It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


The Coming Depression has Begun:Tent Cities have gone up in Suburbs

page: 2
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in


posted on Dec, 28 2007 @ 09:54 AM

Originally posted by GT100FV
reply to post by pjsconcrete

"Calendar year 2007 looks set to produce 3 percent growth in real gross domestic product, nearly 3 percent growth in consumer spending, and more than 3 percent growth in after-tax inflation-adjusted incomes.

Meanwhile, headline inflation (including food and energy) will have run at 2½ percent, with only 2 percent core inflation.

So, statistics being what they are, pliable at best, I can read that as growth being flat or 1/2 a percent at best, hardly a reason to pass out cigars and raise a toast. The point being - I can pick up any newspaper or magazine or watch any talking head on t.v. and they can spin the data to suit their purposes.

In real terms, we have only to read the examples of hardship given in this thread or look up and down our streets at the vacant houses to see exactly "how great" 2007 is/was.

As far as the article referenced, it's no different than putting lipstick on a pig and calling it pretty.

[edit on 28/12/07 by kosmicjack]

posted on Dec, 28 2007 @ 09:56 AM
reply to post by GT100FV

You may need to get your facts from real sources
This is just the beginning the illusion of prosperity is starting to fade away and show it real ugly face.

posted on Dec, 28 2007 @ 10:04 AM

Originally posted by dawnstar
many states have squatter's rights still. if things get too bad, and too many houses get repossessed, they might have a hard time keeping track of all of them. you might actually be able to get away with moving back into your home, if no one notices and comes to tell you to get out in a set amount of time, it's yours...

I'm sorry, but if things get bad enough, and I need a home, there seems to be plenty of vacant properties around here that seem to have been all but abandoned. heck with the tent.....I'm finding me one of these!

posted on Dec, 28 2007 @ 10:08 AM
i am also a business owner who has seen his business die slowly over
the last 4 years. no jobs, no unemployment, mortgage late, etc.
nobody gives a hoot!! if i can last another 4 years until my son is a
"man", i'm selling everything i own and leaving north america.... i'm
tired of the crap!!! north of detroit here.
heading waaaay south!!!! quiet, peaceful, cheap, no snow!!....

[edit on 28-12-2007 by last time here]

posted on Dec, 28 2007 @ 10:11 AM
reply to post by last time here

I am sorry to hear that, Detroit is one of the two major once America Industrial meccas that are going bankrupt.

They are now dying cities.

posted on Dec, 28 2007 @ 10:15 AM
reply to post by last time here

Sorry to hear also! My parents are thinking about heading for Europe. My mom can get citizenship in Slovakia. At least there they wouldn't have an $1800 a month premium for their health insurance. I'd leave now, but can't even afford to get my passport!

posted on Dec, 28 2007 @ 10:18 AM
A great read on the current economic situation at the web site below.

Particularly, there is an interesting explanation on the housing crisis. George Ure describes it as a perfect storm of the credit/loan debacle and:

Key point: If there aren't enough buyers to hold prices UP with at least replacement demand, prices will inevitably come DOWN to an appropriate level. We're actually quite early in this process…There's a simple demographic fact underlying the collapse of housing. The Baby Boomer Americans who start to retire right about now have bid up the price of homes so high that the next generation of humans won't be able to buy them…

He further puts forth a hypothesis that we essentially starting running out of buyers (boomers) in 2003, a date which many point to as the beginning of the housing bust.

posted on Dec, 28 2007 @ 10:23 AM
reply to post by karlkar
Maybe this might help someone

Federal Court Dismisses 14 Foreclosure Cases; Deutsche Bank Fails To Provide Proof Of Mortgage Note Ownership,

A federal judge in Ohio has ruled against a longstanding foreclosure practice, potentially creating an obstacle for lenders trying to reclaim properties from troubled borrowers and raising questions about the legal standing of investors in mortgage securities pools. Judge Christopher A. Boyko of Federal District Court in Cleveland dismissed 14 foreclosure cases brought on behalf of mortgage investors, ruling that they had failed to prove that they owned the properties they were trying to seize.

