Worst of the Recession is Behind Us

[oreo]

Excellent. Democratic control of the country results in the end of Bush's economic meltdown.

You can clap all you want--however, I believe this recession is probably the worst one since the Carter administration. I don't believe the federal government can spend our way out of this one. I give Obama 6 months before people will start looking at his big spending FDR type deals before they start blaming Obama for extending the recession. This is what happened to FDR. What brought us out of the great depression was WW2.

Most recessions last anywhere from 9 months to 2 years, & without any help from the government--we base & come back. A normal economic cycle--as good times never last forever. Toward the end of next year, some economists are calling for 10%+ unemployment--from the current 7.1%. That's not good, in fact it's horrible.

I do not believe we have seen rock bottom. This started with the housing bubble--the collapse of Fannie & Freedie, due to liberal agenda's putting pressure on banks to loan money to people who could not pay it back, along with $4.00 per gallon gasoline.

Business'es are closing every day--last month over 1/2 million Americans lost their jobs. Nope--We are now just starting to see this tidal wave roll through the rest of the job sector--& it's nothing to poo-poo, & this one is here for quite some time.

The recession was great for Obama on the campaign trail. In a few months--"he will own it."

 

[Chris]

You can clap all you want--however, I believe this recession is probably the worst one since the Carter administration. I don't believe the federal government can spend our way out of this one. I give Obama 6 months before people will start looking at his big spending FDR type deals before they start blaming Obama for extending the recession. This is what happened to FDR. What brought us out of the great depression was WW2.

Most recessions last anywhere from 9 months to 2 years, & without any help from the government--we base & come back. A normal economic cycle--as good times never last forever. Toward the end of next year, some economists are calling for 10%+ unemployment--from the current 7.1%. That's not good, in fact it's horrible.

I do not believe we have seen rock bottom. This started with the housing bubble--the collapse of Fannie & Freedie, due to liberal agenda's putting pressure on banks to loan money to people who could not pay it back, along with $4.00 per gallon gasoline.

Business'es are closing every day--last month over 1/2 million Americans lost their jobs.Nope--We are now just starting to see this tidal wave roll through the rest of the job sector--& it's nothing to poo-poo, & this one is here for quite some time.

The recession was great for Obama on the campaign trail. In a couple of months--"he will own it." As Huckabee stated: This is probably the first presidential election in history, where the winner would want a recount, ha.ha.

Delusional post.

This recession is the result of the lack of regulation and greed of Wall Street. They ran a Ponzi scheme with derivatives until it ran out....just like Madoff.

That and Bush borrowing $700 billion dollars from China to invade Iraq is what caused the recession.

 

[oreo]

Delusional post.

This recession is the result of the lack of regulation and greed of Wall Street. They ran a Ponzi scheme with derivatives until it ran out....just like Madoff.

That and Bush borrowing $700 billion dollars from China to invade Iraq is what caused the recession.

Go to New York times--read an article out of their archives--date: Sept. 30, 1999--"Fannie reduces requirements to aid mortgage lending"--I am certain you will recognize some of the names. Read the warning in the article too.

I'll agree that wall streeter's didn't help the situation, but after reading this article I am certain you will agree that GROUND ZERO started with government regulation. Any time the government decides to stick their fingers into the private sector they screw it up. Fannie & Freddie are great examples of that. In the article--during the Clinton administration--democrats on the hill decided to put pressure on banks to loan out money to people--lower requirements on credit ratings, no down payment, etc. etc. Why? To buy the votes of lower income & minorities. Now--the American taxpayer is paying for THEIR screwup.

Don't reply back to me, until you have read this article.

 

[KittenKoder]

Delusional post.

This recession is the result of the lack of regulation and greed of Wall Street. They ran a Ponzi scheme with derivatives until it ran out....just like Madoff.

That and Bush borrowing $700 billion dollars from China to invade Iraq is what caused the recession.

If only that was ... it's far deeper and more widespread than that. Also all those who lived on credit helped ruin the economy, the money had to come from somewhere eventually and when the debts were called no one paid and ... well ... you get the idea. By living on credit the prices got inflated, people willing to pay more because they 'can just put it on the card.' Now suddenly when the credit can't be used because no one can afford the interest anymore everyone starts going broke, I wonder why. Then there's the wasted money on stupid projects like digital TV coupons and city projects that went nowhere (Monorail in Seattle, worst joke of the century for example). The military spending was more the straw that broke the camels back.

 

[oreo]

I sold three houses this week, all to first time home buyers.

Thank you Congress and the Fed.

That's odd you're having success. I have a friend that's a sucessful realtor in my area. She had 4 qualified home buyers--who put contracts on homes that they could easily afford, based on credit, income, etc. They were all turned down for the loans.

