114
   

Where is the US economy headed?

 
 
spendius
 
  0  
Reply Wed 21 Sep, 2011 04:55 pm
@cicerone imposter,
What--those who book three foreign holidays a year and brag about it like it's some big deal when it's actually reducing the cash in their will.
spendius
 
  0  
Reply Wed 21 Sep, 2011 05:15 pm
@spendius,
According to de Quincey's analysis of 50% divorce rates the US is doomed.
0 Replies
 
hawkeye10
 
  1  
Reply Wed 21 Sep, 2011 06:16 pm
@cicerone imposter,
cicerone imposter wrote:

Its true that short term interest rate will not change until next year, but we are already at zero interest rate,and the feds have played their stupid games to no avail except to injure consumers who do the right thing to save.
Spot on....who was it who stood on stage night after night and said that we must make sure that those who work hard and who play by the rules have the opportunity to get ahead in life? I could have sworn it was a Democratic President (Clinton 1992)...what happened to that? Just about everything Obama has done makes the point that those who work hard and play by the rules are schmucks, that those who take big chances and fail will be bailed out by the tax payer, that those who are prudent will not come out ahead of those who dont most of the time. The American dream according to Obama seems to be playing craps in Vegas, it is not about work and making good choices, which is why his disparaging Vegas early in his presidency now looks to have been hypocricy on a grand scale.
0 Replies
 
hawkeye10
 
  1  
Reply Wed 21 Sep, 2011 07:03 pm
Quote:
NEW YORK (AP) -- The advertising slump at one of the world's best-known newspaper publishers is deepening.

New York Times Co. CEO Janet Robinson says ad revenue during the July to September period is expected to fall by about 8 percent from the same time last year. That would translate into a decline of about $23 million.

The company publishes The New York Times and 17 other daily newspapers. It previously predicted ad revenue would drop by roughly 4 percent -- about the same pace as the second quarter.

Robinson announced the changed outlook Wednesday at an investment conference in New York. She blamed the shortfall on the bleak economy.

Like most other major publishers, the Times Co. has been struggling for years to adapt as more print advertising shifts to the Internet.

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/NY-Times-Co-CEO-says-ad-slump-apf-3907613082.html?x=0&sec=topStories&pos=2&asset=&ccode=

Recovery?? We ain't got none...
hawkeye10
 
  1  
Reply Wed 21 Sep, 2011 07:30 pm
@hawkeye10,
Kenneth Rogoff: "A strong non-payment in Greece and Portugal is inevitable '

Professor of Economics at Harvard since 1999 and former chief economist of the IMF from 2001 to 2003, Kenneth Rogoff is co-author, with Carmen Reinhart of the "bestseller": "This time it's different: eight centuries of madness financial. "

Quote:

What do you think of U.S. proposals to increase the response capacity of the European Financial Stability Fund (EFSF) to avoid the risk of contagion?

My impression is that Europe needs to reform much deeper than the creation of EFSF. This will not suffice. To preserve the euro will require real institutional reform by a year or two. The United States will do everything to the implosion of the euro does not happen before the U.S. election of 2012 and to preserve a form of stability by then. Washington wants to see Germany extend its safety net. I have no doubt that in the end Germany will eventually guarantee a very significant amount of debt in Europe. The problem is that they lack credibility, saying they can not allow Greece to fail. It's ridiculous. They should be in position to prevent bank runs in Spain and Italy. From the time when the credibility of the euro is weakened, and it is now, it becomes much more difficult for banks to attract Italian and Spanish bank deposits or interbank funding. The risk of infection is considerable. And there is no central bank could fly to the rescue of an individual country. Therefore it will take a term institutional reform. But the situation could yet get worse before they can seriously improve. I see a strong parallel with the momentum created by the collapse of Lehman Brothers in the United States.

Do you think that the Director-General of the IMF, Christine Lagarde, was right to stress the urgency of the recapitalization of the European banking sector?

Absolutely. The IMF has been too reverential to date. It is right to insist on this point. Of course, his hand was forced by the fact that she knew in advance the contents of the Global Financial Stability Report. It was difficult not to be considered. All who were involved in the development of "stress tests" must recapitalize banks know that a number of European banks. It's a leap too virtuous to turn back now. The IMF has not really contributed to solving problems by pushing back the deadlines. There is only one year, IMF officials said at the general meeting they considered Greece as an advanced country that would never default. And there are only six months, the IMF said it had even considered that Spain was no longer a peripheral country in the "Financial Times". It's one thing to be wary, it is another to take positions implausible. The IMF has gone too far in that direction. However, Christine Lagarde did not go far as to say that default is inevitable. It is only implicit in his remarks.