Because most foreclosures proceed without challenges from borrowers, few judges have forced trustees like Deutsche Bank and Bank of New York to prove ownership by producing a mortgage note in each case. Borrower advocates cheered Judge Boyko’s ruling.
A borrower signs loan papers when a loan is made. A representative of the bank signs as well, but the ONLY capacity in which the bank's representative signs is so as to certify that the borrower's signature is valid and correct. Put another way, the representative of the bank does NOT append his signature in a mode or manner that creates a contract between the borrower and the bank. The reason that the bank's representative does not sign in order to create a contract is that the bank is aware that it is not giving the borrower ANYTHING AT ALL.

When the borrower signs the documentation, what he or she is doing is creating a new negotiable piece of paper which, provided the bank or another party accepts it as such, can be converted into a LOAN. But it is a loan to the bank, not to the borrower.

The crucial point here is that when the person being foreclosed upon requests the contract when challenging the foreclosure in court, he or she will be able thereby to demonstrate to the court that the bank cannot provide any such document.

Mod Edit: Quoting/Plagiarism – Please Review This Link.

Mod Edit: External Source Tags – Please Review This Link.

[edit on 12/28/2007 by Gools]

posted on Dec, 28 2007 @ 10:38 AM
This is just the "snap up real estate and businesses at rock bottom prices" part of the cycle for the rich. Hasn't it happened a couple times now in our history?

This time they just might give us a nice solid currency like the Amero to replace our shaky worthless dollars. Isn't that how we got the federal reserve dollar to begin with?

posted on Dec, 28 2007 @ 10:40 AM
Home Sales Fall to Lowest Level in 12 Years

U.S. new home sales fell a steeper-than-expected 9 percent in November, but business activity elsewhere perked up this month, according to reports Friday that showed pockets of strength in the economy despite a housing sector meltdown.

Not good.

posted on Dec, 28 2007 @ 10:42 AM
reply to post by scientist

I'm one who agrees with you. It seems to me that this is all coming about with mathematical precision. Equations are used to explain as well as predict, so there is little question in my mind that that the current and future situation was fully understood sometime in the past. The questions are, were things supposed to play out this way? Or was there some variable, perhaps the crash of the sub-prime mortgage market, that posed a danger to the desired outcome, but which had little chance of occurring? There's always risk in financial markets, but the smaller certain types of risks are, the greater risks investors are willing to make. I'm just guessing but I'm reasonably sure that those in a position to know, would have known the likelihood of our current situation, whether or not it was predictable.

posted on Dec, 28 2007 @ 10:45 AM
reply to post by karlkar

Perhaps one of the mistakes made by banks as to have more room to make money out of notes.

It was a time that a House was a business transaction between the buyer and their personal bank.

In today devious business deals once the buyer is done with, the notes goes around on circles of selling and purchasing to the highest bider.

posted on Dec, 28 2007 @ 10:47 AM
reply to post by infinite

Thanks infinite for that bit of information, this one of the reports to come out that will make the economy out look worst for 2008 the next one is the actually GDP figures that our government is so fond uf to show that we have a strong economy, they will be very low indeed also.

posted on Dec, 28 2007 @ 10:53 AM
I'm expecting the recession to come in Q2 of 2008, those set of GDP figures will declare it "official".

Sadly, for the United Kingdom, our Q1 figures might be recession like IMHO

But, as pundits have been commenting on for weeks (even months): 2009 will be much worse. We are in for a long economic dark period, the worse hasn't even come to light yet.

posted on Dec, 28 2007 @ 11:06 AM

Originally posted by TheoOne
If everyone stopped working in U/S, government would beg people to work and stuff, is that right?

Actually this is an excellent point, in theory, but most people can't stop because of debt and responsibilities.

