Krugman: We've bottomed out now

He also just bought a coop. Such optimism.

how do you know he bought a coop? Isn't Manhattan a bit of a commute to Princeton?

He bought at 110RSD. Pied-a-terre :)

Why would a nobel prize winning economist buy in Manhattan when he could have simply gone to nybits.com and found a comparable rental for 50% less? He clearly doesn't know what he's doing...

Because he doesn't want to throw money away for someone else's benefit and not for his.
Because he actually wants to live somewhere as opposed to being a transient.
Because he has a public image and doesn't want to be embarassed.
Because he wants real neighbors and no trouble.

because he's independently wealthy and this is chump change for him?

Just because he won a Nobel prize for one piece of work says nothing about his ability to predict markets. Be it stock markets, bond markets or NYC Re markets, his track is nothing remarkable. Besides, many would argue that his work for the Nobel was not worthy. Personally, I think the guy that writes the commentary for thesuperficial.com should receive a Pulitzer on a daily basis, but thats just me.

"Why would a nobel prize winning economist buy in Manhattan when he could have simply gone to nybits.com and found a comparable rental for 50% less? He clearly doesn't know what he's doing..."

LMAO

I tend to believe nyc10022 more than a noble prize winner.

Ever see this guy in interview? At times the lights are on but there's nobody's home. And what economist saw this tsunami coming..... I would belive a weatherman before I trust a economist

"Why would a nobel prize winning economist buy in Manhattan when he could have simply gone to nybits.com and found a comparable rental for 50% less? He clearly doesn't know what he's doing..."

Our treasury secretary is renting his Larchmont home at a monthly loss and Bernanke lost 25-30% of his net worth last year according to disclosures he is required to make.

"Our treasury secretary is renting his Larchmont home at a monthly loss and Bernanke lost 25-30% of his net worth last year according to disclosures he is required to make."

Hysterical.

And petrfitz still values his home in an abandoned Las Vegas development at 2006 prices.

We've hit the bottom. But where do we go from here?

Stiglitz:

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=a2qn.Qd82fDw

"Our treasury secretary is renting his Larchmont home at a monthly loss and Bernanke lost 25-30% of his net worth last year according to disclosures he is required to make. "

Who cares. I own Federal Reserve notes (aka Dollars) and hold them at a loss based on inflation. There's nothing wrong with having lower cash flow than an asset is worth in a short term. Especially if he plans on coming back in a few years and wants to have the same home to come to. Not everyone has a gypsie mentality.

"We've hit the bottom. But where do we go from here?"

Up.

More enouraging news:
http://bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=a.QKGCVMy3TQ

japanese machinery orders rose more than estimated in June. that's nice. but maybe you should read your sources a bit better, particularly bloomberg because while they're deceptive in the slant they present, they often feel compelled to insert little nuggets of truth later on in an article.

"A survey published last week by the Development Bank of Japan showed Japanese companies will cut capital spending 9.2 percent this fiscal year. Reductions by manufacturers will be the steepest since 1993."

There is no conspiracy at Bloomberg. Just because they aren't anarchist doesn't mean they are liars or have slants.

better worse better worse better worse better worse better worse better worse better worse better worse
Miss any meals?
better worse better worse better worse better worse better worse better worse better worse better worse
Gonna be bad...
better worse better worse better worse better worse better worse better worse better worse better worse
Gonna get better...
better worse better worse better worse better worse better worse better worse better worse better worse
Promise!

Krugman is a boob.

Cordially,

Hugh G. Rection

jamie--to carry any investment at a loss based on the only cash flow one can know, current cash flow, is something any intelligent investor should care deeply about--and succh investments should be coldly marked to market based on known cash flow

I think Jamie argues the purchase in Larchmont was not an investment.

Most people in the burbs don't sanity check their purchases against the rental market, because the rental market there is not as liquid. I think the more salient point is he bought an unsustainable high, just like every other dope, rather than wait and watch.

The guy's a family guy, how's he supposed to wait? Where in Westchester of any quality was he supposed to rent? President of the NY Fed is supposed to be in a rental project? How embarassing for him. And for his kids. You can do this to an extent in NYC but not in Westchester.

"he bought an unsustainable high, just like every other dope, rather than wait and watch. " Really? When was he supposed to decide that it was right? If it was too expensive in 2004, then he should have waited and have his family grow up for 5 years in a rental? So unrealistic about people's actual lives, families, careers, etc. This is not some single divorced Peter Schiff guy or young advertising exec in NYC.

A rental project? He could have rented a house. My only point is he showed just as little care as the average American in deciding what he should pay for a house during the 2004 to 2008...he offered the ask. I don't know where he had been living, but staying there and not paying $1.5mm for a 2500 sqft Tudor in Larchmont was an option. What's with the moralizing? Why don't you go fuck yourself.

Hi kids, we are renting this house. In two years we all have to pack up and move and maybe move school districts. Also, don't tell your friends that we are renting, they'll make fun of you. Oh, and don't mention to mom that we are renting, she'll be embarassed with her friends.

