Consumer Confidence Is Now Lower Than During All Recent Financial Crises And Tragedie

[boedicca]

(subtitle: Why Obama Will Lose In 2012):

One chart stands out in today's Breakfast with Rosie: the comparison of yesterday's surprisingly weak Consumer Confidence number with comparable prints taken at financial crises and tragedies of the past such as the October 1987 markets crash, Desert Storm, LTCM, the dot com collapse, September 11, Katrina, and Lehman. No surprise: yesterday's was the lowest. And as a reminder, the president's reelection campaign kicks into higher gear in a few months...against the backdrop of the most unhappy popular sentiment in recent years. Just how do QE 3 skeptics believe he will succeed, when still faced with consumer confidence that two years into the "recovery" is lower than during any other previous economic "expansion", even as congress is about to unleash the most brutal wave of fiscal consolidation (aka austerity) in recent American history.

This is what happens when government policies prevent a robust recovery after a downturn. Economic growth is moribund, housing prices are still falling, and there is no meaningful job creation. Obamanomics = Epic Fail

 

[Avorysuds]

You moron, IT'S A RECOVERY! Obama said so.

 

[editec]

Consumer Confidence Is Now Lower Than During All Recent Financial Crises And Tragedie

The sheep look up.

 

[B. Kidd]

I see it in the RV parks so far I've been through, and we've been 'on the road' since April 14th. Don't even have to make reservations! Except for a 3 day holiday weekend like Memorial Day, so far, even the better parks are underfilled. There was plenty of parking in the Amish Country bergs here over the Memorial Day weekend. Even the day trippers are way down.

 

[Wonky Pundit]

The consumer confidence number measures only the willingness of consumers to take on new debt.

If consumers are getting more cautious when it comes to debt, it's about goddamn time!

 

[FuelRod]

My ass.

 

[kiwiman127]

Let me think. Flat wages have been the norm forever. US companies are seeing record profits but are expanding their businesses offshore were labor is cheaper (only 38,000 new private sector jobs last month?). And the middle class has seen their wealth shrinking.
Over two thirds of the US economy is driven by consumer spending but the consumer class doesn't have the expendable income to contribute to the economy.
Plutocracy in action.

 

[boedicca]

On a related note:

Found via Ann Althouse, an interesting, if grim post at MetaFilter claims, “Madison Avenue no longer marketing to the middle-class as the rich have all the money:”

According to Financial Blog TooMuch, a new white paper from AdAge claims that the era of “Mass Affluence is over”. This means that because the middle-class no longer have the dominent share of disposable income that marketing directly to the super-rich is the future of advertising. This means that if you’re over 35 and make $100,000 to $200,000, Madison Avenue no longer really cares about you.

Apparently no one in America really realised what it meant that “The top 10 percent of American households.. now account for nearly half of all consumer spending, and a disproportionate share of that spending comes from the top 10’s upper reaches.”

It reminds me of that Steinbeck quote, that ‘Socialism never took root in America because the poor see themselves not as an exploited proletariat but as temporarily embarrassed millionaires.’...

http://pajamasmedia.com/eddriscoll/2011/06/02/change-the-era-of-mass-affluence-is-over/


This is the logical result of Big Government Cronyism. Thanks Progressives!

 

[kiwiman127]

On a related note:

Found via Ann Althouse, an interesting, if grim post at MetaFilter claims, “Madison Avenue no longer marketing to the middle-class as the rich have all the money:”

According to Financial Blog TooMuch, a new white paper from AdAge claims that the era of “Mass Affluence is over”. This means that because the middle-class no longer have the dominent share of disposable income that marketing directly to the super-rich is the future of advertising. This means that if you’re over 35 and make $100,000 to $200,000, Madison Avenue no longer really cares about you.

Apparently no one in America really realised what it meant that “The top 10 percent of American households.. now account for nearly half of all consumer spending, and a disproportionate share of that spending comes from the top 10’s upper reaches.”

It reminds me of that Steinbeck quote, that ‘Socialism never took root in America because the poor see themselves not as an exploited proletariat but as temporarily embarrassed millionaires.’...

Ed Driscoll » Change! ‘The Era of Mass Affluence is Over’


This is the logical result of Big Government Cronyism. Thanks Progressives!

Actually, the article you posted shows that plutocracy is alive and well in America. Also, socialism as defined by the righties here, means the redistribution of wealth to the masses, not the select top 10%. In a true socialistic world, the current 'have-nots" wouldn't exist because the wealth would be spread around.

 

[boedicca]

On a related note:

Found via Ann Althouse, an interesting, if grim post at MetaFilter claims, “Madison Avenue no longer marketing to the middle-class as the rich have all the money:”

According to Financial Blog TooMuch, a new white paper from AdAge claims that the era of “Mass Affluence is over”. This means that because the middle-class no longer have the dominent share of disposable income that marketing directly to the super-rich is the future of advertising. This means that if you’re over 35 and make $100,000 to $200,000, Madison Avenue no longer really cares about you.

