things are looking up

[Truthmatters]

Sept. retail sales rise, third monthly increase - Yahoo! News

 

[Baruch Menachem]

Clutching at straws.

 

[Truthmatters]

Americans spent more money on cars, furniture and at hardware stores to boost retail sales to a third monthly increase in September. The string of gains since July followed declines in May and June. Those had raised worries that the country could be in danger of toppling back into recession. Economists caution that while the economy is growing, the expansion is not strong enough to lower face high unemployment and offset weak income growth.

So you dont want the economy to recover?

 

[Immanuel]

I'm with Baruch... Democrats grasping at straws.

Hell yes, I want the economy to pick up, but the Democrats talked us into this problem when they began attacking Bush. They started claiming we were in a recession before we were actually in one and they actually talked us into one. They scared the hell out of the American people and actually fear mongered us into a recession. Then they blamed it on Bush. Then in February, 2009 after Obama took office, they started telling us it was not as bad as they thought it was.

It was easy as pie to scare us into a recession. They are finding out it is not as easy to lie their way out.

Immie

 

[Annie]

I'm sure the economy is looking great to the few that are making money off of stocks, gold, short sales and foreclosures. Not so good for the unemployed, those working part time, or under employed. They just watch as more join their ranks and food and energy prices rise:

Instant view: Jobless claims, producer prices, trade | Reuters

It is amazing how everything bad with this administration is 'unexpected':

Instant view: Jobless claims, producer prices, trade


NEW YORK | Thu Oct 14, 2010 11:08am EDT

NEW YORK (Reuters) - The number of people filing new claims for unemployment insurance rose to a higher-than-expected 462,000 in the latest week, while rising food and energy prices pushed inflation at the wholesale level up twice as fast as expected last month.

...

 

[Immanuel]

I'm sure the economy is looking great to the few that are making money off of stocks, gold, short sales and foreclosures. Not so good for the unemployed, those working part time, or under employed. They just watch as more join their ranks and food and energy prices rise:

Instant view: Jobless claims, producer prices, trade | Reuters

It is amazing how everything bad with this administration is 'unexpected':

Instant view: Jobless claims, producer prices, trade


NEW YORK | Thu Oct 14, 2010 11:08am EDT

NEW YORK (Reuters) - The number of people filing new claims for unemployment insurance rose to a higher-than-expected 462,000 in the latest week, while rising food and energy prices pushed inflation at the wholesale level up twice as fast as expected last month.

...

To Democrats like TM, none of that matters as long as Obama is President. It won't matter until two weeks after the Republicans take control, then suddenly Democrats will care about the unemployed again.

Immie

 

[SFC Ollie]

Truthmatters, you really should read your own links before you make a fool of yourself.

"But spending remains too weak to strengthen the economy and lower unemployment. "

 

[antagon]

I'm with Baruch... Democrats grasping at straws.

Hell yes, I want the economy to pick up, but the Democrats talked us into this problem when they began attacking Bush. They started claiming we were in a recession before we were actually in one and they actually talked us into one. They scared the hell out of the American people and actually fear mongered us into a recession. Then they blamed it on Bush. Then in February, 2009 after Obama took office, they started telling us it was not as bad as they thought it was.

It was easy as pie to scare us into a recession. They are finding out it is not as easy to lie their way out.

Immie

you are absolutely clueless if you thought the recession was spooked into place.

 

[loosecannon]

while rising food and energy prices pushed inflation at the wholesale level up twice as fast as expected last month.

...

[/QUOTE]

That's hilarious since BenBe is saying the fed is ready to install a new round of quantitative easing just to deliver 2% inflation. He is lying about his motives of course. And 2% inflation is far too little even if that was his goal.

 

[loosecannon]

I'm with Baruch... Democrats grasping at straws.

Hell yes, I want the economy to pick up, but the Democrats talked us into this problem when they began attacking Bush. They started claiming we were in a recession before we were actually in one and they actually talked us into one. They scared the hell out of the American people and actually fear mongered us into a recession. Then they blamed it on Bush. Then in February, 2009 after Obama took office, they started telling us it was not as bad as they thought it was.

It was easy as pie to scare us into a recession. They are finding out it is not as easy to lie their way out.

Immie

you are absolutely clueless if you thought the recession was spooked into place.

