So the bailout money won't be used as originally planned. Hmm...how general did Congress write this bill
the treasury can buy securities and has to notify congress 48 hours after the fact. they did it vaguely on purpose because back when they were writing it a lot of economists came out against buying the bonds and said we should buy preferred stock instead.
if they wrote it in detail it would be very hard to make changes as the economic situation changes
Dr Mabuse
11-12-08, 01:56 PM
They're already talking more bailouts.
It's a nightmare.
Fannie and Freddie had to happen, the rest of this stuff is just the rich helping the rich.
Propping up businesses that 'evolution' has decided are going to fail is stupid.
sracer
11-12-08, 02:13 PM
They're already talking more bailouts.
It's a nightmare.
Fannie and Freddie had to happen, the rest of this stuff is just the rich helping the rich.
Propping up businesses that 'evolution' has decided are going to fail is stupid.
I was against all of the bailouts. With each bailout is the admission that the system is broken beyond its ability to repair itself. And along with that, a subsequent erosion in confidence in the system's ability to survive. Instead of bailouts fixing the problems, it makes things worse for a possible long term solution.
gmanca
11-12-08, 02:53 PM
I really hope AMEX doesn't get a bailout; they just changed their status to get money because they were all about re-selling credit debt. They aren't be "too big to fail."
What needs to happen, regardless of how far up the Big 3's butt Mr. Phil LeBeau is: give them complete conditions on reforming legacy costs, fuel efficiency, and a major increase in their hybrid/flexfuel/electric models. And all of GM's management needs to go.
Damed
11-12-08, 03:17 PM
Well, if this happens, there likely won't BE any further bailout money to be had.
http://www.cnbc.com/id/27641538
Downgrade to AA or A will mean less parties interested in your bonds, and the parties that are interested will demand a higher interest/return rate.
Given that some analysts predict the US won't be able to handle the payments on their EXISTING bonds by summer 09, I don't see how it's even possible that they can create more.
al_bundy
11-12-08, 03:46 PM
the national debt when compared to GDP and the budget was a lot higher back around 1990 than it is now
Damed
11-12-08, 03:54 PM
the national debt when compared to GDP and the budget was a lot higher back around 1990 than it is now
Actually, no. It is at its highest point since the mid 50's - and that's BEFORE taking the bailouts into account
Crap, just found this article on Fool and the Chinese are taking my advice.
http://www.fool.com/investing/international/2008/11/12/why-chinas-stimulus-plan-will-change-the-world.aspx
Here's some highlights....
Why China's Stimulus Plan Will Change the World
One country's plan to step up
Against that backdrop, China announced a 4 trillion yuan ($586 billion) stimulus package for its domestic economy this past Sunday. It plans to fund extensive infrastructure construction, aid poor farmers, and cut export taxes.
While China's plan has clear beneficiaries, and should help keep more laborers in their jobs and prop up domestic consumer spending, the most important (and underreported) aspect of the plan is how it will fundamentally change the economic relationship between the U.S. and China.
Here's how it will be
This is why the decoupling argument matters. Many analysts have pointed to the thousands of factories that have shut down in China in these past few months as evidence that a slowdown in American spending will cause a depression in China -- potentially even leading to regime change. But in fact, our trade imbalance with China is artificially preserved by the aforementioned currency peg, and by the decision of China's state-run banks to make uneconomic loans to businesses it deemed worth propping up.
China has paid heavily for this relationship. Rather than invest its surplus cash in its own country, the Chinese poured money back into the U.S. to further spur our debt-fueled consumption. (Put less artfully, some poor Chinese guy in Shaanxi province was essentially helping you pay your mortgage.)
The announced stimulus package reverses that. Hundreds of billions of dollars that would have gone to propping up the greenback are now being reinvested in China, helping it to transition from its reliance on exports to a self-sustaining economy. So while China isn't yet decoupled from its export markets, this new spending plan will help it along that path.
This is really bad, imo. We will put out 700 billion to prop up bad business, easy lending, etc. and in the end have nothing to show for it but debt. It will do nothing to the underlying problem, but will hope that the underlying problem won't happen again.
Meanwhile, China will build extensively, have tangible assets to help them compete in the future, and in the meantime, it helps their economy by giving people jobs, which goes everywhere.
Dr Mabuse
11-12-08, 05:05 PM
Good stuff kvr.
sracer
11-12-08, 05:37 PM
Crap, just found this article on Fool and the Chinese are taking my advice.
http://www.fool.com/investing/international/2008/11/12/why-chinas-stimulus-plan-will-change-the-world.aspx
Here's some highlights....
This is really bad, imo. We will put out 700 billion to prop up bad business, easy lending, etc. and in the end have nothing to show for it but debt. It will do nothing to the underlying problem, but will hope that the underlying problem won't happen again.
Meanwhile, China will build extensively, have tangible assets to help them compete in the future, and in the meantime, it helps their economy by giving people jobs, which goes everywhere.
And that is just the direct effect....
The indirect and more devastating effect can be found here...
"Hundreds of billions of dollars that would have gone to propping up the greenback are now being reinvested in China, helping it to transition from its reliance on exports to a self-sustaining economy. So while China isn't yet decoupled from its export markets, this new spending plan will help it along that path. "
Good thing that NAFTA created all of those manufacturing jobs here or we'd be in REAL trouble.
wabio
11-12-08, 05:49 PM
Article from Time.com about the bailout and how 1/3 has already been spent.
I haven't been pessimistic of any of this. Though i didn't agree with the bailout, I saw many ways that it could end up being not terrible. But we are running down the path of 1990 Japan based on absolutely everything I see and are more concerned with holding and propping up that which deserves to fail instead of building for the future.
I don't understand it. And again, this appears to be an area where both parties are doing the exact same thing. I think Obama will continue much of this and will hold firm to helping out unions in jobs that should be allowed to fail in favor of new industry.
wabio
11-12-08, 06:22 PM
In other news (without linking). AIG is supposedly selling off major portions of it's company trying to raise capital. Applied Materials announces 1,800 layoffs. Yum Brands Inc., owner of Taco Bell, KFC, and Pizza Hut announced they will layoff several hundred. Fidelity plans on cutting 1,300. Altria also plans on cutting workers, but declined to say how many.
ernestrp
11-12-08, 06:35 PM
Yum Brands Inc., owner of Taco Bell, KFC, and Pizza Hut announced they will layoff several hundred
I was in a KFC the other day and they had a NOW HIRING sign in the window.WTF. and it was only in english!!!
kvrdave
11-12-08, 06:35 PM
Time to adjust your sig.
I will go ahead and make things worse by tightening up this Christmas, as will others, and we will self fulfull ourselves to doom. Wheeeeee!
Sean O'Hara
11-12-08, 06:53 PM
Time to adjust your sig.
I will go ahead and make things worse by tightening up this Christmas, as will others, and we will self fulfull ourselves to doom. Wheeeeee!
You're just hoping things will get bad enough that Congress will start bailing out slumlords.
Rival11
11-12-08, 09:38 PM
Well according to these guys (video after Bush's speech) they seem to think the problem has been "contained" and now we will have to deal with the "healing process".
and about a trillion of the debt if not more is borrowing at very low rates of the last few months and lending at much higher rates to banks, AIG, Fannie and Freddie and the principal will be repaid as well
al_bundy
11-12-08, 09:42 PM
:gah:
I haven't been pessimistic of any of this. Though i didn't agree with the bailout, I saw many ways that it could end up being not terrible. But we are running down the path of 1990 Japan based on absolutely everything I see and are more concerned with holding and propping up that which deserves to fail instead of building for the future.
I don't understand it. And again, this appears to be an area where both parties are doing the exact same thing. I think Obama will continue much of this and will hold firm to helping out unions in jobs that should be allowed to fail in favor of new industry.
there were a lot of bailouts in the 1970's and we didn't end up like Japan
kvrdave
11-12-08, 10:26 PM
Certainly I hope I am wrong. But I see real economic value in what China is doing and I see almost none in what we are doing. In the end, what will we have to show for our "investment" compared to the massive infrastructre that China will have to show?
Consider if we built 100 nuclear power plants at a cost of 300 billion. Takes about 5 years to build them so you have 5 years of good jobs in the short term, you have many jobs in perpetuity with the plant, the waste, etc. And now you have enough cheap electricity to make a serious dent and incentive for battery cars, which helps get us off foreign oil. That will actually make money and pay us back.
I understand the pitfalls of that as well, but I am talking in generalities. But what about this bailout stimulates anything that we didn't have before? We aren't investing, we are covering losses and hoping for enough of a recovery to not take those losses. Effectively, the feds are playing Warren Buffet, and I don't think they have near the track record he does.
Forget looking like a 1990 Japan. What will this actually do? Putting that same money into infrastructure gives us huge employment and dividends into the future. Doing the bailout gives us what?
DVD Polizei
11-12-08, 10:33 PM
This should be an eye-opener that the Bush Administration wasn't concerned about increasing and improving the infrastructure in the US. They were concerned about corporate survival. That's all. They could care less about how viable the US is in terms of technology, energy, and whatever else. All they care about is satisfying corporations at the US taxpayer's expense.
You'd really have to be the most fucking stupid ass backwards retarded bucktoothed 10ft high truck ridin' motherfucker to not see the signs this economy was going in the shitter. The Bush Administration had years to solve this, thanks. And now, just like all their plans, they wait until the last minute when it's too late.
kvrdave
11-12-08, 10:35 PM
and about a trillion of the debt if not more is borrowing at very low rates of the last few months and lending at much higher rates to banks, AIG, Fannie and Freddie and the principal will be repaid as well
Assuming the banks make it. I don't want to be complete gloom and doom, but I don't think we still have the full picture and severla banks will still go under with the bailout.
gmanca
11-12-08, 10:36 PM
Because we couldn't quickly build 100 nuclear plants and stabilize the economy because that's 100 communities multiplied by angry constituents, backed by ten representatives/senators/governor. And then you still have to deal with how long it'd take to build and doing all the construction without the use of loans from workers/contractors/etc.
The bailout to me made sense if it was only to stabilize the market but at a cost to those institutions to keep them from going under. Yes if they failed "main street" would be hurt but they were the ones who created the mess in the first place and will benefit from a recovery. The problem is that no one with any authority is looking at this with the jeweler's eye that's needed.
So really, not only did you have to do the bailout, but then you still will have to pay for infrastructure and new energy jobs and the like. I really see this as an opportunity to get some actual stuff taken care of but Obama/Bush and Congress have to thread the needle.
kvrdave
11-12-08, 10:39 PM
This should be an eye-opener that the Bush Administration wasn't concerned about increasing and improving the infrastructure in the US. They were concerned about corporate survival. That's all. They could care less about how viable the US is in terms of technology, energy, and whatever else. All they care about is satisfying corporations at the US taxpayer's expense.
I would feel better about Obama if he hadn't just signed off on the bailout plan, frankly. And I don't have much faith that he will be much different. I think he will let the car makers bleed us. It will be for the unions instead of the corporations, but I think the net affect will be the same. And there is nothing I have seen with Obama that makes me think he will do anything substantive with energy.
But those are just predictions, and I hope I am very wrong.
gmanca
11-12-08, 10:41 PM
This should be an eye-opener that the Bush Administration wasn't concerned about increasing and improving the infrastructure in the US. They were concerned about corporate survival. That's all. They could care less about how viable the US is in terms of technology, energy, and whatever else. All they care about is satisfying corporations at the US taxpayer's expense.
You'd really have to be the most fucking stupid ass backwards retarded bucktoothed 10ft high truck ridin' motherfucker to not see the signs this economy was going in the shitter. The Bush Administration had years to solve this, thanks. And now, just like all their plans, they wait until the last minute when it's too late.
What's really awesome, I mean mind-blowingly awesome, is how people like Joe Scarborough say that once future settles, Bush will be seen in a better light.
naitram
11-12-08, 10:43 PM
and about a trillion of the debt if not more is borrowing at very low rates of the last few months and lending at much higher rates to banks, AIG, Fannie and Freddie and the principal will be repaid as well
repaid by whom exactly? these "profitable" corps(es)? with all that money they'll eventually make from their great asset securities, just as soon as the housing market turns around *wink wink*...why do I feel like I should be hearing this from Palin with a wink and a smile?
Still too much kool-aid drinkin in this thread; how about some main street action?
CEOs warn Daley that 'huge layoffs' are coming to Chicago
November 12, 2008
Mayor Daley said Wednesday he’s been warned by a parade of corporate CEOs that a blizzard of job cuts are about to bury the souring Chicago economy.
“Huge layoffs are coming in November and December. And next year, there’s going to be [even more] huge layoffs. All the corporation CEOs have come in to tell me. That’s just the beginning. It’s not their end result,” Daley told reporters after a City Council meeting.
“Each one of them tell me what they’re laying off and they’re going to double that next year. So, you’re talking about huge numbers of permanent layoffs…It’s going to have a huge effect upon all businesses relying off of one another. And for cities, counties and states, your revenue is going to keep coming down….Some of these local governments are going to be in jeopardy. They won’t have enough money to [meet] their payroll. It’s that serious.”
The Chicago Sun-Times reported last week that Chicago will close the book on 2008 with an unreserved corporate fund balance of just $1.5 million, a dangerously low level that, Wall Street Rating agencies warned, threatens the all-important bond rating used to determine borrowing costs.
If already depressed revenues fall even shorter than expected, Moody’s and Standard & Poors warned that Daley could face a difficult choice: Raid the $500 million Skyway fund; establish a new line of credit to pay employees, contractors and retire debt; or order even deeper budget cuts, beyond the 929 layoffs already planned.
Asked Wednesday if he’s concerned about Chicago’s ability to pay employees, “No. I’m talking about in general, people are saying that. You know in your own industries. It’s very, very dangerous, very frightening.”
Pressed on whether city government was “in the same boat,” he said, “Everybody’s in the same boat in this economy. No one is outside the boat — except the federal government. There’s no layoffs in the federal government. They print money.” :lol:
Last month, Daley told the Sun-Times editorial board that he would not touch the Skyway fund unless the city was literally on the verge of bankruptcy.
On Wednesday, the mayor was asked if he was still intent on keeping his hands off that Skyway money.
“So far — unless everything goes into the bottom. Unless everything hits a Depresssion. That word is dangerous to use. But this is going to be a very difficult economy. I keep saying it. It’s very, very serious,” he said.
At the moment, Daley’s tough times, 2009 budget is precariously balanced with 929 layoffs, slow police hiring and $52.5 million worth of taxes, fines and fees.
A final vote on the $5.97 billion spending plan is scheduled for Nov. 19. But, aldermen are threatening to introduce a slew of ammendments to soften the mayor’s plan to license garbage dumpsters—at an annual cost of $80-to-$780.
“No one is happy with the budget,” Daley said.
http://www.suntimes.com/news/politics/1275442,CEO-daley-layoffs-chicago-economy-budget-111208.article#
nothing like a little confidence boost now and then
Stores see surge in applicants for holiday help
By ANNE D'INNOCENZIO – 1 day ago
NEW YORK (AP) — The odds of landing a part-time job at department store operator Bealls Outlet Stores Inc. this holiday season are slimmer than getting into Harvard: It's one out of every 45.
Don't think the chances are any better at 7-Eleven. One California store received more than 100 applicants in a week and a half for jobs that pay $8.50 per hour — and the retailer doesn't even usually hire holiday workers.
From department stores and convenience chains to call centers, managers who only a year ago had to scramble to fill holiday jobs are seeing a surge in the number of seasoned applicants — many of them laid off in other sectors and desperate for a way to pay the bills.
The flood of jobseekers comes even as the retail industry drastically cuts back on holiday hiring because of the drop-off in consumer spending, and the applicants — who differ from the usual pool, teens or stay-at-home moms looking for extra spending money — reflect the nation's fast-deteriorating job market.
"I thought it was going to be pretty easy, but I am not the only one looking for a job. There are thousands of us going for the same thing," said Kimberly Caparo of Chesterfield, Mich., who has applied for part-time jobs at Toys "R" Us Inc., Home Depot Inc. and Lowe's Cos. Inc. in recent weeks since she and her husband were laid off by American Axle & Manufacturing Holdings Inc.
At UPS Inc., which is just starting to ramp up its holiday hiring, as much as 30 percent of the seasonal hires in the Northeast are coming from the ranks of the recently laid off, said spokeswoman Ronna Charles Branch. In the past, she said, applicants for holiday jobs at the world's biggest shipping carrier were largely students.
Jean Telfort, a 41-year-old Army veteran, has applied for dozens of part-time jobs, including at Macy's and Nordstrom Inc., with no success. He needs money to help pay the rent and to pay down his $60,000 credit card bill, which includes his college tuition charges.
"I am looking for anything to carry me over," said the Freeport, N.Y., who returned full-time to Hofstra University where he's pursuing a degree in public relations after he served 11 years in the Army. He expects to graduate in May.
