What happened to all of the doom and gloom economic threads?

[MeeMie]

Existing home sales down by half to about 3.5%, DOW down 145.

Not a good time to be selling a home ...

in Florida ...

on the Gulf.


Could it get worse?

 

[unregistered]

 

[jeninflorida]

go obama go!

by the time obama is finish, there will be no free market!

It's all part of the Obama recovery, right UD?

Dow Faces Bouncy Ride to 5,000: Strategist

Published: Tuesday, 24 Aug 2010 | 3:12 AM ET
By: CNBC.com

The Dow Jones Industrial Average will lose about half of its value over the next couple of years as it follows a Nikkei-like pattern of several sharp rallies in an overall decline, according to Charles Nenner, founder and president of Charles Nenner research

Stocks are currently in a bear-market rally, and looking at charts and past trends, unemployment and leading indicators suggest the Dow will drop to 5,000 in the next two to two-and-a-half years, Nenner told CNBC in an e-mail.

Deflation will arrive, along with a sharp double-dip recession, pushing the Dow lower, although, like the Japanese market, stocks will see several jumps of 30 percent to 40 percent, he said.

- Watch the full Charles Nenner interview above.

"Things look really bad for the next 10 years," Nenner said.

While most stocks will get caught in the downturn, the exception will be those with exposure to soft commodities like wheat, corn and soybeans, he added.

Last week, JPMorgan [JPM 36.88 --- UNCH (0) ] strategist David Kelly said there is still a lot of opportunity in stocks and that a double-dip scenario is "very unlikely."

Nenner is also bullish on gold and silver over the longer term and expects the precious metals to start a new leg higher by the end of the year.

Bond yields should go lower for the next three or four years and the Japanese yen should gain against the dollar, he said, adding that his target was 80 yen per dollar.

Nenner also said that there is a strong case to suggest that the Federal Reserve will ease monetary policy further.

http://www.cnbc.com/id/15840232/?video=1573464643&play=1

http://www.cnbc.com/id/38826988

 

[Sean Renaud]

This is so damned easy that I'm going back to it...

"No Jen. 200 years of history proves liberalism is the only path to life."

200 years ago, Liberal meant Individual Liberty, Limited Government, and Capitalism...



Conservative meant Statism with longing for Crown and Mercantilism...

Think Spain -> Montezuma...

Silver...

160 years ago being conservative meant maintaining slaves and extending it into future territories.

100 years ago it meant keeping women from the ballot box (though we can argue that didn't work out so great at least at first)

60 years ago it meant keeping blacks on the back of the bus and using separate often inadequate facilities.

Today it means keeping gays from equal rights.

I didn't say 200 years ago I said 200 years of history. Conservatism, particularly social, equals death.

Economically its much the same. If we hadn't worked agressively to break up the monopolies and other unfair business practices that we wouldn't have done the same as Russia and killed the rich? Despite the fact that it ALWAYS happens that way.

Particularly if you buy into the bullshit the Republicans most often sell (though to their credit they don't believe it, they just say it over and over again) any regulation is bad and liberal and socialist. We should be disbanding the FCC, FDA etc etc.

We could go into more detail.

Now that isn't to say there aren't quality conservative ideas, or ones still relevant for the moment. Fact is as times, technology being a driving factor, so does what's right. Decentralized government made sense 200 years ago. Or even 100 years ago. The invention of the phone made that idea a kinda silly and the internet made it obsolete. Planes, and automobiles also made it less effective. What good is a law that I can legally break by driving twenty minutes?

 

[jeninflorida]

Not a good time to be selling a home ...

in Florida ...

on the Gulf.


Could it get worse?

yes, I'm running out of cash! would love to purchase another 20-100 houses and hold on to them. after obama gets the 'ole elbow out of office...then sell them and live like UD...well i was gonna say high on the hog, but I think UD is just high

 

[jeninflorida]

Today it means keeping gays from equal rights.

i'm not sure why obama doens't support this...after all everyone should get married and pay more in taxes!

then again, obama supports the death tax...the only problem is that sooner or later everyone is dead and there isn't enough people around to pay obama his high cost of living salary!

the king is dead, long live the obama

160 years ago being conservative meant maintaining slaves and extending it into future territories.

