Print this story |
E-mail story |
This story has 31 comments Add your own |
iPod friendly | Bookmark this
What is this?
photo by Marcus Frazier
Whether it be spending money on small commercial items like groceries, or larger items like homes and cars, the Miss-Lou will see fluctuations in the economy due to the country’s economic struggles.
Miss-Lou economy will feel some effects trickle down
Published Sunday, October 5, 2008
NATCHEZ — The nation’s economic crisis will have a ripple effect in the Miss-Lou; but no one here is going to drown, local financial analysts say.
The general consensus of locals is that while the area may experience some tightening of belts, it won’t be very bad.
Chuck Caldwell, a partner at local accounting firm Silas Simmons, said since Natchez is a small, rural town in a conservative state, the effects of the economic crunch won’t be as grand as elsewhere.
“Natchez hasn’t had the boom and bust of the big cities,” he said. “Natchez, the whole state really, has been immune to the great run ups and the falls.”
He said the current financial woes will not create anything like a depression here or cause a huge economic downturn in general.
Caldwell said the biggest effect from the economic situation that’s raining down on the area is panic.
“Some of the panic of it that’s ever-present in the country is beginning to trickle down,” he said.
But what is going to ease up those fears is the $700 billion bailout, he said.
“I think the passage of the bill is going to cause an end to some of the turmoil,” he said.
What he advises residents to do is not let the grip of fear take over any kind of rationality.
He said it’s important to have cash on hand and not to have all money tied up in stocks and investments.
“But I don’t advise a panic — people going out and selling stocks and moving equity investments to cash,” Caldwell said. “One of the key things is to stay calm.”
And local business owners don’t see any signs of a total halt in luxury spending.
Annette Holder, owner of Mrs. Holder’s Antiques downtown, said she doesn’t feel people are going to completely stop spending.
“I think (the economy) has people concerned,” Holder said. “I do think (people) are going to be a lot more conscientious of what they spend their money on.
Holder said business isn’t going to be booming, though.
“I don’t think business is going to be terribly great until this works out, but it’s not going to go down the pipe,” she said.
And the area hasn’t seen major reductions in larger purchases — cars and houses — but a tightened credit market may be beginning to take its toll.
In the Miss-Lou, however, items that require mid-sized loans — such as cars — are still selling, though lending to some credit applicants has been reduced.
Like many other financing companies, the lenders that East Automotive uses have cut out financing to borrowers whose credit score is rated as “subprime,” East Automotive General Manager Carl Rogel said.
Borrowers who are classified as subprime are those who are considered to be at a higher risk of default, such as individuals who already have a history of loan default.
Otherwise, credit is pretty much available for those looking to finance a vehicle.
“Our primary lenders — GMAC and some of the bigger banks we use — their buying patterns haven’t changed at all,” Rogel said. “If (the buyer) has the credit score, it’s OK.”
While vehicle models with better gas mileage are selling at a higher rate thanks in part to elevated gas prices, larger vehicle models with low mile -per-gallon efficiency are still selling well, dealers said.
“The prices on the bigger models are falling, and people still want to drive them,” Rogel said. “They come in looking for a hybrid, and it’s priced at $27,000, and then they see an SUV marked down to $12,000. It takes a long time to make up $15,000 in gas savings.”
That may be because in part — even with elevated gas prices — people don’t have to do the driving they do in other markets.
“It’s not like Atlanta, where someone might have to drive an hour to work,” Rogel said. “For a soccer mom driving her kids to soccer practice, she doesn’t have that far to go, and a big SUV meets her needs, so that’s what she gets.”
The key to that soccer mom getting her SUV all goes back to her personal credit.
“If we can get them financed, we can sell anything,” Rogel said.
Co-owner of Crye-Leike Stedman Realtors Sue Stedman said the real estate business here is not likely to suffer.
“We’ve seen a little bit of a slow down, but we haven’t seen the devastation in the real estate market that other areas have seen,” she said.
But that isn’t set in stone, and there’s no real way to tell right now, she said.
“I think it’s too soon to tell,” Stedman said.
Loan and credit changes are an inevitable result from this economic struggle, Caldwell said.
“There’s been an unwise use of credit in the country. That’s why we’re in the mess we’re in now is irresponsible use of credit,” he said.
Caldwell said lending practices will probably be more regulated from now on.
