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

[richard_daily]

business section, Washington post,.com

Nah, you're a liar. It's not a washington post article, as rob already pointed out.

Also, I just read the entire article. It's funny how you C&Pd just that one paragraph. Must have been the cliff notes that were posted on one of your favorite wingnuts blogs.

oh....sheesh, god all mighty, you got to be shitting me.....you're cheering 2% growth?

No. I'm not cheering 2% growth, I'm pointing out that it's a 65% increase, and your dumb ass couldn't figure out where I got that number from.

No matter how much you might want the economy to shrink, the fact remains that it is still growing.

Apparently he didn't read the rest of the article he linked from, where it mentions the contraction of 5.3% in 2009.

Thats not really growth, pal. Its more like stagnation....the economy is not growing at all and I wouldnt be proud of that 2% number unless you dont know any different

No, stagnation would be 0%. So it actually is growth. 2% growth.


Here's a couple of other random paragraphs from your article:

Consumer spending rose at an annual rate of 2 percent in the July-September quarter, up from 1.5 percent in the previous quarter. And a survey by the University of Michigan released Friday found consumer confidence increased to its highest level in five years this month. That suggests spending may keep growing.

Since the recovery began more than three years ago, the U.S. economy has grown at the slowest rate of any recovery in the post-World War II period. And economists think growth will remain sluggish at least through the first half of 2013.

Some analysts believe the economy will start to pick up in the second half of next year.

By then, economists hope the tax and spending confrontations that have brought gridlock to Washington will be resolved. That could encourage businesses to invest and hire.

The Federal Reserve’s continued efforts to boost the economy by lowering long-term interest rates may also help by generating more borrowing and spending by consumers and businesses.

But the economy is still being slowed by consumers’ efforts to spend less, increase their savings and pay off debts, economists say. And banks remain cautious about lending in the aftermath of the financial crisis. That’s why recoveries after financial crises are usually weak.

It's nice that you want to use this to point a finger at obama... but if you or the other wingnuts understood anything about anything, you'd see that most economists are predicting growth to remain stagnant for another year, regardless of who's in office.

Which, surprise surprise, is right around when the majority of ARMs that were initiated in 2007 will be getting cleared off the books.

 

[richard_daily]

Like the big dummy who hears everyone laughing so he laughs too, then turns to the guy next to him and says, "Uhhh, what's everybody laughing at?"

they're laughing at you, gay grandpa.

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

It isn't a "failed factory". It's part of a successful and growing company.

Why on earth would you call it that?

I did not think that you were willing to engage in an actual discussion in which economics predominated over politics.

This is why:

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

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

An example from today's news:

(Reuters) - Biofuels made from algae, promoted by President Barack Obama as a possible way to help wean Americans off foreign oil, cannot be made now on a large scale without using unsustainable amounts of energy, water and fertilizer, the U.S. National Research Council reported on Wednesday.

"Faced with today's technology, to scale up any more is going to put really big demands on ... not only energy input, but water, land and the nutrients you need, like carbon dioxide, nitrate and phosphate," said Jennie Hunter-Cevera, a microbial physiologist who headed the committee that wrote the report.

Hunter-Cevera stressed that this is not a definitive rejection of algal biofuels, but a recognition that they may not be ready to supply even 5 percent, or approximately 10.3 billion gallons (39 billion liters), of U.S. transportation fuel needs.

"Algal biofuels is still a teenager that needs to be developed and nurtured," she said by telephone.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/10/24/us-usa-biofuels-algae-idUSBRE89N1Q820121024

And before you assume my stand is because I hate Barack Obama because I probably hate black people (let us remember that I am a polyglot of races) my feelings became just as strong over the Republican drive to ethanol once I began educating myself on its perceived benefits.