100 years ago it meant keeping women from the ballot box (though we can argue that didn't work out so great at least at first)

60 years ago it meant keeping blacks on the back of the bus and using separate often inadequate facilities.

Today it means keeping gays from equal rights.

I didn't say 200 years ago I said 200 years of history. Conservatism, particularly social, equals death.

Economically its much the same. If we hadn't worked agressively to break up the monopolies and other unfair business practices that we wouldn't have done the same as Russia and killed the rich? Despite the fact that it ALWAYS happens that way.

Particularly if you buy into the bullshit the Republicans most often sell (though to their credit they don't believe it, they just say it over and over again) any regulation is bad and liberal and socialist. We should be disbanding the FCC, FDA etc etc.

We could go into more detail.

Now that isn't to say there aren't quality conservative ideas, or ones still relevant for the moment. Fact is as times, technology being a driving factor, so does what's right. Decentralized government made sense 200 years ago. Or even 100 years ago. The invention of the phone made that idea a kinda silly and the internet made it obsolete. Planes, and automobiles also made it less effective. What good is a law that I can legally break by driving twenty minutes?

 

[Sean Renaud]

Today it means keeping gays from equal rights.

i'm not sure why obama doens't support this...after all everyone should get married and pay more in taxes!

then again, obama supports the death tax...the only problem is that sooner or later everyone is dead and there isn't enough people around to pay obama his high cost of living salary!

the king is dead, long live the obama

I know why he doesn't support it. It's the same reason he doesn't support legalizing marijuana and the same reason why he didn't drop all the various charges Bush brought up on pornographers that caused the re-rulings here and on other porn boards.

Because he's a moderate, not a liberal. Least not nearly as liberal as everyone keeps trying to claim.

The Death Tax doesn't kick in until you make 1 million dollars or more. It doesn't effect everybody, or even near everyone. Besides there is no good reason for anybody who claims to be a capitalist to be against the death tax. Capitalism, as a philosophy not as a practice because there are differences. But the root philosophy is that TO EACH ACCORDING TO HIS ABILITY. Being born to Bill Gates has shit all to do with your ability.

 

[trysail]

Greece: Reducing Budget by €24 billion by 2013
• Public wage cuts, increased retirement age for benefits
• Increased Value Added Tax (VAT)
Spain: Reducing Budget by €65 billion by 2013
• Eliminated 13,000 public sector jobs
• Reduced State Employee Salaries by 5%
Britain: Reducing Budget by £135 billion by 2015
• Hiring freeze for civil service
• Eliminating 300,000 public services jobs
Germany: Reducing budget deficit to 0.5% by 2016

 

[IrezumiKiss]

Being born to Bill Gates has shit all to do with your ability.

Ability? Pffft! Who needs ability when you have a rich family?

http://www.babble.com/CS/blogs/famecrawler/2008/01/16-22/paris-hilton-ick-cc.jpg http://www.celebrityclothingline.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2009/10/Kim-Kardashian-02.jpg

 

[Sean Renaud]

Ability? Pffft! Who needs ability when you have a rich family?

http://www.babble.com/CS/blogs/famecrawler/2008/01/16-22/paris-hilton-ick-cc.jpg http://www.celebrityclothingline.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2009/10/Kim-Kardashian-02.jpg

Being fair to both women both women have INCREASED their family fortunes instead of squandering them. They both have ability even if its simply in not fucking up so bad as to be unmarketable. And Kim as far as I can tell was well off, not American Royalty.

Personally I have LESS issue with either of these two women than I do with the thousands of rich kids who don't do anything at all.

 

[IrezumiKiss]

Being fair to both women both women have INCREASED their family fortunes instead of squandering them. They both have ability even if its simply in not fucking up so bad as to be unmarketable. And Kim as far as I can tell was well off, not American Royalty.

