back.

BTW, agree that Japan had a saving culture and US did not. My wife keeps telling me the malls are packed. There's probably a good SNL sketch in there somewhere - "Zombie Shoppers at the Mall" about people wandering up and down looking for bargains so good they can afford to open their wallets.
On assets, gotcha. Thanks for the clarification.

On the malls, I almost never go to malls. But my wife and I went to the big one around here a couple of Saturdays ago, and it was stone cold DEAD. The only store with anything like any critical mass of people in it was the Apple store. Everyplace else had sales people just standing around waiting for something to happen. I don't know if it was just a slow day, but it made an impression on me.

-Ray

[93legendti]

Nah, I didn't think it was off-track. Housing prices coming back into line with people's real incomes rather than speculative value is a big part of what I was talking / wondering about. Go to Detroit - the average price of a house selling last month or last quarter was $7500 dollars. That's right, I didn't forget the last zero. You can't buy a new (or many used) cars for that. Damn.

Go buy a house!

-Ray
It's $10K.
http://www.trulia.com/real_estate/Detroit-Michigan/

The number is skewed because "sales" includes foreclosed homes "sold" at sheriff's sales.

[Ray]

It's $10K.
http://www.trulia.com/real_estate/Detroit-Michigan/

The number is skewed because "sales" includes foreclosed homes "sold" at sheriff's sales.
Still, I could buy one outright and have a summer place! Sounds like a recovery to me...

-Ray

[johnnymossville]

Maybe that's where the big guy can send some of those people looking for free houses? Sounds like a solution to the problem right there.

[93legendti]

Still, I could buy one outright and have a summer place! Sounds like a recovery to me...

-Ray
Can you get financing?

Most probably have over $5k in taxes due and need $10k in repairs.

[Sandy]

I think that leaving politics out of a discussion on this subject is like having a funeral without a dead body.

keno

Not so bad if you have a $1 million dollar life insurance policy on the deceased. :rolleyes: :)


Slick Sandy

[rspecker]

Say what you will about his complex theories--but he was wrong about one thing in particular--capitalism will not fail because demand for consumption becomes satisfied.

So people will continue to consume if they can and this will return to historic rates over the long term.

I think it is not a coincidence that this crisis has happened as the baby boomers retired. We do not have the resources as a country to support their retirement in light of the fact they saved at such low rates during their working years. So this recession and market collapse is partly a response to the fact that the boomers need to keep working; which is probably a good thing at a macro economic level (although I feel very, very bad for people who have lost their dreams of retirement). When systems get out of equilibrium they tend to adjust. The retirement of the boomers was an out of equilibrium state.

What we should all hope for is that health care reform actually happens. The business cycle will eventually turn back up (that is why it is called a “cycle”!); so I don’t worry too much about that over the long term. Although over the short term it is very painful (no fancy new bikes for me this year).

But the failure to control health care costs as a percentage of GDP will result in an actual reduction in standard of living over the long term if we don’t deal with it.

[ti_boi]

Say what you will about his complex theories--but he was wrong about one thing in particular--capitalism will not fail because demand for consumption becomes satisfied.

So people will continue to consume if they can and this will return to historic rates over the long term.

I think it is not a coincidence that this crisis has happened as the baby boomers retired. We do not have the resources as a country to support their retirement in light of the fact they saved at such low rates during their working years. So this recession and market collapse is partly a response to the fact that the boomers need to keep working; which is probably a good thing at a macro economic level (although I feel very, very bad for people who have lost their dreams of retirement). When systems get out of equilibrium they tend to adjust. The retirement of the boomers was an out of equilibrium state.

What we should all hope for is that health care reform actually happens. The business cycle will eventually turn back up (that is why it is called a “cycle”!); so I don’t worry too much about that over the long term. Although over the short term it is very painful (no fancy new bikes for me this year).

But the failure to control health care costs as a percentage of GDP will result in an actual reduction in standard of living over the long term if we don’t deal with it.

