"the mortgage bubble inflated as the Fed, other regulators and lawmakers looked the other way, a willful ignorance that was certainly reinforced by the Bush administration's antiregulatory fervor. "
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/16/opinion/16sun2.html?th&emc=th
The rich continue to earn more and more and what do the candidates talk about? Tax cuts.
The lower, middle and upper middle classes do not need tax cuts. These folks - say 90% of the nation - need pay raises.
this is more than disgusting...
Report Says That the Rich Are Getting Richer Faster, Much Faster
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/15/business/15rich.html?_r=1&oref=slogi
Ask those at the top what would they rather have a pay raise or a tax cut.
When the economic news was good you ignored it and hammered on how crappy things were in Iraq.
Things are better in Iraq and the economic is weaker, so you hammer on the economy.
Doom, doom and gloom! If your candidate gets in the Whitehouse can we then enjoy the rosy side of the news for a change?
Has anyone else notice that the national media outlets rarely mention Iraq anymore? Every day 6 months ago it was Iraq this and Iraq that. No mention of the economy at all. Suddenly every other news topic is about the economy and I haven't heard a thing about Iraq for a very long time.
Doom and gloom must sell.
Things are better in Iraq?
If so, it's the Turks who scared hell out of them....
Besides, the real problem lies in Pakistan/Afghanistan.
We will see over time how much better things are now that every American family has been placed $30,000 dollars more in debt.
If we're winning, why hasn't the price of oil reflected the fact?
You can put a smile on this pig but it still stinks.
Ummm.... yes. Things are better in Iraq. Stop acting like a dolt. By all accounts life is returning to some degree of normality in Baghdad, the Iraqi's have taken over complete control over the southern provinces, violence is down across the entire country, and even Iranian shipments and support has drastically slowed. What's more, US casualties have been cut in half.
Very clearly, those things count as better. I doubt the Turks did much to scare the militia in Baghdad into compliance. By and large the Kurdistan and insurgency are two separate issues.
What's more, the current debt of American families is not effected in any way by the progress in Iraq. Should every American soldier die today in Iraq, the debt would stand. Should we leave today, the debt would stand. That point is totally irrelevant to the fact that things have improved for most people in Iraq.
and to prove that you have NO clue what you are talking about, current oil prices do in fact include the situation in Iraq:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/iraq/article3054300.ece
Iraq is producing 21% more oil now than it did before the invasion (just the increase per day represents four times the amount Oklahoma puts out per day). In spite of continued attacks by insurgents on the oil infrastructure (oil money would be bring reconstruction, jobs, and aid in stability), it continues to rise. Thus, the extra 146,000,000 barrels of oil per year has been factored into the global oil market and has had an effect on pricing.
If you need further information on global commodities markets, supply and demand, and increased production I'd be happy to help. Or, if you want to admit you had no idea that production had sored in Iraq you can go back to your hole.
Nice job turning the discussion around. Faux news has cut back on Iraq stories from what I have been told. Last I saw any news there was nothing but stories on the mistreatment of our vets by our own government.
If there are positive stories coming out of Washington or OKC or city hall, they get comment sometimes. But mostly if there are continual deceptions generated by those in power, they get priority over the lipsticked pig.
This is what we expect in the next election coming from the liars who produce false truths, abandon our laws, and who had supported an invasion of a Muslim country with huge future impact on our economy and our integrity as a nation
"The few, the powerful, the well-financed, they now control the government," John Edwards told a tight crowd of about 350 last week. "They've taken over your democracy. And it affects everything that happens in this country."
"Everything," he emphasized. Looks like he gets it but too many fail to want to uphold the torch of liberty and justice for all. http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-edwards_bddec16,1,2824166.story?ctrack=1&cset=true
IT IS TIME TO GET THE CROOKS AND LIARS OUT OF WASHINGTON. Sounds as though you want them to stay.
Could you please stick to the subject. Iraq is a sad diversion from an even sadder economic situation for the majority of Americans.
Are you better off than you were 7 years ago?
Not all doom and gloom....
Here's a very positive story about asking the right questions....
"The contrast between the mayors' priorities and the presidential candidates' rhetoric couldn't be more stark. "In presidential elections, the media and pollsters focus on issues like war, abortion, gay rights, things that, quite frankly, for those of us in the trenches, aren't the hot-button issues," says Miami Mayor Manny Diaz in a taped interview. "People want to know that their kids will get a good education, that their neighborhoods will be safe and clean.... It's difficult for me to understand how presidential candidates don't see that. Those are the issues that affect Americans each and every day. We [mayors] are dealing with them, and [candidates] should also be dealing with them."
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20071231/mayors_video
Define dolt. And while you are at it, define what issues you think our next President should be focusing on instead of sitting there throwing out pitiful defenses for the current neocon nutjobbers screw ups.
quote:
Originally posted by FOTD
Nice job turning the discussion around. Faux news has cut back on Iraq stories from what I have been told. Last I saw any news there was nothing but stories on the mistreatment of our vets by our own government.
If there are positive stories coming out of Washington or OKC or city hall, they get comment sometimes. But mostly if there are continual deceptions generated by those in power, they get priority over the lipsticked pig.
This is what we expect in the next election coming from the liars who produce false truths, abandon our laws, and who had supported an invasion of a Muslim country with huge future impact on our economy and our integrity as a nation
"The few, the powerful, the well-financed, they now control the government," John Edwards told a tight crowd of about 350 last week. "They've taken over your democracy. And it affects everything that happens in this country."
"Everything," he emphasized. Looks like he gets it but too many fail to want to uphold the torch of liberty and justice for all. http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-edwards_bddec16,1,2824166.story?ctrack=1&cset=true
IT IS TIME TO GET THE CROOKS AND LIARS OUT OF WASHINGTON. Sounds as though you want them to stay.
Could you please stick to the subject. Iraq is a sad diversion from an even sadder economic situation for the majority of Americans.
Are you better off than you were 7 years ago?
Hmmm. . . almost no unemployment. . . productivity at an all time high. . . Stock market booming. . . wages up. . . GNP up. . . liberals pi$$y about everything. . . Yup! I'm better off.
Can't complain!
quote:
Originally posted by FOTD
Are you better off than you were 7 years ago?
As a matter-of-fact, yes.
How happy are you going to be when they double taxes on your dividends and capital gains? Do you just enjoy giving your money away aimlessly to the jack-boot Nazis at the IRS?
quote:
Originally posted by Conan71
quote:
Originally posted by FOTD
Are you better off than you were 7 years ago?
As a matter-of-fact, yes.
How happy are you going to be when they double taxes on your dividends and capital gains? Do you just enjoy giving your money away aimlessly to the jack-boot Nazis at the IRS?
Are you a worker or investor? Certainly, I am better off after rolling out of some assets and capturing a lower rate on capital gains. However, most those I talk to have no such investments as they are service sector workers or common laborers. The only investment they have is home equity which seems to be lowering daily. And I do not feel safer. And I do not think government works near the efficiency they did when I was growing up under higher rates. You get what you pay for.....
quote:
Are you better off than you were 7 years ago?
Yes, I would have to say I am. Better house, better cars, more savings, and better interest rates. I may not be happier than I was 7 years ago, but as much as I want to I don't think I can really blame that on Bush. Not saying I'm less happy, just not more so. I don't think I'm drinking enough.
and I, like most American's, am both a worker and an investor. The majority of Americans are either directly or indirectly invested in the markets. 401, pension fund, joint insurance groups... all have market participation. I believe over 50% of Americans actually own stock now. If nothing else, the companies many American work for are tied to the capital markets, thus they are effected by the markets and the taxes they must submit to.
Lets do an economic Flashback to just before your hated Bush, controller of all things gone bad, took office:
GDP: $10,800 Billion (up 28%)
Unemployment: 4.76% (currently 4.63% with 1+mil jobs created)
Markets: 10,137 (DJIA), currently above 13,100.
S&P: 1224, currently 1446
Tax Revenue: UP
Tax Rate: Down
So higher markets, lower rates, more jobs, and more tax revenue... when things were really booming it was a "weak recovery" and now that it has slowed it is certainly doom and gloom. The indicators now are all way, WAY better than they were a year before Clinton left office, but no one seems to remember that (Dot com, anyone? Housing bubble already there. Manufacturing off. Taxes rising. Anyone?).
Here's a shocker. At all points in the history of America you could point to data indicating a rising gap between rich and poor. The Revolution created land prospects that made huge fortunes (many founders among them). The industrial revolution certainly would finish off the exploited poor. Then the post industrial exodus of manufacturing and new service jobs were the end of the little guy. The poor were left behind true and proper in the dot com boom (not even table scraps!) and surely they'd be on the streets.
But through it all, the poor kept on trucking. In fact, at the end of each phase they are better off than they were at the start of the phase. Funny how history repeats itself and yet some people still can't figure it out.
. . .
and bringing up Iraq was not a change of subject, it was merely pointing out the obvious. You are only interesting at pointing a finger and shouting "you suck!" If the poor conditions of the war were Bushes fault, why does he not get credit for getting things back on course? If the "poor" economy now is Bushes fault, why did he not get credit when things were booming?
I'm not a Bush supporter, but this one way street crap is really, really old.
quote:
Originally posted by FOTD
quote:
Originally posted by Conan71
quote:
Originally posted by FOTD
Are you better off than you were 7 years ago?
As a matter-of-fact, yes.
How happy are you going to be when they double taxes on your dividends and capital gains? Do you just enjoy giving your money away aimlessly to the jack-boot Nazis at the IRS?
Are you a worker or investor? Certainly, I am better off after rolling out of some assets and capturing a lower rate on capital gains. However, most those I talk to have no such investments as they are service sector workers or common laborers. The only investment they have is home equity which seems to be lowering daily. And I do not feel safer. And I do not think government works near the efficiency they did when I was growing up under higher rates. You get what you pay for.....
Why do I allways feel the need to deconstruct your comments?
First of all, the words "government" and "efficiency" should never be in the same sentence. They are mutually exclusive of each other. No matter how much money you throw at government you will never receive efficiency as a product. On the contrary, as you increase government funding, you receive a larger government that takes longer to produce the same product (or service). This has been proven over and over, without exception.
Second, service sector workers or what you term "common laborers," who have NO assets (savings, 401k, IRA) are for the most part, self made disasters. There are very few corporations that hire "common laborers" that do not offer some form of matching retirement savings plan. These "common laborers" are also enjoying very high rates of employment and job security right now.
I have 23 "common laborers" working for me. I do everything short of FORCING them to participate in the IRA that I match 100% up to maximum contribution. I hold a 2 hour lunch every quarter with our company financial advisor explaining to them how important this investment in their future is. I AM TRYING TO GIVE THEM MONEY!
I can tell you that about a third of my employees refuse to take advantage of this, not because they can't afford it, but because they do not think about the future any farther than their next paycheck. At 30 years old, they can't imagine themselves ever being 70. They think they're going to hit the lottery or get rich by some wild act of chance. An extra $10 a paycheck has more importance to them at the Cherokee Casino then in savings.
Third, a house is not a savings account!!! There is no protection for investment in a home. Never has been. Homes suffer depreciation just like a car or a boat. A smart savings plan does not.
It is not the job of the government to take care of idiots.
As for safety, liberals never feel safe, that is part of being a liberal. It's best summed up in the language liberals use as opposed to the language that conservatives use. Liberals tend to use the term "I feel" when discussing political topics. Conservatives use the term "I think." Feelings don't require a mechanism of defense, they are not built on logic. Thoughts however require explanation and some form of logical mechanism of defense. It is very hard for some people to say "I think" because it opens them up to strong criticism and ownership of the concept that they are proposing or defending, these people are liberals. You are not required to prove a feeling, the realm of emotion is a very safe place for these folks because it doesn't require thought.
Now, as for getting what you pay for, NO ONE IS STOPPING YOU FROM PAYING MORE FOR ANYTHING. If you feel that taxes are too low, the federal government will accept as much extra money as you would like to give. I heard Bill Clinton complaining the other day because he FEELS like he's not taxed enough. This is by far the stupidest thing I have ever heard come out of anyones mouth! Cut a check! Then tell us about how generous you are. That's kinda like buying a car and then complaining to the salesman that you don't feel like you are paying enough. Cut a check! You will FEEL better!
Now I must step down from my soap box and hand out paychecks to my otherwise, disenfranchised, "common laborers" before the end of the day.
spoonbill... I love you.
quote:
Originally posted by cannon_fodder
spoonbill... I love you.
See ya at the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy Meeting tonight!
quote:
Originally posted by FOTD
Are you better off than you were 7 years ago?
Much better...my salary has more than doubled in that time.
quote:
Originally posted by spoonbill
quote:
Originally posted by FOTD
quote:
Originally posted by Conan71
quote:
Originally posted by FOTD
Are you better off than you were 7 years ago?
As a matter-of-fact, yes.
How happy are you going to be when they double taxes on your dividends and capital gains? Do you just enjoy giving your money away aimlessly to the jack-boot Nazis at the IRS?
Are you a worker or investor? Certainly, I am better off after rolling out of some assets and capturing a lower rate on capital gains. However, most those I talk to have no such investments as they are service sector workers or common laborers. The only investment they have is home equity which seems to be lowering daily. And I do not feel safer. And I do not think government works near the efficiency they did when I was growing up under higher rates. You get what you pay for.....
Why do I allways feel the need to deconstruct your comments?
First of all, the words "government" and "efficiency" should never be in the same sentence. They are mutually exclusive of each other. No matter how much money you throw at government you will never receive efficiency as a product. On the contrary, as you increase government funding, you receive a larger government that takes longer to produce the same product (or service). This has been proven over and over, without exception.
Second, service sector workers or what you term "common laborers," who have NO assets (savings, 401k, IRA) are for the most part, self made disasters. There are very few corporations that hire "common laborers" that do not offer some form of matching retirement savings plan. These "common laborers" are also enjoying very high rates of employment and job security right now.
I have 23 "common laborers" working for me. I do everything short of FORCING them to participate in the IRA that I match 100% up to maximum contribution. I hold a 2 hour lunch every quarter with our company financial advisor explaining to them how important this investment in their future is. I AM TRYING TO GIVE THEM MONEY!
I can tell you that about a third of my employees refuse to take advantage of this, not because they can't afford it, but because they do not think about the future any farther than their next paycheck. At 30 years old, they can't imagine themselves ever being 70. They think they're going to hit the lottery or get rich by some wild act of chance. An extra $10 a paycheck has more importance to them at the Cherokee Casino then in savings.
Third, a house is not a savings account!!! There is no protection for investment in a home. Never has been. Homes suffer depreciation just like a car or a boat. A smart savings plan does not.
It is not the job of the government to take care of idiots.
As for safety, liberals never feel safe, that is part of being a liberal. It's best summed up in the language liberals use as opposed to the language that conservatives use. Liberals tend to use the term "I feel" when discussing political topics. Conservatives use the term "I think." Feelings don't require a mechanism of defense, they are not built on logic. Thoughts however require explanation and some form of logical mechanism of defense. It is very hard for some people to say "I think" because it opens them up to strong criticism and ownership of the concept that they are proposing or defending, these people are liberals. You are not required to prove a feeling, the realm of emotion is a very safe place for these folks because it doesn't require thought.
Now, as for getting what you pay for, NO ONE IS STOPPING YOU FROM PAYING MORE FOR ANYTHING. If you feel that taxes are too low, the federal government will accept as much extra money as you would like to give. I heard Bill Clinton complaining the other day because he FEELS like he's not taxed enough. This is by far the stupidest thing I have ever heard come out of anyones mouth! Cut a check! Then tell us about how generous you are. That's kinda like buying a car and then complaining to the salesman that you don't feel like you are paying enough. Cut a check! You will FEEL better!
Now I must step down from my soap box and hand out paychecks to my otherwise, disenfranchised, "common laborers" before the end of the day.
Are you in an energy related business?
quote:
...energy related business?
Like welding, design, engineering, rough necking, sales and leasing, contracting, energy law, land owner, distributor, field services, boiler/tank making, pipe fitting, crane/rigging, electric motors, drilling, trucking, accounting, administration, logistics, supervising, maintenance, environmental compliance, safety, technical...
I'm going to take a wild guess and assume you have no way of knowing what business he is in, but there is a 50/50 shot his industry is in some way "in an energy related business." Frankly, I'd guess half of Tulsa is in an energy related business.
There have been many other sectors that have done well over the last 7 years, still other sectors that have been stagnant - but an individual could excel at. What horrible job are you stuck in that you assume everyone who does well is either lucky to catch some fast train or evil?
quote:
Originally posted by FOTD
quote:
Originally posted by spoonbill
quote:
Originally posted by FOTD
quote:
Originally posted by Conan71
quote:
Originally posted by FOTD
Are you better off than you were 7 years ago?
As a matter-of-fact, yes.
How happy are you going to be when they double taxes on your dividends and capital gains? Do you just enjoy giving your money away aimlessly to the jack-boot Nazis at the IRS?
Are you a worker or investor? Certainly, I am better off after rolling out of some assets and capturing a lower rate on capital gains. However, most those I talk to have no such investments as they are service sector workers or common laborers. The only investment they have is home equity which seems to be lowering daily. And I do not feel safer. And I do not think government works near the efficiency they did when I was growing up under higher rates. You get what you pay for.....
Why do I allways feel the need to deconstruct your comments?
First of all, the words "government" and "efficiency" should never be in the same sentence. They are mutually exclusive of each other. No matter how much money you throw at government you will never receive efficiency as a product. On the contrary, as you increase government funding, you receive a larger government that takes longer to produce the same product (or service). This has been proven over and over, without exception.
Second, service sector workers or what you term "common laborers," who have NO assets (savings, 401k, IRA) are for the most part, self made disasters. There are very few corporations that hire "common laborers" that do not offer some form of matching retirement savings plan. These "common laborers" are also enjoying very high rates of employment and job security right now.
I have 23 "common laborers" working for me. I do everything short of FORCING them to participate in the IRA that I match 100% up to maximum contribution. I hold a 2 hour lunch every quarter with our company financial advisor explaining to them how important this investment in their future is. I AM TRYING TO GIVE THEM MONEY!
I can tell you that about a third of my employees refuse to take advantage of this, not because they can't afford it, but because they do not think about the future any farther than their next paycheck. At 30 years old, they can't imagine themselves ever being 70. They think they're going to hit the lottery or get rich by some wild act of chance. An extra $10 a paycheck has more importance to them at the Cherokee Casino then in savings.
Third, a house is not a savings account!!! There is no protection for investment in a home. Never has been. Homes suffer depreciation just like a car or a boat. A smart savings plan does not.
It is not the job of the government to take care of idiots.
As for safety, liberals never feel safe, that is part of being a liberal. It's best summed up in the language liberals use as opposed to the language that conservatives use. Liberals tend to use the term "I feel" when discussing political topics. Conservatives use the term "I think." Feelings don't require a mechanism of defense, they are not built on logic. Thoughts however require explanation and some form of logical mechanism of defense. It is very hard for some people to say "I think" because it opens them up to strong criticism and ownership of the concept that they are proposing or defending, these people are liberals. You are not required to prove a feeling, the realm of emotion is a very safe place for these folks because it doesn't require thought.
Now, as for getting what you pay for, NO ONE IS STOPPING YOU FROM PAYING MORE FOR ANYTHING. If you feel that taxes are too low, the federal government will accept as much extra money as you would like to give. I heard Bill Clinton complaining the other day because he FEELS like he's not taxed enough. This is by far the stupidest thing I have ever heard come out of anyones mouth! Cut a check! Then tell us about how generous you are. That's kinda like buying a car and then complaining to the salesman that you don't feel like you are paying enough. Cut a check! You will FEEL better!
Now I must step down from my soap box and hand out paychecks to my otherwise, disenfranchised, "common laborers" before the end of the day.
Are you in an energy related business?
I wish! Then I would be doing really well, but that's a bit too risky for me. . . boom and bust. My hats off to those who are though!
The source is questionable, but have heard that %26 of Tulsa works paycheck to paycheck. Could it be possible that %26 is not doing better than 7 years ago?
I'm better off now than I was 7 years ago. However, I was better off 7 years ago than I was 15 years ago and I was better off 15 years ago than I was 22 years ago.
My continued improvement has more to do with my ability, not with who occupied the White House.
I'm sorry, but it bothers me to see people who believe their success depends on who is President rather than their own personal responsibility.
quote:
Originally posted by HazMatCFO
I'm better off now than I was 7 years ago. However, I was better off 7 years ago than I was 15 years ago and I was better off 15 years ago than I was 22 years ago.
My continued improvement has more to do with my ability, not with who occupied the White House.
I'm sorry, but it bothers me to see people who believe their success depends on who is President rather than their own personal responsibility.
Absolutely correct!!
Unfortunately we no longer live in a time of personal responsibility.
A minority of us still feel that we are in control of our own futures, and refuse bear the burden of mediocrity.
Actually. . . I take that back! I think a secret majority respect personal responsibility, they have just been taught not to talk about it, because it makes them sound heartless.
quote:
Originally posted by spoonbill
A minority of us still feel that we are in control of our own futures...
I am not my own boss, I am married.
Do you know what I did before I got married...anything I wanted to.
quote:
Originally posted by FOTD
The source is questionable, but have heard that %26 of Tulsa works paycheck to paycheck. Could it be possible that %26 is not doing better than 7 years ago?
Well, or maybe 7 years ago 36% (it goes "number" then the "%" sign. Otherwise it reads "percent twenty six of Tulsa works....") of Tulsan's lived paycheck to paycheck.
Or maybe 26% of the population will always live paycheck to paycheck - I have friends that did so when they earned $5.50 and hour, then when they got a factory job at $12, and now they make $60,000+ a year and STILL live paycheck to paycheck. More money = more toys, that's all. Does that mean they are not better off?
Or maybe in the last 7 years the idiot banks opened up more credit lines and 26% managed to get toys they could not really afford. Hope they learned and stop complaining when they have to live back at their means.
Basically AOX, that number is totally irrelevant. If 99% of Tulsan's lived paycheck to paycheck today that still tells us NOTHING about the state of affairs today vs. 7 years ago.
Not to mention, you ask if we are better off and the crowd responds "YES!" so you bring up a questionable maybe statistic that still fails to prove a point? Why are you so desperate to make things seem bad?
- - -
and I am not my own boss either... on any level. However, my education, contacts and experience would enable me to find another job or make my own in short order. Not to mention my wife and I strive to live off of one income, so my loss of employment would not be a panic situation (1 income means strip away the extras and we would be OK. Kill cable, internet, stop eating out...).
quote:
Originally posted by spoonbill
quote:
Originally posted by FOTD
quote:
Originally posted by Conan71
quote:
Originally posted by FOTD
Are you better off than you were 7 years ago?
As a matter-of-fact, yes.
How happy are you going to be when they double taxes on your dividends and capital gains? Do you just enjoy giving your money away aimlessly to the jack-boot Nazis at the IRS?
Are you a worker or investor? Certainly, I am better off after rolling out of some assets and capturing a lower rate on capital gains. However, most those I talk to have no such investments as they are service sector workers or common laborers. The only investment they have is home equity which seems to be lowering daily. And I do not feel safer. And I do not think government works near the efficiency they did when I was growing up under higher rates. You get what you pay for.....
Why do I allways feel the need to deconstruct your comments?
First of all, the words "government" and "efficiency" should never be in the same sentence. They are mutually exclusive of each other. No matter how much money you throw at government you will never receive efficiency as a product. On the contrary, as you increase government funding, you receive a larger government that takes longer to produce the same product (or service). This has been proven over and over, without exception.
Second, service sector workers or what you term "common laborers," who have NO assets (savings, 401k, IRA) are for the most part, self made disasters. There are very few corporations that hire "common laborers" that do not offer some form of matching retirement savings plan. These "common laborers" are also enjoying very high rates of employment and job security right now.
I have 23 "common laborers" working for me. I do everything short of FORCING them to participate in the IRA that I match 100% up to maximum contribution. I hold a 2 hour lunch every quarter with our company financial advisor explaining to them how important this investment in their future is. I AM TRYING TO GIVE THEM MONEY!
I can tell you that about a third of my employees refuse to take advantage of this, not because they can't afford it, but because they do not think about the future any farther than their next paycheck. At 30 years old, they can't imagine themselves ever being 70. They think they're going to hit the lottery or get rich by some wild act of chance. An extra $10 a paycheck has more importance to them at the Cherokee Casino then in savings.
Third, a house is not a savings account!!! There is no protection for investment in a home. Never has been. Homes suffer depreciation just like a car or a boat. A smart savings plan does not.
It is not the job of the government to take care of idiots.
As for safety, liberals never feel safe, that is part of being a liberal. It's best summed up in the language liberals use as opposed to the language that conservatives use. Liberals tend to use the term "I feel" when discussing political topics. Conservatives use the term "I think." Feelings don't require a mechanism of defense, they are not built on logic. Thoughts however require explanation and some form of logical mechanism of defense. It is very hard for some people to say "I think" because it opens them up to strong criticism and ownership of the concept that they are proposing or defending, these people are liberals. You are not required to prove a feeling, the realm of emotion is a very safe place for these folks because it doesn't require thought.
Now, as for getting what you pay for, NO ONE IS STOPPING YOU FROM PAYING MORE FOR ANYTHING. If you feel that taxes are too low, the federal government will accept as much extra money as you would like to give. I heard Bill Clinton complaining the other day because he FEELS like he's not taxed enough. This is by far the stupidest thing I have ever heard come out of anyones mouth! Cut a check! Then tell us about how generous you are. That's kinda like buying a car and then complaining to the salesman that you don't feel like you are paying enough. Cut a check! You will FEEL better!
Now I must step down from my soap box and hand out paychecks to my otherwise, disenfranchised, "common laborers" before the end of the day.
Its interesting you use the "I feel, I think" description on liberals and conservatives that way. Our current president is an "I feel" person, versus the Kerry "I think". Look at their debates again. Liberals and Conservatives both have their share of "I feel" people, from Christian fundamentalist faith healing conservatives to Tree hugging crystal/pyramid power healing liberals. You got your share on both sides. I remember in the Bush Gore campaign that the Bushies put down Gore because he "wasnt like the common man", he used "big words and sentences", was, horror of horrors an "intellectual". Dont vote for the person who actually learned something in school, they are not like us, vote for the village idiot who is. Remember the commentators and pundits actually pointing out all of that in the last presidential debates? Go chop wood and ride a horse for the camera, dont act too smart or people wont vote for you, they will feel intimidated and not like you. I kept wanting to ask, "What do you people tell your kids when they go to school? "Dont learn to much or you will never be able to be president?" When I was a kid it was supposed to be the smartest person, the person who studied the hardest that was most respected and looked up to. Either that or you have to "play the game, aka lie" and act like a loveable idiot to get the vote. Interesting world these days.
quote:
Originally posted by TheArtist
quote:
Originally posted by spoonbill
QuoteOriginally posted by FOTD
QuoteOriginally posted by Conan71
QuoteOriginally posted by FOTD
Its interesting you use the "I feel, I think" description on liberals and conservatives that way. Our current president is an "I feel" person, versus the Kerry "I think". Look at their debates again. Liberals and Conservatives both have their share of "I feel" people, from Christian fundamentalist faith healing conservatives to Tree hugging crystal/pyramid power healing liberals. You got your share on both sides. I remember in the Bush Gore campaign that the Bushies put down Gore because he "wasnt like the common man", he used "big words and sentences", was, horror of horrors an "intellectual". Dont vote for the person who actually learned something in school, they are not like us, vote for the village idiot who is. Remember the commentators and pundits actually pointing out all of that in the last presidential debates? Go chop wood and ride a horse for the camera, dont act too smart or people wont vote for you, they will feel intimidated and get angry.
You completely miss the point, yet you make another valid point!
First of all, the Bushes did say that "Gore was not in touch with the common man." They never made any statement concerning his lexicon. Another statement made by Bush, the former, was that "he does not talk 'to' the common american, he talks 'at' them. I tend to agree with this completely.
Second. . . of course both sides make I feel statements, as a fundamental part of communication and conversation, but when discussing policy, feelings and the "I feel" statement rules the left. There is very little tolerance for it on the right.
John Kerry's biggest flaw as a Liberal Democrat is that he used terms like "I think" and "I understand." Once challenged, he was forced to change his position because "thought" leaves very little wiggle room, and he needs a bunch.
As for Gore. . .Mr. Gore has no problem making wild and bold statements that he knows are false. 35 of the 37 statements he made in his "Inconvenient" movie were blatantly false. He's not as good at it as Bill but he's trying.
The debate is not between "Intellectual" v.s. "Common Man," It's between "talker" v.s. "doer." Mr. Bush is not a great president, but he's not afraid to "do" what is right even if it means suffering. He is comfortable within his skin, and it shows. If he says he is going to do something, that is exactly what he does, or tries to do. I can't fault that.
quote:
Originally posted by cannon_fodder
quote:
Originally posted by FOTD
The source is questionable, but have heard that %26 of Tulsa works paycheck to paycheck. Could it be possible that %26 is not doing better than 7 years ago?
Well, or maybe 7 years ago 36% (it goes "number" then the "%" sign. Otherwise it reads "percent twenty six of Tulsa works....") of Tulsan's lived paycheck to paycheck.
Or maybe 26% of the population will always live paycheck to paycheck - I have friends that did so when they earned $5.50 and hour, then when they got a factory job at $12, and now they make $60,000+ a year and STILL live paycheck to paycheck. More money = more toys, that's all. Does that mean they are not better off?
Or maybe in the last 7 years the idiot banks opened up more credit lines and 26% managed to get toys they could not really afford. Hope they learned and stop complaining when they have to live back at their means.
Basically AOX, that number is totally irrelevant. If 99% of Tulsan's lived paycheck to paycheck today that still tells us NOTHING about the state of affairs today vs. 7 years ago.
Not to mention, you ask if we are better off and the crowd responds "YES!" so you bring up a questionable maybe statistic that still fails to prove a point? Why are you so desperate to make things seem bad?
- - -
and I am not my own boss either... on any level. However, my education, contacts and experience would enable me to find another job or make my own in short order. Not to mention my wife and I strive to live off of one income, so my loss of employment would not be a panic situation (1 income means strip away the extras and we would be OK. Kill cable, internet, stop eating out...).
"I'm pretty secure in my midtown bubble and rarely deviate. Sad, sad little world I live in really." Cannon Fodder
quote:
Originally posted by FOTD
quote:
Originally posted by Conan71
quote:
Originally posted by FOTD
Are you better off than you were 7 years ago?
As a matter-of-fact, yes.
How happy are you going to be when they double taxes on your dividends and capital gains? Do you just enjoy giving your money away aimlessly to the jack-boot Nazis at the IRS?
Are you a worker or investor? Certainly, I am better off after rolling out of some assets and capturing a lower rate on capital gains. However, most those I talk to have no such investments as they are service sector workers or common laborers. The only investment they have is home equity which seems to be lowering daily. And I do not feel safer. And I do not think government works near the efficiency they did when I was growing up under higher rates. You get what you pay for.....
I'm a worker and investor. It's an accepted fact that home equity fluctuates, much like investment markets. A house is a great long-term investment as a primary family dwelling if the family plans on staying for 20 years. Unless you are a total pig, sticks and bricks will appreciate in 20 years and will weather fluctuations in the housing market. Things like mobile homes or buying in a declining area are a poor investment and can be avoided.
If you are in for the long-haul, you will almost always come out better off than you were when you got into an investment, unless you have to bail out at an inopportune time due to an unforseen crisis. If you are only concerned with short-term gains, you better have time to tend it and react quickly without emotion.
My income increased every year during the Clinton years. I took a four year sabbatical from the "real" world, tended my own things and ran a small business of my own.
I've been back in the workforce again for three years and I'm making almost double what I was three years ago. A lot of that has to do with my own hard work and initiative and a lot has to do with a lot of capital spending in the industry I've chosen to work in. So some of it is good timing due to the economy and oil prices and some of it is I know how to market and sell. I've managed to make a living through every economic "downturn" in the last 20 years and I've always brought growth anywhere I've worked.
If I choose to buy into "the economy sucks" my personal economy will suffer. If I choose to be optimistic, I will succeed while others fail. One of the first questions I would ask a rep candidate when I was a regional manager with a chemical company was: "How's the local economy?" If the answer was anything less than "good" or "great", I found a way to tactfully end the interview within five minutes. If they aren't out working every day, then their excuse will be: "The economy sucks."
quote:
Originally posted by FOTD
quote:
Originally posted by cannon_fodder
quote:
Originally posted by FOTD
The source is questionable, but have heard that %26 of Tulsa works paycheck to paycheck. Could it be possible that %26 is not doing better than 7 years ago?
Well, or maybe 7 years ago 36% (it goes "number" then the "%" sign. Otherwise it reads "percent twenty six of Tulsa works....") of Tulsan's lived paycheck to paycheck.
Or maybe 26% of the population will always live paycheck to paycheck - I have friends that did so when they earned $5.50 and hour, then when they got a factory job at $12, and now they make $60,000+ a year and STILL live paycheck to paycheck. More money = more toys, that's all. Does that mean they are not better off?
Or maybe in the last 7 years the idiot banks opened up more credit lines and 26% managed to get toys they could not really afford. Hope they learned and stop complaining when they have to live back at their means.
Basically AOX, that number is totally irrelevant. If 99% of Tulsan's lived paycheck to paycheck today that still tells us NOTHING about the state of affairs today vs. 7 years ago.
Not to mention, you ask if we are better off and the crowd responds "YES!" so you bring up a questionable maybe statistic that still fails to prove a point? Why are you so desperate to make things seem bad?
- - -
and I am not my own boss either... on any level. However, my education, contacts and experience would enable me to find another job or make my own in short order. Not to mention my wife and I strive to live off of one income, so my loss of employment would not be a panic situation (1 income means strip away the extras and we would be OK. Kill cable, internet, stop eating out...).
"I'm pretty secure in my midtown bubble and rarely deviate. Sad, sad little world I live in really." Cannon Fodder
That was in reply to a restaurant recommendation that is ~8 miles from my house and opposite of where I work. How is that, in any way, relevant to me pointing out the flaws in your assumption?
Yep, I pretty much only leave midtown on the weekends. Guess that proves I have no concept of economics and am incapable of abstract thought. Either that or it proves I live, work, my son goes to school, and shop in the Midtown area.
But hey, why try to take a quote in context when it is so much easier to ignore points, issues, and contrary ideas by trying to skew the discussion.
- - -
Hey, back on topic AOX:
quote:
These folks - say 90% of the nation - need pay raises.
So what, raise the minimum wage to $68,000 a year? America is among the most affluent nations in the world - with our poor being rich in most places. Why can't you see that? Car, roof, food, medical care, cable TV and no iPhone = poor.
I'm going to make some guesses here, let me know if I'm right:
1) You have no economic eduction at any level
2) You have never read a book on economics
3) Your work in no way entails economic or financial thought
4) You are unhappy about your career choice
5) You feel you are not paid what you are worth
6) Nothing is your fault and someone else should fix it (Government, paid for by those with more money than you)
7) You pay little and have no exposure to taxes in your personal life or work
8) You do not, have not, and do not intend to own, start or operate a business
9) Outside of TulsaNow, you do not read, watch, or listen to information you disagree with
10) You hate those with other viewpoints, myself. foremost
Grade away. I am of the impression that you are uneducated on the topics you raise, have no experience in the matters, and only want to see an affirmation of your beliefs. I grow tired of that game.
Funny. You seem to think that these are inconsistencies when you constantly utilize other topic comments to draw a negative picture of members.
Foreclosures up %68 in November.....credit is drying up.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071219/ap_on_bi_ge/foreclosure_rates_3
Little world indeed.
I pretty well utilize everything anyone has ever done, said, or posted when drawing a picture of them. Don't you? It would make little sense to draw a picture of someone based on a single occurrence and ignoring the rest of the picture. But I will take it I'm dead on in my assessment.
and BTW, the assessment was not overtly negative. Maybe accusing you of hating those with opposing viewpoint was negative, but little else. If you are, in fact, wholly uneducated in economics - stating so is not a negative assessment in any way. I am totally uneducated in chemical engineering, that's not a negative comment but the truth.
- - -
If you look at the article you posted, foreclosures are up 68 percent... not percent 68. It's right there in the first sentence. In fact, %68 is a meaningless garble of characters in the English language. Such a simple thing to correct, yet you insist on being wrong. A wonderful example of how you would rather remain wrong than be corrected.
and FYI... foreclosures were not up 68% in November. They were up 8%. The number of foreclosures in November compared to last Nov. is up 68%. There is a huge difference.
It is also worth noting that the numbers include everything down to default notices. Many of those default notices will not actually enter foreclosure considering the banks have little incentive to take the property (which is often worth less than the note now).
With that caveat, yes; as predicted the foreclosures are rising. They should continue to do so for another year or so before leveling out. When the BOOM was rolling I wondered how people were affording to live in houses that were 50% of the cost of living and how, even in Tulsa, so many new homes were being constructed. Just did not make sense to me. I hope builder learn about over supply, lenders learn about credit risk, and buyers learn what an interest rate is.
Per Credit Crunch: high risk loans are suffering a credit crunch. Moderate credit is seeing slight effects and those companies and people with good credit may see more ease in borrowing (as credit tightens at the bottom more is available for more secure loans). A great incentive to pay your bills on time, mind your credit lines, and avoid bankruptcy.
A glut of credit cause the problem, a reduction is therefor essential in correcting it.
"%68 is a meaningless garble of characters '...
That was obviously 68 percent.
The article link was posted and reported that foreclosures were up %68 over last November. That's rather large. Instead of attacking the messenger, try attacking the problem. yes, the ability to pay off bills immediately works fine for those who can. How many are living on the edge?
"NEW YORK, Dec 17 (Reuters) - U.S. stocks ended sharply lower on Monday on worries the housing slump was dragging on the economy at the same time that inflation was posing a growing menace.
Based on the latest available data, the Dow Jones industrial average .DJI fell 172.65 points, or 1.29 percent, to end unofficialy at 13,167.20. The Standard & Poor's 500 Index .SPX was down 22.03 points, or 1.50 percent, to finish unofficially at 1,445.92. The Nasdaq Composite Index .IXIC was down 61.28 points, or 2.32 percent, to close unofficially at 2,574.46. (Reporting by Caroline Valetkevitch; Editing by Jan Paschal) "
http://www.reuters.com/article/bondsNews/idUSN1764225020071217
Outside of Oklahoma, the American economy is stagnating with the likelihood of a "session" of some nature over the next couple of years. Looks like the neo con economic theory of reinflating the economy through huge expenditures in the MIC will not work out to be quite what they anticipated.
And then there's the problem these neo cons have created by handing the states the weight of
deficits...
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071218/ap_on_re_us/state_finances;_ylt=An5P90RizzFViw9QwAAPH8Cs0NUE
"We're at the early stages of some pretty serious problems and whether or not those get worse depends on what happens with the national economy," said Corina Eckl, NCSL's fiscal program director."
Time to buy snap on tools?
quote:
Originally posted by FOTD
"%68 is a meaningless garble of characters '...
That was obviously 68 percent.
The article link was posted and reported that foreclosures were up %68 over last November. That's rather large. Instead of attacking the messenger, try attacking the problem. yes, the ability to pay off bills immediately works fine for those who can. How many are living on the edge?
"NEW YORK, Dec 17 (Reuters) - U.S. stocks ended sharply lower on Monday on worries the housing slump was dragging on the economy at the same time that inflation was posing a growing menace.
Based on the latest available data, the Dow Jones industrial average .DJI fell 172.65 points, or 1.29 percent, to end unofficialy at 13,167.20. The Standard & Poor's 500 Index .SPX was down 22.03 points, or 1.50 percent, to finish unofficially at 1,445.92. The Nasdaq Composite Index .IXIC was down 61.28 points, or 2.32 percent, to close unofficially at 2,574.46. (Reporting by Caroline Valetkevitch; Editing by Jan Paschal) "
http://www.reuters.com/article/bondsNews/idUSN1764225020071217
Outside of Oklahoma, the American economy is stagnating with the likelihood of a "session" of some nature over the next couple of years. Looks like the neo con economic theory of reinflating the economy through huge expenditures in the MIC will not work out to be quite what they anticipated.
And then there's the problem these neo cons have created by handing the states the weight of
deficits...
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071218/ap_on_re_us/state_finances;_ylt=An5P90RizzFViw9QwAAPH8Cs0NUE
"We're at the early stages of some pretty serious problems and whether or not those get worse depends on what happens with the national economy," said Corina Eckl, NCSL's fiscal program director."
Time to buy snap on tools?
Well golly! We're doomed. I hear Belize has a nice growing economy, as does Costa Rica. Perhaps you should consider a move?
You have really convinced me! The economy sucks. Corporations are evil. I'm gonna loose everything. Most Americans have no future. There is a vast right-wing conspiracy bent on the destruction of the working class. Global warming is going to melt my synthetic blend shirt. My carbon foot-print is so big that if it fills with water from the melting polar ice caps I will surely drown. 911 was engineered by Bush. Islam is a religion of love and tolerance. High taxes are good. No one educates our children better than the government. Ambition and personal responsibility are sins to be punished. Christianity is the devil. . . "Help me Obama Kenobi, your my only hope."
Aww. . . Just kiddin! You're silly. [;)]
^" Christianity is the devil. . . "
http://satiricalpolitical.com/?p=1290
hee hee
Charles Darwin said,
"It is not the strongest of the species that survive, nor the most intelligent, but the one most responsive to change."
Oklahoma Foreclosures down 8.7%
Business Report Strong Quarter
Economic Outlook Bright for Oklahoma
There are some headlines you must have glazed over, just from todays paper...
- - -
1. The VAST majority of people in trouble are in trouble by their own fault. If you can not "immediately" pay off your bills, you have too many bills. The "dangers" of credit have been well known in Oklahoma since the dust bowl. Live within your means and this will not be a problem.
The other small group with medical debt or other unavoidable problems deserves sympathy. But most just spent themselves into ruin. Too bad. I go without fancy cars (paid cash for my used Nissan and Taurus), no big house (= to one years family income), no lavish toys, and no expensive vacations. My only debt load is my mortgage and student loans (ugh, "only" student loans from 8 years of college). If I can "do without," so can they.
2. I mocked the % thing because I pointed it out before, it is a consistent error so I figured you were doing it to annoy me.
3. The DJIA is not the economy. It is not even the markets. But as I have shown you it is way, way up over the last 7 years. On any given day you could report a negative number on the market and it may or may not be indicative of anything. It is an economic indicator, and currently it is flat - as it usually is approaching an election.
not to mention, when it does well you state that it only matters to the rich. One way street on that?
My market tip for the end of year: buy dollars. If you transfer wealth out of dollar assets stop the transfer. The dollar is undervalued. There is a risk that China or OPEC could send it tumbling on pure demand side economics, but that appears unlikley to be the case (both would lose out). I'm not confident enough to transfer back to dollars, but I'm confident putting my assets in dollar ventures (US Funds). When the sub prime scope is known and the presidential race is 1 v 1 confidence will return (hurting exports... sell that German importer stock and buy into cfc).
4. As far as I know, Deficit Spending to Raise GDP is a democrat trick. Didn't Roosevelt invent it with the New Deal? Pretty sure, yeah... The tax cuts were supposed to stimulate the economy, not the spending. At least, not as far as I ever knew. Anyone who thought that was the plan is a fool (else have 100% taxation and watch the country prosper!).
5. They have been forecasting recession for the entire term of the Bush presidency. It is no surprise they are calling for it again now. A year ago when the housing bubble burst the sky was going to fall. When the dollar started its steady decline it was all over. When Sarbanes Oxley forced all our finance jobs to London it was the end! But we go on and our economy keeps growing at an acceptable 3-6%.
With full employment and the best efficiency in the world, I'm afraid slower economic growth is probably assured. Unless, of course, we find a new growth sector (like the Dot Com in the 90's), perhaps the weak dollar will see manufacturing boom again.
- - -
How does Darwin explain the Horseshow Crab, which has not changed since prehistoric times (and has super cool blue blood).
Actually, I'm a big Darwin fan. that just popped into my head.
quote:
Originally posted by cannon_fodder
Oklahoma Foreclosures down 8.7%
Business Report Strong Quarter
Economic Outlook Bright for Oklahoma
There are some headlines you must have glazed over, just from todays paper...
- - -
1. The VAST majority of people in trouble are in trouble by their own fault. If you can not "immediately" pay off your bills, you have too many bills. The "dangers" of credit have been well known in Oklahoma since the dust bowl. Live within your means and this will not be a problem.
The other small group with medical debt or other unavoidable problems deserves sympathy. But most just spent themselves into ruin. Too bad. I go without fancy cars (paid cash for my used Nissan and Taurus), no big house (= to one years family income), no lavish toys, and no expensive vacations. My only debt load is my mortgage and student loans (ugh, "only" student loans from 8 years of college). If I can "do without," so can they.
2. I mocked the % thing because I pointed it out before, it is a consistent error so I figured you were doing it to annoy me.
3. The DJIA is not the economy. It is not even the markets. But as I have shown you it is way, way up over the last 7 years. On any given day you could report a negative number on the market and it may or may not be indicative of anything. It is an economic indicator, and currently it is flat - as it usually is approaching an election.
not to mention, when it does well you state that it only matters to the rich. One way street on that?
My market tip for the end of year: buy dollars. If you transfer wealth out of dollar assets stop the transfer. The dollar is undervalued. There is a risk that China or OPEC could send it tumbling on pure demand side economics, but that appears unlikley to be the case (both would lose out). I'm not confident enough to transfer back to dollars, but I'm confident putting my assets in dollar ventures (US Funds). When the sub prime scope is known and the presidential race is 1 v 1 confidence will return (hurting exports... sell that German importer stock and buy into cfc).
4. As far as I know, Deficit Spending to Raise GDP is a democrat trick. Didn't Roosevelt invent it with the New Deal? Pretty sure, yeah... The tax cuts were supposed to stimulate the economy, not the spending. At least, not as far as I ever knew. Anyone who thought that was the plan is a fool (else have 100% taxation and watch the country prosper!).
5. They have been forecasting recession for the entire term of the Bush presidency. It is no surprise they are calling for it again now. A year ago when the housing bubble burst the sky was going to fall. When the dollar started its steady decline it was all over. When Sarbanes Oxley forced all our finance jobs to London it was the end! But we go on and our economy keeps growing at an acceptable 3-6%.
With full employment and the best efficiency in the world, I'm afraid slower economic growth is probably assured. Unless, of course, we find a new growth sector (like the Dot Com in the 90's), perhaps the weak dollar will see manufacturing boom again.
- - -
How does Darwin explain the Horseshow Crab, which has not changed since prehistoric times (and has super cool blue blood).