Holder said people will probably react to this situation by spending money more wisely.
“I do think we’ll need to learn to be a little more responsible,” she said.
Caldwell said he believes the economic issues will probably blow over in a year or 18 months.
“Coming to some agreement on some bill will calm a lot of fears and that will enable us to reach some point of stability in the near future,” he said.
Comments
Posted by presby (anonymous) on October 5, 2008 at 12:41 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Most of that money is going in people like Rep. Franks pocket..CEO,s and such.
Posted by constantskeptic (anonymous) on October 5, 2008 at 12:54 a.m. (Suggest removal)
"But what is going to ease up those fears is the $700 million bailout, he said."
You left three zeroes off the end of that, I'm afraid.
Posted by NtzMom55 (anonymous) on October 5, 2008 at 4:06 a.m. (Suggest removal)
The $700 BILLION DOLLAR (Wall Street) bail out using our tax $$$ is nothing to worry about? Get real!!!! That is $700,000,000,000.00. The way this is not going to hurt our locals is because many of our locals pay little or no taxes. If the $700B bail out affects those on welfare, then our locals WILL be devastated.
Posted by crawgator (anonymous) on October 5, 2008 at 8:29 a.m. (Suggest removal)
This is New Money, by that I mean they are printing this money and that causes the value of the dollar in your pocket to decline. Tell me you want feel that.............Also, what happens when this bailout fails, what then.
Posted by callinitlikeitis (anonymous) on October 5, 2008 at 12:18 p.m. (Suggest removal)
TO MARCUS FRAZIER: EXCELLENT PHOTOGRAPH & CREATIVITY FOR THIS ARTICLE. KUDOS TO YOU!
Posted by beammeupscotty (anonymous) on October 5, 2008 at 12:32 p.m. (Suggest removal)
The American consumer is tapped out. The ones with stable jobs have mortgages, car loans and credit card debt. The only solution to this crisis is time. Time to pay down debt before we start spending again. The ones that have defaulted on loans will never again have the ability to get credit that they should never have gotten in the first place.
Posted by beammeupscotty (anonymous) on October 5, 2008 at 3:53 p.m. (Suggest removal)
29 of the 50 states are in need of a bailout. The next businesses to fail will be the churches. Some are already near bankrupcy and all are spending savings just to maintain their churches. Contributions are down and will continue to fall while they built these huge structures for show now they will loose them. All the churches I went to as a child could fit in the parking lot of some of these religious institutions.
Posted by Teach4Peace (anonymous) on October 5, 2008 at 7:26 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I wish there was just as much concern over the amount spent on this "war." What could that money be used for if we would not have been in this situation in the first place. We're there now, nothing much people seem to want to do about that except to keep this up. How is the tax-payer, who is tapped out, going to continue to fund this war?
Posted by southernwoman (anonymous) on October 5, 2008 at 8:04 p.m. (Suggest removal)
One has to wonder how and why God gave the welfare moms so much power in this country.
They are responsible for the Iraq war being so costly, have helped corporations to move overseas, have brought down the housing industry, have caused gas prices to skyrocket, have caused huge financial institutions to collapse and caused Wall Street to teeter on the brink.
The welfare moms have also single-handedly created the huge deficit during the George Bush republican administration.
They are a powerful group - they did all this in spite of the tax cuts given to the super rich during this time period.
If McCain is elected, they will probably continue to run our country into the ground.
Posted by Kaintuck (anonymous) on October 5, 2008 at 9:14 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Sadly, the Miss-Lou economy has been exhibiting the tragic effects of "Trickle-down Economic Theory" for decades now. Don't get me wrong: There is MUCH to appreciate about Natchez and the surrounding region, but that has nothing to do with a failed paradigm designed to benefit the wealthiest of Americans. The Miss-Lou region has what it has in spite of 'Trickle-down" - not because of it...
Posted by southernwoman (anonymous) on October 5, 2008 at 9:51 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Seems I've heard of the "trickle down" theory, too. Oh, yes, it was Ronnie's policy. Never felt a drop.
Posted by sammohon (anonymous) on October 5, 2008 at 10:10 p.m. (Suggest removal)
southernwoman...oh, but you did...you felt the effects in Bill Clinton's administration after the Cold War dividend finally kicked in and when a Republican Congress forced Clinton to reduce government spending...did you think that good economic times just materialize from Democratic populist promises that never materialize?
