Where is the US economy headed?

@okie,

Three points: 1) I didn't believe the clunker program was good, 2) housing sales may be down, but that's to be expected after the $8k rebate program, and 3) you seem to respond to the moment rather than the long term. Your instant reactions are usually wrong; learn from it.

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

cicerone imposter wrote:

Three points: 1) I didn't believe the clunker program was good, 2) housing sales may be down, but that's to be expected after the $8k rebate program, and 3) you seem to respond to the moment rather than the long term. Your instant reactions are usually wrong; learn from it.

I don't think the $8k rebate program has ended yet, has it? Doesn't it last through November?

1 Reply

@maporsche,

I'm not sure, but you may be right. Even then, the government may decide to extend that into the following month. Who knows?

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

It runs out at the end of November, but it is essentially over because you have to close on the house by then. Impractical to expect to be able to buy a house today and close by then. The plan now being floated is to extend it through 2010 with the amount gradually decreasing to $2K. Quite a bit of Repub support.

1 Reply

@realjohnboy,

rjb, Thanks for the update.

0 Replies

The US economy is headed into more job loss and more GDP reduction.

ftp://ftp.bls.gov/pub/suppl/empsit.cpseea1.txt
Total USA employment, 1980 through 2008--with 5 exceptions--increased--more than 1 million jobs in each of the Reagan, Bush I, Clinton, and Bush II administration years, but decreased more than 6 million jobs in the first 9 months of the Obama administration.

The exceptions are:

Year.....Thousands of Jobs Increase..............Thousands of Jobs Decrease
1982.........................................................................871
1991.......................................................................1,301
2001...........................42
2002.........................................................................448
2008.........................................................................685

http://www.bea.gov/national/nipaweb/TablePrint.asp?FirstYear=1965&LastYear=2008&Freq=Year&SelectedTable=5&ViewSeries=NO&Java=no&MaxValue=14412.8&MaxChars=8&Request3Place=N&3Place=N&FromView=YES&Legal=&Land=
Total USA GDP, 1980 through 2008 increased--with no exceptions--more than a 100 billion dollars in each year of the Reagan, Bush I, Clinton, and Bush II administrations, but decreased more than 100 billion dollars in the first 9 months of the Obama administration.

1 Reply

@ican711nm,

Overall Bush II's job creation was the worst since Hoover. Who are you trying to mislead?

President Jobs created Jobs at end of term Jobs at start of term Payroll expansion Jobs created per year in office Population growth Percent change in population
George W. Bush 3.0 million 135.5 million 132.5 million 2.3% 375,000 22.0 million 7.7%
Bill Clinton 23.1 million 132.5 million 109.4 million 21.1% 2,900,000 25.2 million 8.9%
George H.W. Bush 2.5 million 109.4 million 106.9 million 2.3% 625,000 12.5

Track record on job creation on the last eleven presidents.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=103x416274

1 Reply

@Cycloptichorn,

Cycloptichorn, your inability to comprehend rational argument and your inability to respond with rational argument, is insufficient evidence to support your claims.

The powers delegated to the federal government by the Constitution of the USA do not explicitly or implicitly include the power to protect consumers and investors from financial crises.

Federal government interventions in the USA's economy are the primary causes of the present financial crises. Had the feds not imposed and subsized private loans to those who were not able to make required payments on those loans, this current financial crises would not have occurred. The Democrat majority Congress could have heeded--but did not heed--Bush 43's multiple pleas to rectify this situation, when it became obvious in 2008 the situation needed rectification. It legislated and Bush II signed TARP, which was the opposite of what should have been done: stop imposing and subsidizing those loans by private lenders, and allow the private lenders to foreclose on those loans.

You, Cycloptichorn, claimed the following without providing any supporting logical argument or rational evidence:

Cycloptichorn wrote:

(1) 100% wrong.

(2) Once again, 100% wrong. You have no clue what you are talking about and have repeatedly displayed the fact that you don't understand the financial crisis or what lead up to it at all.

(3) That wouldn't have fixed anything, changing things in 2008. Once again, you show zero understanding of the financial crisis at all.

(4) This is laughably, laughably stupid. Just plain dumb. The financial crisis had nothing to do with lenders loans being subsidized OR with foreclosing on loans.

(5) I think you must be having a go at us, Ican, trying to be ironic or something. I mean, you couldn't be more incorrect on these issues if you tried.

