|
rscott posted:I think he's talking about the estimated $10-20 trillion parked in off shore accounts not really doing anything at all, even ignoring the effects that has on the value of the dollar through monetary velocity, the $2-3 trillion dollars in government revenue that could be reasonably expected to be recovered of that money through taxes is not insignificant when it comes to the world's overall economic growth. That "parked" overseas money is still doing things. Most of the companies run investment arms using the money, even loaning it to the parent company which is fine to do as long as appropriate interest is paid by the parent company (to itself). About the only thing it can't be used for is to straight up pay stockholders which is why there is a lot of noise about having a repatriation holiday from the business class. The problem is that right now there isn't enough investment options for the amount of money floating around. The demand isn't there to support capital expansions and there is so much money seeking any sort of return that lots of asset classes are way overvalued compared to the risk they involve. Shifty Pony fucked around with this message at 20:35 on Jan 30, 2016 |
#
¿
Jan 30, 2016 20:30
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 27, 2024 12:18 |
|
|
My Imaginary GF posted:Of course its doing something: its being invested and producing economic growth. The money is in US banks. Just the account holders have foreign addresses so US taxes don't apply.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 30, 2016 21:51
|
|
|
Ardennes posted:It probably won't make that much of a difference, you could say QE already is an effective alternative to negative interest rates but there almost certainly a declining return on expansionary monetary policy of any form. Abe is trying to pump as much money as he can into the system, but ultimately it is a more of a question of where it is going than the amounts he is pumping to the system. I'm having a hard time envisioning how a just-slightly-deflationary environment would affect the median US family. Jus tot start with personal debt would become an even worse idea, correct?
|
|
#
¿
Jan 31, 2016 21:53
|
|
|
side_burned posted:Stein's law mainly. I have not read anything that is predicting a drop in prices anytime soon but rent and house prices are out pacing wages and that literal can not go on forever. On personal level I would love to see urban rents drop since I hate living in small towns but I am certain that the economic conditions were rents in SF and NYC would go down would be pretty goddamn horrific in many ways. Then again non-owner-occupied and speculative real estate is swimming in money (again) because there aren't enough mid to long term investments elsewhere. There is also an indication that some markets in North America and Australia are being used by foreign buyers to park money out of reach of their governments and out of the fallout zone of their country's economic troubles or again simply because there isn't much in the way of not already bubbling local investment available. The latter is primarily limited to luxury units in a few cities but is having a spillover effect as local residents or investors who would have bought those properties seek another place to purchase.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 11, 2016 15:30
|
|
|
ToxicSlurpee posted:The funniest (and saddest) thing was that marketers apparently decided that millenials wanted overpriced garbage with flowery words. What millenials actually want is loving jobs. That and for their student loans to go away. Their average salaries have been creeping upward among those that managed to get jobs but with stagnating wages, piles of student debt, and rising living costs they still can't afford as much as their parents. A marketer's first and most important client is always themselves. If the problem is something that cannot be addressed in a branding campaign such as jobs and debt then companies won't give marketing firms any money.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 11, 2016 19:21
|
|
|
readingatwork posted:Honestly I'd settle for micro-apartments becoming more of a thing in the US. At this point I'd live in a closet with a mini fridge in one corner and a shitter in the other if it meant that I could get out of my parent's house and wouldn't need to rely on roommates. Funnily enough there is also a problem in the other direction. Most new multifamily residential construction is comprised largely of 600-800sqft 1 bedroom 1 bath apartments/condos. 2 bedroom units are in tight supply and 3 bedroom apartments are practically mythical. Basically if you want to raise a family you have to purchase or rent a house in the suburbs.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 12, 2016 03:06
|
|
|
Admiral101 posted:I don't see why society at large should be obligated to subsidize the costs of living in a high-demand area (or even concerned about it). This isn't food or water we're talking about. If the price is too high, then move somewhere else. On the flip side - why should society subsidize the lifestyle preferences of those that want to live in neighborhoods of single family homes in a high demand area? In most in-demand cities every renter and new resident is paying a premium because there are large swaths of area where existing homeowners don't want to have anything but single family housing (usually detached) near them and have used the zoning power of the local government to systematically block people who don't share their preferences from building (and thus living in) anything denser. Of course once the demand hits a high enough level developers will slog their way though getting variances or paying off people let them out of deed restrictions, but they will do so in the areas with the least political ability to throw roadblocks in their way - which just so happens to be where the poor and minorities live. readingatwork posted:Plus from what I hear (from older contractors) the general craftsmanship of new homes has slowly gone to poo poo over the past few decades as developers constantly try to find quicker and cheaper ways to get houses up. That's not really true actually, it just seems that way because there is a large selection bias at work. For the most part the only older homes which are around today are the best constructed ones from that era because the shoddily built older homes long ago fell apart and were replaced. My neighborhood is made up of 1950s tract home construction and for the most part it is absolutely terrible quality unless major renovations have been done - bad insulation, strange layouts, poorly graded lots, crumbling/shifting foundations, failing plumbing/sewer, and woefully inadequate (and often unsafe) electrical are all the norm. To fix them costs more than it does to demolish them and start from scratch, so nearly every time one of these houses goes on the market it gets bought by a developer, torn down, and rebuilt into something modern.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 13, 2016 16:05
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 27, 2024 12:18 |
|
|
The market could also be getting excited about the stock buybacks and dividend payouts that companies will do following the implementation of Trump's promise to slash the tax on repatriation of deferred overseas income.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 1, 2016 22:53
|
|