Personally I have LESS issue with either of these two women than I do with the thousands of rich kids who don't do anything at all.

I guess they do what they do, but I was never impressed by the socialite-as-career move, or being a celebrity solely because of celebrity and being fed by a media machine that eats itself. Yeah, there's tits and ass to enjoy, but what do they do?

and you have people like Jen who is asking, even in the catty, ditzy oblique, about what are you doing and how are you viable to the country in your doing. And then knee-jerk bitching about Obama enabling the shiftless (which he's not doing, but it does soundbite very good if you're feeling disenfranchised.) But the above two women (and their legion media-mongering ilk brethren and sistren), whom America seems to love and continuously enable, aren't doing anything at all. They've been non-doing for years upon years. And they'll never, ever have to worry about being fed until the day they die.

 

[Sean Renaud]

I guess they do what they do, but I was never impressed by the socialite-as-career move, or being a celebrity solely because of celebrity and being fed by a media machine that eats itself. Yeah, there's tits and ass to enjoy, but what do they do?

and you have people like Jen who is asking, even in the catty, ditzy oblique, about what are you doing and how are you viable to the country in your doing. And then knee-jerk bitching about Obama enabling the shiftless (which he's not doing, but it does soundbite very good if you're feeling disenfranchised.) But the above two women (and their legion media-mongering ilk brethren and sistren), whom America seems to love and continuously enable, aren't doing anything at all. They've been non-doing for years upon years. And they'll never, ever have to worry about being fed until the day they die.

I didn't say I was impressed by them. I said they started with X and they ended with X+1. I feel confident saying that if either of their father's died and had there fortunes seized 100% (which wouldn't happen anyway) that both these ladies woudl still have money and would still be able to maintain their life styles. Say what you want they are self sustaining.

Let me be clear, I'm not particularly impressed by ANYBODY who entertains for a living. Actors, sports, singers, wrestlers, news anchors. None of them particularly impress me but that's not my standard of respect. It's not fair to claim that either of them do nothing. It's true, but most celebrities of any sort don't produce in the traditional, physical or service sense of the word.

So my question is do you hold the same vitirol for other entertainers?

I ask because I think those two (and there are others) get more than their fair share of hate. Hate that should be equally distributed to Kobe, Brett, Tiger and any other person making millions of dollars playing their favorite game.

To answer your question, what do they do? They make people happy. I'm not one of those people but people obviously love knowing what they are doing, they want their perfumes and their custom dresses. Happiness counts whether you're a celebutant, a porn star, or a basketball player. As much as I hate them I will defend those two.

 

[Beco]

We are not in a recovery.

 

[ivantheterrible]

that's obvious beco.

 

[RightField]

Yet, some of us didn't run away during the eight years of unreasoned and unprincipled knee-jerk Bush Hate...

When 5% unemployment was the crime of the century.

The evil dark days are behind us. Full employment was good for no one!

 

[RightField]

Exactly. The growth seems to be an illusion and everything else is wrongheaded.

A temporarly hicup caused by deficit spending to induce people to buy new cars a little early and for new families to purchase homes. Artificial government social engineering at work again.

 

[Beco]

that's obvious beco.

well it is now....sad to say. But if you get laid off, rent a truck and sell pizza. A buddy of mine did that and makes a fortune. He got the idea out of Chicago

 

[Beco]

A temporarly hicup caused by deficit spending to induce people to buy new cars a little early and for new families to purchase homes. Artificial government social engineering at work again.

It took Reagan year 3 to turn it around, not saying Obama is Reagan, but some like to compare the two administrations. I've got my fingers crossed. Fix the economy and Michelle can go to Spain EVERY weekend for all I care....

 

[firespin]

It took Reagan year 3 to turn it around, not saying Obama is Reagan, but some like to compare the two administrations. I've got my fingers crossed. Fix the economy and Michelle can go to Spain EVERY weekend for all I care....

