Political Discussions
Economic Indicators
Posted by clioandme • 8/12/09 • Subscribe to this Discussion [RSS] • Report This Topic
Topics: Economy
I'm not in the business of making predictions, but I do like to follow news about current economic trends.
There's one story about improvement in the global economy, which is a prerequisite to selling exports: www.nytimes.com/2009/08/13/business/13econ.html
And there's a recent story about the rate of growth in unemployment in the US slowing: www.nytimes.com/2009/05/06/business/economy/06leonhardt.html Of course, this also means the number of unemployed is still growing.
Finally, I've noticed a story about an increase in US worker productivity: latimesblogs.latimes.com/money_co/2009/08/us-worker-productivity-surged-in-...
These are just small, incomplete signs, but I'm happy to see anything like this after the domesday circumstances we were looking at less than a year ago.
My suggestion for this thread: what current news about economic indicators have you got? I don't put much faith in future predictions. I just want to know about the present. I also would like to avoid getting into partisan policy battles. Perhaps that's possible? Just the economic facts as they currently are.
User Comments
-
It would be nice to think that an increase in home sales says something good, but it looks like a lot of that is the result of foreclosures. www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2009/08/home_sales_healthy_realtors.html?ft=1&...
-
Do you actually think that ANY of these things are good?
Did you read the articles at all?
As far as homesales, that the number of sales goes up is not a great indicator when the value of those homes have dropped to 50%.
Also, do this to check it out yourself. Find a search enginge for real estate, find something that is interesting to a "normal person" and do a search for those types of properties, and you'll find something very interesting.
Out of 10, maybe 1 or 2 will be "normal sales", 1 or 2 will be Foreclosures, and the rest "short sales". You may have to call the realtor to find out since they aren't listing short sales with that in the description anymore. (people aren't interested in Short SAles unless they have plenty of cash on hand)
The short sales are banks making deals with people to stay in their properties until it sells for a low amount, less than what is owed.
They do this so that the banks don't have to pick up the asset on their books. And pay taxes on it etc.
Now, this is definately good for the people who would be on the street otherwise, but don't think for a second that that is what the benks are doing.
The fact that we have such a high amount of short sales, which should really be foreclosed properties, just tells us what a mess the market is in.
The banks also do this because they want to stem the tide of new buyers making a move on the cheap foreclose properties, in South florida, one of the hardest hit, properties are moving inside a week in the 100-150k rabge (sold in 2006 for 220-350k) if they are in decent shape. Then the banks trickle out more short sales to the foreclosure market to keep that momentum moving.
Reality is that the economy isn't doing well at all, It isn't moving towards anything that is remotely sustainable, it's going the other direction.-
I believe I stated the negative side on the home sales trend: "but it . . . "
I don't think you addressed the issues in my first three links.
The picture is certainly not rosy, but maybe the bottom is no longer dropping out of everything.
-
-
Ok, I'm going to have to return to this for the second part, just let me address the employment part now.
Unemployment "slowing" is indeed good, but not good enough, and the WAY it's slowing isn't good.
Remember that Obama himself said we are seeing a recovery and that Jobs would likely not follow for quite some time, then this article says that jobs are the driving force behind a recovery.
Let's start with understanding that a "jobless recovery" isn't worth a damn in the long run. We had a jobless recovery in the 1929 depression first year, guess what heppened after that.
The market is correcting it's initial overreaction now, and we are seeing the effects of that, but in an economy 80% bult on consumer spending, increasing number of people out of the workforce isn't anything but bad. And since we have been going up in the markets since march, while unemployment keeps increasing, we can see very quickly that the increased market shares are based on two parts.
One the overcorrection that the initial drop did, at the time, things weren't bad enough to warrant 6500 on the dow, they have since gotten a lot worse.
