Where is the US economy headed?

Re: Robert Gentel (Post 3573707)
Full Employment is 95%. Most Economists consider a 5% Unemployment Rate to signify Full Employment because there is always( even under the best economy) 5% of workers leaving one job to look for another.

Left Wingers like Cyclops have moaned that the Unemployment Rate is much higher than the currently reported 7.6% since the BLS does not report U-6--the category in which "discouraged" workers are placed. But, what he does not say, is that despite his comment, the BLS has never used U-6, even under Clinton, Bush, Reagan and Carter

Since it has been established that the current rate of functional illiteracy in the USA is 14% and since it is becoming much more difficult to work in any job without functional literacy, I am amazed that the Unemployment Rate is not over 10%.

The Unemployment Rate for young blacks is over 20%. But, of course, as parados would say, that's strictly because of racism!

for those who are interested in Freddie and Fannie check out the Feb Vanity Fair, very long very good piece about how and why they were federalized.....

An excellent article, Hawkeye 10. Thanks for the information. It is a balanced article. I have seen much evidence whihc points to the following, from that article, as the MAJOR, CERTAINLY NOT THE ONLY, cause for the financial mess:

Note:

As in most wars, there is fault on both sides. Although in 2000 the Department of Housing and Urban Development (hud), under Andrew Cuomo, increased the requirements that Fannie and Freddie buy loans made to lower-income people, a dramatic increase came in 2004"under the Bush administration. Some people believe it did so merely in order to pressure the companies into agreeing to new regulation. But Fannie itself isn’t a hapless victim, either. In the end, it was Fannie executives who made a business decision to stake their future on risky mortgages that had nothing to do with helping people own homes. The company used its political power to stymie effective regulation, and its extreme aggressiveness and arrogance gave its enemies license to do things they never would have done to a normal company. And, oh, did they ever.

i would guess that you like less well the part about the Bush admin taking them over because they had the opportunity to do them in, becuase it was doable, that it was political not economic, that it was "want to" not "need to"......

No,I read that part also. I liked the article because it allocated the blame tomany different sectors. My problem is that I can't find any Democratic leaders who agree that the blame should be shared.

and,then,Hawkeye 10,as you have noted, there is no real evidence to show that a massive stimulus is needed.

So what do we have here--A problem created by both Democrats and Republicans and a solution,which may make the problem worse,provided by Democrats. The Democrats are ubiquitous, aren'tthey?

I would think more of you if you liked it because the story was plausibly complex. I want the truth, I don't want everyone to involved to be to blame but if it is the truth then so be it.

Well, I am happy that you would think more of me because the story was plausibly complex but I do not post to get encomiums from other posters, although I must say that your posts are among the most intelligent and thoughful.

Again, I liked the article because it allocated the blame to many different sectors.

That is quite rare today since the media is reflexively liberal and rarely gives a balanced story such as the story you referenced did!

Not to state the obvious, but Obama does not seem to be gendering much confidence. This guy is a total disaster, not just in regard to the economy, but in all kinds of ways.

Our best hope is two years away. No hope to impeach this disaster, don't have the numbers, but two years, people, this is crucial. At least make progress in Congress, to hopefully put a few fingers into the dike before it completely crumbles.

okie, You wouldn't recognize a disaster if it was in your own front yard. Bush was a disaster, and you thought he was a pretty good president. Obama has been in office for less than a month, and you want results. Crawl back in your fox hole, and hide from the impending disaster that Bush wrought.

I don't think its too much to ask of Obama to at least appoint people that pay their taxes, while they confiscate the property of the rest of us. Any shred of respect or hope I had in Obama to turn out better than I feared has quickly evaporated.

All I can say is, we warned you.

Your "respect" has no value; you come to fast conclusions about people you do not know without so much as any concept of honesty or ethics. All your family and friends must be saints. Not. And you must be god who judges people's good and bad.

Okie-Cicerone Imposter is senile. He never gives evidence for the verbal flatulence he lays down.