Apparently no one in America really realised what it meant that “The top 10 percent of American households.. now account for nearly half of all consumer spending, and a disproportionate share of that spending comes from the top 10’s upper reaches.”

It reminds me of that Steinbeck quote, that ‘Socialism never took root in America because the poor see themselves not as an exploited proletariat but as temporarily embarrassed millionaires.’...

Ed Driscoll » Change! ‘The Era of Mass Affluence is Over’


This is the logical result of Big Government Cronyism. Thanks Progressives!

Actually, the article you posted shows that plutocracy is alive and well in America. Also, socialism as defined by the righties here, means the redistribution of wealth to the masses, not the select top 10%. In a true socialistic world, the current 'have-nots" wouldn't exist because the wealth would be spread around.

B'loney. The Plutocrats LOVE Socialism. It provides for the centralized government control with whom they collude to extract productivity from The Workers and squash any rising competition.

 

[kiwiman127]

On a related note:

Found via Ann Althouse, an interesting, if grim post at MetaFilter claims, “Madison Avenue no longer marketing to the middle-class as the rich have all the money:”

According to Financial Blog TooMuch, a new white paper from AdAge claims that the era of “Mass Affluence is over”. This means that because the middle-class no longer have the dominent share of disposable income that marketing directly to the super-rich is the future of advertising. This means that if you’re over 35 and make $100,000 to $200,000, Madison Avenue no longer really cares about you.

Apparently no one in America really realised what it meant that “The top 10 percent of American households.. now account for nearly half of all consumer spending, and a disproportionate share of that spending comes from the top 10’s upper reaches.”

It reminds me of that Steinbeck quote, that ‘Socialism never took root in America because the poor see themselves not as an exploited proletariat but as temporarily embarrassed millionaires.’...

Ed Driscoll » Change! ‘The Era of Mass Affluence is Over’


This is the logical result of Big Government Cronyism. Thanks Progressives!

Actually, the article you posted shows that plutocracy is alive and well in America. Also, socialism as defined by the righties here, means the redistribution of wealth to the masses, not the select top 10%. In a true socialistic world, the current 'have-nots" wouldn't exist because the wealth would be spread around.

B'loney. The Plutocrats LOVE Socialism. It provides for the centralized government control with whom they collude to extract productivity from The Workers and squash any rising competition.

Wages have been flat for years and years despite high productivity and it isn't the government that dictates wages.
Secondly, socialism and plutocracy don't mix at all.

[soh-shuh-liz-uhm] Show IPA

–noun
1. a theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole.
=============

plural plu·toc·ra·cies
Definition of PLUTOCRACY
1: government by the wealthy

So here we have it. In a socialistic society the masses control industry. In a plutocracy the select wealthy control everything. It's like night and day.

 

[boedicca]

Actually, the article you posted shows that plutocracy is alive and well in America. Also, socialism as defined by the righties here, means the redistribution of wealth to the masses, not the select top 10%. In a true socialistic world, the current 'have-nots" wouldn't exist because the wealth would be spread around.

B'loney. The Plutocrats LOVE Socialism. It provides for the centralized government control with whom they collude to extract productivity from The Workers and squash any rising competition.

Wages have been flat for years and years despite high productivity and it isn't the government that dictates wages.
Secondly, socialism and plutocracy don't mix at all.

[soh-shuh-liz-uhm] Show IPA

–noun
1. a theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole.
=============

plural plu·toc·ra·cies
Definition of PLUTOCRACY
1: government by the wealthy

So here we have it. In a socialistic society the masses control industry. In a plutocracy the select wealthy control everything. It's like night and day.

Please point to a large scale system that has ever succeeded under that model.

Here's a clue: you won't find one.

What you will find are corrupt systems which use the lure of "Socialism" to shackle the Hoi Poloi and to enrich their Cronies.

 

[Avorysuds]

B'loney. The Plutocrats LOVE Socialism. It provides for the centralized government control with whom they collude to extract productivity from The Workers and squash any rising competition.

Wages have been flat for years and years despite high productivity and it isn't the government that dictates wages.
Secondly, socialism and plutocracy don't mix at all.

[soh-shuh-liz-uhm] Show IPA

–noun
1. a theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole.
=============

plural plu·toc·ra·cies
Definition of PLUTOCRACY
1: government by the wealthy

So here we have it. In a socialistic society the masses control industry. In a plutocracy the select wealthy control everything. It's like night and day.

Please point to a large scale system that has ever succeeded under that model.

Here's a clue: you won't find one.

What you will find are corrupt systems which use the lure of "Socialism" to shackle the Hoi Poloi and to enrich their Cronies.

This is correct. If socialism worked no one would bitch and the world would be a great place, however it doesn't work and the reason is greedy people inevitably end up in power and thus corrupt that socialism.

This is why a goodly regulated "free market" is the most productive when mixed with a "small Government." The idea is simply to limit the impact that corruption will inevitably have. As Government grows things will only go through moments of getting better and then that greed and corruption will swallow the country whole. How do you stop a giant Government that is in bed with business that the Government gets to selectively pick to be the winners?