If everyone had the means to quit working, some land to grow food and food reserves this might be possible, but the current structure of society is day to day living that relies on the systems (Matrix).

posted on Dec, 28 2007 @ 11:14 AM
The Numbers Behind The Lies

Economist John Williams says real unemployment and inflation numbers -- figured the old-fashioned way -- may be two or three times what the government admits. Heres why, and what it means for Social Security.

Dean Baker-Wall Street Rules

The Fed generally decides to throw people out of work when it gets concerned about inflation, as is the case at present. The logic is simple; if unemployment increases, then workers will find it more difficult to push up wages. Bosses will decide that they can just hire another worker from among the unemployed if their current workers ask for pay increases. Since wages are a cost to businesses, if wages rise less rapidly, then costs will rise less rapidly, and firms will probably slow the pace at which they raise their prices. In other words, by using unemployment to slow wage growth, the Fed can restrain inflation.

posted on Dec, 28 2007 @ 11:22 AM
Sorry the United States can not compete in a manufacturing economy due to wage and standards laws. As long as the Chinese, or any other country has a free labor market (ex. wage law differences), we simply can't compete with our socialist leaning ways.

To the OP and others, I am sorry your businesses failed, but in any economy, most small businesses do fail. If worse comes to worse, put down your pride and work for 10%; 10% of any number is better than 0 imo. Especially if you have a family to support.

I, for one, believe the unemployment numbers. A lot of employers in my area of the country are having a tough time finding qualified people for their positions, which is a sign of almost too low unemployment (and yes, there is such a thing).

posted on Dec, 28 2007 @ 11:31 AM
reply to post by radardog

I absolutely agree that most small business fail. The problem is when businesses that have been successful for the last 20 years close down shop as is happening here.

I am looking for a job, but in the meantime will keep up on my licensing so when (if) things improve I can go back to it.

posted on Dec, 28 2007 @ 11:35 AM
reply to post by karlkar

Man, your post and those two links you provided were bombshells of a read! No wonder things are bad. It clearly is fraud perpetrated by the banks. Not only fraud against homeowners, but also fraud against investors of mortgage securities. The idea that investors would have a right to the cash flow generated by their investments, but NOT have a right to ownership of the properties that their investments have paid for, is a scheme that could only be thought of by bankers. The bank itself assumes no risk! At least not outright. I mean there's a risk of interest earnings loss and the banks credibility with investors, but that's about it. Given the way the game is usually played, there really isn't any risk at all. The only reason why the banks would pursue foreclosure would be to salvage not only the property and relationships with investors, but also the scheme itself. The bank never uses its own money, it only uses the investors money. Looking at it closely, the investors assume nearly all of the risk! They don't even own the money that they invest because that money is paid to the seller, i.e., persons who have sold homes to the borrowers. And the borrowers only risk their credit ratings and a home they've never really owned in first place. Wow!!! I think I got most of it right, correct me if I'm wrong. Anyway, great post!

[edit on 28-12-2007 by Areal51]

posted on Dec, 28 2007 @ 11:42 AM
Another take on it:

A Diary of the Greater Depression


A quote from the National Association For Business Economics...: The combined threat of subprime loan defaults and excessive indebtedness has supplanted terrorism and the Middle East as the biggest short-term threat to the U.S. economy.

Some sleight of hand the ruling elite have accomplished since 9/11, namely, that while Americans were pondering the color of the government's daily terrorist threat assessments, that government and its corporate cronies was taking them to the cleaners, picking their pockets, swindling, cheating, extorting, defrauding, hustling, ripping-off, double-dealing, conning, hornswoggling, hoodwinking, fudging, gouging, bamboozling, scamming, screwing, shafting, and let's not forget bilking the American middle and working classes. Hey, look over there-see the Italian spider climbing up the wall-or Osama hiding under your bed? And while you look, we'll steal you deaf, dumb, and blind!

new topics

top topics

<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in