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

[Busybody]

Hey YO, CURRY

From now on, I will DUB THEE

FLA!.....Fucking Loser Asshole........dont worry, it wasnt PLANNED and only 10 peeps will show up for the name change ceremony

Hey yo, CURRY

You are nothing but an unthinking piece of shit......a LYING COWARDS

A FUCKING ASSHOLE

http://forum.literotica.com/showthread.php?p=42304854#post42304854

You never showed up

Now keep on shouting at others about answering questions etc

FUckING LOSER ASSHOLE

Oh, and I'll bet you are small "minded" enough to pretend IM ON IGGY!


LOSER@

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

Three Things Fed Desperate to Accomplish

Stimulate Credit
Stimulate Jobs
Stimulate Housing

The Fed has failed at all three. Arguably, credit has risen, but nearly all of the rise is student loans, making debt slaves out of kids in the process, something the Fed certainly does not want to accomplish.

In September 2011, Ben Bernanke said he was surprised by weak consumer spending. I wrote about it in Bernanke, a Complete Dunce, "Puzzled by Weak Consumer Spending"

In March of 2012, Bernanke said he was puzzled over jobs. I wrote about that in Bernanke Puzzled Over Jobs, Cites Okun's Law; Six Things Bernanke is Clueless About

On October 15, the president of the New York Fed complained about the "poor performance of the U.S. economy" as well as "inadequate aggregate demand". For discussion, please see Recovery, Monetary Policy, and Demographics: NY Fed vs. Mish Analysis

How Can The Fed Be In Control When ...

How can the Fed be in control when it cannot spur jobs, it cannot spur housing, it cannot spur credit, it remains puzzled over numerous things, and in fact launched QE III in a moment of Panic!

To be sure the Fed has taken credit for the surging stock market.

However, in terms of the Fed's real goals, this is like attempting to cure lung cancer and failing, but by happenstance removing a wart from a big toe and declaring success.

The Fed is not in control, it is only an illusion. One other person commented on this recently.

Please consider the Hoisington Third Quarter 2012 Review by Lacy Hunt. The article discusses QE1, QE2, QE3, demand curves, commodities, and numerous other ideas in a six-page PDF. The article is well worth a read in entirety, but here are a few key snips ...

While prices for risk assets have improved, governments have not been able to address underlying debt imbalances. Thus, nothing suggests that these latest actions do anything to change the extreme over-indebtedness of major global economies.

To avoid recession in the U.S., the Federal Reserve embarked on open-ended quantitative easing (QE3). Importantly, the enactment of QE3 is a tacit admission by the Fed that earlier efforts failed, but this action will also fail to bring about stronger economic growth.

Three studies show that the impact of wealth on spending is miniscule—indeed, “nearly not observable.” How the Fed expects the U.S. to gain any economic traction from higher stock prices when rising commodity prices are curtailing real income and spending is puzzling. This is particularly relevant when econometricians have estimated that for every dollar of gained real income, consumption will rise by about 70 cents.

Conversely, the Fed actions are causing real incomes to decline, which has a 70-cent negative impact on spending for every dollar loss. Compare that with the 0.004 positive impact on spending for every one-dollar increase in wealth. Former Fed Chairman, Paul Volcker, summarized the new Fed initiative as sufficiently and succinctly as anyone when he stated that another round of QE3 “is understandable, but it will fail to fix the problem.”

Fed Without Options

Lacy Hunt concludes with ...

For Fed policy to improve real GDP, actions must be taken that either (1) shift the entire demand curve outward (to the right), or (2) do not cause an inward shift of the AS curve that induces an adverse movement along the AD curve. Accordingly, the Fed is without options to improve the pace of economic activity.

Bernanke says he is not out of options, so Lord only knows what he may try. However, Lacy Hunt's statements are accurate.

Simply put, the Fed is without options that will do any good for the economy.

Read more at http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com/#BBDYwETGvY26YEG3.99

 

[mercury14]

Read more at http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com/#BBDYwETGvY26YEG3.99

I agree, we need to increase demand. Right now the top 1% is hoarding cash and assets in a greater concentration than ever before which means there's far less spending going on. And it's a problem that's getting worse every year at an exponential rate. When the top 1% eventually has 80% of the wealth, leaving the spending class with only a slice of the pie, what do you think the impact will be on spending?

