Posted by: Timothy Ellis (The Tim)

Tim Ellis is the founder of Seattle Bubble. His background in engineering and computer / internet technology, a fondness of data-based analysis of problems, and an addiction to spreadsheets all influence his perspective on the Seattle-area real estate market.

22 responses to “Consumer Confidence: The Long Slog Continues”

  1. softwarengineer

    This Blogger Sums It Up for SWE On Consumer Confidence

    “Welcome to Walmart, my name is Cdad. How can I help you?”……………………..

    “Could you direct me to your booze department?”

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  2. Scotsman

    RE: softwarengineer @ 1

    Whoa! Way too negative. Obviously expectations are above the current situation because people are anticipating all the free sh%t they are going to be getting from the government under Obama’s second term.

    It’s a great time to buy- the government has got your back, and will be forcing loan reductions over the years to come. Plus, they are getting ready to bail out the banks and pension funds by purchasing all the bad loans and foreclosures, then selling them off to the politically connected for pennies on the dollar. Everybody wins!

    What? We can’t afford that? Sure we can- the FED has bought, and will continue to buy over 90% of the Treasury’s new debt. Win!

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  3. Blurtman

    RE: Scotsman @ 2 – What a wonderful world! What could possibly go wrong?

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  4. David Losh

    RE: Scotsman @ 2

    The stock market is at the highest level since 2008. It must be safe to be confident again.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  5. Scotsman

    RE: David Losh @ 4

    I know, isn’t it great?! The S+P has hit all time highs, and the Dow is within 10% or so of its all time high. People are building wealth like never before. Why, things haven’t looked this good since 2007 or so. Amazing!

    Disclosure: attitude is not in congruence with that of the NAR or NWMLS. I do not own stocks, gold, or Beenie Babies. OK, I think we may still have some Beenie Babies around here somewhere. Whatever.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  6. MichaelB

    RE: Scotsman @ 2

    Obama didn’t get elected because he promised to give people free ^%&* like that racist BS The Tim put up last year. He got elected because the American people were disgusted by how W and the Republicans had trashed the economy and gotten us into worthless wars costing trillions in treasure and 100,000’s of lives over lies. Wars that haven’t furthered the interests of our country in the slightest. Plus giving “free stuff” to the wealthiest 1% in the form of tax breaks and deregulation. He is doing a great job in an extremely difficult situation. Hopefully he will get re-elected and Dems will also get control of the House…

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  7. Kary L. Krismer

    RE: MichaelB @ 6 – Obama was elected because both the country and the world were falling into a huge uncertain economic mess and the incumbent President was a Republican. If the incumbent had been a Democrat we would have had the same economic mess and today you’d be making claims about why President McCain was elected.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  8. m-s

    By Kary L. Krismer @ 7:

    RE: MichaelB @ 6 – Obama was elected because both the country and the world were falling into a huge uncertain economic mess and the incumbent President was a Republican. If the incumbent had been a Democrat we would have had the same economic mess and today you’d be making claims about why President McCain was elected.

    Only if said hypothetical “incumbent Democrat” had done all the stuff that was alluded to in #6. That’s a large assumption, and I have serious doubts. However, predicting a hypothetical past (even predicting that it would be the same as the real past) is just as dangerous as predicting the future.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  9. Kary L. Krismer

    RE: m-s @ 8 – I would agree. That’s part of the reason I don’t like economic arguments that say if we’d done more or less to deal with the crisis that it would have been better. I think we needed the stimulus to be more concentrated in time, where others think there should have been little or even no stimulus. None of us can say what would have happened if either would have happened.

    But that economic climate wasn’t a good one for incumbent parties. There was legitimate fear of total economic collapse.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  10. Blurtman

    RE: Kary L. Krismer @ 7 – That is your opinion. George W. Bush unleashed a wave of regulatory corruption that resulted in the financial crime wave and economic meltdown. W unleashed a spending wave (wars) that was not funded, while simultaneously slashing income tax revenue. He was so bad, many suspect he was put in place purposely to bankrupt the USA, and thereby the “entitlement” programs.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  11. Kary L. Krismer

    RE: Blurtman @ 10 – I don’t think the Democrats are any less to blame. I don’t think the Democrats are even much different than the Republicans when you deal with them as a whole (as opposed to individual politicians). People who think they different are have fallen for one of the two parties’ sale pitches.

    How else can you explain the fact that there’s been almost no change in economic and war policy in the past 6+ years?

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  12. m-s

    By Blurtman @ 10:

    RE: Kary L. Krismer @ 7 – That is your opinion. George W. Bush unleashed a wave of regulatory corruption that resulted in the financial crime wave and economic meltdown. W unleashed a spending wave (wars) that was not funded, while simultaneously slashing income tax revenue. He was so bad, many suspect he was put in place purposely to bankrupt the USA, and thereby the “entitlement” programs.

    Naah. It takes brains to be that evil. I vote for sheer ineptitude, with the totally unintended consequence you describe. I don’t know which is worse.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  13. Kary L. Krismer

    RE: m-s @ 12 – Even there I don’t see that much difference. O is probably smarter than W, and he’s clearly a better speaker (not saying much), but he’s no better at seeing unintended consequences or in picking competent staff at the White House.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  14. m-s

    By Kary L. Krismer @ 13:

    RE: m-s @ 12 – Even there I don’t see that much difference. O is probably smarter than W, and he’s clearly a better speaker (not saying much), but he’s no better at seeing unintended consequences or in picking competent staff at the White House.

