114
   

Where is the US economy headed?

 
 
okie
 
  1  
Reply Wed 25 Aug, 2010 10:22 am
I just got an email from my rep at Edward Jones, and main points made from their corporate analysts in regard to the economy and investing is that August 19 releases indicate:
Rising initial jobless claims, slowdown of manufacturing specifically naming the Mid-Atlantic region for this slowdown, along with a very small increase in the index of leading indicators of only 0.1%.
They expect economic growth to be positive but also very weak.

The last part of their analysis basically points out that the market dislikes uncertainties and higher than normal worry. Also, they go to what would be expected from any investor advisor, keep investing but do it wisely for the long term, do not jump in and out too much, or over react. Their suggestion is dividend paying stocks that are priced right.

I don't think this offers much in the way of solid predictions, except that the economy is not improving and they will pretty much keep saying the same thing as always, keep investing and do not over-react, just as they were doing before the last big market crash. It seems to me it ultimately has to be left up to us as individuals to do as well as the brokers.

My bets are that if it increasingly looks like a huge Republican sweep in November, the market will really begin to move positively as that happens. Future hopes and confidence always remains crucial to the economy and the market, and Obama and his Democratic policies have brought mainly uncertainty and negative impacts upon present and future business concerns and plans. The negative possibility as I see it is that if it begins to move too soon, it may fool some people into thinking Obama's policies are actually working and thus will vote Democratic again in November, but if the polls begin to reverse again before the election, the market could also reverse, so this may all become an issue of timing as the market, the polls, and the election all converge.
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Wed 25 Aug, 2010 10:59 am
@okie,
okie, You just love to make up **** as you post on a2k. You don't even know what the republicans are planning as far as promising anything about growing our economy. They know better.
okie
 
  1  
Reply Wed 25 Aug, 2010 11:04 am
@cicerone imposter,
Not making things up. I am stating reality from talking to other people in business. Businesses respond better to certainty and stability, and also to more business friendly parties in control in Washington, and there is little doubt that Republicans and conservatives are more business friendly. I don't need to know every exact plan that they have, just knowing their general philosophy is enough for me to be more optimistic with an expected Republican victory this fall. You can watch and see what happens and see if my predictions pan out or not.
cicerone imposter
 
  0  
Reply Wed 25 Aug, 2010 11:08 am
@okie,
FYI, "business" is not the republican party platform.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  0  
Reply Wed 25 Aug, 2010 11:27 am
Quote:
NOT ONE OF THE CHOICES.... When it comes to a debate over last year's economic stimulus, there are a few options available to those offering critiques. One could argue, for example, that the stimulus was a strong package that prevented an economic collapse and worked as intended, but should have been bigger and more ambitious to create a more robust recovery.

Or one might argue that the Recovery Act was just fine the way it was shaped; a bigger one never would have passed Congress; and that the economy will slowly but surely keep growing.

As for the right, which didn't want any stimulus and pushed a five-year spending freeze at the height of the crisis, the choices are more nuanced. A conservative could argue, for example, that the stimulus was pointless and the economy would be in the identical shape it's in now had the Recovery Act never passed. A Republican might also argue that a different kind of stimulus -- i.e. using that money exclusively for tax cuts -- would have been more effective. These arguments are demonstrably false, but presumably one could make them with a straight face.

Arguing that the stimulus actually hurt the economy, however, isn't one of the choices -- because it's just too crazy. And yet, House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio) seemed to make this exact argument yesterday in his big economic speech in Cleveland.

"Right now, America's employers are afraid to invest in an economy stalled by 'stimulus' spending....

"By trying to build a recovery on government 'stimulus' spending -- and failing -- Washington has kept the private sector in bust while manufacturing a boom for the public sector."

I can appreciate how and why the Recovery Act has faced criticism -- I'm in the "way too small" camp, myself -- but Boehner's critique really doesn't make a lick of sense.

The stimulus "stalled" the economy? In what universe is that true? The economy is, to be sure, on shaky ground, but literally just hours after Boehner's remarks, the Congressional Budget Office said the stimulus boosted overall economic growth in the second quarter by as much as 4.5%. Boehner's on firm ground complaining about a "stalled" economy, but blaming that on the stimulus is insane.

Likewise, his remarks about the stimulus having "kept the private sector in bust" is just gibberish. Private-sector job growth was in freefall before the stimulus, but started recovering soon after the Recovery Act became law. So far in 2010, 630,000 private-sector jobs have been created -- which obviously isn't enough, but is nevertheless a reality at odds with Boehner's nonsense.