NOW< there is a difference between what the reality is, and what the media and government SHOULD be reporting. Indeed The media and Obama are doing the right thing, projecting cautious optimism is the best way to stem something like a Bankrun or similar, the last thing we need is another panic. That however isn't the same as telling the truth, sometimes it's simply better to omit parts of the truth to avoid causing a bigger problem.
Now, if you look at the big traders, they are covering longs right now and looking over their shorts, which is a clear indicator that they expect a major drop. THis is no secret in the trading world at all.
YOu can see That here.
Forget the "blog" link, look at the video with Bob Prechter, I just couldn't find a link to that video anywhere else right now.
thenexteconomy.blogspot.com/2009/08/bob-prechter-quite-sure-next-wave-down....
If you wonder who Bob Prechter is, he founded the concept of Socionomics for instance. Which is what this is really about.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Prechter
The key concept is that this guy has been right an awful lot about the market in the last few decades.
This "upturn" was clearly expected by most big traders, it makes perfect sense. That we are coming towards some kind of recovery is however not true at all.
The bottom is about to fall out i'm afraid, and all we've done is raise the crate before that happens, which will make the fall harder. -
"Economy not falling, but not better yet"
marketplace.publicradio.org/display/web/2009/08/12/pm-fed/
The person being interviewed, Vincent Reinhart, is this guy:
www.aei.org/scholar/129-
I don't think you read the post..
This guy is FDIC. Who has nothing to gain by telling the whole story. Look among the real investors, not the government. -
Where are you getting that from? His bio says Federal Reserve and American Enterprise Institute.
And FYI, I just the link after listening to the interview on air. Marketplace is a darned good show, but you might not know it, because it's carried by NPR stations. -
My bad, I should have said FR.
Now lets look at who he works with.
docs.google.com/gview?a=v&q=cache:vsP4aA2x8B0J:www.brookings.edu/press/book...
And there's Mr. Bernake. -
I mean come on, this guy works for the fed govt. Who's errands do you think he is going to run.
-
You seem to be confused. I provided the c.v. above.
And really, all I am trying to do is collect information. If it's useless in your book, ignore it. -
No im not confused I put the wrong abbreviation in and i admitted it was the wrong one, the fact is still the same.
What I am saying is, if you read the original statement.
The gov't has absolutely no inclination to tell the full truth in this matter. It would be foolish for them to do so.
For instance, something that isn't done with the Dollar is devaluation, but in countries that have used it, it is commonly known that the finance minister or equivalent will ALWAYS lie about a coming devaluation, not lying would create problems that would make the devaluation largely useless.
This guy works for the people that are currently trying to stem the tide, he isn't going to report the full truth either.
Now, look at what he says,
"Stone says by tapering off this way the Fed's hoping to avoid shocking an economy that's now hooked on government support. But this is just the beginning of our economic detox. The Fed is still buying roughly half of all mortgage-backed securities issued in America."
Let's use his "patient" as an example.
Right now the patient is on life support, being pumped in by the gov't buying HALF of all MBS.
There is no improvement in the economy, the "patient" just isn't bleeding right now, largely because of the enormous influx that the gov't is doing.
So the patient is showing no signs of RECOVERY, and the fed is going to pull the plug on the life support system in the months ahead.
Now, if you think that the patient will make a strong recovery on his own before then, you're probably right in being optimistic, but even the President is agreeing that we won't see a recovery for a long time. Longer than the support will be active.
So yes, all things are pointing to bad...
For those that think we are in recovery, i'd love to see you put your money where your mouth is. If indeed this is it, start buying. You'll make a bundle.
Like I said in another thread, i got out of the market the day before yesterday essentially, (the last trades went through this morning).
Yes, i believe that i could have squeezed a couple more dollars out of it, but All indicators are down. So smart money is to be out of non commodities. -
Only he's not working for the govt. You did see the word "former" in front of "Federal Reserve." Perhaps you also noticed that he last held that position in 2007?
-
-
Some coach was once asked if it was lucky to be ahead at half time. His response was something like, "its lucky to be ahead at the end of the game." I'm not putting too much faith in indicators until a see a whole lot of them agree and agree for a quarter or two in a row.