Actually, I'm a big Darwin fan. that just popped into my head.
Had to brush up on my evolution. This helped!
Mr./Ms. Garrison teaches evolution (//%22http://vids.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=vids.individual&VideoID=5733275%22)
Can you eat Horseshoe Crabs? Do they taste like Cashew Chicken?
quote:
Originally posted by cannon_fodder
Oklahoma Foreclosures down 8.7%
Business Report Strong Quarter
Economic Outlook Bright for Oklahoma
There are some headlines you must have glazed over, just from todays paper...
- - -
1. The VAST majority of people in trouble are in trouble by their own fault. If you can not "immediately" pay off your bills, you have too many bills. The "dangers" of credit have been well known in Oklahoma since the dust bowl. Live within your means and this will not be a problem.
The other small group with medical debt or other unavoidable problems deserves sympathy. But most just spent themselves into ruin. Too bad. I go without fancy cars (paid cash for my used Nissan and Taurus), no big house (= to one years family income), no lavish toys, and no expensive vacations. My only debt load is my mortgage and student loans (ugh, "only" student loans from 8 years of college). If I can "do without," so can they.
2. I mocked the % thing because I pointed it out before, it is a consistent error so I figured you were doing it to annoy me.
3. The DJIA is not the economy. It is not even the markets. But as I have shown you it is way, way up over the last 7 years. On any given day you could report a negative number on the market and it may or may not be indicative of anything. It is an economic indicator, and currently it is flat - as it usually is approaching an election.
not to mention, when it does well you state that it only matters to the rich. One way street on that?
My market tip for the end of year: buy dollars. If you transfer wealth out of dollar assets stop the transfer. The dollar is undervalued. There is a risk that China or OPEC could send it tumbling on pure demand side economics, but that appears unlikley to be the case (both would lose out). I'm not confident enough to transfer back to dollars, but I'm confident putting my assets in dollar ventures (US Funds). When the sub prime scope is known and the presidential race is 1 v 1 confidence will return (hurting exports... sell that German importer stock and buy into cfc).
4. As far as I know, Deficit Spending to Raise GDP is a democrat trick. Didn't Roosevelt invent it with the New Deal? Pretty sure, yeah... The tax cuts were supposed to stimulate the economy, not the spending. At least, not as far as I ever knew. Anyone who thought that was the plan is a fool (else have 100% taxation and watch the country prosper!).
5. They have been forecasting recession for the entire term of the Bush presidency. It is no surprise they are calling for it again now. A year ago when the housing bubble burst the sky was going to fall. When the dollar started its steady decline it was all over. When Sarbanes Oxley forced all our finance jobs to London it was the end! But we go on and our economy keeps growing at an acceptable 3-6%.
With full employment and the best efficiency in the world, I'm afraid slower economic growth is probably assured. Unless, of course, we find a new growth sector (like the Dot Com in the 90's), perhaps the weak dollar will see manufacturing boom again.
- - -
How does Darwin explain the Horseshow Crab, which has not changed since prehistoric times (and has super cool blue blood).
Actually, I'm a big Darwin fan. that just popped into my head.
1) agreed. The solution lies in better education and tighter restrictions on lenders.
2)No. There is no such attempt to annoy you. Humor you, provoke you to hear your side, or plain conversation. Solution: don't assume.
3)Totally agree....indexes serve as markings in time. Just reprinting a story.
4)I supported these tax cuts. But something must be done to end entitlements and change to tax in a different manner. Perhaps, based on consumption.
5)OK....except I see growth slowing to below %3 in 08 and I see inflation going up %2.5. Flat market.
Anyway you want to look at it, Bush may have made the average citizens of this country better off but he has not set them up for a brighter economic future.
And horseshoe crabs, cowboys only get....
I believe Darwin was adopted.
Used to be that lenders would not allow more than 30% of your NDI to be committed to a house payment and I can't remember what the total indebtedness level was as percent of net income, but I do recall having to pay off the remaining balance on a relatively small loan before they would write the mortgage on a house I bought in 1993, because there was absolutely zero tolerance on their percentages at the time. I was something like 5% over what they would allow at the time.
The failure in the housing and mortgage market has very, very little to do with the state of the economy. Greedy banks enticed foolish borrowers to up their lifestyle with all sorts of creative lending vehicles which made no sense:
Zero down, iffy credit, interest-only, baloons, etc.
This is destined to repeat itself in about 20 years. That seems to be the cycle for stupid lending practices. The gov't will clamp down for about 10 years, then restrictions will loosen, and banks will post record earnings, then come crashing down again.
One of the dumbest and most blatant hand-outs to lending during the Bush years was bankruptcy reform. Stupid credit card companies lend money to people who have no business borrowing it in the first place then run to the gov't to fix it for them so they can shore up profits with their usurious rates. No, I don't carry a personal credit card- total rip-off.
mileage cards here....
you're not one of those women that hold up the check out stands writing out a check and taking forever are you?
Thank you for your clear response FOTD.
quote:
Originally posted by FOTD
mileage cards here....
you're not one of those women that hold up the check out stands writing out a check and taking forever are you?
Yeah, I also usually have a 1" stack of coupons and complain about being charged .89 cents for a can of Green Giant peas that were clearly marked .88 on the shelf tag. I usually leave my ID in the truck just so I can piss everyone else off for a few minutes while I run out to retrieve it. If I haven't held everyone up in the check out line for at least 15 minutes I'm not happy.
Former Treasury secretary Lawrence H. Summers says Bush and the Federal Reserve aren't taking aggressive enough action to prevent a recession; Bush doesn't even know the economy is bad, if it doesn't happen to him, he doesn't know it. 12/21
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/12/19/AR2007121902177.html
An op ed piece I read....
Hi there! Long time lurker, first time poster.
Can I just say that the phrase "personal responsibility" is soooo 2002? It might have had some resonance, some compelling meaning back early in Bush's first term, but at this point it just comes off as code for "screw you, Jack, I've got mine." Which, I'm sure we can agree, is the perfect center plank for any mainstream political movement.
I'm not sure how, after 7 years of such stupendous corruption and outright domestic policy failure, you guys can name-check it with a straight face. Right now, "personal responsibility" has a hundred retorts, things like "Enron," or "Katrina," or "Schiavo," or "Abramoff," or "Foley," et al. It's like the personal responsibility turkey shoot. Dying a thousand deaths at the hands of "personal greed," "personal gratification," and "personal political expediency."
You guys need a new slogan. This one is totally stale.
How bout, "I'm loving it!"
First, welcome We vs Us. Glad you have decided to hop into the show! I have decided to call you "WeVus" for just to make things easier. [;)]
Welcomes out of the way...
I do not see why personal responsibility should be a thing of the past. Why should I bale out someone who over spends? I have done a lot of bankruptcy work and can tell you the VAST majority of filers are there by virtue of living a lifestyle they truly could not afford. I witnessed many single people with $60,000 incomes filing because they lived in a $250,000 house, drove a BMW, and had a lavish speed boat.
Why should I not demand personal responsibility of them as well as the family making $50,000 a year that think they need a used Tahoe instead of a used Taurus?
There are a slim number of people who simply have a bum hand. They are physically unable, mental problems, divorce caused credit issues, or a failed business has forced their hand. For them bankruptcy laws exist. But by and large, the majority of people in financial trouble in this country are there because they tried to keep up with the Joneses.
and yes, that includes Mr. and Mrs. I want a $300,000 house so I'll take a fly-by-night loan to get it.
- - -
While I'm rolling out the welcome wagon... what does Schiavo have to do with this? Or the people that lived below sea level without flood insurance? Or, for that matter, the small gathering of thieves you mentioned (an example of over spenders at a high level)? Are these people victims in your scenario or examples... I'm just lost I guess.
/sry to jump on you your first post. If you've been lurking you will not take offense, I'm a jerk. [:P]
quote:
Originally posted by FOTD
Former Treasury secretary Lawrence H. Summers says Bush and the Federal Reserve aren't taking aggressive enough action to prevent a recession; Bush doesn't even know the economy is bad, if it doesn't happen to him, he doesn't know it. 12/21
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/12/19/AR2007121902177.html
An op ed piece I read....
Summers is a pretty well respected economist, but reading all his comments in the story, not even he is saying for certain the admins actions aren't good enough.
"Summers, a Harvard economics professor and former president of the university, said the president and Congress should use fiscal policy -- the government's taxing and spending abilities -- to help goose the economy in 2008. The best way to do that, he said, would be to temporarily lower taxes equally among taxpayers, extend unemployment insurance and increase food-stamp benefits. He stressed that such tax cuts and spending increases should be temporary, so as not to increase long-term budget deficits.
Later, in a conversation with editors and reporters of The Washington Post,
he argued that even if he turns out to be wrong about the fate of the economy, it would be better for the government to respond with vigor. "
What's that? A leading economist and former secretary of the treasury agrees that tax cuts stimulate the economy. He's a Clintonite, no less.
WVU- personal accountability and responsibility never goes out of style. People are given plenty of warning and information in writing about the loans they are signing. Consumer credit reforms of the '70's and '80's ensured that. If they aren't getting proper disclosure then there should be an investigation for fraud.
Welcome wevus...
One of my favorite political quotes came from Hubert H Humphrey. He would have been president except that he was too ugly to make it in a time when television was changing politics.
When asked what the role of government should be...his answer...
"The role of government should be to take care of those in the dawn of life, the young; those in the dusk of life, the elderly; and those in the shadows of life, the disadvantaged".
I think part of his point was that the rest of us can take care of ourselves.
quote:
Originally posted by Conan71
QuoteOriginally posted by FOTD
WVU- personal accountability and responsibility never goes out of style. People are given plenty of warning and information in writing about the loans they are signing. Consumer credit reforms of the '70's and '80's ensured that. If they aren't getting proper disclosure then there should be an investigation for fraud.
Well, actually, one of the problems with this credit bubble has been that unsophisticated investors were offered ridiculous terms on enormous loans, primarily because the institutions extending the enormous loans could turn around and sell them off.
Formerly (like, back around 2000), mortgages were extended only to "sophisticated investors," http://www.investopedia.com/terms/s/sophisticatedinvestor.asp" which is an industry-accepted definition.
So, start making loans to people who your own industry knows will be unable to pay the loans back and you'll reap the whirlwind. Dumb dumb dumb. Not to say that the subprime homeowners themselves don't share some of the blame, but simply by dint of ignorance of a system that the BANKS don't even understand at this point.
Wevus, not much different than when adjustable rate mortgages were being written in the '80's with a bunch of confusing bond indexes, adjustments with the prime on the second full moon of the month, etc. People used ARMS to buy more house than they could at a fixed rate. Instead of being patient and saving more down money, they forge ahead and believe that the rate only goes up in adverse conditions.
There was plenty of disclosure for these borrowers. No one held a gun to their head and said: "buy or die". Same with the latest crop who got chumped.
We aren't talking entirely about a bunch of poor work-a-day schleps who are in trouble. There are plenty of $300K-plus properties fixing to go tits up that young professionals are living in. A fellow who used to work for me was talking about the remarkable miracle that he could build a 12,000 sq. ft. home in Wagoner County- someone who had been living in a mobile home out in Prattville just over 10 years ago.
His solution was one of these interest-only notes. He had plenty of warning from myself and others, but his vanity wouldn't allow him to see the folly. He started getting screwed by a contractor, yada, yada, yada...lost his largest sales account, and guess what? It's going into foreclosure. He lost his biggest account because he had sole-source priveledges and got greedy. He lost his house because he got caught up in vanity building a monument to his greed. He's a good friend, but I don't shed a tear for him. It's hardly a tragedy perpetuated on him by a heartless lender.
The packaging and selling of loans from one investor or financial institution to another investor or financial institution is nothing new. That's gone on for decades. Read any loan docs you've got from a past or current loan, there's quite likely a clause in it which gives them the right to sell or re-assign your debt to another institution at their discretion. Re-selling or re-assigning mortgages has not caused this failure. It's people throwing common sense aside buying over-priced properties and taking out all sorts of bizarre loans to help them squeeze into that house.
quote:
Originally posted by Conan71
Wevus, not much different than when adjustable rate mortgages were being written in the '80's with a bunch of confusing bond indexes, adjustments with the prime on the second full moon of the month, etc. People used ARMS to buy more house than they could at a fixed rate. Instead of being patient and saving more down money, they forge ahead and believe that the rate only goes up in adverse conditions.
There was plenty of disclosure for these borrowers. No one held a gun to their head and said: "buy or die". Same with the latest crop who got chumped.
We aren't talking entirely about a bunch of poor work-a-day schleps who are in trouble. There are plenty of $300K-plus properties fixing to go tits up that young professionals are living in. A fellow who used to work for me was talking about the remarkable miracle that he could build a 12,000 sq. ft. home in Wagoner County- someone who had been living in a mobile home out in Prattville just over 10 years ago.
His solution was one of these interest-only notes. He had plenty of warning from myself and others, but his vanity wouldn't allow him to see the folly. He started getting screwed by a contractor, yada, yada, yada...lost his largest sales account, and guess what? It's going into foreclosure. He lost his biggest account because he had sole-source priveledges and got greedy. He lost his house because he got caught up in vanity building a monument to his greed. He's a good friend, but I don't shed a tear for him. It's hardly a tragedy perpetuated on him by a heartless lender.
The packaging and selling of loans from one investor or financial institution to another investor or financial institution is nothing new. That's gone on for decades. Read any loan docs you've got from a past or current loan, there's quite likely a clause in it which gives them the right to sell or re-assign your debt to another institution at their discretion. Re-selling or re-assigning mortgages has not caused this failure. It's people throwing common sense aside buying over-priced properties and taking out all sorts of bizarre loans to help them squeeze into that house.
I mean, sure. You can turn down that obscene credit offering. Or the company that extends it could actually do what it always used to do, and just not offer the loan in the first place. The money isn't just sitting under a bridge somewhere waiting to be picked up; it's extended by a company that evaluates you and should understand that you're a bad risk. That's been standard procedure for years and years. What you don't seem to acknowledge is that an entire industry shrugged off its own best practices in its rush to get EVERYONE and their dog into debt.
Your friend who got out of Prattville should never have been given the loan in the first place. That's all. He was a bad risk, and someone bet on him big time anyway. He wasn't particularly savvy but someone didn't care and said, here, have our money to build your dream house. And your Prattville friend said, "Awesome!" Now the people who loaned him the money are stuck and he's stuck, too, because he just wasn't smart enough to pull it off. He didn't know he wasn't smart enough, but I guarantee that the bank who gave him money knew he wasn't smart enough. And they did it anyway.
And as for loans being packaged and resold, of course that's standard stuff. But it was standard -- and safe -- because the packaged loans were to trustworthy buyers who had their own capital (ie a downpayment) also on the line. It was in no one's interest to default. The problem now is, they've packaged millions of these subprime loans and sold them off . . . and when these loans default the CDOs and other instruments the financial sector has used to pacakge them will turn to junk. And worse, because they've been packaged and repackaged sold and resold -- much more than they ever have in the past, BTW -- no one knows who's holding the bag. Who has to pay the debt? No one knows.
At this point, Wevus, both the borrowers and the lenders (originators win, but no one will buy the notes anymore) are aware that neither wins with crappy loans to unqualified buyers. Any institution still buying sub prime notes for face deserves what they get (as they did before). Any borrower looking at a radical loan that has not heard of the sub prime crisis probably has no business looking to buy a house.
So, at this juncture, what do you feel needs to be implemented?
And are these implementations designed to stop poor borrowers from getting loans? Remember, the Clinton administration set benchmarks to encourage banks to offer sub prime loans and those remain. Just curious what you think the solution is (both currently and to protect against this in the future).
IMHO all parties got burned by their own greed. A few got caught up unexpectedly, but that was ignorant home buyers and corporations lacking due diligence so my sympathy there is reduced, though not lacking. It would seem the repossessions and corporate losses might be enough to discourage both sides in the future. Any massive corporate or housing bailout will only send the message that personal responsibility really is dead. Make whatever bad choice you want and Tax Payers who have been careful will bail you out...
And thanks for the welcome, Cannon Fodder. My beef with personal responsibility is not that it's not an excellent moral virtue, but rather that it's virtually impossible to legislate. How do you write law to encourage people to be better people? Do we want to go with my definition of better or yours? We can ask my wife, and I guarantee she'd have a third, equally compelling definition. It doesn't have any specifics attached to it, and exists only as a codeword to get people of a certain political bent riled up about where their tax money is going (inevitably to those who aren't worthy of it).
So what's your personal responsibility policy prescription? What shall be our first law to enact that will improve the personal responsibility of all in the US?
Wevus, I've acknowledged that in this thread and others.
Junk bonds, sub-primes, Wall Street buying up packages of CFS "collectible debt". CFS- now there was a folly. Institutional investors buying chunks of previously charged-off debt that originated from people who had run from credit card companies. Talk about high risk!
There's no shortage of investors looking for high returns in the double digits. These lenders and investors know the risk when they start this crap and they expect some sort of help when the bottom finally falls out.
Maybe this is a big enough cataclysm to realize that high risk doesn't mean easy high returns, but a good chance you will lose your donkey.
This was a case where common sense was thrown out on both sides of the closing table. The lender throwing out common sense in no way should justify a lack of personal accountability on the part of the borrower.
quote:
Originally posted by cannon_fodder
At this point, Wevus, both the borrowers and the lenders (originators win, but no one will buy the notes anymore) are aware that neither wins with crappy loans to unqualified buyers. Any institution still buying sub prime notes for face deserves what they get (as they did before). Any borrower looking at a radical loan that has not heard of the sub prime crisis probably has no business looking to buy a house.
So, at this juncture, what do you feel needs to be implemented?
And are these implementations designed to stop poor borrowers from getting loans? Remember, the Clinton administration set benchmarks to encourage banks to offer sub prime loans and those remain. Just curious what you think the solution is (both currently and to protect against this in the future).
IMHO all parties got burned by their own greed. A few got caught up unexpectedly, but that was ignorant home buyers and corporations lacking due diligence so my sympathy there is reduced, though not lacking. It would seem the repossessions and corporate losses might be enough to discourage both sides in the future. Any massive corporate or housing bailout will only send the message that personal responsibility really is dead. Make whatever bad choice you want and Tax Payers who have been careful will bail you out...
I'm no economist, but domestically our credit needs to be tightened (which I gather it already has considerably), and standards need to be enforced within the industry. I also think that there should be some very harsh rules about how credit and debt should be packaged for secondary markets. Transparency is crucial for investments, and right now there isn't much for the CDOs and other instruments.
(Keep in mind, I'm also talking about the international credit crisis, which is related to, but not entirely the same as our housing crunch).
Finally, disclosure rules have to get much much simpler (I'm talking about to the buyer). There should be a one page statement summarizing the borrowers obligations, and a schedule of their debt as interest rates rise.
In the end, I think we're just going to disagree about where the blame lies on this one. The home buyer at this point is just one small link on a very long international chain, and in my opinion, a huge industry has arisen almost overnight to take advantage of the subprime people's gullibility and to exploit their lack of sophistication.
BTW, there have always been subprime borrowers, and the risks of them losing their property has always been there. So, it's not a market that's going away, and I think Clinton relaxed the rules primarily to encourage home-ownership amongst the poor. Not a bad thing on the face of it, but it should come with some serious counseling and education. I also, BTW, don't think that policy of Clinton's is to blame for this in the least. It's super-low interest rates (ie cheap mone) that were sustained for years.
I agree.
Clinton is not to blame. While he encouraged offering sub-prime loans to get poorer people into home ownership (a dubious goal both economically and environmentally) it has been a long standing policy of the government. Any fool politician (all of them) could have done it.
Simple disclosure rules would be VERY welcome. I would hate ANOTHER forum to be shuffled over the table and signed without looking at it... perhaps this could be a service of the loan company? What's more, some people wouldn't care. But it would help SOME people.
and yes, I think we will disagree on the cause. While I readily admit that originators steered people to bad loans to make money, there is plenty of blame on those who took the loans as well as the megacorps who then bought the notes. With the buyers gone (massive write downs ensure tighter credit), the origination of such notes should slow down.
Frankly, industries of every persuasion exist to exploit people. If you want to phrase it as such, that is what a consumer economy is based on. It is much easier to stop the problem at the consumer side (those who stand to lose) than on the seller side (who will be making money). And frankly, if we try to remove any more personal responsibility and stop all exploitation every marketing professional in the world is screwed. A leap, I understand - but you know what I mean.
No easy solution, but certainly all parties involved suffering (foreclosures, write downs, and loss of jobs for originators) will go a long way in correcting it for the next 50 years anyway.
quote:
Originally posted by we vs us
quote:
Originally posted by cannon_fodder
At this point, Wevus, both the borrowers and the lenders (originators win, but no one will buy the notes anymore) are aware that neither wins with crappy loans to unqualified buyers. Any institution still buying sub prime notes for face deserves what they get (as they did before). Any borrower looking at a radical loan that has not heard of the sub prime crisis probably has no business looking to buy a house.
So, at this juncture, what do you feel needs to be implemented?
And are these implementations designed to stop poor borrowers from getting loans? Remember, the Clinton administration set benchmarks to encourage banks to offer sub prime loans and those remain. Just curious what you think the solution is (both currently and to protect against this in the future).
IMHO all parties got burned by their own greed. A few got caught up unexpectedly, but that was ignorant home buyers and corporations lacking due diligence so my sympathy there is reduced, though not lacking. It would seem the repossessions and corporate losses might be enough to discourage both sides in the future. Any massive corporate or housing bailout will only send the message that personal responsibility really is dead. Make whatever bad choice you want and Tax Payers who have been careful will bail you out...
I'm no economist, but domestically our credit needs to be tightened (which I gather it already has considerably), and standards need to be enforced within the industry. I also think that there should be some very harsh rules about how credit and debt should be packaged for secondary markets. Transparency is crucial for investments, and right now there isn't much for the CDOs and other instruments.
(Keep in mind, I'm also talking about the international credit crisis, which is related to, but not entirely the same as our housing crunch).
Finally, disclosure rules have to get much much simpler (I'm talking about to the buyer). There should be a one page statement summarizing the borrowers obligations, and a schedule of their debt as interest rates rise.
In the end, I think we're just going to disagree about where the blame lies on this one. The home buyer at this point is just one small link on a very long international chain, and in my opinion, a huge industry has arisen almost overnight to take advantage of the subprime people's gullibility and to exploit their lack of sophistication.
BTW, there have always been subprime borrowers, and the risks of them losing their property has always been there. So, it's not a market that's going away, and I think Clinton relaxed the rules primarily to encourage home-ownership amongst the poor. Not a bad thing on the face of it, but it should come with some serious counseling and education. I also, BTW, don't think that policy of Clinton's is to blame for this in the least. It's super-low interest rates (ie cheap mone) that were sustained for years.
I agree with you it is just about impossible to legislate personal responsibility. That's right up there on my list of things government should not do like legislate morality. But that is where the government can act to protect those without common sense or personal restraint- restrict the sources of those problems.
Lenders can do a better job of policing themselves. It shouldn't have to come down to government regs.
The main reason I have railed so loudly about the bankruptcy reform of a few years ago (or was it a couple?) is that it essentially affirms the preditory lending practices of credit card companies. I mean giving credit card debt an almost equal status with student loans and taxes in personal bankruptcy is ludicrous. In other words Congress and President Bush gave credit card lenders near unlimited security on their loans.
I honestly don't know where the solution lies. On one hand, you can wind up putting the dream of home ownership out of reach of some people who might turn out to be great borrowers just to try and prevent any defaults. For the time being, I think the banks and investors in sub-prime mortgages have learned their lesson.
quote:
Originally posted by Conan71
quote:
Originally posted by we vs us
quote:
Originally posted by cannon_fodder
At this point, Wevus, both the borrowers and the lenders (originators win, but no one will buy the notes anymore) are aware that neither wins with crappy loans to unqualified buyers. Any institution still buying sub prime notes for face deserves what they get (as they did before). Any borrower looking at a radical loan that has not heard of the sub prime crisis probably has no business looking to buy a house.
So, at this juncture, what do you feel needs to be implemented?
And are these implementations designed to stop poor borrowers from getting loans? Remember, the Clinton administration set benchmarks to encourage banks to offer sub prime loans and those remain. Just curious what you think the solution is (both currently and to protect against this in the future).
IMHO all parties got burned by their own greed. A few got caught up unexpectedly, but that was ignorant home buyers and corporations lacking due diligence so my sympathy there is reduced, though not lacking. It would seem the repossessions and corporate losses might be enough to discourage both sides in the future. Any massive corporate or housing bailout will only send the message that personal responsibility really is dead. Make whatever bad choice you want and Tax Payers who have been careful will bail you out...
I'm no economist, but domestically our credit needs to be tightened (which I gather it already has considerably), and standards need to be enforced within the industry. I also think that there should be some very harsh rules about how credit and debt should be packaged for secondary markets. Transparency is crucial for investments, and right now there isn't much for the CDOs and other instruments.
(Keep in mind, I'm also talking about the international credit crisis, which is related to, but not entirely the same as our housing crunch).
Finally, disclosure rules have to get much much simpler (I'm talking about to the buyer). There should be a one page statement summarizing the borrowers obligations, and a schedule of their debt as interest rates rise.
In the end, I think we're just going to disagree about where the blame lies on this one. The home buyer at this point is just one small link on a very long international chain, and in my opinion, a huge industry has arisen almost overnight to take advantage of the subprime people's gullibility and to exploit their lack of sophistication.
BTW, there have always been subprime borrowers, and the risks of them losing their property has always been there. So, it's not a market that's going away, and I think Clinton relaxed the rules primarily to encourage home-ownership amongst the poor. Not a bad thing on the face of it, but it should come with some serious counseling and education. I also, BTW, don't think that policy of Clinton's is to blame for this in the least. It's super-low interest rates (ie cheap mone) that were sustained for years.
I agree with you it is just about impossible to legislate personal responsibility. That's right up there on my list of things government should not do like legislate morality. But that is where the government can act to protect those without common sense or personal restraint- restrict the sources of those problems.
Lenders can do a better job of policing themselves. It shouldn't have to come down to government regs.
The main reason I have railed so loudly about the bankruptcy reform of a few years ago (or was it a couple?) is that it essentially affirms the preditory lending practices of credit card companies. I mean giving credit card debt an almost equal status with student loans and taxes in personal bankruptcy is ludicrous. In other words Congress and President Bush gave credit card lenders near unlimited security on their loans.
I honestly don't know where the solution lies. On one hand, you can wind up putting the dream of home ownership out of reach of some people who might turn out to be great borrowers just to try and prevent any defaults. For the time being, I think the banks and investors in sub-prime mortgages have learned their lesson.
I think we agree more than we disagree, but I've got to say that lenders have proven at this point that, without a doubt, they need better regulation. Obviously, the industry has proven that it's more than willing to cast off its own rules if some quick money can be made. Honestly, better gov't oversight might actually help make the transactions more transparent and help delineate who holds whose debt. Putting fair rules into place has the potential to calm the markets rather than stifle them.
The problem with the tough-love approach to the upcoming foreclosure wave (as Cannon Fodder suggests) is that the wave is unprecedented and massive. I've seen numbers that quote up to 1 trillion$ in value this year alone will be lost, and that anywhere from 20 -30million home owners will default. I'll google for verification on that, but even if the number is only 10million, we're in a pickle. And it may be that the health of the entire economy demands a bailout, else it drag us all down with it. Time will tell, I guess.
quote:
Originally posted by we vs us
I think we agree more than we disagree, but I've got to say that lenders have proven at this point that, without a doubt, they need better regulation. Obviously, the industry has proven that it's more than willing to cast off its own rules if some quick money can be made. Honestly, better gov't oversight might actually help make the transactions more transparent and help delineate who holds whose debt. Putting fair rules into place has the potential to calm the markets rather than stifle them.
The problem with the tough-love approach to the upcoming foreclosure wave (as Cannon Fodder suggests) is that the wave is unprecedented and massive. I've seen numbers that quote up to 1 trillion$ in value this year alone will be lost, and that anywhere from 20 -30million home owners will default. I'll google for verification on that, but even if the number is only 10million, we're in a pickle. And it may be that the health of the entire economy demands a bailout, else it drag us all down with it. Time will tell, I guess.
Yes we do agree more than we disagree.
Greed will outrun common sense and morals on just about any day.
It's a lot easier and more expedient to go to the source of the problem and mitigate it. IOW, crack down on a few thousand lenders instead of trying to educate and (for lack of better description) rehabilitate millions of borrowers. If there weren't sub-prime mortgages in the first place, then you wouldn't have sub-prime defaults, yes?
I do think bankers need to take a long look ata appraisers and tighten the reins on them. All appraisals should be blind and the appraiser should not know the agreed-upon sales price in the first place. Anyone else notice who has been through this, that in those instances that the appraisal is almost always within .5% to 1% of the sales price?
Housing starts and housing sales has been considered an economic indicator and a sign of overall American prosperity.
The reality of this situation that I think a lot of people, including the media have missed is that there's not beeen a sharp rise in unemployment prior to this, nor a slowdown in productivity which is commensurate with the rate of defaults. There are lots of people defaulting on mortgages who have held the same job or stayed in the same line of work for years.
I used to work in consumer lending. When we would buy a package of loans from a closed financial institution, our legal costs went up. People assumed since their bank or A-class lender went out of business, they no longer owed their debt and just quit paying, thinking they just got a free car, furniture, or a forgiven signature loan.
There's also a monkey-see monkey-do mentality. "Well my cousin isn't paying his note, nothing's happened to him, so I'm not goign to pay mine either."
I realize that is not the bulk of these defaults, but those are in there as well. 20 to 30mm foreclosures sounds way, way high to me. I don't think it will be anywhere that bad.
I'll agree with some of what you say but will tell you we are still in deep do do with the credit situation. This will take many moons to be alleviated and our Fed is not helping. If anything, they seem to be procrastinating the inevitable crunch. Credit card debt is the next big hurdle...I thought conservatives believed in letting free markets behave without government intervention.
And look who is stepping in to buy our debt and bail out the banks. Dubai. Let's see, two years ago everyone was freaked out when they were hired to man our ports but nobody seems bothered we are being taken over by China and Arab dictators.
quote:
Originally posted by FOTD
I'll agree with some of what you say but will tell you we are still in deep do do with the credit situation. This will take many moons to be alleviated and our Fed is not helping. If anything, they seem to be procrastinating the inevitable crunch. Credit card debt is the next big hurdle...I thought conservatives believed in letting free markets behave without government intervention.
And look who is stepping in to buy our debt and bail out the banks. Dubai. Let's see, two years ago everyone was freaked out when they were hired to man our ports but nobody seems bothered we are being taken over by China and Arab dictators.
Wasn't quite two years ago, and that was a bizarre plant on Bush when he was hung over from another kegger and coke binge. "Uh, yeah every good 'mercan should, ah, support, giving Dubai control of our fine 'mercan ports."
Dubai profiting off us? Natural progression. China is finally investing in infrastructure to get them out of the 5th century B.C. They have other priorities than U.S. debt and I predict they are less than 24 months from major economic upheaval/recession. The reasons are numerous, PM me if you want to know why.
How can The Fed help alleviate stupidity in lending and borrowing? What government-spawned miracle are you waiting on from The Fed? What's going to happen is banks and investment houses greasing the skids with '08 candidates for a great bail-out at the cost of the taxpayers. I honestly think I'm ready to quit sales and get into politics. I could spend other people's money, draw a six figure income (unless I set my sights low enough on being a Tulsa city councilor) and have zero compunction about the consequences to anyone else because I'd know regardless what happens after my first term, I've got first class welfare guaranteed for life.
Credit card debt is no hurdle to Washington anymore. Didn't you hear that Congress and President Bush gave MBNA and Citibank carte blanche (excuse the pun) a couple of years ago? Anyone who voted for an incumbent after that fiasco and complains about their credit card debt should be removed from the gene pool.
I know I harp on that all the time, it never affected me personally, it was just a watershed moment when I finally realized that lobbyists and not citizens are running DC. That was so incredibly out of step with conservative thinking that I almost registered as a Democrat the next day.
I told you so...
It's Not 1929, but It's the Biggest Mess Since
By Steven Pearlstein
Wednesday, December 5, 2007; D01
It was Charles Mackay, the 19th-century Scottish journalist, who observed that men go mad in herds but only come to their senses one by one.
We are only at the beginning of the financial world coming to its senses after the bursting of the biggest credit bubble the world has seen. Everyone seems to acknowledge now that there will be lots of mortgage foreclosures and that house prices will fall nationally for the first time since the Great Depression. Some lenders and hedge funds have failed, while some banks have taken painful write-offs and fired executives. There's even a growing recognition that a recession is over the horizon.
But let me assure you, you ain't seen nothing, yet.
What's important to understand is that, contrary to what you heard from President Bush yesterday, this isn't just a mortgage or housing crisis. The financial giants that originated, packaged, rated and insured all those subprime mortgages were the same ones, run by the same executives, with the same fee incentives, using the same financial technologies and risk-management systems, who originated, packaged, rated and insured home-equity loans, commercial real estate loans, credit card loans and loans to finance corporate buyouts.
It is highly unlikely that these organizations did a significantly better job with those other lines of business than they did with mortgages. But the extent of those misjudgments will be revealed only once the economy has slowed, as it surely will.
At the center of this still-unfolding disaster is the Collateralized Debt Obligation, or CDO. CDOs are not new -- they were at the center of a boom and bust in manufacturing housing loans in the early 2000s. But in the past several years, the CDO market has exploded, fueling not only a mortgage boom but expansion of all manner of credit. By one estimate, the face value of outstanding CDOs is nearly $2 trillion.
But let's begin with the mortgage-backed CDO.
By now, almost everyone knows that most mortgages are no longer held by banks until they are paid off: They are packaged with other mortgages and sold to investors much like a bond.
In the simple version, each investor owned a small percentage of the entire package and got the same yield as all the other investors. Then someone figured out that you could do a bigger business by selling them off in tranches corresponding to different levels of credit risk. Under this arrangement, if any of the mortgages in the pool defaulted, the riskiest tranche would absorb all the losses until its entire investment was wiped out, followed by the next riskiest and the next.
With these tranches, mortgage debt could be divided among classes of investors. The riskiest tranches -- those with the lowest credit ratings -- were sold to hedge funds and junk bond funds whose investors wanted the higher yields that went with the higher risk. The safest ones, offering lower yields and Treasury-like AAA ratings, were snapped up by risk-averse pension funds and money market funds. The least sought-after tranches were those in the middle, the "mezzanine" tranches, which offered middling yields for supposedly moderate risks.
Stick with me now, because this is where it gets interesting. For it is at this point that the banks got the bright idea of buying up a bunch of mezzanine tranches from various pools. Then, using fancy computer models, they convinced themselves and the rating agencies that by repeating the same "tranching" process, they could use these mezzanine-rated assets to create a new set of securities -- some of them junk, some mezzanine, but the bulk of them with the AAA ratings more investors desired.
It was a marvelous piece of financial alchemy, one that made Wall Street banks and the ratings agencies billions of dollars in fees. And because so much borrowed money was used -- in buying the original mortgages, buying the tranches for the CDOs and then in buying the tranches of the CDOs -- the whole thing was so highly leveraged that the returns, at least on paper, were very attractive. No wonder they were snatched up by British hedge funds, German savings banks, oil-rich Norwegian villages and Florida pension funds.
What we know now, of course, is that the investment banks and ratings agencies underestimated the risk that mortgage defaults would rise so dramatically that even AAA investments could lose their value.
One analysis, by Eidesis Capital, a fund specializing in CDOs, estimates that, of the CDOs issued during the peak years of 2006 and 2007, investors in all but the AAA tranches will lose all their money, and even those will suffer losses of 6 to 31 percent.
And looking across the sector, J.P. Morgan's CDO analysts estimate that there will be at least $300 billion in eventual credit losses, the bulk of which is still hidden from public view. That includes at least $30 billion in additional write-downs at major banks and investment houses, and much more at hedge funds that, for the most part, remain in a state of denial.
As part of the unwinding process, the rating agencies are in the midst of a massive and embarrassing downgrading process that will force many banks, pension funds and money market funds to sell their CDO holdings into a market so bereft of buyers that, in one recent transaction, a desperate E-Trade was able to get only 27 cents on the dollar for its highly rated portfolio.
Meanwhile, banks that are forced to hold on to their CDO assets will be required to set aside much more of their own capital as a financial cushion. That will sharply reduce the money they have available for making new loans.
And it doesn't stop there. CDO losses now threaten the AAA ratings of a number of insurance companies that bought CDO paper or insured against CDO losses. And because some of those insurers also have provided insurance to investors in tax-exempt bonds, states and municipalities have decided to pull back on new bond offerings because investors have become skittish.
If all this sounds like a financial house of cards, that's because it is. And it is about to come crashing down, with serious consequences not only for banks and investors but for the economy as a whole.
That's not just my opinion. It's why banks are husbanding their cash and why the outstanding stock of bank loans and commercial paper is shrinking dramatically.
It is why Treasury officials are working overtime on schemes to stem the tide of mortgage foreclosures and provide a new vehicle to buy up CDO assets.
It's why state and federal budget officials are anticipating sharp decreases in tax revenue next year.
And it is why the Federal Reserve is now willing to toss aside concerns about inflation, the dollar and bailing out Wall Street, and move aggressively to cut interest rates and pump additional funds directly into the banking system.
This may not be 1929. But it's a good bet that it's way more serious than the junk bond crisis of 1987, the S&L crisis of 1990 or the bursting of the tech bubble in 2001.
dropped %20 in one month? Uh Oh....the republicans are going to be forced to eat each other before long.
http://www.pensitoreview.com/2007/12/22/poll-republican-approval-of-bush-on-economy-plummets/
Poll: Republican Approval of Bush's Handling of the Economy Plummets
Jon Ponder | Dec. 22, 2007
Republicans' approval of Pres. Bush's handling of the economy dropped 20 percentage points in the last month, according to American Research Group:
It suggests a wave of financial insecurity among Republican voters and could be a portentous sign of weakness inside Bush's base.
45 percent of Republicans disapprove of the way George W. Bush is handling the economy. In November, 25 percent of Republicans disapproved of Bush's handling of the economy.
That's quite a drop in a key indicator. It suggests a wave of financial insecurity among Republican voters and could be a portentous sign of weakness inside Bush's base.
Among all voters, 71 percent disapprove of Bush's handling of the economy, while 28 percent approve.
Overall, 32 percent approved of Bush's job performance versus 66 percent who disapproved.
The Elephant in the Room (//%22http://www.yubanet.com/artman/publish/printer_72998.shtml%22)
Despite improvements in financial management since the U.S. government began preparing consolidated financial statements more than a decade ago, three major impediments prevent the U.S. government from obtaining a clean opinion: (1) serious financial management problems at the Department of Defense, (2) the federal government's inability to adequately account for and reconcile intragovernmental activity and balances between federal agencies, and (3) the federal government's ineffective process for preparing the consolidated financial statements.
"Until the problems outlined in our audit report are adequately addressed, they will continue to have adverse implications for the federal government and American taxpayers," Walker said in a letter to the President and Congress.
"The federal government's fiscal exposures totaled approximately $53 trillion as of September 30, 2007, up more than $2 trillion from September 30, 2006, and an increase of more than $32 trillion from about $20 trillion as of September 30, 2000," Walker said. "This translates into a current burden of about $175,000 per American or approximately $455,000 per American household."
The rising tide that lifts all yachts (//%22http://www.epi.org/content.cfm/ib239%22)
Dove tailing the above link....
Reckoning
The Economic Consequences of Mr. Bush
The next president will have to deal with yet another crippling legacy of George W. Bush: the economy. A Nobel laureate, Joseph E. Stiglitz, sees a generation-long struggle to recoup.
by Joseph E. Stiglitz December 2007
http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2007/12/bush200712
"America's budget and trade deficits have grown to record highs under President Bush. To be sure, deficits don't have to be crippling in and of themselves. If a business borrows to buy a machine, it's a good thing, not a bad thing. During the past six years, America—its government, its families, the country as a whole—has been borrowing to sustain its consumption. Meanwhile, investment in fixed assets—the plants and equipment that help increase our wealth—has been declining."
also
"The administration crows that the economy grew—by some 16 percent—during its first six years, but the growth helped mainly people who had no need of any help, and failed to help those who need plenty. A rising tide lifted all yachts. Inequality is now widening in America, and at a rate not seen in three-quarters of a century. "
and
"Meanwhile, we have become dependent on other nations for the financing of our own debt. Today, China alone holds more than $1 trillion in public and private American I.O.U.'s. Cumulative borrowing from abroad during the six years of the Bush administration amounts to some $5 trillion. Most likely these creditors will not call in their loans—if they ever did, there would be a global financial crisis. But there is something bizarre and troubling about the richest country in the world not being able to live even remotely within its means. Just as Guantánamo and Abu Ghraib have eroded America's moral authority, so the Bush administration's fiscal housekeeping has eroded our economic authority."
more.....
"Whoever moves into the White House in January 2009 will face an unenviable set of economic circumstances. Extricating the country from Iraq will be the bloodier task, but putting America's economic house in order will be wrenching and take years.
The most immediate challenge will be simply to get the economy's metabolism back into the normal range. That will mean moving from a savings rate of zero (or less) to a more typical savings rate of, say, 4 percent. While such an increase would be good for the long-term health of America's economy, the short-term consequences would be painful. Money saved is money not spent. If people don't spend money, the economic engine stalls. If households curtail their spending quickly—as they may be forced to do as a result of the meltdown in the mortgage market—this could mean a recession; if done in a more measured way, it would still mean a protracted slowdown. The problems of foreclosure and bankruptcy posed by excessive household debt are likely to get worse before they get better. And the federal government is in a bind: any quick restoration of fiscal sanity will only aggravate both problems."
"In short, there's a momentum here that will require a generation to reverse. "
Read the article to see what the author suggests will need to happen to reclaim our strength....and it's not based on strengthening the military.
I know there are problems in our economy. A large part of it imo is the Fed gov borrowing and spending too much. I think a lot of spending that is done by the government should be done locally. If its local debt and spending I think its paid closer attention to, versus federal almost doesnt seem real so it grows and grows and if one state does it and another doesnt then the one that doesnt is paying for the state that does spend and borrow more. A Coburn for example cant stem the tide all by themselves. It just ends up with other states getting "bridges to nowhere and Ice cream museums", yet we are all going to get the burden of paying for those things. If more spending control were local people would be wiser in choosing, hopefully, in what they spend or borrow for, medical research for example.
But. I dont like how this this discussion about income inequality is framed. To me its not properly framing the truth of the situation and thus hiding any potential solution to any income problems we have.
Income inequality can mean that Jo Smiths income rose... but Sam Tycoons rose a lot more. The assumption often seems to be that Sam Tycoon is either taking something that would otherwise go to Jo, or Sam is not sharing his wealth more fairly. (remember Sam may be investing his money into "shares" to actually create a job that employs Jo.)
If Jo sells burgers at the local burger joint, his income is going to be pretty much the same year after year. But if Sam owns a chain that starts out with several stores in a city, then more stores throughout the state, then the whole United States and now he is selling burgers across the whole world to Billions. Sams income is of course going to be astronomical. There will be a huge income inequality between Jo and Sam.
Plus as the whole world gets richer a person or company has the opportunity to sell to ever more people. Instead of a person or company selling, say a million of something and getting the profit from a million, they are selling perhaps hundreds of millions around the world, perhaps even making less profit off of each item, but over all their income is still skyrocketing in comparison to what they could have made 50 years ago, 30 years ago, even 20 years ago.
One more example. Say your an inventor and invent something completely new, not competing with any local guy. New medical device, post-its, Myspace, watever. You have a hit movie, song, Harry Potter book,,, In a global market you now have the opportunity to sell to Billions, you will suddenly become extremely wealthy in comparison to those around you. You couldnt have sold to so many a generation ago. The income inequality wouldnt have been as great. It doesnt mean those around you got any poorer. But by you having a product that you can sell to ever more people, you have contributed to income inequality. Is it bad that you can get so much more richer now yet everyone elses income didnt go up nearly as much?
Now that China has "gone capitalist" the inequality gap there has widened tremendously as well. Huge income inequality but do we think its a bad thing that there are at least some that are now middle class and rich?
Ok, just one more thing, lol... If we dont have super rich in this country, another country will. The super rich buy up other companies. US rich can buy up the "means of production" in other countries, the super rich of other countries, Dubai for instance, can buy up the means of production in our country. In other words, if the rich of the rest of the world were to buy up the means of production in the US you may get your wish of income equality in the US for the profits will be going to those over seas buyers. The profits will be going to rich foreigners and we will all get to be more equally poor. Wont that be great? The super wealthy in our country are competing to stay on top of whats going on in the rest of the world. If we decide that ol Conglomerate USA shouldnt be so rich, then instead of doing the buying, they will be the one bought up. There is a power struggle going on "up there".
I could go on with other points. But suffice it to say...
Be careful when thinking about income inequality and what it can mean.
quote:
Originally posted by TheArtist
I know there are problems in our economy. A large part of it imo is the Fed gov borrowing and spending too much. I think a lot of spending that is done by the government should be done locally. If its local debt and spending I think its paid closer attention to, versus federal almost doesnt seem real so it grows and grows and if one state does it and another doesnt then the one that doesnt is paying for the state that does spend and borrow more. A Coburn for example cant stem the tide all by themselves. It just ends up with other states getting "bridges to nowhere and Ice cream museums", yet we are all going to get the burden of paying for those things. If more spending control were local people would be wiser in choosing, hopefully, in what they spend or borrow for, medical research for example.
But. I dont like how this this discussion about income inequality is framed. To me its not properly framing the truth of the situation and thus hiding any potential solution to any income problems we have.
Income inequality can mean that Jo Smiths income rose... but Sam Tycoons rose a lot more. The assumption often seems to be that Sam Tycoon is either taking something that would otherwise go to Jo, or Sam is not sharing his wealth more fairly. (remember Sam may be investing his money into "shares" to actually create a job that employs Jo.)
If Jo sells burgers at the local burger joint, his income is going to be pretty much the same year after year. But if Sam owns a chain that starts out with several stores in a city, then more stores throughout the state, then the whole United States and now he is selling burgers across the whole world to Billions. Sams income is of course going to be astronomical. There will be a huge income inequality between Jo and Sam.
Plus as the whole world gets richer those companies that used to be able to only sell their product or services to the middle class, now find they can sell to millions and millions more. Same people owning the company, but now instead of selling, say a million of something and getting the profit from a million, they are selling perhaps hundreds of millions around the world and making, perhaps even less profit off of each item, but over all their income is still skyrocketing in comparison.