The banks are not loaning out money--they have taken the 700 billion dollar bailout & have decided to keep it, or buy banks in China.

 

[Jon]

Anyone who believes the worst is behind us has a lot to learn, including whoever wrote that article for Forbes. I have learned that the majority of reporters don't know shit about the economy.

Here's where it's going to get sticky. All those companies that have crashed and burned, they all had stockholders. Some of their stockholders were other companies. In a few months when those companies post their 2008 financial statements and their assets are dramatically less because of stocks that are worth dramatically less, people are going to flip the fuck out and start selling off their shares. And then the next year, when the companies that owned shares in THOSE stocks post their earnings, it's going to happen it again. Snowball effect. Fun times ahead.

 

[KittenKoder]

Anyone who believes the worst is behind us has a lot to learn, including whoever wrote that article for Forbes. I have learned that the majority of reporters don't know shit about the economy.

Here's where it's going to get sticky. All those companies that have crashed and burned, they all had stockholders. Some of their stockholders were other companies. In a few months when those companies post their 2008 financial statements and their assets are dramatically less because of stocks that are worth dramatically less, people are going to flip the fuck out and start selling off their shares. And then the next year, when the companies that owned shares in THOSE stocks post their earnings, it's going to happen it again. Snowball effect. Fun times ahead.

Media is about nothing but sensationalism, whatever they can say or do to get attention, rarely is it based on much fact unless it will attract viewers/listeners/readers. It's all entertainment.

 

[editec]

Could be true.

Fact is nobody really knows what happens next.

Anyone ever hear of a game theory called reflexivity?

I was just reading about it. George Soros was trying to explain it back in about '96. Apparently he wrote a book about it which did not do well and is out of print.

It's the description for economic events which should have understandable outcomes, but based on the players attempting to forecast the future based on those conditions, players then change outcomes in unpredictable ways by reacting to their expectations.

Reflexivity is sort of a refutation of rational market theories, and explains why we keep having meltdowns that surprise all the mavens.

That's why economic forecasting is not, and never will be, a hard science.

So economic forecasting (and investing) is more like playing a game of cosmic poker than a game cosmic chess.

It's not just that perception is reality, but more like perception is just one of the elements that create reality.

Sort to a Hesinberg Uncertainty Priniciple played out in marco economics.

This is sort of why I keep telling people that the study of economics however dependent on metrics they become, will always be more an art than a hard science.

 

[editec]

All one need do is watch corporate media. You'll get one person saying it's over, another one saying the worst is yet to come, and another saying it'll be like this until 2011. And this will all be on the same program, let alone differences between the networks.

If they REALLY knew, they wouldn't say a damned word, is my theory about those talking heads.

No one knows for sure, because first of all, the money isn't done being throw into the mess, and number two, economics can not be predicted that accurately. It could be over tomorrow (depending on your definition of over), or it could very well be the very beginning of a long depression.

Concur.

Most likely, it'll be stagnant until the banks release the new money they're sitting on.

Plausible...and they're sit on the money until they see something that gives them confidence. It's a like a feedback system trying to cope with a lot of random noise.

When that happens, it'll be a rehash of what happened this past decade. Too much money chasing assets, prices going up, bubbles expanding, leading to another burst. That's about the only thing that's predictable, because it's the one thing that history proves will happen.

Certainly if we continue putting money into the hands of those who won't spend it but who seek to invest it, that's the probably outcome.

I find it rather interesting that most people can see why putting too much power into too few hands is a bad thing (like libertarians understand so well), but generally the same damned people who understand that principle cannot understand that putting too many resources into too few hands ALSO has negative outcomes.

You think about 1929 and 2008, that would be freaking obvious, wouldn't you?

 

[Toro]

And we lost OVER 2 Million last year...

Imagine that.

That's two million in one month, not one year.

 

[Tech_Esq]

Okay, this is becoming a universal meme among former bush voters. 3 months ago, every single conservative and bush supporter said obama was either a radical muslim, a marxist, or at best a dangerous extremist liberal from the extreme far left of the dem party.

So let me ask, were bush voters lying three months ago?

They are wrong now if they think he isn't. Well, radical Muslim is a place I won't personally go, but there is every indication that he is a Marxist. Just wait for it. I'm not asking anyone to believe me. Just recognize the signs when they appear.

 

[Tech_Esq]

Delusional post.

This recession is the result of the lack of regulation and greed of Wall Street. They ran a Ponzi scheme with derivatives until it ran out....just like Madoff.

That and Bush borrowing $700 billion dollars from China to invade Iraq is what caused the recession.

What a dembot post. Shame on you.

 

[Tech_Esq]

Go to New York times--read an article out of their archives--date: Sept. 30, 1999--"Fannie reduces requirements to aid mortgage lending"--I am certain you will recognize some of the names. Read the warning in the article too.