A few months ago, ABC News ran a piece on some economic experts weighing in on the merit of the stimulus -- some were fans, some weren't. But how many economists did ABC find who said the Recovery Act actually hurt the economy? None. It's just not a credible position.

Someone probably ought to let Boehner know. His credibility seems to be getting worse all the time


http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2010_08/025369.php

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  -1  
Reply Wed 25 Aug, 2010 03:06 pm
Quote:

ftp://ftp.bls.gov/pub/suppl/empsit.cpseea1.txt
Year……TOTAL US CIVIL EMPLOYMENT
1980……………..99 million [CARTER]
1988…………… 115 million [REAGAN]
1992…………….118 million [BUSH41]
2000……………137 million [CLINTON]
2007………..….146 million [BUSH43]
2008………….. 145 million [BUSH43]
2009,……….....140 million [OBAMA]
2010.……………139 million [OBAMA] (as of June and not final year of term)

Year.…….PERCENT OF CIVILIAN POPULATION EMPLOYED
1980…………………………………….59.2 [CARTER]
1988…………………………………….62.3 [REAGAN]
1992…………………………………….61.5 [BUSH41]
2000…………………………………….64.4 [CLINTON]
2007…………………………………….63.0 [BUSH43]
2008…………………………………….62.2 [BUSH43]
2009…………………………………….59.3 [OBAMA]
2010…………………………………….58.5 [OBAMA] (as of June and not final year of term)

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2051527/posts
Partial History of U.S. Federal Income Tax Rates
Highest and lowest Income Tax Rates 1971 to 2009
...
1971-1981: minimum = 14%; maximum = 70% [CARTER 1977-1981]
1982-1986: minimum = 11%; maximum = 50% [REAGAN 1981-1989]
1987-1987: minimum = 11%; maximum = 38.5%
1988-1990: minimum = 15%; maximum = 33% [BUSH41 1989-1993]
1991-1992: minimum = 15%; maximum = 31%
1993-2000: minimum = 15%; maximum = 39.6% [CLINTON 1993-2001]
2001-2001: minimum = 15%; maximum = 39.1% [BUSH43 2001-2009]
2002-2002: minimum = 10%; maximum = 38.6%
2003-2009: minimum = 10%; maximum = 35%
2009-2010: minimum = 10%; maximum = 35%[OBAMA 2001-2010]

0 Replies
 
hawkeye10
 
  1  
Reply Wed 25 Aug, 2010 03:18 pm
Quote:
While the White House insists this is a "recovery summer," others say it looks a lot more like the Great Depression.

CNBC reports that economist David Rosenberg says like today, the Great Depression also had its high points - including big stock market gains and a series of positive GDP reports. Yet in both cases, these signs of recovery were unsustainable and gave people a false sense of stability.

According to Rosenberg, the U.S. economy is in "a depression, and not just some garden-variety recession." He compares how both during the 1930s and today people have a "euphoric response" to any glimmer of good economic news.

He says in the 1929-1933 depression, there were six quarterly bounces in GDP. So far, we've had four this time around.

Several top analysts have slashed their GDP projections for 2010... down to the 1.5 and two percent range.

The president of the Chicago federal reserve says that the risk of a double dip recession is growing, adding that the government programs meant to help homeowners aren't working.

Existing home sales plunged more than 27 percent last month - twice as much as analysts expected. And new home sales also fell by more than 12 percent to their slowest pace ever.

Economists warn that a double-dip in housing prices is also just around the corner - which could slow the recovery even more.

Add in the fact that there are no jobs, unemployment remains stuck near 10 percent, and the outlook is dark.

To top it off, Morgan Stanley says a global debt crisis is just beginning, and the bond market tussle we saw in Europe this past spring is just the beginning
http://caffertyfile.blogs.cnn.com/2010/08/25/striking-similarities-between-great-depression-today/?hpt=T2

Have I been Mr Doom and Gloom? Have I been right? Is there a difference? The one thing we do know is that my position has moved from being an extreme minority position to one that is much closer to being the majority opinion.
0 Replies
 
talk72000
 
  1  
Reply Wed 25 Aug, 2010 03:26 pm
I can understand how Republicans are using the stimulus as a political football. They want the stimulus to be reduced thus increasing the unemployment rolls and make Obama look bad. The stimulus needs to be increased to prevent more job losses.
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Wed 25 Aug, 2010 03:53 pm
@talk72000,
What many republicans do not know or understand is the simple fact that the stimulus plan included tax cuts that they benefited from.