One more example. Say your an inventor and invent something completely new, not competing with any local guy. New medical device, post-its, watever. In a global market you now have the opportunity to sell to Billions, you will suddenly become extremely wealthy in comparison to those around you. It doesnt mean those around you got any poorer. But you have contributed to income inequality. Is it bad that you got so rich yet everyone elses income didnt go up nearly as much?
Now that China has "gone capitalist" the inequality gap there has widened tremendously as well. Huge income inequality but do we think its a bad thing that there are at least some that are now middle class and rich?
One other thing... If we dont have super rich in this country, another country will. The super rich buy up other companies. US rich can buy up the "means of production" in other countries, the super rich of other countries, Dubai for instance, can buy up the means of production in our country. In other words, if the rich of the rest of the world were to buy up the means of production in the US you may get your wish of income equality in the US for the profits will be going to those over seas buyers. The profits will be going to rich foreigners and we will all get to be more equally poor. Wont that be great? The super wealthy in our country are competing to stay on top of whats going on in the rest of the world. There is a power struggle going on "up there".
I could go on with other points. But suffice it to say...
Be careful when thinking about income inequality and what it can mean.
I understand why you want to see the mega rich get richer, more disposable income for them means more chances for you to get on the dole of a rich patron. Paint is your medium, right? Because after that senseless spiel, I am beginning to wonder if it isn't B.S.
DoubleA, that was possible the most senseless and uncalled for comment I have seen on this forum. In spite of your repeatedly drive by postings of links with no analysis or explanation of your own, The Artist took the time to very rationally explain his position. Instead of disagree with him or explaining where his analysis was incorrect, you decide to insult his integrity.
What's more, he was spot on. In rural China there is very little income disparity because everyone is dirt poor. In the cities, you have a vast horde that remain dirt poor, a growing middle class, and a small group of wealthy people. Are the dirt poor somehow worse off now that some other's have wealth?
DoubleA, yours stuck in a 17th century mercantile thought process of finite wealth. The fact is in most instances the rich have added wealth into our world and thus have more of it. Not only labor, but resources, capital improvements, and intellectual property add wealth into our world - why should those that provide them not reap the additions that they sow.
Just so you can properly ignore my thesis and insult me, let me provide you with an example.
In my world, a farmer takes a financial risk to lease land and barrow money to buy seed. He then spends his labor planting those seeds and tending to his field. If the rain comes but is not too heavy, the sun shines the right amount of time, if insects are kept at bay... the a farmer can then spend more labor harvesting his crop.
When all this is done the farmer, through his investment, risk, and labor has added wealth to our world in the form of a crop. If he does it well and risks enough (labor is a risk also, since the same labor could be used to secure an income) he can produce enough to sell his excess. In my world, he then gets to keep this excess.
In your world - this farmer has to give his excess to the farmer down the street who was either too lazy, too afraid of risk, or for other reason was unable to produce more than a simple means of survival.
Now, do you suppose the productive farmer will bother to do so next year?
The rich do keep getting richer. But can anyone dispute that there are far more millionaires in the U.S. than there were 50 or 100 years ago? How many millionaires were created in the old USSR from the Bolshevik Revolution to the time of the dissolution of the USSR? How about China from around 1900 to 1990?
Anyone who has gainful employment in this country has it due to the wealth of others: in part, taxation of wealthy people (gov't jobs), and/or reinvestment in the economy by wealthy people.
A lot of people have become wealthy due to other people spreading their wealth around by creating income opportunities for others.
quote:
Originally posted by Conan71
The rich do keep getting richer. But can anyone dispute that there are far more millionaires in the U.S. than there were 50 or 100 years ago? How many millionaires were created in the old USSR from the Bolshevik Revolution to the time of the dissolution of the USSR? How about China from around 1900 to 1990?
Anyone who has gainful employment in this country has it due to the wealth of others: in part, taxation of wealthy people (gov't jobs), and/or reinvestment in the economy by wealthy people.
A lot of people have become wealthy due to other people spreading their wealth around by creating income opportunities for others.
(http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y179/rico2/Eucharist.jpg)
Can I get an Amen for the Barbarian.......!
(http://www.i5.photobucket.com/albums/y179/rico2/Amen.jpg)
[}:)]
Rico, that even has a nice Christmas touch to it.
[;)]
I made a few wording adjustments above to hopefully make what I was trying to get at it a bit clear.
One thing I would say that could be done to help with income inequality in the US is to make trade deals in this global economy, or we "should have" made trade deals that indeed increased free trade but also had some stipulations. In return for access to our markets, allow trade unions to form for instance. Though you would have to get a good part of the rest of the world to go along with you.
If a trade union fights for higher wages, more health care, safety conditions, etc. here and a company in another country can make the product for less because they dont have trade unions, then people will buy the less expensive product from the foreign company.
Say you ban that foreign company from selling that product here because they dont allow unions. Europe, Russia, Canada, the rest of the world, will buy that cheaper product, or service and the US company will not be able to compete in that global market. That will hurt US companies and jobs.
The prices in the US will be higher because people in the US have to pay more for things than someone say in France. If a US person or company pays more for a widget they use to make a product with or thats in another product, and or they pay more in general for things to live on, then the products they make will cost more on the global market than the same product made in France. Also France can still sell its products to the US, but their products will be cheaper because their people and companies can buy cheaper products from that non union country to live on and to use to produce their own products.
Example: I buy my paint and brushes from a union factory here. The artist in France buys his paints and brushes from a non union company in China for less. The French artist can sell his paintings for less in the US than I can. He can sell his products in the rest of the world for less than I can.
Its a global economy......... as it is, the average worker is going to have a hard time increasing his income, yet the person or company that sells to lots of people will continue to be able to sell to ever more and more people in the US and around the world.
As China and Indias middle class becomes larger and more influential they will be able to organize more, start worrying about things like health care, property rights, rule of law as it pertains to capitalism, environmental concerns, etc. Then the wages in those countries will begin to rise as costs go up. But that is going to take time. It may follow the same process that western countries took when those uppity middle class mercantilists started taking power away from the aristocracy and then had enough power and leisure to concern themselves with other matters. I say MAY because in places like China and possibly Russia, the political structure has so much control that it may not be allowed. Thus it may not evolve the way we hope, even as their middle and wealthy classes grow.
One way to increase income with US workers is to make sure they are not doing jobs that compete with the kind of jobs and products that are made in poorer countries. Make sure more US people are highly educated and doing high paying, higher skilled jobs. Though incomes may rise by doing that, it will still not get rid of rising income inequality for the reasons I stated in my earlier post.
quote:
Originally posted by Conan71
Anyone who has gainful employment in this country has it due to the wealth of others: in part, taxation of wealthy people (gov't jobs), and/or reinvestment in the economy by wealthy people.
A lot of people have become wealthy due to other people spreading their wealth around by creating income opportunities for others.
I'm never quite sure, when someone says this, how to take it. Are you telling me to accept the fact that wealthy people will always be wealthy? that I should thank them for my well-being? that they will always be different than me? What are you trying to tell me, here?
Are you trying to scare me away from some sort of commie wealth redistribution scheme? Is it natural and right for me to rely on a class of oligarchs who will shower me with benevolence and to whom I will always and forever be beholden?
Really, if we follow your prescription (that is, the wealthy are the engines of our economy by supporting job growth, taking risks with capital, etc), then it would in our favor to close the income gap. Upwards. We should simply find ways to make more people rich, because the more rich folks we have the more jobs we'll have. And inequality is bad because we have fewer people contributing to the job-making machine. Am I reading you right?
quote:
Originally posted by we vs us
quote:
Originally posted by Conan71
Anyone who has gainful employment in this country has it due to the wealth of others: in part, taxation of wealthy people (gov't jobs), and/or reinvestment in the economy by wealthy people.
A lot of people have become wealthy due to other people spreading their wealth around by creating income opportunities for others.
I'm never quite sure, when someone says this, how to take it. Are you telling me to accept the fact that wealthy people will always be wealthy? that I should thank them for my well-being? that they will always be different than me? What are you trying to tell me, here?
Are you trying to scare me away from some sort of commie wealth redistribution scheme? Is it natural and right for me to rely on a class of oligarchs who will shower me with benevolence and to whom I will always and forever be beholden?
Really, if we follow your prescription (that is, the wealthy are the engines of our economy by supporting job growth, taking risks with capital, etc), then it would in our favor to close the income gap. Upwards. We should simply find ways to make more people rich, because the more rich folks we have the more jobs we'll have. And inequality is bad because we have fewer people contributing to the job-making machine. Am I reading you right?
Come on now, class envy is so 1992. [;)]
Depends on your personal paradigm I suppose. If you are more liberal leaning, my words will go in one ear and out the other. If you are more free-market capitalist, have observed global economic systems and the results, and still believe in the original American dream, you will probably nod your head at a few of my comments, if not most.
Why should you have a problem showing that sort of gratitude? Other than mental or physical disability, there's no limit to what you can become in this country so long as you have desire and ambition. As long as you are willing to make the sacrifice to make yourself more valuable to someone else by improving your skills or education, there's always someone who needs you to help them make more money and they are willing to share that wealth.
Aside from jobs and taxes, consider that the wealthy donate billions every year to universities to provide better facilities and to fund professorships and scholarships, so that others may improve their personal station in life. If you went to college and didn't ever have a scholarship or grant, you still benefitted from the benevolence of wealthy people.
Someone can come from a slum and eventually become chief of staff at a major hospital. An disadvantaged child can rise from poverty in rural Arkansas and become President of the United States.
Consider that the wealthy give billions every year to medical facilities and research so that we can all live healthier lives.
Consider that the wealthy invest heavily every year in providing safe agricultural products and improvements in food processing equiment so that you have a healthy supply of food.
Consider that the wealthy re-invest in communities to make them better places to live.
What's not to appreciate and feel grateful for about other's wealth? It's healthy to appreciate but not to covet.
What would this country look like today if not for people like Ford, Mellon, Getty, Carnegie, Rockefeller, Philips, Gates, Buffett, etc? What would Tulsa look like without Kaiser, Zarrow, Warren, and wealthy investors who invest in American Airlines, Spirit Aerospace and other publicly-held companies?
All I'm doing is breaking down free-market economy vs. socialism/communism. The result of communism is corruption, mass poverty, sub-standard housing, sub-standard working conditions, food shortages, and unsafe food supplies. The result winds up being a far smaller pool of people controlling the wealth while the rest of the country suffers and toils away day after day.
Government confiscating wealth and assets to re-distribute and create social and economic parity has proven to be a miserable failure.
Unless you are independently wealthy- you are going to be beholden to someone for your living-either the government or others who likely have more money than yourself. If communism was so great, why did so many people die trying to get over or under the iron curtain? Why did so many people die crossing the Gulf Stream fleeing Cuba?
"Probably the greatest harm done by vast wealth is the harm that we of moderate means do ourselves when we let the vices of envy and hatred enter deep into our own natures."
Theodore Roosevelt
quote:
Originally posted by Conan71
quote:
Originally posted by we vs us
quote:
Originally posted by Conan71
Anyone who has gainful employment in this country has it due to the wealth of others: in part, taxation of wealthy people (gov't jobs), and/or reinvestment in the economy by wealthy people.
A lot of people have become wealthy due to other people spreading their wealth around by creating income opportunities for others.
I'm never quite sure, when someone says this, how to take it. Are you telling me to accept the fact that wealthy people will always be wealthy? that I should thank them for my well-being? that they will always be different than me? What are you trying to tell me, here?
Are you trying to scare me away from some sort of commie wealth redistribution scheme? Is it natural and right for me to rely on a class of oligarchs who will shower me with benevolence and to whom I will always and forever be beholden?
Really, if we follow your prescription (that is, the wealthy are the engines of our economy by supporting job growth, taking risks with capital, etc), then it would in our favor to close the income gap. Upwards. We should simply find ways to make more people rich, because the more rich folks we have the more jobs we'll have. And inequality is bad because we have fewer people contributing to the job-making machine. Am I reading you right?
Come on now, class envy is so 1992. [;)]
Depends on your personal paradigm I suppose. If you are more liberal leaning, my words will go in one ear and out the other. If you are more free-market capitalist, have observed global economic systems and the results, and still believe in the original American dream, you will probably nod your head at a few of my comments, if not most.
Why should you have a problem showing that sort of gratitude? Other than mental or physical disability, there's no limit to what you can become in this country so long as you have desire and ambition. As long as you are willing to make the sacrifice to make yourself more valuable to someone else by improving your skills or education, there's always someone who needs you to help them make more money and they are willing to share that wealth.
Aside from jobs and taxes, consider that the wealthy donate billions every year to universities to provide better facilities and to fund professorships and scholarships, so that others may improve their personal station in life. If you went to college and didn't ever have a scholarship or grant, you still benefitted from the benevolence of wealthy people.
Someone can come from a slum and eventually become chief of staff at a major hospital. An disadvantaged child can rise from poverty in rural Arkansas and become President of the United States.
Consider that the wealthy give billions every year to medical facilities and research so that we can all live healthier lives.
Consider that the wealthy invest heavily every year in providing safe agricultural products and improvements in food processing equiment so that you have a healthy supply of food.
Consider that the wealthy re-invest in communities to make them better places to live.
What's not to appreciate and feel grateful for about other's wealth? It's healthy to appreciate but not to covet.
What would this country look like today if not for people like Ford, Mellon, Getty, Carnegie, Rockefeller, Philips, Gates, Buffett, etc? What would Tulsa look like without Kaiser, Zarrow, Warren, and wealthy investors who invest in American Airlines, Spirit Aerospace and other publicly-held companies?
All I'm doing is breaking down free-market economy vs. socialism/communism. The result of communism is corruption, mass poverty, sub-standard housing, sub-standard working conditions, food shortages, and unsafe food supplies. The result winds up being a far smaller pool of people controlling the wealth while the rest of the country suffers and toils away day after day.
Government confiscating wealth and assets to re-distribute and create social and economic parity has proven to be a miserable failure.
Unless you are independently wealthy- you are going to be beholden to someone for your living-either the government or others who likely have more money than yourself. If communism was so great, why did so many people die trying to get over or under the iron curtain? Why did so many people die crossing the Gulf Stream fleeing Cuba?
Just so's you know, I'm not really a hysterical leftist, per se. After rereading my post from last night, I realize I might have come across as a little shrill . . . and no one wants a shrill newbie hanging around [;)]
But I've heard your reasoning before -- almost verbatim in some places -- and in the end it defends the status quo, which is increasing inequality. I won't argue that invested wealth doesn't create more wealth -- believe it or not, I'm a capitalist, too, and I believe in its dynamics -- but trickle-down economics seems to me inherently undemocratic. Maybe it works in pure capitalism, but we're not a purely capitalist society. We're democratic capitalists. As Americans we also believe in certain equalities, and equality of opportunity would seem to be one of them. Trickle-down economics accepts and encourages exactly the opposite behavior.
Also, I'm certainly no communist. I'm by no means arguing for abolishment of private property, or centralizing our economy or anything remotely of the sort. What I am suggesting is that we get back to emphasizing equality of opportunity again, and not assuming that a caste system is the perfect way to structure our country. In my mind the American Dream is to aspire to more wealth by hard work, but our country's increasing inequality shows that aspiring to more is becoming harder and harder.
quote:
Originally posted by we vs us
Just so's you know, I'm not really a hysterical leftist, per se. After rereading my post from last night, I realize I might have come across as a little shrill . . . and no one wants a shrill newbie hanging around [;)]
But I've heard your reasoning before -- almost verbatim in some places -- and in the end it defends the status quo, which is increasing inequality. I won't argue that invested wealth doesn't create more wealth -- believe it or not, I'm a capitalist, too, and I believe in its dynamics -- but trickle-down economics seems to me inherently undemocratic. Maybe it works in pure capitalism, but we're not a purely capitalist society. We're democratic capitalists. As Americans we also believe in certain equalities, and equality of opportunity would seem to be one of them. Trickle-down economics accepts and encourages exactly the opposite behavior.
Also, I'm certainly no communist. I'm by no means arguing for abolishment of private property, or centralizing our economy or anything remotely of the sort. What I am suggesting is that we get back to emphasizing equality of opportunity again, and not assuming that a caste system is the perfect way to structure our country. In my mind the American Dream is to aspire to more wealth by hard work, but our country's increasing inequality shows that aspiring to more is becoming harder and harder.
Wevus- not a personal attack on you, but you sound quite younger than myself and not that far from the ideological clutches of liberal college professors who live in a vacuum and don't seem to realize they owe their jobs to a capitalistic society and wealthy people they seem to despise. I'm still amazed there are so many journalists who have perpetuated such thoughts who owe their living to the Randoph Hursts and Rupert Murdochs of this world, who would otherwise be starving coffee house poets.
What is so wrong with the status quo in our country? Other than Lee Harvey Oswald, I've never heard of anyone who returned from a communist country who still thought our way of life and economy sucked. In case you didn't notice, LHO was a slacker. [;)]
I want to say you are young and idealistic, but I have a hard time finding idealism in comments which detract from the reality which has created wealth for millions of Americans and continues to perpetuate year after year.
Until you've run your own business and figured out that the government reserves the right to take double what you take personally out of a business via taxes and some overly protective regulations, you will never appreciate how confiscatory our taxes and other fees are to small and large business alike.
Saying we have a caste system in the U.S. is pure hyperbole. A true caste system will limit you from advancing in life by your very family name like as it works in India. No such restriction exists in this country and there should be a new "Godwin's Law" for statements like that.
A last name like "Siegfried" might get you a little higher salary fresh out of college in Tulsa (assuming you went to work anywhere else BUT Nordam), but unless your family is totally comprised of dude bags, it won't keep you from getting ahead if you are willing to work a little harder than the next guy.
It's one thing to aspire to greater wealth, it's entirely another to get up off ones arse and put in the hard work or investigate what it really takes to get there. Most of the people I know who biznitch about not making near enough have put themselves in that situation through their own inaction and refuse to make the personal sacrfices others have done to reach their aspirations.
Instead of telling me you think economic parity is a good idea, please explain to me why that's an ideal I or others should share with you. Share a benefit, if you know of any. I might struggle to understand it because I've put myself into a postion where my income is directly a result of the effort I put out on a daily basis (commissioned/bonused sales). It keeps me self-motivated.
I'm certain there are people I went to prep school with who came from families of less means than my own who are now making more money than I am. It's because they were willing to work hard to get into schools like Vanderbilt, Brown, Columbia, and Yale, then work hard when they got there and get a great job based on their work ethic and academic results, not who their father was.
quote:
Wevus wrotein the end it defends the status quo, which is increasing inequality. . . . As Americans we also believe in certain equalities, and equality of opportunity would seem to be one of them. Trickle-down economics accepts and encourages exactly the opposite behavior.
. . .
What I am suggesting is that we get back to emphasizing equality of opportunity again, and not assuming that a caste system is the perfect way to structure our country. In my mind the American Dream is to aspire to more wealth by hard work, but our country's increasing inequality shows that aspiring to more is becoming harder and harder.
1. This same argument was made during the industrial revolution. IN the antebellum South. Again during WWI. Again during the great depression. Again in the 1960's. And is being raised yet again (for some reason the HUGE disparity during the dot com boom was exempt, which made many m/billionaires but took no one but educated techies and venture capitalists along for the ride).
One would think over the last ~300 years of the rich getting richer and the poor poorer the system would have crashed by now. Instead, the poor keep getting wealthier too. Zoom in on the possessions of American "poor" that most of the world dreams of.
And in fact, of the 100 Richest Americans of all time, only 9 are currently living. In a country that is only 225 years old, that is a REALLY small percentage. That would seem to indicate that wealth is indeed NOT being accumulated by a smaller group of people.
http://www.getrichslowly.org/blog/2006/07/29/the-wealthy-100-a-ranking-of-the-richest-americans-past-and-present/
2. How does Bill Gates having $70 Bil somehow deny me opportunity? Or Warren Buffet? Or Mark Cuban?
Most of America's rich are self made men. Instead of complaining about the few 2nd generation or even fewer 3rd generation rich, why not ponder the majority who have climbed their way to the top. The notion that the landed gentry of America perpetuate their wealth is pure fiction. Most on Forbes 400 list come from relatively modest origins.
3. Who is denying you opportunity?
Have John Astor's relatives kept you from opening a fur trading post? Rockefellers been keeping your railroads down? Have the Skellys been strong arming your local oil business?
I simply fail to see any correlation between someone else's wealth and my chance to acquire my own. Nothing you have posted indicates how this manifests itself. If you are concerned that all of the good angles or ideas are taken, wake up to all the new millionaires each year. Tell those guys from Google that the dot com bubble burst a decade ago.
4. America's dream has never been to aspire to wealth by hard work, it has been to have the chance to aspire to more wealth - by any means. There is no promise that your hard work will pay off, and often it does not. Even working smarter is no guarantee of success. But certainly, you are free to work as you please to earn your place in our fluid (read: non-caste) system.
But the fact remains, in the United States more than any where else in the world each person is free to chose a path and pursue it to either amazing success or radical failure. There is no caste system that told many normal guys that they could not pursue their idea to amazing riches.
America has more class mobility than anywhere else on Earth. Institutionalizing the system (a la Europe) is much more likely to enshrine the status quo than allowing each to make his own lot. If a Caste system exists in the United States, it is a socially created one (in general Asians emphasize education much more than Hispanics and are therefor more likely to get wealthy. Some inner city blacks "sell out" in the eyes of some peers if they strive for education or hard work... etc.).
- - -
Circles of wealth exist and are allowed to perpetuate themselves. But such examples are the exception, not the norm. Rarely does wealth , even extreme wealth survive past the 3rd generation. In the instances that it does it is because the wealth provided an opportunity that some member of the family (usually the founder) utilized to set the discipline in place to sustain it (limited trusts instead of overt wealth transfers) OR a member of the family used the wealth for further business ventures (read: actually worked).
But usually, next generations take it for granted and show little interest in utilizing their wealth. They piss it away and leave their children further down the ladder. And so it goes until the most of the names on the 100 all time list no longer carry a status with them.
For example: where do you think the amazingly vast Hilton fortune will be in another generation? Gone unless someone smarter than Paris set up a locked trust. And even then... her wealth will create opportunities for you to exploit it, instead of preventing you from achieving your own.
quote:
Originally posted by Conan71
quote:
Originally posted by we vs us
Snip.
Snip
I appreciate you holding back on the personal attacks. I'm not sure where we'd be if you hadn't.
I'm not particularly young, and I have run a small business of my own. I have dealt with taxes and business regulation, and have relied on my own hard work to advance my interests. Go figure. Welcome to capitalism. I really do wish you'd quit trying to say that, because I wish our system was better, I'm a communist. There aren't just two ways to do things in the world. It's not just you and the Commies and that's it.
What I believe in is a fair shake for everyone. I used the term "caste" hyperbolically, but for rhetorical purposes. I think that social mobility is in some serious danger right now in our history which is why I make a stink about it. Economic inequality is a main indicator of a declining situation. And that
isn't rhetoric. That's a solid measurement.
I also believe that social mobility is a hallmark of our system and makes our country great. I think we should encourage more of it. You seem to think everything is fine and dandy exactly the way it is, and that's perplexing. I suspect you're doing it for ideological reasons, but I'm not sure. Think of it this way: if your business is stagnating, wouldn't you take steps to change things to improve it? That's the beauty of capitalism, it inspires innovation and progress. I think we need to improve our brand.
Suggestions include better education across the board. Expand access and financial aid for college degrees, emphasis on science and engineering, more job training and even life training (how to balance a checkbook, how to manage time, how to put together a resume, how to apply for a job) for the poor.
Universal healthcare is a big one as well. At this point healthcare functions as a regressive tax on both individuals and corporations alike. The government has the power to fix this. But that's another thread entirely.
But my question was how and why?
Why do you think it is in danger in spite of having more mobility than anywhere else in the world (see previous post)?
And what do you propose we do? There are already minority scholarships, need scholarships, government loan, and even free tuition in Tulsa County for TCC. If someone wants to go to college, they certainly can.
Basically:
What is holding people back?
"Hmmm. . . almost no unemployment. . . productivity at an all time high. . . Stock market booming. . . wages up. . . GNP up. . . liberals pi$$y about everything. . . Yup! I'm better off.
Can't complain!"
I loved that post.
quote:
Originally posted by NativeTulsans
"Hmmm. . . almost no unemployment. . . productivity at an all time high. . . Stock market booming. . . wages up. . . GNP up. . . liberals pi$$y about everything. . . Yup! I'm better off.
Can't complain!"
I loved that post.
Well it's true!
Some folks have nothing better to do than complain.
They use "university level" economics that simply do not translate to the real world.
If you give them a brick of gold they will complain that it's too heavy!
If you give them prosperity, job security, and luxury, they will find pain and suffering everywhere. They simply confuse cause with purpose. Little birds crashing into a window pane over and over again.
They are absolutely necessary though, because without them, we would have no one to entertain us.
Send in the clowns!
I only complain when I witness the hardships of others. Yes, I feel their pain. Guess that's why I am a democrat (less and less). We believe in giving a hand up and not a hand out as the righties would want you to believe about us....
quote:
Originally posted by FOTD
I only complain when I witness the hardships of others. Yes, I feel their pain. Guess that's why I am a democrat (less and less). We believe in giving a hand up and not a hand out as the righties would want you to believe about us....
I truly believe you mean very well, and I admire your willingness to debate and discuss the issues you feel strongly about. Most liberals simply scream, shout and become belligerent when challenged.
But know this, there will always be hardship, pain and suffering, in every society at every level.
As a Democrat, If you feel your calling is to help these people than I admire you even more. You are lucky enough to live in a country that shows great admiration to those willing to make sacrifices, in their own personal lives, to better the lives of those less fortunate or ambitious.
When you make your sacrifices to better the lives of others, please don't use my wallet. As you offer a hand up, please make sure it is your hand that is offered.
I have admiration for those who work hard, I have compassion for those in need. I have no pity for beggars. I see opportunity all around pounding on doors and cardboard boxes alike.
At the risk of descending this thread into total chaos -
That hand up usually seems to involve taking money from some "rightie" and giving it to someone else. Pretty sure welfare, section 8, title 19, food stamps, Medicare, Medicaid, travel vouchers, non-earned income tax credits, and other items are just handouts. If I am not mistaken, none of those things have any provisions that they are to be used to give people a "hand up" and often become addictions and a hereditary way of life.
I'm right there with you wanting to help people get on their feet and generate wealth. Not so much with you on the desire to help others even if they have burned all their chances and want to just milk the system - as I believe happens way too often. NOTE: that doesn't mean kill the programs entirely, but when a government crutch becomes a societal norm something needs to change or that portion of society will forever remain needing a "hand up."
1-20-09 can't come soon enough....
For Immediate Release
Office of the Press Secretary
December 16, 2003
Remarks by the President at Signing of the American Dream Downpayment Act - Washington, D.C.
THE PRESIDENT:...One of the biggest hurdles to homeownership is getting money for a down payment. This administration has recognized that, and so today I'm honored to be here to sign a law that will help many low-income buyers to overcome that hurdle, and to achieve an important part of the American Dream.
I want to thank the representatives of the consumer and housing groups that worked hard on this piece of legislation. I want to thank leaders of the national community organizations that are with us, and members of the real estate industry.
This administration will constantly strive to promote an ownership society in America. We want more people owning their own home. It is in our national interest that more people own their own home. After all, if you own your own home, you have a vital stake in the future of our country. And this is a good time for the American homeowner. Today we received a report that showed that new home construction last month reached its highest level in nearly 20 years. (Applause.)
Many people are able to afford a monthly mortgage payment, but are unable to make the down payment. So this legislation will authorize $200 million per year in down payment assistance to at least 40,000 low-income families. These funds will help American families achieve their goals, and at the same time, strengthen our communities.
And there's more to do, as well. We'll continue to pursue a broad agenda to help people own a home. There are three steps I want to describe to you right quickly about what we intend to do. First, those who apply for mortgages should be made aware of all the costs and warned about predatory lenders who take advantage of inexperienced buyers. So we've doubled the funds for housing counseling services, including those run by faith-based and community groups.
We understand that buying a home for the first time is complicated, and we want to simplify the process. We want to help people understand the pros and cons of buying a home. We want people to be fully aware of what it means to buy a home and what it takes. And we want people as best protected as possible from those shysters who would take advantage of first-time buyers. (Applause.)
Second, we need to make the home-buying process more affordable. Some of the biggest up-front costs in a home purchase are the closing costs. Sometimes they catch you by surprise. (Laughter.) Many home buyers do not have the time to shop around looking for a better deal on closing costs. You're kind of stuck with what you're presented with. And so they end up paying more than they should. So we've proposed new rules to make it easier for buyers to shop around and to compare prices on closing costs, so they can get the best deal and the best service possible.
And thirdly, we want to make buying a home simpler. Many first-time buyers look at the paperwork from a loan application, and frankly, get a little nervous about all the fine print. Those forms can be intimidating to the first-time home buyer. They can be intimidating to the second or third-time home buyer, too.
And so now it my honor, right here at this important Department, the Department responsible for encouraging homeownership in America, to sign the American Dream Downpayment Act. (Applause.)
(The bill is signed.) (Applause.)
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/...
- the federal seeds of the bubble that gave the moral and financial backing to re, mortg, and wall st securitizing machine. all those short term profits and housing #s sure looked good for a while, and some subprime folks got to rent a nice place, but as we all know now there is hell to pay.
quote:
Originally posted by NativeTulsans
"Hmmm. . . almost no unemployment. . . productivity at an all time high. . . Stock market booming. . . wages up. . . GNP up. . . liberals pi$$y about everything. . . Yup! I'm better off.
Can't complain!"
I loved that post.
Ah, the New Gilded Age! Things couldn't be duckier (//%22http://www.cbpp.org/12-20-07pov.htm%22).
From the conclusions:
"Assistance Programs Reduce Poverty and Hardship, But Serious Gaps Remain
Federal and state programs help many struggling families meet basic needs. Nutrition programs like food stamps, for example, have made severe hunger and malnutrition rare in this country. Medicaid and SCHIP provide more than 50 million Americans with health coverage. Social Security and Supplemental Security Income reduce poverty for millions of seniors, people with disabilities, and surviving children and spouses. But for many reasons, serious gaps remain.
Many households do not qualify. Most non-elderly adults who lack access to affordable health care through their employer do not qualify for Medicaid or SCHIP. In most states, adults without children do not qualify for Medicaid or SCHIP no matter how low their income is, unless they are elderly or have a serious disability. And for parents, the income limit for Medicaid coverage in the typical state is only 65 percent of the poverty line, or about $11,000 for a family of three.
Some people are eligible for programs but do not participate. Applying or remaining enrolled in a program may be too difficult, or an individual might not even know about the program. Roughly 6 million low-income uninsured children meet their states' eligibility criteria for Medicaid or SCHIP.
Some programs provide inadequate benefits. The Food Stamp Program, for example, provides an average benefit of only about $1 per person per meal — not enough help for struggling families. Over the past decade, food stamps have failed to keep pace with the rising cost of living.
Programs that can improve employment and earnings receive inadequate funding. Quality child care and early education programs can improve children's learning potential but a large share of low-income infants, toddlers, and preschoolers do not have access to them because of funding limitations.
- In 2008, for example, 350,000 fewer children will receive federal child care assistance than in 2002.[xi] Also, Head Start funding for 2008 will fall 11 percent below the 2002 level, adjusted for inflation. For 2008, Congress reduced its intended funding for both child care and Head Start (as well as other programs) to help meet the President's overall funding level for domestic discretionary programs."
More:
36.5 million Americans — roughly one in eight — live in poverty.[ii] Despite relatively strong economic growth since 2001, poverty has remained stubbornly high, and today's poverty rate is higher than it was during the last recession. That the poverty rate is still above its recession level is especially distressing given that poverty usually declines during recoveries and rises during recessions. If the economy goes into a slowdown or recession in 2008, poverty likely will only increase further.
15.4 million Americans live in extreme poverty. In other words, their family's cash income is less than half of the poverty line, or less than about $10,000 a year for a family of four.
The article has some other numbers relating to food, shelter, and medical care. It's worth your minute and a half.
quote:
Originally posted by we vs us
More:
36.5 million Americans — roughly one in eight — live in poverty.[ii] Despite relatively strong economic growth since 2001, poverty has remained stubbornly high, and today's poverty rate is higher than it was during the last recession. That the poverty rate is still above its recession level is especially distressing given that poverty usually declines during recoveries and rises during recessions. If the economy goes into a slowdown or recession in 2008, poverty likely will only increase further.
15.4 million Americans live in extreme poverty. In other words, their family's cash income is less than half of the poverty line, or less than about $10,000 a year for a family of four.
The article has some other numbers relating to food, shelter, and medical care. It's worth your minute and a half.
I am all for helping out the less fortunate. I grew up in a typical middle class family, graduated from Jenks High School, had all bills, rent, etc paid for me throughout my college career, etc etc.
After graduating college and finding a job I decided to volunteer in the Jenks Chapter of Meals on Wheels. I did this for about 2 yrs until some other things came up in my life that caused me to stop helping unfortunately.
I didnt do it because I had to, I did it because I wanted to. It made me feel good helping others who needed some assistance and it was refreshing to see and talk to these people once a week, sometimes two for a few minutes. I also pick out several ADULTS each year for the Salvation Army Angel Tree. Something about seeing 50 yr old men and women asking for the necessities turns me into a "softy", per se. So I have no problem helping out the less fortunate but a few bad apples spoils it for everyone else. Some of these people dont work, have 5 kids and "live off the system". So their kids will grow up in horrible conditions because their parents are too selfish and stubborn to think about anyone but themselves. Some of these people have no work ethic, and couldnt care less whether they were employed are not. It is these types of people I really dont feel too bad for. The ones that make no effort to improve their lives even though "WE" tried to give them a lifeline, they failed to capitalize on the situation. Anyways, I could go on for awhile longer, but will leave it at that for now.
quote:
Originally posted by cannon_fodder
But my question was how and why?
Why do you think it is in danger in spite of having more mobility than anywhere else in the world (see previous post)?
And what do you propose we do? There are already minority scholarships, need scholarships, government loan, and even free tuition in Tulsa County for TCC. If someone wants to go to college, they certainly can.
Basically:
What is holding people back?
We're actually NOT the most mobile society in the world. As a matter of fact, using one measure called the Gini coefficient, we are completely average in terms of social and economic mobility, ranking on par with Iran, Turkey, and China (this (//%22http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:World_Map_Gini_coefficient.svg%22) graphic cribbed from wikipedia).
So, no, I don't believe we're the USA of old, or at least the one that you and Spoonbill an NativeTulsans are harkening back to. There's plenty of data out there that says we're in serious trouble and have been for awhile now. I absolutely believe we can be the best country in the world, but self-congratulatory BS is what, IMO, got us here in the first place. We're guilty of not taking an honest and hard look at ourselves, and coasting on our (rapidly dwindling) reputation.
I can suggest solutions, but until there's a willingness to shift our priorities from Mid-East adventurism and wars of choice to domestic improvement, we're stuck with our slow decline.
Spoonbill: your wallet is already getting a workout, what with Iraq's nearly $500 billion cost to date. You're gonna be paying and paying and paying, for years to come, and so am I. I was hoping you'd have the same indignation towards our poorly executed war that you have for your less-well-off countrymen, but I'm not holding my breath.
quote:
Originally posted by we vs us
I can suggest solutions, but until there's a willingness to shift our priorities from Mid-East adventurism and wars of choice to domestic improvement, we're stuck with our slow decline.
Wevus...you are my favorite new poster and someone who I agree with most of the time.
I love the phrase "Mid-East adventurism"...
quote:
Originally posted by recyclemichael
quote:
Originally posted by we vs us
I can suggest solutions, but until there's a willingness to shift our priorities from Mid-East adventurism and wars of choice to domestic improvement, we're stuck with our slow decline.
Wevus...you are my favorite new poster and someone who I agree with most of the time.
I love the phrase "Mid-East adventurism"...
Well, geez, thanks! [8D] I get kinda fired up every once in awhile, but I hope everyone knows it's all in fun.
quote:
Originally posted by we vs us
quote:
Originally posted by cannon_fodder
But my question was how and why?
Why do you think it is in danger in spite of having more mobility than anywhere else in the world (see previous post)?
And what do you propose we do? There are already minority scholarships, need scholarships, government loan, and even free tuition in Tulsa County for TCC. If someone wants to go to college, they certainly can.
Basically:
What is holding people back?
We're actually NOT the most mobile society in the world. As a matter of fact, using one measure called the Gini coefficient, we are completely average in terms of social and economic mobility, ranking on par with Iran, Turkey, and China (this (//%22http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:World_Map_Gini_coefficient.svg%22) graphic cribbed from wikipedia).
So, no, I don't believe we're the USA of old, or at least the one that you and Spoonbill an NativeTulsans are harkening back to. There's plenty of data out there that says we're in serious trouble and have been for awhile now. I absolutely believe we can be the best country in the world, but self-congratulatory BS is what, IMO, got us here in the first place. We're guilty of not taking an honest and hard look at ourselves, and coasting on our (rapidly dwindling) reputation.
I can suggest solutions, but until there's a willingness to shift our priorities from Mid-East adventurism and wars of choice to domestic improvement, we're stuck with our slow decline.
Spoonbill: your wallet is already getting a workout, what with Iraq's nearly $500 billion cost to date. You're gonna be paying and paying and paying, for years to come, and so am I. I was hoping you'd have the same indignation towards our poorly executed war that you have for your less-well-off countrymen, but I'm not holding my breath.
Yeah, the media keeps trying to pound that into my head about the "poor execution of the Iraq war, but I still can't swallow it. I guess I look at the way we fought wars in the past and the vast amounts of lives given to produce a far less measurable result.
In the last 5 years we almost completely crushed the largest terrorist network in the world, liberated 50 million people from Sadam, and the Talaban, and rebuilt 3,600 civil projects including over 900 schools, 160 hospitals, 800 miles of highway and city streets, 4,000 megawatts of power generating facilities and 640 public markets to support an emerging capitalist society. We are now in the course of building thousands of miles of oil pipeline to support the people's largest natural resource.
Many of my close friends who have spent time on the ground in Iraq say that they can't believe the way our own media spins the negatives without ever giving an ounce of focus to what they have accomplished. I can only thank god that the rabid left has been thus-far unsuccessful painting our servicemen as the villains (though Murtha and a host of others have tried).
Sure, war costs money, but it's the rebuilding that is taxing our resources at the moment, but it's a commitment that we are obligated to make. You must understand that the strength of the United States is not in our power to dominate and destroy, but in our power to liberate and support freedom.
In WW1 we lost 300,000 servicemen in 4 years. In WW2 we lost 1,000,000 servicemen in about 4 years. So far we have lost 3,919 servicemen in Iraq. . .And the biggest difference is how we fought this war as compared to others. If we had fought this war in the same way that we fought WW1 or WW2 we would have bombed them to rubble resulting in millions of civilian casualties.
Call me crazy, but when you look at history, this may be an expensive war, but it is one of the most successful wars ever fought in the history of warfare. Democracy does not come in a box from Walmart. It is a long and painful process, wrought with roadblocks, assassinations, backslides and death. It is by far the most dangerous and bloodiest form of government to create, but in the end it is, in all of it's forms, the only true and free form of society. We cannot just give up on a commitment we have made to a population of people because our passions change or the voices of the near-sighted become too loud.
We as a country have lost our claws and teeth. In a fit of national rage we could have turned Iraq and Afghanistan into a giant sheet of glass, but we chose a far more constructive and expensive course, by promising a future to those who wanted freedom and democracy. Ask any soldier and they will tell you that the vast majority of Iraqis are extremely thankful and are working very hard to build a successful society.
If we pull out of this war and leave the millions that have opposed Al Qaeda, Iran, Syria, and the other elements that are bracing for domination of Iraq to die, then we will give up everything that we stand for. We will be a ridiculous country, filled with petty, emotional, self-serving elitists.
We will deserve the consequences of that decision.
To answer your question, yes, I open my wallet for that. It is my duty.
Well thats one way to see things. But I dont really think that Al qaeda or the Taliban are as defeated as you say they are. Sure things look to be going well in Iraq but people always seem to frame it as the war was needed in the first place. Lets go back a bit in time shall we.....
Remember right before the war there were these things called "no fly zones". Basically Saddam was boxed in unable to really do much of anything in either the north or the south parts of the country. The Kurds in the North were already showing signs of independance, a budding free market economy was starting. The Shia in the south were also starting to rally and throw off the shackles. When Saddam tried to move some tanks into the south. We flattened them from the air. The inspectors were doing their job, though yes indeed Saddam was not making it an enjoyable experience.
We could have kept squeezing him, slowly whittling away his power and control, while at the same time encouraging the growth of free government institutions and budding new economies in the north and south of the country.
In other words, with a bit of wisdom, will and patience we could have effectively neutralized any threat "real or imagined" that Saddam posed, WITHOUT thousands of Americans losing their lives and without such a loss in treasure as well. Without stirring up chaos, destruction and so much loss of life for the people in those areas that were already starting to turn the corner and build new lives. There was no alqaeda in those areas and the locals would not have allowed them to come in.
We should have also focused more effort in Afghanistan. We still need to, for from what I can tell things arent going that well there. Plus now the Taliban and Alquaida have an even stronger presence in Pakistan. Their presence in Pakistan is stronger and more of a problem there than it ever was in Iraq. "they certainly have more of a presence in Iraq now than they did before the war as well". How anyone can say there are now fewer Taliban and Al Quaida in the world now than there was before the wars, baffles me.
We should have, and still need to use the power of education to clip the growth of progress of Muslim fundamentalism in places like Africa. I cant tell you the number of times I have seen articles and news programs that show people there talking about how the so dearly want their childrenn to go to school and learn. And guess who is stepping up to the plate to build schools, I mean Madrasas. The parents say. "well I would rather my children not be learning that other stuff, but... at least they are learning to read, etc."
Get rid of the threat from Saddam... great. But we didnt have to go to war to do it.
Get rid of the Taliban and Al Qaeda from Afghanistan... wonderful idea. But we should have put enough into it to do it right and not let things just shift next door to Pakistan because we were throwing most of our troops into Iraq.
It looks to me like we made things a looooot harder and costlier than they ever needed to be, for our country and the other countries involved.
quote:
Originally posted by FOTD
1-20-09 can't come soon enough....
For Immediate Release
Office of the Press Secretary
December 16, 2003
Remarks by the President at Signing of the American Dream Downpayment Act - Washington, D.C.
THE PRESIDENT:...One of the biggest hurdles to homeownership is getting money for a down payment. This administration has recognized that, and so today I'm honored to be here to sign a law that will help many low-income buyers to overcome that hurdle, and to achieve an important part of the American Dream.
I want to thank the representatives of the consumer and housing groups that worked hard on this piece of legislation. I want to thank leaders of the national community organizations that are with us, and members of the real estate industry.
This administration will constantly strive to promote an ownership society in America. We want more people owning their own home. It is in our national interest that more people own their own home. After all, if you own your own home, you have a vital stake in the future of our country. And this is a good time for the American homeowner. Today we received a report that showed that new home construction last month reached its highest level in nearly 20 years. (Applause.)
Many people are able to afford a monthly mortgage payment, but are unable to make the down payment. So this legislation will authorize $200 million per year in down payment assistance to at least 40,000 low-income families. These funds will help American families achieve their goals, and at the same time, strengthen our communities.
And there's more to do, as well. We'll continue to pursue a broad agenda to help people own a home. There are three steps I want to describe to you right quickly about what we intend to do. First, those who apply for mortgages should be made aware of all the costs and warned about predatory lenders who take advantage of inexperienced buyers. So we've doubled the funds for housing counseling services, including those run by faith-based and community groups.
We understand that buying a home for the first time is complicated, and we want to simplify the process. We want to help people understand the pros and cons of buying a home. We want people to be fully aware of what it means to buy a home and what it takes. And we want people as best protected as possible from those shysters who would take advantage of first-time buyers. (Applause.)
Second, we need to make the home-buying process more affordable. Some of the biggest up-front costs in a home purchase are the closing costs. Sometimes they catch you by surprise. (Laughter.) Many home buyers do not have the time to shop around looking for a better deal on closing costs. You're kind of stuck with what you're presented with. And so they end up paying more than they should. So we've proposed new rules to make it easier for buyers to shop around and to compare prices on closing costs, so they can get the best deal and the best service possible.
And thirdly, we want to make buying a home simpler. Many first-time buyers look at the paperwork from a loan application, and frankly, get a little nervous about all the fine print. Those forms can be intimidating to the first-time home buyer. They can be intimidating to the second or third-time home buyer, too.
And so now it my honor, right here at this important Department, the Department responsible for encouraging homeownership in America, to sign the American Dream Downpayment Act. (Applause.)
(The bill is signed.) (Applause.)
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/...
- the federal seeds of the bubble that gave the moral and financial backing to re, mortg, and wall st securitizing machine. all those short term profits and housing #s sure looked good for a while, and some subprime folks got to rent a nice place, but as we all know now there is hell to pay.
I didn't read anywhere in the comments by President Bush where he said to lend money to people with bad credit. It seems to me you're assuming all people with low income or first time buyers that were the targets of this program have sub-prime credit and the initiative to provide down payment assistance started the sub-prime crisis of today.
I just don't see that.
Besides, $ 200 million a year even leveraging let's say $ 4 billion in mortgages per year and ALL to sub-prime borrowers ( which there's no evidence of this ) is just a drop in the bucket. The total value of sub-prime ARMs is in the $ 500 billion range. So at best, you may have $ 16 billion of $ 500 billion in mortgages from this program and it's the root of the problem? That's only 3% of the total and not even a blip. I think the blame Bush movement goes way too far and is too easy of a crutch.
I blame the mortgage industry and bankers for getting too greedy and home buyers speculating on rising home prices plus expecting low interest rates in perpetuity more than a small, $ 200 million a year program from the Feds as the principal reason why the sub-prime mortgages are causing problems now.
^ You remove the belts and suspenders and the pants fall down....
quote:
Originally posted by TheArtist
Well thats one way to see things. But I dont really think that Al qaeda or the Taliban are as defeated as you say they are. Sure things look to be going well in Iraq but people always seem to frame it as the war was needed in the first place. Lets go back a bit in time shall we.....
Remember right before the war there were these things called "no fly zones". Basically Saddam was boxed in unable to really do much of anything in either the north or the south parts of the country. The Kurds in the North were already showing signs of independance, a budding free market economy was starting. The Shia in the south were also starting to rally and throw off the shackles. When Saddam tried to move some tanks into the south. We flattened them from the air. The inspectors were doing their job, though yes indeed Saddam was not making it an enjoyable experience.