Reagan told business that the government would keep out of their way and let them go about making people fully employed and even rich.

Obama tells business that they need to be carefully regulated, directed towards socially desirable results, with mandatory burdens for each person they hire, and the promise that becoming wealthy means you just get to subsidize more perks for others.

I wonder why the second approach isn't working as well as the first?

 

[mercury14]

Reagan told business that the government would keep out of their way and let them go about making people fully employed and even rich.

Obama tells business that they need to be carefully regulated, directed towards socially desirable results, with mandatory burdens for each person they hire, and the promise that becoming wealthy means you just get to subsidize more perks for others.

I wonder why the second approach isn't working as well as the first?

Yet Republicans say that the Dems' Wall Street reform package won't be effective at regulating anything. So which is it? Overregulation or no real change at all? Republicans are saying both things.

And yeah, massive reckless risk-taking by mega financial institutions who have no exposure to risk is insane. That shit needed to change.

 

[mercury14]

It's all part of the Obama recovery, right UD?

Dow Faces Bouncy Ride to 5,000: Strategist

Published: Tuesday, 24 Aug 2010 | 3:12 AM ET
By: CNBC.com

The Dow Jones Industrial Average will lose about half of its value over the next couple of years as it follows a Nikkei-like pattern of several sharp rallies in an overall decline, according to Charles Nenner, founder and president of Charles Nenner research

Stocks are currently in a bear-market rally, and looking at charts and past trends, unemployment and leading indicators suggest the Dow will drop to 5,000 in the next two to two-and-a-half years, Nenner told CNBC in an e-mail.

Deflation will arrive, along with a sharp double-dip recession, pushing the Dow lower, although, like the Japanese market, stocks will see several jumps of 30 percent to 40 percent, he said.

- Watch the full Charles Nenner interview above.

"Things look really bad for the next 10 years," Nenner said.

While most stocks will get caught in the downturn, the exception will be those with exposure to soft commodities like wheat, corn and soybeans, he added.

Last week, JPMorgan [JPM 36.88 --- UNCH (0) ] strategist David Kelly said there is still a lot of opportunity in stocks and that a double-dip scenario is "very unlikely."

Nenner is also bullish on gold and silver over the longer term and expects the precious metals to start a new leg higher by the end of the year.

Bond yields should go lower for the next three or four years and the Japanese yen should gain against the dollar, he said, adding that his target was 80 yen per dollar.

Nenner also said that there is a strong case to suggest that the Federal Reserve will ease monetary policy further.

http://www.cnbc.com/id/15840232/?video=1573464643&play=1

http://www.cnbc.com/id/38826988

So let me get this straight.

1) You put faith in this guy's prediction that the stock market will collapse lose half its value.

2) You want to privatize Social Security by turning it into a market investment plan.

 

[IrezumiKiss]

Yet Republicans say that the Dems' Wall Street reform package won't be effective at regulating anything. So which is it? Overregulation or no real change at all? Republicans are saying both things.

And yeah, massive reckless risk-taking by financial institutions who have no exposure to risk is insane. That shit needed to change.

http://numisayseverything.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2009/12/reaganomics.jpg

 

[Sean Renaud]

It's the same logic where Obama turned down much needed help for the oil spill but was also wildly screaming there was more oil than there really was.

The worst part of this is that there are actual things that I think Obama's done wrong but for everything he's done wrong there have been three hours worth of this double speak so he can slide his actual fuck ups safely beneath the radar.

 

[Frisco_Slug_Esq]

I'm sure the economic news later in the week will boost it back up.

Like housing sales...

Lowest since the second year of Clinton, right before the Dems were shown the door...

I just locked in 3.835%! A far cry from what I paid under Carter!

 

[firespin]

Like housing sales...

Lowest since the second year of Clinton, right before the Dems were shown the door...

I just locked in 3.835%! A far cry from what I paid under Carter!

And you said Obama was just like Carter.

Don't you usually have to have income to get a loan? At least now, that is.