Apollo79 said:

---

When Powell last slashed rates inflation was way worse

Hth

---

Wouldn't have mattered.

He was trying to get a democrat to stay in the WH. He wasn't looking at the numbers.

It's unbelievable that people will put their own self interest behind what's good for Trump. Inflation will steal everything you own.

docb said:

---

DrEvazanPhD said:

---

docb said:

---

Inflation is already here. Cut the interest rate so the housing market improves.

---

Housing market needs a correction as well.

---

I agree the prices should come down (and they are) but people do not want to take out a home loan with the current interest rates.

---

Which i understand. But do you want a 500k house at 6%, or a 700k house at 4%?

The higher rate gives those homes on the market some downward pressure.

Because he doesn't want to lower rates and jack inflation up even more...

Ag_of_08 said:

---

Because he doesn't want to lower rates and jack inflation up even more...

---

Has nothing to do with that. Again, when bond yields are 100bps below the Fed rate, he will cut.

AggieUSMC said:

---

You cut rates when inflation is low and unemployment is high. Neither is the case right now.
And to those of you whining that "ThEy dID iT bEforE ThE eLectIOn". Yeah, that was wrong too.

---

Yeah, I dont think anyone worried about inflation is saying that Powell didn't try to move the needle for Biden. Just because he's a slimeball doesn't mean we have to cut rates now.

Sims said:

---

docb said:

---

Inflation is already here. Cut the interest rate so the housing market improves.

---

Cutting short rates will likely raise long (mortgage) rates.

Housing market doesn't have a rate problem. It has a price problem (as a function of median incomes).

---

This is cute.

You make it sound like Rates on top of house Prices arent considered by buyers.

Which house would yall buy?

A) $190k + 6.69%

B) $200k + 6.19%

Being very cynical here, but the Trump family seems to be heavily invested in crypto, ramping up inflation and weakening the dollar is good for crypto. No one seems to care about any conflict of interest between that and Trump crying for lower rates…

Not to mention the news that Trump has bought at least $100M in bonds since taking office. If rates go down, bond prices go up. Anyone care about that conflict?

https://www.cnbc.com/2025/08/20/trump-splurged-on-more-than-100-million-in-bonds-since-taking-office.html

Sims said:

---

docb said:

---

Inflation is already here. Cut the interest rate so the housing market improves.

---

Cutting short rates will likely raise long (mortgage) rates.

Housing market doesn't have a rate problem. It has a price problem (as a function of median incomes).

---

Bingo. If your house isn't selling, it's probably priced incorrectly.

The big problem is people selling have a 2.86% rate and would rather continue paying the mortgage until they get what the think it should sell for.

I've (and the majority of Americans) had enough of inflation, rates are fine where they are at for awhile.

Logos Stick said:

---

O'Leary's opinion...

Quote:

---

The housing market is frozen. Prices are up, inventory is down, and with mortgage rates stuck above 7%, both buyers and sellers are paralyzed. Everyone is praying the Fed will cut rates, but let me be clear: it's NOT happening anytime soon. Powell is not moving until he knows exactly where tariffs land. Right now, CEOs across America have no idea if they are facing a 10% tariff or a 35% tariff, and that kind of uncertainty makes it impossible for the Fed to predict inflation. So the safest move is to sit on their hands and do nothing.

Here's the reality... Unless mortgage rates drop to around 5.5%, housing is not going to turn. At these levels, first-time buyers are going to end up with homes much smaller than they ever imagined, simply to keep payments under control. This isn't doom and gloom, it's the truth. If you're waiting for the Fed to ride in and save the housing market, stop dreaming. Plan for today's rates, not fantasy rates.

---

The housing market is frozen. Prices are up, inventory is down, and with mortgage rates stuck above 7%, both buyers and sellers are paralyzed. Everyone is praying the Fed will cut rates, but let me be clear: it's NOT happening anytime soon. Powell is not moving until he knows… pic.twitter.com/d3bCYzDOkA

— Kevin O'Leary aka Mr. Wonderful (@kevinolearytv) August 20, 2025

---

This is causing layoffs in the home building industry.

It cost about $250-$300K to build a SF home in any mid to big city. At 6.5% that puts the mortgage before taxes and insurance at $1900.

It is fantasy to think that home prices have much more room to fall.

$150K homes within 100 miles of a city are a thing of the past

Housing supply is at an 8 year high.