Note--You are correct about Obama not gendering much confidence.

If Obama was gendering a good deal of confidence, the stock market would not be tanking but would be going up. This same phenomenon occurred in 1932 when FDR tried to get us out of the Depressionby spending more and more money through government intrusion. Obama isFDR Deja Vu only with more SOCIALISM. Note this terrific editorial from the Chicago Tribune,Obama'shome town paper which backed Obama unreservedly for president.


Tuesday, February 17, 2009
Reverse economics -Chicago Tribune

In the effort to advance an agenda, political leaders have been known to hype the perils ahead. Like those commercials that warn, "Act now while supplies last!", the demands for action exaggerate in the hope of spurring a rapid response. That's how it sounded when President Barack Obama spoke in Elkhart, Ind., last week.

Exhorting Congress to pass his fiscal stimulus package, he invoked the specter of the Great Depression, warning that "if we don't act immediately, millions more jobs will be lost, and national unemployment rates will approach double digits" and that the nation could "sink into a crisis that, at some point, we may be unable to reverse."

Unable to reverse? Not likely. The Congressional Budget Office recently forecast that even without an economic stimulus, the economy will grow in inflation-adjusted terms by about 1.5 percent in 2010"hardly robust, but certainly not a decline.

end of quote

Okie- the most important part of that editorial is the third paragraph which shows that Obama is either ignorant or islying. The CBO,which has all of the data, says that the term UNABLE TO REVERSE is erroneous.

But,Obama,who badmouths the economy every day is certainly responsible for the decline in the stock market. If the market believed that the stimulus plan would work, it would go up and not down.

Okie says, "I don't think its too much to ask of Obama to at least appoint people that pay their taxes...."

Good, that eleminates republicans!

genoves, the fear that I have is that Obama is talking down the economy, until at some point, they see the timing right to talk it up, about the same time the economy would be turning around anyway, and all the dummies out there, the Obama worshipers, will attribute the turnaround to Obama, and we will ultimately end up with Obama forever. The fact is however that these policies are bad for the longterm, I'm talking years down the road, decades even.

If the government would stay out of this, the economy would come back, there is no doubt in my mind, not even Obama can completely destroy it in a few years, unless he nationalizes everything. But the damage is already evident. We have a total dud of a president, no question about that, button down the hatches.

okie, It's not about "talking up or talking down the economy." You have no idea why our economy is in crisis; a) people spent more than they earned, b) assets continued to increase based on speculation, c) people borrowed against their home equity to buy more, d) most people's pay did not keep up with inflation since 2001, and e) the banks and finance companies through their greed traded mortgage instruments as if their ballooning value was real.

No matter what Obama does to "stimulate" this economy is not near enough to recover from the consumer's 1) failure to save, 2) spent more than they earned, and 3) and most lost value in their most valued asset, their home and retirement funds. All this is happening as hundreds of thousands lose their jobs and homes every week.

Get your damn head out of your arse. It's not about Obama.

Well, the alternative is blaming people who were actually responsible for their problems, and Republicans don't like to do that.

Cycloptichorn

Yeah, Bush never admitted to a mistake he didn't like. okie is made up from the same gene.

My thinking is that, should the plans for stimulus work, the GOP has taken a "party wide" stance to have themselves separate from it. SHould the stimulus fail, The GOP will be similarly scorned for having partisan politics take precedent over whats best ofr the country. I cant see the GOP winning either way, and they are so in turmoil to not even have anyone (besides the GOP from Maine and Arlan SPecter) show that they have the testones to buck their Limbaughian leadership.

It was reported today that Sarah Palin not only failed to pay tax on the per diem she ripped off from AK, but has not yet paid rip off back.

Is Alan Greenspan also a Marxist, Okie?

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/e310cbf6-fd4e-11dd-a103-000077b07658.html?nclick_check=1



No, he is not.

It's not about Marxism, it's about getting the system up and running again. We can't be held back by ideological idiocy from doing what is necessary, but that's what you would have us do.

Cycloptichorn