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

[koalabear]

Is 12,000 higher or lower than when you were crying about it being 9,700?

11,957.28Up+5.37

despite 4 PPT hits...

 

[Frisco_Slug_Esq]

Is 12,000 higher or lower than when you were crying about it being 9,700?

I wasn't crying. Go back and look. In fact, I was rather pleased with myself...




Hey up a point! AND A FRACTION!

WE'VE TURNED THE CORNER!!!
__________________
Paddy O’Bama Says: All it took was a little patience and a rainbow!
http://pajamasmedia.com/tatler/files/2011/04/obama-wide-grin80.jpg

 

[eyer]

Even though Standard & Poor's has just downgraded Greece to be the worst credit rated country in the world, Bill Gross of Pimco - which runs the largest bond fund in the world - says the US is in even worse financial shape than Greece.

Though $14.3 trillion has become the "accepted" figure for American debt, Gross says it's much more closer to $100 trillion, taking into consideration money guaranteed for Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security, which comes to close to $50 trillion, according to government figures.

Gross says the government also is on the hook for other debts such as the programs related to the bailout of the financial system following the crisis of 2008 and 2009.

Taken together, Gross puts the total at "nearly $100 trillion,"

http://www.cnbc.com/id/43378973

 

[eyer]

Where Did All of the QE2 Money Go?

"Courtesy of the recently declassified Fed discount window documents, we now know that the biggest beneficiaries of the Fed's generosity during the peak of the credit crisis were foreign banks, among which Belgium's Dexia was the most troubled, and thus most lent to, bank. Having been thus exposed, many speculated that going forward the US central bank would primarily focus its "rescue" efforts on US banks, not US-based (or local branches) of foreign (read European) banks: after all that's what the ECB is for, while the Fed's role is to stimulate US employment and to keep US inflation modest. And furthermore, should the ECB need to bail out its banks, it could simply do what the Fed does, and monetize debt, thus boosting its assets, while concurrently expanding its excess reserves thus generating fungible capital which would go to European banks. Wrong. Below we present that not only has the Fed's bailout of foreign banks not terminated with the drop in discount window borrowings or the unwind of the Primary Dealer Credit Facility, but that the only beneficiary of the reserves generated were US-based branches of foreign banks (which in turn turned around and funnelled the cash back to their domestic branches), a shocking finding which explains not only why US banks have been unwilling and, far more importantly, unable to lend out these reserves, but that anyone retaining hopes that with the end of QE2 the reserves that hypothetically had been accumulated at US banks would be flipped to purchase Treasurys, has been dead wrong, therefore making the case for QE3 a done deal. In summary, instead of doing everything in its power to stimulate reserve, and thus cash, accumulation at domestic (US) banks which would in turn encourage lending to US borrowers, the Fed has been conducting yet another stealthy foreign bank rescue operation, which rerouted $600 billion in capital from potential borrowers to insolvent foreign financial institutions in the past 7 months. QE2 was nothing more (or less) than another European bank rescue operation!"

The writer calls for Benake's impeachment in his last paragraph; in between are some stout financials and graphs...

http://www.businessinsider.com/where-did-all-of-the-qe2-money-go-2011-6

 

[mercury14]

I wasn't crying. Go back and look. In fact, I was rather pleased with myself...




Hey up a point! AND A FRACTION!

WE'VE TURNED THE CORNER!!!
__________________
Paddy O’Bama Says: All it took was a little patience and a rainbow!
http://pajamasmedia.com/tatler/files/2011/04/obama-wide-grin80.jpg

Either that or we turned the corner when the Dow was at 8,050.

 

[Frisco_Slug_Esq]

We won't turn the corner until the burst of the government bubble. It now consumes too much GDP for there to be meaningful growth any time soon, the interest payments on the debt alone are unsustainable.

The recent growth in the stock market which excites you greatly and stimulates you to no end is a growth due to purposeful Kenesian government inflationary policies...

These policies have yet to actually work to do anything other than sustain recessions.

Barry 2012 Says: Oh No! We Didn't!
http://pajamasmedia.com/tatler/files/2011/04/obama-wide-grin80.jpg
__________________
I'm Hungary for some French-fried €PIIGS!
A_J, the Incredulous

 

[Frisco_Slug_Esq]

How's the Obamaconomy workin' for his voters?

