Where is the US economy headed?

Fat Fingers Sink Stocks?

0 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Quote:

Okay, lets cut to the chase, I propose we eliminate CRA and we also eliminate Fannie and Freddie, and let all those poor folks go get a loan from any bank, after all they can afford them and much less likely to default on the loans. How about it, cyclops, lets straighten this mess out once and for all.

Fine with me! Phase out the home-ownership tax breaks as well and you would outline my preferred strategy.

What exactly did you expect me to say?

Cycloptichorn

I expected you to defend Fannie and Freddie and CRA, so a bit of a surprise. I would also like to see the income tax phased out, and the sooner the better, how about you?

0 Replies

@okie,

I just read a post from you to me on another thread where you complained about my rhetoric and yet you are insulting here, as you frequently are. You were rather disingenuous.

0 Replies

Unemployment spikes to 9.9 percent.

1 Reply

@H2O MAN,

spikes?

hmm.. you mean 9.9 is the highest its been?

2 Replies

@parados,

I mean a comparatively large upward movement in a short period of time.

1 Reply

@parados,

parados wrote:

spikes?

I mean Obamanomics isn't working as promised.

1 Reply

The news this morning was full of denials of computer glitches but my son told me that hackers recently shut down Luxembourg for a week just to show what they can do.

0 Replies

http://wonkroom.thinkprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/05/jobs.jpg

+290k jobs in April.

We need to be making more than this to catch up... but it's definitely movement in the right direction!

Cycloptichorn

2 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

In describing a basically cyclic phenomenon one can demonstrate just about anything he chosses by carefully selecting the window of time he uses to make his point. You have provided us an excellent example of this deceptive practice - though it likely isn't your own work, rather something you pasted from a partisan screed.

We enjoyed a very strong recovery from the market collapse the began in the last year of the second Clinton Administration, with unprecedented low employment through 2007. By comparison the current recovery is slow, weak and uncertain. What conclusion should we draw from that ?

2 Replies

@georgeob1,

georgeob1 wrote:

In describing a basically cyclic phenomenon one can demonstrate just about anything he chosses by carefully selecting the window of time he uses to make his point. You have provided us an excellent example of this deceptive practice - though it likely isn't your own work, rather something you pasted from a partisan screed.

It is a graph specifically designed to show the current recessionary period. For that purpose it is doing an excellent job. You are calling it 'deceptive' because you are misinterpreting the purpose of the graph.

Quote:

We enjoyed a very strong recovery from the market collapse the began in the last year of the second Clinton Administration, with unprecedented low employment through 2007. By comparison the current recovery is slow, weak and uncertain. What conclusion should we draw from that ?

3 points -

1, that this recession is an order of magnitude larger than the one following the Clinton administration.

2, that we are not recovering fast enough yet. If you read my post that you respond to, you will note that I specifically pointed this out.

3, that there was a gigantic wealth bubble fueled by the very factors which lead to the current bad recession which helped employment over the last 8 years to a large degree. Under Bush the VAST majority of job gains were in the construction industry, and they vanished when the bubble popped. It had very little to do with his economic policies.

The fact that we are adding more jobs into our economy - and what more, adding more than the natural rate of growth for the first time in almost 2 years - is a good thing. I don't give a **** if you want make partisan carping points about it.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

@georgeob1,

Quote:

We enjoyed a very strong recovery from the market collapse the began in the last year of the second Clinton Administration, with unprecedented low employment through 2007.

I also wanted to point out that this, in terms of jobs, is not strictly true.

http://www.economist.com/sites/default/files/images/blogs/2010w18/Ryan%27sGraph.jpg

You will note that the total number of employed Americans remained essentially flat after the 2001 recession for several years. It wasn't until 3 years later that we saw material improvement in the job market.

Cycloptichorn

2 Replies

BTW, Table A-15 from the BLS covers the unemployment side of the data released this morning, including not only U-3 but also U-6 which many of us consider more relevant. If someone could move that over here, please. Thanks.

1 Reply

@H2O MAN,

H2O MAN wrote:

I mean a comparatively large upward movement in a short period of time.

What? Do you even bother to think before you post?

Code:

Year	Jan	Feb	Mar	Apr	May	Jun	Jul	Aug	Sep	Oct	Nov	Dec

2010	9.70	9.70	9.70	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 

2009	7.70	8.20	8.60	8.90	9.40	9.50	9.40	9.70	9.80	10.10	10.00	10.00

It has been within .5 of 9.9 for the last 12 months and higher at some points during that time.

"spike" is hardly the correct term when it is down off it's highs and the rise was insignificant.

Now, before you jump all over this again, you should consider when "Clinton's recession" occurred compared to the numbers you are blaming Obama for.

0 Replies

Pay attention to reality! As of the end of March,
OBAMA'S TOTAL CIVIL EMPLOYMENT RECOVERY IS VERY SMALL COMPARED TO WHAT THE UNEMPLOYED REQUIRE..

Quote:

ftp://ftp.bls.gov/pub/suppl/empsit.cpseea1.txt
Year………………………..USA Total Civil Employed
...
2001………………..............136,933,000 [BUSH43 2001 TO 2009]
…
2007...........................146,047,000
…
2008:
August........................ 145,273,000
September……………... 145,029,000
October....................... 144,650,007
November................... 144,144,000
December.................... 143,338,000

2009: [OBAMA 2009 TO ?]