Since the financial meltdown intensified in September, leading to massive layoffs across several industries, a growing number of the unemployed have been turning to lower-paying jobs in the retail sector, which they thought could help them get by until they found full-time work in their specialized fields or retrain in other areas.
"It would be money coming in even if it's a little bit," said Caparo, 32, who's finishing up a college degree in business administration and does not plan to go back to the battered auto industry. "It's money that I don't have to take out."
But given the shakiness of the retailing industry amid a series of bankruptcies, store closings and liquidations, laid-off workers are even having a hard time finding any jobs. The situation got even tougher Monday, when consumer electronics chain Circuit City Stores Inc. filed for bankruptcy and said it would be laying off more people than previously announced.
John Challenger, chief executive of Chicago-based outplacement firm Challenger, Gray & Christmas, noted that holiday hiring will fall significantly below last year's total, which was the lowest since 2003. And those with pink slips shouldn't count on new job opportunities even after the holidays, since even more retailers are expected to file for bankruptcy.
The U.S. retail industry alone shed 38,100 jobs in October, bringing the total since January to 297,000, according to Michael P. Niemira, chief economist at the International Council of Shopping Centers. That accounts for 25 percent of the 1.2 million jobs lost in the U.S. so far this year. Yet retail employment only accounted for about 11 percent of total payroll employment — meaning the retail industry is losing a higher proportion of its jobs.
Such retail losses have helped push the nation's unemployment rate to a 14-year high of 6.5 percent in October as another 240,000 jobs overall were cut last month, according to government data released Friday. And many economists believe the unemployment rate will climb to 8 percent or 8.5 percent by the end of next year.
As far back as September, Bealls Outlet Stores — which operates most of its 450 stores in Florida — was being flooded with up to 40 to 50 applicants a week, said Conrad Szymanski, president of the Bradenton, Fla.-based chain. A year ago, they saw one or two applicants a week per store. Each store hires about 10 part-time holiday workers — meaning that about 450 applicants are competing for 10 jobs per store. Those are tougher odds than Harvard, which accepted about 7 percent of all applicants for the class of 2012.
"What we are seeing is a profound increase," particularly in Florida, California, and Arizona, where the real estate market has been hit hard, said Szymanski.
What's so striking, store executives say, is how desperate the applicants are.
Rob Duncan, chief operating officer of Alpine Access, a "virtual" call center provider with 7,500 employees working from their homes across the country, estimated a 10 to 15 percent rise in applicants from a year ago. In the past, they were mostly stay-at-home moms looking for part-time work. Now the company, which handles customer service for stores like J. Crew as well as tech support, debt collection and financial services, is seeing more men and more midlevel managers looking for at least 35 hours of work.
"They are looking for replacement income; instead of supplemental income," Duncan said.
David Ortega, a training store manager at the 7-Eleven in Citrus Heights, Calif., that got more than 100 applications, noted that many applicants have management experience — including those who even owned their own construction business.
The store in a suburb of Sacramento, which has been hard hit by the housing slump, usually saw candidates who came straight out of high school, he said.
Ortega also noted that job candidates are doing more follow-ups. One applicant — a former manager in cosmetics at Macy's — even wrote him a thank you note for discussing the $8.50 per hour job.
"You expect to see that for a higher-level position, like an executive," he said.
Because we couldn't quickly build 100 nuclear plants and stabilize the economy because that's 100 communities multiplied by angry constituents, backed by ten representatives/senators/governor. And then you still have to deal with how long it'd take to build and doing all the construction without the use of loans from workers/contractors/etc.
Certainly China has the advantage of not having to deal with a congress. :lol:
I don't have a problem with parts of the bailout, such as the FDIC raising, and some bailout of stuff in AIG, etc. where we are talking about peoples' assets.
The silver lining (which I don't think will amount to anything after the gov't is done) is that most of the bad home loans were written down to zero (accounting rules of the SEC) where the actual asset is not worth zero. Real losses should be much less over time as those homes are resold, etc.
gmanca
11-12-08, 11:12 PM
Certainly China has the advantage of not having to deal with a congress. :lol:
I don't have a problem with parts of the bailout, such as the FDIC raising, and some bailout of stuff in AIG, etc. where we are talking about peoples' assets.
The silver lining (which I don't think will amount to anything after the gov't is done) is that most of the bad home loans were written down to zero (accounting rules of the SEC) where the actual asset is not worth zero. Real losses should be much less over time as those homes are resold, etc.
That's completely true and it's not been a total failure but seriously, I think Bush is kinda winging it right now and isn't pushing people to stay on the ball.
Honestly, I think things will happen in Obama's term because America "is too big to fail™"
DVD Polizei
11-12-08, 11:12 PM
What's really awesome, I mean mind-blowingly awesome, is how people like Joe Scarborough say that once future settles, Bush will be seen in a better light.
Wow. I really enjoyed Joe's program when I had cable (which was about a year ago). What crawled up his ass and took residence.
kvrdave,
Is it really a concidence we have company after company folding up shop...only months before Bush is out of office. I mean seriously, it's like these guys smelled something coming and said, "Ahh fuck'em. We'll take the money, run, and who gives a fuck about employees or our company name. We have large houses, massive boats, and exotic cars, and all the pussy we could ever possibly fuck, so who cares."
wabio
11-13-08, 01:04 AM
I'm not sure how much truth there is to this jobs article, but the stories are downright scary.
I am the operations manager at a small-ish food manufacturing company (about 50 full-time employees) and I used to get 2 or 3 applications a week, almost all of which had spotty work histories. In the past 2 days, I've gotten 18 resumes, all from people with very stable work histories. My first thought was "oh my god, the economy is worse then I thought" but then I realized that not only would I be able to fill all of my vacancies, I'd most likely be able to make a significant upgrade in the quality of my workforce.
wabio
11-13-08, 01:37 AM
I am the operations manager at a small-ish food manufacturing company (about 50 full-time employees) and I used to get 2 or 3 applications a week, almost all of which had spotty work histories. In the past 2 days, I've gotten 18 resumes, all from people with very stable work histories. My first thought was "oh my god, the economy is worse then I thought" but then I realized that not only would I be able to fill all of my vacancies, I'd most likely be able to make a significant upgrade in the quality of my workforce.
Would those upgrades involve layoffs? ;)
Cory02
11-13-08, 02:39 AM
Would those upgrades involve layoffs? ;)
Not that I haven't been tempted, but no.
kvrdave
11-13-08, 02:47 AM
That's completely true and it's not been a total failure but seriously, I think Bush is kinda winging it right now and isn't pushing people to stay on the ball.
Honestly, I think things will happen in Obama's term because America "is too big to fail™"
I'm not a huge Bush fan. I'd say I am about as neutral about him as is possible. Personally, from the little I have seen on the news, I don't recall any outgoing president ever being so willing to do everything possible to make a smooth transition for an incoming president, especially one from the other party.
Having said that, maybe he isn't doing much with this as a result, but I've been impressed with how Bush has gone out of his way to help Obama, and that started even before Obama won.
I would have more faith in Obama if he hadn't signed on for the bailout, as written, as well. So far, I do see any difference between him and Bush in this regard.
kvrdave
11-13-08, 02:52 AM
kvrdave,
Is it really a concidence we have company after company folding up shop...only months before Bush is out of office. I mean seriously, it's like these guys smelled something coming and said, "Ahh fuck'em. We'll take the money, run, and who gives a fuck about employees or our company name. We have large houses, massive boats, and exotic cars, and all the pussy we could ever possibly fuck, so who cares."
Yeah, I think so. People I know that have lots of money (more than they need) are in it for the game, and money is how they keep score. Most are too driven to get out because they also like the power and the challenge. The type of Type A personality that gets to that position doesn't generally go out to pasture, they generally bitch and fight and still make money.
It's the difference between Bill Gates and Paul Allen. Allen was never a Type A personality.
al_bundy
11-13-08, 08:26 AM
Assuming the banks make it. I don't want to be complete gloom and doom, but I don't think we still have the full picture and severla banks will still go under with the bailout.
the banks are offering some nice rates to get new deposits because they need the assets. TARP is pretty much the same thing except we bought stock in the banks.
from what i read most CDS contracts are written for the first 5 years of a loan. not sure what they do for the remainder of the term of the loan, but next year is 2009 and 2003 was the first year that ARM mortgages really took off so we are either past the worst or probably very close to it
kvrdave
11-13-08, 11:14 AM
It's regional. CA may have had the worst of what they will see (I think it will peak in Spring).
As odd as it is, my area had a large employer go out of business just before that, so when everyone else took off, we didn't. Also, another trend that seems to hold true is that when "deals" dry up in big areas, money going to smaller areas to find deals there. We will have waves of foreclosures for awhile. Which is actually okay because the banks have not been able to keep up with all their properties recently, which has lead to dumb decisions to decrease their workload, etc.
al_bundy
11-13-08, 11:24 AM
everyone is out with the horror stories, but i remember those buy foreclosure ads on TV into 1997 or 1998 and everyone just loved the 1990's. i bet the same thing will happen here.
The Bus
11-13-08, 11:29 AM
everyone is out with the horror stories, but i remember those buy foreclosure ads on TV into 1997 or 1998 and everyone just loved the 1990's. i bet the same thing will happen here.
Buy foreclosures with what money?
kvrdave
11-13-08, 11:34 AM
Buy foreclosures with what money?
All through this, I haven't had a deal die because of financing. Well qualified people are still getting loans. The only caveat to that is that financing that use to take 25 days to complete are taking 60+ to close because the banks are pretty poorly run at this moment, but there is money to borrow if you follow traditional lending practices.
al_bundy
11-13-08, 11:40 AM
compared to 2005 the lending standards were pretty tight in the 1990's
it was around 2003 - 2006 when they were pushing all the different ARM loans with no income, downpayment, or any documentation required and pushing the appraisers to value the property at the level the sellers wanted to sell. now we're just getting back to normal
kvrdave
11-13-08, 12:02 PM
compared to 2005 the lending standards were pretty tight in the 1990's
it was around 2003 - 2006 when they were pushing all the different ARM loans with no income, downpayment, or any documentation required and pushing the appraisers to value the property at the level the sellers wanted to sell. now we're just getting back to normal
Except for short periods following times like this, appraisers have always valued property at the levels the sellers (and buyers) wanted. It's a scam. If it wasn't, appraisers wouldn't have a copy of the purchase and sale agreement when they did their appraisal. That is still standard practice and always will be.
al_bundy
11-13-08, 12:05 PM
but in the past with normal lending standards the buyers weren't bidding based on the payment at 2% interest or getting a ninja loan
kvrdave
11-13-08, 12:12 PM
Okay, but what does that have to do with the appraisals?
al_bundy
11-13-08, 12:19 PM
don't remember the percentage of the comp you can bid over to get a good appraisal, but in the last few years i've read a lot of stories of appraisers stretching the comps or finding other ways to appraise the property at what the buyers bid instead of its value
kvrdave
11-13-08, 12:26 PM
Then you read about a dirty secret that has always been the case. Like I said, they have the sales agreement with them and do everything possible to make the appraisal meet the price on the form. If they don't they will find that banks are less likely to use them in the future. This tightens up in times like these, but it doesn't go away.
For a real fun time, they should make appraisers do the appraisal without knowing what the offer is. :lol:
Sean O'Hara
11-13-08, 01:34 PM
Just saw this on the Consumerist (http://consumerist.com/5084305/best-buy-to-employees-survive-the-meltdown-by-making-customer-service-a-priority):
A Message from Brad Anderson, Brian Dunn and Bob Willett
To all employees:
This morning, we announced that we've seen a sudden change in consumer spending, in our comparable store sales, and in our expectations for this year's earnings. We'd like to provide more context around these changes and their impact on our business.
The year started off well, with total company comparable store sales (sales at stores open more than 14 months) growing 4 percent for the first half of our fiscal year, a period that runs March through August. Our results were fairly consistent until September, when our comparable store sales turned negative, declining by 1 percent. Then our comparable store sales softened further in October, declining by nearly 8 percent, amid unprecedented changes in the financial markets, a deteriorating economy and weakening consumer sentiment. From where we stand today, we could see total company comparable store sales for the rest of the fiscal year decline by 5 percent to 15 percent.
Revenue gains are important to our business model because the majority of our costs ─ such as rent and store operating costs ─ are fixed. Typically, when comparable store sales increase by 3 percent or better, revenue growth outstrips expense growth (including merit increases, rising health care costs and the like), and our earnings rise. Currently, due to comparable store sales declines as well as spending increases, we have expenses rising faster than revenue. That's why we're now anticipating an earnings decrease for the year.
Specifically, today we also announced a new range for our earnings expectations: $2.30 to $2.90 per diluted share. The midpoint of our range is a 17-percent earnings decline compared with the $3.12 per share we earned last fiscal year.
Let us be very clear. These reduced earnings expectations reflect the unprecedented tumult in the financial services industry, which has reduced consumer spending across the board in retail. The outstanding work of our 165,000 employees doesn't make us immune to our environment. We can't change the overall level of consumer spending, but we can focus on deepening our relationships with customers wherever we interact with them: in our stores, on our Web sites and through our call centers.
While our comps have been negative, we gained market share in September and October. So we're getting a bigger piece of a business that is currently shrinking. Customer satisfaction remains at all-time highs. Employee turnover is at historic lows. We firmly believe that our strategy of customer centricity is of great value in driving our performance versus the industry, and that's the strategy we plan to pursue to continue to strengthen our position in the marketplace.
We must find ways to win with the customers who are coming to us today. Serving our customers better than anyone else is the best way to create value for customers, employees and shareholders alike. We need every employee engaged in serving customers better, and more efficiently. We want your unique perspective on what we should do differently in this market, based on what you see and touch, and using the talents you have.
We could let today's turmoil distract us from serving customers. Other retailers might do that. But we will not. Instead, we will use these circumstances to redouble our efforts and deepen our commitment to each other, to our company, to our strategy and to the customers we serve. In so doing, we will strengthen and fortify ourselves as a team. A winning team. That's who we are, and that's Best Buy.
September and October (along with January and February) are among the worst months for retailers, but still, an 8% drop is disastrous.
At least they've learned a lesson from Circuit City.
al_bundy
11-13-08, 02:40 PM
pretty much most of the bad news was priced in 6 weeks ago, the way the market is today there is a very good chance the bottow was today
kvrdave
11-13-08, 02:49 PM
pretty much most of the bad news was priced in 6 weeks ago, the way the market is today there is a very good chance the bottow was today
I almost capitulated. But I think capitulation happens in Jan. I think the holiday sales numbers drive us under 8,000. Actually, closer to 7,000
wabio
11-13-08, 06:22 PM
I almost capitulated. But I think capitulation happens in Jan. I think the holiday sales numbers drive us under 8,000. Actually, closer to 7,000
Yeah, I don't see it at bottom yet either. Everyone is predicting unemployment to go up another 1.2-2.5%. If that's true, we aren't at bottom since spending will pull back even more.
ernestrp
11-13-08, 07:49 PM
I dont care to much from what I have read/heard in the paper about the bailout changing. Now automobile makers want a bailout. I guess next will be hotels. Then department stores like Macy's, etc. The retarded mall closest to where I live has two Macys!!! I expect to see alot of stores and eating places gone in 2009 in this mall since they went upscale over the past 3 years. Several years ago they had a Warner Bros. store and several stores like Natural Wonders etc., but they are all gone. Now they have all these cart sellers on the bottom floor and while most leave you alone there are a couple real aggressive ones that will not let you pass without a sales pitch or they try to put a Microwave heated thing around your neck. I remember 2 or 3 years there was this cart toy place and a guy was shooting off a helicopter thing and it would hit people in the head etc. and people would just stomp on it or go and yell at the guy.
4KRG
11-13-08, 08:01 PM
I almost capitulated. But I think capitulation happens in Jan. I think the holiday sales numbers drive us under 8,000. Actually, closer to 7,000
I am with the hippie on this one, only I won't be so bold as to actually post a bottom value ;)
I agree with the folks that say this is just the begining of the decline, come this time next year, I predict the situation will be worse than it is now. Taking 5 to 10 years to recover providing those in charge don't do things that will make the situation even worse (increase economic strain in any way, cap and trade, higher taxes, new taxes, anything that at the bottom line can be determined to be a tax no matter what you are really calling it).
wabio
11-13-08, 10:14 PM
I am with the hippie on this one, only I won't be so bold as to actually post a bottom value ;)
I agree with the folks that say this is just the begining of the decline, come this time next year, I predict the situation will be worse than it is now. Taking 5 to 10 years to recover providing those in charge don't do things that will make the situation even worse (increase economic strain in any way, cap and trade, higher taxes, new taxes, anything that at the bottom line can be determined to be a tax no matter what you are really calling it).