Thanks -- expanding on a very valid point -- which I alluded to earlier and everyone basically ignored. Anyhow. The whole scene is fascinating, no?

[RPS]

Now we don't think the economy is coming back so asset values are going to have a hard time coming back.I heard today some investors were buying puts for up to 2 years. On a short-term basis it appears some are not too worried about what to do when markets recover. :rolleyes: I was hoping it was mainly for insurance policies, but your comment seems to confirm the downturn is likely more permanent.

[1centaur]

No downturn is permanent (I presume), and I think we'll see much brighter days way under 2 years from now. But I recognize the fear of others - if they were sure the economy was going to be fine soon the market would not be doing what it's doing.

[ti_boi]

What you guys are not addressing is that there might be a plan here much larger and more sinister than anything you can fathom. Investments moving into private hands and away from aging populations.

[1centaur]

Conspiracy theories are rarely valid, especially really complicated ones involving a lot of people and a lot of hard to control variables. There may be a larger agenda here, but it's not one that's driven by private investors, who are opportunists but otherwise have little control. I do think the fate of retirement savings at a crucial moment for a large age cohort will have significant historic implications.

[RPS]

No downturn is permanent (I presume), and I think we'll see much brighter days way under 2 years from now. But I recognize the fear of others - if they were sure the economy was going to be fine soon the market would not be doing what it's doing.By "more permanent” I meant of greater duration than a regular recession; not as everlasting. ;)

I think there are additional factors that Ray doesn't want to discuss here that are also affecting the downturn in stock markets. There is unjustified fear and nervousness, and then there is justified concern. Regardless it's outside the scope of this thread. :cool:

[Ray]

By "more permanent” I meant of greater duration than a regular recession; not as everlasting. ;)

I think there are additional factors that Ray doesn't want to discuss here that are also affecting the downturn in stock markets. There is unjustified fear and nervousness, and then there is justified concern. Regardless it's outside the scope of this thread. :cool:
There are all sorts of factors that are having an effect on the downturn and its likely duration that people will have all sorts of opinions on and a discussion of that would probably get contentious pretty quickly. The opinions are valid - the disagreements are valid - but we've had that discussion and we'll likely have it again (although probably without me!). I just didn't want that to be the focus of this one. I've certainly appreciated the input on what may happen AFTER the downturn without that stuff and I've certainly gotten some good input despite (or because of) that lack of contentiousness.

But I think the duration is relevant (not the causes) to the discussion in the sense that the longer the "rec/dep" goes on, the more the idea and practice of "thrift" will be burned into people's brains, and the longer that behavior is likely to be continued even after things begin to recover. So, ostensibly, a short downturn and quick recovery probably means a quick return to the kinds of stupid behaviors that got us into this mess. A really long downturn probably means an overly conservative (in terms of personal spending) population that could drag the economy down for many years more than is needed. So perhaps the optimal downturn is not too long and not too short so we'll remember it just enough not to go crazy but not be so traumatized by it that we stop spending altogether. It would be "just right". We could all it the Goldilocks recession!

Now back to our regular fairy tales.

-Ray

[Climb01742]

No downturn is permanent (I presume), and I think we'll see much brighter days way under 2 years from now. But I recognize the fear of others - if they were sure the economy was going to be fine soon the market would not be doing what it's doing.

isn't part of the fear now that most folks -- or no one? -- knows how deep the trough is that we're in? meaning, until there's a clearer picture of how bad the toxic assets on balance sheets are... who firms like AIG are sending their billions to (we're not bailing out AIG, we're bailing out the companies they have contracts with and those contracts have triggers that are being triggered... how far countries like ireland and some eastern european countries fall... until investors know how deep the hole is... a recovery seems awfully far away.

one fact struck me yesterday. even berkshire hathaway is at half of its 52 week high. that seems a pretty good gauge of investor confidence. even so, about $75k buys you one share. gotta love warren.

[93legendti]

Looks like a depression is the end game:http://www.freep.com/article/20090303/BUSINESS07/903030328

Hopefully, apolitical spending bills of epic proportions and apolitical tax raises will bring a recovery for the first time in history.