There are still too many swords hanging by threads over this particular banquet. -
Odd how mark's posts follow DNC talking points so much. When we were supposed to hate the evil insurance companies, mark told us to. Now that El Presidente is claiming that he saved the economy, look at the OP...
It must get pretty tedious carrying the DNC and El Presidente's water for them all the time.-
And your talking points line up very nicely with Hannity. Are you carrying his water or are you your own person?
-
Nope sorry. I am my own person. I don't defend Hannity all the time, yet you are always defending El Presidente no matter what he does.
-
"And your talking points line up very nicely with Hannity."
EXACTLY!
... and Limbaugh, Beck, Coulter or any other number of far right, divisive pundits that may come to mind. His constant use of 'el Presidente, the Messiah and other juvenile titles also demonstrate his alignment with the fringe. -
"EXACTLY!
... and Limbaugh, Beck, Coulter or any other number of far right, divisive pundits that may come to mind. His constant use of 'el Presidente, the Messiah and other juvenile titles also demonstrate his alignment with the fringe."
I got some news for you, ruin. Their are far more conservatives in America than liberals. Fringe, lol.
*rolls eyes* ruin, you never fail to amuse. -
And I've got news for you antics...
A large percentage of conservatives and/or Republicans do not subscribe to the divisive pundits and extreme views that you do. I have not been criticizing conservatives and/or Republicans in general... ONLY the FAR RIGHT that constantly spews misinformation and fans the flames of hate. You align yourself with the fringe including Limbaugh, Beck, Coulter and other self-serving morons and these people are even criticized by people in your own party.
YOU are in the MINORITY. -
Anti, if you are saying that I defend the president all of the time, you really need to read more carefully. I give Obama only about 50/50. I will give him a chance.
-
Anti's attitude is either you're 100% against Obama or you're brainwashed and in the bag for him.
-
mark, I didn't even mention you...
@ruin...nice try, but you once again are wrong. At least you are wrong so often that it is probably a comfortable place for you...
@xmarks...Let me reword it. I don't defend Hannity at all. But you seem to defend Obama quite a bit regardless of his actions. There, is that better? I agree that I should have been more specific but I was commenting on mark and you seemed to jump into the middle of it. -
I got to thinking about you saying that conservatives are in the minority, ruin.
"Forty-one percent (41%) of American voters say they are conservative when it comes to “fiscal issues such as taxes, government spending, and business regulation.” A Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey found that 43% consider themselves fiscally moderate and 12% say liberal.
Combining the two categories yields an interesting portrait of the electorate. The largest segment of the population—24%--consider themselves to be both fiscally and socially conservative. Seventeen percent (17%) say they are both fiscally and socially moderate.
Fourteen percent (14%) are fiscally moderate and socially liberal. Eleven percent (11%) are fiscally moderate and socially conservative. Ten percent (10%) are fiscally conservative and socially moderate. Nine percent (9%) are both fiscally and socially liberal. Six percent (6%) are fiscally conservative and socially liberal.
Among Republicans, 47% are both fiscally and socially conservative.
Democrats have no such dominant base. Twenty percent (20%) are fiscally moderate but liberal on the social issues. Nineteen percent (19%) of Democrats consider themselves moderate on both fiscal and social issues. Sixteen percent (16%) of Nancy Pelosi’s party say they are liberal on both fiscal and social "
www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/general_politics/november_...
So this poll shows that more Americans by far are conservative. Yep, we're in the minority...
It further demonstrates that within parties, the Republicans are more unified than the Democrats because they have a larger base to draw from whereas the Democrats have no large central base.
Gallup says basically the same thing:
"These findings, from a June 14-17 Gallup Poll, somewhat conform to Gallup's annual trends on Americans' self-defined political ideology. Thus far in 2009 (from January through May), 40% of Americans call themselves conservative, up from 37% in 2007 and 2008, and the highest level since 2004.