When people in school as you about moving, say it's like your daddy works for the government, like the Army.

Never mind that this rental house didn't exist in 2004. But don't let facts get in the way of a good argument.

Hmmm. So would I be more comfortable with a Treasury Secretary that makes major financial decisions your way, or my way? Yes, so embarrassing for his wife to tell people at the Larchmont Shore Club that her NY Fed president husband thinks real estate is a little overheated so they are going to rent for a couple of years...

Rental houses in affluent areas of Southern Westchester didn't exist in 2004? That is a bold and ignorant statement.

Yeah, it would be.
And also kind of scary for the friends to hear. Probably would make the friends question how this guy got the Fed job.

Listen, shitheads like yourself make the real estate world go round. And when they have to move to DC, they rent their home at a loss.

Yeah, renting at a loss for a couple years is such a big deal. People always do things on a temporary basis that are less attractive than what they might do on a long-term basis. Not everyone lives by nickles and dimes and picks up every penny on the street. Especially if they have a profession and value their time. And especially if they have a family and need to ensure family stability.

Oh, am I not supposed to have an opinion because I'm a "shithead?"

Ok so let me get this straight. People who bought in Larchmont at the peak who are now upside down on their 10% down mortgages should be considered in their opinion? And in your opinion, aside from his entire record, Geithner is to be praised for buying at the peak and renting at a loss...so that his wife would not be embarrassed...even though she's be a twit to be embarassed of such a thing?

Ah, someone made what you SAY is a bad financial decision so they shouldn't "be considered in their opinion?"

I don't see the place for such an emotionally based buy/sell approach on a real estate website...but you're not alone here so do as you will. Your comments above speak for you.

fandastak, there were rentals at each and every moment. and your comment to the kids makes me cringe, it is so representative of the superficiality we have bought into in this culture. i for one decided years ago that trying to keep up with the assholes who cared about such things and think one should be "embarrassed" by not owning, particularly in a city where the vast majority rent, was not only morally bereft but financially unsound and just plain idiotic.

sadly, there are many people who felt the need to "improve" themselves by buying. a number of them have lost their homes. looks like that got them far.

The President of the NY Fed is an idiot and Rhino is an expert because he would have had his family living in a rental project to save a few nickles, screw the wife that "twit" and screw the kids.

What are you a Bedouin?

I don't know what is worse, your approach to home ownership analysis or the fact that the Treasury Secretary (to be) should structure his decisions based on twit wives at the Larchmont Shore Club.

aboutready, I appreciate your fidelity to a more frugal life.

This is in Westchester, not NYC. Suburbs don't have real rental options for professionals. And in any case, you move to the suburbs for long-term stability, not to be a 1,2,3 year transient rental with the family.

We haven't even considered the idea of him renting in Manhattan. Be that as it may, I hope his decision was not based on your "embarrassment factor" approach. Its an interesting world you live in when there are two options for people who work in downtown Manhattan, tudors in Larchmont and housing projects.

Yup Rhino, the Treasury Secretary is an idiot.

Never said he was. I said he overpayed for his house like many Americans. I wish he had shown some foresight. Maybe he has such oodles of money he didn't care.

"Suburbs don't have real rental options for professionals." This is just absurd. You're on ignore now. I am getting bored with you.

Yup Rhino, you are correct, the Treasury Secretary is an idiot. Family and lifestyle be dammed for how many years? Are we back at 2004 prices now so this temporary brilliant solution of yours would only be a 5 year situation? Or are we going back to 1998 prices so he could be "waiting" for 10 years?

Treasury Secretary is an idiot. "Rhino86" is brilliant.

You are getting bored or having trouble keeping up.

Don't answer that. I'm on ignore by a guy who knows so much about how to pay for something he doesn't even know that paid is the past tense, not payed.

LOL. Good finale!

clearly with his recent career choice he's not that into long-term stability.

and, fyi, many of us don't proofread, and have the most egregious errors. i myself seem incapable of using their and there correctly, and i used to be an editor.

"You are getting bored or having trouble keeping up."

Perhaps you don't know the meaning of the word ignore?

The guy's done reasonably well. He may be speculated that this doesn't do well for him long term. But he's gone from IMF to Fed to Treasury. All while cheating on his taxes.

"Just because he won a Nobel prize for one piece of work says nothing about his ability to predict markets."

4 months ago i was here debating with some of the bears here about Krugman. Didn't i warned you guys about this guy???? Ignore him.

that's the problem isn't it? here's the guy who is one of the top people in charge of our collective financial future: he's cheated on his taxes and lied about it (I didn't know?) and will end up losing a huge sum on his principal residence. Great.

I'm sorry can you all slow down? I am having trouble keeping up. Wasn't he living in a "rental project" at some point?

ah AR, good to see you back on your moral high horse

more like a low pony. ethics are underrated in our every person for her/himself society.