Posted by presby (anonymous) on October 5, 2008 at 10:33 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Now ;they say they can,t decide how to disburse the monies. It will be siphoned off to who knows real quick and dissappear as usual,with the whole mess still a mess.
Posted by southernwoman (anonymous) on October 5, 2008 at 10:55 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Shame the republican congress could have not held that spending down, or at least forced the president to spend with discretion and wisdom and get the taxpayers' money's worth, during the recent years that the republicans were in complete control.
And just how did Ronnie's "trickle down" economic policy effect any cold war dividend?
I doubt that Ronnie had much to do with the demise of the Soviet Union anyway. But if he did and were here today maybe he could just say "Abra, cadabra, Wall Street, tear down that debt" and we could all live happily ever after.
(at the proper time as recommended by his/Nancy's fortune teller, of course)
Posted by sammohon (anonymous) on October 5, 2008 at 11:19 p.m. (Suggest removal)
southernwoman...are we speaking of the same "Ronnie"? Ronald Reagan's policies bankrupted the U.S.S.R. which is why we won the Cold War. It's also the reason we had deficits during the remainder of his terms and GHWB. When the deficits were paid off Clinton got the credit, but the Republican congress was really responsible for reducing spending and creating the surplus.
GWB's problem is that he cut taxes and didn't reduce government spending. He was also victim of 9/11, Iraq, Afghanistan, Katrina, Rita, floods in the Midwest, fires in the West, drought in the southeast, Gustav and Ike.
In short, by not adhering to Reaganesque policies, he like, his father, has failed in his presidency and to lead America forward...unfortunately, we are likely to regress to Democratic control.
Posted by Teach4Peace (anonymous) on October 6, 2008 at 3:57 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Very good Sammohon, again, what eludes me is that we have one of the MOST expensive wars going on, and people can blame a welfare mom? LOL, I can't stop laughing because rather than look at the horrible policies that are and have been failing us, we would rather divert our attention to the little fish to fry them. Typical.
Posted by sammohon (anonymous) on October 6, 2008 at 7:17 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Teach...I didn't say a word about welfare moms, although I could. I don't think they're to blame for our economic crisis other than the fact that they are part of the entitlement mess.
The latest war is always the most expensive, it's the price of improvements in technology and training just as it is the with the medical field.
Remember your Dems did nothing to avert the crisis over the last two years. At least the Republicans saw it coming, sounded the alarm and tried to do something. It was voted down under the leadership of Pelosi, Frank and Dodd.
Posted by starla (anonymous) on October 6, 2008 at 7:38 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Southernwoman- Excuse me? You're blaming welfare moms on our economy? The cost of the war? NAFTA(jobs overseas) The deficit?
If you want someone to blame for those problems, look no further than the folks in Washington that you voted for in 2000 and in 2004.
Posted by Teach4Peace (anonymous) on October 6, 2008 at 10:18 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Thanks Starla! Sam, you obviously totally misinterpreted my comments. I did not post YOU blamed the welfare moms.
Posted by southernwoman (anonymous) on October 6, 2008 at 12:03 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Sam, see bin Laden's news release below, especially last paragraph.
Tuesday, November 2, 2004 Posted: 0107 GMT (0907 HKT)
Osama bin Laden delivers a videotaped message broadcast on Arabic-language network Al-Jazeera.
(CNN) -- The Arabic-language network Al-Jazeera released a full transcript Monday of the most recent videotape from Osama bin Laden in which the head of al Qaeda said his group's goal is to force America into bankruptcy.
Al-Jazeera aired portions of the videotape Friday but released the full transcript of the entire tape on its Web site Monday.
"We are continuing this policy in bleeding America to the point of bankruptcy. Allah willing, and nothing is too great for Allah," bin Laden said in the transcript.
He said the mujahedeen fighters did the same thing to the Soviet Union in Afghanistan in the 1980s, "using guerrilla warfare and the war of attrition to fight tyrannical superpowers."
"We, alongside the mujahedeen, bled Russia for 10 years until it went bankrupt and was forced to withdraw in defeat," bin Laden said.
He also said al Qaeda has found it "easy for us to provoke and bait this administration."
