114
   

Where is the US economy headed?

 
 
realjohnboy
 
  1  
Reply Wed 6 Jan, 2010 05:43 pm
Tomorrow, Thursday, major retailers like Walmart and Target will announce retail sales for December vs December of 2008. The consensus is that the numbers will show about a 2% increase (I see 1.7%). Most of that will come from low-end retailers vs, say, Macy's.
Not really anything to get excited about since the 2008 number was awful.
But there are these things to consider for why this is starting to look better:
>The snowstorm in the Mid-west and East on the week-end before Christmas was a killer. My stores were closed from Saturday through Monday. We made up for some of that Tuesday through Thursday. Some more has been made up in the early days of January.
> Last year, 2008, retailers who had bought a lot of inventory earlier in the year took deep, deep discounts before Christmas to get rid of the crap. Sales, but no profit. This year, retailers bought a lot less and did not have to resort to last minute clearances to raise cash.
> Retailers cut back on hiring seasonal help, I think.

The upshot will be, in my opinion, that retailers' sales will be slightly above flat, but profits when announced in February or whenever will not be dismal.

I don't know if anyone is interested, but there it is.
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Wed 6 Jan, 2010 05:52 pm
@realjohnboy,
Some people are able to loosen their purse strings a little for the christmas season to make their lives seem a little less scary and dead-ended. However, on top of this bit of a better christmas shopping season, we are still straddled with more people losing jobs, many on involuntary furlough, cut hours, and benefits. The only good news is the simple fact that more Americans who do have jobs are putting away some moolah for that rainy day.

Home and commercial property bankruptcies are still on the rise, and home building has essentially come to a halt. Factory output has been increasing, but without jobs, Americans are gonna be careful how they spend their next dollar.

It's going to be a very long-term recovery period.

Even under these constraints, many stock market pundits are saying we will see a 10% rise for this year.

I like my current 50/50 mix in my retirement investments.
hawkeye10
 
  1  
Reply Wed 6 Jan, 2010 09:30 pm
@cicerone imposter,
I am thinking a second dip....there is nothing propelling this economy other than public sector debt, which is not sustainable. American family savings has gone from a negative saving rate to positive 5%, Americans do not believe in this economy and are saving for a rainy day, which will almost certainly come.
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Wed 6 Jan, 2010 10:24 pm
@hawkeye10,
hawk, The banks aren't allowing more debt/credit; and the increase in people losing their homes continues as long as people continue to lose their jobs.

It's now affecting those home-buyers who had good credit and a good job until this great recession forced them to renege on their mortgage.

This will continue for another year and possibly longer if our economy doesn't stop bleeding jobs.

The christmas season was better this year than last, because retailers didn't stock up their inventories like previous years, and even with longer sales periods came out with more profit this year.

Although most companies are telling us they will again begin hiring this year, I'll believe it when I see it.

That will be the first sign that this great recession is really coming to an end.
0 Replies
 
okie
 
  1  
Reply Wed 6 Jan, 2010 10:26 pm
@hawkeye10,
The deficit chart is not pretty, hawkeye, and clearly shows this is Obama's deficits now. This is now his economy, so he can't keep blaming the dismal outlook upon Bush. And I would personally be surprised if the annual deficit goes under a trillion in a couple of years as the chart seems to hope. You are right, the debt is not sustainable. This is not only an economic crisis, but a national security crisis as well. We need responsible adults in Washington, or the country will go down the tubes.

http://blog.heritage.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/03/wapoobamabudget1.jpg
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Wed 6 Jan, 2010 11:13 pm
@okie,
Never mind that Bush got us into this great recession, and it was up to Obama to do something that would put a stop to the hundreds of thousands of job loss, home loss, and equity loss. There was no other option, but according to okie, Obama should not have done anything to save the banks and finance companies. That would have ...
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.


destroyed our economy.

Doe okie know of any developed country that doesn't have a banking system?
realjohnboy
 
  1  
Reply Thu 7 Jan, 2010 05:11 pm
Unemployment numbers for December will be out Friday @ 8:30 am ET...
U-3 (the most widely reported stat) will drop from 10.0% to 9.8%.
U-6 (unemployment plus underemployment) will decline to 16.9% from 17.2%.
I think.
I am probably overly optimistic on U-6. Or both.
Watch the change in the length of the average work week.
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Thu 7 Jan, 2010 06:00 pm
@cicerone imposter,
Cice posted, "Bush got us into this great recession."