    True. Unintended consequences are … unintended. The choice of staff seems to have been a (probably false choice of) decision that they would either have Wall Street cronies, because they “know what they are doing” (anybody see the fallacy of that?), or get some bozo off the street, which is scary.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  15. Jonness

    By Scotsman @ 5:

    RE: David Losh @ 4

    I know, isn’t it great?! The S+P has hit all time highs, and the Dow is within 10% or so of its all time high. People are building wealth like never before. Why, things haven’t looked this good since 2007 or so. Amazing!

    Disclosure: attitude is not in congruence with that of the NAR or NWMLS. I do not own stocks, gold, or Beenie Babies. OK, I think we may still have some Beenie Babies around here somewhere. Whatever.

    I own stocks, and I’m making a freaking killing off the whacked out Fed. If you can’t beat em, join em.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  16. Jonness

    By MichaelB @ 6:

    RE: Scotsman @ 2

    Obama didn’t get elected because he promised to give people free ^%&* like that racist BS The Tim put up last year. He got elected because the American people were disgusted by how W and the Republicans had trashed the economy and gotten us into worthless wars costing trillions in treasure and 100,000’s of lives over lies.

    IMO, Obama got elected because people are afraid of change. If the same ol’ dog turd comes in a different looking package, people can fool themselves into believing they aren’t getting another dog turd again. This allows them to play it safe and vote for the same ol’ viewpoints and philosophies that have continued to screw us decade after decade.

    The tactic works as long as the sheep remain fat in the field and mindlessly eating grass. As soon as the grass runs out, then they will look up and think about doing something about it. Unfortunately, the only time the farmer stops feeding them grass is when they are already in the truck and headed to the butcher.

    So what could the sheep do about it if they chose to? They could vote the farmer off the farm. So why don’t they? Because they are worried if the farmer leaves the farm, there will be nobody left to feed them, thus, they will have to take care of themselves. In short, it’s better to get slaughtered then to have to take the effort to think.

    “What good fortune for governments that people do not think.”…Adolph Hitler

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  17. MichaelB

    RE: Jonness @ 16

    “4 legs good, 2 legs bad”

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  18. Kary L. Krismer

    By Jonness @ 16:

    They could vote the farmer off the farm. So why don’t they? Because they are worried if the farmer leaves the farm, there will be nobody left to feed them, thus, they will have to take care of themselves. In short, it’s better to get slaughtered then to have to take the effort to think.

    I would argue that there are two farmers working together who try to convince the animals that they are different. The animals jump from approving one farmer to the other, thinking things will be different each time they do.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  19. Blurtman

    RE: Kary L. Krismer @ 11 – There are differences between the two parties. Look at party affiliation along racial/ethnic/country of origin, if you will. And with regards to W, the Republican members of the Senate and House joined lock step behind W, backing his policies universally. Now you can say that is a trait of the Republican party, but the congress critters (that means you, Reichert) do have to take responsibility for W’s policies which they backed totally. And that is another difference between the Dems and the Repubs – organization or lack thereof.

    Here are a few more policy differences:
    Extension of unemployment benefits (D)
    The Affordable Health Care act (D)
    Unions (D)
    Affirmative action (D)
    Dodd Frank (flawed as it is) (D)

    Here are similarities:
    Bailouts
    Bernanke policies
    Bush tax cuts
    No war crimes prosecutions
    No prosecution of Wall Street
    Revolving door between Wall Street and gubberment
    Excessive industry influence of and access to gubberment
    The Surge(s)
    Guantanamo
    Rights to other countries’ resources
    Biased international policy (e.g. puppet dictators, Israel)
    Many more

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  20. Kary L. Krismer

    RE: Blurtman @ 19 – Of course there are some differences. You forgot abortion.

    I agree organization is different, as is the ability to snatch defeat out of the jaws of victory (D).

    My point though is it’s not as night and day as what many of the extreme partisan think. We didn’t see the country turn around on a dime when President Obama, “the most liberal member of the Senate” was elected. It barely moved. President Obama even moved toward favoring off shore drilling prior to the BP incident.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  21. Blurtman

    RE: Kary L. Krismer @ 20 – Radical change will not come to the USA until it has to.

    With regard to the wars, it may be the case that possible negative outcomes caused by a sudden change in policy, and the perception of being weak on national security, meant a continuation of the war efforts including the surges. You only isolate some of your party who have no voting alternative.

    And with respect to the Bernank and Fed’s policies and bank bailouts, the same fear of a sudden change of course without letting the policies play out may also have manadated more of the same. E.g., nobody gets fired at FDA for not letting good drugs on the market, they get blasted for allowing dangerous drugs on the market.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  22. Kary L. Krismer

    By Blurtman @ 21:

    With regard to the wars, it may be the case that possible negative outcomes caused by a sudden change in policy, and the perception of being weak on national security, meant a continuation of the war efforts including the surges. You only isolate some of your party who have no voting alternative.

    Stated differently, one party purposefully lied to the American public to get elected, not even trying to come up with a solution, while people in the military died.

    Just to be clear though, I’d say the same thing about Donald Rumsfeld (except the to get elected part).

    Pulling out wasn’t the solution, but everything wasn’t just fine and dandy either.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

Leave a Reply

Do you want a nifty avatar picture next to your name, instead of a photograph of Tim's dog? Just sign up with Gravatar, and make sure to use the same email address in the form below. It's that easy!

Please read the rules before posting a comment.

You have 5 comments remaining on this post.

Archives

Find us on Google+