Government picks political outcomes, it is all it can do for economic outcomes are rarely popular when the demand is just do something from the economically illiterate (I blame a school system tethered to a progressive mentality centered on the idea that government can best solve problems, create fairness and deliver the goods and services we require more efficiently than a laughable 'invisible hand.' It is a priori to the progressive mindset that you can see government, therefore it is real, while the invisible hand is fiction just like a factory built now, even if it fails was constructions jobs, but a factory in the future, of course, has to be fantasy) and the actions taken by the government, when their party is power, fills them with a sense of noble goodness for having at least, with proper intention, tried to actually solve the problem while the Capitalist is relying on ephemeral economic voodoo.

So, those people who want to be picked as factory owners give large monies to the political class in order to demonstrate how willing they are to work on the problems that concern the voters and when they have "earned" enough intention, government lavishes largess upon them and you get a visual impact of progress and problem solving.

This has went well for many nations in the past who eschewed the powerful forces of Capitalism such as the Soviet Union, Red China, Cuba, Hugo's Brave New Venezuela...

Government destroys Capital, Capitalism and free markets create it.

If you believe just the opposite, you will look back and yearn for 2% growth as a golden age.

 

[Busybody]

4ass Dum.............talkin to hizself

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

*chuckle*

Fucking Zandi; always a day late and a dollar short...

Australian Banksia Securities Assets Frozen As Mortgage Lending Scheme Blows Sky High; Six Canadian Banks on Moody's Review for Downgrade

Every day I get emails and links from all over the world. I wish I had time to comment on all of them. Here are a pair of stories regarding Canada and Australia.

The Financial Post reports Six Canadian banks on review for Moody’s downgrade

Debt rating heavyweight Moody’s Investors Service served notice on six of Canada’s biggest banks that it may cut their rating by as much as two notches because of concern over high consumer debt levels and soaring housing prices.

The downgrade warning covers Toronto-Dominion Bank, Bank of Nova Scotia, Bank of Montreal, Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce, Caisse Centrale Desjardins and National Bank of Canada.

Moody’s said it will also consider the removal of government support from the ratings of some of the subordinate debt issued by the institutions, a move that would have significant negative implications on the country’s major lenders which have traditionally enjoyed an implicit promise of a bailout by the state if ever they got into serious trouble.

“Today’s review of the Canadian banks reflects our concerns about high consumer debt levels and elevated housing prices which leave Canadian banks more vulnerable to increased risks to the Canadian economy, and for some banks a sizeable exposure to volatile capital markets businesses is of concern,” Moody’s analyst David Beattie said in a statement.

The move comes about four months after Moody’s downgrade Royal Bank of Canada, the country’s biggest bank by assets, by two notches because of its exposure to increasingly volatile global capital markets. At the same time the rating agency also cut the ratings of 14 other large banks mostly based in Europe and the U.S.

Moody’s noted that consumer indebtedness has been rising steeply for the last several years, with the ratio of household debt to income recently hitting a record 163%, up from 137% in 2007, a reflection of what it called growth in debt outpacing growth in income.

Meanwhile, the rating agency is calling for economic growth of just 2% to 3% for this year and next year respectively, at the same time that external risks arising from the crisis in Europe and the struggling U.S. economy continue to rise.

Moody's Late To The Party

As is typically the case, Moody's is way late to the party. It is also overoptimistic about Canadian growth prospects.*

The big three rating agencies and the IMF all fail to understand the global forces at play.

Australian Banksia Securities Assets Frozen

In Australia, the collapse of "non-bank" Banksia Securities has affected thousands of investors fools who put $660 million in a guaranteed to blowup mortgage-lending scheme that chased high yields.

How did Banksia Securities offer above market returns? The answer is risky mortgages and commercial property loans now going bust.

Please consider Rural savings threatened after collapse

Thousands of farmers and other regional Victorians face a nervous wait after the collapse last night of the financing group Banksia Securities, which has put at risk $660 million in savings.

As a non-bank lender, Banksia offers investors high interest on debentures and then lends these funds out as mortgages or commercial property loans.

Given Banksia does not hold a banking licence, the funds in the debentures are not backed by a deposit guarantee.

Debenture firms often target retirees as investors, generating new business through promises of high-interest returns backed by property.