Egad! That would be horrible! Could you imagine the disaster? Not only would the babyboomer nest eggs be screwed......the generation to follow would be screwed too. They would have to support the boomers using their most productive working years, while not being able to really save/grow any retirement for themselves. Nightmare.
wabio
11-13-08, 10:24 PM
Certainly I hope I am wrong. But I see real economic value in what China is doing and I see almost none in what we are doing. In the end, what will we have to show for our "investment" compared to the massive infrastructre that China will have to show?
Consider if we built 100 nuclear power plants at a cost of 300 billion. Takes about 5 years to build them so you have 5 years of good jobs in the short term, you have many jobs in perpetuity with the plant, the waste, etc. And now you have enough cheap electricity to make a serious dent and incentive for battery cars, which helps get us off foreign oil. That will actually make money and pay us back.
Reading this, one public works project in particular comes to mind. China's Three Gorges Dam. That thing supposedly generates electricity equivalent to 18 nuclear power plants. I'd imagine it's mere existence necessitates employing a small army of workers to maintain.
DVD Polizei
11-13-08, 11:14 PM
If you're smart, you'll apply like I did. :D
Ranger
11-14-08, 12:28 AM
Reading this, one public works project in particular comes to mind. China's Three Gorges Dam. That thing supposedly generates electricity equivalent to 18 nuclear power plants. I'd imagine it's mere existence necessitates employing a small army of workers to maintain.
Yeah, that's a cool project. I wonder how many potential dam sites we have left - hundreds, maybe thousands?
kvrdave
11-14-08, 02:33 AM
Yeah, that's a cool project. I wonder how many potential dam sites we have left - hundreds, maybe thousands?
Keep in mind I am on the Columbia River. The biggest concern would be from environmentalists, and the endangered species act would likely make a dam tougher to get in than a nuke. Right now we are just fighting to keep them from taking dams down.
One thing the hippies didn't count on, though. There is a dam on The Snake River they want to get rid of. But the lake that it caused acts as a natural carbon dam. The lake absorbs and holds carbon (a dangerous greenhouse gas, BOOGA BOOGA) and it turns out that removing the dam would be the same, in terms of greenhouse gas release as putting 600,000 cars on the road annually. :lol: I love that.
I have friends that got a dam put in on a snow runoff area. Very small. I think it produces around 15 megawatts and can only be used about 4 months a year. No fish. Still took years to get in because of the crap we go through. Fortunately, a city in California (Burbank?) bought it for about 3 times what it was actually worth because they needed green energy to meet some new California requirement.
I don't believe we will ever see another significant dam placed in the US.
kvrdave
11-14-08, 11:37 AM
:lol: We all want renewable energy until we find out it doesn't come in a box delivered by the Free Energy Fairy.
al_bundy
11-14-08, 11:48 AM
and that it kills just as much cute cuddly animals as evil oil
kvrdave
11-14-08, 12:24 PM
Well, I wouldn't recommend we use the same methods china did in getting stuff built, just that we get it built.
I would guess that the 600 billion they are spending over there will net them about 2.4 trillion when compared to what we would have to build to break even with them.
Pharoh
11-14-08, 01:09 PM
Well, I wouldn't recommend we use the same methods china did in getting stuff built, just that we get it built.
I would guess that the 600 billion they are spending over there will net them about 2.4 trillion when compared to what we would have to build to break even with them.
:hscratch:
It doesn't get them anything.
Nor would any such plan here net us anything in the long run.
Dr Mabuse
11-14-08, 01:29 PM
:hscratch:
It doesn't get them anything.
Nor would any such plan here net us anything in the long run.
What do you mean by this?
Ranger
11-14-08, 01:29 PM
Urgh. The Three Gorges Dam is an abomination, and represents everything that's wrong with oriental despotisms.
So it should be torn down?
wabio
11-14-08, 09:13 PM
:hscratch:
It doesn't get them anything.
Nor would any such plan here net us anything in the long run.
So what would you propose in terms of a road towards energy independence? What are your thoughts on the Hoover Dam or Golden Gate Bridge? Or do you think we will be better off continuing to buy oil from the Middle East? One thing is for sure.....alternative energy isn't going to happen if the gov't doesn't promote it and give incentives. Big oil has way too much leverage against Washington. Heck, these are the same companies that convinced DC to give it huge tax cuts during times of record profits. No other industry would ever come close to such a deal.
wabio
11-14-08, 10:01 PM
News update (without links). Some analysts are guessing GM won't make it to Obama. Fidelity announces a second round of layoffs of 1,700 beginning next year. Most retailers reported future earnings forecasts are coming in well below Wall Street expections. Merry Christmas!
Sean O'Hara
11-14-08, 10:30 PM
So what would you propose in terms of a road towards energy independence? What are your thoughts on the Hoover Dam or Golden Gate Bridge? Or do you think we will be better off continuing to buy oil from the Middle East? One thing is for sure.....alternative energy isn't going to happen if the gov't doesn't promote it and give incentives. Big oil has way too much leverage against Washington.
Can people please stop conflating energy policy with oil? Electrical power production accounts for less than 3% of our oil consumption. We could replace every oil burning plant in the country with hydroelectric and it'd barely put a dent in our dependence on OPEC.
wabio
11-15-08, 12:41 AM
Can people please stop conflating energy policy with oil? Electrical power production accounts for less than 3% of our oil consumption. We could replace every oil burning plant in the country with hydroelectric and it'd barely put a dent in our dependence on OPEC.
True. But why is that? It's probably because we've invested little nationally or corporate-wise in terms of cars that can run on anything else besides gasoline. Instead of developing alternative fuel vehicles we actually took a step backwards and favored increasing our production capacity of trucks and SUV's. The Big 3 are now paying the price for such shortsightedness, and losing market share fast to fuel efficient focused companies like Honda and Toyota. Scenario. Imagine if 30% of the SUV's on the road were replaced with Prius-like hybrids over the previous 10 years. Now imagine another 25% are similarly replaced over the next 10. You'd see our dependence on OPEC drop quickly. Domestic energy policy does make a difference.......and in this case, we rolled the snowball down the wrong side of the hill IMO.
wabio
11-15-08, 01:10 AM
News update (without links). Some analysts are guessing GM won't make it to Obama. Fidelity announces a second round of layoffs of 1,700 beginning next year. Most retailers reported future earnings forecasts are coming in well below Wall Street expections. Merry Christmas!
Looks like Sun Micro is axing 6,000 jobs too. :(
wabio
11-15-08, 01:30 AM
BTW.....when the hell are they going to <i>officially</i> call the recession. This is ridiculous! The NBER really needs to reassessed their definition. Does anyone really have any doubt anymore?
Lateralus
11-15-08, 07:20 AM
BTW.....when the hell are they going to <i>officially</i> call the recession. This is ridiculous! The NBER really needs to reassessed their definition. Does anyone really have any doubt anymore?
This happens every time we have a recession, by the time everybody declares it is a recession the recession will be over.
Superboy
11-15-08, 12:16 PM
BTW.....when the hell are they going to <i>officially</i> call the recession. This is ridiculous! The NBER really needs to reassessed their definition. Does anyone really have any doubt anymore?
It was time to panic 2 years ago when this all started going downhill.
Dr Mabuse
11-15-08, 12:43 PM
Looks like Sun Micro is axing 6,000 jobs too. :(
SUN is one of the most important companies in computing. So many things that are used by everyone for networking and the internet were invented and implemented by SUN.
We lost over 500,000 jobs last month alone.
Gcomeau
11-15-08, 12:49 PM
This teacher probably got fired or worse but notice how he doesn't call the USA 'Fascist' but yet Communist which is more accurate.
The statement made about this f*cker is correct btw. Nader's comment on election night was correct, but is beyond that if it's not obvious by now...wait!! When will the speeple I mean people wake up from their slumber!?
kvrdave
11-15-08, 01:06 PM
Bah, my compound is almost complete with underground lair/bunker. Let the world burn, I say.
Superboy
11-15-08, 01:17 PM
Our downward spiral is quickly accelerating. This will be great for black friday sales...
DVD Polizei
11-15-08, 02:38 PM
It was time to panic 2 years ago when this all started going downhill.
It was time to panic when Bush was elected. Unfortunately, my dumb ass didn't think it was possible.
Sean O'Hara
11-15-08, 02:50 PM
It was time to panic when Bush was elected. Unfortunately, my dumb ass didn't think it was possible.
Just out of curiosity, what policies do you think Gore or Kerry would've implemented that would've prevented the housing bubble and credit meltdown?
wabio
11-15-08, 03:14 PM
Just out of curiosity, what policies do you think Gore or Kerry would've implemented that would've prevented the housing bubble and credit meltdown?
Difficult to say. They might not have done anything differently.....if that's the answer you were looking for. But I doubt their domestic policies could have been any worse than Bush's, which was pretty much non-existent....or worse yet, catered to the very few. In the grand scheme of things though, I don't think either Gore or Kerry would've done Iraq II had either been commander in chief the first term. That $600B alone may have offset the bailouts, both of which, are not part of the federal spending budget.
gmanca
11-15-08, 03:57 PM
I am very sure that Gore or Kerry would not have allowed the amount of leverage that the banks wanted, which is what a lot of people are calling the real actor in the credit crisis.
Pharoh
11-16-08, 10:57 AM
I am very sure that Gore or Kerry would not have allowed the amount of leverage that the banks wanted, which is what a lot of people are calling the real actor in the credit crisis.
In what scenario would that have happened? How would they have been able to prevent such a happening?
The problem is, simply put, that technology and complexity outpaced knowledge.
Pharoh
11-16-08, 11:19 AM
What do you mean by this?
Different things for the two nations in question.
Infrastructure stimulus, though it does provide a very healthy ROI, takes a very long time to have an effect, and in the short term benefits only a small group. We presently don't have much time.
Further, leaving aside the nuclear plant issue, which is never going to happen on a large scale in this country, what are you left with when a non-essential bridge or road is built, or when government workers 'repair' roads and buildings? Productivity does not increase enough, and more relevant to your way of thinking and point of view, none of America's core problems are addressed. Items still wouldn't be 'made' here. It would be merely another bubble.
As for China, they aren't going to get anything different than they already have been getting. Government infrastructure stimulus spending is all they have been doing for the last twenty years. Put more of this money on the layer upon layer of corruption and bad loans, and nothing will result in the end. They still need America as much as ever. Decoupling is a myth. The massive house of cards that is China's economy is going to come tumbling down regardless.
al_bundy
11-17-08, 12:09 PM
In what scenario would that have happened? How would they have been able to prevent such a happening?
The problem is, simply put, that technology and complexity outpaced knowledge.
SEC allowed the investment banks to do this back in 2004
wabio
11-17-08, 12:25 PM
Citibank laying off 53,000. That's a bunch. With all the buyouts and acquisitions, I wonder how many more in banking will see the axe?
al_bundy
11-17-08, 12:34 PM
don't pay attention to financial layoffs, happens every decade usually in the latter years of the decade
kvrdave
11-17-08, 01:06 PM
I am very sure that Gore or Kerry would not have allowed the amount of leverage that the banks wanted, which is what a lot of people are calling the real actor in the credit crisis.
Even Obama said on 60 minutes that this was the fault of both parties. To believe that Gore or Kerry would have done something different is stupid. This came about by trying to help the poor huddled masses get into the home ownership game.
Dr Mabuse
11-17-08, 01:08 PM
don't pay attention to financial layoffs, happens every decade usually in the latter years of the decade
Yes!
Ignore the collapsing of our largest banks, it's perfectly normal.
:lol:
al_bundy
11-17-08, 01:21 PM
happens every decade, some of the biggest banks of the 1980's aren't with us anymore. same thing with the 1970's and 1960's. all banks get big, take risks and collapse to be replaced by the smaller guys who then repeat the cycle
sracer
11-17-08, 01:35 PM
happens every decade, some of the biggest banks of the 1980's aren't with us anymore. same thing with the 1970's and 1960's. all banks get big, take risks and collapse to be replaced by the smaller guys who then repeat the cycle
If this year was like any other year, then your observations have merit. Considering that we were "400 trades away from a complete melt-down", $1 Trillion bail-out, 2 months away from a complete collapse of the domestic auto industry, etc. it is safe to say that things are different this time around.... and that things that "happen every decade" take on a new meaning given the reality of the situation.
orangecrush
11-17-08, 01:42 PM
If this year was like any other year, then your observations have merit. Considering that we were "400 trades away from a complete melt-down", $1 Trillion bail-out, 2 months away from a complete collapse of the domestic auto industry, etc. it is safe to say that things are different this time around.... and that things that "happen every decade" take on a new meaning given the reality of the situation.
OK. Every 80 years ;)
wabio
11-17-08, 01:54 PM
This came about by trying to help the poor huddled masses get into the home ownership game.
Eh. I think what they did during the Clinton administration had good intentions and was of noble intent. There's nothing wrong with trying to get renters into homes. That's how communities are built. Unfortunately, the trick was lost in the details. Greedy mortgage brokers and speculators turned the "dream" into a nightmare. I can't blame the politicians for all the explosive financial products/practices that were being utilized either (ARMs, ninjas, etc.). Even still, the majority of these volatile loans have <i>not</i> been defaulted on (IIRC ~30% are defaults). I think if there was just a little more caution and oversight all around, the situation might have turned out just as envisioned.
I don't think the media helped any either. I remember back in those days, no news report ever mentioned prudence of any sort. Everyone was dumb drunk off their own punch. I remember one case in particular. My boss back then had just moved to San Diego from Illinois and was deteremined to buy a house near the peak of the boom. I told him to wait since this boom was highly unusual and unlike anything I'd seen over the past 20 years. The spike was simply not being supported by any solid local economic fundamentals as far as I could tell. He bought anyways. A $500K house in the suburb of Santee (which is not anywhere to be proud of). Locals call it Klantee for a reason. But what the heck did I know, I was just his minion back then I guess.
al_bundy
11-17-08, 01:56 PM
If this year was like any other year, then your observations have merit. Considering that we were "400 trades away from a complete melt-down", $1 Trillion bail-out, 2 months away from a complete collapse of the domestic auto industry, etc. it is safe to say that things are different this time around.... and that things that "happen every decade" take on a new meaning given the reality of the situation.
i've read several books that say the same thing about 1987 and 1998 with 1987 being more serious. The NY Fed governor had to do a lot of arm twisting to make sure the banks paid each other because all of wall street almost went into BK faster than this year. 1974 was worse than 2008 for wall street.
Jim Cramer who just launched hid fund in the summer of 1987 said that at one point trading on the NYSE literally stopped as there were no buyers. wasn't it in 1994 that Orange County went bankrupt?
kvrdave
11-17-08, 02:01 PM
Eh. I think what they did during the Clinton administration had good intentions and was of noble intent.
I agree that what they wanted was fine and they probably didn't see what could end up happening.
There's nothing wrong with trying to get renters into homes.
<img src= http://i96.photobucket.com/albums/l166/vinyl_alchemist/Kittens/Blasphemer.jpg>
:lol: Okay, I make money selling them houses, too, I suppose.
That's how communities are built. Unfortunately, the trick was lost in the details. Greedy mortgage brokers and speculators turned the "dream" into a nightmare. I can't blame the politicians for all the explosive financial products/practices that were being utilized either (ARMs, ninjas, etc.). Even still, the majority of these volatile loans have <i>not</i> been defaulted on (IIRC ~30% are defaults). I think if there was just a little more caution and oversight all around, the situation might have turned out just as envisioned.
I don't think the media helped any either. I remember back in those days, no news report ever mentioned prudence of any sort. Everyone was dumb drunk off their own punch.
Agree again. I was just commenting on how this was trying to be laid at the feet of Bush. You have to be a true 100% partisan to do that, imo.
Sean O'Hara
11-17-08, 02:07 PM
happens every decade, some of the biggest banks of the 1980's aren't with us anymore. same thing with the 1970's and 1960's. all banks get big, take risks and collapse to be replaced by the smaller guys who then repeat the cycle
That may be true, but 53k layoffs on top of what happened last week isn't something you can write-off.
al_bundy
11-17-08, 02:19 PM
i live in NYC and once a decade wall street lays off more people than americans who died in WW2. usually happens in the last 2 years of the decade but sometimes at the start like in 2000 - 2002.
most of the people save their bonuses for a rainy day and spend a year or so without a job while things pick up again or they find a job with a smaller company
wabio
11-17-08, 02:27 PM
I agree that what they wanted was fine and they probably didn't see what could end up happening.
Agree again. I was just commenting on how this was trying to be laid at the feet of Bush. You have to be a true 100% partisan to do that, imo.
I don't blame Bush for the housing meltdown, but I blame him for just about everything else......even for the foul smell emanating from my kitchen trashcan. :eek: I think his biggest failure (even bigger than Iraq) was his inability to keep budget spending under control. That really left us in a tough situation.