Right now the top 1% has 40% of the wealth and they're spending very little of it. Yes they invest and that's good but it's not the same as consumer demand.

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

Human Action

The majority of small business owners are putting greater emphasis on the bottom line and do not plan on hiring in the next year, according to a recent survey from The Hartford Financial Services Group (NYSE: HIG).

Only 33% of the 2,000 business owners surveyed by Hartford are optimistic that the national economy will strengthen this year. They also cited slow economic growth (67%), taxes (59%) and uncertainty with federal regulations (56%) as major risks to small businesses.

Small business owners’ economic concerns are shaping their business strategies, as 80% said they are finding ways to cut costs during a slower economy. Hiring expectations are tepid, with 67% reporting no plans to hire, while 59% said they have not hired in the last 12 months. Roughly half of those surveyed told Hartford that they are trying to maintain their current size in terms of revenue or employees, and the percentage of small businesses focused on growth declined to 41% from 51% in 2011.

“Small businesses are the foundation of the American economy. If we can restore their confidence in the future, they can hire, add jobs and help fuel growth,” Liam E. McGee, chairman, president and chief executive officer for Hartford, said in a statement. “The good news is that there are solutions that can help eliminate uncertainty around the tax and regulatory environment, and encourage small businesses to hire. While many small business owners clearly have concerns, they are resilient and dedicated to doing the right things for their businesses and employees.”

Read more: http://smallbusiness.foxbusiness.co...owners-expecting-tax-increases/#ixzz2A1grOSZi

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

They are hoarding it out of greed, or fear?

An individual who is observed to be inconstant to his plans, or perhaps to carry on his affairs without any plan at all, is marked at once, by all prudent people, as a speedy victim to his own unsteadiness and folly. His more friendly neighbors may pity him, but all will decline to connect their fortunes with his; and not a few will seize the opportunity of making their fortunes out of his. One nation is to another what one individual is to another...;
The want of confidence in the public councils damps every useful undertaking, the success and profit of which may depend on a continuance of existing arrangements. What prudent merchant will hazard his fortunes in any new branch of commerce when he knows not but that his plans may be rendered unlawful before they can be executed? What farmer or manufacturer will lay himself out for the encouragement given to any particular cultivation or establishment, when he can have no assurance that his preparatory labors and advances will not render him a victim to an inconstant government?
Madison, Federalist 62.

"Three main tendencies or tenets mark the drift toward totalitarianism. The first and most important, because the other two derive from it, is the pressure for a constant increase in governmental powers, for a constant widening of the governmental sphere of intervention. It is the tendency toward more and more regulation of every sphere of economic life, toward more and more restriction of the liberties of the individual. The tendency toward more and more governmental spending is a part of this trend. It means in effect that the individual is able to spend less and less of the income he earns on the things he himself wants, while the government takes more and more of his income from him to spend it in the ways that it thinks wise. One of the basic assumptions of totalitarianism, in brief (and of such steps toward it as socialism, state paternalism, and Keynesianism), is that the citizen cannot be trusted to spend his own money. As government control becomes wider and wider, individual discretion, the individual's control of his own affairs in all directions, necessarily becomes narrower and narrower. In sum, liberty is constantly diminished."
Henry Hazlett, 1965

 

[mercury14]

They are hoarding it out of greed, or fear?

They're hoarding because it makes them more money.

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

They're hoarding because hoarding makes them more money.

Then they are not hoarding, they are creating Capital.

No one is asking for loans because no one wants to take risk.

How much anyone has accumulated is a meaningless statistic.

It is a political tool for the economically illiterate.

 

[unregistered]

 

[mercury14]

AJ what do you see as the solution to the top 1% hoarding 40% of the assets? Because that 40% chunk of the nation's finances is just getting invested and not spent in the economy. Yes investment is good, but when that 40% grows every year it means we're on a course to have less consuming and fewer jobs needed to provide for demand.

No business will ever hire more workers when they're getting fewer customers each year. It doesn't matter how much you cut their taxes, they're just not going to hire when they meet consumer demand with current staffing levels.

 

[mercury14]

Then they are not hoarding, they are creating Capital.

No one is asking for loans because no one wants to take risk.

How much anyone has accumulated is a meaningless statistic.