McGrathNicol last night froze the $660 million in investments and stopped all interest payments as it began an urgent review of the company's accounts.

The attempt to claw back funds could cause a credit crunch among some property developers that relied on Banksia for loans.

Opposition Finance spokesman Robin Scott said Labor was worried about the damage Banksia's collapse may do on regional communities, particularly on jobs and development.

Mr Scott said while it was too early to know the full impact he hoped the state government would look at ways of to help those most affected.

Questions of the Day

This is yet another disastrous borrow-short, lend-long scheme blown sky high. The New Australian blog asked Is this Australia’s Northern Rock moment?

http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com/




* Not according to the "model."

Must have reworked the ol' housing derivative model...

The one that said that the Super Seniors were golden AAA+++...

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

4ass Dum.............talkin to hizself

I have to to find my equal.



Do you know where I can get some Ugg boots?

 

[mercury14]

An example from today's news:

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/10/24/us-usa-biofuels-algae-idUSBRE89N1Q820121024

Algae biofuel technology is still in development. This isn't news.

And before you assume my stand is because I hate Barack Obama because I probably hate black people (let us remember that I am a polyglot of races)

Nobody gives a shit if you're more than one race, you're still a race bigot. "Obama needs to release his undergraduate grades because he's black" and "Colin Powell just supports Obama because he's black." See? Bigotry.

You said you used to let men have your ass in the 60's but you're still bigoted against gays.

You said you used to be a liberal but you still can't articulate a liberal position in any kind of rational fashion. I see a pattern here, don't you?

 

[Busybody]

Hey yo.....Curry

What do you think of HOSE new plan?

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

Nattering nabob of negativism...
http://images.starpulse.com/Photos/Previews/Napoleon-Dynamite-fs26.jpg

 

[mercury14]

This is why:

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

My argument against unfettered capitalism has very little to do with morality. It's a practical one. Capitalism fosters concentration of the wealth at the very top where it is saved and invested (often overseas) rather than spent back into the nation's economy. Spending decreases as the wealthy accumulate an increasing percentage of the nation's money and assets. Decreased spending means fewer jobs and the surrender of America's global market share.

Just since 1992, the portion of the nation's wealth in the hands of the top 1% has doubled from 20% to 40%. Assuming this trend continues (and there's no reason to think it will not), by 2032 the wealthiest Americans will poses somewhere between 60%-80% of the wealth. Consumer spending will be completely withered in the economy as the spending class simply has little to spend. Unemployment will likewise be at critical mass. And the wealthy will continue to purchase tax policy that declines to seriously tap their assets.

I could care less what Mises says. My argument here is practical more than moral and has never been disputed by a right winger here with anything other than ad hominem.

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

Barack Obama denied politics had anything to do with his administration's green-energy loans to companies like Solyndra and Abound, both of which have gone bankrupt. The President even chuckled when asked if those loans were a waste of taxpayer dollars.

Denver's News9 reporter Kyle Clark said in a Friday interview that Obama touted the "stimulus money going to Abound Solar" in a national address, but Abound Solar is "out of business and under criminal investigation" while the "jobs are gone and taxpayers are out about 60 million dollars."

"How do you answer critics who see Abound Solar as Colorado's Solyndra -- a politically connected clean energy company that went under and took our money with it?," Clark asked Obama.

Obama chuckled, saying only "four percent" of green-energy loans went to companies like Abound Solar and Solyndra. Since those decisions are made by the Department of Energy, he reasoned, "they have nothing to do with politics."

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Govern...ondoggles-Says-Politics-Not-Involved-In-Loans


http://images.starpulse.com/Photos/pv/Pauly%20Shore-3.jpg
You heard the man.
He has no influence what-so-ever at Energy.
Myrmidons! Pagans! LIARS!!!

 

[richard_daily]

My argument against unfettered capitalism has very little to do with morality. It's a practical one. Capitalism fosters concentration of the wealth at the very top where it is saved and invested (often overseas) rather than spent back into the nation's economy. Spending decreases as the wealthy accumulate an increasing percentage of the nation's money and assets. Decreased spending means fewer jobs and the surrender of America's global market share.