African-Americans

Barack Obama captured a staggering 96% of the African-American vote in the 2008 election, an increase even above their traditional backing of the Democrats' candidate. In addition, there was a slight uptick in voter turnout for Obama, as blacks had a 2% increase in turnout versus the 2004 presidential election. It is hard to fathom that a presidential candidate could possibly garner greater support from a demographic group than did Obama from African-Americans.

However, that support at the polling place has far from translated into a better way of life for the group as a whole.

When Obama took office in January 2009, the nation's unemployment rate stood at 7.6%. For African-Americans, as a group, the unemployment rate was 12.6%.

Fast forward two-and-a-half years and, according to the latest data released for May 2011, the nation's unemployment rate is 9.1%. The present rate of unemployment rate for blacks is 16.2%. So, while the overall unemployment rate has risen by 1.5% since Obama took office, the rate of unemployment for blacks is 3.6% higher. Seen another way, the gap between the African-American unemployment rate versus that of the entire population has widened from 5.0% when Obama took office to 7.1% as of May 2011. That is a rather huge move in a relatively short period of time.

What we've seen then is that African-Americans have had their economic state of life drop at a far greater rate versus other Americans during Obama's time in the White House, despite their overwhelming support of him in the 2008 elections. The numbers show that President Barack Obama has done nothing for the economic well-being of the African-American demographic group.

For him to capture a similar level of this group's votes in 2012 would be indicative of the group simply ignoring how their financial status has declined disproportionately more than the overall population under Obama's fiscal policies.

College/Young Professionals

This group was another strong supporter of Barack Obama to become President back in 2008. His message of hope and change resonated with the college crowd and among those just starting their careers. In fact, turnout among those 18-24 years of age rose slightly to 49% in the 2008 elections versus 47% in 2004. Exit poll data from 2008 show Obama enjoyed a 66% approval rating for the 18-29 year-old demographic group.

Unfortunately for this group, economic opportunities have become more and more scarce during Obama's presidency. According to a recent report from the Economic Policy Institute, for calendar year 2010, the unemployment rate for workers 16-24 years of age averaged 18.4% verses a rate of 9.6% for the overall population.

The same report states, "...the class of 2011 will likely face the highest unemployment rate for young college graduates since the Great Recession began."

The policies of the very man this demographic group supported has caused many of them to be either underemployed or unemployed, while also now burdened with thousands and thousands of dollars in college loans, in many cases.

Low Income Families

Lower income Americans offered strong support for Barack Obama. More than 70% of voters who earned less than $15,000 per year punched their card for Obama, while those whose earnings were $15,000-$30,000 voted for Obama at a clip better than 60%. Better than 50% of those earning $30,000-$50,000 also supported Obama for the Oval Office.

Yet, these same individuals have found life under Obama to be rather difficult. When Barack Obama assumed the position of President of the United States, the average price of gasoline was $1.81/gallon. Going into the past weekend, the average price nationwide was $3.72/gallon. That's a mere 106% price increase under Obama.

Energy prices, as a proportion of income, naturally impact lower income families more than middle class or upper class families. We've also seen a substantial increase in food prices, including corn and wheat, which again impact the lower income group more than the overall population.

In fact, Federal Reserve Chairman, Ben Bernanke recently indicated that lower income Americans were being hit harder by the economy as he showed that lower income Americans continue to suffer disproportionately higher unemployment than middle and upper class Americans.

Chad Stafko
The American Thinker

 

[unregistered]

 

[Frisco_Slug_Esq]

Obamunism has failed.

You sound like Romney channeling Limbaugh...

 

[unregistered]

 

[Frisco_Slug_Esq]

*chuckle*
__________________
"You cap your health care budget, and you make the political and economic choices you need to make to keep affordability within reach."
"And it's important also to make health a human right because the main health determinants are not health care but sanitation, nutrition, housing, social justice, employment, and the like."
"One over-demanded service is prevention: annual physicals, screening tests, and other measures that supposedly help catch diseases early."
Donald Berwick
Death Panel Czar

“Some years down the pike, we’re going to get the real solution, which is going to be a combination of death panels and sales taxes.”
Paul Krugman

 

[rosco rathbone]

Speaking of Limbaugh, Tpaw managed to namecheck him, the Teamsters and the Reagan Democrats all in one sentence!