[RPS]

“It’s easier to change people than to change people”.
But I think the duration is relevant (not the causes) to the discussion in the sense that the longer the "rec/dep" goes on, the more the idea and practice of "thrift" will be burned into people's brains, and the longer that behavior is likely to be continued even after things begin to recover. So, ostensibly, a short downturn and quick recovery probably means a quick return to the kinds of stupid behaviors that got us into this mess. A really long downturn probably means an overly conservative (in terms of personal spending) population that could drag the economy down for many years more than is needed. So perhaps the optimal downturn is not too long and not too short so we'll remember it just enough not to go crazy but not be so traumatized by it that we stop spending altogether. It would be "just right". We could all it the Goldilocks recession!

Now back to our regular fairy tales.

-RayIt might take a while – maybe 1 to 2 years tops – for most of us to forget bad, painful, or negative experiences enough to minimize them playing a major role in our behavior; but our nature doesn’t change all that much. Risk takers who fall off a bike and break bones get back on and do the same things after a while, women who vow they’ll never get pregnant again due to childbirth do, and Americans after the first oil crisis got tired of small fuel efficient cars and returned to their excesses – actually went beyond them in many ways.

Personally I don’t fear frugality doing us in.


Our collective behavior will depend to a great degree on what the world (i.e. – USA) looks like following the recession/depression, so discussing it in limited context is too limiting IMHO; so I’m going to stay out of it for the most part until it gets interesting. :beer:

[zap]

One statistic I heard yesterday on CNBC is that new cars sales are below scrap levels for the last four months.

Interesting times.

[Ray]

Maybe this guy is one of the pinheads Buffet was warning about, but its an interesting take. He's clearly saying that stocks will keep falling, probably to somewhere around 4,000 on the Dow, but that based on long term P-E ratios, stocks are finally getting low enough that long term investors should feel comfortable about buying again. I don't put a lot of credence in index-wide advice, but my advisor has indicated that he feels the same way about a bunch of individual stocks that he's keeping an eye on. Although his position is that nothing is likely to get better in 2009 so there's no need to rush out and buy anything - next year will be likely soon enough.

http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/03/02/stocks-finally-start-looking-affordable/

-Ray

[Climb01742]

i've also read that, historically speaking, stocks are still over-priced. quite a sombering thought.

[mistermo]

If I read correctly, the original question asked whether we'd bounce back to previous spending habits if/when the economy improves, or become permanently more frugal.

I find our discussion here interesting and hope I can offer an additional perspective.

I believe part of what is happening these days is a redistribution of economic wealth from the US to other countries. The world has become a much smaller place in the last decade and the US no longer leads in many categories it once dominated. The brightest students in our universities are from other countries. The "best" films (as decided by the Academy) are no longer from Hollywood, but India. The best cars are from overseas.

Honestly, in which industry (besides military) is the US dominant?

So, as Americans we need to adopt a more global view of our standards of living. I don't see that we are anywhere close yet. How does the majority of the world live? How do we live, even today in our more frugal environment? We need to recalibrate our view of "normal".

All of the world's great economies have eventually collapsed from their sense of entitlement. Ours is no different. I don't expect us to hit bottom until our standard of living looks a lot more like the rest of the world and we think and act more like them too.

Interesting book I read 20 years ago which is very timely today:
http://www.amazon.com/Rise-Fall-Great-Powers/dp/0679720197/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1236097362&sr=1-1

[thejen12]

for the first time in 20 years I could actually afford to buy home in a decent neighborhood. Not great but decent. Going forward is residential CA real estate, now at prices typical of 10 years ago, a decent asset/investment to consider?
Can you plan on keeping your job in order to pay the mortgage? That would probably be my number one question to myself in your situation.

Good luck! Jenn

[Blue Jays]

"...Honestly, in which industry (besides military) is the US dominant?..."Top-quality handcrafted custom bicycles, for starters. Next question!