Should we building houses so they can sit empty?

China does a lot of that.

If cutting rates now is bad how come the economy didnt implode when Powell did it for Harris? Isn't inflation down significantly since that occurred?

TheBonifaceOption said:

---

Sims said:

---

docb said:

---

Inflation is already here. Cut the interest rate so the housing market improves.

---

Cutting short rates will likely raise long (mortgage) rates.

Housing market doesn't have a rate problem. It has a price problem (as a function of median incomes).

---

This is cute.

You make it sound like Rates on top of house Prices arent considered by buyers.

Which house would yall buy?

A) $190k + 6.69%

B) $200k + 6.19%

---

I'm flattered you think I'm cute.

What you're intentionally ignoring is that rates in the 6%s are more norm than rates in the 2%s.

The housing market is broken because of 2% rates, not because of 6% rates.

Most people miss the single biggest reason for price increases over the last 40 years-- two income families.

With 2 incomes, housing which predominately a family decision, became the poster boy for costs rising WAY over the inflation rate.

Such high costs that 2 incomes today are much less likely to be able to afford a median priced home-- less than a single income in the 70's and 80's.

When people blame house prices on inflation they fail to consider how much prices increased OVER the general inflation rate.

In many ways, the world was better with women staying at home and raising families.


ETA - clarrifying this a bit, along with dual income came women in college out numbering men (1985) in masters programs (1986) etc. I think tha a lof this was psycholgical, with 2 incomes it is a lot easier to justify spending more. If one loses thei job, the family still as income coming in. Made couples much more willing to take on the risk of a larger mortgage.

Apollo79 said:

---

If cutting rates now is bad how come the economy didnt implode when Powell did it for Harris? Isn't inflation down significantly since that occurred?

---

It wouldn't implode now either, especially with just a 25 basis point cut. However you should also be aware that when the "rate was cut for Harris" it did not lower mortgage rates. Mortgage rates actually went up during that time frame. They have only recently come down a bit.

If inflation picks up than expect mortgage rates to pick up too, regardless of what the funds rate is. IMO cutting rates now is more likely to trigger inflation than it is to lower lending rates so a 25pt reduction isn't worth the risk, particularly with a potential inflation bomb out there as a result of tariff costs getting passed through to the market, as Mr Wonderful pointed out.

MasonStorm said:

---

It cost about $250-$300K to build a SF home in any mid to big city. At 6.5% that puts the mortgage before taxes and insurance at $1900.

It is fantasy to think that home prices have much more room to fall.

$150K homes within 100 miles of a city are a thing of the past

---

It's an impossibility. Barebones cost to build is about $80 a sqft. Once you add in lot costs & overhead you really can't get there and be profitable.

Nitro Power said:

---

You guys can keep clamoring for rate cuts, but a deep dive into what is really going on in the economy does not warrant rate cuts.

---

Tell us what you saw when you took your deep dive.

TRL-Ag said:

---

MasonStorm said:

---

It cost about $250-$300K to build a SF home in any mid to big city. At 6.5% that puts the mortgage before taxes and insurance at $1900.

It is fantasy to think that home prices have much more room to fall.

$150K homes within 100 miles of a city are a thing of the past

---

It's an impossibility. Barebones cost to build is about $80 a sqft. Once you add in lot costs & overhead you really can't get there and be profitable.

---

Went on Zillow and found about 500 existing houses within 50 miles of Arlington - so that covers FtW and Dallas + surrounding.

3/2, under 150k, single family.

If 80/sqft is barebones, then 150k gets you 1875 sqft. If 1875 sqft for a bare bones starter home is below your standard call it something other than impossibility. Just call it not your preference. Fantasty and impossibility are certainly not the right way to describe it.

We sit here and talk about people on foodstamps with big tvs and they should change their perspective about the tv so they can get off food stamps.

The same might be said for home ownership.

Times have changed.

Sims said:

---

TRL-Ag said:

---

MasonStorm said:

---

It cost about $250-$300K to build a SF home in any mid to big city. At 6.5% that puts the mortgage before taxes and insurance at $1900.

It is fantasy to think that home prices have much more room to fall.

$150K homes within 100 miles of a city are a thing of the past

---

It's an impossibility. Barebones cost to build is about $80 a sqft. Once you add in lot costs & overhead you really can't get there and be profitable.