"All that we have to do is to send two mujahedeen to the furthest point east to raise a piece of cloth on which is written al Qaeda, in order to make generals race there to cause America to suffer human, economic and political losses without their achieving anything of note other than some benefits for their private corporations," bin Laden said.
Posted by southernwoman (anonymous) on October 6, 2008 at 12:48 p.m. (Suggest removal)
"GWB's problem is that he cut taxes and didn't reduce government spending. He was also victim of 9/11, Iraq, Afghanistan, Katrina, Rita, floods in the Midwest, fires in the West, drought in the southeast, Gustav and Ike."
GWB was not a victim of Iraq. He CREATED it. Our dead and injured soldiers ARE the victims.
GWB was not a victim of Katrina. I didn't see him trying to survive on the Mississippi Gulf Coast or on rooftops or at the Super Dome in New Orleans. I did hear him say "Good job, Brownie".
Where are the core biblical/Christian/family values found in ignoring people's basic needs?
GWB is a victim of his own poor judgement and McCain voted with him 90 percent of the time.
I
Posted by southernwoman (anonymous) on October 6, 2008 at 1:14 p.m. (Suggest removal)
"In short, by not adhering to Reaganesque policies, he like, his father, has failed in his presidency and to lead America forward...unfortunately, we are likely to regress to Democratic control."
Can we agree, no McCain and no more Bushes in the White House since McCain voted for Bush's proposals ninety percent of the time?
Posted by southernwoman (anonymous) on October 6, 2008 at 5:09 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Interesting news:
the 35-year old man George appointed to be in charge of handing out the 700 billion dollar bailout money is coming to that job from Goldman Sachs.
Henry Paulson came from Goldman Sachs.
George's chief of staff, Joshua Bolten, is a former Goldman Sachs executive.
Anyone see any potential conflict of interest?
McCain voted with George 90 percent of the time...
Posted by sammohon (anonymous) on October 6, 2008 at 6:36 p.m. (Suggest removal)
southernwoman...you seem not to have much better to do during the day than promote Obama, but I'll use my limited free time to rebut your missives one by one.
First the Bin Laden thing.
Bin Laden is delirious if he thinks he made the U.S.S.R. go bankrupt and forced them to pull out and you are too if you believe the same thing. Reagan outspent the U.S.S.R. in military terms using our superior economy to bankrupt them. He also supplied the Mujahedeen with LAWS and Stinger missiles to enable them to shoot Russian tanks and helicopters...it leveled the military playing field.
Bin Laden did little of real effect in the matter. It was the U.S.S.R.'s Vietnam, with our roles reversed, and they pulled out for similar reasons that is was too costly in lives and too unpopular at home, but it definitely wasn't because of Bin Laden.
If you and Obama are taking Bin Laden's word for anything the world will indeed be a much more dangerous place.
Posted by sammohon (anonymous) on October 6, 2008 at 7:05 p.m. (Suggest removal)
southernwoman...GWB was as much a victim of the hoax that Saddam perpetuated by making the entire world believe he still had WMD. He did so in the belief that it would frighten the U.S. into not attacking him. It had exactly the opposite effect by making the U.S. so fearful that we felt like we had to attack.
GWB wasn't alone in this fear...all of his advisors, all of our allies and most congressional leaders believed and were fearful too. Remember the war in Iraq could never have happened if Dems didn't agree and vote for it too.
It also made good strategic sense. We picked the battleground for the War on Terror instead of allowing Bin Laden and the Taliban to dictate to us where we would fight. Guess what, it worked! Al Qaeda is practically defunct except in the mountains of southern Afganistan and northern Pakistan.
We also prevented a hostile Saddam potentially with WMD from being able to attack our flank and supply lines from Kuwait, Saudi Arabia and the Emirates, had we simply gone into Afghanistan and ignored his threat.
The dead soldiers aren't victims, they are patriots who fought bravely to protect U.S. interests and project democracy to a nation and region starving for it.
GWB's administration has certainly been victimized by natural disasters more than any other administration in recent memory. No one could have foreseen extent of the Katrina/Rita catastrophes. There was plenty of blame to go around for the failures of FEMA, but congress certainly shares.
It's interesting to me that you Dems call on "core biblical/Christian/family values" when it's convenient in an argument, but totally deny those same values when talking about abortion, church/state issues, corrupting families with welfare and other entitlements, and overtaxation requiring families to have two paychecks to survive. Be that as it may, no one, least of all GWB wanted people to suffer. He made changes in FEMA and other areas with good results during Gustav and Ike.