Obama/Bush and FDR are great examples of what you get when Government’s greed swallows the nation.

 

[kiwiman127]

B'loney. The Plutocrats LOVE Socialism. It provides for the centralized government control with whom they collude to extract productivity from The Workers and squash any rising competition.

Wages have been flat for years and years despite high productivity and it isn't the government that dictates wages.
Secondly, socialism and plutocracy don't mix at all.

[soh-shuh-liz-uhm] Show IPA

–noun
1. a theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole.
=============

plural plu·toc·ra·cies
Definition of PLUTOCRACY
1: government by the wealthy

So here we have it. In a socialistic society the masses control industry. In a plutocracy the select wealthy control everything. It's like night and day.

Please point to a large scale system that has ever succeeded under that model.

Here's a clue: you won't find one.

What you will find are corrupt systems which use the lure of "Socialism" to shackle the Hoi Poloi and to enrich their Cronies.

What are you talking about? Hmmmm, let me look over my past posts on this thread to see where I hail and support the virtues of socialism,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,. Nope, can't find anything.
What I was saying was that the article you posted reeks of a plutocratic society. You folks were basically accusing Obama of now being a plutocrat, yet you folks keep on calling him a socialist, which is a polar opposite of a plutocrat. Which is it? Is Obama a socialist or a plutocrat?
Now I'm not going defend Obama's policies because I don't like many of them. But I don't hate the guy. The haters seem to go way overboard in their accusations about Obama, just like the Bush haters went overboard in regards to "W". I find that counter-productive and polarizing and I don't like all the polarization this country is going though, thus my avatar.

 

[kiwiman127]

Wages have been flat for years and years despite high productivity and it isn't the government that dictates wages.
Secondly, socialism and plutocracy don't mix at all.

[soh-shuh-liz-uhm] Show IPA

–noun
1. a theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole.
=============

plural plu·toc·ra·cies
Definition of PLUTOCRACY
1: government by the wealthy

So here we have it. In a socialistic society the masses control industry. In a plutocracy the select wealthy control everything. It's like night and day.

Please point to a large scale system that has ever succeeded under that model.

Here's a clue: you won't find one.

What you will find are corrupt systems which use the lure of "Socialism" to shackle the Hoi Poloi and to enrich their Cronies.

This is correct. If socialism worked no one would bitch and the world would be a great place, however it doesn't work and the reason is greedy people inevitably end up in power and thus corrupt that socialism.

This is why a goodly regulated "free market" is the most productive when mixed with a "small Government." The idea is simply to limit the impact that corruption will inevitably have. As Government grows things will only go through moments of getting better and then that greed and corruption will swallow the country whole. How do you stop a giant Government that is in bed with business that the Government gets to selectively pick to be the winners?

Obama/Bush and FDR are great examples of what you get when Government’s greed swallows the nation.

Gee, is the fact that I favor "fair markets" over "free markets" make me a socialist? Maybe I'm sick and tired of the middle class getting fucked over and they have been fucked over. I'm 100% for Main Street America, the working class and the small businesses, who have been left out of this country's economy way too long.

 

[editec]

Call it whatever you choose, socialism, capitalism cronnyism, facism...none of those words really mean anything anymore.

Follow the money, folks.

There's the problem regardless of what you call it.

Follow THE MONEY

 

[boedicca]

Call it whatever you choose, socialism, capitalism cronnyism, facism...none of those words really mean anything anymore.

Scuze me, but one of those things is Not Like The Others.

 

[Avorysuds]

Please point to a large scale system that has ever succeeded under that model.

Here's a clue: you won't find one.

What you will find are corrupt systems which use the lure of "Socialism" to shackle the Hoi Poloi and to enrich their Cronies.

This is correct. If socialism worked no one would bitch and the world would be a great place, however it doesn't work and the reason is greedy people inevitably end up in power and thus corrupt that socialism.

This is why a goodly regulated "free market" is the most productive when mixed with a "small Government." The idea is simply to limit the impact that corruption will inevitably have. As Government grows things will only go through moments of getting better and then that greed and corruption will swallow the country whole. How do you stop a giant Government that is in bed with business that the Government gets to selectively pick to be the winners?

Obama/Bush and FDR are great examples of what you get when Government’s greed swallows the nation.

Gee, is the fact that I favor "fair markets" over "free markets" make me a socialist? Maybe I'm sick and tired of the middle class getting fucked over and they have been fucked over. I'm 100% for Main Street America, the working class and the small businesses, who have been left out of this country's economy way too long.

Free-er markets are for the middle class, "fair markets" have helped destroy the middle class... WTF is fair anyways?

 

[Avorysuds]

Call it whatever you choose, socialism, capitalism cronnyism, facism...none of those words really mean anything anymore.

Follow the money, folks.

There's the problem regardless of what you call it.

Follow THE MONEY

You ain't seen it in your lifetime. The areas that still have some amount of it do the best. Ahh nm... just never fucking mind lol.