Do you in fact a default of Greece is now inevitable?

Of course. There will inevitably be a major restructuring of the Greek debt, regardless of the terms chosen. A profound failure to pay in Greece and Portugal is now inevitable, and probably in Ireland, although the situation is somewhat more complicated in that country because the government has guaranteed the banks. But I think Ireland will also need a major restructuring of its sovereign debt, whether private or public. I'm sure that even Dominique Strauss-Kahn was aware

http://www.lesechos.fr/economie-politique/monde/interview/0201651040188-kenneth-rogoff-un-fort-defaut-de-paiement-en-grece-et-au-portugal-est-inevitable-222442.php

One would hope that the Fed is not trying to help Obama out, as the Fed is supposed to be independent and non-political, though it sure has not been lately. Kind of makes me wonder if Perry's criticism of the Fed will have legs going forwards.
plainoldme
 
  1  
Reply Wed 21 Sep, 2011 08:38 pm
Timely:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LxaY_mxYflg
0 Replies
 
BillRM
 
  1  
Reply Wed 21 Sep, 2011 09:10 pm
@hawkeye10,
Quote:
One would hope that the Fed is not trying to help Obama out, as the Fed is supposed to be independent and non-political, though it sure has not been lately. Kind of makes me wonder if Perry's criticism of the Fed will have legs going forwards.


In so must helping out Obama is also helping out the economic of the US I sure hope they are doing what is best for the US and not acting like the GOP who worst nightmare is that the economic would be allow to improve before the election.
hawkeye10
 
  1  
Reply Wed 21 Sep, 2011 09:22 pm
@BillRM,
Quote:
In so must helping out Obama is also helping out the economic of the US I sure hope they are doing what is best for the US and not acting like the GOP who worst nightmare is that the economic would be allow to improve before the election
The point is that the fed should not give a rats ass when the next election is or who wins it. I doubt that this is true.
BillRM
 
  1  
Reply Thu 22 Sep, 2011 03:36 am
@hawkeye10,
Hawkeye if the Fed is successful in helping the economic they are going to help Obama and so what as the main task is improving the economic.
0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  0  
Reply Thu 22 Sep, 2011 06:18 am
The rich are bound by the laws of nature to resist the equitable distribution of wealth because the existence of the poor keeps them in countenance of the dignity of their own position and their self-esteem.

As such an inexorable psychological law now applies to lower levels in society, the nearly rich, the well off and the comfortable will tend to support the rich in the maintenance of the invidious distinction and particularly so in respect of female persons or feminine natures in the other sex.

Hence the targeting of a minority with a high income or worth. Who of the nearly rich, the well off and the comfortable favours an equalisation of wealth if it affects their own position, dignity and self-esteem.

Thus, aiming tax increases at the minority is not a moral principle but a cynical expedient and political trick.
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  2  
Reply Thu 22 Sep, 2011 07:28 am
Meanwhile Gold is off $70 this morning. Down almost $200 from hawkeye's "that is ALL" statements.
0 Replies
 
georgeob1
 
  1  
Reply Thu 22 Sep, 2011 10:54 am
@cicerone imposter,
cicerone imposter wrote:

Its true that short term interest rate will not change until next year, but we are already at zero interest rate,and the feds have played their stupid games to no avail except to injure consumers who do the right thing to save.


A government burdened with as much debt as ours and, also like ours, unable to find either the political courage or consensus required for constructrive action to deal with it, has but two remaining tools to carry on.
=> The first is to keep interest rates as low as possible to stave off a runious increases in their bond yields. This, of course, penalizes their prudent citizens who have saved money, as you noted.
=> The second is in part an indirect consequence of the first, but also the means by which the government can stealthily do a gradual default on its debtors (bondholders), and that is steadily increasing inflation which wipes out the real value of the government's debt. This also penalizes savers who have invested in government bonds. Rising interest rates will surely follow, but as long as the government can manipulate the statistics and the situation to cause the interest rate to lag the real inflation (or depreciation) of its currency, it is the winner. Unfortunately everyone else is the loser.

This appears to be the policy our feckless president is pursuing. Interestingly Barney Frank has proposed that the remaining regional Governors of the Fed become government appointees, thus completing the politicization of that body. Happily that proposal will get nowhere in the current configuration of the House.
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Thu 22 Sep, 2011 11:16 am
@georgeob1,
But you speak of the "government" George as if it is some monster on the point of gobbling us all up.