Just since 1992, the portion of the nation's wealth in the hands of the top 1% has doubled from 20% to 40%. Assuming this trend continues (and there's no reason to think it will not), by 2032 the wealthiest Americans will poses somewhere between 60%-80% of the wealth. Consumer spending will be completely withered in the economy as the spending class simply has little to spend. Unemployment will likewise be at critical mass. And the wealthy will continue to purchase tax policy that declines to seriously tap their assets.

I could care less what Mises says. My argument here is practical more than moral and has never been disputed by a right winger here with anything other than ad hominem.

This is the brutal reality that people like aj want to stick their head in the sand about.

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

This is the brutal reality that people like aj want to stick their head in the sand about.

Number four.

 

[RobDownSouth]

This is the brutal reality that people like aj want to stick their head in the sand about.

Reality has never been embraced by that demographic. They are the living embodiment of epistemic closure.

As the noted philosopher Simon N. Garfunkel once famously said, "a man hears what he wants to hear, and disregards the rest".

 

[Beco]

My argument against unfettered capitalism has very little to do with morality. It's a practical one. Capitalism fosters concentration of the wealth at the very top where it is saved and invested (often overseas) rather than spent back into the nation's economy. Spending decreases as the wealthy accumulate an increasing percentage of the nation's money and assets. Decreased spending means fewer jobs and the surrender of America's global market share.

Just since 1992, the portion of the nation's wealth in the hands of the top 1% has doubled from 20% to 40%. Assuming this trend continues (and there's no reason to think it will not), by 2032 the wealthiest Americans will poses somewhere between 60%-80% of the wealth. Consumer spending will be completely withered in the economy as the spending class simply has little to spend. Unemployment will likewise be at critical mass. And the wealthy will continue to purchase tax policy that declines to seriously tap their assets.

I could care less what Mises says. My argument here is practical more than moral and has never been disputed by a right winger here with anything other than ad hominem.

so, what system would you prefer, in a perfect world, to live under?

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

so, what system would you prefer, in a perfect world, to live under?

The one we have now, only with less Capitalism, more regulation and more taxation.


What's not to like about that plan???

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

He would love to have a Nokia Nation (go back a few pages ).


They all prefer a state-managed economy where 2% growth means that you are allowing the people to keep too much of their money cutting into the spending power of their victims whose received benefits act as economic multipliers.

Their economics have not changed since the 1880s and the Socialism of the Chair.

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

They cherry-pick meaningless stats as if that is what runs an economy.

People do not put wealth into a vault and play in it like Scrooge McDuck.

The reason wealth and Capital are not circulating is a moral one: FEAR!

Fear that the Socialists are winning the political argument and in winning, they will collapse this economy in the same manner that they have collapsed so many other economies with their Sophisms and "statistics" not understanding the very limited "historical" role stats play in explaining what happened to a small extend, but can in now way predict what will happen because human action is not the least bit swayed by columns of numbers. It is swayed by what you think your fellow man will do to you should you dare to excel...

Will he celebrate you, as I do, or will his nature tend to looting you as merc's does?

The Democrats have become PROUD to be looters.

This is why they fail economically.

And thus morally.

 

[RobDownSouth]

The Derp meter just went to eleven!!1!!11

I love it when a man deemed unfit to adopt American children lectures others on their moral failures.

 

[mercury14]

They cherry-pick meaningless stats as if that is what runs an economy.

People do not put wealth into a vault and play in it like Scrooge McDuck.

The reason wealth and Capital are not circulating is a moral one: FEAR!

Fear that the Socialists are winning the political argument and in winning, they will collapse this economy in the same manner that they have collapsed so many other economies with their Sophisms and "statistics" not understanding the very limited "historical" role stats play in explaining what happened to a small extend, but can in now way predict what will happen because human action is not the least bit swayed by columns of numbers. It is swayed by what you think your fellow man will do to you should you dare to excel...

Will he celebrate you, as I do, or will his nature tend to looting you as merc's does?

