1932: "repeatedly tried though without success...deliberate policy of credit expansion"

[StageLeft]

Link

Take issue with the Karl Marx if you like, but I found this quote interesting:

"As Friedrich Hayek wrote in 1932, ?Instead of furthering the inevitable liquidation of the maladjustments brought about by the boom during the last three years, all conceivable means have been used to prevent that readjustment from taking place; and one of these means, which has been repeatedly tried though without success, from the earliest to the most recent stages of depression, has been this deliberate policy of credit expansion. ... To combat the depression by a forced credit expansion is to attempt to cure the evil by the very means which brought it about ...?"

People say that the government didn't do enough in the great depression to extend credit, but this statement seems like it could easil be written in 2011 based on what's going on now.

Also, here:

Further, the current credit freeze is likely due to Wall Street's hope of a bailout; bankers will not sell their lousy assets for 20 cents on the dollar if the government might pay 30, 50, or 80 cents.

I'd not thought of that. It makes sense, doesn't it? Perhaps this is a key reason why credit has been massively squeezed in the past four weeks?

 

[LegendKiller]

Originally posted by: Skoorb
Link

Take issue with the Karl Marx if you like, but I found this quote interesting:

"As Friedrich Hayek wrote in 1932, ?Instead of furthering the inevitable liquidation of the maladjustments brought about by the boom during the last three years, all conceivable means have been used to prevent that readjustment from taking place; and one of these means, which has been repeatedly tried though without success, from the earliest to the most recent stages of depression, has been this deliberate policy of credit expansion. ... To combat the depression by a forced credit expansion is to attempt to cure the evil by the very means which brought it about ...?"

People say that the government didn't do enough in the great depression to extend credit, but this statement seems like it could easil be written in 2011 based on what's going on now.

Also, here:

Further, the current credit freeze is likely due to Wall Street's hope of a bailout; bankers will not sell their lousy assets for 20 cents on the dollar if the government might pay 30, 50, or 80 cents.

I'd not thought of that. It makes sense, doesn't it? Perhaps this is a key reason why credit has been massively squeezed in the past four weeks?

What he missed in 1932 is that the repricing had already occurred, but it had bled through to main street, destroying the economy. By the time people realized something needed to be done, it was too late. At that point liquidity didn't matter.

WS won't sell the assets either way, bailout or no, because the assets ARE worth more.

If you bought a house for $100, but the current market said it was worth 20, and you thought you could wait out the problem, wouldn't you?

This is all about timing.

 

[halik]

Originally posted by: Skoorb
Link

Take issue with the Karl Marx if you like, but I found this quote interesting:

"As Friedrich Hayek wrote in 1932, ?Instead of furthering the inevitable liquidation of the maladjustments brought about by the boom during the last three years, all conceivable means have been used to prevent that readjustment from taking place; and one of these means, which has been repeatedly tried though without success, from the earliest to the most recent stages of depression, has been this deliberate policy of credit expansion. ... To combat the depression by a forced credit expansion is to attempt to cure the evil by the very means which brought it about ...?"

People say that the government didn't do enough in the great depression to extend credit, but this statement seems like it could easil be written in 2011 based on what's going on now.

Also, here:

Further, the current credit freeze is likely due to Wall Street's hope of a bailout; bankers will not sell their lousy assets for 20 cents on the dollar if the government might pay 30, 50, or 80 cents.

I'd not thought of that. It makes sense, doesn't it? Perhaps this is a key reason why credit has been massively squeezed in the past four weeks?

Fed was raising the discount rate in 1929, 1931 and 1932. They jumped the brakes after the wheels came off. The 1929 rate bump came a month before the great crash and the other increases came year after. These things should've happened 5 years prior.

If you start injecting money into a system that has already collapsed due to previous tightening and run-on-the-money, that will in no doubt fail.

 

[StageLeft]

So this isn't the same.

How confident are you both that the bailout or some reasonable facsimilie of it will be substantially better than the alternative, assuming the alternative is as bad as some have said it can be?

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: Skoorb
So this isn't the same.

It is the same, a house of cards is a house of cards no matter what you make it look like.

 

[Jaskalas]

Originally posted by: LegendKiller
What he missed in 1932 is that the repricing had already occurred, but it had bled through to main street, destroying the economy. By the time people realized something needed to be done, it was too late. At that point liquidity didn't matter.

WS won't sell the assets either way, bailout or no, because the assets ARE worth more.