I'll agree that wall streeter's didn't help the situation, but after reading this article I am certain you will agree that GROUND ZERO started with government regulation. Any time the government decides to stick their fingers into the private sector they screw it up. Fannie & Freddie are great examples of that. In the article--during the Clinton administration--democrats on the hill decided to put pressure on banks to loan out money to people--lower requirements on credit ratings, no down payment, etc. etc. Why? To buy the votes of lower income & minorities. Now--the American taxpayer is paying for THEIR screwup.

Don't reply back to me, until you have read this article.

You can follow that reading assignment with reading the September 2003 NYT article concerning the new proposed massive regulatory overhaul proposed by the Bush administration to ensure that Fannie and Freddy were properly capitalized and how Barney Frank opposed this move because "Fannie is in no danger" and this is just to "keep poor people from owning houses."

 

[Tech_Esq]

Could be true.

Fact is nobody really knows what happens next.

Anyone ever hear of a game theory called reflexivity?

I was just reading about it. George Soros was trying to explain it back in about '96. Apparently he wrote a book about it which did not do well and is out of print.

It's the description for economic events which should have understandable outcomes, but based on the players attempting to forecast the future based on those conditions, players then change outcomes in unpredictable ways by reacting to their expectations.

Reflexivity is sort of a refutation of rational market theories, and explains why we keep having meltdowns that surprise all the mavens.

That's why economic forecasting is not, and never will be, a hard science.

So economic forecasting (and investing) is more like playing a game of cosmic poker than a game cosmic chess.

It's not just that perception is reality, but more like perception is just one of the elements that create reality.

Sort to a Hesinberg Uncertainty Priniciple played out in marco economics.

This is sort of why I keep telling people that the study of economics however dependent on metrics they become, will always be more an art than a hard science.

Sounds more like the application of chaos theory to markets than anything else. I'm not completely sold on the idea that it is unexpected that people will attempt to forecast the future based on market indicators that are visible. Of course the ultimate in economics is "perfect information" but it is well understood that you never have perfect information. So, the actions of people participating in the market will be "rational" given the less than perfect information they possess. Saying that they would act in a less than rational way would be saying that they would not seek to maximize profits which would contradict their participation in the market in the first place. (Unless you have someone attempting to play spoiler. If so they'd have to have lot of cash, or control a lot of cash, to effect a large market).

 

[Gaar]

That's two million in one month, not one year.

Show me any other time, since the end of WWII, that we lost Jobs EVERY Month for a Year...

I'll wait here.

 

[Toro]

Show me any other time, since the end of WWII, that we lost Jobs EVERY Month for a Year...

I'll wait here.

1982.

http://data.bls.gov/PDQ/servlet/Sur...&series_id=CES0000000001&output_view=net_1mth

I'm not sure what your point is though.

 

[Gaar]

1982.

Bureau of Labor Statistics Data

I'm not sure what your point is though.

My point is we just lost the MOST we lost ALL Year, and it looks like there will be no end, in the near future...

We are heading into uncharted waters, straddled by massive debt and massive spending.

And about to spend mass amounts more to try and solve our "problems", not realizing that it is this deficit spending that is driving us down in the first place.

And thinking Government spending will get us out, just like FDR tried.

 

[Toro]

My point is we just lost the MOST we lost ALL Year, and it looks like there will be no end, in the near future...

We are heading into uncharted waters, straddled by massive debt and massive spending.

And about to spend mass amounts more to try and solve our "problems", not realizing that it is this deficit spending that is driving us down in the first place.

And thinking Government spending will get us out, just like FDR tried.

The deficit is not driving us down in the first place. Running a deficit as Bush did when the economy was strong was irresponsible, but you do not understand the problems of the economy if you think that government deficit spending is the primary cause of this debacle.

 

[Gaar]

The deficit is not driving us down in the first place. Running a deficit as Bush did when the economy was strong was irresponsible, but you do not understand the problems of the economy if you think that government deficit spending is the primary cause of this debacle.

No, I am saying it will be the primary cause that it lasts and lasts...

We cannot go on like we have and expect to keep deficit spending our way out.

We are at the highest level of yearly deficit this Nation has EVER SEEN, even as compared to the GDP, and there is no end in sight to this just getting worse.

It has to come to an end sometime, the question is; will we do it voluntarily, or will we be forced to?

 

[Chris]

You can follow that reading assignment with reading the September 2003 NYT article concerning the new proposed massive regulatory overhaul proposed by the Bush administration to ensure that Fannie and Freddy were properly capitalized and how Barney Frank opposed this move because "Fannie is in no danger" and this is just to "keep poor people from owning houses."

26 hedge fund managers AVERAGED $877 million dollars a year in INCOME.

The Ponzi scheme ran out on Wall Street. F and F was just a small part of the problem.