P.S. Stop trying to conquer the world! Do you really want to be the world's landlord? :lol: Take time to smell the flowers. Envision thoughts of horses running free! :)
Agree again. I was just commenting on how this was trying to be laid at the feet of Bush. You have to be a true 100% partisan to do that, imo.
In 2004, the SEC, under Bush appointee William Donaldson, changed the leverage rules for five investment banks because the economic theory, which was initiated by the Bush 2001 Tax Cuts, was that savings put towards investment would increase labor and capital. So banks like Lehman Bros, Bear Sterns and Paulson's Goldman Sachs, deregulated by Clinton, were now keeping 1 dollar for every 40 dollars they were investing.
We should want people to be in homes and defaults will occur with lower income folks, but the predatory loan terms made default more likely. There were people who should have never gotten/taken loans, but there were just as many who should have and were still hit by the crisis. And because of the lack of capital by the investment banks, the impact of the defaults were magnified.
So when someone asked earlier what policies would Kerry or Gore have taken or rather, not taken, to avoid what had happened, well just by the fact of appointments, Donaldson wouldn't have been there, and Paulson's request for the removal of the net capital rule would not have been listened to while being chairman and CEO of Goldman Sachs.
naitram
11-17-08, 11:22 PM
don't pay attention to financial layoffs, happens every decade usually in the latter years of the decade
Sweet...I took your advice last week about the "bottom being in" too, and that's been awesome. Keep the sound analysis coming!
wabio
11-17-08, 11:55 PM
Holy shiznit! The market must've tanked late, because it was actually up the last time I posted. :eek:
al_bundy
11-18-08, 12:08 PM
Sweet...I took your advice last week about the "bottom being in" too, and that's been awesome. Keep the sound analysis coming!
i did get it right back in June that deflation was probably coming and that oil would crash. even back in march there is a post where i said oil would go up to around $120 a barrell and then fall. so i missed it by a bit?
whaaat
11-18-08, 01:16 PM
Holy shiznit! The market must've tanked late, because it was actually up the last time I posted. :eek:
Did you buy a sandwich? :grunt:
wabio
11-18-08, 01:23 PM
Did you buy a sandwich? :grunt:
No, but I bought a couple last week though. :D
A sandwich is sounding good right about now. :drool:
kvrdave
11-19-08, 05:54 PM
Down the lowest since 2003 and we successfully closed under 8,000. Yeah, things suck, but this still feels over sold, but it is a game of emotions. That might take use below 7,000.
DVD Polizei
11-19-08, 09:09 PM
Maybe India can start outsourcing their customer service reps to the US. :up:
wabio
11-20-08, 01:00 AM
European and Asian markets dumping now too. I wonder if this bodes for well for tomorrow?
That would be incredible. My 401(k) no likey though.
sracer
11-20-08, 11:02 AM
I wonder if we'll hit 6999 by tomorrow's close.
I don't think it is going to go that low yet. I still believe that it will drop to 7100 ... linger there awhile before completely collapsing.
kvrdave
11-20-08, 01:27 PM
I don't think it is going to go that low yet. I still believe that it will drop to 7100 ... linger there awhile before completely collapsing.
:lol: Isn't it great that we no longer look at 7100 as the complete collapse?
Dr Mabuse
11-20-08, 02:17 PM
:lol: Isn't it great that we no longer look at 7100 as the complete collapse?
Will you still be calling a capitulation at 7700?
atlantamoi
11-20-08, 02:18 PM
Decided I'd dip into the horror and check my 401k for the first time in a month. Down $101k since January. :(
kvrdave
11-20-08, 02:46 PM
Will you still be calling a capitulation at 7700?
Hard to say. I don't think poor Christmas sales are totally built in right now, and even if they are, emotions will take over. So I guess it depends on where we are before that news comes out. I would predict that initial numbers are bad, which makes people nervous, which makes them spend less, which leads to more bad news.
So I would say capitulation occurs some time in January now. But what level we are at then is hard to say.
Dr Mabuse
11-20-08, 02:51 PM
Hard to say. I don't think poor Christmas sales are totally built in right now, and even if they are, emotions will take over. So I guess it depends on where we are before that news comes out. I would predict that initial numbers are bad, which makes people nervous, which makes them spend less, which leads to more bad news.
So I would say capitulation occurs some time in January now. But what level we are at then is hard to say.
So that's a "no".
:lol:
sracer
11-20-08, 02:51 PM
:lol: Isn't it great that we no longer look at 7100 as the complete collapse?
I never looked at 7100 as a complete collapse. I'm talking 1000-2000.
Dr Mabuse
11-20-08, 03:53 PM
I was asking because 7700 was whizzing by around that time.
We seem to have stalled the drop at around 7500 and rebounded some as of now, between 7500 and 7600.
mbs
11-20-08, 06:16 PM
It's looking like it's going to get ugly. Sub-5000 ugly (but not by much) once the x-mas numbers come out. I'm with Dave and expect to see a bottom in mid-January. I'll call 4900.
DVD Polizei
11-20-08, 08:46 PM
I think Christmas sales will do ok. Not stellar. Not good. But ok. But the products being purchased will be smaller-ticket items, computer-related, and home entertainment as a majority. If we have "ok" Xmas numbers coming out by Jan 1st, we might be in better shape as a consumer entity. If the consumer is confident, the consumer will spend a little more than usual, which will give businesses a little more cash than usual, which will in turn, begin to move those massive wheels of that system I can't remember the name of at the moment.
naitram
11-20-08, 08:58 PM
Frankly I think it's going to crater after Christmas.
In other news...
US seeks 300 billion dlrs from Gulf states: report
Thu Nov 20, 2:29 am ET
KUWAIT CITY (AFP) – The United States has asked four oil-rich Gulf states for close to 300 billion dollars to help it curb the global financial meltdown, Kuwait's daily Al-Seyassah reported Thursday.
Quoting "highly informed" sources, the daily said Washington has asked Saudi Arabia for 120 billion dollars, the United Arab Emirates for 70 billion dollars, Qatar for 60 billion dollars and was seeking 40 billion dollars from Kuwait.
Al-Seyassah said Washington sought the amount as "financial aid" to face the fallout of the financial crisis and help prevent its economy from sliding into a painful recession.
The daily said the United States plans to use the funds to help the ailing automobile industry , banks and other companies suffering from the global financial turmoil.
The four nations, all members of OPEC, produce together 14 million barrels of oil per day, around half of the cartel's production and about 17 percent of world supplies.
The four states are estimated to have amassed close to 1.5 trillion dollars in surplus in the past six years due to high oil prices that rocketed above 147 dollars in July before sliding to just above 50 dollars.
The daily also said that the United States has asked Kuwait to forgive its Iraqi debt estimated at around 16 billion dollars.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20081120/bs_afp/financeeconomyusgulf_081120072928
wabio
11-20-08, 09:57 PM
Jobless claims jump unexpectedly to 16-year high
By CHRISTOPHER S. RUGABER, The Associated Press
WASHINGTON — New claims for unemployment benefits jumped last week to a 16-year high, the Labor Department said Thursday, providing more evidence of a rapidly weakening job market expected to get even worse next year.
The government said new applications for jobless benefits rose to a seasonally adjusted 542,000 from a downwardly revised figure of 515,000 in the previous week. That's much higher than Wall Street economists' expectations of 505,000, according to a survey by Thomson Reuters.
That is also the highest level of claims since July 1992, the department said, when the U.S. economy was coming out of a recession.
The four-week average of claims, which smooths out fluctuations, was even worse: it rose to 506,500, the highest in more than 25 years.
In addition, the number of people continuing to claim unemployment insurance rose sharply for the third straight week to more than 4 million, the highest since December 1982, when the economy was in a painful recession.
The financial markets fell on the news. The Dow Jones industrial average dropped about 160 points in morning trading, and broader indexes also fell.
The jobless figures come as the Senate is expected to vote Thursday on legislation that would extend unemployment benefits. The White House said President George W. Bush would quickly sign the bill.
The measure would provide seven additional weeks of payments to those who have exhausted their benefits. Those in states where the unemployment rate is above 6 percent would be eligible for an additional 13 weeks beyond the 26 weeks of regular benefits. Benefit checks average about $300 a week nationwide.
Without the legislation, its proponents say, 1.1 million people will have exhausted their unemployment insurance by the end of the year.
Elsewhere Thursday, the New York-based Conference Board said its monthly forecast of economic activity declined 0.8 percent in October, worse than the 0.6 percent decrease analysts expected. The economy's health worsened last month as stocks, building permits and consumer expectations all fell, the private research group said. Over the last seven months, the index declined at a 4.7 percent annual rate, faster than any decline since 2001.
The high level of continuing unemployment claims partly reflects growth in the labor force, which has increased by about half since the early 1980s. The percentage of workers continuing to receive benefits – which is different from the unemployment rate – increased to 3 percent, the highest since June 2003. Less than half of unemployed workers receive unemployment insurance.
Joshua Shapiro, chief U.S. economist at MFR Inc., a consulting firm, said the four-week average of continuing claims is 49 percent higher than it was a year ago. That "indicates that those who are unemployed are finding it increasingly difficult to get re-employed."
Shapiro wrote in a note that the number of claims indicates that net job reductions by employers could top 400,000 this month, up from 240,000 in October, when the unemployment rate reached 6.5 percent. Companies have cut 1.2 million jobs so far this year.
Many economists expect unemployment to reach 7 percent by early next year and 8 percent by the end of 2009. Last year the rate averaged 4.6 percent.
The Federal Reserve on Wednesday released projections that the jobless rate will climb to between 7.1 percent and 7.6 percent next year, according to documents from the Fed's Oct. 29 closed-door deliberations on interest rate policy.
Initial claims have been driven higher in the past several months by a slowing economy hit by the financial crisis, and cutbacks in consumer and business spending.
Economists consider jobless claims a timely, if volatile, indication of how rapidly companies are laying off workers. Employees who quit or are fired for cause are not eligible for benefits.
Companies from a wide range of sectors have announced layoffs recently, including Citigroup Inc., Union Pacific Corp., Boeing Co., Wyeth, Sun Microsystems Inc., and poultry maker Pilgrim's Pride Corp.
Came across this deplorable piece in the WSJ. It places the blame for economic ruin on those immoral atheists and secularists. You know - those same forces behind the so-called 'War on Christmas.'
Mad Max and the Meltdown How we went from Christmas to crisis.
By DANIEL HENNINGER
Notwithstanding the cardboard Santas who seem to have arrived in stores this year near Halloween, the holiday season starts in seven days with Thanksgiving. And so it will come to pass once again that many people will spend four weeks biting on tongues lest they say "Merry Christmas" and perchance, give offense. Christmas, the holiday that dare not speak its name.
This year we celebrate the desacralized "holidays" amid what is for many unprecedented economic ruin -- fortunes halved, jobs lost, homes foreclosed. People wonder, What happened? One man's theory: A nation whose people can't say "Merry Christmas" is a nation capable of ruining its own economy.
One had better explain that.
How the financial markets fell so far so fast will occupy economic seers for years. The path to 50% wealth reductions and the death of Wall Street was paved with good intentions, notably the notion that all should own a house, even if that required giving away the house to untutored borrowers with low-to-no-interest loans.
This good intention set off history's largest chain of moral hazard. The great unraveling began sometime between 2005 and 2007, when borrowers, lenders and securitizer shamans all found themselves operating in a zero-gravity environment, aloft on moral hazard.
The technical details have been described with harrowing precision by Robert Stowe England in "Anatomy of a Meltdown" for Mortgage Banker magazine. Briefly: "The underwater earthquake that first rattled the foundations of the mortgage industry came in the form of sharply higher delinquencies and defaults from a book of poorly underwritten subprime loans from the fourth quarter of 2005 through the first quarter of 2007."
His narrative runs through borrowers making misrepresentations on loan applications (fraud), the collapse of Bear Stearns's hedge funds, revised ratings-agency methodologies that led to "unprecedented" mass downgrades, causing a contagion that spread from subprime to prime home-equity loans, and a warning from the president of the IndyMac S&L that "the private secondary market is not functioning." This in turn precipitates a "torrent of deleveraging." Here's the best part: Mr. England's chapter-and-verse article appeared in October -- of 2007, one year before the current mass panic.
A more recent, widely emailed article for Portfolio.com by Michael Lewis of "Liar's Poker" fame describes a skeptical hedge-fund manager and his associates walking through the wild world of mortgage-backed securities like stunned characters in "Mad Max," in effect asking bankers, borrowers and ratings-agency executives one question: Why? Why do you think all of you can get rich, all at the same time, forever?
On Sept. 25, a week after Lehman Brothers declared bankruptcy, Nicolas Sarkozy announced, "Laissez-faire is finished." Then the Washington Post asked on its front page: "Is American Capitalism Finished?"
Little or nothing that has occurred through this crisis discredits the system of free-market capitalism. Across several centuries of rising world incomes and social gains, the system has proved its worth. In this instance, the system has been badly used -- by mere people. Nonetheless, the dimensions of the fall and devastation that originated in subprime mortgages are breathtaking.
Amid all these downward-pushing pressures, occurring in plain sight, hardly anyone or anything stepped up to brake the fall. What happened?
The answer echoing through the marble hallways of Congress and Europe's ministries is: regulation failed. In short, throw plaster at cracked walls. Trusting the public sector to protect us from financial catastrophe is a bad idea. When the Social Security and Medicare meltdowns arrive, as precisely foretold by their trustees, will we ask again: What were they thinking?
What really went missing through the subprime mortgage years were the three Rs: responsibility, restraint and remorse. They are the ballast that stabilizes two better-known Rs from the world of free markets: risk and reward.
Responsibility and restraint are moral sentiments. Remorse is a product of conscience. None of these grow on trees. Each must be learned, taught, passed down. And so we come back to the disappearance of "Merry Christmas."
It has been my view that the steady secularizing and insistent effort at dereligioning America has been dangerous. That danger flashed red in the fall into subprime personal behavior by borrowers and bankers, who after all are just people. Northerners and atheists who vilify Southern evangelicals are throwing out nurturers of useful virtue with the bathwater of obnoxious political opinions.
The point for a healthy society of commerce and politics is not that religion saves, but that it keeps most of the players inside the chalk lines. We are erasing the chalk lines.
Feel free: Banish Merry Christmas. Get ready for Mad Max.
atlantamoi
11-21-08, 01:37 PM
Wow, that's one of the worst opinion pieces I've ever seen.
spainlinx0
11-21-08, 02:11 PM
What an awful piece. Apparently greed was started in our time. No one God fearing would ever do something like this. All religious people never make mistakes. What a ridiculous article.
Sean O'Hara
11-21-08, 02:45 PM
It is in fact quite a good piece. Without ethics, capitalism can't sustain itself. And in turn, ethics requires religious sanction.
Interesting. So you've resolved the Euthyphro Dilemma that's been annoying philosophers for 2500 years? When's your book coming out?
There is a reason why in our long history on this planet no civilization has been built upon atheism, but rather many have been destroyed by disbelief.
Please name three civilizations destroyed by atheism.
Also name the main gods worshiped by the Chinese throughout history.
Shazam
11-21-08, 03:18 PM
Interesting. So you've resolved the Euthyphro Dilemma that's been annoying philosophers for 2500 years? When's your book coming out?Whoa. This brings back memories of my religious studies class.
orangecrush
11-21-08, 04:09 PM
Also name the main gods worshiped by the Chinese throughout history.
What are (generally) the Chinese's religious views?
Nausicaa
11-21-08, 04:31 PM
ethics requires religious sanction
rotfl
whaaat
11-21-08, 04:33 PM
ethics requires religious sanction
This is the single most retarded thing that I've ever seen a self-proclaimed "intellectual" write.
spainlinx0
11-21-08, 04:41 PM
This is the single most retarded thing that I've ever seen a self-proclaimed "intellectual" write.
Read his other stuff.
whaaat
11-21-08, 04:41 PM
Read his other stuff.
I have :lol:
Pharoh
11-21-08, 04:45 PM
I have :lol:
So have I.
I strongly disagree with your assessment.
orangecrush
11-21-08, 05:03 PM
This is the single most retarded thing that I've ever seen a self-proclaimed "intellectual" write.
You must not read very much then.
whaaat
11-21-08, 05:05 PM
I strongly disagree with your assessment.
Which part, that ethics requires religious sanction, or that Vandelay_Inds has written more retarded things?
whaaat
11-21-08, 05:12 PM
You must not read very much then.
Guilty :o
whaaat
11-21-08, 05:14 PM
Bah. I can do a better job than this finding people worth conversing with. Bye.
Oh, don't throw a hissy fit, defend your position. How does a libertarian approach (people are free to do as they please provided they do not interfere with the freedom of others to do the same, blah blah blah) to ethics require "religious sanction"?
sracer
11-21-08, 05:19 PM
Oh, don't throw a hissy fit, defend your position. How does a libertarian approach (people are free to do as they please provided they do not interfere with the freedom of others to do the same, blah blah blah) to ethics require "religious sanction"?