If you bought a house for $100, but the current market said it was worth 20, and you thought you could wait out the problem, wouldn't you?

This is all about timing.

That house is not worth $100. Hope you can wait 5-8 years.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: Jaskalas

Originally posted by: LegendKiller
What he missed in 1932 is that the repricing had already occurred, but it had bled through to main street, destroying the economy. By the time people realized something needed to be done, it was too late. At that point liquidity didn't matter.

WS won't sell the assets either way, bailout or no, because the assets ARE worth more.

If you bought a house for $100, but the current market said it was worth 20, and you thought you could wait out the problem, wouldn't you?

This is all about timing.

That house is not worth $100. Hope you can wait 5-8 years.

Yeah, but it's not worth $20 either.

 

[TheDoc9]

"As Friedrich Hayek wrote in 1932, ?Instead of furthering the inevitable liquidation of the maladjustments brought about by the boom during the last three years, all conceivable means have been used to prevent that readjustment from taking place; and one of these means, which has been repeatedly tried though without success, from the earliest to the most recent stages of depression, has been this deliberate policy of credit expansion. ... To combat the depression by a forced credit expansion is to attempt to cure the evil by the very means which brought it about ...?"


Looks to me like they were handling it the same way we've handled it so far from the beginning. Look where it got them.

 

[LegendKiller]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: Jaskalas

Originally posted by: LegendKiller
What he missed in 1932 is that the repricing had already occurred, but it had bled through to main street, destroying the economy. By the time people realized something needed to be done, it was too late. At that point liquidity didn't matter.

WS won't sell the assets either way, bailout or no, because the assets ARE worth more.

If you bought a house for $100, but the current market said it was worth 20, and you thought you could wait out the problem, wouldn't you?

This is all about timing.

That house is not worth $100. Hope you can wait 5-8 years.

Yeah, but it's not worth $20 either.

Which is what I've been saying all along and these people don't get.

 

[Eeezee]

Economists predict that a market crash is inevitable no matter what you do at this point. We reached that 'phase transition' point months ago, where the complexity of the system intertwined so many institutions that a single event (housing bubble, oil bubble, etc.) caused the house of cards to start tumbling.

If we prop up the market now, it will crash again soon. Now that the market has reached its current volatile state, nothing we do can fix it. The market MUST crash.

The BEST thing we can do is to remove any hope of a bailout. That is our only chance. The market will take a big hit, and then we'll be out of the storm. The longer we hold out the carrot, the worse off we'll be.

 

[LegendKiller]

Originally posted by: Eeezee
Economists predict that a market crash is inevitable no matter what you do at this point. We reached that 'phase transition' point months ago, where the complexity of the system intertwined so many institutions that a single event (housing bubble, oil bubble, etc.) caused the house of cards to start tumbling.

If we prop up the market now, it will crash again soon. Now that the market has reached its current volatile state, nothing we do can fix it. The market MUST crash.

The BEST thing we can do is to remove any hope of a bailout. That is our only chance. The market will take a big hit, and then we'll be out of the storm. The longer we hold out the carrot, the worse off we'll be.

What economists? Backup?

Letting the system fail and draggin the world with us because we think fixing our system is too "hard" isn't an alternative.

 

[SleepWalkerX]

Originally posted by: LegendKiller

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: Jaskalas

Originally posted by: LegendKiller
What he missed in 1932 is that the repricing had already occurred, but it had bled through to main street, destroying the economy. By the time people realized something needed to be done, it was too late. At that point liquidity didn't matter.

WS won't sell the assets either way, bailout or no, because the assets ARE worth more.

If you bought a house for $100, but the current market said it was worth 20, and you thought you could wait out the problem, wouldn't you?

This is all about timing.

That house is not worth $100. Hope you can wait 5-8 years.

Yeah, but it's not worth $20 either.

Which is what I've been saying all along and these people don't get.

Sure, the price isn't worth $20 when you get every tax payer to pay for it. But that's the problem, isn't it? Getting every tax payer to pay for it when they don't need it.

 

[SunnyD]

Originally posted by: Eeezee
Economists predict that a market crash is inevitable no matter what you do at this point. We reached that 'phase transition' point months ago, where the complexity of the system intertwined so many institutions that a single event (housing bubble, oil bubble, etc.) caused the house of cards to start tumbling.