---

Went on Zillow and found about 500 existing houses within 50 miles of Arlington - so that covers FtW and Dallas + surrounding.

3/2, under 150k, single family.

If 80/sqft is barebones, then 150k gets you 1875 sqft. If 1875 sqft for a bare bones starter home is below your standard call it something other than impossibility. Just call it not your preference. Fantasty and impossibility are certainly not the right way to describe it.

We sit here and talk about people on foodstamps with big tvs and they should change their perspective about the tv so they can get off food stamps.

The same might be said for home ownership.

Times have changed.

---

My first home was 1850 square. Had my two kids in that house before we moved. More than enough room starting out imo.

Aggie95 said:

---

Athanasius said:

---

Nitro Power said:

---

You guys can keep clamoring for rate cuts, but a deep dive into what is really going on in the economy does not warrant rate cuts.

---

There is truth here. Terrible, scary truth.

Many companies I have insight into are looking for a .5 cut in in September, or will have layoffs.

---

wouldn't that indicate a warrant for cuts? your statements are a bit counterintuitive.

---

I didn't state it as well as I could.

I am saying yes, the economic indicators seem to say DON'T cut.

However, a lot of companies are looking to layoff if those cuts don't materialize.

It is a bad situation to be in for this economy and for Fed decisions.

In general, it may be better for the economy to hold tight, but lots will lose their jobs.

That being said, unemployment technically isn't that high. A healthy economy can push 7% at times. Ideal is around 4%, which is close to where we are now.

My prediction, then- unless things drastically change, unfortunately, no cut, and many layoffs before end of year.

Sims said:

---

richardag said:

---

Heineken-Ashi said:

---

The FED will cut rates when bond yields tell them to. Bond yields are not telling them to right now.

If they do for some reason cut rates before bond yields have sold lower, the bond market will revolt and yields will jump, same as last year before the election.

---

So who profits by preventing the bond market from revolting?

---

Anyone that borrows money

---

I understand that part. I don't understand why lowering the rate would upset the bond market.
I am not a macro economist. I would think bond holders are getting a higher interest % that is locked in for period of time. I am confused.

Sims said:

---

TheBonifaceOption said:

---

Sims said:

---

docb said:

---

Inflation is already here. Cut the interest rate so the housing market improves.

---

Cutting short rates will likely raise long (mortgage) rates.

Housing market doesn't have a rate problem. It has a price problem (as a function of median incomes).

---

This is cute.

You make it sound like Rates on top of house Prices arent considered by buyers.

Which house would yall buy?

A) $190k + 6.69%

B) $200k + 6.19%

---

I'm flattered you think I'm cute.

What you're intentionally ignoring is that rates in the 6%s are more norm than rates in the 2%s.

The housing market is broken because of 2% rates, not because of 6% rates.

---

Your response was cute and ignores market realities.

I am aware of historic 6% mortgages. I am personally ok with 10% mortgages, I love Love LOVE houses unable to sell and sitting on the MLS for 6-12 months. My RE portfolio appreciates it.

But that fails to help first time buyers. It hurts people needing to refi. Only 20% of existing mortgages are sub 3%. Mind you thats not the entire RE market. You think thats a bad thing. I dont. Cheap mortgages are actually quite good Americans, you know those low and middle-class folks that you seem to not GAF about.

And thats the reality of this discussion. Trump wants to bring relief to borrowers. You and the "interest rates are perfect" Powell-fluffers do not have any real solution for them.

Logos Stick said:

---

Sims said:

---

TRL-Ag said:

---

MasonStorm said:

---

It cost about $250-$300K to build a SF home in any mid to big city. At 6.5% that puts the mortgage before taxes and insurance at $1900.

It is fantasy to think that home prices have much more room to fall.

$150K homes within 100 miles of a city are a thing of the past

---

It's an impossibility. Barebones cost to build is about $80 a sqft. Once you add in lot costs & overhead you really can't get there and be profitable.

---

Went on Zillow and found about 500 existing houses within 50 miles of Arlington - so that covers FtW and Dallas + surrounding.

3/2, under 150k, single family.

If 80/sqft is barebones, then 150k gets you 1875 sqft. If 1875 sqft for a bare bones starter home is below your standard call it something other than impossibility. Just call it not your preference. Fantasty and impossibility are certainly not the right way to describe it.

We sit here and talk about people on foodstamps with big tvs and they should change their perspective about the tv so they can get off food stamps.

