Cheaper mortgage rates means institutional capital that was otherwise sitting on the sidelines in T-bills will be deployed directly into that remaining supply.
Just start building already, 6.8 % for the 30-year fixed is well within historical precedent. High housing prices are a result of asset inflation for a product priced at the margin. Only way around that is to increase supply.
(Also consider this: there is nothing more unproductive than real estate - the stupid capital must be forced out of the mattress and into productive ventures.)
There are a lot of interesting details embedded in this number, specifically how strong consumer spending was.
I still have concerns about dwindling savings and increasing credit balances, as well as historically high APRs, but will worry about that another day.
I think credit card APRs specifically are off the charts. Other forms of credit (mortgages etc) not so much. Credit card issuers are commanding a 15% margin over prime rate, while charge-off i.e. the risk to the credit issuer is around 3%, near all-time lows. In other words credit issuers are raking in record unearned profits.
This FRED series only goes back 30 years but if you look at the Fed Statistical Abstract consumer credit tables, APRs in 1985 were < 19% and in 1980 were < 18% so 21% and higher are very exceptional.
Consumer is tapped out, economy is flashing yellow warning light and the Fed needs to cut now. Lots of spending currently being driven by Boomers running off of assets and paying cash (~40% of consumer spending), but there is only so much of that. Per the Sahm rule and rising unemployment, we are approaching recession territory and the potential for a self reinforcing consumer demand destruction spiral (people lose jobs, pull back spending, more people lose jobs, even more spending gets pulled back, and so forth).
Amazing work. Simple, easy-to-use code. This must have been quite the effort. It's honestly stunning work. Also, good to see R is still alive and well!
1. Financial Inclusion:
Many Africans lack access to traditional banking services. Bitcoin provides an alternative financial system that is accessible to anyone with a smartphone, enabling people to participate in the global economy without needing a bank account.
2. Remittances:
Bitcoin facilitates cheaper and faster international remittances. Traditional remittance services often charge high fees and take several days to process. Bitcoin transactions are generally quicker and can be less expensive, helping migrants send money back home more efficiently.
3. Inflation Hedge:
In countries with high inflation rates and unstable currencies, Bitcoin can serve as a store of value. People can convert their local currency to Bitcoin to protect their savings from devaluation.
4. Reverse Income Inequality:
Income inequality is often tied with inflation. A hard asset like Bitcoin would help to distribute some wealth.
For all of these reasons, many Africans are already investing in Bitcoin. Bitcoin as a capital asset will help fund infrastructure/education etc
1. Africans already use mobile banking services that don't even need a smartphone, via USSD[0]. This started almost 20 years ago[1]. Once you have a smartphone you can use loads of different banks, so you don't need Bitcoin for that.
2. This is probably true, yes.
3 and 4 - they seem to be the same point. Other currencies such as USD or GBP might be better value stores, given their relative security. But people in poverty aren't going to be buying Bitcoin or pounds, and if they are it's a gamble. Maybe middle classes, or people with mid-level government jobs who already have their Audi Q7, might a bit, it's true. But that's not a pro-poverty scenario.
Some off the cuff counterpoints are:
1. Getting your money out may be a problem. Banks are insured up to a value.
2. Where's my wallet? Just on my smartphone? In that case, if it breaks or I lose it, or it's stolen, I lose my money? Or in an exchange? In that case, it's not my coins, and any of numerous well-known failures[2] might mean I lose them forever.
3. And a meta point: people who like Bitcoin own Bitcoin. It's like talking to someone in a pyramid scheme. Of course Herbalife is the best way to lose weight. Of course Amway make the best cleaning products, Jeremy.
As I understand it: 1 and 2 are already done with phone minutes in many, many parts of the African continent. Should phone minutes be currency? probably not, but arguably it's better than Bitcoin, at least the value is easy to understand.
With bitcoin's volatility I'm not sure how you can believe #3 is even remotely true.
Bitcoin is a hard asset? What exactly is your definition of "Hard Asset"? As I think we are talking about very, very different things. Here is my definition for comparison: A hard asset refers to a tangible asset or resource with fundamental value. Think productive farm animals, vehicles, things of that nature.
why, for those with a smartphone, wouldn't they just log into citibank.com or whatever, instead of a bitcoin blockchain app?
There's nothing inexpensive about bitcoin, in the big picture. you seem to only be hoping that the organizations running the electricity into servers are providing free or super cheap banking to users, i.e., they're eating the massive expense of bitcoin over, say, hosting MySQL on trhifty digital ocean or azure or aws. is that correct understanding of what you mean?
How is bitcoin a hard asset?
> many Africans are already investing in Bitcoin.
do you have a citation for that assertion? i have not found one.
