[rshoffer]

Originally Posted by captain1202

Have been through a number of previous recessions I think it's fair to say this one is unlike any other for many reasons. I believe the recovery '09 prognostications are unreasonably optimistic.

1) The housing meltdown is still gaining momentum and is no where near bottoming out.

2) Consumers are retrenching as never before for several reasons not the least of which are they have no money, they are worried about their job, they are just plain scared about the political and financial prospects.

3) Previous recoveries have been consumer driven. Because of a tectonic shift in consumer attitudes due to #2 there is a new aversion to assumption of debt. I believe this will be a permanent change.

4) Home building, which was the last recession buster, won't be helping anytime soon. Manufacturing is virtually dead in this country so don't count on that. Auto's won't be the magic bullet either.

5) The "new" financial economy based on smoke and mirrors has proven to be a flop so that's not going to help either.

SOOOOOO......The BIG question is this?

Exactly what sector of the economy is it that is going to drive a recovery and provide employment for the hundreds of thousands of folks that are finding themselves out of work with no reasonable prospect of new work in their chosen field?

Note for Kahuna.. As a former commercial banker you have to be petrified at what you see on the landscape.(??) I'm curious as to where and what businesses would you invest your banks' funds today? Manufacturing? Housing? Retail? Auto's? Financial Services? Credit Cards? What else have we got?

Alternative energy technology

[Boomer]

Originally Posted by Muncle

BoomBoom, I've been a big fan of Ric Edelman since I moved back to DC in the mid 90's and started listening to him on WMAL. He has always preached situational investing. As one gets older, closer to retirement, and closer to possibly needing the funds, more and more of one's portfolio should be in safer, more stable, more liquid assets (i.e., CDs, money markets, bonds, etc.) and less in individual stocks that drop just when you need the $$$$. I'd definitely take that as Granny Investing, and like Granny's cooking, it's a lot better than a lot of the new-fangled ideas.

Good morning, Munc,

I just looked up your guy Ric Edelman on Amazon. I did not know about him. I will have a closer look.

Somewhere, on TOTV, a long time ago, I wrote about how I learned my lesson. You see, I was a bubble-dancer back in the 90's. (How did you know my name was BoomBoom?) Anyway, what I mean is that I danced a little with that tech bubble. It was fun. I would walk in the door after work, flip on Boomberg (er, I mean Bloomberg) and watch that ticker go by, and I would congratulate the heck out of myself.

Yep, Hubris was my middle name.

But I never did part with all of it. But some of it for sure. Gone forever. Fortunately, even during those days, I knew somewhere deep in my financially conservative Midwestern heart to be careful, well sort of careful. I took a hit. But I learned a lesson. And it only took one time. Probably the best tuition money I ever spent. And when everybody said to buy REIT's, all I could see were those empty strip malls everywhere.

So I have been a retired grandmother for awhile. (not a very good cook though)

But this time, I am afraid that it's really different. I agree with what the Captain says in the post that follows yours, here in this thread. What will save us this time? Suze Orman said the same thing last night. Whatever it could be needs to happen fast.

And what infuriates me, and I do mean serious fury, is the fact that I knew it. I saw it coming. How could they not? How could they be so stupid? Or was it stupidity? Or a complete disconnect from reality? Or was it simply pure evil? All of the above, I guess.

So anyway, Munc, the only thing in your post that I could take the other side on is that thing about individual stocks. Overall, I agree with that part, too. But there can be advantages in individual stocks over mutual funds sometimes. Good, solid, dividend payers. But who really knows about any of it this time?

Boomer

[tankdvr1950]

i believe this is "on topic".....found this in the Wall Street Journal today...while it is not directly relative to TV.....it is i think interesting reading for TVers and future TVers

http://http://online.wsj.com/article...244267951.html

[cabo35]

I will believe the recesssion has negatively impacted the Villages when I can get my choice of tee times.....and we're not even in "the season" yet.

[Whalen]

Originally Posted by tankdvr1950

i believe this is "on topic".....found this in the Wall Street Journal today...while it is not directly relative to TV.....it is i think interesting reading for TVers and future TVers

http://http://online.wsj.com/article...244267951.html

Very interesting article, well worth reading.

[captain1202]

Read the article, very interesting. I for one would not object to a slightly younger allowable age, say maybe 45. I probably wouldn't be interested in a lot of small children though.

One thing I have been thinking about which has been piqued by the current financial chaos is this:

Who will be the buyers for our homes 10-15-20 years down the road? I'm thinking that my kids probably wouldn't be

a) interested in the concept
or
b) due to shifts in retirement funding may not be able to afford.

I don't believe the follow on generations are as "invested" in the retirement concept as "Boomers" were. The "one company for life" and gold watch has gone by the board.


NOTE: there was a typo in the link here is the corrected link:

http://online.wsj.com/article...244267951.html

[billethkid]

negative economics. As previously stated let's talk about the more than 90% that are still gainfully employed!!!!

If one is in the lessor percent of course it is a problem...it always is whether we are at 4% or 7% unemployment.

Fear is what is being pedaled and being bought hook line and sinker.

As one Villager said to me things must be bad, just look at the discounted homes TV had in the Happy Paper this morning, for example. Yes, the prices are marked down...but no mention that the price they are reduced down to is still higher than 2 years ago on many models. I know it is a minority example but it is indicative...Premier homes in Bridgeport at Miona Shores are marked down from $650,000 to $575,000....that same particular mosel was less than $400,000 3 years ago. The same applies to Designer and many other models.

The so called economic down turn is a function of where one lives and works (or not).

Most....MOST.... are still working.

It is not in the best interest of the media or politicians to look at the bright(er) of anything.

BTK

[captain1202]

To BTK..

It's not negative economics, just reality. The current financial/real estate situation is very unlike others we have seen in our lifetimes (unless you are over 90 yrs old). In the 80's S&L debacle (which I believe will pale compared to current day problems), our home in Mass. dropped 50% in value over a 2 year period from 1988-1990. We finally sold at the low for our own reasons, but it took nearly 10 years for the real estate in that area to regain its previous value. That's simply the facts.

If you want to sugar coat things that's OK, but I prefer to look at reality and act accordingly. I only wish I had been a little more pro-active on my instincts a couple of years ago.

[graciegirl]

Five days ago The Villages posted all of the Premier model homes for sale. I think there were 12. (Correct me here) Yesterday, there were three left. These were all upwards of a half million dollars.

[captain1202]

If TV sold 9 $500k homes in less than 5 days I would like to see some real proof of that.
Sorry to be cynical but what the web site would say to me is that there are 9 less homes showing on the site than there were 5 days ago. It's easy to put up and take down listings. Given the number of Premiers sitting around in Bridgeport for several years I doubt if they were sold overnight.

I agree. We have no way of verifying sales anymore. Even the Sumter appraiser website only has them listed back to about May 2008.

[Best Mom]

Originally Posted by captain1202

If TV sold 9 $500k homes in less than 5 days I would like to see some real proof of that.
Sorry to be cynical but what the web site would say to me is that there are 9 less homes showing on the site than there were 5 days ago. It's easy to put up and take down listings. Given the number of Premiers sitting around in Bridgeport for several years I doubt if they were sold overnight.

Captain1202,
I so agree. We have relatives who live in Bridgeport. They say the waterfront lots, bonds and new homes were so overpriced that they will never get their money back. We also have watched many homes on the market for several years in there. Real Estate has shown us the same houses year after year with prices going down every year.
Rekop your are so right. Where is the proof. I believe my relatives who live right there.