If we prop up the market now, it will crash again soon. Now that the market has reached its current volatile state, nothing we do can fix it. The market MUST crash.

The BEST thing we can do is to remove any hope of a bailout. That is our only chance. The market will take a big hit, and then we'll be out of the storm. The longer we hold out the carrot, the worse off we'll be.

Critical Mass?

While I agree with you (wholeheartedly), I can't help but wonder what happens with the crash at that point. There's two possibilities - #1 is that the market rights itself and we go on with life at a point where we should be rather than where we are now (Dow in the 7000's maybe?). Lots of consolidations, slow but steady growth, less risk taking.

Possibility #2 is the tough one to swallow that may or may not be there - the market crashes, and then continues to spiral downward. If it crashes and takes a lot of things down with it, a lot of credit goes away, more than current. Small businesses and start-ups dry up, people lose jobs, more houses get foreclosed, more credit gets defaulted on, etc., causing more banks and credit markets to dry up and perpetuating the cycle. The question then becomes at what point can the market sustain itself to stem the flow of blood? At what point to the banks that are left start taking the risks to turn things around?

Again, I don't in any way advocate bailing out Wall Street - but #2 is what the Government sees. What we don't know at this point is how far between #1 and #2 does the real answer lie? If we knew that, then the government could potentially come up with a sound and reasonable bailout (picking and choosing who survives and becomes indebted to the tax payer) that won't cost nearly as much and won't cause nearly as much inflation OR credit dry-up.

In short - this isn't a problem that can be solved without letting it play out now. You either bail the whole damn thing out or you leave it alone. Either way - we're screwed.

 

[LegendKiller]

Originally posted by: SleepWalkerX

Originally posted by: LegendKiller

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: Jaskalas

Originally posted by: LegendKiller
What he missed in 1932 is that the repricing had already occurred, but it had bled through to main street, destroying the economy. By the time people realized something needed to be done, it was too late. At that point liquidity didn't matter.

WS won't sell the assets either way, bailout or no, because the assets ARE worth more.

If you bought a house for $100, but the current market said it was worth 20, and you thought you could wait out the problem, wouldn't you?

This is all about timing.

That house is not worth $100. Hope you can wait 5-8 years.

Yeah, but it's not worth $20 either.

Which is what I've been saying all along and these people don't get.

Sure, the price isn't worth $20 when you get every tax payer to pay for it. But that's the problem, isn't it? Getting every tax payer to pay for it when they don't need it.

Yeah, you know what they need? you're so versed in the financial markets with your english major, right?

Blog educated people aren't professionals.

 

[SleepWalkerX]

Originally posted by: LegendKiller

Originally posted by: SleepWalkerX

Originally posted by: LegendKiller

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: Jaskalas

Originally posted by: LegendKiller
What he missed in 1932 is that the repricing had already occurred, but it had bled through to main street, destroying the economy. By the time people realized something needed to be done, it was too late. At that point liquidity didn't matter.

WS won't sell the assets either way, bailout or no, because the assets ARE worth more.

If you bought a house for $100, but the current market said it was worth 20, and you thought you could wait out the problem, wouldn't you?

This is all about timing.

That house is not worth $100. Hope you can wait 5-8 years.

Yeah, but it's not worth $20 either.

Which is what I've been saying all along and these people don't get.

Sure, the price isn't worth $20 when you get every tax payer to pay for it. But that's the problem, isn't it? Getting every tax payer to pay for it when they don't need it.

Yeah, you know what they need? you're so versed in the financial markets with your english major, right?

Blog educated people aren't professionals.

I know what I need. I'm renting right now. This isn't going to benefit me. In fact, it'll benefit me more by not bailing them out because when I get out of college I'll have a cheap house I can afford because somebody couldn't pay their bills with their ARMs. And I'm sure the hundreds of thousands of people that called and emailed their representatives know its what they need as well.

 

[JS80]

Originally posted by: SleepWalkerX

Originally posted by: LegendKiller

Originally posted by: SleepWalkerX

Originally posted by: LegendKiller

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: Jaskalas

Originally posted by: LegendKiller
What he missed in 1932 is that the repricing had already occurred, but it had bled through to main street, destroying the economy. By the time people realized something needed to be done, it was too late. At that point liquidity didn't matter.

WS won't sell the assets either way, bailout or no, because the assets ARE worth more.

If you bought a house for $100, but the current market said it was worth 20, and you thought you could wait out the problem, wouldn't you?