Actually it may have been spooked into place. But if so it was Paulson, Bernanke and the rest of the plunge protection team that began doing what is absolutely blasphemy for a fed chair or a major econ agency chair, shrieking like scared cats in a room full of rocking chairs and demanding gazzillions of dollars by next week or the world will explode.

Any ranking economic administrator knows that since the economy is based on confidence, and a quasi ponzi arrangement at it's core, that leadership must first and foremost instill confidence. Not cause panic, which is exactly what they did.

To date we have no proof of any kind that disaster would have struck if bailouts did not materialize. We know some banks would have been crushed, but we have no reason to believe that the economy would have followed.

But none of this was the dems doing. It was the Bush econ team that went code red.

 

[Annie]

while rising food and energy prices pushed inflation at the wholesale level up twice as fast as expected last month.

...

That's hilarious since BenBe is saying the fed is ready to install a new round of quantitative easing just to deliver 2% inflation. He is lying about his motives of course. And 2% inflation is far too little even if that was his goal.[/QUOTE]

If memory serves, food nor energy prices are figured into the general inflation figures, no?

 

[loosecannon]

while rising food and energy prices pushed inflation at the wholesale level up twice as fast as expected last month.

...

That's hilarious since BenBe is saying the fed is ready to install a new round of quantitative easing just to deliver 2% inflation. He is lying about his motives of course. And 2% inflation is far too little even if that was his goal.

If memory serves, food nor energy prices are figured into the general inflation figures, no?[/QUOTE]

Yeah they are, there is a secondary index which excludes food and energy called "core inflation". I didn't pay a lotta attention to the details but skimming the headlines this morning I saw data about .1% inflation in a new government report. No idea if that was the CPI or core inflation.

 

[Samson]

Americans spent more money on cars, furniture and at hardware stores to boost retail sales to a third monthly increase in September. The string of gains since July followed declines in May and June. Those had raised worries that the country could be in danger of toppling back into recession. Economists caution that while the economy is growing, the expansion is not strong enough to lower face high unemployment and offset weak income growth.

So you dont want the economy to recover?

Have you increased your Lithium Perscription and Daily Electroshock Therapy?

That could help the economy.

 

[antagon]

I'm with Baruch... Democrats grasping at straws.

Hell yes, I want the economy to pick up, but the Democrats talked us into this problem when they began attacking Bush. They started claiming we were in a recession before we were actually in one and they actually talked us into one. They scared the hell out of the American people and actually fear mongered us into a recession. Then they blamed it on Bush. Then in February, 2009 after Obama took office, they started telling us it was not as bad as they thought it was.

It was easy as pie to scare us into a recession. They are finding out it is not as easy to lie their way out.

Immie

you are absolutely clueless if you thought the recession was spooked into place.

Actually it may have been spooked into place. But if so it was Paulson, Bernanke and the rest of the plunge protection team that began doing what is absolutely blasphemy for a fed chair or a major econ agency chair, shrieking like scared cats in a room full of rocking chairs and demanding gazzillions of dollars by next week or the world will explode.

Any ranking economic administrator knows that since the economy is based on confidence, and a quasi ponzi arrangement at it's core, that leadership must first and foremost instill confidence. Not cause panic, which is exactly what they did.

To date we have no proof of any kind that disaster would have struck if bailouts did not materialize. We know some banks would have been crushed, but we have no reason to believe that the economy would have followed.

But none of this was the dems doing. It was the Bush econ team that went code red.

i think the fed's helped the banx, but the fiscal bailout was a gargantuan waste. i'd have done better, anyhow.

if i had to call a spooking moment, it was the run on northern rock in '07. doused the mortgage futures markets like when that kid in the crowd said the emperor had no clothes on. there was no turning back, rosetinting or sugarcoating from there on out.

i look at shit like that as being inevitable, though. overinvestment from an overdue, easy money bubble with a finserve epicenter, to make matters worse.

 

[Annie]

That's hilarious since BenBe is saying the fed is ready to install a new round of quantitative easing just to deliver 2% inflation. He is lying about his motives of course. And 2% inflation is far too little even if that was his goal.

If memory serves, food nor energy prices are figured into the general inflation figures, no?

Yeah they are, there is a secondary index which excludes food and energy called "core inflation". I didn't pay a lotta attention to the details but skimming the headlines this morning I saw data about .1% inflation in a new government report. No idea if that was the CPI or core inflation.