We are the government. Are we not? Who else is there to pay for the beanfeast? We became overvalued and it went to our heads. General hysteria raged.

I think interest rates are low because too much money is chasing too few 'safe' investment opportunities.

The President is pursuing the "art of the possible".
Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Reply Thu 22 Sep, 2011 11:21 am
@spendius,
The notion that $400 billion is not a large amount of money is often adopted by folks who wish to project an air of fiscal sophistication, and is what leads to government agencies spending $17 per muffin for their conference breakfasts and $50,000 in total for coffee breaks at similar events.

If $400 billion is not a large amount of money then please send me a check for your entire personal wealth as it must be mere pennies by comparison and surely you can duplicate it over night by searching your sofa cushions for loose change.

parados
 
  1  
Reply Thu 22 Sep, 2011 11:33 am
@Finn dAbuzz,
So.. $17 per muffin is wasteful spending?

You mean all those corporations waste money when they buy muffins for their conferences? It's time to stop letting them write of those $17 muffins as business expenses then.
georgeob1
 
  1  
Reply Thu 22 Sep, 2011 11:38 am
@spendius,
spendius wrote:

I think interest rates are low because too much money is chasing too few 'safe' investment opportunities.
There is some truth in that statement, however were it not for the current policies of our Federal reserve Bank our interest rates would be significantly higher than they are. Most of their celebrated (and extraordinary) actions of the past two years were focused on keeping interest rates low and vastly increasing the money supply. Now some of the Presidents toadies in the Congress are proposing that the four remaining independent governors of the Federal Reserve also become political appointees - thus completing the politicization of that "quasi independent" body..

spendius wrote:

The President is pursuing the "art of the possible".
True, but only in the cynical sense of Brecht's phrase. In fact his recent proposals, for more temporary spending increases in the name of "jobs creation", coupled with permanent job destroying tax increases, are themselves quite impossible in the current configuration of the Congress. This is taking shallow political cynacism a step beyond the concepts of previous cynics.
Cycloptichorn
 
  2  
Reply Thu 22 Sep, 2011 11:47 am
@georgeob1,
Those tax increase you speak of are not 'job destroying' in the slightest. There's never been a shred of evidence that this is true; it's just a catchy phrase Republicans like to throw around to justify their continued and elevated levels of personal greed.

What's really problematic for you is that large majorities of the public agree with Obama's proposal; and even large parts of the Republican party do.

Cycloptichorn
georgeob1
 
  0  
Reply Thu 22 Sep, 2011 12:15 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
There are people everywhere (myself included) who agree with parts of his proposal. However, no reasonable intelligent person could accept the whole - a flat refusal to consider entitlement reform or serious reductions in structural government spending; coupled with permanent tax increases on businesses and entrepreneurs; along with temporary "stimulus spending" measures. This is a pure political ploy reaching new heights of cynicism. It certainly is not a serious effort to deal with our current problem of high and fast growing public debt and continuing economic stagnation.
0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  0  
Reply Thu 22 Sep, 2011 12:58 pm
@parados,
But the muffins were not $17. It was bringing them to the mastication sensualities and the swallowing reflex in a manner deemed appropriate to their station of the recipients. A muffin would be 50cents at most on its own account.

And that process = "JOBS". Make them $50 and you could get unemployment down if the manner deemed appropriate was further refined.
0 Replies
 
realjohnboy
 
  1  
Reply Thu 22 Sep, 2011 02:51 pm
Twisting In The Wind
Wow! World markets got slammed today. The Dow, down 500 points at one point, recovered to end with a loss of 400 (-3.5% for the day).
Gold fell 4% to 1734 while the value of the dollar rose against other countries as investors here and abroad sought relative safety in U.S. bonds.
Oil slumped by $6bbl (7%) to around $80 as the threat of a world wide recession seems to have increased.
U.S. bank stocks got hit hard, down by around 6%, while some banks in Europe went down by around 10%. A French financial official said that 16 banks were on a "stress test" watch list.
It is easy to hate banks, isn't it? The Fed action yesterday (which, if it is effective, would reduce long term U.S. bond interest rates) will squeeze bank profits. As a general rule, banks borrow money (i.e. with money you have in your checking account) for the short term and lend it for the long term. If long term interest rates drop, the banks suffer. The key 10 year bond rate today fell to 1.75% which is the lowest since the 1940's.
 

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 0.11 seconds on 07/17/2025 at 11:37:17