This is all about timing.

That house is not worth $100. Hope you can wait 5-8 years.

Yeah, but it's not worth $20 either.

Which is what I've been saying all along and these people don't get.

Sure, the price isn't worth $20 when you get every tax payer to pay for it. But that's the problem, isn't it? Getting every tax payer to pay for it when they don't need it.

Yeah, you know what they need? you're so versed in the financial markets with your english major, right?

Blog educated people aren't professionals.

I know what I need. I'm renting right now. This isn't going to benefit me. In fact, it'll benefit me more by not bailing them out because when I get out of college I'll have a cheap house I can afford because somebody couldn't pay their bills with their ARMs. And I'm sure the hundreds of thousands of people that called and emailed their representatives know its what they need as well.

Wrong. You won't have a job to pay for that "cheap house."

 

[GTKeeper]

Originally posted by: JS80

Originally posted by: SleepWalkerX

Originally posted by: LegendKiller

Originally posted by: SleepWalkerX

Originally posted by: LegendKiller

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: Jaskalas

Originally posted by: LegendKiller
What he missed in 1932 is that the repricing had already occurred, but it had bled through to main street, destroying the economy. By the time people realized something needed to be done, it was too late. At that point liquidity didn't matter.

WS won't sell the assets either way, bailout or no, because the assets ARE worth more.

If you bought a house for $100, but the current market said it was worth 20, and you thought you could wait out the problem, wouldn't you?

This is all about timing.

That house is not worth $100. Hope you can wait 5-8 years.

Yeah, but it's not worth $20 either.

Which is what I've been saying all along and these people don't get.

Sure, the price isn't worth $20 when you get every tax payer to pay for it. But that's the problem, isn't it? Getting every tax payer to pay for it when they don't need it.

Yeah, you know what they need? you're so versed in the financial markets with your english major, right?

Blog educated people aren't professionals.

I know what I need. I'm renting right now. This isn't going to benefit me. In fact, it'll benefit me more by not bailing them out because when I get out of college I'll have a cheap house I can afford because somebody couldn't pay their bills with their ARMs. And I'm sure the hundreds of thousands of people that called and emailed their representatives know its what they need as well.

Wrong. You won't have a job to pay for that "cheap house."

The only time I will ever agree with JS80.

Good luck getting that job to pay for your house. You will get out of college to an empty job market, have fun with that, unless you are in the top 10-20% of your hireable proffesion (CS majors come to mind).

 

[BeauJangles]

Originally posted by: SleepWalkerX

Originally posted by: LegendKiller

Originally posted by: SleepWalkerX

Originally posted by: LegendKiller

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: Jaskalas

Originally posted by: LegendKiller
What he missed in 1932 is that the repricing had already occurred, but it had bled through to main street, destroying the economy. By the time people realized something needed to be done, it was too late. At that point liquidity didn't matter.

WS won't sell the assets either way, bailout or no, because the assets ARE worth more.

If you bought a house for $100, but the current market said it was worth 20, and you thought you could wait out the problem, wouldn't you?

This is all about timing.

That house is not worth $100. Hope you can wait 5-8 years.

Yeah, but it's not worth $20 either.

Which is what I've been saying all along and these people don't get.

Sure, the price isn't worth $20 when you get every tax payer to pay for it. But that's the problem, isn't it? Getting every tax payer to pay for it when they don't need it.

Yeah, you know what they need? you're so versed in the financial markets with your english major, right?

Blog educated people aren't professionals.

I know what I need. I'm renting right now. This isn't going to benefit me. In fact, it'll benefit me more by not bailing them out because when I get out of college I'll have a cheap house I can afford because somebody couldn't pay their bills with their ARMs. And I'm sure the hundreds of thousands of people that called and emailed their representatives know its what they need as well.

You realize that if there is no bailout or if there is a bailout and it doesn't help, it will trigger the worst worldwide recession since the 1930s?

 

[LegendKiller]

Originally posted by: GTKeeper
The only time I will ever agree with JS80.

Good luck getting that job to pay for your house. You will get out of college to an empty job market, have fun with that, unless you are in the top 10-20% of your hireable proffesion (CS majors come to mind).

Don't forget, be sure to have 20%+ cash, be charged 10%+ interest, and only have a 30-year fixed available. That's even if you can get a mortgage, if not, be sure you can pay in cash.

