Where is the US economy headed?

RealJohnBoy-- Cyclopitchorn( whois a master at lying by presenting incomplete data does not give job losses under the Democratic Hero_FDR. He also does not tell you that the number of Job Losses must be looked at with the knowledge that the US has gained in population( especially Hispanics who are more likely to lose jobs because of their relative lack of education)

Cyclopitchorn also does not tell you that under President Carter-DEMOCRAT- we reached an unemployment rate of 9.7% ALONG WITH A STUNNING 18(eighteen) percent INFLATION rate in 1980.

Now, it is possible that our Unemployment rate will reach 9.7%. It is CERTAIN, that given the wild unfocused spending of the Obama Stimulus( sic) package, we will soon go to double digit inflation.

We must ask ourselves, RealJohn Boy, whatis more damaging for our economy as a whole--7.6% Unemployment or the kind of inflation we had during the C arter years.

Real John Boy--Cicerone does not know what the topic is. He is senile!

Real John Boy-- Cicerone's idea of challenging is to stamp his little feet and to write a two liner saying--You are wrong, wrong, wrong. He never gives evidence or documentation. At least Cyclopitchorn( even though I think he is mistaken) does give evidence or documentation. Cicerone is like a washerwoman who gossips over a fence. N o substance--just blah, blah, blah!

You keep accusing me of not providing evidence, but have not shown any by cut and paste from my posts.

You do understand there's a difference between "a personal opinion," and what is considered factual, don't you?

Are you suggesting that the similar sized Bush stimulous package (TARP) was focused and effective? How about the $600/person rebate? Was it effective?

it masked the problem almost till Bush got out of office, so from the viewpoint of those who pushed for the expenditure it almost worked. It was for the society money pissed away, so for the rest of us it did not buy anything.

No, it really didn't help our economy in the way the government expected it; most people didn't "spend it." They paid of credit cards and/or saved some of it. The net spending was negligible, and didn't even put a noticeable blip on GDP.

in the same way most of the money pushed at banks has not been lent but rather has been used to pad the books, and the most of the $300+ billion in tax breaks of the proposed stimulus plan will not be spent but rather used to pad the books. We have learned nothing, we just keep spending more each time we try the failed concept. The solution is to fix the system, protect the workers and families as best we can with public sector work programs, and let bankruptcies reorder the economy as needed.

What is more discouraging is the simple fact that the "best and brightest" recruited by Obama doesn't seem to understand the conditions on the money beyond the max pay for CEOs, and bonus payments with taxpayer money. Those are coming "after the distribution are made."

I wanted to stamp out the notion that the Obama stimulous plan for gov't spending was something new. Mr Bush tried the same thing.
I am a Keynesian economist (semi-amateur status).

it is already clear that he is not the "white knight". The fears that he does not have the balls to chart is own course so far have been proven to be correct, and while this worked for Clinton and his triangulation theory these times demand a decisive leader who can figure out a way forward. Obama is a compromiser, which will not work here, we need a fire hose pointed the right direction, and cant afford an almost $1 trillion dollar expenditure that tries to keep everyone happy while not accomplishing the mission.

Washington is broken, there will be no solving this problem anytime soon. There is almost no way to avoid a depression now.

while I'm just an opinionated old goat all hat no cattle, I opine that the DOW has bottomed and the remaining indices will follow up over the next 18 months.

Well, a guy who confesses be an "opinionated old goat all hat no cattle," might just be right. However, I'm of the opinion that we still haven't seen the bottom for several reasons: a) subprime mortgage debacle is still alive and well, b) banks are not lending money like they should, c) 30-year mortgage interest rate at 5.3% to 5.5% is still too high, and housing is a big part of our GDP, d) even with the stimulus plan, it'll take no less than eight to ten month before any of it sees progress, and e) more companies will be laying off by the thousands, and many more will be going belly up (not good for the stock market).

we have not seen the bottom because nobody has any reason to have confidence that the foreseeable future will bring improvement. We are now in a self reinforcing downward spiral, the idea of throwing money at the problem was to prevent getting here, but now that we are the only way out is to fix the problems. We need a government that works, we need a people who want to work together and who can see past their personal greed, we need a financial system that has enough transparency that the risks can be evaluated, and we need a corporate class that is willing to once again work for the common good as well as work to enrich themselves. Bailouts do nothing but empty our kids pockets, and delay getting to work.

the disintegration of this economy is picking up speed, even if the government were to get a solution that works it would take almost a year to see improvement. We have not even begun to talk about solutions, we are still arguing about useless and expensive bail out, still supporting the cast of crooks and incompetents who got us here.

I agree with most of what you said, but with a caveat on limiting CEO pay and benefits. We can't continue to have what happened in the past ten to fifteen years where American productivity kept going up, but they did not get rewarded for those gains, and most of the wealth went to the CEOs - even when they failed to do a good job. Those golden parachutes must be eliminated, and those monies given to the average worker.

just remembered thomas' post about the swedish government takeover and "rescue" of the swedish banks .

TIMES OF LONDON has a good descripton of what the swedish government did :

http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/industry_sectors/banking_and_finance/article5580831.ece

what the swedish goverment did can be summed up in one sentence - the second sentence is simply a comment on U.S. and european "non-action" .



of course , it would never fly in the U.S. imo .
hbg

As usual, Cicerone Imposter is dreadfully ignorant about limiting "CEO pay and benefits. He obviously knows NOTHING about how Wall Street works, who gets the big paychecks, how the so-called "limits" can be evaded and the possible very negative aspects of setting those limits.

The Wall Street Journal--Feb.7-8 has an article which I will replicate below:

Who's talking about Wall Street?

If you want to talk about Wall Street, bring it on. But don't change the subject from CEOs to Wall Street, because they are two distinct and different issues.

"Pay Collars won't Hold Back Wall Street's big Dogs.

l. "The limits apply only to the senior executives--"The chief executive, chief financial officer and the like and not to many of the people who can earn THE REALLY BIG BUCKS ON WALL STREET like traders and hedge fund managers".

2. (People can outsource) "In 2002, managers at HArvard's giant endowment came under withering fire from the Ivory Tower for Earning UPWARDS TO 33 million apiece. They soon left to start their own firms which were promptly HIRED BY THE ENDOWMENT AND GOT PAID A PERCENTAGE OF ASSETS UNDER MANAGEMENT INSTEAD OF A CASH SALARY AND BONUS. That new form of payment stopped the criticism cold,kept the managers earning the same as before but did not reduce risk taking. One manager, Jeff Larsen, lost 350 Million dollars>

3. The Senior executives can take their incentive pay in form of preferred stock that can't be cashed in until the taxpayers get their money back. MANAGERS MAY THEN BE TEMPTED TO TAKE BIGGER RISKS IN HOPES OF SPEEDING UP THEIR PREFERRED STOCK PAYOFF. IF THE RISKS ARE BAD, UNCLE SAM WILL EAT THE LOSSES.
end of quotes
Cicerone Imposter apparently does not know this. I urge him to begin to read more. I am sure that he knows nothing about how wall street really works

You assume wrong - as usual. Why don't you ask the question first, rather than coming to stupid conclusions? Is that too difficult for you?

When I'm talking about apples, changing the subject to oranges doesn't make much sense - except to stupid people like you!