 

[Frisco_Slug_Esq]

Economics for Babies

Drill, Baby, Drill. Our liberal friends are convinced, because their tame climate scientists have told them so, that conventional energy sources are either doomed, as in Peak Oil, or evil, as in coal and nuclear energy. It's a pity that horizontal fracturing is making monkeys out of the Peak Oil chappies. The only way to approach energy is to let the Rockefellers and the Fricks and the Texans and the Albertans and the North Dakotans go for it. If they make a mess -- and they will -- then we will make 'em clean it up.

Cut, Baby, Cut. Our liberal friends are convinced that, given sufficiently rigorous policy analysis and sufficiently inspired political leadership, they can design and build the bridge to the future with government programs. But the truth is that government spending, all government spending, is a waste, starting with the Pentagon and defense spending. But, wasteful as they are, some government programs are necessary. Alexander Hamilton laid out the case for a national defense in the early Federalist Papers. Almost all other government programs are pure waste; their only purpose is to buy votes for politicians with your money. Alas, they do more than that: they fray the cords of community. When people have to work together in voluntary cooperation to secure retirement income, health care, and education, they build community. When the government does it, the people fall to squabbling and grabbing their piece of the pie. So the only thing to do with government is to cut.

Grow, Baby, Grow. Our liberal friends are convinced that government must invest in the infrastructure to build "public goods." That is the rationale behind President Obama's crazed push for fast trains, clean green energy, and the rest of the liberal crony capitalist agenda. But almost all "big ideas" for government investment have ended in tears, from government credit allocation to government energy policy. There's a very simple reason for this. Politicians are experts in winning elections, and businessmen are experts in growing the economy. Politicians should stick to politics, and let businessmen get on with business. Come on liberals: we all know how to grow the economy. You do it will low tax rates on people and low taxes on jobs.

Debt, Baby, Debt. What is it about the national debt? Under Alexander Hamilton the US national debt ignited an economic boom. Under President Obama it has sent the economy on a Recovery to Nowhere. How come Hamilton was so smart? It's simple. He stole his financial system from the Dutch. It was the Dutch that invented the modern financial system in about 1600 complete with banks, bond market, stock market, national debt, and a hard-money central bank. It worked so well that the Dutch won their independence from Spain. Then the Brits imported Dutch finance in the Glorious Revolution of 1688 and built a world empire. Alexander Hamilton imported Dutch finance into the US in 1792. Confidence in US credit got so high that President Jefferson could borrow the money to buy Louisiana and enable his successors to conquer a continent. But gambler John Law taught the world how to screw up Dutch finance. He took it to France in 1715, sweet-talked a couple of dukes, turned it into a confidence trick, and destroyed the credit of the French ancien regime. Today we call John Law's system "stimulus" or "Keynesian economics" and we know where it ends: "sovereign default." How can you tell sound "Dutch finance" from the inflationism of Keynes and Law? It's the difference between confidence and confidence trick.

Christopher Chantrill
The American Thinker

 

[Frisco_Slug_Esq]

Speaking of Limbaugh, Tpaw managed to namecheck him, the Teamsters and the Reagan Democrats all in one sentence!

Big Tent Party

(NOT A WEINER JOKE!)​

 

[MeeMie]

This pretty much says it all:

http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAna...5089&xmpSource=&width=710&height=472&caption=


As Government spending rises, Employment falls

We were told that the more money our rulers frivolously wasted on pork projects, the lower unemployment would be.

To no one's surprise, "stimulus" spending has had the exact opposite effect.

The liberal SPEND! SPEND! SPEND! policies of the Obama administration have stagnated employment opportunities by discouraging businesses to expand and hire.

The Obama Administration’s economic policy has been a total failure with its complete disregard for businesses and job creation in the private sector. The Administration’s reliance on government spending and government experts to manage the economy has resulted in a labor market that is not recovering and a national debt that is at a crisis point.


...

 

[busybody..]

Nigger Economics

Obama Blames ATM Machines For High Unemployment Rates . . . Wait, Did He Say ATM Machines?