What worldviews frown upon "greed"? Which ones approve of or at least tolerate it?
And if you are going to oppose various religious worldviews, do so based on those who are adhering to that worldview, not the ones who claim to but aren't.
whaaat
11-21-08, 05:31 PM
What worldviews frown upon "greed"? Which ones approve of or at least tolerate it?
How do you define "greed"? I don't believe that there's anything inherently wrong with wanting more than you have, but I strongly disagree with the means (force, fraud) that some greedy people use in that pursuit. Does that make me "unethical"?
And if you are going to oppose various religious worldviews, do so based on those who are adhering to that worldview, not the ones who claim to but aren't.
Fair enough. Perhaps the world would be a much better place if every religious person followed their religious teachings properly. But I'm not opposing religious worldviews per se, I'm opposing the statment that ethics requires religious sanction. For many people that may be the case, for others it is not. Do you believe that all atheists are necessarily unethical people?
Dr Mabuse
11-21-08, 07:12 PM
Those sentiments in that WSJ article are the very same sentiments of the majority of the Founding Fathers and many of our greatest presidents. Countless thinkers and kings and rulers throughout history have echoed those sentiments on basic morality and religion.
"We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge, or gallantry, would break the strongest cords of our Constitution as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." - President John Adams, October 11, 1798
In short that without the moral compass of the Christian religion(making sure any were free to practice their own religion as they saw fit) this nation would corrupt itself into ruin. Vandelay used the word 'ethics', but his point was the same point that George Washington, John Adams, James Madison, Thomas Jefferson, Noah Webster, Alexander Hamilton, Abraham Lincoln, Samuel Adams, Benjamin Franklin, Patrick Henry, John Jay, etc., etc., all made many times over.
It's pretty hilarious to see people in this forum who apparently think themselves so 'enlightened' and intellectual ridiculing those ideas as completely foolish or 'retarded'.
Believe me when I tell you much better men than you, far wiser men than you, infinitely greater men than you, lived by, fought for, died for, and founded this country on those very ideas.
"Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of patriotism who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness...reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle." - George Washington's farewell address, 1796
"We have staked the whole future of American civilization, not upon the power of government, far from it. We have staked the future of all of our political institutions upon the capacity of mankind for self-government, upon the capacity of each and all of us to govern ourselves, to control ourselves, to sustain ourselves according to the Ten Commandments of God." - James Madison, speech to the General Assembly of the State of Virginia, 1778
"The moral principles and precepts contained in the Scripture ought to form the basis of all our civil constitutions and laws. All the miseries and evil men suffer from vice, crime, ambition, injustice, oppression, slavery, and war, proceed from their despising or neglecting the precepts contained in the Bible." - Noah Webster
"Without morals a republic cannot subsist any length of time; they therefore who are decrying the Christian religion, whose morality is so sublime and pure...are undermining the solid foundation of morals, the best security for the duration of free governments." - Charles Carroll, to James McHenry on November 4, 1800.
"Hold fast to the Bible as the sheet anchor of your liberties, write its precepts on your hearts and practice them in your lives." - Ulysses S. Grant
"It is necessary for the welfare of the nation that men's lives be based on the principles of the Bible. No man, educated or uneducated, can afford to be ignorant of the Bible." - Theodore Roosevelt
"The fundamental basis of this nation's law was given to Moses on the Mount. The fundamental basis of our Bill of Rights comes from the teaching we get from Exodus and St. Matthew, from Isaiah and St. Paul. I don't think we emphasize that enough these days. If we don't have the proper fundamental moral background, we will finally end up with a totalitarian government which does not believe in the right for anybody except the state." - Harry S. Truman
Whereas, the Senate of the United States devoutly recognizing the Supreme Authority and just Government of Almighty God in all the affairs of men and of nations, has, by a resolution, requested the President to designate and set apart a day for national prayer and humiliation:
And whereas, it is the duty of nations as well as of men to own their dependence upon the overruling power of God, to confess their sins and transgressions in humble sorrow yet with assured hope that genuine repentance will lead to mercy and pardon, and to recognize the sublime truth, announced in the Holy Scriptures and proven by all history: that those nations only are blessed whose God is Lord:
And, insomuch as we know that, by His divine law, nations like individuals are subjected to punishments and chastisement in this world, may we not justly fear that the awful calamity of civil war, which now desolates the land, may be but a punishment inflicted upon us for our presumptuous sins to the needful end of our national reformation as a whole people?
We have been the recipients of the choicest bounties of Heaven. We have been preserved these many years in peace and prosperity. We have grown in numbers, wealth and power as no other nation has ever grown.
But we have forgotten God. We have forgotten the gracious Hand which preserved us in peace, and multiplied and enriched and strengthened us; and we have vainly imagined, in the deceitfulness of our hearts, that all these blessings were produced by some superior wisdom and virtue of our own.
Intoxicated with unbroken success, we have become too self-sufficient to feel the necessity of redeeming and preserving grace, too proud to pray to the God that made us!
It behooves us then to humble ourselves before the offended Power, to confess our national sins and to pray for clemency and forgiveness.
Now, therefore, in compliance with the request and fully concurring in the view of the Senate, I do, by this proclamation, designate and set apart Thursday, the 30th day of April, 1863, as a day of national humiliation, fasting and prayer.
And I do hereby request all the people to abstain on that day from their ordinary secular pursuits, and to unite, at their several places of public worship and their respective homes, in keeping the day holy to the Lord and devoted to the humble discharge of the religious duties proper to that solemn occasion.
All this being done, in sincerity and truth, let us then rest humbly in the hope authorized by the Divine teachings, that the united cry of the nation will be hard on high and answered with blessing no less than the pardon of our national sins and the restoration of our now divided and suffering country to its former happy condition of unity and peace.
In witness whereof, I have hereunto set my hand and caused the seal of the United States to be affixed. By the President: Abraham Lincoln.
Let's see you Einsteins have a go at George Washington, James Madison, and Abraham Lincoln now, you know... how 'retarded' they were, how much more intelligent you are than them. It'll be a good laugh.
gmanca
11-21-08, 07:26 PM
So why were there two depressions and five deep recessions in the 1800's?
The argument of the piece juxtaposed today's crisis with a lack of religion, as if there were no foreclosures prior to today, or that banks did not fail as rapidly as they have today. That's just plain wrong but that would negate the author's point in his parallel universe.
DVD Polizei
11-21-08, 09:08 PM
Those sentiments in that WSJ article are the very same sentiments of the majority of the Founding Fathers and many of our greatest presidents. Countless thinkers and kings and rulers throughout history have echoed those sentiments on basic morality and religion.
The WSJ apparently doesn't know greed when it comes across it. This has nothing to do with athiests exclusively. rotfl Jesus Fuck, I can't believe this stuff. This makes a Bill Hunt post seem logical and unbiased. Jesus Christ Dr. Mabuse, you threw me a curve ball with agreeing with this article.
This economy has everything to do with Christians, Muslims, Athiests, Jews, Gentiles, Chinese, Japanese, Americanese, and whateverese you can think of, who wanted FAST PROFITS. This was not specific to any group...except for the common label of all these fuckheads who wanted Super-Quick Cash. WSJ provides no concrete evidence, and just farts away on a Friday, blaming non-God people. Yeah, that makes a shitload of sense. I'm sure athiests don't practice morality or have any kind of moral code. Hell, they're probably terrorists.
whaaat
11-21-08, 10:34 PM
In short that without the moral compass of the Christian religion(making sure any were free to practice their own religion as they saw fit) this nation would corrupt itself into ruin. Vandelay used the word 'ethics', but his point was the same point that George Washington, John Adams, James Madison, Thomas Jefferson, Noah Webster, Alexander Hamilton, Abraham Lincoln, Samuel Adams, Benjamin Franklin, Patrick Henry, John Jay, etc., etc., all made many times over.
It's pretty hilarious to see people in this forum who apparently think themselves so 'enlightened' and intellectual ridiculing those ideas as completely foolish or 'retarded'.
Believe me when I tell you much better men than you, far wiser men than you, infinitely greater men than you, lived by, fought for, died for, and founded this country on those very ideas.
Let's see you Einsteins have a go at George Washington, James Madison, and Abraham Lincoln now, you know... how 'retarded' they were, how much more intelligent you are than them. It'll be a good laugh.
You (and Vandy, and anybody else you care to quote) continue to conflate morality with religion. I'll say it again, to think that morality or ethics is the sole domain of the religious is, retarded.
I make no claim of being enlightened or intellectual, but I do like to believe that I'm a free thinker. But thank you for telling me how insignificant I am compared to Washington et al. :rolleyes:
Here's an idea: instead of your appeals to authority, why don't you tell me why you believe that this:
...reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle.
is true. Because "Washington said it!" ain't gonna cut it for me.
whaaat
11-21-08, 10:39 PM
Which part, that ethics requires religious sanction, or that Vandelay_Inds has written more retarded things?
I apologize for my snarky remark. Though my politics may be quite different from yours Pharoh, I have a great deal of respect for you, and am genuinely interested in your thoughts.
Sean O'Hara
11-21-08, 11:08 PM
Those sentiments in that WSJ article are the very same sentiments of the majority of the Founding Fathers and many of our greatest presidents. Countless thinkers and kings and rulers throughout history have echoed those sentiments on basic morality and religion.
As long as the religion supported their policies.
Are you claiming that morality is non-transcendent and can only be derived from God's will? If someone could prove conclusively to you that God doesn't exist, would you suddenly have no problem with rape and murder? What if God hadn't said, "Just kidding," and instead let Abraham kill Isaac -- would that mean murder isn't evil, because God approves of it?
I'd much rather trust someone who thinks wrong is wrong independent of any guy in the sky.
whaaat
11-21-08, 11:23 PM
I'd much rather trust someone who thinks wrong is wrong independent of any guy in the sky.
:thumbsup:
eXcentris
11-22-08, 01:24 AM
...and independent of fear of an afterlife spent in a giant toaster.
Red Dog
11-22-08, 10:09 AM
This economy has everything to do with Christians, Muslims, Athiests, Jews, Gentiles, Chinese, Japanese, Americanese, and whateverese you can think of, who wanted FAST PROFITS. This was not specific to any group...except for the common label of all these fuckheads who wanted Super-Quick Cash. WSJ provides no concrete evidence, and just farts away on a Friday, blaming non-God people. Yeah, that makes a shitload of sense. I'm sure athiests don't practice morality or have any kind of moral code. Hell, they're probably terrorists.
Thank you.
This writer needed a new way to bash these godless barbarian hordes (he pretty clearly had a pre-existing opinion of them) and he used the failing economy to do so. Genius. -rolleyes-
Nausicaa
11-22-08, 10:35 AM
As long as the religion supported their policies.
Are you claiming that morality is non-transcendent and can only be derived from God's will? If someone could prove conclusively to you that God doesn't exist, would you suddenly have no problem with rape and murder? What if God hadn't said, "Just kidding," and instead let Abraham kill Isaac -- would that mean murder isn't evil, because God approves of it?
I'd much rather trust someone who thinks wrong is wrong independent of any guy in the sky.
It also presumes a "blank slate" view of human psychology, which has long been discredited. Particularly frustrating for an atheist is the idea that ethics even could be derived from a divine source is ridiculous. I don't think the Bible's writers were actually prophets, recording God's commands. Men wrote those words and derived those ethical frameworks. And men are perfectly capable of doing so outside the purview of religion.
What's with this appeal to the authority of Washington and Madison, etc? Brilliant and brave men no doubt, but also men that saw fit to count a slave as 3/5ths a person. Now, I don't fault them to any large degree for that, just as I don't fault them for assuming the conflation of religion and morality. It was a different time before the discovery of the atom, or even Darwinian natural selection. Unfortunately, I can't be so forgiving with people today. It is possible for our understanding of these things to change.
Duran
11-23-08, 11:37 AM
The loss of a religiously-sanctioned ethic lies at the heart of America's decline. The other part is the process of objectification as described by 20th century German Marxism.
Complete and utter bullshit.
Tommy Ceez
11-23-08, 08:58 PM
I'd much rather trust someone who thinks wrong is wrong independent of any guy in the sky.
Its the paradox of the Omnipotent God
Wrong cannot be wrong WHILE God is omnipotent because that implies that God has no external boundries, and if he were REQUIRED to declare that murder is wrong, he would be bound externally, therefore NOT Omnipotent
Jason
11-23-08, 10:25 PM
Its the paradox of the Omnipotent God
Wrong cannot be wrong WHILE God is omnipotent because that implies that God has no external boundries, and if he were REQUIRED to declare that murder is wrong, he would be bound externally, therefore NOT Omnipotent
But doesn't the 6th commandment pretty much declare that murder is wrong?
wabio
11-24-08, 12:20 AM
As Jack Nicholson once said.......
YOU CAN'T HANDLE THE TRUTH!!!!
Here's the latest breakdown of casualties in retail and food. Some are old, some are new, some I may have missed.
------------------------------------------------
Sharper Image closed 184 stores.
Bombay Co. closed 384 stores.
Zales/Piercing Pagoda closed 105 stores.
Bennigans, Steak & Ale closed 300+ stores.
Mervyn's closing 177 stores.
Starbucks closing 600 stores.
Linens & Things closing 371 stores.
Steve & Barrys closing 106 stores.
Circuit City closing 155 stores.
Ann Taylor closing 117 stores.
Eddie Bauer closing 27 stores.
Lane Bryant, Fashion Bug, Catherine's closing 150 stores.
Pacific Sunwear closing 153 stores.
Pep Boys closing 33 stores.
Gap closing 85 stores.
Talbots closing 78 stores.
Disney Store closing 98 stores.
Levitz closing 76 stores.
Home Depot closing 15 stores.
Movie Gallery closing 160 stores.
Sprint Nextel closing 125 stores.
Whitehall/Lundstrum jewelers closing 375 stores.
Wilsons Leather closing 158 stores.
Ethan Allen closing 12 stores.
KBToys closing 356 stores.
Wickes Furniture closing 38 stores.
Birrman54
11-24-08, 12:37 AM
so how about that Citigroup?
DVD Polizei
11-24-08, 01:04 AM
Give yah a penny a share for it.
DVD Polizei
11-24-08, 01:26 AM
Speaking of...Citigroup gets $306 Billion guaranteed from Teh Fed--I mean, you and I:
Hmmmm......that's more than $1,000 per taxpayer. Lovely.
Superboy
11-24-08, 02:13 AM
Those sentiments in that WSJ article are the very same sentiments of the majority of the Founding Fathers and many of our greatest presidents. Countless thinkers and kings and rulers throughout history have echoed those sentiments on basic morality and religion.
But that article is being way too nitpicky, using over simplified examples from popular culture as a barometer of how far this country has strayed from morality or religion. Renaming Christmas is apparently going to be the downfall of this society.
And it's not that our society is straying from this basic morality. Many Americans were appalled at how much fraud and malice was happening at all levels of the mortgage and loan industry. These people were not acting with society's blessing. Do you think they were?
In short that without the moral compass of the Christian religion(making sure any were free to practice their own religion as they saw fit) this nation would corrupt itself into ruin. Vandelay used the word 'ethics', but his point was the same point that George Washington, John Adams, James Madison, Thomas Jefferson, Noah Webster, Alexander Hamilton, Abraham Lincoln, Samuel Adams, Benjamin Franklin, Patrick Henry, John Jay, etc., etc., all made many times over.
But you're making the assumption that their conception of evangelical Christianity can be equated to our modern conception. Do you think that this is true, given how much the role of Christianity has changed in our society, and what their message is?
It's pretty hilarious to see people in this forum who apparently think themselves so 'enlightened' and intellectual ridiculing those ideas as completely foolish or 'retarded'.
Believe me when I tell you much better men than you, far wiser men than you, infinitely greater men than you, lived by, fought for, died for, and founded this country on those very ideas.
Let's see you Einsteins have a go at George Washington, James Madison, and Abraham Lincoln now, you know... how 'retarded' they were, how much more intelligent you are than them. It'll be a good laugh.
Everyone is entitled to their opinions, and to say that simply because these men were great and were the founders of our country that everything they say should be accepted resoundly is a very elementary logical fallacy.
Venusian
11-24-08, 09:14 AM
As a C shareholder, I'll admit that I'm completely hypocritical in liking the latest bailout :D
gmanca
11-24-08, 03:36 PM
I wonder about the home builders asking for a buyout simply because of supply vs. demand. The problem is how close the actual cost for construction is to the sale price to correct the existing and newly-built homes.
I'm inclined to say no because it's not much of a margin to make a difference or is an efficient use of money.
Dr Mabuse
11-24-08, 04:35 PM
Everyone is entitled to their opinions, and to say that simply because these men were great and were the founders of our country that everything they say should be accepted resoundly is a very elementary logical fallacy.