The Democrats have become PROUD to be looters.

This is why they fail economically.

And thus morally.

And thereby AJ rationalizes the top 1% (or really the top .3%) accumulating an ever-increasing portion of America's wealth, even as the spending class fails to have the ability to fuel the economy. Fear has nothing to do with it when the spenders lack the ability to spend in the first place.

 

[jeninflorida]

again, do any of you ass hats below....have any experience in the real world? In management or have you ever started a business?

you people are arm chair QB business wannabe players but lack the balls necessary to enter the game.

they're laughing at you, gay grandpa.

Algae biofuel technology is still in development. This isn't news.




Nobody gives a shit if you're more than one race, you're still a race bigot. "Obama needs to release his undergraduate grades because he's black" and "Colin Powell just supports Obama because he's black." See? Bigotry.

You said you used to let men have your ass in the 60's but you're still bigoted against gays.

You said you used to be a liberal but you still can't articulate a liberal position in any kind of rational fashion. I see a pattern here, don't you?

Reality has never been embraced by that demographic. They are the living embodiment of epistemic closure.

As the noted philosopher Simon N. Garfunkel once famously said, "a man hears what he wants to hear, and disregards the rest".

And thereby AJ rationalizes the top 1% (or really the top .3%) accumulating an ever-increasing portion of America's wealth, even as the spending class fails to have the ability to fuel the economy. Fear has nothing to do with it when the spenders lack the ability to spend in the first place.

 

[mercury14]

so, what system would you prefer, in a perfect world, to live under?

There is no perfect. But we need a progressive tax rate that means something.

Romney is wrong, we shouldn't eliminate deductions (unless they're bad ones). Deductions should be there because incentives for folks to start a business, obtain childcare so they can work, get an education, hire more employees, or have a house (assuming solid credit) are good things. Besides, it's not politically feasible in the least bit to wipe out a slew of deductions so let's not waste time talking about policy that cannot happen.

But we need a minimum net tax rate that people in a given tax bracket can deduct down to, but no further. A real one that works. And if the enactment of such a tax plan would mean an overall tax increase (quite possible) then perhaps we can knock down the marginal rates a bit.

Higher income folks paid way higher taxes under Reagan and nobody was calling America a socialist state. In fact Reagan used an economy with those tax rates to win the Cold War. The definition of socialism hasn't changed in the last 20 years, conservatives just moved the goal posts every year or two. It's gotten to the point that even having the Bush tax cuts in place minus the Payroll Tax Cut is still socialism despite those rates being at historic lows. All this "it's socialism!" crap has become completely absurd.

 

[mercury14]

again, do any of you ass hats below....have any experience in the real world? In management or have you ever started a business?

you people are arm chair QB business wannabe players but lack the balls necessary to enter the game.

I have far more experience working in the private sector than you, yes. But I admit you're much more experienced at being unemployed than me.

 

[Beco]

There is no perfect. But we need a progressive tax rate that means something.

Romney is wrong, we shouldn't eliminate deductions (unless they're bad ones). Deductions should be there because incentives for folks to start a business, obtain childcare so they can work, get an education, hire more employees, or have a house (assuming solid credit) are good things. Besides, it's not politically feasible in the least bit to wipe out a slew of deductions so let's not waste time talking about policy that cannot happen.

But we need a minimum net tax rate that people in a given tax bracket can deduct down to, but no further. A real one that works. And if the enactment of such a tax plan would mean an overall tax increase (quite possible) then perhaps we can knock down the marginal rates a bit.

Higher income folks paid way higher taxes under Reagan and nobody was calling America a socialist state. In fact Reagan used an economy with those tax rates to win the Cold War. The definition of socialism hasn't changed in the last 20 years, conservatives just moved the goal posts every year or two. It's gotten to the point that even having the Bush tax cuts in place minus the Payroll Tax Cut is still socialism despite those rates being at historic lows. All this "it's socialism!" crap has become completely absurd.

I said, in a perfect world, what systems would you prefer to live under? Since you seem disgusted with the United States