"Bush got us into this great recession." after the Democrat majorities in the House and Senate refused to correct Fannie and Freddie as Bush requested.

AND Obama is emulating and amplifying the way Bush and the the Democrat majorities in the House and Senate got us into this depression. Obama, could get us out of this great depression by convincing the Democrat majorities in the House and Senate to instead emulate Reagan.
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Thu 7 Jan, 2010 06:50 pm
@ican711nm,
The first six years of Bush's presidency were GOP majority. You still have your head up your arse.
hamburgboy
 
  1  
Reply Thu 7 Jan, 2010 07:11 pm
@cicerone imposter,
" curiosity killed the cat "
--------------------------------
so i went back to the first post under this topic ... ...

Quote:
Harbingers of Harder Times


Published: March 12, 2005

At $58.3 billion, the United States' trade deficit for January exceeded everyone's worst expectations. The huge mismatch reported yesterday between imports and exports just missed breaking the monthly record, set last November, and is all the more remarkable for occurring in a month when the price of oil actually declined.

The trade deficit is the single most important factor in measuring the extent to which the nation lives beyond its means. As such, it should force us to own up to the dangers of rampant deficit spending. But the White House is showing no sign of action, as if doing nothing might make the problem smaller.

In response to yesterday's trade deficit figure, the dollar weakened against the euro and the yen, and traders predicted further declines in the weeks and months ahead. That, in turn, contributed to a drop in stock and bond prices. Such gyrations are certainly not unprecedented. The dollar has been on a downward trajectory for three straight years and was going into a fresh skid even before the latest trade deficit figure was released.

That slump was largely in response to recent reports, some later denied, that Asian central bankers may begin moving their huge dollar holdings into other currencies. That would mean higher interest rates in the United States because the government would need to sweeten Treasury yields, and higher interest rates imply further declines in stock and bond prices. A declining dollar also risks higher inflation; more expensive imports give domestic producers an excuse to raise prices.



that was almost five years ago . we all know what happened in the meantime .
just thought it might be interesting to look into the rear-view mirror .
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Thu 7 Jan, 2010 07:29 pm
@hamburgboy,
The underlying problem with those trade deficits is the simple fact that American consumers borrowed money to prop up our economy with monopoly money. I remember the government reports telling us that GDP grew by 3.2%, 3.5%, 3.6%, ...

Cheap money also allowed the banks to charge usury rates on credit cards while paying savings accounts close to nothing after taxes. The banks also gambled with the consumer's money in their banks by trading in derivatives; those same derivatives propped up by giving loans to people who couldn't pay on their mortgage.

Greenspan and Bernanke didn't know what they were doing with keeping interest rates low, although their primary message was to control inflation. What a laugh!

When consumer and government deficits exceeds income, the result is inflation.

I remember a time when many financial pundits thought Greenspan was a human god able to keep our economy ticking like a Rolex.

They just didn't understand that easy money can only create problems in the future.

They're still doing their jobs ass-backwards. They should be increasing interest rates on savings, and reducing interest rates on credit cards.

They've already hidden the true inflation rate by charging consumers 25% more on their credit cards than the goods they purchase are worth.

Who's kidding who? Our government continues to increase the national debt while paying low interest, and any country that has financial difficulties pay much more in interest in order to sell their bonds. The US is not immune to this simple economic fact.

California now has one of the highest interest rates on bonds, because Sacramento can't control their spending.
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Thu 7 Jan, 2010 07:45 pm
@cicerone imposter,
:CICERONE IMPOSTER" wrote:
The first six years of Bush's presidency were GOP majority.