Well... while we are on the topic of "elementary logical fallacy", why don't you go ahead an quote the portion of my post where I said "everything they say" should be accepted?
Ronnie Dobbs
11-24-08, 04:36 PM
Bush's tax cuts were such a childish idea. Spend, spend, spend . . . cut taxes and leave the mess for somebody else.
Here's how the Republicans ran the government.
REPUBLICAN GOVERNMENT
$421 Billion OVER BUDGET (2002)
$555 Billion OVER BUDGET (2003)
$596 Billion OVER BUDGET (2004)
$554 Billion OVER BUDGET (2005)
$574 Billion OVER BUDGET (2006)
This included RECORD overspending.
And the Republicans had the nerve during the election to try to label the Democrats as "overspenders of your hard earned tax dollars".
whaaat
11-24-08, 04:39 PM
Well... while we are on the topic of "elementary logical fallacy", why don't you go ahead an quote the portion of my post where I said "everything they say" should be accepted?
Straw Man meet Appeal To Authority... fight!
Though you kind of set your self up for it when you typed this:
Believe me when I tell you much better men than you, far wiser men than you, infinitely greater men than you, lived by, fought for, died for, and founded this country on those very ideas.
The bolded section basically says "who are you to disagree with these great people?" I think that Superboy was merely pointing out that some of the ideas that the country was based upon (3/5 of a man) can be universally accepted as repugnant. Now I'm not going to Poison the Well and extend that to mean that all of their ideas should be dismissed, but I do agree with the general thrust of his post.
orangecrush
11-24-08, 04:41 PM
Bush's tax cuts were such a childish idea. Spend, spend, spend . . . cut taxes and leave the mess for somebody else.
Here's how the Republicans ran the government.
REPUBLICAN GOVERNMENT
$421 Billion OVER BUDGET (2002)
$555 Billion OVER BUDGET (2003)
$596 Billion OVER BUDGET (2004)
$554 Billion OVER BUDGET (2005)
$574 Billion OVER BUDGET (2006)
This included RECORD overspending.
And the Republicans had the nerve during the election to try to label the Democrats as "overspenders of your hard earned tax dollars".
As receipts were at all time highs, I don't think the tax part of the equation was the problem.
gmanca
11-24-08, 04:51 PM
It was; he spent projected surpluses without investing in the industrial economy and it was all based on trickle-down economics to the N-th degree.
Thankfully, the Senate was able to pare back the tax cuts as most were 30% percent costlier in the House versions.
DVD Polizei
11-24-08, 10:20 PM
Trickle Down Econ For Dummies: I see you eat a nice 10-course meal...and I get a cup of shit which came out of your ass, with a smile on your face to make me feel better. Trickle-Down Economics. Where the cash goes quite smoothly down the upper intestines of a society, and finally makes its way to the anal exit cavity....aka, where you are.
Superboy
11-25-08, 01:19 AM
Bush's tax cuts were such a childish idea. Spend, spend, spend . . . cut taxes and leave the mess for somebody else.
Here's how the Republicans ran the government.
REPUBLICAN GOVERNMENT
$421 Billion OVER BUDGET (2002)
$555 Billion OVER BUDGET (2003)
$596 Billion OVER BUDGET (2004)
$554 Billion OVER BUDGET (2005)
$574 Billion OVER BUDGET (2006)
This included RECORD overspending.
And the Republicans had the nerve during the election to try to label the Democrats as "overspenders of your hard earned tax dollars".
I don't want to say that it's irrelevant to the topic at hand with regards to the representations that each party makes... but the way economics are represented by each party - and the mass media - have severe flaws in them that violate even the very elementary concepts of economics.
Superboy
11-25-08, 01:39 AM
As receipts were at all time highs, I don't think the tax part of the equation was the problem.
Here comes another argument in favor of the Laffer curve, by someone who has obviously not studied the laffer curve.
gmanca
11-25-08, 01:48 AM
I don't want to say that it's irrelevant to the topic at hand with regards to the representations that each party makes... but the way economics are represented by each party - and the mass media - have severe flaws in them that violate even the very elementary concepts of economics.
On CNBC today, Dennis Kneale was proposing that because Obama was willing to delay the repeal of the Bush Tax Cuts until they phase out, Obama recognizes that it would be bad during a recession and therefore tax increases are bad.
Superboy
11-25-08, 01:58 AM
On CNBC today, Dennis Kneale was proposing that because Obama was willing to delay the repeal of the Bush Tax Cuts until they phase out, Obama recognizes that it would be bad during a recession and therefore tax increases are bad.
But WHY this is bad is always misrepresented. It usually falls under some umbrella statement of "stimulating the economy". Of course, most people don't understand the real component of what's driving the economy.
I'd also like to discuss another topic. I feel the way out of this financial crisis is the feds to lower everyone mortgage interest rate to a very low number. Maybe take 3% off everyones loan... This extra money that people will have in their pocket can help to stir up the economy. Seems like the obvious fix, so why haven't they done it yet?
With things as they are right now I am surprised interest rates are still so high.
What does this mean to me that holds a mortgage?
Mike, this ties directly into our existing economy discussion, so I merged it in. I'm sure you'll get some good answers in this thread.
I'd also like to discuss another topic. I feel the way out of this financial crisis is the feds to lower everyone mortgage interest rate to a very low number. Maybe take 3% off everyones loan... This extra money that people will have in their pocket can help to stir up the economy. Seems like the obvious fix, so why haven't they done it yet?
With things as they are right now I am surprised interest rates are still so high.
I don't think it would be the greatest thing for the government to arbitrarily change contract terms. There would probably be more than a few unintended consequences. Also, interest rates are pretty stinking low.
I'd also like to discuss another topic. I feel the way out of this financial crisis is the feds to lower everyone mortgage interest rate to a very low number. Maybe take 3% off everyones loan... This extra money that people will have in their pocket can help to stir up the economy. Seems like the obvious fix, so why haven't they done it yet?
With things as they are right now I am surprised interest rates are still so high.
Well, cutting into the revenue of the banks right now might have some fairly drastic negative consequences. My father paid 13% on his first mortgage. The problem isn't the interest rate - it's that a lot of people bought way too much house. My favored solution is to fix the rate at their ARM rate and to extend the length of the mortgage to make that fit. Convert the interest only loans to 99 year mortgages. That way people get to keep their homes, and banks make even more money. The only people that get screwed are people who want to but their first homes in the next couple of decades, and they're getting screwed anyways.
it means absolutely nothing to you. The mortgage holders are the banks who lent you the money. Or, more accurately, a bank lent you the money. It probably sold your mortgage to another bank. That other bank probably took your mortgage, combined it with a bunch of other mortgages, chopped the package up, and sold them as mortgage-backed securities (MBSs). So a particular MBS might entitle the purchaser to 1% of the revenue stream from a tranche of a thousand mortgages.
The idea behind dividing these into tranches is that you expect a small percentage of mortgages to default. So if you've got an MBS based on 1,000 mortgages and 3% are bad, you'll still get paid based on the other 970. That "standard" rate of default is built into the price an investor pays for an MBS. The problem is that default rates are skyrocketing. instead of having 970 out of 1000 people paying their mortgages, we're down to 700 or 800 people paying their mortgages.
Further compunding the problem is the fact that these MBSs have been chopped up and moved around so much that there's no easy way to separate the good mortgages from the bad. If people could be sure that their MBS was based on 800 good mortgages instead of 1000, then they could sell the thing at a discount and move on. Instead, they have these MBSs that may be based on 1000 good mortgages and may be based on 800 good mortgages and may be based on 600 good mortgages. There's no real easy way to tell. They know what was the quality of the underlying mortgages at the time they were made, so they have a rough sense of whether it's likely to include defaults or not, but they can't say for sure and they can't say how many defaults. So they have no idea whether to sell the MBS for face value or for 20 cents on the dollar.
What the government is prooposing doing is buying $200 billion of the junkiest MBSs. The idea is that if Bank #1 has an MBS it wants to unload, Bank #2 and Bank #3 won't buy it because they can't tell how crappy it is. So the government will just buy it at "a little bit crappy" prices and roll the dice on whether it's really crappy or just a little bit crappy. The idea is that the banks will then have unloaded all these toxic assets at prices that don't wipe them out and they can go back to lending money again. Personally, I'm a little skeptical. I would rather see the government bail Bank #1 out by investing in the bank itself, giving it the solvency it needs to ride through the process of finding out just how crappy the assets are. Then, when the MBSs are off the books, the government can sell its interest in the banks on the open market (some at a loss, but hopefully most at a profit).
I'd also like to discuss another topic. I feel the way out of this financial crisis is the feds to lower everyone mortgage interest rate to a very low number. Maybe take 3% off everyones loan... This extra money that people will have in their pocket can help to stir up the economy. Seems like the obvious fix, so why haven't they done it yet?
It's almost certainly unconstitutional unless you actually pay the banks the 3% difference. But it's actually not too bad an idea (unless you're a renter). In the old days, if you couldn't make your mortgage payment, you would go to your local banker (call him George Bailey) and tell him that. George doesn't really want to own your house, so he would work out some sort of deal such as a 3% haircut on your mortgage. Now, though, if you go to the local bank that you got the loan from, you will find that your bank has sold the mortgage on down the line (it's probably been sold multiple times), and the mortgage has been chopped up and turned into an MBS. The bank that originally held your mortgage kept certain rights (including probably the right to foreclose), but not the right to renegotiate the terms. So the only way to get to the George Bailey solution is to have the government step in and declare by fiat that all mortgages (or all mortgages that meet certain criteria) have now been rewritten. But unless the government paid the banks for the change in value of the mortgages, that would almost certainly violate the Contracts Clause and the Takings Clause of the Constitution.
With things as they are right now I am surprised interest rates are still so high.
The problem is the banks don't want to loan money. They've been burned and they are sitting on these toxic MBSs which they know are going to cost them money at some point down the road when they have to write them off. So they are hoarding cash so that when they have to write off $10 billion worth of MBSs, they can say "It's not a problem -- we have $30 billion in cash, so we're still solvent!"
Red Dog
11-25-08, 10:25 AM
But unless the government paid the banks for the change in value of the mortgages, that would almost certainly violate the Contracts Clause and the Takings Clause of the Constitution.
I'm shocked to hear this coming from you.
Also, not sure about the case law, but how would it violate the Contracts Clause since that is a prohibition against state impairment of contracts.
classicman2
11-25-08, 11:06 AM
In defense of the Bush Administration - the congress has a role in spending also.
btw: budget? Which budget - the congressional budget on the WH budget?
JasonF
11-25-08, 12:11 PM
I'm shocked to hear this coming from you.
Also, not sure about the case law, but how would it violate the Contracts Clause since that is a prohibition against state impairment of contracts.
Good point. I'm not too familiar with the Contracts Clause, so I assumed (without looking it up) that it prohibited government impairment of contracts. If it's only a limit on state power, then we would probably only have a Takings Clause problem.
orangecrush
11-25-08, 03:16 PM
It's almost certainly unconstitutional unless you actually pay the banks the 3% difference. But it's actually not too bad an idea (unless you're a renter). In the old days, if you couldn't make your mortgage payment, you would go to your local banker (call him George Bailey) and tell him that. George doesn't really want to own your house, so he would work out some sort of deal such as a 3% haircut on your mortgage. Now, though, if you go to the local bank that you got the loan from, you will find that your bank has sold the mortgage on down the line (it's probably been sold multiple times), and the mortgage has been chopped up and turned into an MBS. The bank that originally held your mortgage kept certain rights (including probably the right to foreclose), but not the right to renegotiate the terms. So the only way to get to the George Bailey solution is to have the government step in and declare by fiat that all mortgages (or all mortgages that meet certain criteria) have now been rewritten. But unless the government paid the banks for the change in value of the mortgages, that would almost certainly violate the Contracts Clause and the Takings Clause of the Constitution.
This seems to be a real problem for a lot of people who banks would normally negotiate with to keep them from foreclosing. Neither the banks nor the people losing their homes are better off without the ability to re-negotiate terms.
Gcomeau
11-26-08, 01:00 AM
More related news:
http://en.rian.ru/world/20081124/118512713.html
This guy is crazy but he's right:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H-F89sIDDVI
wabio
11-26-08, 01:42 AM
Trickle Down Econ For Dummies: I see you eat a nice 10-course meal...and I get a cup of shit which came out of your ass, with a smile on your face to make me feel better. Trickle-Down Economics. Where the cash goes quite smoothly down the upper intestines of a society, and finally makes its way to the anal exit cavity....aka, where you are.
Now that times are tough.....one quote pops into my head:
"See......they need you now, but when they don’t……they’ll cast you out. Like a leper! See…..their morals, their code…..it’s a bad joke. Dropped at the first sign of trouble. Their only as good as the world allows them to be. I’ll show ya……when the chips are down….these civilized people…..they’ll eat each other. See, I’m not a monster. I’m just ahead of the curve."
You figure out the source.
Superboy
11-26-08, 01:47 AM
This seems to be a real problem for a lot of people who banks would normally negotiate with to keep them from foreclosing. Neither the banks nor the people losing their homes are better off without the ability to re-negotiate terms.
Normally though, the banks would be fine because they repossess the property which would accrue in value. But as properties were massively overvalued they leveraged more than they can possibly back up with liquidity now. They're fucked, and they're looking for just as much help from the government. If the government steps in, it's not going to let the market normalize. In other words, they're going to cushion the blow from the fall out of the speculation made by leveraging these overvalued assets.
al_bundy
11-26-08, 08:51 AM
it means absolutely nothing to you. The mortgage holders are the banks who lent you the money. Or, more accurately, a bank lent you the money. It probably sold your mortgage to another bank. That other bank probably took your mortgage, combined it with a bunch of other mortgages, chopped the package up, and sold them as mortgage-backed securities (MBSs). So a particular MBS might entitle the purchaser to 1% of the revenue stream from a tranche of a thousand mortgages.
The idea behind dividing these into tranches is that you expect a small percentage of mortgages to default. So if you've got an MBS based on 1,000 mortgages and 3% are bad, you'll still get paid based on the other 970. That "standard" rate of default is built into the price an investor pays for an MBS. The problem is that default rates are skyrocketing. instead of having 970 out of 1000 people paying their mortgages, we're down to 700 or 800 people paying their mortgages.
Further compunding the problem is the fact that these MBSs have been chopped up and moved around so much that there's no easy way to separate the good mortgages from the bad. If people could be sure that their MBS was based on 800 good mortgages instead of 1000, then they could sell the thing at a discount and move on. Instead, they have these MBSs that may be based on 1000 good mortgages and may be based on 800 good mortgages and may be based on 600 good mortgages. There's no real easy way to tell. They know what was the quality of the underlying mortgages at the time they were made, so they have a rough sense of whether it's likely to include defaults or not, but they can't say for sure and they can't say how many defaults. So they have no idea whether to sell the MBS for face value or for 20 cents on the dollar.
What the government is prooposing doing is buying $200 billion of the junkiest MBSs. The idea is that if Bank #1 has an MBS it wants to unload, Bank #2 and Bank #3 won't buy it because they can't tell how crappy it is. So the government will just buy it at "a little bit crappy" prices and roll the dice on whether it's really crappy or just a little bit crappy. The idea is that the banks will then have unloaded all these toxic assets at prices that don't wipe them out and they can go back to lending money again. Personally, I'm a little skeptical. I would rather see the government bail Bank #1 out by investing in the bank itself, giving it the solvency it needs to ride through the process of finding out just how crappy the assets are. Then, when the MBSs are off the books, the government can sell its interest in the banks on the open market (some at a loss, but hopefully most at a profit).
It's almost certainly unconstitutional unless you actually pay the banks the 3% difference. But it's actually not too bad an idea (unless you're a renter). In the old days, if you couldn't make your mortgage payment, you would go to your local banker (call him George Bailey) and tell him that. George doesn't really want to own your house, so he would work out some sort of deal such as a 3% haircut on your mortgage. Now, though, if you go to the local bank that you got the loan from, you will find that your bank has sold the mortgage on down the line (it's probably been sold multiple times), and the mortgage has been chopped up and turned into an MBS. The bank that originally held your mortgage kept certain rights (including probably the right to foreclose), but not the right to renegotiate the terms. So the only way to get to the George Bailey solution is to have the government step in and declare by fiat that all mortgages (or all mortgages that meet certain criteria) have now been rewritten. But unless the government paid the banks for the change in value of the mortgages, that would almost certainly violate the Contracts Clause and the Takings Clause of the Constitution.