 

[HendrixFan]

Originally posted by: LegendKiller

Originally posted by: GTKeeper
The only time I will ever agree with JS80.

Good luck getting that job to pay for your house. You will get out of college to an empty job market, have fun with that, unless you are in the top 10-20% of your hireable proffesion (CS majors come to mind).

Don't forget, be sure to have 20%+ cash, be charged 10%+ interest, and only have a 30-year fixed available. That's even if you can get a mortgage, if not, be sure you can pay in cash.

Isn't a big part of the problem that people who have pumped money into the housing bubble the past few years haven't gained any equity? Nothing down, amortized, even at low interest rates leaves a homeowner with very little equity compared to the amount of money put in. When you throw in PMI, property tax and insurance; somebody with nothing down could easily have less than 5% (including PMI, property tax and insurance) of the money they paid after five years actually sitting in equity.

If home values drop, and they should because it was a bubble, then even those that can still make their payments would end up negative. The ARM crowd is in even worse shape.

I know you are likely one of the most informed about these issues on this board. My big question to you is simply, don't home values have to drop? Homes are too inflated to be purchased, and the inflated value of the homes were built off of with derivatives. As home values get back in line, the derivatives crash leaving us in this big mess. I understand the bailout works to stop the derivatives from crashing. What does it do to brace us from the inevitable drop in home values?

 

[GTKeeper]

Originally posted by: HendrixFan

Originally posted by: LegendKiller

Originally posted by: GTKeeper
The only time I will ever agree with JS80.

Good luck getting that job to pay for your house. You will get out of college to an empty job market, have fun with that, unless you are in the top 10-20% of your hireable proffesion (CS majors come to mind).

Don't forget, be sure to have 20%+ cash, be charged 10%+ interest, and only have a 30-year fixed available. That's even if you can get a mortgage, if not, be sure you can pay in cash.

Isn't a big part of the problem that people who have pumped money into the housing bubble the past few years haven't gained any equity? Nothing down, amortized, even at low interest rates leaves a homeowner with very little equity compared to the amount of money put in. When you throw in PMI, property tax and insurance; somebody with nothing down could easily have less than 5% (including PMI, property tax and insurance) of the money they paid after five years actually sitting in equity.

If home values drop, and they should because it was a bubble, then even those that can still make their payments would end up negative. The ARM crowd is in even worse shape.

I know you are likely one of the most informed about these issues on this board. My big question to you is simply, don't home values have to drop? Homes are too inflated to be purchased, and the inflated value of the homes were built off of with derivatives. As home values get back in line, the derivatives crash leaving us in this big mess. I understand the bailout works to stop the derivatives from crashing. What does it do to brace us from the inevitable drop in home values?

Home values will drop more, and probably a lot more. The question is, hopefully you are not upside down on your house. And hopefully you are in a 30 year fixed term mortgage. The next phase of this meltdown is when banks do have capital to lend, it will be very expensive. So the ARM resets in the next 3-5 years will basically kick people out of their houses.

 

[HendrixFan]

Maybe Im wrong on this, but it seems to me that interest rates should go up. Banks shouldn't be so eager to lend. Ive read that the average household is $8k in credit card debt. That coupled with the negative savings rates that the country has now is a bad situation.

Interest rates have been so low that it made sense to borrow money, but that seems to have exploded to the point where everything is tumbling down. This severe downturn seems to be a correction, I just don't see how the bailout prevents the correction.

Without a bailout I see home values falling, derivatives crashing, and the subsequent companies going under, job losses following, eventually severe recession or depression.

With a bailout I see inflation continuing to get worse, and the much needed scaling back in risky loans being tied to the bailout taking place. The two would seem to drag down the economy just as bad, just with large inflation eventually allowing the inflated home values to fall into place with the rest of the inflated goods. Wouldn't that cause a severe recession or depression just the same?

It just seems to me that home values have to fall into a place where people can afford them. Not through risky loans, but to legitimately afford them, through prudent savings and making home purchases within their means.

 

[SleepWalkerX]

Originally posted by: JS80

Originally posted by: SleepWalkerX

Originally posted by: LegendKiller

Originally posted by: SleepWalkerX

Originally posted by: LegendKiller

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: Jaskalas

Originally posted by: LegendKiller
What he missed in 1932 is that the repricing had already occurred, but it had bled through to main street, destroying the economy. By the time people realized something needed to be done, it was too late. At that point liquidity didn't matter.