We could have kept squeezing him, slowly whittling away his power and control, while at the same time encouraging the growth of free government institutions and budding new economies in the north and south of the country.
In other words, with a bit of wisdom, will and patience we could have effectively neutralized any threat "real or imagined" that Saddam posed, WITHOUT thousands of Americans losing their lives and without such a loss in treasure as well. Without stirring up chaos, destruction and so much loss of life for the people in those areas that were already starting to turn the corner and build new lives. There was no alqaeda in those areas and the locals would not have allowed them to come in.
We should have also focused more effort in Afghanistan. We still need to, for from what I can tell things arent going that well there. Plus now the Taliban and Alquaida have an even stronger presence in Pakistan. Their presence in Pakistan is stronger and more of a problem there than it ever was in Iraq. "they certainly have more of a presence in Iraq now than they did before the war as well". How anyone can say there are now fewer Taliban and Al Quaida in the world now than there was before the wars, baffles me.
We should have, and still need to use the power of education to clip the growth of progress of Muslim fundamentalism in places like Africa. I cant tell you the number of times I have seen articles and news programs that show people there talking about how the so dearly want their childrenn to go to school and learn. And guess who is stepping up to the plate to build schools, I mean Madrasas. The parents say. "well I would rather my children not be learning that other stuff, but... at least they are learning to read, etc."
Get rid of the threat from Saddam... great. But we didnt have to go to war to do it.
Get rid of the Taliban and Al Qaeda from Afghanistan... wonderful idea. But we should have put enough into it to do it right and not let things just shift next door to Pakistan because we were throwing most of our troops into Iraq.
It looks to me like we made things a looooot harder and costlier than they ever needed to be, for our country and the other countries involved.
We did stand back and observe, for years. We and the useless UN, set forth no-fly zones, economic restrictions, and requirements. Meanwhile his Bath party murdered over 600,000 Iraqi citizens and continued to smuggle tons of weaponry from Russia and China. They used/tested chemical wepons purchased from the German company Karl Kolb and used them in a test to kill 5,000 Kurds in 88.
(http://www.kdp.se/old/bad0080.jpg)
Sorry for the disturbing image, but it's amazing how fast the american public forgets, and amazing how we can say things like: (your quote)
We could have kept squeezing him, slowly whittling away his power and control, while at the same time encouraging the growth of free government institutions and budding new economies in the north and south of the country. This is what they did to the very people we were making an impact on. The Kurds were our friends in the North that we were providing support to.
So, what did we do? We lobbed cruse missiles at strategic targets from a distance and watched it on CNN. I am not a military strategist, but the only way that has been proven over and over again to win a war is to have thinking troops on the ground.
In Iraq, the Samarra complex used to produce and stockpile the three lethal gas compounds of mustard gas, Tabun gas, and cyanide acid. Each time, the defunct regime claimed that the factories in Samarra was a complex of scientific research laboratories to produce pharmaceuticals and insecticides to protect the fluoride in the soil. (from the Federation of American Scientists).
We were on the brink of total de-stability in Iraq. Iran was ready to invade in the wake of the Arab 911 celebrations. Israel was ready to strike Iran from the air, and the world was on the brink of total loss of control in the middle east that would result in the crippling of all major world economies.
So, I must discount your proposed strategies as near-sighted. There were more reasons to go into Iraq than WMDs or Al Qaeda or just Sadam. Unfortunately, we have become a "sound-bite" society, requiring politicians must give reasoning for decisions in 5 second MTV generation friendly format, and the media then boils that down to simple buzz-phrases that other politicians can regurgitate for poll numbers.
Looking at the conflict with fresh eyes, yes there were things we could have done better, done earlier, done with more veracity. Unfortunately when we as a country make the tough decision to go to war, we have to fight on two fronts. We have to fight the enemy, and our own media misinformation system.
So, the "anything but this" mentality does not fly with me. Consider it a "no-fly-zone."
So rather than "armchair general-ing," I would like for someone to provide me with a reason why we should have left Sadam in power.
You know danged well there were no mass killings of civilians when the no fly zones were being enforced. They couldnt fly a single helicopter or plane to gas anyone. They couldnt even move a column of tanks into either area. Those things you were describing happened years before. Actually he did the most killing when he was our "friend" before either war and then after the first Persian Gulf war when we left and he "punished" those that helped us. The world was not on the "brink of war with Iran wanting to invade etc". Before this war when the no fly zones were being enforced, there was even talk of just splitting up Iraq into 3 countries. I remember reading newsweek and Time stories showing the budding economies and freedoms in Kurdish Iraq. Turkey was complaining that it might turn into a Kurdistan, etc. There wasnt any mass murdering going on. I think you must be getting your first Iraq war mixed up with this one.
quote:
Originally posted by spoonbill
quote:
Originally posted by TheArtist
Snip
There were more reasons to go into Iraq than WMDs or Al Qaeda or just Sadam. Unfortunately, we have become a "sound-bite" society, requiring politicians must give reasoning for decisions in 5 second MTV generation friendly format, and the media then boils that down to simple buzz-phrases that other politicians can regurgitate for poll numbers.
Wow. No, actually there weren't. And actually those reasons were wrong, too.
You know, Spoonbill, almost your entire comment was utterly and verifiably false. Your facts are wrong, and when they're not, your context and timeline is. I don't have the time to refute each sentence you wrote, but I can do it. It's not hard. All the information is available, and it's plentiful, as well.
I'd also like to point out that that information has been available since before we went to war. It's not new. And I'll bet it isn't even new to you, though I'm sure you've dismissed it as lies created by "politicians" (probably all liberals) to win elections.
I'd like to talk about the economy again now, please.
Gonna have to dissect this one.
quote:
Originally posted by TheArtist
You know danged well there were no mass killings of civilians when the no fly zones were being enforced. They couldnt fly a single helicopter or plane to gas anyone. They couldnt even move a column of tanks into either area. Those things you were describing happened years before.
You are correct, the no fly policy stopped the use of chemical weapons, however in Basra and Al-Hillah they rounded them up and shot them. And you are incorrect, they were able to move assets by ground, though we were successful in intercepting and destroying a small percentage.
quote:
The world was not on the "brink of war with Iran wanting to invade etc". There was even talk of just splitting up Iraq into 3 countries.
There was discussion in the media and amoung some congressmen, but not in the real world, and would make for a really stupid idea. Sunnis in the north and Shiites in the south setting up the cards for another war. Segregation imposed by the West on a foreign country, Wow! Great Idea.
And yes Iran's goal was to destabilize the region. For eight years in the early 80's Iraq and Iran were at war (known as THe Iranian Holy Defense) resulting in over 100,000 Iranian casualties from Iraq's chemical attacks and over 1,000,000 casualties total. The war was supposidly fought over control of oil fields, but if you talk to any Iraqi or Iranian they will tell you that the conflict goes back for centuries going back to the sovereignty of Khuzestan. Iraq was battled back but Iran still to this day works very hard to position themselves to conquer Iraq.
quote:
I think you must be getting your first Iraq war mixed up with this one.
There is only one Iraq war. There was a brief ceasefire in which Iraq was supposed to comply with UN resolutions and was warned of the consequences. We never went through with the consequences we had promised because of UN and administration weakness. We then had a new administration and followed through.
<spoonbill wrote:
There is only one Iraq war. There was a brief ceasefire in which Iraq was supposed to comply with UN resolutions and was warned of the consequences. We never went through with the consequences we had promised because of UN and administration weakness. We then had a new administration and followed through.
<end clip>
And $1 trillion, 600,000 Iraqi lives and 4,000 American lives later for a war against a country that had nothing to do with 9/11, we definitely see consequences.
And I question whether you really *are* willing to open your wallet, spoonbill. The $1 trillion figure on the war (which is conservative, BTW) means $3,333 for every man, woman and child in the United States. If you U.S. came to you and said "pay up," would you?
By the time Bush leaves office, the national debt would have doubled on his watch. It was about $5.5 trillion and falling when he started. It's now $9.1 trillion and counting fast.
That's what drives me nuts about modern Republicans and Reaganites (I was a former fan of the latter). Both talk a lot about fiscal responsibility, but both are failures at it. The national debt was mostly stable for nearly 40 years, then rose dramatically on Reagan's and Bush I's watch, starting leveling off and dropping during Clinton, then started rising fast again on Bush II.
Such reckless spending has real consequences on the economy for many, many years. And based on recent history, the Republicans aren't the ones providing solutions.
quote:
Originally posted by rwarn17588
<spoonbill wrote:
There is only one Iraq war. There was a brief ceasefire in which Iraq was supposed to comply with UN resolutions and was warned of the consequences. We never went through with the consequences we had promised because of UN and administration weakness. We then had a new administration and followed through.
<end clip>
And $1 trillion, 600,000 Iraqi lives and 4,000 American lives later for a war against a country that had nothing to do with 9/11, we definitely see consequences.
And I question whether you really *are* willing to open your wallet, spoonbill. The $1 trillion figure on the war (which is conservative, BTW) means $3,333 for every man, woman and child in the United States. If you U.S. came to you and said "pay up," would you?
By the time Bush leaves office, the national debt would have doubled on his watch. It was about $5.5 trillion and falling when he started. It's now $9.1 trillion and counting fast.
That's what drives me nuts about modern Republicans and Reaganites (I was a former fan of the latter). Both talk a lot about fiscal responsibility, but both are failures at it. The national debt was mostly stable for nearly 40 years, then rose dramatically on Reagan's and Bush I's watch, starting leveling off and dropping during Clinton, then started rising fast again on Bush II.
Such reckless spending has real consequences on the economy for many, many years. And based on recent history, the Republicans aren't the ones providing solutions.
National Debt, the ghostly refuge of the left.
Interestingly enough, there is no national debt- at least it's not real merely imaginary. The Congress 'borrows' inland bills of exchange, (credit; not substance), from a private corporation. The country supposedly owes interest on credit extended from a corporation.
If we borrow mere credit from someone there is no substance owed, the debt is a book keeping 'legal fiction'. The USA pays/owes the 'fed' for credit circulating at banks. If we 'borrow' from a bank or use 'credit' cards we expand the supply- as the supply is merely an imaginary book keeping item.
The Federal Reserve Bank has the power to adjust the debt through many instruments, however it has no need to unless inflation grows at an unhealthy rate, production begins to wain, or we begin to go into recess.
Unfortunately, this big imaginary number has become the beach-ball of the left and the right. It is simply a measuring tool, and as long as it is managed through the regulation of interest rates, printing of currency and a host of other means. In economics there are "measures" and "indicators." The national debt is considered a measure because it has never been proven to indicate anything.
The sad thing, is that there are so many ways to calculate the national debt because the amounts very depending on what focus is taken. Some simply look at general fund dollars, and some take Social Insurance fund cash as the focus. Investment capital in bonds with varying maturity dates also influences the calculation of this "boogie-man" number.
I would argue that as our GNP grows over time, our debt should also grow as a sign of our economic flexibility.
So, to answer your question, I'll will be happy to pay my imaginary bill with my imaginary checkbook.
It's fascinating that you would call the deficit "imaginary," not to mention ironic since such a notion can be considered only as delusional.
Tell China and all the other parties that are loaning to the U.S. government that the money is a figment of their imagination. Tell Tom Coburn that the deficit is "fiction." Tell the Federal Reserve chairman.
I don't know how you can post here anymore after shooting your credibility to hell like that. Saying that the deficit is imaginary is just insane.
quote:
Originally posted by rwarn17588
It's fascinating that you would call the deficit "imaginary," not to mention ironic since such a notion can be considered only as delusional.
Tell China and all the other parties that are loaning to the U.S. government that the money is a figment of their imagination. Tell Tom Coburn that the deficit is "fiction." Tell the Federal Reserve chairman.
I don't know how you can post here anymore after shooting your credibility to hell like that. Saying that the deficit is imaginary is just insane.
Oh my lord, I don't understand why I have to spend so much time on this, It's very simple. . . And as for China, we are the best investment in the world, we service our notes with more reliability than any other country. You are simply not understanding what the National Debt number is! If this is your concept of debt as just a negative, rather than a tool, than please, for your own good, say out of banking or investing.
I'll give you a different view:
Steve Conover Writes in the Skeptical Optimist:
Whether you're left of center or right of center (...or you don't care to be measured relative to whatever "center" means), today's budget deficit of 1.2% GDP is a non-issue.
That is, unless you're one of those on the left or right who likes to play political games with deficits. A few politicians and concerned citizens disliked the idea of deficits so much they formed an organization, in the '80s I think, called The Concord Coalition. (I wrote them a letter nine years ago, but haven't yet received an answer. I'm starting to think someone lost it at the bottom of her inbox, or buried it in Concord's too-hard-to-do file. Too bad; back then we still had three years left to shift our priorities before 9/11/01 arrived.)
Recently, I've noticed left-leaners having some rhetorical fun with the deficit. Their typical assertion:
"No wonder the administration touts the 'unified budget deficit'; it looks really small. Why don't we ever hear about the deficit that really matters, the dreaded, bloated General Fund deficit? It's a sinister plot to keep you uninformed about the tragic raid of the social insurance trust fund surpluses."
Yes, and I'm sure Karl Rove was behind that plot, too.
Well, now it's my turn to have some fun with deficits. First, let's review what has happened in the last fiscal decade (i.e., ten years ending October 2007). The federal government's receipts and outlays net out to the surpluses and deficits shown in the far right column below:
(http://www.optimist123.com/photos/uncategorized/2007/12/03/deficits0.png)
The bottom right corner, $1.1 trillion, is the ten-year increase in publicly-held debt -- which most economists (...those who refuse to let politics get in the way of economics, anyway) say is the most important of several measures of federal debt. Here's an excerpt from a summary page at the US Treasury website:
Debt held by the public is the most meaningful of these concepts and measures the cumulative amount outstanding that the government has borrowed to finance deficits.So, let's see what the deficits look like under three different accounting scenarios. The first is the way the feds actually chose to account for the receipts (because it's the law). Here's what the deficits look like; the orange star is the additional amount that was borrowed from the public.
(http://www.optimist123.com/photos/uncategorized/2007/12/03/deficits1.png)
Now for the fun part. Let's "shore up" the General Fund, just by assuming the law mandated accounting for the receipts a little differently. (Note: same total receipts, same total outlays, nobody's social security check changes by even a penny.) All we do in Scenario 2 is call all social insurance receipts by a different name: "General Fund supplemental taxes."
(http://www.optimist123.com/photos/uncategorized/2007/12/03/deficits2.png)
Note that there's no change in the amount borrowed from the public (see orange star); we just changed which government pocket owes government-backed money to the other government pocket.
Now let's assume the law mandated that all trust fund surpluses be classified as "General Fund supplemental receipts." (Again, same total receipts, same total outlays, nobody's social security check changes by even a penny. Again, we just changed how much one government pocket owes government-backed money to the other government pocket. Again, no change in the amount borrowed from the public.)
(http://www.optimist123.com/photos/uncategorized/2007/12/03/deficits3.png)
Bottom line: Because the unified budget deficit is the change in publicly-held debt, that is the important deficit number to track. It is currently 1.2% GDP; it's small. When you hear anyone assert that the general fund deficit is a more important number, start suspecting a political agenda attempting to masquerade as economics.
The never-mentioned way to keep the publicly-held debt to a comfortable percentage of GDP is to grow GDP at least as fast as the debt grows. Because sufficient growth makes debt a non-issue, I wonder which candidates have some positive ideas about how to enhance the growth of the economy. [A few Republicans do (...not all); but I'm having trouble remembering any specific growth proposals from any Democrats. Maybe I haven't been listening enough; help me out if you know of some.]
=========
End note:
If you know anyone who asserts that the above analysis is invalid because it "steals from the trust funds"—including your Senators or Congressman or Congresswoman, ask them how they'd answer the following brain teaser:
If you were in charge of financial management for the federal government's social insurance trust funds, and the trust funds ran a surplus, would you:
(a) hoard the US-government-backed cash; or
(b) exchange it for interest-earning US-government-backed bonds?
If they picked (a), ask them why they'd choose not to earn interest on their multi-trillion dollar financial asset. If they picked (b), congratulate them for choosing the method by which trust fund surpluses are already being managed.
Too much of our economy is hinged on "the house" and our ability to use it as a source of financing lifestyle.
This needs to be broken or we will be in this boom/bust RE cycle for years to come. No other nation operates like this. In many nations mortgages are not tax deductible or max loan period is only 15yrs.
When boomers start retiring in earnest and trading down or heating / cooling costs triple you will se a rush to unload 2nd and 3rd homes.
So obvious.
Having lost the pulse of this thread in large amounts... I agree with you FOTD. Home ownership should not really be encouraged in the manner it currently is. Many people would be better off in an apartment in the long run or find they prefer NOT to have the pain in the donkey or really can not afford a house... and get burned.
This time around I'd agree that too much "image" of the economy hinges on the house. What is different this time with the new foreclosure glut is it wasn't the result from massive unemployment or plunge in a major commodity which suports a lot of lifestyles.
"Given his dismal record, it is no surprise that Mr. Bush is now refusing to acknowledge the seriousness of the problems he has helped create."
Editorial
The Economy and the New Year
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/02/opinion/02wed2.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin
Published: January 2, 2008
As 2008 begins, house prices are still skidding, bank losses are still mounting, oil is again flirting with $100 a barrel and consumers are buying less as prices rise. To many, the wheels appear to be coming off the economy. To others, including President Bush and his aides, the economy is fundamentally sound and resilient.
Obviously, both camps cannot be right. Unfortunately, the preponderance of evidence is grim.
When Mr. Bush says the economy is strong, he is generally referring to rising wages, low unemployment and what he calls healthy economic growth. But wages have either fallen or failed to outpace inflation during most of his tenure. Job creation is now slowing from a pace that has long been subpar. Economic growth is also braking, if not contracting. In any event, growth during the Bush years has not been healthy; rather, it has been abnormally lopsided. Corporate profits have soared (until recently) and the rich have become richer, while most Americans have treaded water or lost ground, their troubling circumstances masked by an unprecedented borrowing binge, now exacting its toll.
The other presumed economic bright spots — business investment and exports — are less bright upon closer inspection. According to a new government report, orders for big-ticket commercial goods rose a spare 0.1 percent in November.
As for exports, they have surged lately, but the growth has not yet led to more manufacturing jobs or inflation-beating pay raises for existing factory workers. The relative health of exporters is also obscuring the fact that to be more competitive in the long term, corporate America needs health care reform and tax reform, two fronts on which the Bush administration has made no progress. Instead, much if not most of recent export growth is due to the weakening dollar, which makes American products more affordable elsewhere.
While the boost is welcome, relying solely on a weaker currency to correct America's trade imbalance has downsides. For one, a falling dollar interacts with global money flows in a way that complicates the job of the Federal Reserve to steer the economy. That was made clear again last week, when a top Chinese bank official warned of a destabilizing sell-off in dollar-based assets if the Fed continued to cut rates.
Hoping for the best is facile if not paired with preparation for the worst. Perhaps more than anything, a lack of preparation makes it hard to believe Mr. Bush's assurances that all will be well. The administration has operated in a state of economic denial for years: conducting wars while cutting taxes, piling up debt, neglecting to regulate the financial sector even as it went on a lending binge, and ignoring the pain that was sure to come when consumers, bankers and investors sobered up.
Given that record, it is no surprise that Mr. Bush is now refusing to acknowledge the seriousness of the problems he has helped create. Americans don't need more denial. They need an unvarnished appraisal of the nation's economy — including the politics and ideology that has driven it to this point. That is the only real hope for starting to turn things around.
Stagflation cometh
The fallout from a combination of rising inflation and global recession seems inevitable: how can the world's economies survive it?
Joseph Stiglitz
http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/joseph_stiglitz/2008/01/stagflation_cometh.html
The world economy has had several good years. Global growth has been strong, and the divide between the developing and developed world has narrowed, with India and China leading the way, experiencing GDP growth of 11.1% and 9.7% in 2006 and 11.5% and 8.9% in 2007, respectively. Even Africa has been doing well, with growth in excess of 5% in 2006 and 2007.
But the good times may be ending. There have been worries for years about the global imbalances caused by America's huge overseas borrowing. America, in turn, said that the world should be thankful: by living beyond its means, it helped keep the global economy going, especially given high savings rates in Asia, which has accumulated hundreds of billions of dollars in reserves. But it was always recognised that America's growth under President Bush was not sustainable. Now the day of reckoning looms.
America's ill-conceived war in Iraq helped fuel a quadrupling of oil prices since 2003. In the 1970s, oil shocks led to inflation in some countries, and to recession elsewhere, as governments raised interest rates to combat rising prices. And some economies faced the worst of both worlds: stagflation.
Until now, three critical factors helped the world weather soaring oil prices. First, China, with its enormous productivity increases - based on resting on high levels of investment, including investments in education and technology - exported its deflation. Second, the US took advantage of this by lowering interest rates to unprecedented levels, inducing a housing bubble, with mortgages available to anyone not on a life-support system. Finally, workers all over the world took it on the chin, accepting lower real wages and a smaller share of GDP.
That game is up. China is now facing inflationary pressures. What's more, if the US convinces China to let its currency appreciate, the cost of living in the US and elsewhere will rise. And, with the rise of biofuels, the food and energy markets have become integrated. Combined with increasing demand from those with higher incomes and lower supplies due to weather-related problems associated with climate change, this means high food prices - a lethal threat to developing countries.
Prospects for America's consumption binge continuing are also bleak. Even if the US Federal Reserve continues to lower interest rates, lenders will not rush to make more bad mortgages. With house prices declining, fewer Americans will be willing and able to continue their profligacy.
The Bush administration is hoping, somehow, to forestall a wave of foreclosures - thereby passing the economy's problems on to the next president, just as it is doing with the Iraq quagmire. Its chances of succeeding are slim. For America today, the real question is only whether there will be a short, sharp downturn, or a more prolonged, but shallower, slowdown.
Moreover, America has been exporting its problems abroad, not just by selling toxic mortgages and bad financial practices, but through the ever-weakening dollar, in part a result of flawed macro- and micro-policies. Europe, for instance, will find it increasingly difficult to export. And, in a world economy that had rested on the foundations of a "strong dollar," the consequent financial market instability will be costly for all.
At the same time, there has been a massive global redistribution of income from oil importers to oil exporters - a disproportionate number of which are undemocratic states - and from workers everywhere to the very rich. It is not clear whether workers will continue to accept declines in their living standards in the name of an unbalanced globalisation whose promises seem ever more elusive. In America, one can feel the backlash mounting.
For those who think that a well-managed globalisation has the potential to benefit both developed and developing countries, and who believe in global social justice and the importance of democracy (and the vibrant middle class that supports it), all of this is bad news. Economic adjustments of this magnitude are always painful, but the economic pain is greater today because the winners are less prone to spend.
Indeed, the flip side of "a world awash with liquidity" is a world facing depressed aggregate demand. For the past seven years, America's unbridled spending filled the gap. Now both US household and government spending is likely to be curbed, as both parties' presidential candidates promise a return to fiscal responsibility. After seven years in which America has seen its national debt rise from $5.6tn to $9tn, this should be welcome news - but the timing couldn't be worse.
There is one positive note in this dismal picture: the sources of global growth today are more diverse than they were a decade ago. The real engines of global growth in recent years have been developing countries.
Nevertheless, slower growth - or possibly a recession - in the world's largest economy inevitably has global consequences. There will be a global slowdown. If monetary authorities respond appropriately to growing inflationary pressure - recognising that much of it is imported, and not a result of excess domestic demand - we may be able to manage our way through it. But if they raise interest rates relentlessly to meet inflation targets, we should prepare for the worst: another episode of stagflation.
If central banks go down this path, they will no doubt eventually succeed in wringing inflation out of the system. But the cost - in lost jobs, lost wages, and lost homes - will be enormous.
In cooperation with Project Syndicate, 2008.
Sorry, FOTD, but I don't see inflation on the horizon.
Inflation in November hit 4.31 percent, which is higher from the usual 2.5 to 3 percent range. But there were higher spikes during two months in 2005, and that wasn't much of an inflationary year, either.
http://www.inflationdata.com/inflation/inflation_rate/CurrentInflation.asp
Stagnation? Perhaps, especially with the housing market tanking. But inflation? Hardly.
Just another view about lies and statistics.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/12/04/ninflation04.xml
Anything can be shown if you have enough numbers to manipulate. Even the books of the US aren't immune. They keep 2 sets of books, one that shows what they want, another to show the real value.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2006-08-02-deficit-usat_x.htm
quote:
Originally posted by rwarn17588
Sorry, FOTD, but I don't see inflation on the horizon.
Inflation in November hit 4.31 percent, which is higher from the usual 2.5 to 3 percent range. But there were higher spikes during two months in 2005, and that wasn't much of an inflationary year, either.
http://www.inflationdata.com/inflation/inflation_rate/CurrentInflation.asp
Stagnation? Perhaps, especially with the housing market tanking. But inflation? Hardly.
Inflation is a mere part of the equation of the real rate of interest which equates to the difference you can get on a secure investment (ten year treasuries or bank cd's) and inflation.....so, the real rate of interest equates to almost zero.
I recall when people would borrow at 10% and put that in cd's at %15 back in the late 70's and early 80's.....then the banks went broke.
quote:
Originally posted by rwarn17588
Sorry, FOTD, but I don't see inflation on the horizon.
Inflation in November hit 4.31 percent, which is higher from the usual 2.5 to 3 percent range. But there were higher spikes during two months in 2005, and that wasn't much of an inflationary year, either.
http://www.inflationdata.com/inflation/inflation_rate/CurrentInflation.asp
Stagnation? Perhaps, especially with the housing market tanking. But inflation? Hardly.
Fed's Inflation Fears Might Trump
Calls for Another Big Rate Cut
Monetary-Policy Makers
Appear to Have Less Room
To Maneuver Than in Past
By GREG IP
January 4, 2008; Page A3
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB119940394997266181.html?mod=hpp_us_whats_news
Slowing factory activity, weakening job growth and a credit crunch have investors expecting aggressive interest-rate cuts from the Federal Reserve.
But this week's surge in the prices of oil and gold underlines why the Fed may not have the freedom to ease monetary policy as much as it did in 2001, when the economy slumped, or as much as many on Wall Street want.
The Fed and the markets agree the economic outlook is worrisome. Minutes of the Fed's December meeting released Wednesday show Fed policy makers share Wall Street's concern that the economy could fall into recession. The minutes raised the prospect of "substantial" further rate cuts if a self-reinforcing spiral of tightening credit and weaker growth develops.
The real disconnect is over inflation. The Fed thinks it is a bigger risk than it was in 2001, and bigger than Wall Street and many prominent economists think. That forces the Fed to accept a greater risk of recession than it did in 2001. That could mean either fewer rate cuts than anticipated by futures markets, which see the Fed's short-term rate target falling to 3% by year-end from 4.25% now, or a quicker reversal of the rate cuts.
Today's situation is in sharp contrast to the Fed's last rate-cutting cycle. In early May 2001, a survey of private-sector forecasters put the odds of recession at 35%. But by that point the Fed, under then-Chairman Alan Greenspan, had already slashed its target for the federal funds rate by two percentage points, to 4.5%, while declaring weak growth to be a bigger worry than inflation. The economy ultimately did experience a mild recession in part because of that September's terrorist attacks, and the funds rate ended the year at 1.75%.
Today, private-sector economists put the odds of recession at 38%, yet the Fed has cut the funds rate only one percentage point since August and has yet to say weaker growth worries it more than inflation.
Mr. Greenspan, who retired last year, said in a recent interview that inflation risks are much greater today than in 2001 and thus his successor, Ben Bernanke, has less freedom to shore up the economy with steep rate cuts than he did. "This is a much tougher monetary-policy environment than anything I experienced," he said.
The most obvious inflationary threat is from oil. It has risen to almost $100 a barrel now from $61 at the end of 2006. That has sent the 12-month overall inflation rate up sharply, to 4.3% in November. By contrast, oil hovered just at just less than $30 for most of 2001 before sinking after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, and inflation ended the year at 1.6%.
The Fed pays more attention to core inflation, which is less volatile because it excludes food and energy. But that picture is also troubling. Since April 2004, core inflation measured by the Fed's preferred price index has been at or above the top of policy makers' preferred 1.5% to 2% for all but five months, notes Doug Elmendorf, a former Fed economist who is now a scholar at the Brookings Institution. It dipped in the spring of last year before edging higher by year end.
The Fed, by allowing inflation to consistently run higher than its preferred range, risks feeding higher expectations of inflation in the public, which will make it harder to get inflation back down, Mr. Elmendorf noted.
Similar concerns bedevil the European Central Bank, whose ability to lower rates has been constrained by inflation of 3.1% in the countries that use the euro. The ECB aims to hold inflation just below 2%. (See related article.)
Perhaps the most important contrast with 2001 is one that gets little attention. Back then, the Greenspan-led Fed was optimistic that the spread of new technology had boosted worker productivity growth and thus the speed at which the economy could grow without bumping up against capacity constraints. Fed staff that June put the economy's noninflationary "potential growth" rate at 3.4%.
Since then, slower growth in both productivity and the labor force has led Fed policy makers to put potential growth at only about 2.5%. Thus, inflationary bottlenecks could develop at much more moderate growth rates than they did in 2001.
Vincent Reinhart, a former senior Fed staffer now at the American Enterprise Institute, said that pessimistic view of potential growth anchors officials' inflation concerns. It changes little between meetings, so it is discussed less than the rapidly changing prospects for growth. But Mr. Reinhart said the persistence of that concern is why the Fed has yet to put growth concerns clearly ahead of inflation in its postmeeting statements.
To many outsiders, the inflation concern is misplaced. "I see little chance of the kind of wage-price spiral that has set off inflation in the past," former Treasury Secretary Larry Summers, now a managing director at hedge-fund manager D.E. Shaw Group, said in a recent speech. "If I'm wrong and [easier monetary policy] creates undue inflation pressures, they can be removed gradually at a moment of much less financial peril."
Harvard University economist Martin Feldstein has also called for sharp cuts in interest rates, arguing that if higher inflation results, "the Fed would have to engineer a longer period of slower growth to bring the inflation rate back to its desired level."
But if inflation does rise as a result of overly easy monetary policy now, getting it back down could require much tighter monetary policy and even a recession.
"If in fact the economy bounces back fairly quickly and inflation remains elevated, then if monetary policy is very aggressive now, you might find yourself in a terribly inflation-risky environment later next year," Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia President Charles Plosser, one of the Fed's most hawkish policy makers, said in a recent interview. And if inflation expectations rise, getting them back down "might prove to be costly."
Mr. Bernanke, whose term is up for renewal in 2010, certainly wants to avoid a recession. But he would probably prefer a mild recession now to a high risk of increased inflation and a deeper recession later.
All of our econimic statistics are skewed, or "republicanized."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2008/jan/04/economics.useconomy
US jobless figures up as economy suffers severe downturn
Shares went into sharp retreat on both sides of the Atlantic today as gloomy jobs data from the United States heightened fears over prospects for the global economy.
On Wall Street, the Dow Jones Industrial Average tumbled more than 180 points, taking it below the 13,000 level. In London, earlier gains were wiped out, with the FTSE 100 index trading more than 140 points down towards the close.
Unemployment in the US rose to its highest level in more than two years last month as the job-creation machine in the world's biggest economy virtually ground to a halt, according to figures released in Washington today.
The Labor Department prompted fresh speculation on Wall Street that the Feberal Reserve would cut interest rates later this month when it said the jobless rate rose from 4.7% to 5% in December. It also sent the FTSE 100 index down into negative territory, wiping out earlier gains, and pushed the dollar down against a range of currencies including sterling.
Employers added a mere 18,000 jobs last month - the weakest performance by non-farm payrolls since 2003, when the economy was starting to recover from the short-lived recession that followed the collapse of the dotcom bubble.
Economists had expected 70,000 jobs to be created last month, and bond prices rallied immediately after the announcement by the Labor department in anticipation that the Federal Reserve will cut interest rates for a fourth time in a row at the end of this month.
Pierre Ellis, senior economist at Decision Economics in New York said: "The bond market rallied because the unemployment rate moved up in a shocking way and that's the sort of political dynamite that may make the Fed more prone to easing than otherwise."
President Bush was meeting with the Fed chairman, Ben Bernanke, and the treasury secretary, Hank Paulson, today to discuss ways of boosting the economy.
A breakdown of today's official US data showed that during December, manufacturing industries shed 31,000 jobs and construction businesses cut another 49,000. There were 31,000 more government jobs creater and 44,000 were added in education and health services, but retail industries cut more than 24,000 jobs.
Weekly hours of work were unchanged at 33.8 in December but overtime hours dropped to 3.9 from 4.1 in November.
1-4-08
The data has to be inaccurate. Just think of all the "illegals" that are or will be out of work due to the housing/building mess. Unemployment is actually MUCH HIGHER.
"I'm a walking economy," a man was overheard to say. "My hairline's in recession, my waist is a victim of inflation, and together they're putting me in a deep depression."
"Fact is, I used to be indecisive, but now I'm not sure." :(
quote:
Originally posted by rwarn17588
Sorry, FOTD, but I don't see inflation on the horizon.
Inflation in November hit 4.31 percent, which is higher from the usual 2.5 to 3 percent range. But there were higher spikes during two months in 2005, and that wasn't much of an inflationary year, either.
http://www.inflationdata.com/inflation/inflation_rate/CurrentInflation.asp
Stagnation? Perhaps, especially with the housing market tanking. But inflation? Hardly.
Bought food the past year? Gas? Energy? Those items are not used in their numbers. Add those in, I'll bet inflation is over 10%
This guy is worse than Jimmy Carter.
Looks like he's coming to grips with his own deceptiveness....
"CHICAGO — President Bush, in a marked shift from his usual upbeat economic assessments, conceded here on Monday that the nation faces "economic challenges" due to rising oil prices, the home mortgage crisis and a weakening job market.
"We cannot take growth for granted," Mr. Bush said in a speech to a group of business leaders in which he acknowledged that "recent economic indicators have become increasingly mixed."
But even after a government report on Friday that showed unemployment jumped to 5 percent last month from 4.7 percent in November, Mr. Bush stopped short of warning that the nation may be about to enter a recession.
Democrats in Congress and on the campaign trail echoed the president's sobering view. With a number of analysts now predicting that an economic downturn could be imminent, both Mr. Bush and Congressional Democratic leaders say they are considering whether a rescue package is necessary to counter the threat of a recession, in which economic activity declines and joblessness increases over an extended period of time.
But the two sides would undoubtedly take vastly different approaches, setting up a clash that could dominate the 2008 election campaign and the remainder of the Bush presidency.
If the past is any guide, Mr. Bush is likely to favor broad-based tax cuts of the sort he pushed through early in his presidency. Democrats are discussing more targeted relief — tax cuts, spending programs or a combination of the two — to help lower- and middle-income Americans who would be hurt the most if the economy falters.
"This is going to be a battle over doing more of what George Bush has done for the past six years, or doing more for the middle class," Representative Rahm Emanuel of Illinois, the chairman of the House Democratic Caucus, said in a telephone interview after spending the day in Chicago with Mr. Bush. "That's where the fissure is going to be."
The clash comes as the latest negative signs on the economy, coupled with uncertainty in the housing and credit markets, have forced Mr. Bush to abandon his usual sunny rhetoric and paint a darker picture of the economy's condition.
After months of insisting that the economy's fundamentals are strong — a theme he reiterated on Monday — Mr. Bush did not mince words. He acknowledged that "many Americans are anxious about the economy," and he noted that "jobs are growing at a slower pace." He said core inflation was low — "except when you're going to the gas pump, it doesn't seem that low."
Still, the White House is not convinced it must act. The deliberations are tightly held, and aides to Mr. Bush say he will not make a decision about whether to offer a stimulus package, or what it should contain, until later this month, in time for his State of the Union address scheduled for Jan. 28. Appearing in New York on Monday, Mr. Bush's Treasury secretary, Henry M. Paulson Jr., echoed that approach, and cautioned against any rush to action.
"Working through the current situation and getting the policy right," Mr. Paulson said, "is more important than getting the policy announced quickly."
On Capitol Hill, Democrats were positioning themselves to get ahead of any proposal the White House might present. Aides to Nancy Pelosi, the House speaker, said that she had yet to conclude decisively that a stimulus package was needed, but that she had met with a group of economic advisers last month who urged her to take swift action aimed at stabilizing the jittery economy and lifting consumer confidence.
The group included Lawrence H. Summers, a Treasury secretary under President Bill Clinton; Felix G. Rohatyn, the financier and former ambassador to France; and Laurence D. Fink, the chairman and chief executive of BlackRock, the global investment firm.
An aide to Ms. Pelosi said the three were "unanimous in saying that we should move out ahead." In an interview over the weekend, Mr. Summers said he believed that there was now a greater than 50 percent chance of a recession this year.
"My view is that now is the time to be thinking about policies that would provide recession insurance," Mr. Summers said, "and if we wait until it's entirely clear that there is a recession, it will be too late."
But Democratic leaders said there was already a general consensus within the party that any stimulus package would be temporary and targeted to the middle class and the poor. Among the proposals under consideration are a $500 across-the-board rebate, possibly to be returned to taxpayers in their paychecks through the payroll tax system, as well as a plan to restore the $1,000 per child tax credit to many low-income families that currently do not qualify for it.
Polls show Americans are now more concerned with the economy than the war in Iraq, a trend that is reflected in the presidential campaigns. In New Hampshire on Monday, as the candidates furiously courted voters on the eve of that state's crucial primary vote, pocketbook issues like the price of home heating oil and health care took center stage.
"The economy's beginning to have some problems, which I'm worried about," Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York told a group of voters on Monday morning in Portsmouth, N.H. "We've got this energy crisis, with oil now at $100 a barrel," she said, citing consequences "for our economy, for our security, for the problem of global warming."
On the Republican side, Mike Huckabee, the former Arkansas governor, sounded similar themes, recalling his humble roots as he tried to persuade voters that he understood their "struggle." Gas prices, home heating costs and health care bills keep going up, Mr. Huckabee said, "but your paycheck doesn't go up to cover it."
As for the Bush administration, Mr. Paulson, the Treasury secretary, tried to offer assurances that the White House is not standing still. He said the administration may seek to expand a program begun last year to help homeowners who cannot afford to repay subprime mortgages once they are adjusted upward.
Mr. Bush had expected to spend his final year in office focused on foreign affairs — he leaves Tuesday for the Middle East — and a few domestic issues, like reauthorizing his signature education bill, No Child Left Behind.
But the president has had trouble getting credit for the economy even when times were good, and he can ill afford to leave office on an economic sour note. Mr. Bush is well aware that if he does not appear to share the public's concern, he — and, more important for the 2008 elections, his party — could easily look out of touch.
"I think Bush is looking not to give the Democratic candidate any more ammunition than necessary," said Bruce Bartlett, a Republican economist who has been highly critical of the administration. "If we are in the middle of a recession in November, obviously the Republican Party is going to be blamed for that."
Still, Mr. Bush must be careful not to depress the economy with pessimistic talk, and so his speech in Chicago on Monday offered a delicate balancing act. "People said, 'Are you optimistic?' I said, 'Absolutely, absolutely optimistic,'" Mr. Bush said. "Do I recognize the reality of the situation? You bet I do."
Desolation Row?
quote:
Originally posted by FOTD
This guy is worse than Jimmy Carter.
Looks like he's coming to grips with his own deceptiveness....
Can you paraphrase into your own arguments and just cite someone else's story for factual validation? Just curious as I hate when people read to me.
^ my prior post was an AP story.
Don't read it if you don't need to. But for those with an open mind take interest because things are not what we are being told....the bottom line in the Bushevik Revolution.
http://www.inflationdata.com/inflation/Inflation_Articles/M3_Money_supply.asp
"The writing is on the wall. When the Government starts hiding data the problem is big! If this trend continues, inflation is going to come roaring back big time. We will see the late 70's all over again. The war is Iraq and the Billions in Hurricane damage have to be paid for somehow and the "hidden tax" is the easy way out.
Now is the time to begin stocking up on inflation hedges. "
Updated- March 16, 2006
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/7176255.stm
Read more: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/7176255.stm
Good bye Age of Affluency or A Cure for Afluenza?
"The message is a number of things. One, there's a cost to this excessive consumption. There's an environmental cost, there's a social cost -- and there's a personal happiness cost. This is what's really interesting. A lot of people think buying all this stuff is making us happier, but recent data has come out showing that it's not so. So we're trashing the planet, we're trashing communities -- and we're not even having fun. If we were at least having fun, we might want to reconsider. But it's not even fun anymore, so we need to rethink how we make, use and relate to the stuff in our lives."
http://www.alternet.org/story/72568/
http://www.storyofstuff.com/
Faith based economy....Great job Bush! Nice work Bible-Thumpers! Congrats to the NeoCons.
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601103&sid=abh8h7M3uKBA&refer=us
Nobel-Winning Economist Blames Bush Tax Cuts, Greenspan for Recession Threat
http://www.hillbillyreport.com/blog/2008/01/its-the-economy.html
Junk Bond Crisis.....a must read:
http://articles.moneycentral.msn.com/Investing/JubaksJournal/TheNextBankingCrisisOnTheWay.aspx?vv=550
It will be bigger than sub prime.
We are in a financial crisis.
quote:
Originally posted by FOTD
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601103&sid=abh8h7M3uKBA&refer=us
Nobel-Winning Economist Blames Bush Tax Cuts, Greenspan for Recession Threat
http://www.hillbillyreport.com/blog/2008/01/its-the-economy.html
Junk Bond Crisis.....a must read:
http://articles.moneycentral.msn.com/Investing/JubaksJournal/TheNextBankingCrisisOnTheWay.aspx?vv=550
It will be bigger than sub prime.
We are in a financial crisis.
The end is near! The end is near! Abandon all hope! The end is near!
It's not the end......and don't abandon hope.
BUT IT'S BAD......and Dumbya et al have delivered this to us with his war expenditures, tax cuts for the super rich, and easing of government over sight.
Vote for the ones running who can be responsible. 8 years of this noncents is enough.
TulsaWhirled can do better than putting this lie before us....
It ain't the president's economy, stupid!
http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?articleID=20080206_222_A16_spanc85100
It IS this stupid president's economy. I did not read one word about confidence and credibility. The article avoids the fact that we are manipulated into what to believe is going on in the current economy by our leaders.
This stupid white house manages to carry deception to a new level.
http://www.reuters.com/article/domesticNews/idUSN0826726720080208
Recession to be longer than usual: UMich
020808
NEW YORK (Reuters) - The U.S. economy has entered a recession that will be more painful and drawn out than the usual downturn, the director of the Reuters/University of Michigan consumer sentiment survey said on Friday.
Inflation pressures will linger despite the retrenchment in consumer spending, complicating the task of policy-makers, the University's Richard Curtin said in a report, citing data from industry group The Conference Board.
"This is no ordinary recession," he said. "The aftereffects will last much longer than the typical downturn."
He said the Conference Board's expectations index is a strong predictor of economic contractions, and that it is currently flashing red.
With Americans getting hit with everything from a housing downturn to excess borrowing, things will get worse before they get better.
"Consumers must take more drastic steps to stabilize their finances in the midst of high fuel and food prices, stagnant incomes, and record debt," Curtin said.
TWO AMERICAS
The new report adds that a rising wealth gap will, even more than usual, lead to disproportionate pain for middle- and lower-income Americans.
"Growing income inequality has insulated higher income groups to a greater extent than ever before," the report said.
Yet the rich will not go unscathed, with the stock market's recent slide likely taking a bite out of many an investment portfolio.
Paradoxically, worsening economic conditions will induce families to save money, reinforcing the drag on an economy that has become largely reliant on consumer spending.
"The negative impact will grow as home prices continue to fall in the year ahead," he said.
(Reporting by Pedro Nicolaci da Costa, Editing by Chizu Nomiyama)
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080208/ap_on_go_ot/bush_congress_ap_poll
"The dour public mood seems to chiefly reflect distress over the doddering economy, which has seen job cuts, financial market slides and real estate losses stoke recession fears. Bush's approval for handling the economy dove to 29 percent, a slide of 4 percentage points in a month and matching his low on that issue, with noticeable slumps among middle-income people, Southerners and city residents."
AND....(more on confidence and trust)
"The differences now: "People don't trust ratings, structures or collateral. There's also a dramatic decline in real estate throughout the country. In the past, people thought the market would go up because the Fed re-inflated. They're missing fact that credit revulsion has occurred."
http://moneynews.com/money/archives/st/2008/2/7/132750.cfm?s=st
quote:
Originally posted by FOTD
http://www.reuters.com/article/domesticNews/idUSN0826726720080208
Recession to be longer than usual: UMich
020808
NEW YORK (Reuters) - The U.S. economy has entered a recession that will be more painful and drawn out than the usual downturn, the director of the Reuters/University of Michigan consumer sentiment survey said on Friday.
Inflation pressures will linger despite the retrenchment in consumer spending, complicating the task of policy-makers, the University's Richard Curtin said in a report, citing data from industry group The Conference Board.
"This is no ordinary recession," he said. "The aftereffects will last much longer than the typical downturn."
He said the Conference Board's expectations index is a strong predictor of economic contractions, and that it is currently flashing red.
With Americans getting hit with everything from a housing downturn to excess borrowing, things will get worse before they get better.
"Consumers must take more drastic steps to stabilize their finances in the midst of high fuel and food prices, stagnant incomes, and record debt," Curtin said.
TWO AMERICAS
The new report adds that a rising wealth gap will, even more than usual, lead to disproportionate pain for middle- and lower-income Americans.
"Growing income inequality has insulated higher income groups to a greater extent than ever before," the report said.
Yet the rich will not go unscathed, with the stock market's recent slide likely taking a bite out of many an investment portfolio.
Paradoxically, worsening economic conditions will induce families to save money, reinforcing the drag on an economy that has become largely reliant on consumer spending.
"The negative impact will grow as home prices continue to fall in the year ahead," he said.
(Reporting by Pedro Nicolaci da Costa, Editing by Chizu Nomiyama)
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080208/ap_on_go_ot/bush_congress_ap_poll
"The dour public mood seems to chiefly reflect distress over the doddering economy, which has seen job cuts, financial market slides and real estate losses stoke recession fears. Bush's approval for handling the economy dove to 29 percent, a slide of 4 percentage points in a month and matching his low on that issue, with noticeable slumps among middle-income people, Southerners and city residents."
AND....(more on confidence and trust)
"The differences now: "People don't trust ratings, structures or collateral. There's also a dramatic decline in real estate throughout the country. In the past, people thought the market would go up because the Fed re-inflated. They're missing fact that credit revulsion has occurred."
http://moneynews.com/money/archives/st/2008/2/7/132750.cfm?s=st
I guess some still have a problem with the definition of a recession. "Two consecutive quarters of declining GDP."