The problem is the banks don't want to loan money. They've been burned and they are sitting on these toxic MBSs which they know are going to cost them money at some point down the road when they have to write them off. So they are hoarding cash so that when they have to write off $10 billion worth of MBSs, they can say "It's not a problem -- we have $30 billion in cash, so we're still solvent!"
supposedly the government is buying up the worst mortgages via Fannie and Freddie just for the purpose of refinancing them
Bandoman
11-26-08, 12:15 PM
Now that times are tough.....one quote pops into my head:
"See......they need you now, but when they don’t……they’ll cast you out. Like a leper! See…..their morals, their code…..it’s a bad joke. Dropped at the first sign of trouble. Their only as good as the world allows them to be. I’ll show ya……when the chips are down….these civilized people…..they’ll eat each other. See, I’m not a monster. I’m just ahead of the curve."
You figure out the source.
:lol: Want to see my disappearing pencil trick?
kvrdave
11-26-08, 12:58 PM
:lol: Want to see my disappearing pencil trick?
It's "sausage" and no, not ever again.
VinVega
11-26-08, 02:14 PM
How often do stock market crashes occur in October? Is there something about that month, or is there no correlation to the market at all?
Dr Mabuse
11-26-08, 04:20 PM
This is a fairly lengthy article taking a long view on the financial crisis, so I'll just post the link. An interesting read if you care to take the time.
Some insight into why I always mock 'financial experts' on Wall Street, on the news channels, etc. in there.
classicman2
11-26-08, 04:36 PM
Obama has promised 'help is on the way.'
We don't have to worry about it anymore.
DVD Polizei
11-26-08, 05:28 PM
Obama never said we "don't have to worry anymore". He just said help was on its way. If you have your leg blown up in a terrorist attack (taking an example from a recent event), and I tell you help is on its way, do you automatically think your leg is going to come back all fine and dandy?
I don't think so. You'd say...HOGWASH!
Dr Mabuse ,
I read that article last week. It's a really great read for those who want to get the reality of Wall Street and what happened / is happening. I suggest reading it a few times as it's condensed info, but well worth the read.
Red Dog
11-26-08, 06:22 PM
I wonder what his idea of 'help' is.
Superboy
11-26-08, 07:13 PM
This is a fairly lengthy article taking a long view on the financial crisis, so I'll just post the link. An interesting read if you care to take the time.
Some insight into why I always mock 'financial experts' on Wall Street, on the news channels, etc. in there.
That was a really good article. It's interesting how his perspective is based on stupidity and ignorance, and not outright fraud.
classicman2
11-26-08, 07:43 PM
Obama never said we "don't have to worry anymore". He just said help was on its way. If you have your leg blown up in a terrorist attack (taking an example from a recent event), and I tell you help is on its way, do you automatically think your leg is going to come back all fine and dandy?
Did I say he said 'we don't have to worry anymore?'
Do you need a crash course in reading?
Thor Simpson
11-26-08, 07:49 PM
Obama doesn't have to say "we don't have to worry anymore."
Some people already know they won't have to pay their bills or their mortgage once he takes office. Help him and he will help you.
PS I haven't read that article yet because the "LINK" graphic is really ugly.
DVD Polizei
11-26-08, 07:56 PM
Obama has promised 'help is on the way.'
We don't have to worry about it anymore.
Did I say he said 'we don't have to worry anymore?'
Do you need a crash course in reading?
LOL.
I don't just need a crash course. I need a fucking 4-year college degree in classicman2. Sorry, but I don't have the time.
mgbfan
11-26-08, 08:10 PM
LOL.
I don't just need a crash course. I need a fucking 4-year college degree in classicman2.
Nah. Near as I can tell, a 4-year degree would be overkill. The pattern is pretty predictable.
DVD Polizei
11-26-08, 08:37 PM
Hmm. Well, in any case, did any of us notice the Fed injecting another $800 billion into the system. Yowza. Gotta wonder if all this stock market rallying is going to take a nose dive in the coming weeks. Because I don't think anyone wants to stay in it for the long term.
Superboy
11-26-08, 09:22 PM
Hmm. Well, in any case, did any of us notice the Fed injecting another $800 billion into the system. Yowza. Gotta wonder if all this stock market rallying is going to take a nose dive in the coming weeks. Because I don't think anyone wants to stay in it for the long term.
... Do you have any clue what's going on with the stock market, or are you making assumptions about it?
If by "anyone" you mean "hedge fund managers" and by "long term" you mean "a week", you're right.
Superboy
11-26-08, 09:24 PM
Did I say he said 'we don't have to worry anymore?'
Do you need a crash course in reading?
Forget trying to argue with the neo cons. I see you post less and less. Understandable.
If anything, Obama has said "the worst is yet to come". He said that in his campaign, he said that in his acceptance speech, and he said that in subsequent interviews. If only he could be in total denial about the state of affairs of this nation.
classicman2
11-26-08, 10:10 PM
Who is a neo con?
VinVega
11-26-08, 11:05 PM
Did I say he said 'we don't have to worry anymore?'
Do you need a crash course in reading?
mod note - These kind of comments are not helpful at all.
JasonF
11-26-08, 11:56 PM
Wait ... we're only supposed to make helpful comments now? Why didn't somebody tell me!
Superboy
11-26-08, 11:59 PM
Wait ... we're only supposed to make helpful comments now? Why didn't somebody tell me!
...do you need a crash course in reading? See above.
Shazam
11-27-08, 01:40 AM
LOL.
I don't just need a crash course. I need a fucking 4-year college degree in classicman2. Sorry, but I don't have the time.Huh. I only needed 15 minutes.
al_bundy
12-01-08, 01:08 PM
maybe someone can explain how we've been in recession since 2007 and yet GDP growth has been positive this year
The National Bureau of Economic Research said Monday that the U.S. has been in a recession since December 2007, making official what most Americans have already believed about the state of the economy .
The NBER is a private group of leading economists charged with dating the start and end of economic downturns. It typically takes a long time after the start of a recession to declare its start because of the need to look at final readings of various economic measures.
"The committee views the payroll employment measure, which is based on a large survey of employers, as the most reliable comprehensive estimate of employment," said the group's statement. "This series reached a peak in December 2007 and has declined every month since then."
Employers have trimmed payrolls by 1.2 million jobs in the first 10 months of this year. On Friday, economists are predicting the government will report a loss of another 325,000 jobs for November.
The NBER also looks at real personal income, industrial production as well as wholesale and retail sales. All those measures reached a peak between November 2007 and June 2008, the NBER said.
In addition, the NBER also considers the gross domestic product, which is the reading most typically associated with a recession in the general public. Many people erroneously believe that a recession is defined by two consecutive quarters of economic activity declining. That has yet to take place during this recession.
This downturn longer than most
The current recession is one of the longest downturns since the Great Depression of the 1930's.
The last two recessions (1990-1991 and 2001) lasted eight months each, and only two of the 10 previous post-Depression downturns lasted as long as a full year, according to the NBER.
In a statement, White House Deputy Press Secretary Tony Fratto said that even though the recession is now official, it is more important to focus on the steps being taken to fix the economy.
"The most important things we can do for the economy right now are to return the financial and credit markets to normal, and to continue to make progress in housing, and that's where we'll continue to focus," he said. "Addressing these areas will do the most right now to return the economy to growth and job creation."
JasonF
12-01-08, 01:42 PM
maybe someone can explain how we've been in recession since 2007 and yet GDP growth has been positive this year
The idea that a recession necessarily means two consecutive quarters of GDP decline is a fallacy. There are a variety of definitions, of which that is only one. Based on the article, it appears NBER measures a recession by change in payroll employment, and by that measure, the recession started in December 2007.
Venusian
12-01-08, 01:45 PM
we need a more standard definition of a recession
VinVega
12-01-08, 02:17 PM
we need a more standard definition of a recession
If it "feels" like a recession, it is a recession. I like that one. :D
sracer
12-01-08, 02:41 PM
The idea that a recession necessarily means to conseecutive quarters of GDP decline is a fallacy. There are a variety of definitions, of which that is only one. Based on the article, it appears NBER measures a recession by change in payroll employment, and by that measure, the recession started in December 2007.
It's not a fallacy. It is the traditionally used definition. I look at NBER announcement as a psychological ploy to help speed up the recovery. Various segments of the financial community are attempting to manipulate us. We go from a year of proclamations "that we are NOT in a recession" (Phil Graham calling it a mental recession) to "we've been in a recession for about a year".
If it "feels" like a recession, it is a recession. I like that one. :D
That is probably the most accurate definition.
wendersfan
12-01-08, 02:47 PM
maybe someone can explain how we've been in recession since 2007 and yet GDP growth has been positive this yearAside from the argument that the GDP is a poor way to determine if the economy is in recession, the answer I would give you is that the income tax rebate artificially increased the GDP in 2008q2, so instead of showing a contraction, it "grew" by 2.8% in real dollars. If not for that I'm pretty sure the GDP would have shrunk from a year ago.
wendersfan
12-01-08, 02:50 PM
That is probably the most accurate definition.Not really, since it's highly sensitive to partisanship. I would say that sustained negative growth in real disposable income per capita would be the best measure.
sracer
12-01-08, 02:59 PM
Not really, since it's highly sensitive to partisanship. I would say that sustained negative growth in real disposable income per capita would be the best measure.
...and the "experts" are highly sensitive to self-preservation and their own agendas.
I still believe that the average citizen is a good measure. Even though my individual financial position didn't change over the past year, I could see that we collectively were in a recession. I'm no mortgage expert, but my wife and I could see that the combination of exotic mortgages and skyrocketing home prices was a recipe for disaster. The majority of the "experts" claimed that it wasn't a problem.
DVD Polizei
12-01-08, 04:06 PM
... Hmm. Well, in any case, did any of us notice the Fed injecting another $800 billion into the system. Yowza. Gotta wonder if all this stock market rallying is going to take a nose dive in the coming weeks. Because I don't think anyone wants to stay in it for the long term.
... Do you have any clue what's going on with the stock market, or are you making assumptions about it?
If by "anyone" you mean "hedge fund managers" and by "long term" you mean "a week", you're right.
Hmmm. Looking at the stock market today, yeah I know what's going on. Like I said earlier, these increases in the markets are not due to investing. It's more than likely something else, which does not help the "long term" outlook.
So, you're saying stay in this shithole for 10, 20 years, because hey, it'll all balance out.
If you have next to nothing in your account because of recent financial screw-ups, you won't have shit in 10 years. Or 20 years. It's a different financial world now, and to expect the same kinds of increases in your retirement account, is only fooling yourself. And anyone who says otherwise, is just covering for themself, as they scramble to take out funds while telling you to "think about this as a long term committment."
Shazam
12-01-08, 05:02 PM
Hmmm. Looking at the stock market today, yeah I know what's going on. Like I said earlier, these increases in the markets are not due to investing. It's more than likely something else, which does not help the "long term" outlook.
So, you're saying stay in this shithole for 10, 20 years, because hey, it'll all balance out.
If you have next to nothing in your account because of recent financial screw-ups, you won't have shit in 10 years. Or 20 years. It's a different financial world now, and to expect the same kinds of increases in your retirement account, is only fooling yourself. And anyone who says otherwise, is just covering for themself, as they scramble to take out funds while telling you to "think about this as a long term committment."Are you serious?
You do know that the ban on short selling has basically screwed hedge funds, and thusly they've been forced to cover margin via the dumping of their assets, right?
If there's one thing that has stayed the same over the decades, it's boneheaded government policies and dumbass greedy companies.
Thor Simpson
12-01-08, 05:06 PM
DVD Polizei is prophetic on two matters consistently: The Stock Market and Terrorism. Since we have been in the midst of massive terror attacks on US soil for the past 5 years, I must also trust him and remove all assets from the stock market.
DVD Polizei
12-01-08, 05:42 PM
Yeah, well, let me tell you something. If ____ goes down the ____, then I blame ____.
So, there. :)
al_bundy
12-01-08, 10:15 PM
Hmmm. Looking at the stock market today, yeah I know what's going on. Like I said earlier, these increases in the markets are not due to investing. It's more than likely something else, which does not help the "long term" outlook.
So, you're saying stay in this shithole for 10, 20 years, because hey, it'll all balance out.
If you have next to nothing in your account because of recent financial screw-ups, you won't have shit in 10 years. Or 20 years. It's a different financial world now, and to expect the same kinds of increases in your retirement account, is only fooling yourself. And anyone who says otherwise, is just covering for themself, as they scramble to take out funds while telling you to "think about this as a long term committment."
percentage wise it was bad, but volume was pretty light. lower than the average should be this time of year which means it's probably retail investors panicking and not some BS like black friday was bad. we also had to give some gains back from last week otherwise the market would have gone up too fast.
one of my newsletters has a target of 7870 for the Dow and 779 for the SP, but doesn't mean it will go that low. they also have a scenario where we go lower than last week over the next several months and ironically the market is acting like the we go lower scenario for now.
i don't think we'll go lower than last week, but i'm not betting money on it
Superboy
12-01-08, 11:35 PM
It's not a fallacy. It is the traditionally used definition. I look at NBER announcement as a psychological ploy to help speed up the recovery. Various segments of the financial community are attempting to manipulate us. We go from a year of proclamations "that we are NOT in a recession" (Phil Graham calling it a mental recession) to "we've been in a recession for about a year".
...so they're trying to speed recovery by throwing people into a panic?
you do realize that the decline in consumer spending was due to speculation and fears that a recession was looming?
and that the current liquidity crisis is being exacerbating by the same fears and speculation?
and the stock market plummeting probably is based on those same factors?
so how exactly are we being "manipulated"? these companies are the ones that have the most to lose. Short selling is banned for financial institutions. Hedge funds are getting screwed. Mutual funds and 401ks are being drained dry. Leveraged equity is crushing savings and speeding foreclosures and the attrition of credit.
So who exactly are you talking about?
Superboy
12-01-08, 11:45 PM
Hmmm. Looking at the stock market today, yeah I know what's going on. Like I said earlier, these increases in the markets are not due to investing. It's more than likely something else, which does not help the "long term" outlook.
So, you're saying stay in this shithole for 10, 20 years, because hey, it'll all balance out.
If you have next to nothing in your account because of recent financial screw-ups, you won't have shit in 10 years. Or 20 years. It's a different financial world now, and to expect the same kinds of increases in your retirement account, is only fooling yourself. And anyone who says otherwise, is just covering for themself, as they scramble to take out funds while telling you to "think about this as a long term committment."
If by "something else" you mean "massive margin calls" and by "help" you mean "prevent the deterioration of the financial markets", you're right.
If by "different financial world..." you mean "the market is normalizing due to a swift normalization in a market that was artificially inflated brought on by an enormous speculative rise within the last 10 years because of poorly instituted fiscal and monetary policy as well as massive deregulations in hedge fund markets, mortgage backed securities, and the savings and loan industry", you're right. Things are returning to normal. You can still make good on the market right now, you just can't speculate and assume that you can get rich quick by this time next year.
Apparently you've misinterpreted my statement. You should look at the overall performance of stocks right now. There are many stocks that are hurting right now, but there are just as many more that are doing well. The Dow is a great measure of overall risk/return but doesn't necessarily mean that every stock is tanking. If anything, it's hurting the bond market right now - returns are at record lows - as investors are rushing towards safe investments. Also, keep in mind that corporations are re-financing their debt right now. You can expect to see people getting their investments dumped on top of them right now.
wabio
12-02-08, 12:47 AM
I look at NBER announcement as a psychological ploy to help speed up the recovery.
I'm not so sure about that. I think the worse is yet to come. Credit has been artificially hoisting our supposed "solid" economy for years (if not decades) now. People have been using it lavishly to supplement their income, and corporations got drunk off the profit selling their trinkets. That ship has sailed. 30 years ago, when you were broke......it meant you had no money or assets. Nowadays, broke means you <i>owe</i> somebody a considerable amount of money. With the recent collapse, I think the banks are going to take a good hard look at the idea behind credit, and how much is too much when it comes to debt owed. I don't see our GDP coming anywhere close to the number we've seen the last 30 years.
DVD Polizei
12-02-08, 01:17 AM
If by "something else" you mean "massive margin calls" and by "help" you mean "prevent the deterioration of the financial markets", you're right.
If by "different financial world..." you mean "the market is normalizing due to a swift normalization in a market that was artificially inflated brought on by an enormous speculative rise within the last 10 years because of poorly instituted fiscal and monetary policy as well as massive deregulations in hedge fund markets, mortgage backed securities, and the savings and loan industry", you're right. Things are returning to normal. You can still make good on the market right now, you just can't speculate and assume that you can get rich quick by this time next year.
Apparently you've misinterpreted my statement. You should look at the overall performance of stocks right now. There are many stocks that are hurting right now, but there are just as many more that are doing well. The Dow is a great measure of overall risk/return but doesn't necessarily mean that every stock is tanking. If anything, it's hurting the bond market right now - returns are at record lows - as investors are rushing towards safe investments. Also, keep in mind that corporations are re-financing their debt right now. You can expect to see people getting their investments dumped on top of them right now.