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

Quote:

http://able2know.org/reply/post-3797365
(thousands of jobs)
2000........................... 136,891
2001..................... 136,933
2002...................... 136,485
2003 .................... 137,736
2004 .................... 139,252
2005 .................... 141,730
2006 .................... 144,427
2007 .................... 146,047
2008 ...................... 145,362

2008:
September.................. 145,029
October.................... 144,657
November................... 144,144
December................... 143,338

2009:
January ................ 142,099
February................... 141,748
March...................... 140,887
April...................... 141,007
May........................ 140,570
June....................... 140,196
July....................... 140,041
August..................... 139,649
September.................. 138,864

During Obama's Administration: A decrease of (145,362,000 - 138,864,000 = 6,498,000)

1 Reply

@ican711nm,

Quote:

Federal government interventions in the USA's economy are the primary causes of the present financial crises.

No, they were not. Not even a little. The primary cause of the crisis was the unregulated credit-default swap market, which greedy investment companies and banks used to make huge profits by leveraging their debt massively. It had nothing to do with mortgages at all, other than the fact that they were the commodity being sold in some of these CDOs and default-swaps.

All commodities go up and down in price. As soon as the market started to go down - which it eventually would have, regardless of what types of loans were being given out - the CDS market would have imploded exactly as it did in the Fall of 2008. And entire companies would have been wiped out, just like last Fall, if not for the US government supporting them.

Quote:

Had the feds not imposed and subsized private loans to those who were not able to make required payments on those loans, this current financial crises would not have occurred.

Yes, it would have. The vast majority of houses which have gone into foreclosure were not CRA-regulated houses. Once again, you have no clue what you are talking about.

Quote:

he Democrat majority Congress could have heeded--but did not heed--Bush 43's multiple pleas to rectify this situation, when it became obvious in 2008 the situation needed rectification.

More idiocy from you. It was far, far too late by 2008 to solve this problem. You don't even seem to have the most basic understanding of the timelines or amounts of money involved here, or even who the major players were in this crisis.

The whole thing was a house of cards. AIG was going to collapse on it's own, even if the mortgage market didn't go down much at all. That would have triggered the exact same panic. This is what happens when companies regularly leverage themselves 30 to 50 times more money than they actually have, in the name of profits.

Quote:

It legislated and Bush II signed TARP, which was the opposite of what should have been done: stop imposing and subsidizing those loans by private lenders, and allow the private lenders to foreclose on those loans.

TARP had nothing to do with loans. It had everything to do with massive amounts of toxic debt which were held by every major investing house and bank in America, with the possible exception of Wells Fargo.

You don't know what you are talking about at all, I mean, as I said above: you couldn't be more wrong if you tried. I have been discussing this issue within this thread, with plenty of logic and supporting argumentation, for over a year now. I suggest you re-read this and other economics threads here on A2K before attempting to take this subject up again, for you are deeply ignorant as to the causes and reasons behind the financial crisis.

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@ican711nm,

CORRECTION

Quote:

http://able2know.org/reply/post-3797365
(thousands of jobs)
2000........................... 136,891
2001..................... 136,933
2002...................... 136,485
2003 .................... 137,736
2004 .................... 139,252
2005 .................... 141,730
2006 .................... 144,427
2007 .................... 146,047
2008 ...................... 145,362

2008:
September.................. 145,029
October.................... 144,657
November................... 144,144
December................... 143,338

2009:
January ................ 142,099
February................... 141,748
March...................... 140,887
April...................... 141,007
May........................ 140,570
June....................... 140,196
July....................... 140,041
August..................... 139,649
September.................. 138,864

During Obama's Administration: A decrease FROM JANUARY 2009 TO SEPTEMBER 2009 of (142,099,000 - 138,864,000) = 3,235,000

1 Reply

@ican711nm,

You're such an ignoramus, it's impossible to make you see the simple fact that it was Bush's recession that resulted in job losses into 2009. What you also don't see is that most economists have said that without Obama's actions, this recession would have gone deeper with many more job losses.

You also don't keep up with the current financial news that says that the recession has now hit bottom; it'll be a jobless recovery, but the biggest damage is now past. It's going to be many years before jobs creation will be the norm.

The past GDP growth depended on bigger deficits for government and consumers; many borrowed against the equity in their homes and savings rates were in the negative. That fueling of our GDP is now gone for good, because home equities have lost more than the mortgages holding them, and many lost huge amounts in their 401ks. Liquidity is gone. Credit is more difficult today than the past.

So any "growth" enjoyed during the Bush final years were built on match sticks. Wages remained stagnant throughout the eight years of Bush while he cut taxes for the most wealthiest while increasing our deficit to new highs.

You're an idiot who fails to see the facts behind the numbers you so brazenly post.

1 Reply

@Cycloptichorn,

Federal government interventions in the USA's economy are the primary causes of the present financial crises:
(1) CRA
(2) Fannie May
(3) Freddie Mac
(4) TARP
(5) STIMULUS.

These interventions stimulated and continue to stimulate, "the unregulated credit-default swap market, which greedy investment companies and banks used and continue to use to make huge profits by leveraging their debt massively."