January.................... 142,221
February................... 141,687
March......................140,854
April...................... 140,902
May........................ 140,438
June....................... 140,038
July....................... 139,817
August..................... 139,433
September................ 138,768
October.................... 138,242
November................... 138,381
December................... 137,792

2010:
January (3)................ 138,333
February................... 138,641
March...................... 138,905

0 Replies

@realjohnboy,

U6 is 17.1%, rjb, not far from the alltime high.

http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2010/05/07/broader-u-6-unemployment-rate-increases-to-171-in-april/

"The U.S. jobless rate rose to 9.9% in April, the first increase in three months, but the government’s broader measure of unemployment ticked up for the third month in a row, rising 0.2 percentage point to 17.1%.

The comprehensive gauge of labor underutilization, known as the “U-6″ for its data classification by the Labor Department, accounts for people who have stopped looking for work or who can’t find full-time jobs. Though the rate is still 0.3 percentage point below its high of 17.4% in October, its continuing divergence from the official number (the “U-3″ unemployment measure) indicates the job market has a long way to go before growth in the economy translates into relief for workers."

1 Reply

@Cycloptichorn,

Cycloptichorn wrote:

You will note that the total number of employed Americans remained essentially flat after the 2001 recession for several years. It wasn't until 3 years later that we saw material improvement in the job market.
Cycloptichorn

That's certainly ture. We will be very fortunate if employment after the latest recession recovers in even four years.

0 Replies

Here is more evidence that the Odem (i.e., Obamademocrats) are lying thieving gangsters working to reduce our Liberty, our Constitutional Government, and our Capitalist Economy. We shall lawfully remove the Odem from our federal government.

Quote:

http://www.ncpa.org/sub/dpd/index.php?Article_ID=19314&utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=DPD
FANNIE AND FREDDIE FAILURE FOREVER
Earlier in the week Sen. Chris Dodd (D-Conn.) told reporters about his financial regulation bill, "We've ended the 'too big to fail' debate. So no longer do I expect any argument to be made that this bill exposes the American taxpayer."

Sen. Dodd's statements are inaccurate, says the Heritage Foundation:
• Freddie Mac announced this week that it lost another $6.7 billion in the first quarter of 2010 and therefore needed another $10.6 billion in cash from U.S. taxpayers.
• Since formally nationalizing Freddie in 2008, the federal government has already spent $50.7 billion bringing the Freddie bailout total to $61.3 billion so far.
• Combined with Fannie Mae's raid on the Treasury, the Congressional Budget Office estimates that the American people will spend $389 billion bailing out the two government sponsored entities by 2019.

So much for American taxpayers no longer being exposed to "too big to fail," says Heritage. In fact, nothing in the Dodd bill does anything to reform Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. This despite the fact that Fannie and Freddie were key components in causing the very financial crises Dodd claims his bill will forever prevent.

Fannie and Freddie were both created for the specific purpose of making it easier for Americans to buy more expensive housing, says Heritage:
• Starting in 1993, political forces pushed Fannie and Freddie to loosen their once strict loan purchasing requirements.
• By 1996, regulations required that 40 percent of all Fannie and Freddie-bought loans must come from individuals with below median incomes.
• In 1995, Fannie and Freddie began buying subprime securities originally bought and bundled by private firms; one of these firms was Countrywide Financial who, thanks to their status as Fannie Mae's biggest customer, delivered investors a 23,000 percent return between 1985 and 2003.
• By 2004, Fannie and Freddie were purchasing $175 billion worth of subprime securities per year from Countrywide and their brethren -- a 44 percent share of the entire market.

There are other factors that helped contribute to the 2008 financial crisis, but Fannie and Freddie's use of their "too big to fail" status to create and grow the subprime security market was essential, says Heritage.

The problems with the Dodd bill go beyond its failure to let Fannie and Freddie wither into extinction, says Heritage.

Source: Conn Carroll, "Fannie and Freddie Failure Forever," Heritage Foundation, May 6, 2010.

0 Replies

@okie,

The U-6 number of 17.1% is correct as you reported, Okie.
I would still like to see the BLS Table A-15 thing posted. Perhaps I can figure out how to do that tomorrow.
The stats today have something for everyone to point to as great (or good) news or terrible (or not bad news). The spinning will continue through the weekend.
On the one hand, the unemployment rate commonly reported in the press (U-3) rose from 9.7% to 9.9% and U-6 rose to 17.1% from 16.9%.
Meanwhile, 290,000 net new jobs were created (231,000 in the private sector which excludes the temporary census takers). That is the largest number in several years. Numbers for March and February were also revised upward which punctuates that things might be getting better.
But, yes, I agree that it will probably be a couple or three or four years before U-3 gets down to what is regarded as full employment (what would you consider that to be, btw in the "new" economy).

2 Replies

@realjohnboy,

I sort of remember that, when I was a student in college, "full employment" was achieved when U-3 hit about 5%. Later, and for many years on, 6% was the baseline (Milton Friedman used that, as I recall).
I would say now that "structural unemployment" is closer to 7%. Arguably, it could be higher. But that is the number I would toss out.

0 Replies

Where is the US economy headed?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know