I've been very entertained with all of the new definitions that the media is offering, and the liberal light-minds are humping to death!
. . . Meanwhile, tucked away in my evil layer, I've been buying stock like crazy (insert evil laugh)!
"You can't "continue" to grow if you're not growing. The US is in recession and it is going to be a deep one."
Banks out of capital - solvency ?
http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com/2008/02/banks-need-bailouts-but-wheres-money.html
Ummm, we had solid growth in the 3rd QT of 2007. So by definition we can't be in a recession.
Some words have specific meaning for a reason, recession is one of them. Throwing it around flippantly is just confusing to most people. It's like calling every one ever served in the US military a "hero." Sorry, I appreciate your service by "hero" needs to be reserved for special cases.
Lets see... I guess we can say "real recession" and "actual hero." There are tons of other words being equally abused, it bothers me.
The Nation is in recess.....(maybe not in this small little world inside the rest of the USA).
How deep and how wide?
http://www.dailyreckoning.com.au/bear-market/2008/02/11/
Just unreal carnage coming.
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aCuwStbomDjE&refer=home
People have no idea.
http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/business/articles/0210biz-beck0210.html
No buyers as deals turn bad and the cash and credit spiggots are shut....
http://www.newyorker.com/talk/comment/2008/02/04/080204taco_talk_cassidy
"Economies evolve, and so, too, must economic policy."
Deniability at its finest. Hiding from reality will not make it go away.
They stopped giving accurate unemployment data about 4 years ago. Now unemployment rates are 'generated' in the White House and go unverified by the Fed. It used to be they verified by counting State tax contribution payrolls, an extrememly accurate method of knowing exact emplyment figures. They fired those people. As for the inflation rate being so low...did you really believe it? In my industry (construction) we have seen a 40% increase in raw material costs over the last 3 years while the government states inflation is 1.5%...oh yeah! 1.5 %! maybe per MONTH!
Bush Administration Hides More Data, Shuts Down Website Tracking U.S. Economic Indicators
http://thinkprogress.org/2008/02/13/economic-indicators/
"This site is maintained by the Economics and Statistics Administration and combines data collected by the Bureau of Economic Analysis, like GDP and net imports and exports, and the Census Bureau, like retail sales and durable goods shipments. The site simply links to the relevant department's Web site. This might not seem like a big deal, but doing it yourself–say, trying to find retail sales data on the Census Bureau's site–is such an exercise in futility that it will convince you why this portal is necessary."
The attacks against getting the truth out will never stop. Now that the new version of the Alien & Sedition Acts have passed the House (the "Domestic Terrorism" gargbage) they'll be able to shut down anybody, TNF included. The free dissemination of ideas and opinion is the next thing to be stripped from us.
"The only lasting remedy, other than for Americans to accept a lower standard of living and for businesses to adjust to a smaller economy, is to give middle- and lower-income Americans more buying power — and not just temporarily."
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/13/opinion/13reich.html?th&emc=th
Security and the Falling Dollar
By JUDY SHELTON
Every year, the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence is briefed by the chief of U.S. intelligence on potential threats to the nation. The list is sobering, but usually predictable and typically includes global terrorism, nuclear proliferation and regional conflicts.
But this year, there was a surprising potential foe: the falling dollar. In his report to Congress last week, Director of National Intelligence Michael McConnell went beyond the conventional world of spycraft. Mr. McConnell specifically acknowledged "concerns about the financial capabilities of Russia, China, and OPEC countries and the potential use of their market access to exert financial leverage to achieve political ends." He noted, in particular, the impact a weak dollar can have on national security: "As the dollar has weakened this year, some oil producers -- such as Syria, Iran, and Libya -- have asked to be paid in currencies other than the dollar while others -- such as Kuwait -- are delinking their currency pegs to the dollar."
It's not every day a former Navy vice admiral steeped in the culture of the defense intelligence community talks like a central banker, but Mr. McConnell clearly recognizes a threat: "Continued concerns about dollar depreciation could tempt other major producers to follow suit."
The rest of Washington -- and every presidential contender -- needs to start paying attention to the declining dollar before it develops into a full-blown currency crisis with damaging geopolitical consequences. What happens if major oil-producing nations decide to abandon the dollar for measuring the value of their most important export? What if they set up their own monetary union to serve as an alternative to a currency that is no longer a reliable store of value?
At a time when the Pentagon is focusing on the importance of rebuilding war-torn nations -- restoring civil and economic stability -- as a prerequisite for lasting peace, we should be emphasizing the confidence-building aspects of sound money. The dollar's primary role in the world financial system is the most vital nonmilitary instrument of our national power. We cannot afford to neglect the dollar and thereby give up the global influence that comes from providing the world's key reserve currency.
It's a matter of global energy security, first and foremost. Russia makes no secret of its ambitions to elevate the ruble to world reserve currency status. President Vladimir Putin, in a major televised speech last Friday outlining his strategic goals for the next 12 years, stated that Russia must become "one of the world's financial centers" -- a logical step, he asserted, given that Russia has accumulated $484 billion in gold and foreign currency reserves. Mr. Putin earlier called for denominating transactions for Russian oil and gas exports in rubles. When his chosen successor, Dmitry Medvedev, is inaugurated in May, we can expect a tightening of the link between Russian energy deliveries and currency requirements imposed on recipient countries.
A perfect storm for dollar desertion may already be brewing. In the months ahead, China is expected to export fewer consumer goods to the U.S. with a forcibly-appreciated yuan. Meanwhile, Chinese spending for Russian oil and gas will likely start to ramp up. Mr. Medvedev, whose duties include serving as chairman of Gazprom, observed this past summer that the U.S. dollar was not immune to crisis of a "comprehensive, global character." He was thinking ahead about potential opportunities. "A situation may arise where we, China, and some other Asian countries will speak of the emergence of a regional reserve currency." The yuan was a possibility, Mr. Medvedev conceded. "But it is in our interest that it be the ruble."
If gold and foreign currency reserves were the only prerequisite for harboring global ambitions in the monetary arena, China could make impressive claims of its own with $1.7 trillion as of December 2007, the world's highest level. Japan comes in second at $973 billion. If you add together the gold and foreign currency reserves of EU member states that have adopted the euro, including those of the European Central Bank, the total amount in the EU is $511 billion.
Russia trails not so far behind. And beyond its considerable official reserves (which increased by 57% last year alone) and its alarming energy clout in European and Asian markets, Russia has a growing military presence. Not that Russia's military capabilities were ever truly contained. But those capabilities have been constrained as Russia struggled to emerge from its Communist past and join the family of democratic nations. Political transformation and economic renewal took precedence, so it seemed, over the large demands on funds that clinging to military superpower status would have required.
Building up a menacing force of strategic bombers, nuclear submarines and new intercontinental ballistic missiles is a financial luxury -- one that Mr. Putin now seems eager to indulge as Russia fills its coffers. It may be that he sees it as the essential appendage to global power needed to carry out his strategic vision.
How else to explain the incursion of a Russian warplane on Saturday into Japanese air space, a violation that caused 22 Japanese fighter jets to scramble and elicited a strong protest to Moscow from the Japanese foreign ministry? The TU-95 "Bear" bomber is equipped to carry cruise missiles that can deliver a nuclear warhead.
Japanese newspapers speculate that the intrusion might have been prompted by an annual rally held two days before in Tokyo demanding the return of four islands seized by Russia in the closing days of World War II. Both Japan and Russia are strongly motivated to settle the long-standing dispute; Japan wants greater access to Russian energy supplies while Russia seeks Japanese financial capital to develop its far eastern regions.
Just last week -- only three days before the Russian warplane sortie -- Japanese Prime Minister Yasuo Fukuda announced he had received a letter from the Russian president offering to hold talks to resolve the dispute over the islands. Mr. Fukuda has made plans to visit Moscow in late April or early May, convinced that working out a settlement with Mr. Putin "is essential to lift Russo-Japanese ties to higher levels." If he waits until May 9, Mr. Fukuda can take in Mr. Medvedev's inaugural ceremonies as well as the planned full-scale, Soviet-style military parade -- the first display of weapons on Red Square since 1990.
Not that the crude maneuvering of carrot-and-stick incentives isn't effective, but it is dangerous. Especially when the dealmaker has shown a high propensity to rely on the stick.
A weakening U.S. currency plays directly into fears about a weakening U.S. economy and gives credence to self-serving pronouncements about America's weakening role in the world arena. The dollar won't be strengthened by further interest-rate cuts or more fiscal stimulation leading to inflationary consumer spending. If the U.S. is to reclaim its position as provider of the world's most trusted currency, we must think more boldly.
It's time to confront currency disorder. Our goal should be to put forward a new proposal for international monetary relations on the scale of the 1944 Bretton Woods agreement, invoking the same sentiments that inspired architects John Maynard Keynes and Harry Dexter White to provide a foundation of hope for a world all too prone to violence. A global system based on a universally-accepted monetary asset -- the U.S. has the world's highest level of official gold reserves, followed by Germany and France -- would not only counter Russia's offensive. It would convert a national security threat into a golden opportunity.
Hard Times Heighten Long-Felt Unease
Sunday February 17, 3:04 pm ET
By Adam Geller, AP National Writer
As Economic Tide Recedes, an Undertow of Long-Simmering Insecurities Grows Among Americans
http://biz.yahoo.com/ap/080217/the_uneasy_economy.html
If you are older/retired then you know about the shambles of health care, only getting worse.
If you are a boomer you already know how underfunded your 401k is. Last week a survey showed 74% of boomers had less than $100k in retirment savings.
Post boomers cannot find decent paying jobs to sustain the lifestyles they see in the media.
Suddenly, the nation doesn't care about school prayer, burning flags, abortion, etc. Would you if you had no job at age 58 and little savings and behind in your bills? These voters are panicking but it may be too late.
Whomever wins the election will have little impact on what awaits us, a long and painful recession lasting years. In was years in the making, not totally blaming Bush but I am blaming Congress of the last 2 decades. Bush just made it worse and quicker and deeper.
Interesting readings....
9.3 trillion in debt and growing
http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com/2008/02/inflating-away-debt.html
"However, the move has sparked unease among some analysts about the stress developing in opaque corners of the US banking system and the banks' growing reliance on indirect forms of government support."
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/66db756a-de5d-11dc-9de3-0000779fd2ac.html
http://www.reuters.com/article/usDollarRpt/idUSL1986889020080219
Remember the S&L crisis? That was peanuts to what's happening now.
Bank of America Asks Congress for a $739 Billion Bank Bailout
http://www.distillingfinance.com/2008/2/24/Bank-of-America-Asks-Congress-for-a-739-Billion-Bank
My neighbor down the street, bought a house 2 years ago, then his job went to China and he defaults on his loan - should he go to congress and ask for bailout? He probably should, but will he get the bailout? No.
BoA won't have any problems getting bailout, as it has purchased enough congresscritters to keep it safe no matter what.
Remember: Invest in America - buy a congressman!
It's just an idea. There is no distinction between public and private.
Foreclosures closer to home: evidence of the economy's downward spiral
http://discuss.epluribusmedia.net/node/881
And of course, from this morning's Wall Street Journal we get the Bush Administration's take on the situation:
"In an interview yesterday, Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson branded many of the aid proposals circulating in Washington as "bailouts" for reckless lenders, investors and speculators, rather than measures that would provide meaningful relief to deserving, but cash-strapped, mortgage borrowers.
Mr. Paulson's comments came amid signs that the nation's housing market is getting worse, not better."
Help for predatory creators of the problem. That makes sense.
I predict that the United States will officially slip into full-blown depression on January 21, 2009, and it will all be Obama's fault.
It will not be a depression for all or like the one in 1929. It will affect those who make under $50,000 a year. It will not include those whose net worth is greater than 2 million. But it will be harsh and hurt those who thought they might retire by 65. Inflation is the big shoe headed towards our donkey on the backside of a crash in fianacial paper that will bring down many banks.
Remember, this will all be Obama's fault. Nothing to this point would indicate the Busheviks did anything wrong.
Anyone else notice how much higher their average grocery tab is this year vs. last year?
What is going to slowly strangle the under $50K family is envronmentalism which is dictating things like ethanol, and spiraling oil prices. Ethanol is not the antidote to foreign oil dependence. $5.00 per bushel corn is bad news for everyone- especially families under the $50K threshold. That my friend, is a disaster waiting to happen.
One of my customers is a free range dairy up NE of Kansas City. They are selling off their beef herds as grain prices are too costly. I'm sincerely concerned their whole business could be gone in a few years if we continue this insane farm subsidy that ethanol is.
We are producing more ethanol, yet oil is over $100 per bbl- partially due to exchange rates, partially due to the fact that ethanol is a complete folly. It also keeps natural gas demand and prices higher, therefore increasing winter heating costs to us all.
My Dad's family was from northern Nebraska- deep in the heart of corn country and we had farms up there. I certainly shouldn't crap on the industry, but honestly ethanol isn't benefitting small family farms near as much as large corporate producers. It sure as hell isn't benefitting the average work-a-day consumer.
^+1
If my gas bill starts getting too high I can cut back on travel or car pool. Now that my milk is $3.50 a gallon and even soy milk has gone up just as much I'm just screwed.
Add to that the fact that returned energy from ethanol is as little 20% in most studies or even negative (highest I have heard was 60%). Add to that the cumulative C02 released from its production is higher than just burning oil. Add the fact that without massive subsidies it would not be a large economic winner.
And does it help small farmers? For sure. Anything that raises grain prices and land values helps them. It also helps large corporate farms, oil companies (who inject ethanol into gas to buttress margins), pipeline companies (who have to transport it separately and are building new pipes to do so), ethanol producing companies and many other titans of industry.
All at the expense of everyone else. If all we cared about was artificially increases the earnings of a favored group why not add an education surcharge that goes to teachers - that EVERYONE in America has to pay. Frankly, policies to tax everyone else to explicitly bennefit another favored group are usually misdirected.
Corn based ethanol is a long term loser and most everyone knows it. That land is too valuable for other purposes for long term energy production or for use on the scale we would really need to dent our energy needs. Nice try, but it will not work long term so ween the industry off the tit before it gets built in and we're stuck with it for a generation or more.
Food costs are also linked to oil prices -- for transportation, fertilizer, etc -- so it isn't just the conversion of food crops to fuel crops that's driving the cost up.
While I agree that ethanol is the worst of the good solutions, it's still addressing a real problem. The subsidy is poorly targetted, yes, but that doesn't mean that environmentalism generally is a dud. Don't toss the baby out with the bathwater.
Flip the subsidy to switchgrass and we could have much better performing ethanol within a year or two, and at least one level of pressure off our food supply.
You'll note I specified "corn based ethanol" in my mini rant. [:D] Switchgrass or other crops grown on sub arable soil that are also perennial plants and require less if any real fertilizers would be miles ahead of intensive farming of annuals.
quote:
Originally posted by cannon_fodder
You'll note I specified "corn based ethanol" in my mini rant. [:D] Switchgrass or other crops grown on sub arable soil that are also perennial plants and require less if any real fertilizers would be miles ahead of intensive farming of annuals.
Yep, hence my agreement. I was replying to Conan, too, who seemed to want to say that because corn ethanol was a lose-lose proposition, environmentalism is useless altogether.
I really don't get why climate change isn't viewed as a monumental opportunity by more conservative but business minded folks. If we chose to take a leadership role and actively embrace the climate change meme (whether or not it's 100% provable, even!), we come off as global heroes AND can provide our economy with a compelling platform for future innovation. Instead of a tepid hedging of bets (which is the Bush administration MO) we could simultaneously legitimize a huge worlwide sector (alternative energy) and focus ourselves on it. It's also a compelling framework to hang a certain level of reform on.
Whether climate change is provable or not is largely beside the point. It's pretty obvious that a good portion of the world believes it's true. You know what that is? It's a market for environmental solutions. We could fight against that market -- a market that is militantly looking for suitable products, by the way -- and look like global douchebags, or we could encourage the market, exploit it, and come out smelling like roses.
Really, the rise of environmentalism is a great chance for us to seize a rapidly coalescing lever of power. Why no one gets that in our government is completely beyond me.
But I thought the economy was doing just fine according to Conan and Cannon Fodder? Hate to say I told you neocon morons so. BTW, we are in a recession. Face the facts, fools.
<Conan wrote:
I certainly shouldn't crap on the industry, but honestly ethanol isn't benefitting small family farms near as much as large corporate producers.
<end clip>
Oh, those high corn prices are certainly benefiting the small family farms that grow corn. And Lawdy, there's scads of them in the Midwest.
Farmers, large and small, are rolling in the money back in my home base of Illinois. If you are yielding 300 bushels an acre (and many of them were) at $3.40 a bushel, you're doing great. It's been an amazing year.
The agricultural industry is pretty diverse. If high prices hurt one sector, they will greatly benefit another sector.
quote:
Originally posted by we vs us
quote:
Originally posted by cannon_fodder
You'll note I specified "corn based ethanol" in my mini rant. [:D] Switchgrass or other crops grown on sub arable soil that are also perennial plants and require less if any real fertilizers would be miles ahead of intensive farming of annuals.
Yep, hence my agreement. I was replying to Conan, too, who seemed to want to say that because corn ethanol was a lose-lose proposition, environmentalism is useless altogether.
I really don't get why climate change isn't viewed as a monumental opportunity by more conservative but business minded folks. If we chose to take a leadership role and actively embrace the climate change meme (whether or not it's 100% provable, even!), we come off as global heroes AND can provide our economy with a compelling platform for future innovation. Instead of a tepid hedging of bets (which is the Bush administration MO) we could simultaneously legitimize a huge worlwide sector (alternative energy) and focus ourselves on it. It's also a compelling framework to hang a certain level of reform on.
Whether climate change is provable or not is largely beside the point. It's pretty obvious that a good portion of the world believes it's true. You know what that is? It's a market for environmental solutions. We could fight against that market -- a market that is militantly looking for suitable products, by the way -- and look like global douchebags, or we could encourage the market, exploit it, and come out smelling like roses.
Really, the rise of environmentalism is a great chance for us to seize a rapidly coalescing lever of power. Why no one gets that in our government is completely beyond me.
I appreciate your critical eye. I was making a quick post and supply-chain fuel usage in food and durable goods process and transportation is not lost on me- knowing a little about energy and Btu's is largely how I make a living. I talk to people every day about existing fuel sources and viable alternatives.
The EPA has placed regulations on auto makers which is passed on to the consumer. They make regs which are passed on to the refiners who pass those costs on to the consumer. They restrict domestic oil production which would lower transportation costs and reduce our need for oil on the world trade markets.
The jury is still out on switchgrass. It's got really good media buzz, but there's some whispers of some negative by-products in breaking down the cellulose for sugars.
I believe our government has exploited environmentalism quite well thus far. You have to be careful in how quick you phase in things like fuel consumption caps on cars, emissions limits, carbon taxes etc. Those are things which come with costs which hurt the under $50K families the worst. Every single corporate tax, penalty, or compliance is nothing more than a tax on the end-user, that is who eventually pays for it.
It also does not help when people like Al Gore seize a movement and come up with a lot of fear-mongering tactics to commercially exploit the and corner the environment. That creates cynicism and doubt.
Corporate America is also not entirely smart when it comes to environmentalism. One quick example:
Phillips Petroleum used to have a plastic recycling company near 55th & Garnett. Cool idea. As I recall, the majority of the HDPE they were recycling was from milk jugs and detergent jugs. Most of it came from the east coast, not locally. Ship goods 1400 miles for recycling, doesn't make a lot of sense.
quote:
Originally posted by rwarn17588
<Conan wrote:
I certainly shouldn't crap on the industry, but honestly ethanol isn't benefitting small family farms near as much as large corporate producers.
<end clip>
Oh, those high corn prices are certainly benefiting the small family farms that grow corn. And Lawdy, there's scads of them in the Midwest.
Farmers, large and small, are rolling in the money back in my home base of Illinois. If you are yielding 300 bushels an acre (and many of them were) at $3.40 a bushel, you're doing great. It's been an amazing year.
The agricultural industry is pretty diverse. If high prices hurt one sector, they will greatly benefit another sector.
No doubt the little guys are benefitting. Again, my hasty posting. You know as well as I do there are fewer small farmers than there were 15 to 20 years ago.
I'm seriously regretting getting rid of our farmland, but when land prices rebounded after the Soviet grain embargo, we figured we'd better get out while the getting was good. Whoda thunk it?
quote:
Originally posted by Conan71
It also does not help when people like Al Gore seize a movement and come up with a lot of fear-mongering tactics to commercially exploit the and corner the environment. That creates cynicism and doubt.
Well, that's one side of the coin. The other side is he's also the best Climate Change adman out there. He's a one man marketing machine. If we posit that the Green market exists -- which it definitely does -- he's only enhancing demand for green products.
Seriously. It's a HUGE opportunity for our country and our economy.
quote:
Corporate America is also not entirely smart when it comes to environmentalism. One quick example:
Phillips Petroleum used to have a plastic recycling company near 55th & Garnett. Cool idea. As I recall, the majority of the HDPE they were recycling was from milk jugs and detergent jugs. Most of it came from the east coast, not locally. Ship goods 1400 miles for recycling, doesn't make a lot of sense.
Point taken, but corporate America is also exceptionally limber, and knows an opportunity when it sees it. The first article linked in this thread (//%22http://www.tulsanow.org/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=8850%22) is a great example of just that (hat tip to akupetsky).
I'm sad that our government has to be dragged along behind this trend, rather then leading it. It's a winner for more than just the tree-huggers, that's for sure, but it takes an adminstration with some imagination and leadership to see it, and unfortunately, that ain't the adminstration we got.
quote:
Originally posted by we vs us
quote:
Originally posted by Conan71
It also does not help when people like Al Gore seize a movement and come up with a lot of fear-mongering tactics to commercially exploit the and corner the environment. That creates cynicism and doubt.
Well, that's one side of the coin. The other side is he's also the best Climate Change adman out there. He's a one man marketing machine. If we posit that the Green market exists -- which it definitely does -- he's only enhancing demand for green products.
Seriously. It's a HUGE opportunity for our country and our economy.
quote:
Corporate America is also not entirely smart when it comes to environmentalism. One quick example:
Phillips Petroleum used to have a plastic recycling company near 55th & Garnett. Cool idea. As I recall, the majority of the HDPE they were recycling was from milk jugs and detergent jugs. Most of it came from the east coast, not locally. Ship goods 1400 miles for recycling, doesn't make a lot of sense.
Point taken, but corporate America is also exceptionally limber, and knows an opportunity when it sees it. The first article linked in this thread (//%22http://www.tulsanow.org/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=8850%22) is a great example of just that (hat tip to akupetsky).
I'm sad that our government has to be dragged along behind this trend, rather then leading it. It's a winner for more than just the tree-huggers, that's for sure, but it takes an adminstration with some imagination and leadership to see it, and unfortunately, that ain't the adminstration we got.
Gore isn't climate change's adman, con-man is more like it. [;)]
Regardless who winds up in the White House expect more government evolution on environmentalism. It's topical and it's catching.
just a little blurb from the latest beige book report for district 10, our district:
"Energy
Energy activity continued to expand at a solid pace in late January and February. Most contacts reported steady or increased drilling activity, and producers' expectations for future exploration rose from the last survey period. Several firms reported that shortages of labor continued to constrain drilling activity, but other companies said investments in newer drilling technologies has made recruiting and retaining workers less of an issue. Capital spending plans continued to be strong, and credit conditions were still reported as positive in the industry, with most contacts citing strong cash flows and ample financing opportunities."
that's my sector. and I can tell you that is accurate. we are happy people.
quote:
Originally posted by inteller
just a little blurb from the latest beige book report for district 10, our district:
"Energy
Energy activity continued to expand at a solid pace in late January and February. Most contacts reported steady or increased drilling activity, and producers' expectations for future exploration rose from the last survey period. Several firms reported that shortages of labor continued to constrain drilling activity, but other companies said investments in newer drilling technologies has made recruiting and retaining workers less of an issue. Capital spending plans continued to be strong, and credit conditions were still reported as positive in the industry, with most contacts citing strong cash flows and ample financing opportunities."
that's my sector. and I can tell you that is accurate. we are happy people.
Me too to a degree but I think Big Oil needs to be hit with a windfall profit tax.
Keep in mind with reccesion comes lowering the demand. Look for oil to back off after 1-21-09. Just a hunch. $50 a barrel?
I hope we will reach bottom by July! The market is tough right now. No wonder. 2 Trillion on a war for nothing.
quote:
Originally posted by FOTD
quote:
Originally posted by inteller
just a little blurb from the latest beige book report for district 10, our district:
"Energy
Energy activity continued to expand at a solid pace in late January and February. Most contacts reported steady or increased drilling activity, and producers' expectations for future exploration rose from the last survey period. Several firms reported that shortages of labor continued to constrain drilling activity, but other companies said investments in newer drilling technologies has made recruiting and retaining workers less of an issue. Capital spending plans continued to be strong, and credit conditions were still reported as positive in the industry, with most contacts citing strong cash flows and ample financing opportunities."
that's my sector. and I can tell you that is accurate. we are happy people.
Me too to a degree but I think Big Oil needs to be hit with a windfall profit tax.
Keep in mind with reccesion comes lowering the demand. Look for oil to back off after 1-21-09. Just a hunch. $50 a barrel?
I hope we will reach bottom by July! The market is tough right now. No wonder. 2 Trillion on a war for nothing.
I highly recommend investing in big oil for at least the next 6 mos to a year.
Windfall profit tax is for ****ies. As long as big oil has the money to reinvest, it's a good thing for the economy. Especially manufacturers in the Tulsa area. I've not seen solid industry stats, but I do believe capital investment in new drilling and processing equipment is likely back at early 1980's levels. All this cash is making its way back into the economy and is being re-taxed on the way down as it is.
The gov't doesn't need more money, they need to figure out how to get by on less.
$100 oil is a result of the dollar's decline, NOT George Bush maniacally having us use too much oil.
quote:
Originally posted by YoungTulsan
$100 oil is a result of the dollar's decline, NOT George Bush maniacally having us use too much oil.
Also rampant speculation is pushing it up, too.
quote:
Originally posted by YoungTulsan
$100 oil is a result of the dollar's decline, NOT George Bush maniacally having us use too much oil.
Absolutely. Who is responsible for the dollars continued decline? The Busheviks.
Conan, you say "I've not seen solid industry stats, but I do believe capital investment in new drilling and processing equipment is likely back at early 1980's levels. " Many, as you know, have left or sunk since back then. The mere comparrison gives me the jitters. Also, trickle down? More like buy a second home and help Scottsdale, Crested Butte, NYC and Destin.
quote:
Originally posted by FOTD
quote:
Originally posted by YoungTulsan
$100 oil is a result of the dollar's decline, NOT George Bush maniacally having us use too much oil.
Absolutely. Who is responsible for the dollars continued decline? The Busheviks.
They do like to print an awful lot of dollars, don't they?
But people in this thread were trying to make it an issue of actual CONSUMPTION. Deferring authority over creation of money to a private banking cartel (the Federal Reserve System) is not the same issue as saying that us consuming too much oil is the reason oil has shot up in price.
quote:
Originally posted by YoungTulsan
But people in this thread were trying to make it an issue of actual CONSUMPTION. Deferring authority over creation of money to a private banking cartel (the Federal Reserve System) is not the same issue as saying that us consuming too much oil is the reason oil has shot up in price.
If we're only talking about recent price
spikes, then American oil consumption isn't really a factor. Our consumption level hasn't changed, but several extraneous factors are affecting oil prices now (other consumers -- India and China -- ramping up their consumption; a falling dollar; speculation).
The fact that we consume far too much oil as a nation is another kettle of fish entirely.
quote:
Originally posted by FOTD
quote:
Originally posted by YoungTulsan
$100 oil is a result of the dollar's decline, NOT George Bush maniacally having us use too much oil.
Absolutely. Who is responsible for the dollars continued decline? The Busheviks.
Conan, you say "I've not seen solid industry stats, but I do believe capital investment in new drilling and processing equipment is likely back at early 1980's levels. " Many, as you know, have left or sunk since back then. The mere comparrison gives me the jitters. Also, trickle down? More like buy a second home and help Scottsdale, Crested Butte, NYC and Destin.
I'm not referring to admin, accounting, and DP jobs which have gone south to Houston. Tulsa is a major, major hub in oilfield exploration, drilling, measurement, processing, etc equipment. Much bigger than the average person would think. We are also one of the major hubs for heat exchanging equipment in the country.
Tulsa has some of the largest shell rolling equipment in the country, we have companies which make and roll tubing of all sorts. All products which get shipped to various parts of the U.S. and world as finished product or for final assembly.
Two primary vendors my company represents rely on several components manufactured either in Tulsa or within a 100 mile radius of Tulsa. Components are either shipped from this area to Arizona or Pennsylvania for final assembly, then they make a round trip back to Tulsa. There are two such component suppliers like that within two blocks of my office.
There are also many smaller oil producers located here who are pumping cash into our economy. With oil prices I don't see Tulsa's usual 1 year lag behind the rest of the country happening. One of the worst things which could happen at this point for Tulsa might be oil falling back to $50 a barrel.
I really don't get the point in talking up a recession. It's counter-productive. Once the whispers start, companies will halt hiring, slim down, and cut expenditures. That in itself will cause a real recession. I'm not an advocate for sticking our collective heads in the sand, but I'm definitely not an advocate for promoting negativity which impacts our livelihood.
All boats float when the tide rises. Goes down as well. When you state "Once the whispers start, companies will halt hiring, slim down, and cut expenditures " you fail to see that it might be just the time to do cautionary tightening. If leveraged, recession or not, companies better understand what's unfolding.
The financial system is screwed, and will be for a little while. How bad it gets, who knows?
Doom and gloom aside, Tulsa is a good place to be (better than most places in the US) right now, and through any recession or depression when or if they are to come. As the rest of the country suffers from expensive oil, Tulsa's economy is pumped up. We didn't get too involved in the housing bubble, so the mortgage meltdown is treating us very lightly.
Hell, even financially, BOKF seems to be doing a lot better than most financial institutions.
My hope is that Tulsas economy stays in the plus category during this downturn. It will obviously feel negative pressures, but even if we muster a tiny bit of growth while others are suffering, I count that as a positive.
I can actually see a scenario playing out in which Tulsas positive news enhances our growth potential because others see it as one of the few bright spots. Now IMO is a time to tout Tulsas strengths to the outside world, not go playing up every little negative. Also, if we hang in there and make steady progress downtown, and things like the River District actually happen as hoped. Once the national economy gets back on the ball again, Tulsa could, for a change, be in a great position to "catch the wave". We often seem to be just behind the curve, but this next time we could shine.
Artist, I know you have been working on one major project for some time. Have you seen any change in inquiries and commissions for your residential artwork? I figure that's pretty much a luxury to a homeowner, if the economy is too brutal, I'd think your business would be off, or even rumors of recession might get someone to hold off using your services.
quote:
Originally posted by Conan71
Artist, I know you have been working on one major project for some time. Have you seen any change in inquiries and commissions for your residential artwork? I figure that's pretty much a luxury to a homeowner, if the economy is too brutal, I'd think your business would be off, or even rumors of recession might get someone to hold off using your services.
Its hard for me to tell since most know I am "off the market" for a while. I have still been getting the occasional call from the usual decorators and such, but have only been able to squeeze in smaller things just to keep them happy till I can get back in the game. After I am done in June with this big job I already have about 2 months worth lined up. But honestly I have been a bit worried. My kind of work truly is the "canary in the coal mine" sort of thing. A luxury thats easily put off or cancelled. My assistant keeps telling me that most of our clients are wealthy enough that these things dont really affect them and what we offer isnt really that expensive to them regardless.
Also a lady that we often work with, Carolyn Finch, who does faux finishes in upper middle to high end homes keeps saying she is as busy as ever. Has a crew of 5 or 6 people and can barely keep up. I am still suprised at how many nice homes there are still going in out south. It may have slowed down a bit, but they are still plugging out a lot of very nice homes and selling them. Also, most of the people I have been working for, by far, are from other parts of the counry, mainly from the west. Fortunately the Italian look is still in with the high end homes and we are doing a lot of the soft, rubbed off and aged scrollwork designs on ceilings. Walls your competing with, paintings, tapestries, furniture, etc. But if you want to take a room or home up a notch, something beautiful on a ceiling is just the ticket and we got ya covered and we are pretty much it. My poor neck though.
I will probably get a better feel for things this fall after we get back into it and thats usually a busy time for us. People want to get moved into a new house before the holidays, and or want to have something nice done before holiday guests start arriving. But from what I can tell, its still a good market here.
quote:
Originally posted by FOTD
quote:
Originally posted by inteller
just a little blurb from the latest beige book report for district 10, our district:
"Energy
Energy activity continued to expand at a solid pace in late January and February. Most contacts reported steady or increased drilling activity, and producers' expectations for future exploration rose from the last survey period. Several firms reported that shortages of labor continued to constrain drilling activity, but other companies said investments in newer drilling technologies has made recruiting and retaining workers less of an issue. Capital spending plans continued to be strong, and credit conditions were still reported as positive in the industry, with most contacts citing strong cash flows and ample financing opportunities."
that's my sector. and I can tell you that is accurate. we are happy people.
Me too to a degree but I think Big Oil needs to be hit with a windfall profit tax.
Keep in mind with reccesion comes lowering the demand. Look for oil to back off after 1-21-09. Just a hunch. $50 a barrel?
I hope we will reach bottom by July! The market is tough right now. No wonder. 2 Trillion on a war for nothing.
oh I see, so you will find it ok if we here on the forum determine that you make more money than you deserve and have to share it with the rest of us?
You live in a fairy tale.
While the profit numbers for the major oils are huge... their margins are not. If we want to go after companies making "too much" money maybe we should be looking at the companies whose margins are MUCH wider... say maybe MSFT, or GOOG, or INTC....
quote:
Originally posted by twizzler
quote:
Originally posted by bokworker
If we want to go after companies making "too much" money maybe we should be looking at the companies whose margins are MUCH wider... say maybe MSFT, or GOOG, or INTC....
or BOKF
[8D]
nah, they are too busy buying up tulsa. hope that little investment pays off for them..[}:)]
Pizza and beer now cost an arm and a leg
Sure sign economy is headed for trouble: Even cheap eats are hard to find
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23415510/
"If you're looking for a sure sign the U.S. economy is headed in the wrong direction, all you need to do is look at the skyrocketing price of "recession-proof" foods: pizza, hot dogs, bagels and beer."
UH OH!!!! This is big....
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601103&sid=a27ldweXtg0Y&refer=news
Carlyle Fund Expects Assets Will Be Seized -- LONDON — Shares of Carlyle Capital plunged on Thursday, losing most of their value, after the company said it expected its lenders to promptly take over all its assets after discussions with banks to refinance the fund failed.
The collapse of talks between Carlyle Capital and some of its lenders, which include Bear Stearns, Bank of America, Citigroup and Merrill Lynch, shows that a plan earlier this week by the Federal Reserve to back some assets like private mortgage bonds has not stopped banks from demanding more collateral. http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/13/business/worldbusiness/13cnd-carlyle.html
quote:
Originally posted by FOTD
Pizza and beer now cost an arm and a leg
Sure sign economy is headed for trouble: Even cheap eats are hard to find
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23415510/
"If you're looking for a sure sign the U.S. economy is headed in the wrong direction, all you need to do is look at the skyrocketing price of "recession-proof" foods: pizza, hot dogs, bagels and beer."
Pizza was 'recession proof'?
It has gone up probably 100% in the last 10 years. It involves meat, cheese, tomatoes, flour, and transportation. Probably one of the hardest hit things you can find.
Isn't Carlyle Capital the same company that included investments ranging from President Bush 41 to Osama bin Laden...
The Bushiveks seem to be tied in tight....
quote:
Originally posted by RecycleMichael
Isn't Carlyle Capital the same company that included investments ranging from President Bush 41 to Osama bin Laden...
The Clintons probably had money in it as well.
They have become pretty astute investors.
Home foreclosures jump in state
By ROBERT EVATT World Staff Writer
3/13/2008
While national numbers improved in February, troubled Oklahoma mortgages rose 45 percent.
The number of mortgages going bust in Oklahoma skyrocketed in February, increasing 45.4 percent from the month before.
The Whirled Article (//%22http://www.tulsaworld.com/business/article.aspx?subjectID=32&articleID=20080313_5_E1_hWhil04471%22)
But, I thought Tulsa wasn't going to be affected by this?[sarcasm off]
My prediction: unless it gets much worse than it is, Tulsa dodges the worst of the recession. The dip in housing prices will be smaller than most of the rest of the country, though foreclosures will keep pace with the national average. Energy will be at a premium for the foreseeable future, so Tulsa is in the catbird seat as far as its local economy goes. The price of petroleum might slip from where it is now (losing some of the speculative froth off the top), but worldwide demand sure ain't goin' down, so we're in a good position.
quote:
Originally posted by Double A
Home foreclosures jump in state
By ROBERT EVATT World Staff Writer
3/13/2008
While national numbers improved in February, troubled Oklahoma mortgages rose 45 percent.
The number of mortgages going bust in Oklahoma skyrocketed in February, increasing 45.4 percent from the month before.
The Whirled Article (//%22http://www.tulsaworld.com/business/article.aspx?subjectID=32&articleID=20080313_5_E1_hWhil04471%22)
But, I thought Tulsa wasn't going to be affected by this?[sarcasm off]
Tulsa is no different than any other city, plenty of unsophisticated borrowers and greedy, permissive lenders.
"Kevin Wheeler, president of Southern Hills Mortgage, said many Oklahomans also entered into high-risk, adjustable-rate mortgages, though not as many as in some other states.
"Lenders were offering loans to people that probably shouldn't have gotten them," he said. "People were getting into a house with virtually no money."
Those kinds of deals have now come to an end. Freddie Mac, which issues loans through Southern Hills, formerly offered plans with no down payment. At the end of March, the lender will begin requiring at least 3 percent of the total cost of the home.
Other tightening standards that are shutting out borrowers with bad or even borderline credit are forcing Wheeler to turn more people away.
"Our loans are down 25 percent from last year," he said.
Wheeler said that because lenders did not immediately limit their lending enough when the mortgage crisis came to light, they'll have to limit themselves even more in coming months.
"We're not on solid ground yet," he said. "I think there's more to be seen in the future." "
Well, todays' sad news is all about a wonderful little brokerage house founded by a genuine Okie from OKC named Ace Greenberg. Ace built Bear Sterns into one of Wall Streets great success stories. But today, liquidity issues have demoralized the company. Let's see. Countrywide gets bailed out by B of A, then BSC gets bailed out JPMorganChase,then....we all pay for it in the end. Just ask Spitzer....
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080314/bs_nm/bearstearns_dc_7
"The share fall of Bear Stearns, which specializes in mortgage finance and trading, roiled other financial stocks. Bear Stearns was recently trading at $31.27, down $25.73, or 45 percent."
Meanwhile, the market continues to get Bush whacked.
Bushwhacked!
Dumbya is so slow. I guess he finally reacted. A true reactionary!
President Acknowledges Strains on the Economy
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/15/business/15econ.html?th&emc=th
By STEVEN LEE MYERS and PETER S. GOODMAN
Published: March 15, 2008
President Bush on Friday acknowledged more starkly than ever that the economy has slipped into trouble, dogged by falling home prices and turmoil in financial markets, but he inveighed against government bailouts aimed at limiting the pain.
"Our economy obviously is going through a tough time," the president told the Economic Club of New York in a morning speech at a Midtown Manhattan hotel. "The temptation of Washington is to say that anything short of a massive government intervention in the housing market amounts to inaction. I strongly disagree with that sentiment.
"I believe there ought to be action," Mr. Bush added, "but I'm deeply concerned about law and regulation that will make it harder for the markets to recover."
Shortly after Mr. Bush spoke, Ben S. Bernanke, the Federal Reserve chairman, issued fresh warnings about the gathering wave of home foreclosures while pledging new regulations to limit the impact and crack down on predatory mortgage lending.
"Foreclosure rates have increased substantially," Mr. Bernanke said during a speech in Washington before a meeting of the National Community Reinvestment Coalition.
"Behind these disturbing statistics are families facing personal and financial hardship and neighborhoods that may be destabilized by clusters of foreclosures," Mr. Bernanke said. "These realities challenge us to find ways to prevent preventable foreclosures" and "ensure a regulatory environment that promotes responsible lending."
Taken together, the two speeches underscored the degree to which Washington has moved beyond debating whether or not the economy is entering a period of duress to focusing on how to soften the consequences.
Mr. Bernanke's words were perhaps most notable for what he left unsaid, perhaps because of the sheer volatility of the present financial situation and the fear that almost anything specific he might say in advance of the Fed's expected interest rate cut on Tuesday could do more harm than good.
The severity of the crisis was brought home with stunning clarity by the early morning announcement that Bear Stearns, the venerable Wall Street investment bank, was leaning on emergency financing from JPMorgan Chase and the New York Federal Reserve.
"I had a busy morning," was all Mr. Bernanke said, prompting a flurry of laughter before going into his prepared text.
Indeed, analysts said that Mr. Bernanke was reluctant to tread further onto volatile ground because so many threats appear to be lurking in the global financial system that any poor choice of words could sow panic in some new quarter.
"When you're fighting shadows, the less said the better," said Robert Barbera, chief economist of the trading and research firm ITG.
Even before the distress call from Bear Stearns, markets assumed the Fed would drop its benchmark lending rate, currently at 3 percent, by at least half a point. With the Bear Stearns worries popping to the surface, investors now expect the Fed to cut by three-fourths of a percentage point.
In aggressively lowering short-term interest rates, the Fed has been seeking to stimulate economic activity: Lower rates make it easier for banks to get cash, which traditionally makes them more likely to lend, giving businesses the wherewithal to invest and hire workers.
But investors in long-term markets and other securities, more worried about inflation and fearful of taking unnecessary risks, have been pushing those rates higher, undercutting the Fed's effort to keep the economy from falling into a deeper hole.
The Fed has acknowledged concerns that its easing could worsen inflation but has concluded that the immediate threats to the economy demand freer credit now. Data released Friday by the Labor Department appeared to give the Fed extra latitude: the Consumer Price Index showed inflation was essentially flat in February. That lent credence to the case that as the economy slows, this will diminish demand for goods, damping price increases.
But many analysts argue that the February figure was an aberration. Gasoline and food prices have been rising sharply, which could well be reflected in the data for March, removing whatever cushion Friday's numbers appeared to provide.
None of this occupied Mr. Bernanke's time at the podium. Instead, the Fed chairman focused on the widening crisis in real estate, while advertising the merits of a set of proposed rules he introduced in December. They include barring lenders from making loans that borrowers cannot repay and demanding that lenders verify the incomes of borrowers.
In his speech, President Bush cast the slowdown — he did not indulge the word "recession" — as a natural product of the laissez- faire economic policies that he cited as a core national strength.
"In a free market, there's going to be good times and bad times," Mr. Bush said. "In the long run, I'm confident that our economy will continue to grow, because the foundation is solid."
Some economists, however, noted that the labor market appeared to be breaking down, with the number of jobs shrinking the last two months and the income of the typical American household being eroded by inflation.
"The fundamentals appear to be dangerously imperiled," said Jared Bernstein, senior economist at the labor-oriented Economic Policy Institute. "The current economic trajectory is likely to do significant damage to the average family's living standards."
Only last month, the president said he was unaware of the possibility that gasoline prices could reach $4 a gallon. On Friday, he validated consumer fears.
"Prices are up at the gas pump and in the supermarket," he said. "Housing values are down. Hard-working Americans are concerned. They're concerned about their families, and they're concerned about making their bills."
But the fix is already on the way, Mr. Bush said, pointing to tax rebates scheduled to be mailed to roughly 130 million households over the next few months.
"The challenge is not to do anything foolish," Mr. Bush said, flatly rejecting proposals on Capitol Hill for the government to buy up abandoned and foreclosed homes to stop prices from plunging.
At the same time, he warned against impeding flows of foreign investment reaching the United States, including those held by sovereign wealth funds — vast pools of state-controlled investment that have accumulated in China, Russia and among Persian Gulf oil exporters.
"It makes no sense to deny capital, including sovereign wealth funds, from access to the U.S. markets," Mr. Bush said. "It's our money to begin with. It seems like we ought to let it back."
Democrats fired back that continuing to lean on the market as opposed to a more interventionist approach would leave the nation more vulnerable to the ravages of recession.
"It seems like the president is on a different economic planet than most Americans," said Senator Charles E. Schumer, Democrat of New York. "This president is beginning to resemble Herbert Hoover in his hands-off approach."
PUBLISHED ON MARCH 27, 2008:
Danehy
George W. Bush absolutely deserves the blame for the economic mess the country is in right now
By TOM DANEHY
"I recently used the phrase "the Bush economy" in a column, and I received several e-mails taking me to task for making a simplistic attack on President Bush.
To summarize the e-mails: Supposedly, after one reaches a certain level of sophistication, he comes to the realization that the president of the United States has no real impact on the national or global economies, which are much too large and complex to be affected by one person, no matter how powerful that person's position is. Well, as Val Kilmer said in the movie that's been on Encore so many times in the past two weeks that they're thinking of changing the cable outlet's name to the Tombstone Channel, "I beg to differ, Sir."
Economics being what it is--an unscientific mishmash of sociology, voodoo, skullduggery and naked greed--it pretty much begs to be misunderstood, if not ignored completely, by the average American. In many ways, it's akin to laws that are all too often written by lawyers in an unnecessarily cryptic style that can only be read by other lawyers. Something that cannot be accurately predicted or even agreed upon by so-called experts is unlikely to be seen as relevant by the layman.
Take, for example, the fact that "uncertainty in the marketplace" always causes the price of a commodity to rise. Does that make sense? Why should it always go up? And how does one even begin to define "uncertainty?" At least in physics, we know that "a case of the jitters" isn't going to prevent an Einstein-Bose condensate to form near absolute zero.
Nevertheless, there are facets to economic theory that do work more often than not, and can therefore be exploited. I contend that George W. Bush, his administration and his cronies have done so to the outrageous benefit of a select few and to the great detriment to the rest of us.
We'll start with energy, the cost of which is having a devastating ripple effect throughout our economy. Remember how one of the first things Bush did was to have Dick Cheney set up that fake energy board, ostensibly to explore ways to make America energy-independent? It was quickly unmasked, but it sent the message to the oil giants that they could do just about anything they wanted as long as a Texas oilman sat in the White House. This has led to staggering profits, the consolidation of power and oil prices that get more ridiculous by the day.