Had the feds not imposed and subsized private loans to those who were not able to make required payments on those loans, this current financial crises would not have occurred.

The Democrat majority Congress could have heeded--but did not heed--Bush 43's multiple pleas in 2007 and 2008 to rectify this situation, when it became obvious in 2007 the situation needed rectification.

It legislated and Bush II signed TARP, which was the opposite of what should have been done: stop imposing and subsidizing those loans by private lenders, and allow the private lenders to foreclose on those loans.

TARP enabled and continues to enable the banks to continue those loans. TARP subsidized and continues to subsidize massive amounts of toxic debt which were/are held by major investing house and banks in America.

The Obama administration, while validly criticizing the Bush Administration for how its actions and inactions contributed to the current economic crises, not only replicates those same actions it criticizes, it amplifies those same actions.

Your opinions not withstanding, federal government intervention in our economy, including the creation of CRA, is the primary cause and promotion of America's present economic problems.

0 Replies

Quote:

Subject: HR 615

On Tuesday, the Senate health committee voted 12-11 in favor of a two-page amendment, courtesy of Republican Tom Coburn which would require all Members of Congress and their staff members to enroll in any new government-run health plan.

Congressman John Fleming has proposed an amendment that would require Congressmen and Senators to take the same health care plan that they would force on us. (Under proposed legislation they are exempt.)
Senator Coburn and Congressman Fleming are both physicians.

Congressman Fleming is encouraging people to go to his Website and sign his petition. The process is very simple at:

http://fleming.house.gov/index.html .

0 Replies

@cicerone imposter,

From Reuters:

Quote:

Economy returns to growth after deep slump
By Lucia Mutikani Lucia Mutikani 2 hrs 44 mins ago

WASHINGTON (Reuters) " The U.S. economy grew in the third quarter for the first time in more than a year as government stimulus helped lift consumer spending and home building, fueling an unexpectedly strong advance.

Signaling the end of the worst recesession in 70 years (this recession was started during Bush's watch; something you seem ignorant of), the Commerce Department on Thursday said the economy expanded at an annual rate of 3.5 percent in the July-September period, snapping four down quarters with its fastest growth pace since the third quarter of 2007 and exceeding forecasts for a 3.3 percent rate.

The report helped lift global stock markets which were also boosted by improving third-quarter corporate earnings, including higher-than-expected profits from household goods makers Procter & Gamble Co and Colgate-Palmolive Co.

On Wall Street, the broad S&P 500 index of U.S. stocks had gained more than 1 percent in morning trade after four days of falls caused by investor concerns over the outlook for economic growth.

Prices for U.S. government debt and the U.S. dollar fell as traders exited safe havens.

"The economy has emerged with gusto from the deepest recession since World War Two," said Harm Bandholz, economist at UniCredit Markets and Investment Banking in New York. "The short-term prospects for the economy remain good."

Growth was generally broad-based with solid gains in consumer spending, exports and home construction.

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

cicerone imposter wrote:

"The economy has emerged with gusto from the deepest recession since World War Two," said Harm Bandholz, economist at UniCredit Markets and Investment Banking in New York. "The short-term prospects for the economy remain good."

Quoting your article. Is this guy ******* nuts?

1 Reply

@maporsche,

maporsche wrote:

Is this guy ******* nuts?

I would say that he is. At least 1/2 of the 3.5% is due (according to my reading) to "cash for clunkers" or "$8k 1st time home-buyers" or TARP. A bunch more is due to the dollar being so weak (improving our exports).
I think things are improving a bit, but we have a long, long way to go.

1 Reply

@realjohnboy,

I believe it's more than 1/2 of the 3.5% increase. I also think without the clunker and $8k home buying programs, the real GDP would have barely been in the positive numbers.

Our economy can't grow when thousands continue to lose their jobs (and homes). Those are the facts that belies all the positive spin these guys are putting on our economy. Commercial property defaults continues to increase; those are multi-million dollar programs that out-distance home mortgages.

When shopping centers are losing tenants and renters, those property developers will default on their loans. The worst is yet to come as consumer spending continues to drop. Those still with jobs cannot make up for all those losing jobs to increase consumer spending; that just isn't going to happen.

Those "purchases" subsidized by the government only pushed buying to the currrent quarter, and future quarters will suffer for it.

I just wonder how the government is going to manipulate GDP numbers in the current and future quarters.

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

I think all this means is that we've just begun another recession. Welcome to month 1.

1 Reply

@maporsche,

Everything moves much slower now; the "next" recession will begin in the next economic cycle. We're still in the one that started in December 2007 (or some say the summer of 2008).

0 Replies

Where is the US economy headed?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know