We are beginning to see some of the stimulus monies being spent here in California; road maintenance is picking up again.

That doesn't justify our spending billions on our war in Afghanistan.
talk72000
 
  1  
Reply Wed 25 Aug, 2010 03:57 pm
@cicerone imposter,
The Mid-term elections are paramount in their minds and they are going all out at besmirching Democrats regardless of the merits.
cicerone imposter
 
  2  
Reply Wed 25 Aug, 2010 04:03 pm
@talk72000,
What they are using is the mosque building in NYC, and other fear tactics that has no relationship to our economy and jobs. They understand that if they should win congress, they will not be able to solve this economic problem.

They continue to use "tax cuts," but are very vague about why that would improve our economy. Their argument is based on socialism; taking from the rich and giving to the poor. They never mention the increasing federal deficit.
0 Replies
 
Irishk
 
  1  
Reply Wed 25 Aug, 2010 04:31 pm
@cicerone imposter,
cicerone imposter wrote:
We are beginning to see some of the stimulus monies being spent here in California; road maintenance is picking up again.


You can track it by state here:

http://stimuluswatch.org/2.0/
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Wed 25 Aug, 2010 04:39 pm
@Irishk,
Looks like $108 million for San Jose; that's pretty good.
Irishk
 
  1  
Reply Wed 25 Aug, 2010 04:48 pm
@cicerone imposter,
Are you searching by zip code?
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Wed 25 Aug, 2010 04:50 pm
@Irishk,
No. I'm aware of the road maintenance going on all over the San Francisco Bay Area where I regularly travel in my car. There's a local newspaper personality, Gary Richards, who reported the many road maintenance programs now on schedule in this area a few weeks ago. He tries to find solutions for people who write to him with local transportation problems. He's even helped me a couple of times with broken traffic lights. It's encouraging.
plainoldme
 
  0  
Reply Wed 25 Aug, 2010 10:30 pm
@okie,
I know that. I took accounting
0 Replies
 
plainoldme
 
  0  
Reply Wed 25 Aug, 2010 10:32 pm
@cicerone imposter,
Can't inventory be degraded in value if it continues to be on the books for more than one year?
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Thu 26 Aug, 2010 09:34 am
@plainoldme,
Not necessarily; it usually depends on supply and demand.
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Thu 26 Aug, 2010 11:17 am
Quote:

http://www.ncpa.org/sub/dpd/index.php?Article_ID=19748&utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=DPD
Health Reform Costs, Benefits Explained In NCPA Consumer's Guide
The first detailed and objective consumer's guide on the impact of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act has just been released by the National Center for Policy Analysis (NCPA), titled, "What Does Health Care Reform Mean To You? A Detailed Analysis."

"The guide does not ignore the benefits of the Affordable Care Act, but it also does not deny the costs," says John C. Goodman, President, CEO and Kellye Wright Fellow of the NCPA. "This is the first unbiased summary of health care reform costs and benefits, and it's a unique resource."

"The consumer's guide answers questions about the coming changes and costs in Medicare, Medicaid, health insurance, employer coverage and income tax returns," says Goodman.

The research analyzes the costs, benefits and drawbacks of health reform changes, including:

Health insurance requirements and fines for individuals and employers.
Expanded health coverage for up to 34 million people.
Projected shortages of doctors, nurses and hospitals.
Free health plan preventative services.
New coverage protections for patients with pre-existing conditions.
Also:

Reporting family income totals to your employer.
Benefit and spending cuts for the elderly and disabled on Medicare.
New taxes on private health insurance, drugs, medical devices.
Insurance subsidies and changes in coverage options.
To educate patients, doctors and all those affected by the new health care law, the NCPA has also produced a shorter version of the guide in a summary pamphlet, also titled, "What Does Health Care Reform Mean To You?" The pamphlet is a succinct and unbiased overview of the Affordable Care Act changes, in layman's terms, to help consumers understand what to expect from health care reform.

Source: Press Release, "Health Reform Costs, Benefits Explained in NCPA Consumer's Guide," PRNewswire, August 25, 2010.

For text:

http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/health-reform-costs-benefits-explained-in-ncpa-consumers-guide-101487154.html

cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Thu 26 Aug, 2010 11:25 am
@ican711nm,
Pretty much summarizes what I've been saying all along about Obama's universal health care; higher cost, not much in cost savings, and rationing based on the shortage of health care workers expanding the patient load by some 31 to 34 million more people.
 

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 © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.2 seconds on 07/14/2025 at 11:10:36