GWB has at times been a victim of his lack of judgement, one good for instance is his refusal to veto Congressional spending...McCain has railed against the overspending and has vowed to reduce it and use his veto.
If we get Obama, there will be no veto and we'll get even worse spending sprees when we really, really can't afford it. If you think the economy is bad now just elect Obama!
Posted by sammohon (anonymous) on October 6, 2008 at 7:09 p.m. (Suggest removal)
southernwoman...no we can't agree on no McCain and no more Bushs...McCain is what we need now, not an untried neophyte with a socialist philosophy and a history of dealing with terrorists.
Maybe JEB Bush will be the true conservative in the Bush family unlike the father and his older brother...regardless, any Bush is better than the future with an Obama!
Posted by sammohon (anonymous) on October 6, 2008 at 7:12 p.m. (Suggest removal)
How is hiring someone from Goldman/Sachs, the most respected financial institution on Wall Street a conflict of interest? It seems prudent to hire the most astute financial minds to straighten out the mess caused by Congressional pressure on financial institutions to lend to poor credit risks...the old saying, "It takes a thief to catch a thief".
Posted by sammohon (anonymous) on October 6, 2008 at 7:24 p.m. (Suggest removal)
southernwoman...as for your mantra about McCain voting with Bush's position 90% of the time is only a half-truth which is as good as a lie.
He voted 95% of the time for the Republican party line in 2007. Notice that is not necessarily the Bush line. Additionally, you failed to mention that McCain bucked the Republican/Bush voting stance by only voting with them 77% in 2005 and 67% in 2001.
Also keep in mind that Obama voted with Bush 40% of the time this past year (that is when he was actually in Washington doing his job) and even Harry Reid supported the President 39% of the time.
Your baseline and incessant chant don't look or sound quite so convincing now do they?
Posted by sammohon (anonymous) on October 6, 2008 at 7:26 p.m. (Suggest removal)
southernwoman...it only took me an hour to debunk everything you said all day...got anything else that's more challenging?...I'd love to taunt you a second time...LOL.
Posted by southernwoman (anonymous) on October 6, 2008 at 10:49 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Jeb Bush would be a good choice if you need someone to help steal an election.
When you hire thieves with the most astute financial minds to catch thieves with equally astute financial minds, I think it would be a good idea to have someone who is not a thief watching 'em what with 700 billion taxpayer dollars lying around.
I haven't experienced any time under an Obama presidency, but I have experienced the Iraq lie, the Enron meltdown (the Enron execs were said to be the smartest guys in the room; now some of them are the smartest guys in the jailhouse, I suppose), and the taxpayers being privileged to bailout Wall Street.
Our own Senator Cochran said McCain is a hothead, and the thought of John McCain being president made cold chills run up and down his spine.
I'll cast my vote and take my chances.
McCain voted with Bush 90 percent of the time.
Posted by sammohon (anonymous) on October 6, 2008 at 11:25 p.m. (Suggest removal)
southernwoman...your litany doesn't help your cause, it's just embarassingly ignorant on your part (I'm embarassed for you, bless your heart), I've corrected your half truth about the voting record of McCain in an above missive.
You stepped into the trap...would you rather an astute business person help us out of this financial mess, which the Dems created, or would you prefer to have a socialist, who has no clue how capitalist economics work, try to figure it out? I think most folks want a person who actually believes in the American system of economics...Obama clearly doesn't.
Did you spend any time under a Carter presidency?...get ready for four more years of CARTER with a misplaced attitude. We have discussed this before, and I debunked your claims about Iraq...you are the one repeating the lies...if it weren't for your Dems we wouldn't have had the housing crisis that brought this liquidity crisis on...thank Barney Frank and Chris Dodd...McCain and Bush tried to head this off and were voted down by you Dems.
Cochran, while he's better than anything else the Dems have, has always been a milquetoast conservative...I'm looking forward to the day that a REAL conservative takes his place. Regarding McCain being a hothead...it shows he has some passion about improving America as contrasted with the sharklike dead-eyes focus on personal gain that Obama has.
Post a comment (Terms of Use Policy)
(Requires free registration.)