Conservatives currently outnumber liberals in the population, and thus, conservatism has a natural advantage on any question asking the public to choose between these standard ideological labels."
www.gallup.com/poll/121403/Special-Report-Ideologically-Moving.aspx
"Conservatives” Are Single-Largest Ideological Group"
www.gallup.com/poll/120857/Conservatives-Single-Largest-Ideological-Group.a...
Oh well ruin, I am sure when you typed it in bold letters and all that it made you feel good about yourself. Probably not something you are used to. -
@antics
Which part of FAR RIGHT don't you understand?!?
I know a lot of conservatives that do not share the extremest views of Limbaugh, Beck, Savage or Coulter - the divisive pundits that you parrot.
www.gallup.com/poll/114163/Limbaugh-Liked-Not-Republicans.aspx -
What's the matter? The facts getting you down?
-
-
I honestly thought people could post whatever economic indicators they hear about. I didn't realize one was supposed to be upbeat if one were Democratic and downbeat if one listened to Fox commentary. What would be the point of that?
I also thought it was pretty clear that I was not saying all was fine. I was just looking at indications that the fall was bottoming out. You see, each news item usually focusses on one thing only, but sometimes I hear experts talk about "many indicators." Well, what are those?
If I go my own personal circumstances, things are rough, and that can be attributed in part to the economy. There are also still all kinds of reasons not to be optimistic in the near term. But there are these other signs.
Just because "hope" was an Obama slogan doesn't mean that it is a partisan feeling. What a sad commentary on American life that would be.
If you don't like the idea of collecting stories, positive or negative, about current conditions, oh well.-
www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/08/13/new-jobless-claims-rise-unexpectedly/
www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/08/13/retail-sales-drop-percent-july/
news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090813/ap_on_bi_st_ma_re/us_wall_street;_ylt=AsK3K._N...
money.cnn.com/2009/08/12/news/economy/budget_deficit.reut/index.htm?postver...
money.cnn.com/2009/08/12/news/economy/trade.reut/index.htm?postversion=2009...
money.cnn.com/2009/08/12/real_estate/housing_mortgages_underwater.fortune/i...
money.cnn.com/2009/08/11/smallbusiness/poor_small_business_sales.smb/index....
Yep, things are definitely looking up since El Presidente went and saved the economy...
"While we've rescued our economy from catastrophe, we've also begun to build a new foundation for growth. That's why we passed an unprecedented recovery act less than a month after I took office, and did so without any of the earmarks or pork-barrel spending that's so common in Washington."
www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2009/08/obama_weve_rescued_our_economy.html
Makes you wonder about these "journalists." I mean do they actually believe the drivel coming from the White House? -
You'll notice further below that I already linked to some of the negative indicators, including at least a couple you have listed. I also commented on them, since just dropping a pile of links helps no one (www.blogcatalog.com/politics/discuss/entry/economic-indicators#comment_1077...).
That aside, your blind bashing of the president confuses the issue. You see, there is the question of how the economy is doing, and there is the question of government's role in that. I'm not interested in discussing the government's role, because I've already seen everyone's take on that. I don't anticipate much movement in that area on this board. Moreover, it is way too early to assess the effect of the Economic Recovery and Reinvestment Act (www.recovery.gov/).
But I guess no matter what I post to these boards, you'll figure out a way to make it a partisan battle. -
"I honestly thought people could post whatever economic indicators they hear about."
Sorry, I thought you wanted links... I guess you only wanted people to post that think you are right.
-
-
The AP reports good news from Europe.
> Euro zone gross domestic product fell by only 0.1 percent
> in the second quarter from the previous three month
> period, the European Union's statistical agency Eurostat
> said.
> That was the fifth straight quarterly decline, but the
> drop was much less than expected and provides the clearest
> evidence so far that the worst of the recession is over.