This is not to say that Bush controls the price of oil, but rather that he won't try to do anything to exercise any control over it. Left alone, corporations will act as corporations do. (I have absolutely no doubt that, just as Ronald Reagan's laissez-faire-on-steroids policies in the 1980s led to the savings-and-loan debacle that cost the taxpayers hundreds of billions of dollars to clean up, Bush's wink and nod to business has played a large part in the housing mess we're in now, as prudent lending policies were either relaxed or ignored altogether, and lenders engaged in an orgy that has this country reeling and the government buying banks to keep them afloat.)
The Bush administration has had an effect on oil prices in other ways, including resisting increases in fuel-efficiency standards for nearly a decade. It's absolute insanity that people are still driving new vehicles that get 15 miles to the gallon. As fuel-efficiency technology advanced, standards should have risen to reflect those advances and/or to nudge the industry to even greater heights.
But, somewhere along the line, it became a matter of hubris. Fuel efficiency was not a broadly American concept; it was for those who couldn't afford a Hummer or an Escalade. How dare the peasants dictate what we drive!
And I don't want to hear the Sean Hannitys of the world whining about the language of class warfare. It is never the poor or the middle-class who seek to distance themselves from the rest of the society; it's the rich. Either we're all in this together, or we're not.
Finally, the combination of the Bush tax cuts and his misadventure in Iraq may yet serve to drive the final nails in the American economy's coffin. I'm not even mad that the tax cuts benefited the rich; that's his core constituency, and he was doing the politically expedient thing. The folly is throwing more than a billion dollars a week down the Baghdad abyss and insisting on keeping the tax cuts in place. Even Lyndon Johnson had enough sense to raise taxes to pay for Vietnam. Isn't it amazing how the one-time Republican mantra of balancing the budget has become suddenly quaint and outdated?
The toxic mix of runaway oil prices, unrealistic tax cuts, a war that may never go away and a blind eye toward corruption on an unprecedented scale has left this country reeling. I have no doubt that George W. Bush shares in the responsibility for every facet of this mess. He did it; he knows it, and the only thing he's sorry about is that it didn't wait another year before it came crashing down around us.
America elected this guy to do a job for us. He ended up doing a job on us. "
I disagre. We did not elect him....The Supremes did it!
Can a human being, let alone a president of the U.S., be so incredibly stupid? I know it is a rhetorical question, but the answer is yes. Roughly 1/3 of the US still thinks that moron is a leader. What does that tell you about the collective intelligence of Americans?
http://jobsanger.blogspot.com/2008/04/economy-just-keeps-getting-worse.html
"Gas and food prices are at record high levels. Housing starts have dropped by 36% and foreclosures are at a record level. Over a million more people will lose their homes this year. Food banks can't keep up with the ever-increasing demand. Wages are stagnant, and going down when adjusted for inflation. And an unnecessary war is sucking billions of dollars out of our economy every week."
I think it would serve this country welll if the Chimp did nothing for the next 9 months.....
http://marketplace.publicradio.org/display/web/2008/04/01/credit_default_swaps_q/
quoting from the interview:
"They've created this incredibly enormous shadow financial system, if you will, that's virtually hidden from investors and analysts and regulators.
The value of the entire U.S. Treasuries market: $4.5 trillion.
The value of the entire mortgage market: $7 trillion.
The size of the U.S. stock market: $22 trillion.
The size of the credit default swap market last year: $45 trillion."
OMG! pancakes?
Fed: Severe downturn possible
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080408/bs_nm/usa_fed_minutes_dc_5
Yes, hard to set policy with the republican controlled congress and President.
Do you really want 4 more years of this to continue under McBush?
George Soros: Worst from credit crisis yet to come; losses likely to top $1 trillion
Thursday, April 10, 2008
By Elaine Kurtenbach, The Associated Press
SHANGHAI, China -- The credit crisis is far from over, billionaire financier George Soros warned today, urging regulators to move faster to contain damage from the collapse of the housing finance markets.
"I think the situation is more serious than the authorities admit or recognize," Soros told journalists in a conference call. Measures taken so far to slash interest rates and stimulate the economy were "necessary but not sufficient," he said.
"Because of that, I think the situation is going to get worse before it gets better."
Soros is promoting a new book, "The New Paradigm for Financial Markets: The Credit Crisis and What It Means." He has urged regulators to move more aggressively to improve market oversight to curb risks from excessive reliance on debt for financial speculation.
He said he agreed with the International Monetary Fund's estimate of more than $1 trillion in losses linked to the collapse of mortgage-backed securities.
Losses disclosed by financial institutions so far are related only to the decline in value of those financial instruments, Soros said.
"They do not reflect in any way a possible decline in the value of the loans held by the banks," he said. "We have not yet seen the full effect of the possible recession."
Soros said that hedge funds struggling to clear up massive levels of debt are another pitfall.
"They are all now in this ... very painful process of wealth destruction," he said.
He pointed to the potential for massive losses from complex investments linked to the U.S. subprime mortgage market, such as credit default swaps, or CDS, which allow investors to put bets on the likelihood that companies will default on bond payments.
He described the $45 trillion market in credit swaps as a "Sword of Damocles."
"That's more than five times the entire government bond market of the United States. It's almost equal to the entire household wealth of the United States," Soros said.
"This $45 trillion market is totally unregulated," he said. "You can have very large positions with very little capital and you can actually assume risk and get paid for assuming that risk without being regulated."
American International Group Inc., the largest U.S. insurer, for example, reported that its swap portfolio lost $11.12 billion in value in the fourth quarter of 2007 because decaying credit quality means insured debt is less likely to be repaid.
That news prompted fears of further losses throughout the industry.
The potential risks from such investments has engendered a damaging level of mistrust among financial institutions, accentuating the credit crunch, Soros said.
Copyright 2008 Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
First published on April 10, 2008 at 12:18 pm
http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/08101/872169-82.stm
"After struggling with soaring heating costs through the winter, millions of Americans are behind on electric and gas bills, and a record number of families could face energy shut-offs over the next two months, according to state energy officials and utilities around the country."
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/25/us/25heating.html
Lots of hurt will be showing up this summer.
Words from the genius: http://www.reuters.com/article/ousiv/idUSN2847461420080428
not good
Start paying attention even if you live in countercyclical land.
This just in. . . Economy still growing at a measly .6%. No recession yet, but stay tuned. . . Perhaps next year FOTD.
Keep up the good work!
quote:
Originally posted by Gaspar
This just in. . . Economy still growing at a measly .6%. No recession yet, but stay tuned. . . Perhaps next year FOTD.
Keep up the good work!
We can only hope![}:)]
Seriously, how sad is it that there are morons out there that are counting on a recession as a means to a political end.
Guido, it is VERY sad but as a rule those out of power have an incentive to wish for failure. I do not mean to imply that Democrats are invested in failure, but is their any denying a crisis in Iraq would be politically expedient for them? You'd have to hope for failure on a selfish level.
Same with the economy. Bush profited from the Dot Com bust when he clawed into the white house and probably from 9/11 on his reelection. Bad things can be good news politically, bad being invested in the bad news is sad (both parties can be, just happens that the Democrats currently are).
Recessions are a necessary evil, a cleansing process, to sustain an overall healthy economy.
Just because you live in a countercyclical economy based on war and energy does not mean your fellow countrymen and women are enjoying the same situation.
You kiddos who believe our lying government statistics are fools. The truth is that the American economy is now mortgaged to foreign nations. And you were either worried we were being over taken by illegals or you were feeling assured the neo cons and corporations would have your best interest at heart.
Oh, and this just in too... Tulsa's jobless rate is nearing 3% on a strong manufacturing base and related oil jobs (engineering, manufacturing, leasing, exploration etc.). About 1200 new direct jobs were created in Tulsa last month, if that trend held for an entire year the associated population growth would be expected to be around 30,000 people (since we are at full employment new jobs are filled by new people, each new job equates to just over 2 new people in town according to the talking heads).
The bad news is, no one can find good workers. Hopefully that has upward pressure on wages and the cycle continues to spiral upwards for Tulsa. When compared with areas that are struggling, it could make Tulsa an attractive area.
quote:
Originally posted by cannon_fodder
Oh, and this just in too... Tulsa's jobless rate is nearing 3% on a strong manufacturing base and related oil jobs (engineering, manufacturing, leasing, exploration etc.). About 1200 new direct jobs were created in Tulsa last month, if that trend held for an entire year the associated population growth would be expected to be around 30,000 people (since we are at full employment new jobs are filled by new people, each new job equates to just over 2 new people in town according to the talking heads).
The bad news is, no one can find good workers. Hopefully that has upward pressure on wages and the cycle continues to spiral upwards for Tulsa. When compared with areas that are struggling, it could make Tulsa an attractive area.
Why can't Tulsa "find good workers"? We haven't just showed up. Wages here should be no different than elsewhere (with the exception of call centers), we have a wonderful training infrstructure, and our economy is booming. So, why is it we can't get "good workers" and please define the term.
quote:
Originally posted by FOTD
quote:
Originally posted by cannon_fodder
Oh, and this just in too... Tulsa's jobless rate is nearing 3% on a strong manufacturing base and related oil jobs (engineering, manufacturing, leasing, exploration etc.). About 1200 new direct jobs were created in Tulsa last month, if that trend held for an entire year the associated population growth would be expected to be around 30,000 people (since we are at full employment new jobs are filled by new people, each new job equates to just over 2 new people in town according to the talking heads).
The bad news is, no one can find good workers. Hopefully that has upward pressure on wages and the cycle continues to spiral upwards for Tulsa. When compared with areas that are struggling, it could make Tulsa an attractive area.
Why can't Tulsa "find good workers"? We haven't just showed up. Wages here should be no different than elsewhere (with the exception of call centers), we have a wonderful training infrstructure, and our economy is booming. So, why is it we can't get "good workers" and please define the term.
We have no shortage of jobs, but a shortage of (let me re-defign the term) Professional Workers. We will catch up, it's just that our local economy is so strong right now that a healthy shortage is inevitable. My company is currently in the process of hiring engineers and architects from out of state and relocating them here. This is a good thing.
Remember, government has no power to create jobs, they can only destroy economies and eliminate jobs. Industry and entrepreneurship creates jobs. We are living that right now. As long as our state and city keeps it's hands out of pockets we will continue to grow as we are. Energy companies are part of the engine, but we have a lot of new small business popping up everywhere!
It's an exciting time to be a Tulsan!
1) By good workers I mean skilled workers who are reliable. There are critical shortages at many of the craft and journeymen positions (welders, pipe fitters, boiler makers, machine operators) and a shortage on the professional level (all but attorney's, pretty much).
On top of having the requisite skill set a "good worker" is a team player, will work a little over when needed, and shows up for work consistently (standard things wanted from an employer).
There is a shortage of those in Tulsa. Trust me. I've been trying to hire for months for positions that pay well above the average wage for Tulsa, the nation, or most anywhere. I offered a guy from Little Rock what would have been an immediate 50% raise over what he was making and he took a job elsewhere. At 3% unemployment the workers that are skilled and available are in high demand.
2) Why there are not enough in Tulsa, I would speculate several reasons.
a) First, there are more jobs in Tulsa now than there ever has been. We are 10,000 jobs over our previous peak in 2001. For a community the size of Tulsa, 10,000 jobs is a ton. There are 431,000 employed persons in Tulsa MSA, we could absorb 5,000 more workers tomorow with no ill effects (bring us to ~4.5% unemployment).
b) Second, the severe beat down our economy took in 2002-2005 removed nearly 25,000 jobs from Tulsa (35,000 less than today). Our unemployment rate jumped from 3.5% to 6.5%, we then began adding jobs - but before the number returned to it's previous high we were back down to 4.5% unemployment.
This suggests that a large number of person either left Tulsa or removed themselves from the workforce. THUS, it is hard to find skilled labor because many of those that lost their jobs 5 or 6 years ago left Tulsa and have not (yet) returned. Those that have remained have already been absorbed.
c) Also, during the period of downturn, real income in Tulsa dipped 1.2%. That figure helps explain the recent 10+% increase in wages (makeup wages) recently seen in Tulsa. BUT, the down tick in wages certainly did not serve to lure people back when things started picking back up.
Most of the above is explain well here:
http://economy.okstate.edu/outlook/2005/tulsamsa.asp
d) and finally, nationally unemployment just ticked above 5% for the first since 2005 - just last month. Thus, the available labor force across the country is limited (in spite of what the "feel" is, unemployment is still low). So the available labor pool from which Tulsa can draw nationally is limited, and people are often reluctant to move if there is hope of remaining where they are.
http://data.bls.gov/PDQ/servlet/SurveyOutputServlet?request_action=wh&graph_name=LN_cpsbref3
SO... Tulsa is having trouble attracting labor because a) there are more jobs than ever before, b) the economic downturn drove workers from Tulsa recently, c) wages in Tulsa were repressed during the downturn and are just now becoming competitive again (by virtue of the labor market) and d) the available national labor market remains competitive.
This situation will be remedied by continued training of our domestic labor force, job losses elsewhere in the country, an increase in relative wages, and/or a continued strong and stable demand for labor in Tulsa.
- - -
How'd I do? And are you suggesting that we do not have a labor shortage or that we don't have the jobs? Please state your position as I have very clearly state mine.
Liar....
You did great except you left out the fact that Tulsa does not appeal to many educated professionals because an attitude problem exists here they see as counter progressive.
Now, let's pile on![}:)]
FOTD, to some extent that is true. But my attitude does not fit in very well here (I'm neither Christian nor socially conservative), yet I chose to move here and stay. Quality of life was more important to me than finding like minded people (dear god, where would a Libertarian go?). I note that you don't fit in, yet stay also.
Furthermore, putting food on the table for your family usually trumps all other concerns. If/when there are better jobs in Tulsa than somewhere else, people will move here. It's starting to happen now, lets hope it keeps rolling.
I believe the issue you raise is more pertinent to ATTRACTING new business. That is to say when Arvest wants a new regional HQ why should they move to Tulsa. Being flashy and hip might help convince such a business that they can attract the people they want to Tulsa. And in this regard, I agree.
My hope it that this is Tulsas time to buck the cycle its been in for quite a while. When the national economy has done well we struggled to catch up and dig out of a bust, just as we start to see actual gains... the national economy tanks and takes us back down again, then the national economy picks up we struggle to regain what we lost then just as we get to the point of adding.... down the national economy goes again and us with it. We keep just missing the "growth waves", and its sucked lol.
This time we seem to be holding our own and even gaining slightly... IF we can hang in there this time and ride it out without a downswing, we will find that our city will be in a good position to be competitive and take a ride on the next national upswing for a change.
In a few years when, and if, the River District, Riverwalk, are done, Brookside and Cherry Street continue to flesh out, Downtown and the many areas in and around it continue to see progress, the river parks are improved, etc. We will have added some very nice attractive areas to our resume and will be able to offer up quite a nice little city. One that will hopefully then be able to solidly capitalize on the next national economic upswing.
It's the attitude, Artist.....not the developments.
We need more attitude adjustment here to attract the pros.
quote:
Originally posted by FOTD
It's the attitude, Artist.....not the developments.
We need more attitude adjustment here to attract the pros.
You're not helping....
quote:
Originally posted by bokworker
quote:
Originally posted by FOTD
It's the attitude, Artist.....not the developments.
We need more attitude adjustment here to attract the pros.
You're not helping....
I am certain hiding that fact under the rug will work.[}:)]
Head hunters and placement services use this site all the time as a recruiting tool. Right.
Bash me all you wish. But between my lines is an attitude that we need to change. All I get is resistance from the intolerant, the mean people and the evil doers.
quote:
Originally posted by FOTD
It's the attitude, Artist.....not the developments.
We need more attitude adjustment here to attract the pros.
I think the "attitudes" and "developments" reinforce each other.
For instance; Tulsa is good at attracting people that like suburban style living because it, plus its suburbs, is able to offer that in spades. Not too far away from the center of the city, very inexpensive, nice looking, good schools etc. However its ability to appeal to the urban dweller types is still lacking. (of course both of these examples are gross exaggerations used to get across broad, general, notions)
Jobs of course attract people, but people attract and create jobs. Certain types of jobs attract certain types of people, certain types of people attract and create certain types of jobs. It works both ways.
Creative Class, YP types often have certain types of jobs and likes. They often like living similar lifestyles, usually some sort of urban lifestyle. They can also choose to live pretty much wherever they want. Developments and areas of a certain type can attract them, jobs of a certain type can end up creating a lot of people that want to live in certain types of developments and areas. Again, both reinforce the other.
In good part, whats actually going on is that Tulsa is transitioning from being, in essence, a large suburb that happened to have some really large buildings lol, into a city. A real city is able to offer lots of job options, a wide variety of living and lifestyle options, lots of higher educational options, lots of entertainment and cultural options, etc.
We have all heard the story of some company here who wines and dines a prospective employee from another part of the country to try and get them to move to Tulsa, but the person takes a look at what the city has to offer and says "Nooo thanks". We have all had friends or relatives who have moved to other more "trendy cities" and locals. You can no more expect these people to change their attitudes, likes and dislikes, than you can expect the suburban dweller here to suddenly want to be an urban dweller. However... I would say that it is my experience that there are people here who would choose to live in a good urban environment over a good suburban environment, but because Tulsa offers up lots of good suburban options and very little in the way of urban ones, they obviously choose the suburban. In the last few years things have started getting better, but we still have a ways to go in order to have areas that compete with other cities and even the suburbs.
The "city" cant do everything or miracles, but it can do things that will either enhance or deter certain types of developments, areas, attitudes, jobs, and people. It doesnt have to be, and shouldnt be imo, all up to chance and the market. We can actively shape our destiny.
quote:
Originally posted by TheArtist
quote:
Originally posted by FOTD
It's the attitude, Artist.....not the developments.
We need more attitude adjustment here to attract the pros.
In good part, whats actually going on is that Tulsa is transitioning from being, in essence, a large suburb that happened to have some really large buildings lol, into a city. A real city is able to offer lots of job options, a wide variety of living and lifestyle options, lots of higher educational options, lots of entertainment and cultural options, etc.
Its the attitude, period.
I extracted that mental ejaculation above from your pontificating because its more dissociative than the rest of your rambling. (As you can tell it irritates me when people make assessments of what's really happening in Tulsa.) Take no personal enmity from my post please.
One has to be very careful what you say and to who you say it in this (un)real city if you are not republican, conservative and fundamentally religious. That attitude makes us toxic. It is pretty much the mirror image of the YP urbans you think we are attracting. Office talk is fine as long as it fits the norms of Tulsa politics and religion. Otherwise you may find yourself on the dead track or out the door. Those who don't know that haven't been paying attention and these yp's do pay attention. My son is one of them. He and his friends all recently decided to buy into near downtown OKC, ironically, because of what he called the attitude there. That is a 180 degree shift of the OKC attitude from when I was his age.
Then there is the elitism that has created a deep and hardening mistrust of our leadership. Your remarks are not unlike many on this forum and in this community's leadership that are representative of that schism between self-employed, well employed, well educated, pseudo-sophisticates that are sure "They" know what is happening to Tulsa and the 85% of the city that are actually making the city work. The spiritual magazines of the elites here in Tulsa, Tulsa People & OKmag, don't print more than 30K copies between them. Less than probably 10K are ever seen outside of doctors offices and restaurants who advertise in them. Out of 900,000+ population. However, the character and attitude of the city is closer to the World, Urban Tulsa and the Beacon.
I love this forum but sometimes it is dismissive and seemingly oblivious to the very community we live in. Tulsa is the home of fundamentalism, conservatism, libertarianism, chauvinism, racism and gilded age capitalism. Those attitudes matter in how we are viewed by others and why we lag "behind the curve since 1898" as one poster used to note. Do you know how rare and treasured it is to occasionally find an open, progressive, non fundamentalist, non Bush apologist, self thinking, resident of this town and find yourself talking to a complete stranger for an hour because you're both so excited to find out there are "others" among us?!
And before you guys start, don't question my love of the city. We're also the home of beautiful landscapes, cutting edge music, strong moral values and a fair amount of diversity. Doesn't surprise me that we are home to large quantities of same sex residents. I am a native and could have left at any time during the last 40 years but I know we can be better and want to be here when it happens. Telling the truth about our nature is my way of helping that happen.
So Q1 08 didn't have negative growth as many naysayers predicted. So the USA is not in a recession as some hoped for and now I predict the same people will predict the tax rebates will overheat the economy.
Just wait.
quote:
Originally posted by waterboy
quote:
Originally posted by TheArtist
quote:
Originally posted by FOTD
It's the attitude, Artist.....not the developments.
We need more attitude adjustment here to attract the pros.
In good part, whats actually going on is that Tulsa is transitioning from being, in essence, a large suburb that happened to have some really large buildings lol, into a city. A real city is able to offer lots of job options, a wide variety of living and lifestyle options, lots of higher educational options, lots of entertainment and cultural options, etc.
Its the attitude, period.
I extracted that mental ejaculation above from your pontificating because its more dissociative than the rest of your rambling. (As you can tell it irritates me when people make assessments of what's really happening in Tulsa.) Take no personal enmity from my post please.
One has to be very careful what you say and to who you say it in this (un)real city if you are not republican, conservative and fundamentally religious. That attitude makes us toxic. It is pretty much the mirror image of the YP urbans you think we are attracting. Office talk is fine as long as it fits the norms of Tulsa politics and religion. Otherwise you may find yourself on the dead track or out the door. Those who don't know that haven't been paying attention and these yp's do pay attention. My son is one of them. He and his friends all recently decided to buy into near downtown OKC, ironically, because of what he called the attitude there. That is a 180 degree shift of the OKC attitude from when I was his age.
Then there is the elitism that has created a deep and hardening mistrust of our leadership. Your remarks are not unlike many on this forum and in this community's leadership that are representative of that schism between self-employed, well employed, well educated, pseudo-sophisticates that are sure "They" know what is happening to Tulsa and the 85% of the city that are actually making the city work. The spiritual magazines of the elites here in Tulsa, Tulsa People & OKmag, don't print more than 30K copies between them. Less than probably 10K are ever seen outside of doctors offices and restaurants who advertise in them. Out of 900,000+ population. However, the character and attitude of the city is closer to the World, Urban Tulsa and the Beacon.
I love this forum but sometimes it is dismissive and seemingly oblivious to the very community we live in. Tulsa is the home of fundamentalism, conservatism, libertarianism, chauvinism, racism and gilded age capitalism. Those attitudes matter in how we are viewed by others and why we lag "behind the curve since 1898" as one poster used to note. Do you know how rare and treasured it is to occasionally find an open, progressive, non fundamentalist, non Bush apologist, self thinking, resident of this town and find yourself talking to a complete stranger for an hour because you're both so excited to find out there are "others" among us?!
And before you guys start, don't question my love of the city. We're also the home of beautiful landscapes, cutting edge music, strong moral values and a fair amount of diversity. Doesn't surprise me that we are home to large quantities of same sex residents. I am a native and could have left at any time during the last 40 years but I know we can be better and want to be here when it happens. Telling the truth about our nature is my way of helping that happen.
Perhaps your right, perhaps I am just seeing things through my limited lense. All I can say is this... The kind of things I like and people I like to hang around, talk with, work with, the kind of areas I like, developments I like, etc. are more abundant now than ever and the trend is positive "at least in my perspective lol". Does this mean an attitude change for the city as a whole? No. But there is definitely a core of things that I like which is getting larger and better.
Millions of Americans in Chronic Pain
http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1737255,00.html?cnn=yes
"Nursing a migraine today? New research shows you're not alone. More than a quarter of Americans suffer daily pain, a condition that costs the U.S. about $60 billion a year in lost productivity. And how often you're in pain depends largely on the size of your paycheck.
Americans in households making less than $30,000 a year spend nearly 20% of their lives in moderate to severe pain, compared with less than 8% of people in households earning above $100,000, according to a landmark study on how Americans experience in pain. The findings, published Thursday in the British journal the Lancet, also found that participants who hadn't finished high school reported feeling twice the amount of pain as college graduates. "To a significant extent, pain does separate the classes," says Princeton economist Alan Krueger, who authored the study along with Dr. Arthur Stone, a psychiatry professor at Stony Brook University.
Krueger notes that the type of pain people reported typically fell on either side of the rich-poor divide. "Those with higher incomes welcome pain almost by choice, usually through exercise," he says. "At lower incomes, pain comes as the result of work." Indeed, Krueger and Stone found that blue-collar workers felt more pain, from physical labor or repetitive motion, while on the job than off, which at least offers hope that the problem can be mitigated. This finding "emphasizes the need for pain preventing measures [in the workplace] such as better ergonomics," wrote Juha H.O. Turunen, a professor of social pharmacy at Finland's University of Kuopio, in an accompanying commentary to the report.
People with chronic pain also worked less, the new study found, costing U.S. businesses as much as $60 billion annually. These conclusions are in line with previous studies on productivity lost to common pain conditions, including a 2003 report finding that nearly 15% of the U.S. workforce's output was diminished by ailments such as headaches and arthritis. What's new in Kruger and Stone's study, however, is the level of detail with which the researchers were able to chronicle the lives of Americans in pain. With the help of the polling firm Gallup, they asked nearly 4,000 survey participants to diarize their daily activities over a 24-hour period. From these personal accounts, the researchers saw the impact pain had on people's emotional states. Though participants said interacting with a spouse or friend lowered their pain, those suffering chronic pain tended to socialize much less. They also spent a lot more time watching television about 25% of their day compared with 16% for the average person.
Pain also appeared to be a major driver of healthcare costs. Krueger and Stone found that Americans spent about $2.6 billion in over-the-counter pain medications and another nearly $14 billion on outpatient analgesics in 2004, the most recent data available. But in these numbers, too, there may be a distinction between the haves and the have-nots. A 2005 study in Michigan showed that minorities and the poor have less access to such drugs than wealthier Americans because local pharmacies don't stock enough pain medications such as oxycodone or morphine. "Those [pharmacies] in white ZIP codes were more than 13 times more likely to have sufficient supplies," says lead researcher Dr. Carmen Green, an anesthesiology professor at the University of Michigan. "I have patients who have to drive 30 miles or more just to get their pain medications."
One characteristic that pain doesn't seem to distinguish is gender: according to Krueger and Stone's study, men and women were nearly equally likely to find themselves in pain. Another is age. People reported more aches and pains as they got older, though surprisingly that pain tended to plateau from ages 45 to 75. "Maybe people reach a point in their career where they move up the ladder into a desk job," Krueger says. "Or maybe they've just learned how to cope with the pain."
Sorry to be such a pain, but I thought I'd point out that as the lower middle class expands we all will pay more one way or another.
The other day I went by a lab and upon up front payment of my bill was able to receive a %50 decrease in cost due to the avoidance of administrative handling of my bill. I said, "that's great for me, but what about those that can least afford health care? Their costs are twice that of the citizens in America making over $100,000." A sad situation....
"One way or another, this darkness got to give"
Garcia/Hunter
"I once heard two ladies going on and on about the pains of childbirth and how men don't seem to know what real pain is. I asked if either of them ever got themselves caught in a zipper."
Emo Phillips
Ouch!
Is that what happened to cause Bill Clinton's noticable marking?
quote:
Originally posted by FOTD
Ouch!
Is that what happened to cause Bill Clinton's noticable marking?
No, I think that was someone's braces.
Is it correct to say most of our country is now in recession? Not here. But should the oil and gas traders get hammered, watch out below.
If reserves are so precious and demand so high why has there not been a single major oil company or oil services company merger or acquisition?
Surely it's cheaper to buy the reserves than find them? The reason that has not happened is the oil execs themselves do not believe what is happening is demand driven. They see the speculation.
http://biz.yahoo.com/hftn/080606/060608_tully_oil_bust_fortune.html?.v=3
http://www.reuters.com/article/usMktRpt/idUSN06146720080606
Dow falls 394.64 points, largest 1-day drop this year (wow) "on renewed fears that the U.S. economy is threatened by 1970s-style stagflation after government data showed the jobless rate jumped the most in 22 years in May and the price of oil surged to a record above $139 a barrel."
Just now, we are in phase one of this "war time for oil" economy.....
quote:
Originally posted by FOTD
http://www.reuters.com/article/usMktRpt/idUSN06146720080606
Dow falls 394.64 points, largest 1-day drop this year (wow) "on renewed fears that the U.S. economy is threatened by 1970s-style stagflation after government data showed the jobless rate jumped the most in 22 years in May and the price of oil surged to a record above $139 a barrel."
Just now, we are in phase one of this "war time for oil" economy.....
Ah! A good day for Fotard! Giddy he must be!
Happiness a warm bong is!
Only 2 negative quarters to your beloved recession.
(http://www.cnn.com/EVENTS/1997/star.wars.anniversary/where.are.they/yoda.lg.jpg)
Not giddy at all. "If oil prices stay this high, you're going to have to re-examine your estimates for G.D.P., inflation and consumers' ability to spend outside of nondiscretionary items," Ms. Krosby said. "This has all of the elements of an investor's worst-case scenario."http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/07/business/07stox.html?_r=1&oref=slogin
Just pointing out where you Busheviks have put America. Keep thinking the price of oil is high because of the falling dollar. It's due to all the option players....those that opted in for war and those that have the power and supplies to manipulate the market on a world level. Chalk it up to 8 years of no energy policy and no attempt at reprioritizing our carbon based system http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080606/pl_nm/climate_usa_dc_1. The economy sucks. If you haven't noticed, just look at the airlines. Look at what food costs. Believe your lying government statistics. This must be someone else's fault Bill with a spoon.....
Mission accomplished...Now take your personal attack and go live in Egypt on a river of d nile.
Bill with a spoon.....here. Read up. Learn something ......it helps when disaster strikes.
YIKES! Investors' Growing Appetite for Oil Evades Market Limits
Trading Loophole for Wall Street Speculators Is Driving Up Prices, Critics Say
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/06/05/AR2008060504322.html?hpid=topnews
"agency officials have recently signaled greater concern, saying they want to collect more data to determine whether speculation might be a significant factor. That information can be difficult to obtain because commodity trading often occurs through private, unregulated transactions and on overseas exchanges. "
"This is something that we are obviously concerned with -- the potential for manipulation."
"Some Democratic and Republican lawmakers allege that gaps in oversight are allowing deep-pocketed speculators to manipulate prices. "
Once again, broken government brought to you by DC lobbyists and greedy corporations sponsored by Dick Cheeeny and Dumbya Bush.
Worst June since the Great Depression.
[:O]
Will the car companies survive?
Will the airlines stay in business?
Will the Fed raise interest rates to slow inflation?
Will the dollar rally?
Will the US slow to little productivity?
In 6 months will they start blaming Obama and his party (not Joe Leibermaniac)?
quote:
Originally posted by FOTD
Worst June since the Great Depression.
Exactly like it, except the whole 5.5% employment thing. Oh, and the availability of insurance, Section 8, Medicare, Medicaid, Food Stamps, and the lack of economic retraction.
Otherwise, right on!
quote:
Will the car companies survive?
Will the airlines stay in business?
Will the Fed raise interest rates to slow inflation?
Will the dollar rally?
Will the US slow to little productivity?
In 6 months will they start blaming Obama and his party (not Joe Leibermaniac)?
Yes - they survived many real depressions before.
Yes - it is a needed service and they will adjust. Perhaps not all the legacy carriers, but the industry will survive.
Yes - eventually
Yes - eventually but hopefully not before our economic situation has stabilized
No - we might have a negative growth QT per GDP, but our productivity will probably grow. Productivity does not go down even in depressions.
Yes - you blamed Bush for everything... the circle of life.
- - -
You may now go back to your conversation with self.
Let's see..... Mister Market?
"thanks for the ideas." Cannon Fodder
"I'm pretty secure in my midtown bubble and rarely deviate. Sad, sad little world I live in really." Cannon Fodder
quote:
Originally posted by FOTD
Worst June since the Great Depression.
[:O]
Will the car companies survive?
Will the airlines stay in business?
Will the Fed raise interest rates to slow inflation?
Will the dollar rally?
Will the US slow to little productivity?
In 6 months will they start blaming Obama and his party (not Joe Leibermaniac)?
That's a riot!
Good time to buy strong stocks. Getting on it today! [8D]
Lemons into lemonade! Always!
Productivity will increase actually. Indicators are not leaning toward a negative quarter. Spending is still strong. Don't know what you use to forecast, but I wouldn't trust that crystal ball on top of the pewter dragon figurine on your coffee table!
quote:
Originally posted by FOTD
Let's see..... Mister Market?
"thanks for the ideas." Cannon Fodder
"I'm pretty secure in my midtown bubble and rarely deviate. Sad, sad little world I live in really." Cannon Fodder
You're on a roll! This response had NOTHING to do with my reply. See how when I make a post, it relates to the what else was said in the thread. Sometimes I even answer your questions.
The best you can come up with is a post that relates somehow to another forum member who ha also posted in the thread. Good effort I suppose. Oh, and very damaging. "Thanks for the ideas..." ouch.
quote:
Originally posted by FOTD
Worst June since the Great Depression.
[:O]
Will the car companies survive?
Will the airlines stay in business?
Will the Fed raise interest rates to slow inflation?
Will the dollar rally?
Will the US slow to little productivity?
In 6 months will they start blaming Obama and his party (not Joe Leibermaniac)?
Will the car companies survive?
Dead except electric http://www.zapworld.com/
Will the airlines stay in business?
Nationalize!
Will the Fed raise interest rates to slow inflation?
They better!
Will the dollar rally?
The need for international currency is now!
Will the US slow to little productivity?
It will just change
In 6 months will they start blaming Obama and his party (not Joe Leibermaniac)?
He will usher in a new era of clean efficient government. We will be an example to the world again. He will open our eyes to the evils of the private capitalist, turn the tide on a sick environment, and develop programs that keep us all healthy and happy, not just big business!
I hear there hangs a bell in Franklin's Tower!
Don't plant ice around these threads because you'll just harvest wind (hot air)....
Grate replies......right on target.
quote:
Originally posted by FOTD
I hear there hangs a bell in Franklin's Tower!
Don't plant ice around these threads because you'll just harvest wind (hot air)....
Grate replies......right on target.
Rings like fire when you lose your way! [;)]
Federal reserve wrong again as US economy faces round three financial meltdown and heads towards depression
Mike Moran
http://www.indiadaily.com/editorial/19672.asp
"The Federal Reserve is wrong again. They are talking about raising rates while the US economy silently faces round three (massive) financial meltdown from unjustified M&A activities and regional bank failures.
The gas price is making every one shake up. The incentive to new investments and risk has disappeared. That is a dangerous sign for any free market economy. The commodity inflation and wage deflation is degrading the standard of living.
The lack of common sense of the Bush Administration and the lack of economic sense of the Federal Reserve have brought the economy to its knees. People in the main street say "bush ruined our economy.'
Supply side economy has failed miserably. It is not clear how much Obama can do in the short run to recover the economy from the real mess it is in.
In the middle of all this, the Federal Reserve is looking at raising rates. They do not realize they are sitting on an economic time bomb called depression. They have no clue that the leveraged M&A blow up will be ten times larger than the subprime fiasco.
Like in last year and early this year, they will raise rates (if al all) only to lower it to 9% in the next several quarters. "
While the last paragraph is odd, the rest is fodder for thought.
quote:
Originally posted by FranklinTower
quote:
Originally posted by FOTD
Worst June since the Great Depression.
[:O]
Will the car companies survive?
Will the airlines stay in business?
Will the Fed raise interest rates to slow inflation?
Will the dollar rally?
Will the US slow to little productivity?
In 6 months will they start blaming Obama and his party (not Joe Leibermaniac)?
Will the car companies survive?
Dead except electric http://www.zapworld.com/
Will the airlines stay in business?
Nationalize!
Will the Fed raise interest rates to slow inflation?
They better!
Will the dollar rally?
The need for international currency is now!
Will the US slow to little productivity?
It will just change
In 6 months will they start blaming Obama and his party (not Joe Leibermaniac)?
He will usher in a new era of clean efficient government. We will be an example to the world again. He will open our eyes to the evils of the private capitalist, turn the tide on a sick environment, and develop programs that keep us all healthy and happy, not just big business!
Oh great! Perhaps we should just join the EU?
Should we outlaw private property and private business?
Make everyone an employee of the state?
We could all just be happy Comrades?
Sign Of the times....Starbucks to close 600 stores in the U.S.
Company greatly increases plans for store closures amid weak economy
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25482250/
Nobody mentioned Dollar Thrifty stock hit the sheeter today....down %40?
quote:
Originally posted by FOTD
Sign Of the times....Starbucks to close 600 stores in the U.S.
Company greatly increases plans for store closures amid weak economy
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25482250/
Nobody mentioned Dollar Thrifty stock hit the sheeter today....down %40?
Over-built, over-hyped, and over-developed. Kinda like Krispy-Krud Donuts. I've got a hunch some of the current building binge in the area could get shelved for awhile out of fear of larger national consequences. I'm not much of a doom-sayer, but this is going to be a brutal year for retail due to high fuel prices. Higher product cost, consumers have less left over after taking it up the tailpipe at the pump.
A gallon of Starbucks makes gas look like a bargain. What a bunch of yuppie dreck anyhow. I don't think the snob factor of their coffee surpasses the flavor of anything locally purveyed.
Ford's going out of business. GM is soon to follow. They keep pushing thier 10,000 lb. SUVs on us. Gas is going to top $6.00. No one is adjusting thier lifestyle, and milk costs the same as fuel and has just as many chemicals in it!
Mercedes has sold over 2,000 smart cars so fra this year. They go about as fast as a bicycle, and cost more than a nice Honda Civic, but with none of the excercise advantages.
Some people shoulden't be allowed to make thier own decisions!
Time to clean up. Time for social progress. Time for Change!
They sold 2,000 cars? Ford sold about 100 times the number of gas guzzling SUVs. 2,000 cars is just not impressive.
I highly doubt FORD goes out of business for a number of reasons.
#1, it is entrenched in the marketplace. Too many people stand to lose everything if they go under - dealers, repair shops, distributors, cities, states and unions will be willing to kick in money to keep Ford rolling.
#2, Kerkorian is no dummy. I doubt he dropped several billion into a company that is going under. To along with that is a 78% institutional ownership rate, meaning financial companies are still betting on Ford. Doesn't mean it won't fail of course... but the rats aren't jumping ship just yet.
#3, Their financial remain sound. Their acid test is sound, their cash flow remains positive, and even their long term ratios remain positive. Ford is a going concern. It isn't very strong, but the risk of going away in the near future is slight.
*for full disclosure, I have recently become more heavily invested in Ford. If it was a good buy at $6, it had to be a great buy at $5.
[B)]
[edit]
quote:
Will the airlines stay in business?
Nationalize!
. . .
Will the dollar rally?
The need for international currency is now!
Wow. Nationalizing an industry has NEVER made it more efficient, consumer friendly, nor profitable. With deregulation we more flights for less money, in spite of fuel prices going up 8 fold since deregulation (believe it or not, flights are cheaper). Not sure why nationalizing, which has never worked before, would help with the airlines. Ever ridden AmTrack for anything other than recreation?
And the aspects of a global currency are way too complex for a message board discussion. Not only is it feasibly nearly impossible, but probably is not desirable. Currencies give countries comparable advantages as markets fluctuate (weak currencies draw investments and encourage exports, strong currencies can invest and consume imports).
[/edit]
Umm, I'm pretty sure Franklin Tower is a spoof, cf. Not a very good one, but a spoof nonetheless.
So there's no sense of answering in earnest when the original post isn't.
quote:
Originally posted by rwarn17588
Umm, I'm pretty sure Franklin Tower is a spoof, cf. Not a very good one, but a spoof nonetheless.
So there's no sense of answering in earnest when the original post isn't.
See there? I'm not the only one who thinks FT is a sock puppet.
Good eye, RWarn, good eye.
quote:
Originally posted by twizzler
quote:
Nobody mentioned Dollar Thrifty stock hit the sheeter today....down %40?
Dollar Thrifty dropped $3.75 to close at $5.70. A little over a year ago they were trading at over $52.00 - close to a 90% drop since that time.
$5.70/share is getting rather low for a company with only 21.6 million shares outstanding. After today's drop, the company has a market cap of only $123M.
It's getting clobbered again today....down another %28 and BOK is getting hammered .....down %7.5.
Interesting CF. I'm not buying stocks for awhile. The Bushevik hangover may lead to depression although I am downright optimistic about the dark siders getting out of the capitol. You ever seen the market go up with interest rates and inflation?
I think GM goes under before Ford. Ford may survive. They at least have a prototype ready for production that is lectric like FOTD.
Here's an interesting read:
An Interview with Michael Hudson
Getting to the Heart of America's Economic Crisis
By MIKE WHITNEY
http://www.counterpunch.org/whitney07012008.html
"a major reason why savings are flowing into these banks because the tax laws make it more profitable to debt leverage than to invest in industrial capital. The tax system has shaped a market where it pays more to speculate than to invest in building up new means of production. The financial sector has been deregulated on the logic that whatever makes the most money is the most efficient. The product that banks are selling is debt, and help in corporate takeovers, mergers and acquisition. Credit is a product that's almost free to create. Its main cost of production is the lobbying expense to buy Congressional support."
"The moral is that you can't really have a grab for empire and the wars that go with it and at the same time have a booming economy."
"America's super-rich have returned to the days of the Roaring Twenties. As the rest of the country struggles to get by, a huge bubble of multi-millionaires lives almost in a parallel world. The rich now live in their own world of private education, private health care and gated mansions. They have their own schools and their own banks. They even travel apart - creating a booming industry of private jets and yachts. Their world now has a name, thanks to a new book by Wall Street Journal reporter Robert Frank which has dubbed it 'Richistan'."
Paul Harris
Bush made us depressed the second he stole the election.....
quote:
Originally posted by rwarn17588
Umm, I'm pretty sure Franklin Tower is a spoof, cf. Not a very good one, but a spoof nonetheless.
So there's no sense of answering in earnest when the original post isn't.
lol, I'm losing my shirt on Ford. I may be a little sensitive to the subject. Stupid Kerkorkian only buying a pro-rata share of tendered stock. Stupid Ford.
And it wasn't a very good spoof, if it was.
quote:
Originally posted by cannon_fodder
quote:
Originally posted by rwarn17588
Umm, I'm pretty sure Franklin Tower is a spoof, cf. Not a very good one, but a spoof nonetheless.
So there's no sense of answering in earnest when the original post isn't.
lol, I'm losing my shirt on Ford. I may be a little sensitive to the subject. Stupid Kerkorkian only buying a pro-rata share of tendered stock. Stupid Ford.
And it wasn't a very good spoof, if it was.
Man you're smart.....but the women are smarter.
Ford and GM are American institutions. The gov't will step in just like they have for the airlines, and idiot bankers before either one of these companies goes T.U. They might wind up in Ch. 11, but I don't think you would ever see either go out of business.
I don't agree with the government policy of subsidizing failure. Look at what it's done to the airline industry. A few carriers are kept afloat at the expense of all others.
Failure is painful but once the band-aid is off oppertunity is created for smarter, sleeker business.
Government subsidies force businesses to continue to make the same mistakes over and over, and lessen the hope for smart competition to capture market share.
quote:
Originally posted by Gaspar
I don't agree with the government policy of subsidizing failure. Look at what it's done to the airline industry. A few carriers are kept afloat at the expense of all others.
Failure is painful but once the band-aid is off oppertunity is created for smarter, sleeker business.
Government subsidies force businesses to continue to make the same mistakes over and over, and lessen the hope for smart competition to capture market share.
Didn't say I was for it, just predicting what our predictable government would do.
My next door neighbor claims he wrote a paper when he was going to TU about the airline industry. He said taken as a whole, the airline industry has never been a profitable business. His methodology was taking gain and loss years of all carriers and he said it was pretty much a wash. I don't know if there is truth to that, but interesting nonetheless.
quote:
Originally posted by Conan71
QuoteOriginally posted by Gaspar
My next door neighbor claims he wrote a paper when he was going to TU about the airline industry. He said taken as a whole, the airline industry has never been a profitable business. His methodology was taking gain and loss years of all carriers and he said it was pretty much a wash. I don't know if there is truth to that, but interesting nonetheless.
When factoring in the sum total of all companies in all industries that are making money and losing money, wouldn't a wash be a predictable result in total?
I'm not being a smarta**; just asking. I'm not sure the premise -- or result -- is all that unique.
There are plenty of poorly run air carriers. But Southwest has proven time and time again that money can be made in the airline industry.
quote:
Originally posted by rwarn17588
quote:
Originally posted by Conan71
QuoteOriginally posted by Gaspar
My next door neighbor claims he wrote a paper when he was going to TU about the airline industry. He said taken as a whole, the airline industry has never been a profitable business. His methodology was taking gain and loss years of all carriers and he said it was pretty much a wash. I don't know if there is truth to that, but interesting nonetheless.
When factoring in the sum total of all companies in all industries that are making money and losing money, wouldn't a wash be a predictable result in total?
I'm not being a smarta**; just asking. I'm not sure the premise -- or result -- is all that unique.
There are plenty of poorly run air carriers. But Southwest has proven time and time again that money can be made in the airline industry.
Indeed sir. And do so with a sterling safety record to boot.
(neo-con motto)
"reduce the size of the US government until it will drown in a bathtub of water".
Small Banks' Reckoning Day Is Coming
Billions in Troubled Construction Loans
Promise to Pose Test for Regional Lenders
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121494953423420859.html
"Analysts question whether some small banks are putting off foreclosures because they lack adequate capital to absorb the large losses."
Tip of the iceberg and we are riding a vessel called Titantic.
Wisconsin 5 Cheese Bake
1 (16 ounce) package elbow macaroni
1 cup shredded mozzarella cheese
1 cup shredded Swiss cheese
1 cup grated Parmesan cheese
1 cup shredded provolone cheese
1/2 cup ricotta cheese
1/2 cup sour cream
1/2 cup heavy cream
1 tablespoon chopped fresh parsley
1/2 teaspoon dried Italian seasoning
1/2 teaspoon garlic salt
Preheat the oven to 400 degrees F (200 degrees C). Bring a large pot of lightly salted water to a boil. Add macaroni, and cook until tender, 6 to 8 minutes. Drain.
In a large bowl, toss together the mozzarella cheese, Swiss cheese, Parmesan cheese and Provolone cheese. Remove about 1/2 cup for topping and set aside. In a separate bowl, stir together the ricotta cheese, sour cream and heavy cream. Season with parsley, Italian seasoning and garlic salt.
Pour the ricotta cheese mixture and drained macaroni into the bowl with the cheeses and toss lightly. Do not mix too thoroughly, it's better left messy. Pour into the prepared baking dish. Sprinkle the reserved cheese over the top.
Bake in the preheated oven until cheese is melted, about 10 minutes, then turn the oven to broil. Broil for about 5 minutes to brown the top.