It is a political tool for the economically illiterate.

Do you know what consumer demand is? I don't think you do. The fact that 40% of the nation's wealth is "creating capital" and is not being spent much is absolutely crippling to the unemployment rate. The top 1% had MUCH less of the wealth during the Reagan recovery; it was concentrated much more in the middle class, which spent it like crazy. The result was a lot of job creation.

Now there's just not much wealth in the hands of the middle class in the first place regardless of spending habits.

 

[jeninflorida]

They're hoarding because it makes them more money.

just highlights how clueless you really are. Sad. you break my heard with your stupidity

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

Consumer demand is currently being met.

That is the beauty of the market place.

There is a reason that money is being QEd into the economy at an alarming rate with no appreciable uptick in either loans, consumer demand, or Middle-Class wealth and that reason is fear, the fear of Obama, the fear of Democrats, the fear of Socialism, and the fear of people who base their economic arguments in the la-la land of who has what.

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

just highlights how clueless you really are. Sad. you break my heard with your stupidity

Stupidity is the wrong word.

Many smart people have been lured by the Siren's Song of Social Justice...

The idea that if they just take what some people do not need and give it to people who need it that that is proper Social Economy.

Any advocate of socialistic measures is looked upon as the friend of the Good, the Noble, and the Moral, as a disinterested pioneer of necessary reforms, in short, as a man who unselfishly serves his own people and all humanity, and above all as a zealous and courageous seeker after truth. But let anyone measure Socialism by the standards of scientific reasoning, and he at once becomes a champion of the evil principle, a mercenary serving the egotistical interests of a class, a menace to the welfare of the community, an ignoramus outside the pale. For the most curious thing about this way of thinking is that it regards the question of whether Socialism or Capitalism will better serve the public welfare, as settled in advance -- to the effect, naturally, that Socialism is considered good and Capitalism as evil -- whereas in fact of course only by a scientific inquiry could the matter be decided. The results of economic investigations are met, not with arguments, but with …"moral pathos" …and on which Socialists and (Statists) always fall back, because they find no answer to the criticism to which science subjects their doctrines.
Ludwig von Mises

And then, to this end, by doing "good"

… an immense tutelary power is elevated, which alone takes charge of assuring their enjoyments and watching over their fate. It is absolute, detailed, rigid, far-seeing and mild. It would resemble paternal power if, like that, it had for its object to prepare men for manhood; but on the contrary, it seeks only to keep them fixed irrevocably in childhood; it likes citizens to enjoy themselves. It willingly works for their happiness; but it wants to be the unique agent and sole arbiter of that.
Thus, taking each individual by turns in its powerful hands and kneading him as it likes, the sovereign extends its arms over society as a whole; it covers its surface with a network of small, complicated, painstaking, uniform rules through which the most original minds and the most vigorous souls cannot clear a way to surpass the crowd; it does not break wills, but it softens them, bends them and directs them; it rarely forces one to act, but it constantly opposes itself to one’s acting; it does not destroy, it prevents things from being born; it does not tyrannize, it hinders, compromises, enervates, extinguishes, dazes and finally reduces each nation to being nothing more than a herd of timid and industrial animals of which the government is the shepherd.
Alexis de Tocqueville, Democracy in America

 

[unregistered]

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

I see it as playing it smart since nobody knows what Obama will do next, including him.

The idea of a President Obama enjoying flexibility is a terrifying thought.

Another four years of blaming wealth for not redistributing it voluntarily so the goose must be killed and its cornucopia of golden eggs taken at once...

 

[Busybody]

Do you know what consumer demand is? I don't think you do. The fact that 40% of the nation's wealth is "creating capital" and is not being spent much is absolutely crippling to the unemployment rate. The top 1% had MUCH less of the wealth during the Reagan recovery; it was concentrated much more in the middle class, which spent it like crazy. The result was a lot of job creation.

Now there's just not much wealth in the hands of the middle class in the first place regardless of spending habits.

STFU, FLA!

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

GOOGLE - Left-winger's Paradise...

There is nothing like inside information, provided you are on the inside. But heaven forbid should you be on the outside and act on a tip as did Martha Stewart.

