Meredith Whitney Sees Credit Cards Will Be Next Credit Crunch!!!!

[Ron1]

link:

 

http://www.cnbc.com/id/29611789

 

 

Ron.

[TroyP]

Yeah... because no one else saw that coming...

[EarnIt]

 

http://creditboards.com/forums/index.php?s...p;#entry3622704

[centex]

If it was on CNBC, the trick is in deciphering and sorting out the BS.

 

(I KNOW I cannot be the only one that has watched Jon Stewart skewer them the past few nights)

[nyrfann]

Wow, what a surprise

[Venusfan]

Not to change the subject but that $10 Billion a month we spent in Iraq for the past 8yrs if that was going towards helping this country we would'nt be it such a F*****up predicament right now.

[toopooor]

i've felt all along that part of the melt down last fall was because amex and others slashed so many lines all at once. it freaked consumers out so they stopped spending...

 

what needs to be avoided was "taking credit away from people who have the ability to pay their bills," said Whitney, CEO of Meredith Whitney Advisory Group.

 

Whitney said available lines were reduced by nearly $500 billion in the fourth quarter of 2008 alone, and she estimates over $2 trillion of credit-card lines will be cut within 2009, and $2.7 trillion by the end of 2010.

 

"Inevitably, credit lines will continue to be reduced across the system, but the velocity at which it is already occurring and will continue to occur will result in unintended consequences for consumer confidence, spending and the overall economy," Whitney said.

 

This is the worrisome part - especially since 2 or 3 of the 5 are in deep doo...

five lenders which dominate two-thirds of the credit-card market

[toopooor]

Not to change the subject but that $10 Billion a month we spent in Iraq for the past 8yrs if that was going towards helping this country we would'nt be it such a F*****up predicament right now.

I think that goes without saying. We coulda paid for better health care for the uninsured with that money. Or better schools. Or better roads.

[EarnIt]

Not to change the subject but that $10 Billion a month we spent in Iraq for the past 8yrs if that was going towards helping this country we would'nt be it such a F*****up predicament right now.

 

You're right. It had nothing at all to do with people thinking they were entitled to a $500,000.00 house when they knew they couldn't afford the payments.

[centex]

Not to change the subject but that $10 Billion a month we spent in Iraq for the past 8yrs if that was going towards helping this country we would'nt be it such a F*****up predicament right now.

 

You're right. It had nothing at all to do with people thinking they were entitled to a $500,000.00 house when they knew they couldn't afford the payments.

 

While stuff like the mortgage crap certainly contributed, the $10B/mo burn rate being discussed puts the overseas debacle on par with the figures being discussed NOW that begin with a T. And the point being made appears to be that the US should have spent locally before spending globally...it certainly would have helped mitigate some of the conditions in THIS country that are now in a critical condition (ie. infrastructure spending that MIGHT have helped to prevent the bridge collapse a while back).

[EarnIt]

Not to change the subject but that $10 Billion a month we spent in Iraq for the past 8yrs if that was going towards helping this country we would'nt be it such a F*****up predicament right now.

 

You're right. It had nothing at all to do with people thinking they were entitled to a $500,000.00 house when they knew they couldn't afford the payments.

 

While stuff like the mortgage crap certainly contributed, the $10B/mo burn rate being discussed puts the overseas debacle on par with the figures being discussed NOW that begin with a T. And the point being made appears to be that the US should have spent locally before spending globally...it certainly would have helped mitigate some of the conditions in THIS country that are now in a critical condition (ie. infrastructure spending that MIGHT have helped to prevent the bridge collapse a while back).

 

I have no problem with spending locally before globally, I don't argue that. Having said that, I don't know what spending locally or overseas would have done to stop ARM resets and the resulting fiancial meltdown that followed. Knowing Gov't, had the money not been spent overseas, it would have been misspent elsewhere and still not been available to avoid the current situation.

[breeze]

This thread is being closed because of post #6 and those who responded with comments about politics. Sorry Ron, it's not your fault other people ruined your thread.

[breeze]

Politics do affect many aspects of our lives, and it is a shame that the subject cannot be discussed in a civil manner on this board. However, we found through difficult experience, that it is impossible. We made a decision at that point not to allow political discussions on CB.

 

We will not revisit that decision, as I have said numerous times.

 

Those of you who joined after that debacle will not likely understand, since we have put all those posts in an archived forum, and they are not accessible to the general membership. We have no plans to make those posts available in the future. You will just have to accept what we say. We tried it, it didn't work.

 

We found that many members do enjoy a knock-down-drag-out political fight, so we created a separate politics board, http://www.politicsfirst.com

 

It's fun, essentially unmoderated, mostly not all that serious, but it's a brawl. It is not for the faint of heart.

 

CB enjoys a strong sense of community. The "family" atmosphere, the feeling that one's thoughts and feelings will be accepted without judgment, is central to our success. The political discussions bring out the opposite in those individuals who feel a need to convert others to their political views, and those who feel a need to fight back against such individuals.

 

As a result, CB has not only adopted a "politics neutral" stance, we have established a standing rule that any subject which is political in nature, or leads to a politicallly oriented discussion, may only be discussed on the PF site. That is why these threads will be closed, and the participants redirected.

 

In some cases you may see a thread closed when it borders on political topics, but has not yet taken a turn in that direction. That's because, in our experience, we know it will take that turn in the near future.

 

Occasionally, some members feel a need to test the boundaries (a psychological phenomenon well-known in internet communities), by "baiting" other members into a political discussion. Others innocently post a subject they feel warrants discussion, and inadvertently open Pandora's box. We don't try to decide which is which, we just close the threads. It is not personal. If we had our way, we would be able to debate the subject sensibly. Occasionally, someone brings up the question of the owner's political views. We owners do not all agree on politics. It is not an issue that divides us, however. Our focus here is the board, and the welfare of the board, not our political views.

 

We do not get into debating the merits of a particular thread, if we did, we would be putting ourselves in a very difficult position, and we have more important things to do. So, if your thread gets closed, and the participants directed to PF, there is no point in arguing about it. We've already been there and we're not going back.

 

This rule, and the other hard-and-fast rules we have established over time on CB, have proved to be a strong basis for our success. We will always maintain the sense of community and our emphasis on the things we have in common, rather than the things that divide us.

 

This topic is now closed.