You can't learn what you don't want to know......
Five cheeses? gaspar...let me name them...cheese whiz, cheese soup, cheese like, string cheese and cheese slice.
Your pretentious attitude toward cheese shows how much you disdain the hard-working farmers in this country. You continually talk about foreign cheeses like swiss and spices from Italy. If you love Europe so much, you should go there.
I only hope that you can someday enjoy the simple things that Americans know equal quality of life. Things like cheese cubes in canned biscuits...
INGREDIENTS
1 (7.5 ounce) package refrigerated buttermilk biscuit dough
1 teaspoon dried oregano
3 ounces mozzarella cheese, cut into 3/4 inch cubes
2 tablespoons pizza sauce
DIRECTIONS
Preheat oven to 375 degrees F (190 degrees C).
Make an indentation in the top of each uncooked biscuit. Fill indentations with oregano and a mozzarella cube. Pinch the dough around the mozzarella cubes.
Place the biscuits, pinched side down, on a medium, ungreased baking sheet. Cover with pizza sauce.
Bake in the preheated oven 10 to 12 minutes, or until golden brown.
Tisk Tisk RM!
I challenge you to actually read your cheese slices. There is NO dairy in most of them, and you should know that Cheeze Wiz is reserved for Philly Steak sandwiches.
The American standard of forcing cheese producers to pasteurize the product before sale eliminates the possibility of the US ever producing a quality cheese product.
We are the only country that limits our dairy farmers with such restrictive and, mind you, ridiculous government regulation.
Get the government out of my cheese and I will tout the american varieties!
Love the canned biscuits though. Sometimes this forum reminds me of a canned biscuit fight. Ever do monkey bread with canned biscuits?
Now that's good!
(http://i34.photobucket.com/albums/d115/irishones7/cake031.jpg)
Any of you light hearted non serious cheese balls paying attention?
Look bach through these threads on the economy? See what's happening as a result of a 12 year repiglican congress and an 8 year result of a dry drunk ruining our country.....and now the trickle down to the rest of the world?
Keep joking. Hope your jobs are secure. Then again, if you lose you can all be chef boy ardees.....
"How to convince your loved ones that the economic crisis in the United States will have global consequences: be prepared "
http://www.chycho.com/?q=node/1674
Fannie, Freddie `Insolvent' After Losses, Poole Says (Update1)
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=washingtonstory&sid=a7NPAG.LEjHQ
July 11, 2008
The Treasury Department is "not talking about nationalizing" struggling mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, according to a person familiar with the administration's thinking. In an unusual move, Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson issued a written statement Friday saying that the Bush administration's "primary focus is supporting Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac in their current form." The person familiar with the matter said Paulson's statement was intended to discount reports suggesting that the administration is considering a plan to place one or both companies in a "conservatorship" -- in effect, taking them over -- if their problems worsen.
Shares of both companies continued to sink Friday. Freddie Mac shares fell $2.91, or 36%, to $5.09 in late-morning trading, while Fannie Mae fell $3.80, or 29%, to $9.40. Both are at 17-year lows.
For more information, see:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121577699220645703.html?mod=djemalertNEWS
Mortgage rates now will be headed higher.
They've only just figgered this out????
"Went to see the captain, strangest I could find,
Laid my proposition down, laid it on the line.
I wont slave for beggars pay, likewise gold and jewels,
But I would slave to learn the way to sink your ship of fools.
Ship of fools on a cruel sea, ship of fools sail away from me.
It was later than I thought when I first believed you,
Now I cannot share your laughter, ship of fools.
Saw your first ship sink and drown, from rockin of the boat,
And all that could not sink or swim was just left there to float.
I wont leave you drifting down, but woh it makes me wild,
With thirty years upon my head to have you call me child.
Ship of fools on a cruel sea, ship of fools sail away from me.
It was later than I thought when I first believed you,
Now I cannot share your laughter, ship of fools.
The bottles stand as empty, as they were filled before.
Time there was and plenty, but from that cup no more.
Though I could not caution all, I still might warn a few:
Dont lend your hand to raise no flag atop no ship of fools.
Ship of fools on a cruel sea, ship of fools sail away from me.
It was later than I thought, when I first believed you,
Now I cannot share your laughter, ship of fools.
It was later than I thought when I first believed you,
Now I cannot share your laughter, ship of fools."
Garcia/Hunter
http://www.reuters.com/article/politicsNews/idUSN1026543920080710
U.S. needs financial regulatory overhaul: officials
"We should consider how to most appropriately give the Federal Reserve the authority to access necessary information from complex financial institutions ... and the tools to intervene to mitigate systemic risk in advance of a crisis," he said.
Well for one, reinstate all of the regulations already dumped by bushco - incluing the bankruptcy ones - the predatory interest rates charged to those who can least afford it, ete etc etc But I am not holding my breath, thats for darned sure!!
Phil Gramm, McCains chief economic advisor until Thursday, thought his de-regulation policies were good for the country. This is what happens when banks, utilities, and other segments of our economy are run without government oversight. Congress MUST return to the regulations set up during the depression. The regulations gave Americans and foreign investors confidence in our economy. Capitalism is great until individual greed gets into the picture. The regulations of the past have protected the average person from these excessive risk takers.
Crisis Deepens as Big Bank Fails
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121581435073947103.html?mod=hpp_us_whats_news
Let's connect the dots.
"....'90-'91 ...when 502 banks failed in 3 years" WAS THE END OF THE FIRST BUSH PRESIDENCY!!!
~~~
In addition to creating Bank failures: 70% of the CURRENT US National Debt was created by 3 Presidents - R Reagan, HW Bush, GW Bush.
~~~
When Reagan came into office the US was the worlds largest Creditor Nation. Today the US is the Worlds Largest DEBTOR Nation
~~~
GET IT ?
March 2008
FDIC Boosts Key Staff by 140 Ahead of Expected Bank Failures: http://www.housingwire.com/2008/03/26/fdic-boosts-key-staff-by-140-ahead-of-expected-bank-failures/
"... The last time the agency was hit hard with failures was during the 1990-91 recession, when 502 banks failed in three years...."
June 2008
FDIC updates rules on big bank deposit coverage: http://uk.reuters.com/article/gc06/idUKN1734810420080617
"...The FDIC has about 90 banks on its list of "troubled" institutions, but Bair recently told U.S. senators that future failures may include "institutions of greater size" than in the recent past...."
July 2008
Federal regulators seize control of IndyMac bank
August 2008...?
Reagan had good reason for what he did. His policies made our nation great again and caused the downfall of the USSR. Bush 1 and 2 are not true conservatives. B1 got 1 term on coat tails and B2 got 2 terms because even a RINO is better than a modern Democrat.
Unfortunately, I'll have to side with you that it's time for Republicans to lose. One, to show the nation just how dangerous and stupid Democrats in power really are, (If we can survive) two, to send a strong message to our own Party that they are off the reservation and need to return back to our Reagan roots and three, sweep out the RINO trash and get some Conservative blood back in our leadership.
Hopefully it will one day be morning in America again. For now, the need is for Democrats to sweep Republicans, or as I call it, mourning in America.
Reagan gets credit for many decades of facing down the commies. Hell, J. Edgar Hoover and McCarthy deserve more of the credit.....
I guess you believe mobsters run the USSR better than the Kremlin did. We will see....
TulsaNow's Itinerant Exorcism Servicer
I don't like the state of Russia at this point in time, but I do believe that corruption beats the Gulags and at least they are open enough for us to keep track. Also, their collapse put them way behind technologically.
quote:
Originally posted by Crash Daily
I don't like the state of Russia at this point in time, but I do believe that corruption beats the Gulags and at least they are open enough for us to keep track. Also, their collapse put them way behind technologically.
Technologically the USSR will catch up to the rest the world in a nano second. Gulags? Like Gitmo?
Like Club Gitmo? I don't think so.
Crash......liberals founded this country.
Ok. I'm no fan of Cramer. But I like this....
"I gotta tell you: McCain is the most disorganized, lack of any knowledge whatsoever about economics."
http://www.crooksandliars.com/2008/07/11/jim-cramer-on-mccains-lack-of-any-knowledge-whatsoever-about-economics/
Bitterness is the conservative's revenge for being left out of the revolution.
UH OH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
"The U.S. economy is in a recession, possibly the worst since World War II, Rogers said.
``They're ruining what has been one of the greatest economies in the world,'' Rogers said. Bernanke and Paulson ``are bailing out their friends on Wall Street but there are 300 million Americans that are going to have to pay for this.''
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=a7hS5BuYqeR8&refer=home
Fannie Plan a `Disaster' to Rogers; Goldman Says Sell (Update5)
By Carol Massar and Eric Martin
July 14 (Bloomberg) -- The U.S. Treasury Department's plan to shore up Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac is an ``unmitigated disaster'' and the largest U.S. mortgage lenders are ``basically insolvent,'' according to investor Jim Rogers.
Yechhhh...... See what Bill Clinton, Jimmy Carter and those democrats got us! This will be Obama's fault all too soon because it will take years to recover from this ensuing chaos.
MORE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
UPDATE 1-FDIC says overwhelming majority of US banks are safe
Why are they saying this?????????????????
Because it is not true. When people start pulling their money from these banks, everything goes poop.
Whether a bank is safe or not is going to depend on how close it got to the housing bubble. It will depend on each banks' practices over the years. Story notes that bank had $18 billion in deposits of which $1.3 billion was withdrawn. Banks typically keep on hand only about 1/10 of their deposits so a "run" like this drains operational funds and threatens liquidity.
http://uk.reuters.com/article/marketsNewsUS/idUKN1334926220080713
Phil Gramm/John McCain/George W. Bush Economics Alert: IndyMac Bank, a prolific mortgage specialist that helped fuel the housing boom, was seized Friday by federal regulators, in the third-largest bank failure in U.S. history. The collapse is expected to cost the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. between $4 billion and $8 billion, potentially wiping out more than 10% of the FDIC's $53 billion deposit-insurance fund.
Let's connect the dots.
In the article below:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121581435073947103.html?mod=hpp_us_whats_news
"....'90-'91 ...when 502 banks failed in 3 years" WAS THE END OF THE FIRST BUSH PRESIDENCY!!!
In addition to creating Bank failures: 70% of the CURRENT US National Debt was created by 3 Presidents - R Reagan, HW Bush, GW Bush.
When Reagan came into office the US was the worlds largest Creditor Nation. Today the US is the Worlds Largest DEBTOR Nation.
GET IT ?
Don't pee on my leg and tell me it's raining.
Having trouble trusting this liar?
Bush: Troubled financial system is basically sound
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080715/ap_on_go_pr_wh/bush;_ylt=AjDEk2c4dagyTbMvaVwCFdms0NUE
How could you have voted for this person who went from drunk to candidate overnight??
And then there is this !!!!!
The Death of Reaganomics
Posted on Jul 10, 2008
By E.J. Dionne
The biggest political story of 2008 is getting little coverage. It involves the collapse of assumptions that have dominated our economic debate for three decades.
Since the Reagan years, free-market clichés have passed for sophisticated economic analysis. But in the current crisis, these ideas are falling, one by one, as even conservatives recognize that capitalism is ailing.
You know the talking points: Regulation is the problem and deregulation is the solution. The distribution of income and wealth doesn't matter. Providing incentives for the investors of capital to "grow the pie" is the only policy that counts. Free trade produces well-distributed economic growth, and any dissent from this orthodoxy is "protectionism."
The old script is in rewrite. "We are in a worldwide crisis now because of excessive deregulation," Rep. Barney Frank, D-Mass., the chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, said in an interview.
He notes that in 1999 when Congress replaced the New Deal-era Glass-Steagall Act with a looser set of banking rules, "we let investment banks get into a much wider range of activities without regulation." This helped create the subprime mortgage mess and the cascading calamity in banking.
While Frank is a liberal, the same cannot be said of Ben Bernanke, the chairman of the Federal Reserve. Yet in a speech on Tuesday, Bernanke sounded like a born-again New Dealer in calling for "a more robust framework for the prudential supervision of investment banks and other large securities dealers."
Bernanke said the Fed needed more authority to get inside "the structure and workings of financial markets" because "recent experience has clearly illustrated the importance, for the purpose of promoting financial stability, of having detailed information about money markets and the activities of borrowers and lenders in those markets." Sure sounds like Big Government to me.
This is the third time in 100 years that support for taken-for-granted economic ideas has crumbled. The Great Depression discredited the radical laissez-faire doctrines of the Coolidge era. Stagflation in the 1970s and early '80s undermined New Deal ideas and called forth a rebirth of radical free-market notions. What's becoming the Panic of 2008 will mean an end to the latest Capital Rules era.
What's striking is that conservatives who revere capitalism are offering their own criticisms of the way the system is working. Irwin Stelzer, director of the Center for Economic Policy Studies at the Hudson Institute, says the subprime crisis arose in part because lenders quickly sold their mortgages to others and bore no risk if the loans went bad.
"You have to have the person who's writing the risk bearing the risk," he says. "That means a whole host of regulations. There's no way around that."
While some conservatives now worry about the social and economic impact of growing inequalities, Stelzer isn't one of them. But he is highly critical of "the process that produces inequality."
"I don't like three of your friends on a board voting you a zillion dollars," Stelzer, who is also a business consultant, told me. "A cozy boardroom back-scratching operation offends me." He argues that "the preservation of the capitalist system" requires finding new ways of "linking compensation to performance."
Frank takes a similar view, arguing that CEOs "benefit substantially if the risks they take pay off" but "pay no penalty" if their risks lead to losses or even catastrophe—another sign that capitalism, in its current form, isn't living by its own rules.
Frank also calls for new thinking on the impact of free trade. He argues it can no longer be denied that globalization "is a contributor to the stagnation of wages and it has produced large pools of highly mobile capital." Mobile capital and the threat of moving a plant abroad give employers a huge advantage in negotiations with employees. "If you're dealing with someone and you can pick up and leave and he can't, you have the advantage."
"Free trade has increased wealth, but it's been monopolized by a very small number of people," Frank said. The coming debate will focus not on shutting globalization down but rather on managing its effects with an eye toward the interests of "the most vulnerable people in the country."
In the presidential campaign so far, John McCain has been clinging to the old economic orthodoxy while Barack Obama has proposed a modestly more active role for government. But the economic assumptions are changing faster than the rhetoric of the campaign. "Reality has broken in," says Frank. And none too soon.
Bank Failure: IndyMac Bank. Lessons from the Great Depression Part XIV. Bank Failures.
http://www.doctorhousingbubble.com/bank-failure-indymac-bank-lessons-from-the-great-depression-part-xiv-bank-failures/
"If the FDIC is telling us that we have 90 to 150 more troubled banks, how can anyone say with a straight face that we will have a second half recovery?"
Even a couple banks here are being credit watched. pancakes?
Lessons to be learned....
http://www.ft.com/indepth/recession
Fed Chief Bleak on Economic Outlook
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/16/business/economy/16econ.html?_r=1&th&emc=th&oref=slogin
"The bottom line is this: We're going through a tough time," Mr. Bush said. "But our economy's continued growing, consumers are spending, businesses are investing, exports continue increasing and American productivity remains strong."
The bottom line is this....Nobody has confidence in a liar who runs this supposide free world.
An Economy Thrown Into Turmoil
U.S. Financial Crisis Increasingly Infecting The Rest of the World
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/07/15/AR2008071500999.html?wpisrc=newsletter
"But others have argued that soaring energy prices, rising inflation and a weakening dollar are already zapping the strength out of the world economy, with a full blown U.S. recession likely to take the wind out of the sails of global growth. "
Fresh data add to US economic woes
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/70c62b4a-5272-11dd-9ba7-000077b07658.html?nclick_check=1
The result of a neo conned, right of atilla the hun, economy.....
quote:
Originally posted by FOTD
Lessons to be learned....
http://www.ft.com/indepth/recession
Fed Chief Bleak on Economic Outlook
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/16/business/economy/16econ.html?_r=1&th&emc=th&oref=slogin
"The bottom line is this: We're going through a tough time," Mr. Bush said. "But our economy's continued growing, consumers are spending, businesses are investing, exports continue increasing and American productivity remains strong."
The bottom line is this....Nobody has confidence in a liar who runs this supposide free world.
An Economy Thrown Into Turmoil
U.S. Financial Crisis Increasingly Infecting The Rest of the World
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/07/15/AR2008071500999.html?wpisrc=newsletter
"But others have argued that soaring energy prices, rising inflation and a weakening dollar are already zapping the strength out of the world economy, with a full blown U.S. recession likely to take the wind out of the sails of global growth. "
Fresh data add to US economic woes
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/70c62b4a-5272-11dd-9ba7-000077b07658.html?nclick_check=1
The result of a neo conned, right of atilla the hun, economy.....
The Lorton's World reported today that city sales tax collections are up 10.7% compared to the same month a year ago.
Isn't that about what the rate of inflation is running.....?
http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?subjectID=11&articleID=20080719_16_A18_hFeder529258
Real inflation, like the way it was measured under Carter, is more like %16 IMHO.
Bin Laden said the $144 per barrel cost of oil would bring the US to it's knees. The Busheviks did us in with their war and code orange. Now? Code red.
Meanwhile, home values have dropped %30 in California. http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-housing18-2008jul18,0,2776611.story
Depression?
TOTAL FAILURE!
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/P/PELOSI_BUSH?SITE=WHIZ&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT
quote:
Originally posted by FOTD
Real inflation, like the way it was measured under Carter, is more like %16 IMHO.
Bin Laden said the $144 per barrel cost of oil would bring the US to it's knees. The Busheviks did us in with their war and code orange. Now? Code red.
Meanwhile, home values have dropped %30 in California. http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-housing18-2008jul18,0,2776611.story
Depression?
TOTAL FAILURE!
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/P/PELOSI_BUSH?SITE=WHIZ&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT
Several working mothers, who buy a lot of food for their families, have mentioned to me that they think average grocery prices are up about 20% this year.
Fuel is up 30%.
Natural Gas ...?
Electricity.........?
The only things still low are Interest Rates and my morale.
Interest rates can only go UP to help the Federal Reserve control an insipid growth in Inflation.
Higher interest rates will further hurt the home construction industry and pre-owned home sales.
Welcome to the New World Order, Kameraden!
WHY NO OUTRAGE!
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121642367125066615.html?mod=home_we_banner_left
"Have the stewards of other people's money not made a hash of high finance? Did they not enrich themselves in boom times, only to pass the cup to us, the taxpayers, in the bust? Where is the people's wrath?"
"The American people are famously slow to anger, but they are outdoing themselves in long suffering today. In the wake of the "greatest failure of ratings and risk management ever," to quote the considered judgment of the mortgage-research department of UBS, Wall Street wears a political bullseye. Yet the politicians take no pot shots."
James Grant rules......why no outrage?!
Such sheep.....those American whinners....
READ THIS IF YOU CARE ABOUT AMERICA!
85% of US Unhappy with Economy
http://www.time.com/time/business/article/0,8599,1823668,00.html
"Most intriguing, a majority of those surveyed believe in the power of Big Government to solve the biggest problems of our time. They support major government investments that create jobs — 82% favor public works projects — and they remain sympathetic to the economy's victims: 70% say more government programs should help those now struggling. "
Devilish thinketh of a new word to express what state the republicanised economy resembles:
A Distression
I believe that the Dims have been in control of congress long enough to have done something. Oh yah, fuel was 2 dollars a gallon when they came to power. I think they've done plenty.
Good thing they are in power so we can get the energy resources we to need. Oh wait, Dims won't let us drill where we need to. They are starving the world and further driving up fuel prices with ethanol, http://www.financialsense.com/editorials/cooke/2007/0202.html (//%22http://%22) they are forcing us to try and depend on new technologies that will take 10 years to develop and 20 years to for the maturation of any required infrastructure.
Dims tax the crap out of our fuel http://www.taxfoundation.org/publications/show/1054.html (//%22http://%22) while blaming "Big Oil" and windfall profits which, by the way, are only 1% earnings, for the high gas prices.
Republican or Dimocrat, big government doesn't solve jack sh*t. Big government is always the problem and never the solution. I know that Republicans are responsible for some of what i mentioned above, but they are RINO's. Those are Dimocratic principals being exercised. Real Republicans know better.
Now that's lame.
Just some republicans. Reagan, Bush, and Dumbya.
Reagan was the greatest President in modern history. He was a Conservative and we were at the height of power when he left office, economic, military and other otherwise.
I don't defend either of the Bush's a whole lot. They are only partial conservatives and there's been no true Republican to elect since Reagan. So we keep getting these week @SS RINO's to choose from, or we'll end up with someone like Gore, Kerry or Obama. I think I just threw up in my mouth a little.
Clinton wouldn't let us start drilling 10 years ago and Nancy (The Freak'n Biznitch) Pelosi, THE WORST Majority leader in the history of this nation, won't let us drill now.
If we pushed it, we could have more of our own oil and several new refineries in 5 to 7 years, while we continue to work on alternative energy sources.
Although there are many factors, including the weak dollar, for the cost of fuel, our dependence on foreign oil is the primary cause.
Speculators know the supply is going to be strained even further, as China and India continue to emerge. If we were drilling and refining and had been all along, anywhere we were able, we FLAT OUT wouldn't be in this mess right now.
D-I-M-O-C-(R-A-T-S)!!!
quote:
Originally posted by Crash Daily
Reagan was the greatest President in modern history. He was a Conservative and we were at the height of power when he left office, economic, military and other otherwise.
I don't defend either of the Bush's a whole lot. They are only partial conservatives and there's been no true Republican to elect since Reagan. So we keep getting these week @SS RINO's to choose from, or we'll end up with someone like Gore, Kerry or Obama. I think I just threw up in my mouth a little.
Clinton wouldn't let us start drilling 10 years ago and Nancy (The Freak'n Biznitch) Pelosi, THE WORST Majority leader in the history of this nation, won't let us drill now.
If we pushed it, we could have more of our own oil and several new refineries in 5 to 7 years, while we continue to work on alternative energy sources.
Although there are many factors, including the weak dollar, for the cost of fuel, our dependence on foreign oil is the primary cause.
Speculators know the supply is going to be strained even further, as China and India continue to emerge. If we were drilling and refining and had been all along, anywhere we were able, we FLAT OUT wouldn't be in this mess right now.
D-I-M-O-C-(R-A-T-S)!!!
California defense contractors (Weinberger and Schultz as proxies) were those that selected and promoted a Grade "B" actor into the Presidency.
Armed with a well-written script, he could deliver his well-rehearsed lines very well.
He had really only three goals as President:
1) Reduce the top marginal tax rate from 70% down to 33%. He did that his first year in office, to benefit the super-rich. Middle class taxpayers saw no change in their tax burden.
In fact, in 1986, Tax Burdens on the Middle Class were actually INCREASED under Reagan. Many tax preference items such as the deductability of interest on student and car loans disappeared, and the deduction of sales taxes disappeared from Schedule A of IRS Form 1040.
2) Massively rebuild and modernize our military, and in doing so, bankrupt the Soviets. He accomplished this as well about one year after he left office, with the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989, the Baltic Republic Uprising in 1990, and the collapse and splintering of the U.S.S.R. in 1991.
3) Continue the War on Americans, a.k.a. The War on Drugs. His Attorney General Ed Meese led the charge to end the Federal Parole System. This humane concept no longer exists under the Federal Sentencing Guidelines, and hasn't for the past 20 years.
Mr. Meese is currently a board member of an organization that exploits prison labor as virtual slave labor, even charging the prisoner back a per diem charge for their incarceration costs.
What a sweetie!
The U.S. is now the WORLD LEADER in our prisoner incarceration rate.
#1.
Land of the Free?
Repiglican Presidents have been more interested in getting re elected than in helping give a hand up to the poor, the unemployed, and the uninsured. They gave America the shovel....
Given a Shovel, Americans Dig Deeper Into Debt
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/20/business/20debt.html?_r=1&th&emc=th&oref=login#
"the lucrative lending practices of America's merchants of debt have led millions of Americans — young and old, native and immigrant, affluent and poor — to the brink. More and more, Americans can identify with miners of old: in debt to the company store with little chance of paying up."
"And recent changes in the bankruptcy laws, supported by financial services firms, make it all the harder for consumers, especially those with modest incomes, to get out from under their debt by filing for bankruptcy."
"Just two generations ago, America was a nation of mostly thrifty people living within their means, even setting money aside for unforeseen expenses.
"Today, Americans carry $2.56 trillion in consumer debt, up 22 percent since 2000 alone, according to the Federal Reserve Board. The average household's credit card debt is $8,565, up almost 15 percent from 2000. "
"By contrast, the nation's savings rate, which exceeded 8 percent of disposable income in 1968, stood at 0.4 percent at the end of the first quarter of this year, according to the Bureau of Economic Analysis.
More ominous, as Americans have dug themselves deeper into debt, the value of their assets has started to fall. Mortgage debt stood at $10.5 trillion at the end of last year, more than double the $4.8 trillion just seven years earlier, but home prices that were rising to support increasing levels of debt, like home equity lines of credit, are now dropping.
The combination of increased debt, falling asset prices and stagnant incomes does not threaten just imprudent borrowers. The entire economy has become vulnerable to the spending slowdown that results when consumers like Ms. McLeod hit the wall."
Trickle down never really did.....it was a credit down delivery.
Debt capitalism self-destructs
By Henry C K Liu
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Global_Economy/JG22Dj09.html
"Former Fed chairman Paul Volcker expressed concern that by expanding its role of lender of last resort to institutions beside commercial banks that previously were not allowed to hold positions in equities, the Fed may have opened itself up to moral hazard dangers if large institutions believe their adventurous behavior will be bailed out by the Fed. "
"Neoliberal economists were celebrating the US miracle of mass capitalism that does not need capital."
"The problem of this good policy intention was that during the era of neoliberal ascendancy, the light regulatory environment was used to negate a more fundamental economic law: the need to increase worker income to match mortgage payments, subsidized or not. "
"Yet in all the current talk about finding ways to deal with the crisis, not one single voice is heard from official circles about the need to increase worker income. Instead, false hopes on one-time stimulant tax rebates are hailed as the magic bullet. "
"More than capital adequacy is at risk. The credibility of the team with responsibility for the nation's monetary system and its financial market is heading for a meltdown. Unfortunately, credibility is much easier to lose than to regain."
"While many expect Congress to have no option except to approve the Paulson plan, a few skeptics were voicing their opposition in public hearings. Senator Jim Bunning, a Republican from Kentucky, described Paulson as "asking for a blank check ... for this unprecedented intervention in our free markets." He also vowed to try his best to stop a proposal that would give the Federal Reserve sweeping new powers aimed at protecting the nation's shaky financial system. Bunning said the Federal Reserve "can't be trusted with the power it already has". He says the Fed's policies in recent years have contributed to economic woes, including surging inflation, a declining dollar and the housing bust. "
""When I picked up my newspaper yesterday, I thought I woke up in France. But no, it turns out socialism is alive and well in America. "
Good read.
Indeed, just as we are witnessing now. We are being "third worldized".
Cheeze Whiz.....
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080728/pl_nm/usa_economy_deficit_dc
Does it get much worse than this?
Asleep at the wheel has led us into a train wreck. Actually, a train wreck will be a minor accident compared to what awaits the US.
quote:
Originally posted by Crash Daily
Reagan was the greatest President in modern history. He was a Conservative and we were at the height of power when he left office, economic, military and other otherwise.
I don't defend either of the Bush's a whole lot. They are only partial conservatives and there's been no true Republican to elect since Reagan. So we keep getting these week @SS RINO's to choose from, or we'll end up with someone like Gore, Kerry or Obama. I think I just threw up in my mouth a little.
Clinton wouldn't let us start drilling 10 years ago and Nancy (The Freak'n Biznitch) Pelosi, THE WORST Majority leader in the history of this nation, won't let us drill now.
If we pushed it, we could have more of our own oil and several new refineries in 5 to 7 years, while we continue to work on alternative energy sources.
Although there are many factors, including the weak dollar, for the cost of fuel, our dependence on foreign oil is the primary cause.
Speculators know the supply is going to be strained even further, as China and India continue to emerge. If we were drilling and refining and had been all along, anywhere we were able, we FLAT OUT wouldn't be in this mess right now.
D-I-M-O-C-(R-A-T-S)!!!
I think your blame is misplaced. Even T. Boone Pickens says that we "can't drill our way out of" this gas crisis. Today, crude dropped dramatically and is expected to drop further - not because people expect more drilling or more US-based supplies, but because people are using less oil:
http://biz.yahoo.com/ap/080729/oil_prices.html
This is not a Republican or Democratic issue = limiting usage will reduce prices in a way that will dwarf any positive effect from additional drilling.
It may be that some drilling should be allowed (not too close to the beaches, please) as part of an overall deal to put more emphasis on alternatives and demand reduction, but Republicans should quit trying to make political hay by deluding Americans into thinking that more drilling is the cure-all. Ultimately, this presidential election is going to come down to competence, and those who suggest that drilling is going fix our problems are showing that they are not competent to lead the nation.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25804814/page/2/
Economy hitting the elderly especially hard
"But inflation and stock plunges are eating away at retirement accounts, while Social Security is shrinking — the 2.3 percent increase in benefits announced in January was the smallest in four years. By comparison, consumer prices rose more than twice as much over the past year, the Labor Department said last week."
""I have been saving every year for some 40 years now trying to get ready for this moment where I might be able to have a little more time for family, for friends," Looney said.
Now he expects to have to work for at least five more years.
If anyone should know, it's John Looney. He works for AARP."
Boomers are screwed. Generation Yuppie, underwater, and todays teens skilled less. It sure is hitting John McCain pretty hard.
Jobless Rate Climbs to 5.7% as 51,000 Jobs Lost in July
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/02/business/02econ.html?_r=1&adxnnl=1&oref=slogin&adxnnlx=1217610259-0plcEpuF4jNgSmT2uQZZ1A
So Mista Bush, is the economy working? And wil McSame (R-Idiot) do better? We won't know unless he starts talking issues instead of throwing dirt while flip flopping.
Across America, economic woes are mounting
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/251/story/46321.html
This is going to be Obama and the democrats fault.....watch!
And the Fed has no power to raise rates because of the loose oversight during the Bushevik Empire that brought on the housing debacle. Man, some values continue to tumble on America's number one safe investment, the home.
Tulsa has been rooted in the 80's real estate ruin Nation. So here, there is a stable feel to the housing market. But this train seems headed for a deep dark tunnel. What to do?
Bracing for Inflation
Despite the recent softening of oil prices, the U.S. could be looking at double-digit inflation as early as 2009
by John K. Castle
http://www.businessweek.com/bwdaily/dnflash/content/aug2008/db20080815_021990.htm?chan=top+news_top+news+index_news+%2B+analysis
"Growing evidence suggests American consumers, businesspeople, and political leaders should all be bracing for double-digit inflation, probably as early as 2009.
The relative price stability of the past 15 years is giving way to worsening inflation, despite the recent softening of oil prices. The Consumer Price Index for all items shows the inflation rate averaged 2.6% a year from 1992 through 2007 but has doubled since January, reaching an annual rate of 5.6% in July (BusinessWeek.com, 8/14/08). By next year, the monthly figure could hit double digits, and the inflation rate for 2009 overall could triple 2007's 2.85%.
I say this not only because I have looked at a broad range of statistics that point in this direction. I also run a private equity investment firm that owns companies in a number of industries—including restaurants, the manufacture of gardening tools, oil and gas exploration services, and distribution of entertainment products such as books and videos—that are already being forced to pass price increases on to the consumer.
The skyrocketing price of oil is obviously a central element in the accelerating price spiral. But a sea change in China's role (BusinessWeek, 6/19/08) is beginning to have a huge impact as well.
Increasing Commodities Pricing
Anyone who hasn't been living in a cave for the past year knows that oil prices have soared and pushed up the prices of gasoline, diesel fuel, and heating oil. Largely hidden from view, however, have been steep and continuing price increases across the whole spectrum of commodities.
Oil almost doubled in price, from $78.21 in July 2007 for a barrel of benchmark crude, to $145, where it peaked before dipping below $120. But from a longer perspective, oil sold for about $30 a barrel during 2003 and much of 2004. Thus it has actually quadrupled in five years. Coal, traditionally volatile, sold for about $30 a ton during 2003, peaked briefly at $63 in 2004, and went for $45.25 at the end of July 2007. A year later it hit $139.50 before slipping back a bit. It has tripled in 12 months.
Copper, another basic commodity, went from 82¢ a pound in July 2003 to $1.14 a year later, and to $3.72 by the end of last month. That's an increase of 350% over five years. The price of steel has climbed from under $240 a ton for hot-rolled steel coil throughout most of 2003 to $1,125 a ton last month, quadrupling in five years.
Grains have also soared in price (BusinessWeek.com, 7/18/08). U.S. corn prices jumped from $3.01 a bushel in July 2007 to $5.37 one year later. Wheat doubled from $3.05 a bushel in July 2006 to $6.02 last month. A Midwestern bakery owned by one of our portfolio companies turns out 13 million pies a year. The cost of ingredients of a standard pie jumped 100%, from $1.20 a year ago to $2.40 today.
In every sector, cost increases are so large and pervasive that producers who might once have tried to absorb or work around them are passing them on to customers as fast as they can. Dow Chemical (DOW) recently announced successive price increases of 20% and 25%, plus freight surcharges, saying energy and feedstock costs had risen fourfold in five years.
China's Role
With commodity costs rising for so long, why are we feeling the impact so suddenly?
The answer is that China can no longer bail us out with low-cost manufacturing. For years, American manufacturers and retailers offset rising costs by sourcing more products from China, where they could be made cheaply. That kept prices down for American consumers and also restrained pressures on wages, abetting price stability. But now costs are rising quickly in China, too (BusinessWeek.com, 8/12/08).
The Chinese government, under pressure from the U.S., let its currency float upward by 21% against the dollar since depegging it in July 2005. It also increased its value-added tax by 11%, and removed rebates of the tax for most exporters. New labor laws, coupled with a tightening market for skilled workers, have pushed up labor costs by about 50% over the last three years. Meanwhile, Chinese producer prices rose by 10% in July, the fastest rate of increase since 1996. As a result, Chinese producers are demanding—and getting—price increases of 20% to 25% on goods they make and sell to U.S. customers.
Without the Chinese life preserver, prices at the big-box American retailers are likely to be soaring in the near future, and Chinese manufactured parts and components that go into U.S. cars and appliances are likely to experience similar gains.
Admitting We Have a Problem
Most Americans will have to tighten their belts and accept lower living standards unless this inflationary spiral can be stopped. There will be pain—higher prices and a weaker economy, resulting in fewer jobs. Meanwhile, millions of Americans who are already feeling poorer because of falling home values and a soft economy will be further pinched by higher prices for heating oil, groceries, clothing, autos and appliances. Labor is unlikely to remain so quiescent, particularly as the expectation of inflation becomes clear.
The federal government and the Federal Reserve will be under pressure to take tough and politically painful steps to curb this inflation, including strengthening the dollar, raising interest rates, and tightening credit. But the Fed's ability to raise rates is constrained—it needs to keep rates low to manage the mortgage-backed bond mess.
The first step in solving the problem is to recognize that we have one—and it is serious. No American housewife has any doubts about that. Our policymakers shouldn't, either.
John K. Castle is chairman and chief executive officer of Castle Harlan, a New York private equity firm
There's gotta be some statistical lag here. Every day items and goods from the grocery store have gone up far more than 5.2% since the first of this year unless that's a number for the monthly increase.
The models they are using must be flawed.
Good news is, ammo prices at the gun show this weekend were on their way back down. [:o)]
"With inflation now running at close to ten percent, we have entered a period of stagflation potentially worse than the 1970s.
And stagflation is nothing less than a weapon of mass destruction aimed at the livelihoods not only of the elderly and those on fixed incomes, but also on students, the unemployed, families, and almost everyone who has a job in the producing economy."
http://dandelionsalad.wordpress.com/2008/08/19/stagflation-is-here-and-it-is-a-weapon-of-mass-destruction-by-richard-c-cook/
The market has dived on the scenario of Sarah Palin who refuses to meet the press and is causing more no confidence in our shabby and broken government.
Unemployment Rate Rises to 6.1%
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/06/business/economy/06econ.html?_r=1&adxnnl=1&oref=slogin&adxnnlx=1220627377-9jrkL4FhV6a4Jxrg/xjq+g
By MICHAEL M. GRYNBAUM
Published: September 5, 2008
The unemployment rate jumped to 6.1 percent in August, its highest level in five years, as the erosion of the job market accelerated over the summer.
Employers cut 84,000 jobs last month, more than economists had expected, and the Labor Department said that more jobs were lost in June and July than previously thought.
So far, 605,000 jobs have disappeared since January. The unemployment rate, which rose from 5.7 percent in July, is now at its highest level since September 2003.
Jared Bernstein, economist at the Economics Policy Institute in Washington, said eight months of consecutive job losses had historically signaled that the economy was in a recession.
"If anyone is still scratching their head over that one, they can stop," Mr. Bernstein said.
Stocks fell after the release of the report, with the Dow Jones industrials down about 100 points after about 40 minutes of trading.
Layoffs have picked up speed in the last three months, contrary to earlier estimates that they had slowed. The government now says that 100,000 jobs were lost in June, doubling its original estimate.
Raises have not kept up with the rising cost of living, putting more pressure on workers as high gasoline prices and the fastest inflation in decades hurt their spending power.
Hourly wages for rank-and-file workers — those not in supervisory or managerial positions — grew 3.6 percent since August 2007, below the rate of inflation.
The report quickly became bait for the back-and-forth of the presidential campaign. Senator Barack Obama, the Democratic candidate, said his opponent, Senator John McCain, "is intent on continuing the economic policies that just this year have caused the American economy to lose 605,000 jobs."
"Today's jobs report is a reminder of what's at stake in this election," Mr. Obama said in a statement.
The government said last month that the economy grew at a relatively brisk 3.3 percent clip from April to July, with businesses benefiting from foreign demand for American-made goods.
But little of that activity, analysts said, has translated to helping the average American worker.
"Whatever is growing the economy, it's not showing up in the jobs market in any way at all," Mr. Bernstein said.
Officials at the Federal Reserve believe activity will slow sharply for the rest of the year before returning to a faster growth rate in 2009.Manufacturing jobs were hammered again in August, with 61,000 workers losing their jobs. Nearly 60,000 administrative workers, including secretaries and temp workers, were laid off.
Gains came in the education and health care industries, which added a total of 55,000 jobs. But those gains were offset by loses at restaurants, auto dealers and factories that make parts for cars and other transportation equipment.
Friday's report from the Labor Department was eagerly anticipated by investors who have become increasingly skittish about a global slowdown. The jobs data is considered the most reliable snapshot of the nation's economy in any given month.
Stock markets fell sharply on Thursday, with the Dow Jones industrial average shedding 345 points, and the employment report could result in another day of volatile swings in the major indexes."
Now, what did you hear at the mean spirited evangelical party convention this week about helping those losing their jobs, homes , and poisitive feelings for their homeland?
As another bank folds, the FDIC gets lower on money.
http://www.bloggingstocks.com/2008/09/06/as-another-bank-folds-the-fdic-gets-lower-on-money/
"That fact that John McCain's son served on the board of the Silver State Bank until recently should not matter much to customers. The bank is gone. According to The Wall Street Journal, "The lender, the 11th bank to fail in the U.S. this year, was overexposed to risky real-estate loans, a problem that's vexing many banks amid the worst financial crisis in a generation." Silver State had $1.7 billion in deposits the shut-down will cost the FDIC several hundred million dollars. The FDIC has already indicated that it may need to go to the U.S. Treasury for more capital. Some experts think that dozens of banks will fail. At the pessimistic end of the spectrum economists believe that number could go into the hundreds, if housing prices stay in a free-fall. The problems at FDIC-insured banks raises the question of how much capital Treasury has to spread around. In theory that amount is nearly unlimited. That is, off course, because U.S. tax-payers send the U.S. government so much money every year. Those are the same tax-payers who are losing jobs and can't make their own mortgage payments."
Don't panic......fear terrorists and not this dismal economy:[:O]
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/06/business/economy/06econ.html?_r=1&oref=slogin
Is this the Bush economy John McCain wants to continue? 'The unemployment rate jumped to 6.1 percent in August, its highest level in five years, as the erosion of the job market showed no sign of slowing. Employers cut 84,000 jobs last month, more than economists had expected, and the Labor Department said that more jobs were lost in June and July than previously thought. So far, 605,000 jobs have disappeared since January.
China Suddenly Can't Afford U.S. Debt
Friday, September 5, 2008
http://moneynews.com/streettalk/china_us_treasury_debt/2008/09/05/128072.html
"China's central bank has been on a buying spree for the last seven years, taking home $1 trillion worth of U.S. Treasury bonds and mortgage-backed debt issued by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.
Now the bills are coming due, and the bank doesn't have enough money to pay them.
That's because the bank's U.S. investments, which comprise most of China's foreign securities, are worth a lot less when converted from weak U.S. dollars to stronger yuan, reports The New York Times.
Last year, China spent more than one-eighth of its entire economic output on foreign bonds and has bought even more this year. If it stops buying dollar-denominated securities now, the dollar would tank, and U.S. interest rates would skyrocket.
The situation is so serious that the People's Bank of China, which earlier ignored warnings from the International Monetary Fund that its $3.2 billion capital base is too small, has asked the country's Finance Ministry to help it get more capital.
The move may signal a shift in power from the bank to the Finance Ministry, which has long advocated slowing the yuan's appreciation to increase the global competitiveness of Chinese goods.
The U.S., however, wants a stronger yuan, which would reduce Chinese competitiveness and the U.S. trade deficit as well. The yuan has risen 21 percent against the dollar since mid-2005, when China quit pegging its currency to the dollar.
U.S. Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson, long an advocate of a strong yuan, warned in a recent issue of Foreign Affairs that the Chinese juggernaut is headed for the wall, a serious risk for the rest of the world's economies.
"Americans who worry that China might overtake the United States are worrying about the wrong thing," Paulson wrote. "
UH OH.....no reason to panic....just a 5 Trillion dollar disaster. That Freddie and Fannie......modern day couple.... This is only the beginning. Stuff like this last happened in the Great Depression. Remember, these two agencies had general stricter standards than other mortgage purchasers and securitizers. So what does that tell you?
This is sad and sick:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8kqbnEx5SDw&eurl
Poor economy and this guy's the great deception. He has no new ideas, no economic advisors worth a damn, and would be nothing but more deceit. He would continue republicanizing the government numbers.
I suppose if Cotton is elected we'll need to expand the bureacracy to include an Explanations Department. Its function will be to explain economics, foreign affairs and energy issues to the prez. Rove will head it up.
Another lack luster day on Wall Street.
Lest we forget what this election is all about!
Danny Schecter your newz disector!
"Welcome to a growing GLOBAL crisis as the Busheviks turn to socialism to save capitalism while China turns to capitalism to save socialism. "
"As the economy continues its decline, the denial all over the world is not just idiotic, it is dangerous. This crisis ain't over yet."
Behind The Costly Fannie/Freddie Mortgage Bailout: A Silent Dependence On Foreign Money, Not Just Oil
By Danny Schechter.
http://www.mediachannel.org/wordpress/2008/09/08/behind-the-costly-fanniefreddie-mortgage-bailout-a-silent-dependence-on-foreign-money-not-just-oil/
Top FOUR stories on msnbc.com at 12:39 PM, today:
Retail sales drop
Wholesale prices drop
Beleageured Lehman races to find buyer
Foreclosure filings increase
John McCain talking to reporters on Dec. 18, 2007: "The issue of economics is something that I've really never understood as well as I should."
Timber!!!!!!! (here comes Palin(pale and lyin) with her axe.
quote:
Originally posted by FOTD
Top FOUR stories on msnbc.com at 12:39 PM, today:
Retail sales drop
Wholesale prices drop
Beleageured Lehman races to find buyer
Foreclosure filings increase
John McCain talking to reporters on Dec. 18, 2007: "The issue of economics is something that I've really never understood as well as I should."
Timber!!!!!!! (here comes Palin(pale and lyin) with her axe.
First headline- bad
Second headline- good
Third headline- good
Fourth headline- bad
Net= wash
Moving on....
quote:
Originally posted by bokworker
quote:
Originally posted by FOTD
Top FOUR stories on msnbc.com at 12:39 PM, today:
Retail sales drop
Wholesale prices drop
Beleageured Lehman races to find buyer
Foreclosure filings increase
John McCain talking to reporters on Dec. 18, 2007: "The issue of economics is something that I've really never understood as well as I should."
Timber!!!!!!! (here comes Palin(pale and lyin) with her axe.
First headline- bad
Second headline- good
Third headline- good
Fourth headline- bad
Net= wash
Moving on....
[;)]As long as:
a. they are all equal in importance (doubtful)
b. Lehman finds a buyer
c. You don't own stock in wholesale companies
I heard that all the ships carrying goods to other countries from America are full. No excess capacity there. That's got to be good for some folks... at least the shipping companies.
quote:
Originally posted by waterboy
quote:
Originally posted by bokworker
quote:
Originally posted by FOTD
Top FOUR stories on msnbc.com at 12:39 PM, today:
Retail sales drop
Wholesale prices drop
Beleageured Lehman races to find buyer
Foreclosure filings increase
John McCain talking to reporters on Dec. 18, 2007: "The issue of economics is something that I've really never understood as well as I should."
Timber!!!!!!! (here comes Palin(pale and lyin) with her axe.
First headline- bad
Second headline- good
Third headline- good
Fourth headline- bad
Net= wash
Moving on....
[;)]As long as:
a. they are all equal in importance (doubtful)
b. Lehman finds a buyer
c. You don't own stock in wholesale companies
I heard that all the ships carrying goods to other countries from America are full. No excess capacity there. That's got to be good for some folks... at least the shipping companies.
"wholesale companies"? The release this morning on wholesale prices is a measure of inflation... a drop in this number is very good.
No surprise on the foreclosure number and would expect to see even more.
Lehman will find a buyer one way or the other. Currently the Treasury and Fed are reticent about stepping in to help which I think is a positive.
The retail sales number drop is bad but was driven buy lower gasoline prices... so not as bad as first blush.
My overall point was that much of what FOTD posts and blames on the Busheviks is rubbish... if he offered any semblance of understanding just what it is he rants about I might be more understanding.
On another note, sorry to blow the thread up by responding to a string of multiple FOTD only posts....
The housing collapse needs attention now from the two Senators who will have the legal right to take immediate action right after the November(fix?)election. With a laid out plan, confidence in the banking sector MIGHT be restored. Tulsa's lucky to have a well capitalized bank with owners who can go out and buy distressed banks. And there are too many of those and more to come unless housing bottoms.