> . . . The economy shrank 4.6 percent from the same quarter
> a year ago.
www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=111834703&ft=1&f=1001
Yeah, that's still negative growth, recession, but less so than it has been. The article mentions the importance of France and Germany, which actually grew 0.3%.
Now part of this is the result of government stimulus (including incentives to buy cars), so we'll have to see what sticks.
Relevance? Well, if we want more jobs, we have to be able to sell our stuff overseas. This story at least comports with the one from my first link in the OP.-
More on Europe:
"The French and German economies both grew by 0.3% between April and June, bringing to an end year-long recessions in Europe's largest economies."
news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/8198766.stm
The question of why France and Germany are back to economic growth: news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/8199970.stm
The Financial Times' take: www.ft.com/cms/s/0/4ed29388-87dd-11de-82e4-00144feabdc0.html?nclick_check=1
The UK having a rougher time of it: news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/8196465.stm -
Interesting to note that last quarter Germany's exports went up 7%. That's a product of global demand, not German government stimulus. (Source: the very end of an otherwise sober report: marketplace.publicradio.org/display/web/2009/08/13/pm-germany-france/)
-
Yes not so good for the UK because of the large UK financial sector. However with France and Germany now officially out of recession it looks like the UK could follow them back into growth by the third quarter of this year.
-
-
Economists saying recession might be over. (www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=111831339) It's important to remember, though, that a recession being over in the eyes of economists means the economy might start growing again. That's much different than talking about how people are actually doing, as we saw when things were tanking but we did not officially have a recession.
On the downside, retail sales still declined, despite the Cash for Clunkers program (www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=111836345). I suppose retail sales might take longer to recover, not only because of continued unemployment, but also as people continue to reduce their debt and increase savings.
And foreclosures are up (www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=111818229), accompanied by a small upward trend in new unemployment claims (www.npr.org/blogs/money/2009/08/job_loss_creeps_upward_after_w.html). -
NPR has interactive maps of the US showing foreclosure and jobless rates, as well as household incomes: www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=111494514
-
I will be surprised if the people in the middle-to-lower middle class see much change in conditions for a couple more years. All this hocus pocus about the economy doing this and the economy doing that always brings me back to the same thing: If these clowns were all that smrt about the economy we wouldn't be in this mess.-
Which "clowns" are you talking about? There were the financial geniuses who dreamed up incredibly risky schemes without realizing the risk. There was Alan Greenspan who didn't believe in any regulation, and there were the politicians who were undoing what little regulation we had and blocking even more. A blanket statement about the general incompetence of economists seems to miss the mark.
Of course, I agree that those people experiencing financial stress are not going to notice a direct correlation between news of any of these indicators and their own situation.
-
-
The obvious politics of all of this, which probably explains CSI and AR here going into partisan mode: "Good news could spell trouble for GOP," www.politico.com/news/stories/0809/26148.html. Dunno why I thought it would be possible to talk about this stuff without politics. Perhaps I should blame my own tendency to give politicians less credit and less blame for the economy than most commentators do.
-
I went into "partisan mode" because I said you were being too upbeat?
*shrugs*
You have to admit that your original OP came just days after El Presidente said that he had saved the economy from catastrophe; and it contained three links that showed positive 'economic indicators.' When you are accused of spewing DNC talking points, that sort of timing just lends credibility to such a notion. By the way, in your original OP, I think you meant "doomsday," not "domesday." -
(1) I cannot take you seriously when you continually demean the office of the president with "El Presidente." See Polybore's cogent comment here: www.blogcatalog.com/politics/discuss/entry/militia-movement#comment_1082129. (Check my blog posts to see how I treated former President Bush, before you come out assuming I did the same.)
(2) I started this thread on the day the first indicator to which I linked came out. I posted the productivity link to the minimum wage thread on the day it came out, but added it here, because of its relevance. Sometimes news happens and I react. I have no idea what the president was saying on a given day. But if that's all you ever see, I don't know why you even waste your time reading anything I say.