True, but the recession did not start with decreases in the total number of jobs until 2008, a year after the Democrats were in the majority of both houses of Congress. The point is that both the Republican majorities and the Democrat majorities of Congress failed to correct Fannie and Freddie, and indeed the Democrat majorities are still failing to correct Fannie and Freddie, while total jobs continue to decrease.
0 Replies
 
hawkeye10
 
  1  
Reply Thu 7 Jan, 2010 09:14 pm
Quote:
By arranging for Bear’s shareholders to get a tip " it turned out to be $10 a share in JPMorganChase stock at the time (worth around $9 a share these days, based on JPMorgan’s recent stock price) " and for Bear’s creditors to get 100 cents on the dollar for what was a bankrupt company (where creditors would likely fight for years over the carcass), these three men single-handedly sent to the market a powerful message it would all too quickly misinterpret, much to our collective peril: For the first time in the history of American capitalism, the federal government would not let a big Wall Street securities firm fail.


As painful as it may have been at that time, the Committee to Save the World, Version 2.0, could have just as easily sent a very different message, one sent to the shareholders and creditors of poorly managed companies all the time: Too bad.

You took risks you didn’t understand? Got too greedy? Took your eye off the ball? Kept in place executives and their cronies on the board of directors who should have retired or been replaced years earlier? Well, then, you are about to learn the valuable lesson of American capitalism and what it means to take stupid risks with other people’s money. You will lose your investments, your jobs and your company. Sorry about that. Stuff happens. The market understands that message loud and clear.

http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/01/07/the-three-magi-of-the-meltdown/

Exactly.
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Thu 7 Jan, 2010 09:23 pm
@hawkeye10,
They understood the risks; but greed got the better part of them.

The biggest mistake our government made was to save the banks without any strings attached, and didn't correct the regulations to prevent another biggie balloon to burst.

Greed and incompetence is not a good mix.
okie
 
  1  
Reply Thu 7 Jan, 2010 09:23 pm
@ican711nm,
ican711nm wrote:

"Bush got us into this great recession." after the Democrat majorities in the House and Senate refused to correct Fannie and Freddie as Bush requested.

And the Democrats have still not made the crooks at Fannie and Freddie accountable. Not only that, they are continuing the legacy of corruption there with huge pay packages as rewards for the failed operations. Heads should roll over this, and the Republicans should pound away at this until they can gain a majority in Congress, and then promptly hold hearings and sweep those organizations clean, plus make some policy changes.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB126161634214403629.html

"The top regulator for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac is expected to announce millions of dollars in pay packages for top executives at the government-run mortgage-finance titans, people familiar with the matter said.

The Federal Housing Finance Agency approved compensation plans for Fannie Chief Executive Michael Williams and Freddie CEO Charles Haldeman Jr. Those packages are expected to be in a range of $4 million to $6 million, people familiar with the matter said. The companies are expected to spell out pay details for their top executives in securities filings Thursday morning."

0 Replies
 
maporsche
 
  1  
Reply Thu 7 Jan, 2010 09:30 pm
@cicerone imposter,
They shouldn't have saved the banks at all.

I don't care what the common 'wisdom' of the day is/was. History will show that decision to be a mistake.

First a Bush mistake and compounded, unfortunately, by Obama.
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Thu 7 Jan, 2010 09:44 pm
@maporsche,
And how do you expect commerce to continue without banks?
maporsche
 
  1  
Reply Thu 7 Jan, 2010 09:56 pm
@cicerone imposter,
Your contention being that EVERY bank would have failed?

All of them? Every one of them?
0 Replies
 
realjohnboy
 
  1  
Reply Thu 7 Jan, 2010 10:17 pm
With all due respect, Maporsche, I think that history will show that the banking system in 2008 and into early 2009 came very close to seizing up. It wasn't a matter of all or many banks failing. Rather, the real danger was the entire banking system, where billions upon billions of dollars move around the system, here in the U.S. and internationally, minute by minute, hour by hour, suddenly might freeze. Because banks didn't trust each others' solvency.
maporsche
 
  1  
Reply Fri 8 Jan, 2010 12:43 am
@realjohnboy,
And what would have happened if the banking system froze for a few days?
 

Related Topics

The States Need Help - Discussion by Robert Gentel
Fiscal Cliff - Question by JPB
Let GM go Bankrupt - Discussion by Woiyo9
Sovereign debt - Question by JohnJD
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.11 seconds on 07/03/2024 at 03:33:30