Dreadful economy in the meantime.....
And McCrazy does not understand economics....
quote:
Originally posted by bokworker
quote:
Originally posted by waterboy
quote:
Originally posted by bokworker
quote:
Originally posted by FOTD
Top FOUR stories on msnbc.com at 12:39 PM, today:
Retail sales drop
Wholesale prices drop
Beleageured Lehman races to find buyer
Foreclosure filings increase
John McCain talking to reporters on Dec. 18, 2007: "The issue of economics is something that I've really never understood as well as I should."
Timber!!!!!!! (here comes Palin(pale and lyin) with her axe.
First headline- bad
Second headline- good
Third headline- good
Fourth headline- bad
Net= wash
Moving on....
[;)]As long as:
a. they are all equal in importance (doubtful)
b. Lehman finds a buyer
c. You don't own stock in wholesale companies
I heard that all the ships carrying goods to other countries from America are full. No excess capacity there. That's got to be good for some folks... at least the shipping companies.
"wholesale companies"? The release this morning on wholesale prices is a measure of inflation... a drop in this number is very good.
No surprise on the foreclosure number and would expect to see even more.
Lehman will find a buyer one way or the other. Currently the Treasury and Fed are reticent about stepping in to help which I think is a positive.
The retail sales number drop is bad but was driven buy lower gasoline prices... so not as bad as first blush.
My overall point was that much of what FOTD posts and blames on the Busheviks is rubbish... if he offered any semblance of understanding just what it is he rants about I might be more understanding.
On another note, sorry to blow the thread up by responding to a string of multiple FOTD only posts....
Okay, Banker Bob. No reason to jump on me. Wholesale companies, you know those who buy from manufacturers and warehouse goods then distribute them. Wholesale distributors. If wholesale prices are dropping its good for me but they may be squeezed in the middle. Holding stock that is slow moving or unable to cover their cost instead of fast moving high margin items.
I didn't know where the numbers came from. Thanks for the analysis of them.
Sorry WB... didn't mean to sound snarky...
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080914/bs_nm/markets_stocks_dc_1
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080914/bs_nm/lehman_dc_70 Goldman Sachs next?
Greenspan Says Crisis May Be `Once in Century' Event (Update1)
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=amVkrOCQNBQs&refer=home
McCain economic adviser: quit complaining, the economy is great http://www.americablog.com/2008/09/mccain-economic-adviser-quit.html
Our Federal Reserve sucks. American credit turns to crap under the repiglicans. Hold on to your seats. Transformation occuring in our market.
Depression starts on Black Monday? Maybe Tuesday because the world markets are half closed for holidays on Monday.
Paulson, Bernake and Bushco have caused the worst economic crisis in history. And most of you want McSame policies? Palin is an idiot and it matters because McCain is SO old. You get 15% unemployment if you vote McCain/Paline .. I'm 100% sure.
No fear from the devil, but empathy for the tragedies coming.
Turn on CNBC....where is Krudlow. This is amazing.
Vote for the dumb sick white guy over the smart black guy.
McCain economic adviser: quit complaining, the economy is great http://www.americablog.com/2008/09/mccain-economic-adviser-quit.html
Our Federal Reserve sucks. American credit turns to crap under the repiglicans. Hold on to your seats. Transformation occuring in our market.
Depression starts on Black Monday? Maybe Tuesday because the world markets are half closed for holidays on Monday.
Paulson, Bernake and Bushco have caused the worst economic crisis in history. And most of you want McSame policies? Palin is an idiot and it matters because McCain is SO old. You get 15% unemployment if you vote McCain/Paline .. I'm 100% sure.
No fear from the devil, but empathy for the tragedies coming.
Turn on CNBC....where is Krudlow. This is amazing.
Vote for the dumb sick white guy over the smart black guy.
McCain's Economist: We Need Tax Increases
By: Cernig on Saturday, September 13th, 2008 at 7:00 PM -
http://www.crooksandliars.com/2008/09/13/mccains-economist-we-need-tax-rises/
"Douglas Holtz-Eakin, a former Director of the Congressional Budget Office and current chief McCain economic advisor tells Fortune columnist Matt Miller in a forthcoming book, The Tyranny of Dead Ideas, that the next President is simply going to have to raise taxes." [:O]
But vote for the souless old white guy over the smart black guy.
FOTD has a sense that much more is wrong in the financial world than Paulson and Bernanke are admitting to and that we are in grave danger here.
Top Economist: Americans Should Worry About Bank Deposits if Congress Doesn't Act
http://finance.yahoo.com/tech-ticker/article/56994/Top-Economist-Americans-Should-Worry-About-Bank-Deposits-if-Congress-Doesn%27t-Act?tickers=LEH,MER,BAC,AIG,WM,
http://finance.yahoo.com/tech-ticker/article/41423/Roubini-More-Than-1-Trillion-Needed-to-Solve-Housing-Crisis?tickers=FNM,FRE,XLF,WM,WB,WFC,BAC
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6reQLzgywzk
At least inflation won't be up because nobody will have any money. Win!
quote:
Originally posted by cmatt1
At least inflation won't be up because nobody will have any money. Win!
Nope. The neo-con dopes that got us here never realized the US will be forced to print more money and tighten monetary and fiscal policies which in turn will lead to inflation as government runs an enormous deficit. Just a much different kind of inflation than the 70's. Then, it was cost push. This time, it will be the worst kind of inflation, demand pull.
What goes around comes around. [:O]
The housing slump is the biggest cause of these world wide repercussions. Both Parties are to blame for setting up ridiculously loose regulations, in order to get people who can't afford homes, in to homes.
It set up speculation, artificial investment property booms and adjustable rate loans to people that can't afford the real payments. It was a disaster waiting to happen and both Parties are to blame. It was a house of cards.
I guarantee, however, it wasn't the logical, Conservative portion of the Republican Party that helped set up this disaster. It was the left leaning centrist idiots that believe much like the Democrats. I'll lump Bush in to that group with his "Compassionate Conservatism" crap.
This is what compassion over logic gets us. But by their way of thinking and pretty much ALL Dims, to do any less would be uncaring, mean spirited and heartless..., consequences be damned. Dims like to yell and scream about Bush, but when it comes to Socialism, he's right in their supporting Dim housing bills an ridiculous education schemes. He's with you in those issues and you can have 'em.
All the other factors, such as over spending on the budget, the weakening dollar, high fuel prices and living expenses. All those things were like a strong breeze. It easily blew this house of cards over.
Now Dims are screaming NEOCON, NEOCON!! As if their own Party hasn't been in control of the House and Senate for the past 2 years and didn't vote for the measures that got us here, prior to that. There's plenty of blame to spread around, but us mean spirited, heartless Conservatives never would have created a mess like this. We wouldn't have given the poor a chance to get loans on things they couldn't afford. I know.., just horrible, isn't it. To bad we aren't in control of our own Party and haven't been, for several years before Clinton left office. This nation would be a much better place.
quote:
Originally posted by FOTD
How many are living on the edge?
"NEW YORK, Dec 17 (Reuters) - U.S. stocks ended sharply lower on Monday on worries the housing slump was dragging on the economy at the same time that inflation was posing a growing menace.
Based on the latest available data, the Dow Jones industrial average .DJI fell 172.65 points, or 1.29 percent, to end unofficialy at 13,167.20. The Standard & Poor's 500 Index .SPX was down 22.03 points, or 1.50 percent, to finish unofficially at 1,445.92. The Nasdaq Composite Index .IXIC was down 61.28 points, or 2.32 percent, to close unofficially at 2,574.46. (Reporting by Caroline Valetkevitch; Editing by Jan Paschal) "
http://www.reuters.com/article/bondsNews/idUSN1764225020071217
Outside of Oklahoma, the American economy is stagnating with the likelihood of a "session" of some nature over the next couple of years. Looks like the neo con economic theory of reinflating the economy through huge expenditures in the MIC will not work out to be quite what they anticipated.
And then there's the problem these neo cons have created by handing the states the weight of
deficits...
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071218/ap_on_re_us/state_finances;_ylt=An5P90RizzFViw9QwAAPH8Cs0NUE
"We're at the early stages of some pretty serious problems and whether or not those get worse depends on what happens with the national economy," said Corina Eckl, NCSL's fiscal program director."
Time to buy snap on tools?
Wall Street crisis is culmination of 28 years of deregulation
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/227/story/52559.html
Rah Rah Reagan Revolution! Didn't work.
Bushco (same party) spoiled his Gawdly image.
Alan Greenspan calls the McCain Economic Plan a Disaster for the Country
http://www.opednews.com/articles/Alan-Greenspan-calls-the-M-by-E-Nelson-080916-370.html
Gee, I wish some person with believable credentials (unlike Greenspan) would make the same "McCain Economic Plan a Disaster for the Country" statement for the world to see. Don't we have some progressive Nobel Peace Prize-winning economists who could do the deed?
You know it's gonna get stranger. Somethings we just know. So, let's elect Obama and risk change for the better. We stay on this same McBush train and the good ole USA will melt along with the icecaps.
"Global weirdness" Hunter Thompson
FOTD notices the lack of interest and discussion about the economy. So, he will continue his reminder that change is good.....especially when it means removing the repiglican failed movement.
http://www.prudentbear.com/index.php/commentary/featuredcommentary?art_id=9875
Voodoo Banking
"As banks begin to adjust their business models (selling assets and reducing staff), significant restructuring costs will affect earnings in the short run. The benefits of the restructuring will yield benefits but they will take time to emerge. "
How will the "earnings power" get them out of this jam. It will not. As their funding needs become more urgent next yr and they are forced to recognize more losses they will have to raise more capital.
The fed knows how bad it is and no matter how much they lie and attempt to socialize the losses it will not matter...and our fed govt talks about how our crisis is nothing compared to the japenese disaster where the banks never took losses on all the bad loans. Really? Banks are headed for a japenese-like zombie period of 10 yrs of bad news and no growth.
Barack Obama on Monday blamed lobbyists, special interests and "an ethic of irresponsibility" in Washington for the financial crisis. "We cannot give a blank check to Washington with no oversight and accountability, when no oversight and accountability is what got us into this mess in the first place," Obama said.
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/09/22/campaign.wrap/index.html
"Obama said he would make the government "open and transparent" and put any bill that ends up on his desk online for five days before he signs it.
Secondly, Obama said he would "eliminate the waste and the fraud and abuse in our government." He pointed to fixing the health care system and ending the war in Iraq as ways to cut costs.
Obama also said that he and his running mate, Sen. Joe Biden, would crack down on excessive spending from both parties and close loopholes for big corporations.
Obama said he would pursue "updated, common-sense regulations" in the financial market. "
quote:
Originally posted by FOTD
Barack Obama on Monday blamed lobbyists, special interests and "an ethic of irresponsibility" in Washington for the financial crisis. "We cannot give a blank check to Washington with no oversight and accountability, when no oversight and accountability is what got us into this mess in the first place," Obama said.
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/09/22/campaign.wrap/index.html
"Obama said he would make the government "open and transparent" and put any bill that ends up on his desk online for five days before he signs it.
Secondly, Obama said he would "eliminate the waste and the fraud and abuse in our government." He pointed to fixing the health care system and ending the war in Iraq as ways to cut costs.
Obama also said that he and his running mate, Sen. Joe Biden, would crack down on excessive spending from both parties and close loopholes for big corporations.
Obama said he would pursue "updated, common-sense regulations" in the financial market. "
I most definitely should vote for Obama.
He has mastered all the latest campaign cliches.
He is brilliant.
This is like hiring a bank robber as a security guard and only letting him have the keys to the vault: Reuters reports today that "The incoming Treasury secretary, Henry M. Paulson Jr., was awarded an $18.7 million cash bonus for half a year of work as the chief executive of the Goldman Sachs Group." The massive bonus was, not surprisingly, approved by Goldman Sachs at the very same time Paulson was both CEO and Treasury Secretary designate.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-sirota/the-paulson-payoff-at-the_b_24379.html
"....All that I am asking for is ten gold dollars
And I could pay you back with one good hand
You can look around at the wide world over
But you'll never find another honest man
Last fair deal in the country, sweet Susie
Last fair deal in the town
Put your gold money where your love is baby
Before you let my deal go down..."(Garcia/Hunter)
A short term fix will create long term agony.
A long term fix will create a short term agony.
http://georgewashington2.blogspot.com/2008/09/bailout-is-not-limited-to-700-billion.html
As Chris Martenson writes:
"This means that $700 billion is NOT the cost of this dangerous legislation, it is only the amount that can be outstanding at any one time. After, say, $100 billion of bad mortgages are disposed of, another $100 billion can be bought. In short, these four little words assure that there is NO LIMIT to the potential size of this bailout. This means that $700 billion is a rolling amount, not a ceiling.
So what happens when you have vague language and an unlimited budget? Fraud and self-dealing. Mark my words, this is the largest looting operation ever in the history of the US, and it's all spelled out right in this delightfully brief document that is about to be rammed through a scared Congress and made into law. "
It is SCANDALOUS when the Feds could not pay for healthcare for children, or anyone for that matter than is not already insured, could not help Katrina victims, allowed the derivatives market (or those betting on their own stocks as to whether they would go up or down) would now allow a bailout on gambling. We give the gamblers back the money they gambled with.
Paulson Bailout Plan a Historic Swindle By William Greider
September 19, 2008
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20081006/greider
"Financial-market wise guys, who had been seized with fear, are suddenly drunk with hope. They are rallying explosively because they think they have successfully stampeded Washington into accepting the Wall Street Journal solution to the crisis:dump it all on the taxpayers . That is the meaning of the massive bailout Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson has shopped around Congress. It would relieve the major banks and investment firms of their mountainous rotten assets and make the public swallow their losses--many hundreds of billions, maybe much more. What's not to like if you are a financial titan threatened with extinction?
If Wall Street gets away with this, it will represent an historic swindle of the American public--all sugar for the villains, lasting pain and damage for the victims. My advice to Washington politicians: Stop, take a deep breath and examine what you are being told to do by so-called "responsible opinion." If this deal succeeds, I predict it will become a transforming event in American politics--exposing the deep deformities in our democracy and launching a tidal wave of righteous anger and popular rebellion. As I have been saying for several months, this crisis has the potential to bring down one or both political parties, take your choice.
Christopher Whalen of Institutional Risk Analytics, a brave conservative critic, put it plainly: "The joyous reception from Congressional Democrats to Paulson's latest massive bailout proposal smells an awful lot like yet another corporatist lovefest between Washington's one-party government and the Sell Side investment banks."
A kindred critic, Josh Rosner of Graham Fisher in New York, defined the sponsors of this stampede to action: "Let us be clear, it is not citizen groups, private investors, equity investors or institutional investors broadly who are calling for this government purchase fund. It is almost exclusively being lobbied for by precisely those institutions that believed they were 'smarter than the rest of us,' institutions who need to get those assets off their balance sheet at an inflated value lest they be at risk of large losses or worse."
Let me be clear. The scandal is not that government is acting. The scandal is that government is not acting forcefully enough--using its ultimate emergency powers to take full control of the financial system and impose order on banks, firms and markets. Stop the music, so to speak, instead of allowing individual financiers and traders to take opportunistic moves to save themselves at the expense of the system. The step-by-step rescues that the Federal Reserve and Treasury have executed to date have failed utterly to reverse the flight of investors and banks worldwide from lending or buying in doubtful times. There is no obvious reason to assume this bailout proposal will change their minds, though it will certainly feel good to the financial houses that get to dump their bad paper on the government.
A serious intervention in which Washington takes charge would, first, require a new central authority to supervise the financial institutions and compel them to support the government's actions to stabilize the system. Government can apply killer leverage to the financial players: accept our objectives and follow our instructions or you are left on your own--cut off from government lending spigots and ineligible for any direct assistance. If they decline to cooperate, the money guys are stuck with their own mess. If they resist the government's orders to keep lending to the real economy of producers and consumers, banks and brokers will be effectively isolated, therefore doomed.
Only with these conditions, and some others, should the federal government be willing to take ownership--temporarily--of the rotten financial assets that are dragging down funds, banks and brokerages. Paulson and the Federal Reserve are trying to replay the bailout approach used in the 1980s for the savings and loan crisis, but this situation is utterly different. The failed S&Ls held real assets--property, houses, shopping centers--that could be readily resold by the Resolution Trust Corporation at bargain prices. This crisis involves ethereal financial instruments of unknowable value--not just the notorious mortgage securities but various derivative contracts and other esoteric deals that may be virtually worthless.
Despite what the pols in Washington think, the RTC bailout was also a Wall Street scandal. Many of the financial firms that had financed the S&L industry's reckless lending got to buy back the same properties for pennies from the RTC--profiting on the upside, then again on the downside. Guess who picked up the tab? I suspect Wall Street is envisioning a similar bonanza--the chance to harvest new profit from their own fraud and criminal irresponsibility.
If government acts responsibly, it will impose some other conditions on any broad rescue for the bankers. First, take due bills from any financial firms that get to hand off their spoiled assets, that is, a hard contract that repays government from any future profits once the crisis is over. Second, when the politicians get around to reforming financial regulations and dismantling the gimmicks and "too big to fail" institutions, Wall Street firms must be prohibited from exercising their usual manipulations of the political system. Call off their lobbyists, bar them from the bribery disguised as campaign contributions. Any contact or conversations between the assisted bankers and financial houses with government agencies or elected politicians must be promptly reported to the public, just as regulated industries are required to do when they call on government regulars.
More important, if the taxpayers are compelled to refinance the villains in this drama, then Americans at large are entitled to equivalent treatment in their crisis. That means the suspension of home foreclosures and personal bankruptcies for debt-soaked families during the duration of this crisis. The debtors will not escape injury and loss--their situation is too dire--but they deserve equal protection from government, the chance to work out things gradually over some years on reasonable terms.
The government, meanwhile, may have to create another emergency agency, something like the New Deal, that lends directly to the real economy--businesses, solvent banks, buyers and sellers in consumer markets. We don't know how much damage has been done to economic growth or how long the cold spell will last, but I don't trust the bankers in the meantime to provide investment capital and credit. If necessary, Washington has to fill that role, too.
Finally, the crisis is global, obviously, and requires concerted global action. Robert A. Johnson, a veteran of global finance now working with the Campaign for America's Future, suggests that our global trading partners may recognize the need for self-interested cooperation and can negotiate temporary--maybe permanent--reforms to balance the trading system and keep it functioning, while leading nations work to put the global financial system back in business.
The agenda is staggering. The United States is ill equipped to deal with it smartly, not to mention wisely. We have a brain-dead lame duck in the White House. The two presidential candidates are trapped by events, trying to say something relevant without getting blamed for the disaster. The people should make themselves heard in Washington, even if only to share their outrage.
"
Why Congress Objects To The Bailout Plan
by Maria Godoy
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=94950330
NPR.org, September 23, 2008 · The outrage was palpable Tuesday as the Senate Banking Committee grilled Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson and Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke on the details of their $700 billion plan to bail out Wall Street with taxpayer funds. But lawmakers are hardly the only ones questioning whether the plan will work. Here's a look at some of the objections being raised on and off Capitol Hill.
It's A Huge Amount Of Power To Invest In The Treasury: The Bush administration's plan would grant the Treasury secretary nearly absolute control of the $700 billion authorized by the bailout measure. The language in the measure sent to Congress would make the Treasury secretary's decisions "non-reviewable" — including by "any court of law or any administrative agency." That would give the Treasury secretary powers that are not only extraordinary but, some would say, also unconstitutional because of the lack of accountability.
Jon Macey, a professor and deputy dean of Yale Law School, says the bill contains the largest transfer of power from Congress to the administration that he has ever seen. Macey says Congress is handing over more power than it did in granting the executive branch leeway in the Patriot Act, and more powers than when authorizing combat through the war powers clause. He says the move amounts to a sidelining of Congress.
Senate Banking Committee Chairman Christopher Dodd, a Democrat from Connecticut, on Tuesday called the language in the plan "so troubling" and said it "cannot last" as part of the legislation.
It Represents A Fundamental Shift In The Way The U.S. Economy Works: The Bush administration's plan to bail out the nation's financial institutions represents an unprecedented intervention in free markets. If the Wall Street bailout is adopted, Republican Sen. Jim Bunning of Kentucky said last week, "the free market for all intents and purposes is dead in America."
A fundamental principle of free-market capitalism is that investors take on big risks to reap big rewards — but they also assume any losses that occur. The government's plan would radically alter that model, leaving profits private while making losses public.
It's Not The Only Viable Option For Fixing This Mess: In a nutshell, the Bush administration's plan would authorize up to $700 billion to let Treasury buy up bad mortgages from financial institutions. With these toxic assets off the books for firms, lenders would once again be willing to lend and the money would start flowing freely through the markets, the theory goes. Objections to the plan have come from both sides of the aisle — and from academics and economists who say it amounts to a huge handout to Wall Street without necessarily fixing the problem.
Many economists have proposed alternatives and alterations to the administration's proposal, some of which have been taken up by lawmakers. Details of the plan are still being negotiated, but here are some of the key points of contention:
Equity stakes: Rather than simply buying up bad loans and letting taxpayers assume all the risk, why not take shares in the financial firms in exchange, so that taxpayers could also participate in any potential profits? Banking Committee Chairman Dodd has proposed "contingency shares" that would only be issued if losses are realized on the assets bought up from a firm. In Tuesday's hearing, Paulson rejected the idea of equity shares, saying it would make the bailout program "ineffective" — though he didn't offer details on why that would be the case.
Valuing assets: There are already buyers for these toxic assets out there — they just aren't willing to buy them at prices that financial institutions find palatable. (In some cases, selling at those prices would make firms insolvent.) Many critics argue that the fundamental problem is that the financial markets lack capital, so the only way the government's plan will work is if the Treasury overpays for the assets; otherwise, why not just let investors buy them up?
So, how to price these assets? Technically, assets are only worth what a buyer is willing to pay for them. If no one wants to buy mortgage-backed securities, then right now they are worthless — but that doesn't mean they will always be worthless. Paulson has suggested that one way to set prices would be through what's known as a reverse auction, the goal of which is to drive prices down, rather than up.
But some economists note that reverse auctions work best when the assets being auctioned off are essentially identical. That's not the case with mortgage-backed securities: Some of them may have plenty of healthy, payment-producing mortgages in them, while others may be full of defaulted loans. If the government simply buys the securities with the lowest price, it may end up with $700 billion worth of the worst loans, critics say.
Executive-pay limits: Some lawmakers want any company that participates in the bailout to agree to slash the pay of its executives. After all, they say, those who created the mortgage mess shouldn't be allowed to profit from the bailout. But Paulson has resisted this idea. He argues that pay cuts would discourage firms from using the program and would force thousands of firms to review their executive compensation before participating, a time-consuming process.
Lawmakers Are Being Urged To Act While Staring At The Barrel Of A Gun: Congress is being asked to enact a fundamental restructuring of the U.S. economy — in one week. That's not a lot of time for lawmakers to weigh their options and the repercussions of their actions. In private meetings on the Hill, Paulson and Bernanke have warned lawmakers about the dire consequences of not acting — but these economic Doomsday scenarios have not been spelled out to the public.
Democratic Sen. Jon Tester of Montana told Paulson as much on Tuesday: "I fully feel the urgency ... But the truth is that we have to be given the time to do this right, or it's not going to work and we'll be back here next year or in two years asking for another $700 billion or more."
With additional reporting by Laura Conaway and Adam Davidson
Way over my head. But it feels like a trap. A lot like the "Iraq has WMD's" trap that was so successful. We should take some time and analyze the details. Shumer seems to have a grasp. Buffet does too.
Republican's are being counseled to attack and defeat this proposal in an effort to show they can rebell against the president they've cowardly, blindly followed for 8 years. They are then advised to attack any Democrat who votes for any part of the bailout as "big spenders" who don't understand capitalism. McCain has already expressed dismay at the bailout and has proved he can go either way as needs be. All this in an effort to win elections back home this fall. (source was a blogger who raised a lot of funds for McCain and was quoted from his blog on MSNBC last nite).
Whatever happened to country first? Is that now, "right after we win the election"? Stuff like this creates distrust in the whole election.
No, distrust in the election process came when SCOTUS implanted Bushco after Florida in 2000. You know, what got us from Democrat rule to Repiglican folly.
"We didn't start the fire
It was always burning
Since the world's been turning
We didn't start the fire
No we didn't light it
But we tried to fight it
We didn't start the fire
But when we are gone
Will it still burn on, and on, and on, and on..."
Billy Joel
Yes, the country needs to pull together ....
and it will AFTER the election. The Bush Administration should have no hand in trying to solve this problem.
Meanwhile...until new leadership is elected fairly....
"Every normal man must be tempted at times to spit upon his hands, hoist the black flag, and begin slitting throats."
-- Henry Louis Mencken
U.S. to lose financial superpower status: Germany
http://www.reuters.com/article/reutersEdge/idUSTRE48O3BC20080925?sp=true
AND!
It's the war economy, stupids
http://www.bethink.org/showDiary.do?diaryId=1019
Anyone can cut taxes. The challenge is holding deficits constant while you're cutting taxes. Reagan and Bush Jr (aka Cheney's beyatch) failed at holding deficits constant. That is a fact. Don't even argue with that point. If you argue it just means that you are too ideological or ignorant. On the other hand, Clinton balanced the budget while keeping a growing economy. He demonstrated that he was serious about fiscal responsibility and businesses liked that and invested which kept the economy growing. We need to increase taxes whether we like it or not to pay for Republican wars which far exceed welfare payments (that is a fact - again don't argue with the facts), so lets stick it to the very rich. We have to pay for Iraq - how do you want to pay for it besides sticking it to the next generation via huge deficits? If you don't like taxes, keep spending down by opposing unnecessary wars. Vote libertatrian if you don't like the democrats, but republicans are just plain stupid. Yes, you are right that the national debt continued to rise during Clinton, but at a much slower rate. Clinton's administration did an outstanding job cutting deficits over his tenure. Clinton inherited huge deficits from Reagan and Bush.
Deficits = Government Revenues - Government Spending
National Debt = Sum of all previous deficits plus the interest
Republican Presidents have been pathetic at fiscal responsibility over the past 27 years. That is a fact! Deficits rose under Reagan then Bush Senior then Little Bush. If you care about fiscal responsibility then you must punish the party that has increased our National Debt. Accept the facts!
Yechhh.....they wanted the bailout in a hurry because they see a number of other catrastophies coming our way!
Duck and cover....
Ford U.S. sales fall 34.6 percent
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20081001/bs_nm/us_usa_autosales_6
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/03/opinion/03krugman.html?_r=1&ref=opinion
OP-ED COLUMNIST
That '30s Show
By PAUL KRUGMAN
Published: July 2, 2009
O.K., Thursday's jobs report settles it. We're going to need a bigger stimulus. But does the president know that?
Let's do the math.
Since the recession began, the U.S. economy has lost 6 ½ million jobs — and as that grim employment report confirmed, it's continuing to lose jobs at a rapid pace. Once you take into account the 100,000-plus new jobs that we need each month just to keep up with a growing population, we're about 8 ½ million jobs in the hole.
And the deeper the hole gets, the harder it will be to dig ourselves out. The job figures weren't the only bad news in Thursday's report, which also showed wages stalling and possibly on the verge of outright decline. That's a recipe for a descent into Japanese-style deflation, which is very difficult to reverse. Lost decade, anyone?
Wait — there's more bad news: the fiscal crisis of the states. Unlike the federal government, states are required to run balanced budgets. And faced with a sharp drop in revenue, most states are preparing savage budget cuts, many of them at the expense of the most vulnerable. Aside from directly creating a great deal of misery, these cuts will depress the economy even further.
So what do we have to counter this scary prospect? We have the Obama stimulus plan, which aims to create 3 ½ million jobs by late next year. That's much better than nothing, but it's not remotely enough. And there doesn't seem to be much else going on. Do you remember the administration's plan to sharply reduce the rate of foreclosures, or its plan to get the banks lending again by taking toxic assets off their balance sheets? Neither do I.
All of this is depressingly familiar to anyone who has studied economic policy in the 1930s. Once again a Democratic president has pushed through job-creation policies that will mitigate the slump but aren't aggressive enough to produce a full recovery. Once again much of the stimulus at the federal level is being undone by budget retrenchment at the state and local level.
So have we failed to learn from history, and are we, therefore, doomed to repeat it? Not necessarily — but it's up to the president and his economic team to ensure that things are different this time. President Obama and his officials need to ramp up their efforts, starting with a plan to make the stimulus bigger.
Just to be clear, I'm well aware of how difficult it will be to get such a plan enacted.
There won't be any cooperation from Republican leaders, who have settled on a strategy of total opposition, unconstrained by facts or logic. Indeed, these leaders responded to the latest job numbers by proclaiming the failure of the Obama economic plan. That's ludicrous, of course. The administration warned from the beginning that it would be several quarters before the plan had any major positive effects. But that didn't stop the chairman of the Republican Study Committee from issuing a statement demanding: "Where are the jobs?"
It's also not clear whether the administration will get much help from Senate "centrists," who partially eviscerated the original stimulus plan by demanding cuts in aid to state and local governments — aid that, as we're now seeing, was desperately needed. I'd like to think that some of these centrists are feeling remorse, but if they are, I haven't seen any evidence to that effect.
And as an economist, I'd add that many members of my profession are playing a distinctly unhelpful role.
It has been a rude shock to see so many economists with good reputations recycling old fallacies — like the claim that any rise in government spending automatically displaces an equal amount of private spending, even when there is mass unemployment — and lending their names to grossly exaggerated claims about the evils of short-run budget deficits. (Right now the risks associated with additional debt are much less than the risks associated with failing to give the economy adequate support.)
Also, as in the 1930s, the opponents of action are peddling scare stories about inflation even as deflation looms.
So getting another round of stimulus will be difficult. But it's essential.
Obama administration economists understand the stakes. Indeed, just a few weeks ago, Christina Romer, the chairwoman of the Council of Economic Advisers, published an article on the "lessons of 1937" — the year that F.D.R. gave in to the deficit and inflation hawks, with disastrous consequences both for the economy and for his political agenda.
What I don't know is whether the administration has faced up to the inadequacy of what it has done so far.
So here's my message to the president: You need to get both your economic team and your political people working on additional stimulus, now. Because if you don't, you'll soon be facing your own personal 1937.
The DOW hit 14,000 today despite 4 years of no help Tea Heads and Grand Obstinate Party leaders.
PRINT MORE MONEY!
SHEBANG!
Quote from: Teatownclown on February 01, 2013, 01:34:46 PM
The DOW hit 14,000 today despite 4 years of no help Tea Heads and Grand Obstinate Party leaders.
PRINT MORE MONEY!
SHEBANG!
4 Quarter economic contraction.
Unemployment ticking back up to 7.9%
Dow rising fast.
Sound familiar?
Keep printing money. :D
(http://queerlychristian.files.wordpress.com/2012/12/advent_bubble3.jpg)
Quote from: Teatownclown on February 01, 2013, 01:34:46 PM
The DOW hit 14,000 today despite 4 years of no help Tea Heads and Grand Obstinate Party leaders.
What's that worth when adjusted for inflation?
Now add in what it should be worth considering the time value of money. Pick a reasonable interest rate, say 5%.
I saw a spot on the TV news (Ch 8, not FOX) proudly proclaiming that a 401K worth $125,000 before the crash dipped to a bit over $61,000 but should now be worth $131,000 (approx) and shows that the economy has recovered.
At 5% return, an investment worth $125,000 in late 2008 should be worth $125,000 x (1.05^4) = (approx)$152,000. We ain't back yet.
You don't seek recovery as much as you seek restitution. Different path. There are no guarantees for investments or gambling of any sort. You might as well include your opportunity loss as well with your reasoning. You know, "If the market hadn't tanked I could have taken my gains and developed a new business with hundreds of new employees." Politics aside, the economy tanked, the economy is rebounding.
Sometimes you eat the bear, sometimes it eats you.
Quote from: AquaMan on February 02, 2013, 10:34:21 AM
You don't seek recovery as much as you seek restitution. Different path. There are no guarantees for investments or gambling of any sort. You might as well include your opportunity loss as well with your reasoning. You know, "If the market hadn't tanked I could have taken my gains and developed a new business with hundreds of new employees." Politics aside, the economy tanked, the economy is rebounding.
Sometimes you eat the bear, sometimes it eats you.
Do you not understand the difference between recovering and recovered?
Tenses of verbs. A recovering alcoholic and a recovered sofa for instance.
What's your point?
Quote from: AquaMan on February 02, 2013, 05:53:43 PM
Tenses of verbs. A recovering alcoholic and a recovered sofa for instance.
What's your point?
You have to compare beans and semi trucks to prove you can play ignorant?
How about recovering a sofa but not being done yet vs. a recovered sofa in your living room with people sitting on it.
Recovering from a fever of 104 degrees but still have a temperature of 101 degrees. Improving but not completely well yet. Recovered would be 98.6, no headache...
You know the difference and my point.
Listening to the network news the other night you would thing everything was back to normal as if nothing ever happened with the DOW closing at 14,000.
Quote from: Teatownclown on February 01, 2013, 01:34:46 PM
The DOW hit 14,000 today despite 4 years of no help Tea Heads and Grand Obstinate Party leaders.
Yeah, because we all know the market is driven by the pee partiers, lesser income, and non-tax payers that make up the Tea Party and the GOP.
(http://troll.me/images/stifler-thumbs-up/good-job-dumbass.jpg)
Quote from: guido911 on February 02, 2013, 08:11:56 PM
Yeah, because we all know the market is driven by the pee partiers, lesser income, and non-tax payers that make up the Tea Party and the GOP.
Interestingly, it doesn't seem to be driven by the loudmouth right wingers, either. They are, after all, the ones who have been calling for hyperinflation and imminent doom for five years now. Thus far, their predictions have failed to prove correct.
(http://24.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m8r74aFfcO1qk6mx6o1_500.png)
Quote from: nathanm on February 02, 2013, 11:29:54 PM
Interestingly, it doesn't seem to be driven by the loudmouth right wingers, either. They are, after all, the ones who have been calling for hyperinflation and imminent doom for five years now. Thus far, their predictions have failed to prove correct.
(http://24.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m8r74aFfcO1qk6mx6o1_500.png)
Well double-dumbass on you!
Quote from: Red Arrow on February 02, 2013, 06:59:24 PM
You have to compare beans and semi trucks to prove you can play ignorant?
How about recovering a sofa but not being done yet vs. a recovered sofa in your living room with people sitting on it.
Recovering from a fever of 104 degrees but still have a temperature of 101 degrees. Improving but not completely well yet. Recovered would be 98.6, no headache...
You know the difference and my point.
Listening to the network news the other night you would thing everything was back to normal as if nothing ever happened with the DOW closing at 14,000.
\\
You think I'm ignorant but you listen to network news...and pay attention to people who really are ignorant.
Really, when even economists can't agree on "what the condition of our condition is in", when they mix politics and myth into their formulations of strategies to emerge from this recession....you listen to folks who wear makeup?
I repeat. There is no guarantee of recovering your losses from a recession, a depression or bad stock market decisions. It took a war and two decades to totally recover from 1929 (if you don't include the opportunity losses). I suspect we have that long to totally recover these losses. However, we are not flailing hopelessly. People are making money right now.
Quote from: AquaMan on February 03, 2013, 11:12:51 AM
\\
You think I'm ignorant
Read what I wrote, not what you want it to say. I wrote " to prove you can
play ignorant?". Your comparison of a recovering alcoholic (There is no such thing as a recovered alcoholic according to what I've read and from several recovering alcoholics I know.) and a recovered sofa is absurd.
QuoteI repeat. There is no guarantee of recovering your losses from a recession, a depression or bad stock market decisions. It took a war and two decades to totally recover from 1929 (if you don't include the opportunity losses). I suspect we have that long to totally recover these losses.
You can repeat it as many times as you want, it won't change anything. Any one individual may not recover his/her losses. I agree, that's the way it is. If the economy in general has not recovered its losses, I believe that is something else and it may take several decades to totally recover as you noted above.
QuoteHowever, we are not flailing hopelessly. People are making money right now.
Where did I say we are flailing hopelessly? I agree that we are doing better than a few years ago. My objection is to the network new trying to portray that all is totally back to normal with the DOW closing at 14000. I do believe it should be adjusted for inflation to present day to represent the same purchasing power. $1.00 in 2007 has the same purchasing power as $1.11 in 2012. (http://www.bls.gov/data/inflation_calculator.htm) Recovering to $1.00 does not represent a recovery to even 2007 purchasing power. We can disagree on whether or not it should also be adjusted for a reasonable interest rate. Please read what I write and don't try to spin it.
Quote from: Red Arrow on February 03, 2013, 11:45:13 AM
We can disagree on whether or not it should also be adjusted for a reasonable interest rate.
That would be double counting. The risk free rate of interest is almost always directly related to inflation expectations.
If you want to argue english and semantics you have the wrong guy. I know when I am being disparaged, when arguments are specious and when someone is tilting at windmills. I honestly have no idea why you would ask me about the tense of those two words in context of this thread. Its an old thread that I didn't spend much time re-reading.
Conservatives want to believe that a Liberal or Progressive president simply cannot bring us out of this morass. When a Bush was in office Liberals and Progressives didn't want to give them much credit either. The wonder years of Clinton economics were widely dismissed by Republicans as lies, exaggerations and destructive.
When I watch and listen to a variety of "experts" from economic and business venues, ranging from MSNBC to NPR to Fox, and none of them can even agree on the facts, I have to believe that we're plowing new ground right now. One opinion is about as good as another if you can find the research, the studies, the statistics to back you up. But its impossible to not notice that when home sales are climbing, when businesses are investing in capital goods and when new oil and gas reserves are being found...we just might be moving in a positive direction.
Of course, you wouldn't perceive that from reading this forum.
Quote from: AquaMan on February 03, 2013, 02:22:56 PM
I honestly have no idea why you would ask me about the tense of those two words in context of this thread.
I'll try again.
I said that we haven't recovered yet. We are in the process of recovering and have made some significant gains. You just want to be argumentative and are looking for a reason to claim to have been insulted. I certainly don't consider "when arguments are specious and when someone is tilting at windmills" to be a compliment when I was trying to make a point which I believe is relevant. You don't have to agree.
Don't bother trying if you keep going off in a different direction than the premise of your post, which was,
What's that worth when adjusted for inflation?
Now add in what it should be worth considering the time value of money. Pick a reasonable interest rate, say 5%.
I saw a spot on the TV news (Ch 8, not FOX) proudly proclaiming that a 401K worth $125,000 before the crash dipped to a bit over $61,000 but should now be worth $131,000 (approx) and shows that the economy has recovered.
At 5% return, an investment worth $125,000 in late 2008 should be worth $125,000 x (1.05^4) = (approx)$152,000. We ain't back yet.
No one other than a dumb newscaster drew the inference that we have recovered (have to take your word for it that they said that). They just read the scripts put before them and they likely didn't even know they blundered.
But my response was that you seem to think we are only recovered as an economy when all those losses are restored. As though there was any guarantee that those investments would have grown at all, much less an assumed 5%. Or that the economy suffered inflation rather than stagflation. Lots of investments sour during good times or stay stagnant. But right now, the stock market is making folks money. Recovery may be in progress.
Once the economy reaches un-employment rates at half the current rate, when our balance of trade is positive, when productivity is healthy and the stock market flattens out will you still insist on restoring your losses before deeming our economy recovered?
Quote from: AquaMan on February 03, 2013, 07:50:02 PM
Don't bother trying if you keep going off in a different direction than the premise of your post, which was,
Feel free to read whatever you want into my post. Don't claim "If you want to argue english and semantics you have the wrong guy." unless you want me to come to a conclusion of why you are the wrong guy that you don't like. (hint: that is NOT a compliment)
My
premise was that "
We ain't back yet.", nearly the only thing you didn't highlight. I never said we have made no progress. All the stuff you highlighted was in support of my premise. I prefer to collect/present data and then draw a conclusion rather than jump to a conclusion and then try to find data to support it. You are free to disagree with my supporting statements. I might have respected your response if you had said something like the Econ 303 definition of recovered is.... but you didn't do that. You are also free to disagree about my understanding of the attitude (not exact words) presented by the networks although it seems you didn't watch them to form your own opinion. Your attitude toward me has been every bit as demeaning as you claim my attitude toward you has been.
QuoteRecovery may be in progress.
I guess that is good enough, no need to try for more.
QuoteOr that the economy suffered inflation rather than stagflation.
Did you look at the link to the Bureau of Labor Statistics inflation calculator? (http://www.bls.gov/data/inflation_calculator.htm) I believe that if it now takes $1.11 to purchase the same thing that could be purchased in 2008 for $1.00, we have had inflation. It takes more money to buy the same thing. Perhaps you have a different definition of inflation. Maybe you know more than the BLS.
I am (and so are you) near retirement age. My retirement will be delayed, if I get there at all, not by poor choices in investments on my part but because of the general economy. Yes, I personally am going to judge "recovered" by whether I get to retire. It does not matter to me whether if fits some theoretical economist's definition of recovered (past tense, process complete).
DJIA is probably one of the worst ways to get an idea of how the economy is doing that exists. Red, there are many adjustments made to that thing, perhaps not for inflation (I don't know about that one) but for companies moving onto and off of the average, plus it seems like that K factor they use is moved around just depending on how the guy feels that day who decides what the adjustment should be. Did he have his fiber for breakfast? Was he regular, or feeling a little bathroom anxiety from a lost opportunity?? Who knows. We have gone from about 6,000 to the current 14,000. It's carp! That is a 100% increase! Nothing like that happened in the company stocks that make up the DOW - not even close!!
Wanna know how I know? Started a little 'portfolio' over on Yahoo finance many years ago. On Jan 28, 2008, I adjusted it to a "reference point" to see what happens in the future. Background; to start this "fantasy football,...er, uh, portfolio", I pretend acquire 100 shares of each stock at the value that day. For this exercise, it was about $152,000 on that date.
Kraft (Mondelez) is now gone. Exxon is gone. United Healthcare is now there. Changes are made that cannot be rationally factored in by the numbers seen on the DOW.
Today, that portfolio sits at about $182,000, for a fantasy gain of about $29,000 or almost 19%. It was up $1900 just on Friday!! Far cry from the 100% + increase in the DOW. The DOW really is worthless as any kind of indication of economic anything.
^^ Heiry, you could have put it in an index and doubled your money. Your return was much better than cash or bonds return.
You should be more grateful there isn't %30 unemployment. There are special situation opportunities all over the place. But YOU should stay away from investing.
Quote from: Red Arrow on February 03, 2013, 08:50:15 PM
Feel free to read whatever you want into my post. Don't claim "If you want to argue english and semantics you have the wrong guy." unless you want me to come to a conclusion of why you are the wrong guy that you don't like. (hint: that is NOT a compliment)
My premise was that "We ain't back yet.", nearly the only thing you didn't highlight. I never said we have made no progress. All the stuff you highlighted was in support of my premise. I prefer to collect/present data and then draw a conclusion rather than jump to a conclusion and then try to find data to support it. You are free to disagree with my supporting statements. I might have respected your response if you had said something like the Econ 303 definition of recovered is.... but you didn't do that. You are also free to disagree about my understanding of the attitude (not exact words) presented by the networks although it seems you didn't watch them to form your own opinion. Your attitude toward me has been every bit as demeaning as you claim my attitude toward you has been.
I guess that is good enough, no need to try for more.
Did you look at the link to the Bureau of Labor Statistics inflation calculator? (http://www.bls.gov/data/inflation_calculator.htm) I believe that if it now takes $1.11 to purchase the same thing that could be purchased in 2008 for $1.00, we have had inflation. It takes more money to buy the same thing. Perhaps you have a different definition of inflation. Maybe you know more than the BLS.
I am (and so are you) near retirement age. My retirement will be delayed, if I get there at all, not by poor choices in investments on my part but because of the general economy. Yes, I personally am going to judge "recovered" by whether I get to retire. It does not matter to me whether if fits some theoretical economist's definition of recovered (past tense, process complete).
Congratulations. You've won a debate with yourself. I never took Econ 303. Did you? I had 1000, macro, micro, whatever. But all you've done is confirm my suspicion that you, and a lot of other conservatives, will not be happy till you've been restored to your previous condition which, like I said, took two decades and two wars after the great depression. And you are no better at following an argument than I am. I wasn't saying we had no inflation, I was saying that when you throw in all these variables that affect an investment, you can't just pick the ones you want. If you're going to live in "what could have happened" world, throw in some domestic terrorism, some hurricanes, some tornadoes and a dose of Tea Party flavoring.
I wish you luck in recovering your investments in time to retire comfortably. But you can never make up for your opportunity loss.
Figured this could go here.
QuoteOver the years, the personal exemption and standard deduction have not kept pace with inflation, so today 70% of the population is subject to income taxes. Almost 60 million returns, mostly under $20,000 in gross income, pay no income tax, largely the result of the earned-income and child tax credits. The individual income tax today raises $950 billion annually through 144 million tax returns. Of this, the top 40 million returns pay about $856 billion and the bottom 104 million returns only about $94 billion.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323701904578276210776108672.html?KEYWORDS=jay+starkman
RA, the economy as a whole has recovered. Unfortunately, the job market has failed to do so, probably largely thanks to increased automation. There's a surprising amount of onshoring of manufacturing now, but it's almost all being done by robots. Sadly (or happily, depending on your perspective), they're getting cheaper and easier to integrate into existing work flows (http://"http://www.boston.com/business/technology/innoeco/2012/09/rethink_robotics_readies_to_la.html"). Even fast food places are beginning to use robots to make your food.
I just wonder what we're going to do with the millions of folks who still work in these sorts of jobs. On the bright side, it frees up people to do more creative (or productive) things that robots can't do. I'm just not sure what's going to keep them from becoming destitute in the interim.
Quote from: nathanm on February 06, 2013, 04:00:27 PM
Unfortunately, the job market has failed to do so, probably largely thanks to increased automation. There's a surprising amount of onshoring of manufacturing now, but it's almost all being done by robots. Sadly (or happily, depending on your perspective), they're getting cheaper and easier to integrate into existing work flows (http://"http://www.boston.com/business/technology/innoeco/2012/09/rethink_robotics_readies_to_la.html"). Even fast food places are beginning to use robots to make your food.
I just wonder what we're going to do with the millions of folks who still work in these sorts of jobs. On the bright side, it frees up people to do more creative (or productive) things that robots can't do. I'm just not sure what's going to keep them from becoming destitute in the interim.
At the same time, as we have made work more technical, we maintain the same levels of high school dropouts, so the actual gap between the needs of the economy for trained workers, and the supply of people able to be trained for those jobs, is increasing. Bad combination. I would use the phrase "perfect storm" but it has been used to death...