Thanks for the term 'core', never can remember that.

Core prices lowest in decades as CPI edges up Economic Report - MarketWatch

Economic Report

Oct. 15, 2010, 11:40 a.m. EDT
Core prices lowest in decades as CPI edges up
Consumer price index up 0.1% in September

By Ruth Mantell, MarketWatch

WASHINGTON (MarketWatch) — The index for U.S. consumer prices rose 0.1% in September, supported by gains in food and gasoline, as the annualized rate of core inflation was the lowest in nearly five decades, according to a Labor Department report released Friday.

The food index rose 0.3% in September, its largest gain since October 2008. Meanwhile, the energy index rose 0.7%, with gasoline up 1.6%.

But core prices, which exclude volatile food and energy, did not change in September, with a growth rate of 0.0%.

Over the last 12 months, overall consumer prices are up 1.1%, before seasonal adjustment. Core prices rose 0.8% for the year, the lowest 12-month gain since 1961...

 

[Trajan]

The only real stats imho are; GDP per quarter and the jobs created per month rate...the rest is all smoke that goes back and forth on the breeze.

 

[Annie]

The only real stats imho are; GDP per quarter and the jobs created per month rate...the rest is all smoke that goes back and forth on the breeze.

If one is making ends meet, I agree. However in this economy with a great number unemployed and underemployed, nearly all spending is food and energy. So those numbers do matter.

 

[loosecannon]

you are absolutely clueless if you thought the recession was spooked into place.

Actually it may have been spooked into place. But if so it was Paulson, Bernanke and the rest of the plunge protection team that began doing what is absolutely blasphemy for a fed chair or a major econ agency chair, shrieking like scared cats in a room full of rocking chairs and demanding gazzillions of dollars by next week or the world will explode.

Any ranking economic administrator knows that since the economy is based on confidence, and a quasi ponzi arrangement at it's core, that leadership must first and foremost instill confidence. Not cause panic, which is exactly what they did.

To date we have no proof of any kind that disaster would have struck if bailouts did not materialize. We know some banks would have been crushed, but we have no reason to believe that the economy would have followed.

But none of this was the dems doing. It was the Bush econ team that went code red.

i think the fed's helped the banx, but the fiscal bailout was a gargantuan waste. i'd have done better, anyhow.

if i had to call a spooking moment, it was the run on northern rock in '07. doused the mortgage futures markets like when that kid in the crowd said the emperor had no clothes on. there was no turning back, rosetinting or sugarcoating from there on out.

i look at shit like that as being inevitable, though. overinvestment from an overdue, easy money bubble with a finserve epicenter, to make matters worse.

Northern Rock was brought to heel after a fairly massive run. Then came bear stearns and Lehman bros months and months later. There was definitely fear of contagion, but that fear was mostly focused on the banking sector and the folks who were derivatives entangled with them.

I still have no idea and won't even speculate internally whether losing 3-10 more banks in sequence and watching AIG and several alphabet soup agencies in tow would have produced a more dire outcome.

Personally, capitalism demands that those banks be allowed to just fail. Too bad we aren't a capitalist system. We will pay for that later. You can't accept the upsides of capitalism without accepting it's down sides. To do that is fascism, which best describes US.

 

[antagon]

i think it is too simplistic to view capitalism as synonymous to laisez-faire. there's too much history indicating an evolution from these principles and which wont suit a characterization of fascist. i dont think it's far fetched that more (big) failed banks would be negative. i just think that the fiscal safety net was unnecessary in light of the fed's capacity to buoy them in a less exploitable fashion. capitalism's demands are not always good for the economy. the economy's demands are not always good for society. we cant get caught up with what capitalism wants in light of that. it is a mistake to do so.

 

[william the wie]

Anyone and everyone with a lick of sense in the place of Bernancke, Geithner or Paulson would have called the supremes and said, "Hey, we may need a shitload of federal bankruptcy referees in a hurry. Who can you gimme on short notice and how many can you make available for a down and dirty rapid bankruptcy? It does have to be lightening fast to maintain confidence in the banking system but it is necessary. please have a list ready as soon as possible and one of my people will come to pick it the second you tell me it's ready."

None of them did that and that is the problem.