The same might be said for home ownership.

Times have changed.

---

My first home was 1850 square. Had my two kids in that house before we moved. More than enough room starting out imo.

---

My 1st home was in Oak Cliff, Dallas. It was 1500 sq.ft. I paid $35,000 in ~1979 using an 11% mortgage( thank you very much you dumb ass President Carter). That house is now estimated value of $310,000.
Got married had a couple of kids. The city made promises to not raise property taxes, liars. The people rehabilitating homes fled. Started hearing gun fire every knight, we joined the flight.
i feel bad for young people trying to buy their first home.

docb said:

---

Inflation is already here. Cut the interest rate so the housing market improves.

---

This. And employment

If you are wanting to live in a big city as a first time home buyer then you are just stuck. My wife and I bought our first house in Dallas for $400k. When we sold it in 2007 that mortgage was at 7%.

That house is now >$1M which blows my damn mind. So, 7% on >$1M is way different than 7% on $400K.

Bond market matters. That's what drives fed rate cuts.

Reading is underrated.

'BUILD'

MasonStorm said:

---

Reading is underrated.

'BUILD'

---

500 homes in a metroplex of 8.3 million people.

Then when you burrow down, all are in massive disrepair which is why the massive discount. I dont even need to consult the MLS to know this. If the listing agent could ask for $170k and have interest, they would. Anything going for $150k is a tear down.

If a deal is too good to be true--it usually is.

Nitro Power said:

---

You guys can keep clamoring for rate cuts, but a deep dive into what is really going on in the economy does not warrant rate cuts.

---

Agree.

We've yet to see the inflationary effects of the tariffs yet. They won't be felt fully for quite a few months.

Biz Ag said:

---

Nitro Power said:

---

You guys can keep clamoring for rate cuts, but a deep dive into what is really going on in the economy does not warrant rate cuts.

---

Agree.

We've yet to see the inflationary effects of the tariffs yet. They won't be felt fully for quite a few months.

---

You can keep holding your breath.

Only 11% of consumer spending is on imports. Businesses? Only 13.5%. We are talking a fraction of fraction of a fraction of domestic dollars are impacted by tarrifs. You wont have prices driving inflation, especially not with expansion of domestic energy.

TheBonifaceOption said:

---

Biz Ag said:

---

Nitro Power said:

---

You guys can keep clamoring for rate cuts, but a deep dive into what is really going on in the economy does not warrant rate cuts.

---

Agree.

We've yet to see the inflationary effects of the tariffs yet. They won't be felt fully for quite a few months.

---

You can keep holding your breath.

Only 11% of consumer spending is on imports. Businesses? Only 13.5%. We are talking a fraction of fraction of a fraction of domestic dollars are impacted by tarrifs. You wont have prices driving inflation, especially not with expansion of domestic energy.

---

Producer prices will certainly be impacted by tariff increases. By how much is the wildcard.

TheBonifaceOption said:

---

Biz Ag said:

---

Nitro Power said:

---

You guys can keep clamoring for rate cuts, but a deep dive into what is really going on in the economy does not warrant rate cuts.

---

Agree.

We've yet to see the inflationary effects of the tariffs yet. They won't be felt fully for quite a few months.

---

You can keep holding your breath.

Only 11% of consumer spending is on imports. Businesses? Only 13.5%. We are talking a fraction of fraction of a fraction of domestic dollars are impacted by tarrifs. You wont have prices driving inflation, especially not with expansion of domestic energy.

---

There is no way in hell that only 11% of the dollars.we spend is for goods that have foreign sourced material or labor. It's more likely the complete opposite. Even Made In America doesn't mean completely sourced and made in America.

TheBonifaceOption said:

---

Biz Ag said:

---

Nitro Power said:

---

You guys can keep clamoring for rate cuts, but a deep dive into what is really going on in the economy does not warrant rate cuts.

---

Agree.

We've yet to see the inflationary effects of the tariffs yet. They won't be felt fully for quite a few months.

---

You can keep holding your breath.

Only 11% of consumer spending is on imports. Businesses? Only 13.5%. We are talking a fraction of fraction of a fraction of domestic dollars are impacted by tarrifs. You wont have prices driving inflation, especially not with expansion of domestic energy.

---

Where in the hell do those numbers come from? I don't believe that at all. Just go to Home Depot and look at where stuff is made.