Yes, yes he did.



President Obama explained to NBC News that the reason companies aren’t hiring are not because of his policies, it’s because the economy is so automated. . . . “There are some structural issues with our economy where a lot of businesses have learned to become much more efficient with a lot fewer workers. You see it when you go to a bank and you use an ATM, you don’t go to a bank teller, or you go to the airport and you’re using a kiosk instead of checking in at the gate. So all these things have created changes. . . .”

 

[busybody..]

ObamaNomics: America Sheds 1.9 Million Jobs Since Obama Signed Stimulus Bill…


Winning The Future!

(CNS News) – Twenty-eight months after Congress passed President Obama’s signature economic stimulus law, and nearly one year after he declared the summer of 2010 to be “Recovery Summer,” 1.9 million fewer people are employed.

In February 2009, the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) reported that 141.7 million people were employed. By the end of May 2011 – the last month for which data are available – that number had fallen to 139.8 million, a difference of 1.9 million.

While the number of people with jobs has increased slightly from its low point during the recession – 137.9 million in December 2009 – those 1.9 million jobs have been lost despite $800 billion in stimulus spending.

This does not mean that the economy is not creating jobs, but rather that it is not creating jobs fast enough to keep up with a combination of layoffs and people entering the job market for the first time.

 

[Sean Renaud]

This pretty much says it all:

http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAna...5089&xmpSource=&width=710&height=472&caption=
...

So you agree that the recession is over. Good. Remember to post that early and often so people understand that fact before we work on any of the other details.

 

[busybody..]

they all MUST be racists

No?

YES!



RECOVERY SUMMER II: US Small Business Sentiment Dims: NFIB Survey. “Small business sentiment in the United States fell for a third straight month in May, landing squarely in recessionary territory due to consumer reticence, high unemployment, and inflation worries, according to a monthly survey released on Tuesday.”

 

[MeeMie]

So you agree that the recession is over. Good. Remember to post that early and often so people understand that fact before we work on any of the other details.

If you want a bone to pick--or an economic argument to have--it should be about when the current recession actually began... not when it ended.

The National Bureau of Economic Research, the U.S.'s semi-official recession arbiter, says it started in December 2007. But real gross domestic product grew at a 1% annual rate from then through August 2008.

Nonetheless, when Lehman Brothers collapsed and the $700-billion TARP plan was proposed, a very rare "panic" ensued. Monetary velocity collapsed. From September 2008 through March 2009, the economy shrank at a rate of 5.5%. That's why the recession started in September 2008, not in December 2007.

Some economist have stated that it ended in June or July 2009, although there is a big difference in the way that economists and laypeople use the term "recession".

Economic hardship remains in the U.S. and many other countries.

For the U.S. in particular, persistent unemployment, the continuing decline in home values, an escalating federal debt crisis, inflation, and rising gas prices have led many non-economists among the general public to use the term"recession" to refer to the ongoing hardship we are still experiencing.

In fact, a 2011 poll found that more than half of all Americans think the U.S. is still in recession or even depression, despite official government data claiming a modest recovery.

It is difficult to avoid the ambiguity between the two senses of "recession" when people are suffering the consequences.


Call it what you may. It doesn't matter to those affected most by the economic situation to deny the grim circumstances.

 

[Sean Renaud]

Wow. You wrote something. To me. And it's coherent. I almost want to stop there. And it's not wrong. Holy shit.

 

[IrezumiKiss]

Wow. You wrote something. To me. And it's coherent. I almost want to stop there. And it's not wrong. Holy shit.

You do know that when he "writes" coherently and directly, it's not his own words, but an unattributed cut & paste, don't you?

 

[Ulaven_Demorte]

Wow. You wrote something. To me. And it's coherent. I almost want to stop there. And it's not wrong. Holy shit.

No it didn't. Most of that was yanked piecemeal from a Forbes opinion piece. A majority of it verbatim.
http://www.forbes.com/2009/05/04/recovery-indicators-unemployment-opinions-columnists-recession.html

 

[Ulaven_Demorte]

You do know that when he "writes" coherently and directly, it's not his own words, but an unattributed cut & paste, don't you?

Without fail.

 

[unregistered]