(3) Regarding spelling, there are two variants for that word. -
Well thank you mark - and I mean it. For answering my post. While I did not direct any specific questions at you, you did reply, and without hyperbole and rhetoric.
I learned something new about doomsday/domesday. While "domesday" doesn't mean the same as "doomsday," I did learn about the great survey of England. Thanks
And just for the record, I never accused you of treating Bush any way. I have only said that you seem to revel in any little bit of bad news about him. As I probably do about Obama. I know you don't care, but the reason I refer to him as El Presidente is twofold really. One, he has terrible socialistic tendencies and he greatly reminds me of Hugo Chavez. Two, it is because of the respect I hold for the office of United States President that I refer to the man Obama that way. I believe his actions demean the office, and I call him on it. I know this is purely subjective and one man's opinion, but I thought I might clear it up, since you have referred to my use of El Presidente more than once. -
(1) "domesday" (small d) is also a variant of "doomsday",not to be confused with the "Domesday Book" (large D) --- "doomsday" is the preferred spelling; however. I used the archaic one.
(2) When you disrespect the man, Barack Obama, in that way, you are also disrespecting the office. That's your prerogative. And it comports with your hatred of the U.S. army, I mean your hatred of the government. -
mark, just when we had some dialog, you have to go and be a horse's ass? You know that I don't hate the military. I prefer the Marines as my favorite branch, and that is because my Dad served in the Marines in the initial invasion of Okinawa.
Why should I even try when you are going to hit below the belt like that? I thought you had stated over and over that you wanted rhetoric free discussions. Then you go and do this. So just shut the hell up, okay? I had realized the last time you mentioned your service to our country that I had not thanked you for it. Now I am not going to offer that thanks. It is for the betterment of not only the military, but the country as a whole that you are no longer in uniform. - If you even really served.
-
-
Not anything analytical here, just casual local observation - but a lot of our local businesses and restaurants have switched to either "cash only" or different prices for cash paying customers VS credit card customers.
I can't decide if they have done so (gone cash only) because they've canceled their credit card processing accounts due to raised fees, lack of confidence in the credit system, or if they are looking at it more from the customer side, not wanting customers coming in and having the credit card denied (because a lot of people are living on credit here at the mo' and are maxing out their cards) or perhaps they fear not getting the reimbursement from the companies, or don't want to encourage credit card debt or simply want the cash is king liquidity?
Discuss amongst yourselves -
Maybe the credit card companies have figured out a way to go back on some payments? Or there has been fraud that the companies are dumping on the businesses? Or maybe it takes too long for the businesses to get their money? Or maybe far fewer people are using them anyway, so it's just not worth it. Fees can be high, especially for ATM card usage. Perhaps the credit card companies are figuring out how to charge the businesses more money, especially since small businesses have no real leverage?
-
If I recall, the credit card reform addressed fraudulent charges as well. So the card companies are probably finally cracking down on vendors to make sure that their practices are not leading to Shittybank et al. being charged for vendor negligence. Probably by refusing to reimburse, but idk. -
I'm thinking it has to be a combination of all of it. Local restaurants not wanting to pay outrageous fees for CC usage, plus banks declining charges based on even the smallest hint of fraudulent charges (where was THAT law when my ID was stolen? Huh?), and just general distrust all around.
Although I was caught flat footed the other day - I went to use my debit card to pay for a meal, and they informed me they no longer take them o.0 Luckily I had my checkbook, and they accepted that instead. *phew* -
alwayse good to have some medium of exchange... oh, oops
-
-
After four quarters of economic contraction, Japan just had a quarter of growth. news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/8204075.stm
With France and Germany, that makes 3 members of the G7.-
Canada might be the fourth. I only have information for 7/23, which was still written in the future tense because the quarter wasn't yet over.
www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/recession-over-growth-resumes-ba...
www.cbc.ca/money/story/2009/07/23/bank-canada-economy-recovery.html
-
Add Your Comment
Login to leave a message.