Insider Monkey reports Google Inc. (GOOG): Insiders Sold $280M Prior to Crash
Google Inc. (NASDAQ:GOOG) chairman Eric Schmidt was very active in late September, as he executed 226 transactions in just three days from Sept. 24 to 26, selling off more than 211,000 shares at per-share prices between $742 and $764 per share. He came away with about $158 million.

Other noteworthy insiders are Google Inc. (NASDAQ:GOOG) CEO Larry Page and co-founder Sergey Brin, who had conducted several insider sales in the first half of this month, totaling about $120 million in value and the pair spared themselves about $12 million in combined losses. Brin conducted a series of transactions Tuesday, October 2, selling 83,334 shares at between $750-$765 a share, with a combined value of at least $62.5 million.

Page had been selling shares regularly over several days. Starting October 8, he sold 20,833 shares at $754-$762 a share for a value of $15.7 million; 20833 shares at $744-$760 October 9, for a value of $15.5 million; 20,833 shares at prices between $741 and $746 per share October 10, for a value of $15.4 million; and 20,835 shares at prices between $752 and $758 October 11, a value of $15.7 million.

Also in October, Google Inc. (NASDAQ:GOOG) board member John Doerr sold his 6,000-share holding at between $759 and $762 per share, for a total value of about $4.5 million, and senior vice president David Drummond pared off 568 shares at $759 each for a value of about $430,000.

Notable Sergey Brin Transactions

It's one thing to sell a few shares routinely, it's another thing to dump a load right before the plunge.

http://finance.townhall.com/columni...nsiders_bail_prior_to_stock_plunge/page/full/

 

[unregistered]

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

163 million taxpayers to get a tax increase.

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20121021/DA221AF00.html

 

[Adre]

He figures he'll be free to commit treason on a much larger scale "after" the election.

See how easily partisanship morphs into stupidity

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

Echoes of A_J past...

A fundamental question with both the Bush and Obama approaches to the mortgage foreclosure crisis is to what extent are policies simply putting off the inevitable? Are “permanent” solutions being offered, or are we just recycling the same borrowers through one foreclosure after another? Recent data from Lender Processing Services (LPS) sheds some light on the question.

The most recent LPS data, covering to the end of August 2012, shows that for the first time, over half of foreclosures are for borrowers that were previously in foreclosure. Now there are several ways to read the chart below. On one hand, first-time-ever foreclosures are at their lowest levels since 2008, and in fact have been on a steady decline since the middle of 2009. That is good news. The pipeline of new foreclosures is decreasing, a reflection of both improving labor and housing markets (or at least not getting a lot worse). The bad news is that foreclosures are increasing because of the same borrowers who have been delinquent for years. I was recently told that the average time to foreclosure for Chicago, for instance, is over 1,000 days. The LPS data also highlight that the largest increase in repeat foreclosures has been in states that use a judicial foreclosure process, providing further evidence that such a process generally does not change the final outcome, but simply delays it.

If there is one policy lesson we should take away from the foreclosure crisis, it is that delaying the inevitable makes the problem worse. Had these borrowers finished the foreclosure process the first time around, housing prices would have adjusted quicker and the housing market would have been on the road to recovery quicker. These families also would not have been stuck in “limbo” and would have been able to move on with their lives. While some have argued that delaying these adjustments was appropriate, it is far from clear to me that longer periods operating under “false” prices will lead to better market outcomes.

http://finance.townhall.com/columni...r_half_of_foreclosures_now_repeats/page/full/

 

[RobDownSouth]

163 million taxpayers to get a tax increase.

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20121021/DA221AF00.html

A temporary tax break expires. This will help Social Security remain solvent.

You bitched when the break went into effect, and now you're bitching because it's about to expire.

The only constant is your bitchiness.

 

[richard_daily]

The derp brigade is really working overtime this morning trying to figure out what consumer confidence means.

I wonder what wacky ideas they'll come up with today?

Stay tuned litizens!

 

[mercury14]

163 million taxpayers to get a tax increase.

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20121021/DA221AF00.html

That's the expiration of Obama's tax holiday dumbass. You bitched and moaned up a storm when it was implemented, now you're whining about it ending next year. And all the while you argue that the tax savings to 163 million working people (causing America to see a net tax decrease during the Obama administration) should not be counted when determining if there was a tax cut the past four years.

 

[Busybody]

Stfu, Fla!!!!!!!!!