WS won't sell the assets either way, bailout or no, because the assets ARE worth more.

If you bought a house for $100, but the current market said it was worth 20, and you thought you could wait out the problem, wouldn't you?

This is all about timing.

That house is not worth $100. Hope you can wait 5-8 years.

Yeah, but it's not worth $20 either.

Which is what I've been saying all along and these people don't get.

Sure, the price isn't worth $20 when you get every tax payer to pay for it. But that's the problem, isn't it? Getting every tax payer to pay for it when they don't need it.

Yeah, you know what they need? you're so versed in the financial markets with your english major, right?

Blog educated people aren't professionals.

I know what I need. I'm renting right now. This isn't going to benefit me. In fact, it'll benefit me more by not bailing them out because when I get out of college I'll have a cheap house I can afford because somebody couldn't pay their bills with their ARMs. And I'm sure the hundreds of thousands of people that called and emailed their representatives know its what they need as well.

Wrong. You won't have a job to pay for that "cheap house."

I have two jobs and they're both from my university, I know several managers and businessmen in two of the three biggest cities in my state, I have been managing my savings since high school by keeping a savings account and keeping cash on hand, I have alternative sources of income that I make for myself, I have investments against the dollar (gold, although its about that time to grab some silver while I'm at it), and my major has always been in demand and has always had a strong base pay off the bat. I'm in quite a well financial position.

We will face an economic downturn, but one route will take longer to rebuild from than the other.

 

[halik]

Originally posted by: SleepWalkerX

Originally posted by: JS80

Originally posted by: SleepWalkerX

Originally posted by: LegendKiller

Originally posted by: SleepWalkerX

Originally posted by: LegendKiller

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: Jaskalas

Originally posted by: LegendKiller
What he missed in 1932 is that the repricing had already occurred, but it had bled through to main street, destroying the economy. By the time people realized something needed to be done, it was too late. At that point liquidity didn't matter.

WS won't sell the assets either way, bailout or no, because the assets ARE worth more.

If you bought a house for $100, but the current market said it was worth 20, and you thought you could wait out the problem, wouldn't you?

This is all about timing.

That house is not worth $100. Hope you can wait 5-8 years.

Yeah, but it's not worth $20 either.

Which is what I've been saying all along and these people don't get.

Sure, the price isn't worth $20 when you get every tax payer to pay for it. But that's the problem, isn't it? Getting every tax payer to pay for it when they don't need it.

Yeah, you know what they need? you're so versed in the financial markets with your english major, right?

Blog educated people aren't professionals.

I know what I need. I'm renting right now. This isn't going to benefit me. In fact, it'll benefit me more by not bailing them out because when I get out of college I'll have a cheap house I can afford because somebody couldn't pay their bills with their ARMs. And I'm sure the hundreds of thousands of people that called and emailed their representatives know its what they need as well.

Wrong. You won't have a job to pay for that "cheap house."

I have two jobs and they're both from my university, I know several managers and businessmen in two of the three biggest cities in my state, I have been managing my savings since high school by keeping a savings account and keeping cash on hand, I have alternative sources of income that I make for myself, I have investments against the dollar (gold, although its about that time to grab some silver while I'm at it), and my major has always been in demand and has always had a strong base pay off the bat. I'm in quite a well financial position.

We will face an economic downturn, but one route will take longer to rebuild from than the other.

Let me guess, you're a sophmore at college, majoring in some sort of engineering study? And alternative sources of income are ebay and AT for sale/ trade, right?

Be ready for 20% down and interest rates more than in the 80s (15%+). Credit crunch means no reasonable financing; banks will be looking for extremly high yields/irrs before they give you the money.

And please, your two part time jobs won't even cover your health care premium. Come talk to us once your hit the real world.

 

[JS80]

Originally posted by: SleepWalkerX

I have two jobs and they're both from my university, I know several managers and businessmen in two of the three biggest cities in my state, I have been managing my savings since high school by keeping a savings account and keeping cash on hand, I have alternative sources of income that I make for myself, I have investments against the dollar (gold, although its about that time to grab some silver while I'm at it), and my major has always been in demand and has always had a strong base pay off the bat. I'm in quite a well financial position.

We will face an economic downturn, but one route will take longer to rebuild from than the other.

Come back to me when you graduate only to see that the $60k job you were expecting is not there anymore and you can't even pay rent on a South Carolina trailer home.