I agree, not every stock is tanking. But it's an indication of how much money is actually flowing, what intervals, and the consistency.
Superboy
12-02-08, 01:55 AM
I'm not so sure about that. I think the worse is yet to come. Credit has been artificially hoisting our supposed "solid" economy for years (if not decades) now. People have been using it lavishly to supplement their income, and corporations got drunk off the profit selling their trinkets. That ship has sailed. 30 years ago, when you were broke......it meant you had no money or assets. Nowadays, broke means you <i>owe</i> somebody a considerable amount of money. With the recent collapse, I think the banks are going to take a good hard look at the idea behind credit, and how much is too much when it comes to debt owed. I don't see our GDP coming anywhere close to the number we've seen the last 30 years.
Maybe because they assessed the return, but never the risk involved.
I wouldn't be so pessimistic about the future growth of our GDP. I'd be more afraid of another period of rapid increase due to artificially inflated prices.
sracer
12-02-08, 09:50 AM
...so they're trying to speed recovery by throwing people into a panic?
Not in a panic. But by saying, "see, we have already been in a recession for a year. We'll be out of it soon." Because the same experts who claimed that we weren't in a recession now say that we've been in it for a year and are saying that even though it will be a deep recession, we are more than half way through it. They've AVOIDED 12 months worth of panic by denying the recession.
you do realize that the decline in consumer spending was due to speculation and fears that a recession was looming?
and that the current liquidity crisis is being exacerbating by the same fears and speculation?
and the stock market plummeting probably is based on those same factors?
It has less to do with the actual technical aspects and far more to do with the psychological. Seriously, you can point to all of the technical aspects and indicators you want... but if you couldn't predict this meltdown, then I respectfully say that you know just as much (or as little) about the scope and truth about the situation as I do.
so how exactly are we being "manipulated"? these companies are the ones that have the most to lose. Short selling is banned for financial institutions. Hedge funds are getting screwed. Mutual funds and 401ks are being drained dry. Leveraged equity is crushing savings and speeding foreclosures and the attrition of credit.
So who exactly are you talking about?
We most definitely have been manipulated.... and will be in the future. For the last 12 months some have been saying that we have been in a recession. That things are bad. That things "feel" like previous times of recession. But the experts, even those with experience/knowledge here were dismissing those claims... referring to the standard definition of recession, that the fundamentals of the economy are strong. (You might even have been one of them) Even as the financial systems came crumbling down, there were still claims that we weren't in a recession and pointed to various indicators and explanations as to why we weren't.
Over the past 12 months there has been vigorous effort to avoid using the "r" word. And it didn't have anything to do with it being supposedly technically inaccurate, but about psychological manipulation. Try to prevent or minimize the number of people who are thinking "recession" and maybe they won't act like it.... and hopefully the impact will be lessened.
The manipulation comes by the fact that for 12 months we have been in a recession and it has been completely dismissed and ignored. Now we wake up one day and are told, "yeah, we've been in a recession for 12 months". Water under the bridge, the light at the end of the tunnel is just 6-8 months away.
I firmly believe that those in-the-know know that a complete and total collapse of the financial systems is inevitable. (I only started to believe this when AIG was bailed out and solidified when the $700B bailout was passed)
I know that there will be many who say that I'm overreacting. And they might be right. But I am most certain that those with the most to lose will do what they can to preserve their financial positions... and if that means manipulating the unwashed masses, so be it.
arminius
12-02-08, 11:02 AM
I'm not so sure about that. I think the worse is yet to come. Credit has been artificially hoisting our supposed "solid" economy for years (if not decades) now. People have been using it lavishly to supplement their income, and corporations got drunk off the profit selling their trinkets. That ship has sailed. 30 years ago, when you were broke......it meant you had no money or assets. Nowadays, broke means you <i>owe</i> somebody a considerable amount of money. With the recent collapse, I think the banks are going to take a good hard look at the idea behind credit, and how much is too much when it comes to debt owed. I don't see our GDP coming anywhere close to the number we've seen the last 30 years.
I agree, and I think the real crunch will come in the first quarter of next year. What happens if people throw up their hands and say I cannot pay my credit cards anymore. That will be the next wave.
Superboy
12-02-08, 11:05 AM
Not in a panic. But by saying, "see, we have already been in a recession for a year. We'll be out of it soon." Because the same experts who claimed that we weren't in a recession now say that we've been in it for a year and are saying that even though it will be a deep recession, we are more than half way through it. They've AVOIDED 12 months worth of panic by denying the recession.
And this is bad because?
It has less to do with the actual technical aspects and far more to do with the psychological. Seriously, you can point to all of the technical aspects and indicators you want... but if you couldn't predict this meltdown, then I respectfully say that you know just as much (or as little) about the scope and truth about the situation as I do.
Er... are you agreeing with me, or disagreeing?
We most definitely have been manipulated.... and will be in the future. For the last 12 months some have been saying that we have been in a recession. That things are bad. That things "feel" like previous times of recession. But the experts, even those with experience/knowledge here were dismissing those claims... referring to the standard definition of recession, that the fundamentals of the economy are strong. (You might even have been one of them) Even as the financial systems came crumbling down, there were still claims that we weren't in a recession and pointed to various indicators and explanations as to why we weren't.
You mean that when people were saying years ago that we were building a huge housing bubble and that home prices were being artificially inflated beyond the growth in nominal GDP?
So you would prefer a massive panic which would lead to massive sell offs like we've seen in the past 3 months?
Over the past 12 months there has been vigorous effort to avoid using the "r" word. And it didn't have anything to do with it being supposedly technically inaccurate, but about psychological manipulation. Try to prevent or minimize the number of people who are thinking "recession" and maybe they won't act like it.... and hopefully the impact will be lessened.
Again, this is bad because?
The manipulation comes by the fact that for 12 months we have been in a recession and it has been completely dismissed and ignored. Now we wake up one day and are told, "yeah, we've been in a recession for 12 months". Water under the bridge, the light at the end of the tunnel is just 6-8 months away.
I firmly believe that those in-the-know know that a complete and total collapse of the financial systems is inevitable. (I only started to believe this when AIG was bailed out and solidified when the $700B bailout was passed)
I know that there will be many who say that I'm overreacting. And they might be right. But I am most certain that those with the most to lose will do what they can to preserve their financial positions... and if that means manipulating the unwashed masses, so be it.
If everyone thought like you, it will be.
Oh, wait.
DVD Polizei
12-02-08, 03:35 PM
And this is bad because?
Well, it's bad because you've spent upwards of $6 trillion for something that doesn't exist. :lol:
I suppose if nobody hears or sees an arsonist lighting a fire in the forest...the aronsist...or the fire...doesn't exist? Because that's exactly what the US Gov't has done.
wabio
12-02-08, 10:38 PM
Watching all these retailers sweat-out the holiday season got me to thinking. Have retailers always relied on the Christmas holidays to account for 50-75% of their revenue? I don't ever recall hearing of such a heavy imbalance 20 or 30 years ago. Then again I wasn't exactly interested in corporate bottom lines back then either. Is this a more recent development, or has it always been this way?
wabio
12-04-08, 05:59 PM
AT&T lays off 12,000. DuPont 2,500. Unemployment reaches 26 year high.
Watching all these retailers sweat-out the holiday season got me to thinking. Have retailers always relied on the Christmas holidays to account for 50-75% of their revenue?
"Black Friday" is called such as it's traditionally the first day that stores are "in the black" I believe. That's fairly late in the year.
kvrdave
12-04-08, 06:16 PM
Watching all these retailers sweat-out the holiday season got me to thinking. Have retailers always relied on the Christmas holidays to account for 50-75% of their revenue? I don't ever recall hearing of such a heavy imbalance 20 or 30 years ago. Then again I wasn't exactly interested in corporate bottom lines back then either. Is this a more recent development, or has it always been this way?
Obviously it wasn't that way in the 1940s before Christmas was the consumer driven holiday that it has become. But it has been that way at least 20 years now, I think.
classicman2
12-05-08, 08:34 AM
November unemployment rate - 6.7%; October rate was 6.5%.
533,000 jobs lost in November
Worse figures since Ronald Reagan was president - 1982.
al_bundy
12-05-08, 08:48 AM
Obviously it wasn't that way in the 1940s before Christmas was the consumer driven holiday that it has become. But it has been that way at least 20 years now, I think.
some blog i read had a picture of a newspaper from 1926 where they were hyping the X-Mas shopping season in November. i think it was during the recession that took place in the middle of the decade
Superboy
12-05-08, 08:54 AM
November unemployment rate - 6.7%; October rate was 6.5%.
533,000 jobs lost in November
Worse figures since Ronald Reagan was president - 1982.
If history repeats itself, in 8 years we'll have a savings and loan crisis following an immensely controversial administration.
classicman2
12-05-08, 09:12 AM
The Nov. job loss number is the greatest one-month job loss number since December, 1974 when another Republican (Ford) was president.
Moral: Don't elect Republican presidents. :)
classicman2
12-05-08, 09:19 AM
Job losses in September and October also turned out to be much worse. Employers cut 403,000 jobs in September, versus 284,000 previously estimated. Another 320,000 were chopped in October, compared with an initial estimate of 240,000.
al_bundy
12-05-08, 09:29 AM
on the bright side, rates are really low
i started a refi of my apartment a few days ago, Countrywide said they expect to close before the end of the month.
Larry C.
12-05-08, 11:20 AM
By JEANNINE AVERSA
AP Economics Writer
WASHINGTON -- Skittish employers slashed 533,000 jobs in November, the most in 34 years, catapulting the unemployment rate to 6.7 percent, dramatic proof the country is careening deeper into recession.
The new figures, released by the Labor Department Friday, showed the crucial employment market deteriorating at an alarmingly rapid clip, and handed Americans some more grim news right before the holidays.
As companies throttled back hiring, the unemployment rate bolted from 6.5 percent in October to 6.7 percent last month, a 15-year high.
"These numbers are shocking," said economist Joel Naroff, president of Naroff Economics Advisors. "Companies are sharply reacting to the economy's problems and slashing costs. They are not trying to ride it out."
The unemployment rate would have moved even higher if not for the exodus of 422,000 people from the work force. Economists thought many of those people probably abandoned their job searches out of sheer frustration. In November 2007, the jobless rate was at 4.7 percent.
The U.S. tipped into recession last December, a panel of experts declared earlier this week, confirming what many Americans already thought.
Since the start of the recession, the economy has lost 1.9 million jobs, the number of unemployed people increased by 2.7 million and the jobless rate rose by 1.7 percentage points.
President-elect Barack Obama said the dismal job news underscored the need for forceful action, even as he warned that the pain could not be quickly relieved.
"There are no quick or easy fixes to this crisis ... and it's likely to get worse before it gets better," Obama said. "At the same time, this ... provides us with an opportunity to transform our economy to improve the lives of ordinary people by rebuilding roads and modernizing schools for our children, investing in clean energy solutions to break our dependence on imported oil, and making an early down payment on the long-term reforms that will grow and strengthen our economy for all Americans for years to come."
On Wall Street, stocks slid. The Dow Jones industrials were down more than 175 points in morning trading.
Job losses last month were widespread, hitting factories, construction companies, financial firms, retailers, leisure and hospitality, and others industries. The few places where gains were logged included the government, education and health services.
The loss of 533,000 payroll jobs was much deeper than the 320,000 job cuts economists were forecasting. The rise in the unemployment rate, however, wasn't as steep as the 6.8 percent rate they were expecting. Taken together, though, the employment picture was dismal.
The job reductions were the most since a whopping 602,000 positions were slashed in December 1974, when the country was in a severe recession.
All told, 10.3 million people were left unemployed as of November, while the number of employed was 144.3 million.
Job losses in September and October also turned out to be much worse. Employers cut 403,000 jobs in September, versus 284,000 previously estimated. Another 320,000 were chopped in October, compared with an initial estimate of 240,000.
Employers are slashing costs to the bone as they try to cope with sagging appetites from customers in the U.S. and in other countries, which are struggling with their own economic troubles.
The carnage - including the worst financial crisis since the 1930s - is hitting a wide range of companies.
Employers are slashing costs to the bone as they try to cope with sagging appetites from customers in the U.S. and in other countries, which are struggling with their own economic troubles.
The carnage - including the worst financial crisis since the 1930s - is hitting a wide range of companies.
In recent days, household names like General Motors Corp., AT&T Inc., DuPont, JPMorgan Chase & Co., as well as jet engine maker Pratt & Whitney, a subsidiary of United Technologies Corp., and mining company Freeport-McMoRan Copper & Gold Inc. announced layoffs.
Fighting for their survival, the chiefs of Chrysler LLC, General Motors and Ford Motor Co. returned to Capitol Hill Friday to again ask lawmakers for as much as $34 billion in emergency aid.
Workers with jobs saw modest wage gains. Average hourly earnings rose to $18.30 in November, a 0.4 percent increase from the previous month. Over the year, wages have grown 3.7 percent, but paychecks haven't stretched that far because of high prices for energy, food and other items.
Worn-out consumers battered by the job losses, shrinking nest eggs and tanking home values have retrenched, throwing the economy into a tailspin. As the unemployment rate continues to move higher, consumers will burrow further, dragging the economy down even more, a vicious cycle that Washington policymakers are trying to break.
Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke is expected ratchet down a key interest rate - now near a historic low of 1 percent - by as much as a half-percentage point on Dec. 16 in a bid to breathe life into the moribund economy. Bernanke is exploring other economic revival options and wants the government to step up efforts to curb home foreclosures.
Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson, whose department oversees the $700 billion financial bailout program, also is weighing new initiatives, even as his remaining days in office are numbered.
Obama, who takes office on Jan. 20, has called for a massive economic recovery bill to generate 2.5 million jobs over his first two years in office. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., has vowed to have a package ready on Inauguration Day for Obama's signature.
The measure, which could total $500 billion, would bankroll big public works projects to create jobs, provide aid to states to help with Medicaid costs, and provide money toward renewable energy development.
At 12 months and counting, the recession is longer than the 10-month average length of recessions since World War II. The record for the longest recession in the postwar period is 16 months, which was reached in the 1973-75 and 1981-82 downturns. The current recession might end up matching that or setting a record in terms of duration, analysts say.
The 1981-82 recession was the worst in terms of unemployment since the Great Depression. The jobless rate rose as high as 10.8 percent in late 1982, just as the recession ended, before inching down.
Given the current woes, the jobless rate could rise as high as 8.5 percent by the end of next year, some analysts predict. Projections, however, have to be taken with a grain of salt because of all the uncertainties plaguing the economy. Still, the unemployment rate often peaks after a recession has ended. That's because companies are reluctant to ramp up hiring until they feel certain the recovery has staying power.
Yikes. I hear BoA is planning to lay off a ton of ppl in Janurary. About 30,000, Chase and Citi as well. This shit is crazy.
al_bundy
12-05-08, 11:23 AM
moving into the right thread
Bronkster
12-05-08, 11:27 AM
I welcome all the new people to the ranks of unemployment. :sad:
Larry C.
12-05-08, 11:30 AM
moving into the right thread
:lol: Obama is mentioned.... World Event? It has repercussions.
Seems odd to mention that the market is down 175 as a result of this. As wild as the market has been, that isn't much of a move and I sure wouldn't want to say it is a result of something.
VinVega
12-05-08, 01:19 PM
http://forum.dvdtalk.com/politics-world-events/541349-economy-theme-park-thread-featuring-stock-market-rollercoaster-30.html
Hey you actually posted a link. I'm so proud I could cry. ;)
Threads have been merged.
Ranger
12-05-08, 01:22 PM
Wow, 533k.
Is Dec expected to be even worse?
classicman2
12-05-08, 01:32 PM
Hey you actually posted a link. I'm so proud I could cry. ;)
Threads have been merged.
Thanks! That's helps a little. I'm in tears. O.J. was sentenced today. ;)
Larry C.
12-05-08, 02:21 PM
Hey you actually posted a link. I'm so proud I could cry. ;)
Threads have been merged.
Thx Vin.
dick_grayson
12-05-08, 02:28 PM
why isn't marijuana legalization being considered? after being in Europe (spec. Amsterdam), it seems like this would be a perfect solution to the shit economy. first, you don't have all the people in jail for the soft-drug crimes that were committed simply based on it's illegality. beyond that, the govt could grow and tax the shit out of it. tourism would boom. hemp can be made into tons of shit clothing, food.....even energy and yet it's dismissed as a hippie ploy or something like that.
I believe I saw a statistic one time that weed is the #1 cash crop in the US. Anyone else think it's about time this country reconsiders marijuana laws? Or at least start pushing for wider hemp production?
VinVega
12-05-08, 02:35 PM
I think marijuana should be legalized. :shrug:
dick_grayson
12-05-08, 02:40 PM
I think marijuana should be legalized. :shrug:
cool. meet me after school near the tire swing and we'll do it to it.
Buy: