This pic gave me a headache:

10/30/2008 10:51:09 AM

surprised this hasn't been posted yet.... (even though the pic above is from this article)
http://www.reuters.com/article/newsOne/idUSN2839825420081030

Quote :

"The U.S. economy shrank at a 0.3 percent annual rate in the third quarter, its sharpest contraction in seven years as consumers cut spending and businesses reduced investment in the face of rising fears that recession was setting in. The Commerce Department said the third-quarter contraction in gross domestic product was the steepest since the corresponding quarter in 2001 though it was slightly less than the 0.5 percent rate of reduction that Wall Street economists surveyed by Reuters had forecast."

So even for those of you don't agree we were already into recession as early as last Spring, these numbers show we are halfway there to the popular definition of recession.

10/30/2008 11:07:50 AM

Exxon Mobil breaks another earnings record
Oil giant posts biggest U.S. quarterly profit ever; breaks own record

Quote :

"HOUSTON - Exxon Mobil Corp., the world’s largest publicly traded oil company, reported income Thursday that shattered its own record for the biggest profit from operations by a U.S. corporation, earning $14.83 billion in the third quarter. The Irving, Texas-based company has reported unprecedented back-to-back quarters, the end of the most recent coinciding with a rapid plunge in crude prices. Benchmark oil prices fell another $2.21 to $65.29 Thursday on the New York Mercantile Exchange, about 56 percent off record highs in July. Exxon said net income jumped nearly 58 percent to $2.86 a share in the July-September period. That compares with $9.41 billion, or $1.70 a share, a year ago. The previous record for U.S. corporate profit was set in the last quarter, when Exxon Mobil earned $11.68 billion. Revenue rose 35 percent to $137.7 billion. On average, analysts expected the company to earn $2.39 per share in the latest quarter on revenue of $131.4 billion. Company shares fell 90 cents to $73.75 at the open of trade. Exxon Mobil’s results got a boost of $1.62 billion in the most-recent quarter from the sale of a natural gas transportation business in Germany. It also took a special, after-tax charge of $170 million related to a punitive damages award related to the 1989 Exxon Valdez oil spill. Excluding those items, third-quarter earnings amounted to $13.38 billion — nearly 15 percent above its previous profit record from the second quarter. As expected, Exxon Mobil posted massive earnings at its exploration and production, or upstream, arm, where net income rose 48 percent to $9.35 billion. Higher oil and natural gas prices propelled results, even though production was down from the third quarter a year ago. Oil producers are coming off a quarter during which crude prices reached an all-time high of $147.27 — and their profits have reflected it. Crude prices, however, have quickly fallen 50 percent from the summer’s highs, and the global economic malaise has raised questions about energy demand at least into 2009. Some companies, especially smaller producers, are scaling back spending on new exploration and production projects because of the uncertainty, though analysts say that its less likely to happen at the well-heeled giants like Exxon Mobil."

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27453305/




U.S. economy shrank in the third quarter
Contraction at 0.3 percent pace suggests the onset of recession

Quote :

"WASHINGTON - A day after the Federal Reserve slashed a key interest rate to battle an economic downturn, the government reported Thursday the economy did shrink in the summer, sending the strongest signal yet that a recession may have already begun. The Commerce Department reported that the gross domestic product, the broadest measure of economic health, fell at an annual rate of 0.3 percent in the July-September period, a significant slowdown after growth of 2.8 percent in the prior quarter. The spring activity had been boosted by the $168 billion economic stimulus program, but the economy ran into a wall in the summer as the mass mailings of stimulus checks ended and consumer confidence was shaken by the upheavals on global markets. Consumer spending, which accounts for two-thirds of the economy, dropped by the largest amount in 28 years in the third quarter..."

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27453121/


I think hooksaw might have jinxed the economy with this thread or something.

10/30/2008 11:08:27 AM

Yeah, he literally top-ticked the Dow with this thread. Wish I would have shorted every stock I could get my hand on back then with his wonderful wisdom.

10/30/2008 11:11:14 AM

hooksaw 7/17/08:

Quote :

"you're wrong on the economy. Time will reveal the facts about the economy."

ORLY

10/30/2008 11:12:27 AM

Also, expect the inflation from 1% interest rates and the creation of hundreds of billions of dollars of fake money to hit in about 3-4 months.

10/30/2008 11:12:50 AM

most of that money though is not in the consumer market at all.

10/30/2008 3:28:47 PM

It's still out there though. It merely has to exist to devalue the entire currency.

10/30/2008 4:28:26 PM

Um. . .only a "0.3 percent" contraction in one quarter given all that our economy has been hit with? I say that's pretty goddamned impressive.

10/30/2008 6:19:57 PM

^It's predicted to continue to contract well until the next year. But keep redefining "impressive" to perpetuate your delusion.

10/30/2008 6:50:07 PM

the only thing impressive is hooksaw's ability to redefine reality.

10/30/2008 7:41:33 PM

^^ and ^ STFU.

Wall Street ends higher on better-than-expected GDP data

http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2008-10/31/content_10283344.htm

10/31/2008 7:56:59 AM

i read the first page of this thread and then realized it was over a year old.

good call with the good news hooksaw.

also as a resident of NYC I can tell you Wall St is fucked. The federal government is investigating past bonuses because of the huge payout giving to hedge funders who played with huge sums of money and ended up fucking everyone over. Its gonna be regulations out the ass in the next few years. It doesnt matter how much the stock market goes up because so much wealth has already been lost its insane. This isnt doom and gloom, this is what fucking happened. At least it didnt fall to 5000 or something.

selling apartments for 1200 bucks a sqf in manhattan may be over too. zing

[Edited on October 31, 2008 at 8:56 AM. Reason : !!!!!!!!!!]

10/31/2008 8:53:49 AM

^^ you're grasping at straws, man....
It's like you ordered a fillet mignon for dinner, but instead you got a plate of shit with a cherry on top, and you're trying to act like that's what you wanted all along. Just send it back, dude.

10/31/2008 9:28:52 AM

Wait, the only evidence that has been presented here that the economy is not impressive has been a down stock market, and when it goes up a lot you say he is grasping at straws? Hell yes, but it is the same damn straw you are grasping at. The stock market is not the economy, and house prices are not the economy. If unemployment jumps and GDP growth is negative then and only then can you call the economy unimpressive considering the shit that has gone down.

10/31/2008 9:35:28 AM

Quote :

"If unemployment jumps and GDP growth is negative then and only then can you call the economy unimpressive considering the shit that has gone down"

Was that an underhanded smack at hooksaw?

10/31/2008 9:44:02 AM

^^ unemployment is jumping.

10/31/2008 9:48:28 AM

Yes. 0.3% down is evidence of a recession. Now, he has a strong case that 0.3% is not much considering how much bad mouthing there has been on the economy.

10/31/2008 9:49:21 AM

doom and gloom

10/31/2008 9:59:09 AM

Quote :

"^^ and ^ STFU. Wall Street ends higher on better-than-expected GDP data http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2008-10/31/content_10283344.htm"

________
(--[ .]-[ .] /
(_____o__)

10/31/2008 10:00:46 AM

Quote :

"As a confirmed apocalyptic, I continue to expect the sky to fall; but as a stat dweeb I'm just not seeing the elephant tracks. Right now, during our Worst Economic Crisis Since the Great Depression, unemployment is at 6.1 percent, inflation is at 4.9 percent, and GDP shrank 0.3 percent this quarter, though it's still up for the year. I don't see how that even begins to compete with the late-Carter, early-Reagan era, when GDP shrank in both 1980 and 1982, unemployment never dipped below 8 percent from November 1981 to January 1984, and inflation never dipped below 8 percent between September 1978 and January 1982. One big difference between that Next Great Depression and this one: Washington, in the form of Reagan and Paul Volcker, was forcing us to swallow our medicine to whip inflation and create conditions for future growth. Nowadays the only government medicine being doled out is temporary pain relief"

10/31/2008 10:03:17 AM

^

Well to be sure we expect the real economy to lag the paper economy. And there is still strong evidence that we will experience a significant contraction.

However, from the looks of it Great Depression II is off the table right now and world governments have been o responsive to this crisis that I imagine if anything else flairs up there will sufficent policy to address it.

The response of government within this crisis has been nothing short of amazing and I think goes a long way demostrating the kind of clout that Central Banks have developed over the last 25 years.

10/31/2008 10:39:18 AM

^ Well, "amazing" sounds even stronger than "impressive."

11/3/2008 2:33:23 AM

^

It is amazing. I really thought we would be knee deep in it by now. Yes, there will be a recession but my worst fears of a domino effect of bank failures and massive layoffs almost certainly will not come to pass.

11/3/2008 10:25:27 AM

Have you been listening to any of the people who have been telling us that this is far from over?

Maybe you should start because it's definitely far from over.

11/3/2008 10:27:31 AM

Actually, I've been listening to kwsmith2 because he has been right over and over again with his predictions. He's also been consistently bearish, so if he sees the light at the end of the tunnel then that probably means good news.

I love this exchange back on page 3 (dated 11 months ago):

kwsmith2

Quote :

"I wouldn't call the current market bullish. Even bear markets have rallies. As for the overall economy, while of course the US economy is impressive, I think we are looking at a likely recession. In the absence of Fed action I think we would be looking at a rather large recession, perhaps, the largest since the Great Depression. I know that sounds rather strong, but the history of debt deflation is not pretty. For those who have a bit of technical training I would point to http://www.kc.frb.org/publicat/sympos/2007/PDF/2007.10.11.Leamer.pdf Now Leamer, at least a while back, didn't think a recession was coming because he didn't think manufacturer could post the kind of job losses we need for a recession. However, I think that times have changed a bit and we could shed enough retail and financial jobs to produce a recession. Moreover, it is important to note that in the modern economy it is possible to produce a recession without a significant rise in unemployment. Job shifiting could produce productivity losses large enough to create a recession. 12/1/2007 5:55:32 PM"

hooksaw

Quote :

"^ The R-word gets tossed around a lot these days--the problem is that most people either don't know the actual definition of "recession" or they're trying to change that definition. Unless the US economy experiences two quarters or more of flat or negative GDP growth in 2008, a recession will not have happened. The Whitehouse and the Fed have similar growth predictions for the economy next year of about 1.8 percent and 2.5 percent. An economic slowdown? Yes--somewhat. A recession? No--bank on it. "

[Edited on November 3, 2008 at 11:11 AM. Reason : 2]

11/3/2008 11:10:05 AM

Quote :

"the problem is that most people either don't know the actual definition of "recession" or they're trying to change that definition"

how ironic..... hooksaw messes up the "actual definition" of a recession when defending what he thinks the definition is

11/3/2008 11:12:06 AM

How many people will be pardoned on Bush's exit

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/02/business/02gret.html?_r=3&ref=business&oref=slogin&oref=slogin&oref=slogin

Or, will any of these people actually face jail time?

Quote :

"“She told me, ‘This broker has closed over $1 million with us and there is no reason you cannot make this loan work,’ ” Ms. Cooper says. “I explained to her the loan was not good at all, but she said I had to sign it.” The argument did not end there, however. Ms. Cooper says her immediate boss complained to the team manager about the loan rejection and asked that Ms. Cooper be “written up,” with a formal letter of complaint placed in her personnel file. Ms. Cooper said the team manager told her to “restructure” the loan to make it work. “I said, how can you restructure fraud? This is a fraudulent loan,” she recalls. Ms. Cooper says that her bosses placed her on probation for 30 days for refusing to approve the loan and that her team manager signed off on the loan. Four months later, the loan was in default, she says. The borrower had not made a single payment. “They tried to hang it on me,” Ms. Cooper said, “but I said, ‘No, I put in the system that I am not approving this loan.’ ” Brokers often tried to bribe Ms. Cooper to approve loans, she says. One offered to pay $900 to send her son to football summer boot camp if she would approve a loan that had been declined by a host of other lenders. “I told him no and not to disrespect me like that again,” Ms. Cooper says."

11/3/2008 12:07:30 PM

hooksaw is an ex-jailer turned engrlsh lit major. if anyone understands macroeconomic theory, it's him.

i'll take his bombastic assertations over that kwsmith's nuanced prevarications any day.

11/3/2008 12:54:03 PM

I just don't think this is all over because:

1) Unemployment will continue to rise over the next 6 months or so.

2) Home prices have still not bottomed out. Until this happens there can be no accurate assignment of value to these assets. On top of that, many mortgages are still going to default which represents a loss on bank balance sheets.

3) The initial run on banks has taken place and knocked some of the larger ones out. But the damage is done. Massive equity was lost throughout the entire system and the ripple effect from this will still continue to knock out some more banks in the future unless even more money is granted to the Fed to give to banks, which poses problems of its own.

This downturn is far from over. Not all the banks that will go down as a result of this recession have gone down yet. The layoffs from a decrease in consumer spending haven't happened yet. I know kwsmith2 is pretty balanced and I don't know how often he is right, but I haven't been wrong about a lot of this stuff either and I've only been putting my conservative estimates out. So far, this whole thing has been worse than even I could have imagined 6-7 months ago.

11/3/2008 2:33:51 PM

Quote :

"Not all the banks that will go down as a result of this recession have gone down yet."

This is probably true, but it's a trailing indicator more than a leading indicator. The bank failures we are gonna see in 2009 are the result of what happened this year, not a harbinger of things to come. The swift response of leading governments has ensured that there will be no domino effect of these failures. We may have to pay for the intervention over the next 30 years, but for now they've ensured that we don't see a complete meltdown.

11/3/2008 3:02:07 PM

Quote :

"As a valued Citibank client, we want to make you aware that FDIC deposit insurance has increased to at least $250,000 per depositor, per insured bank, through December 31, 2009.* Deposit accounts covered by FDIC insurance include checking and savings accounts, money market deposit accounts and certificates of deposit (CDs). There is no need for you to apply for FDIC insurance - coverage is automatic. You may qualify for more than $250,000 in coverage at an insured bank if you own deposit accounts in different ownership categories (single, joint, IRA's and trusts). If you have any questions regarding the new coverage you can visit the FDIC's web site http://www.fdic.gov,** or call 1-877-ASK FDIC (1-877-275-3342)."

Got this e-mail

11/3/2008 3:33:06 PM

Quote :

"Address Not Found Firefox can't find the server at www.fdic.gov,**."

http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc1178.html




[Edited on November 3, 2008 at 4:47 PM. Reason : ]

11/3/2008 4:46:50 PM

http://money.cnn.com/2008/12/01/news/economy/recession/index.htm?postversion=2008120112

Quote :

"NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- The National Bureau of Economic Research said Monday that the U.S. has been in a recession since December 2007, making official what most Americans have already believed about the state of the economy . The NBER is a private group of leading economists charged with dating the start and end of economic downturns. It typically takes a long time after the start of a recession to declare its start because of the need to look at final readings of various economic measures. "The committee views the payroll employment measure, which is based on a large survey of employers, as the most reliable comprehensive estimate of employment," said the group's statement. "This series reached a peak in December 2007 and has declined every month since then." Employers have trimmed payrolls by 1.2 million jobs in the first 10 months of this year. On Friday, economists are predicting the government will report a loss of another 325,000 jobs for November. To top of page"

Let's hope things improve soon, I don't like setting records when it comes to bad things

12/1/2008 12:50:59 PM

don't worry, everything will be OK, we just need more rate cuts and stimulus checks

warm up the helicopter

12/1/2008 1:05:22 PM

^ your post confuses me.

12/1/2008 1:21:52 PM

Quote :

"An economic slowdown? Yes--somewhat. A recession? No--bank on it. 12/2/2007 4:11:17 AM "

I guess if the bank was WAMU

12/1/2008 3:33:00 PM

So we've been in a recession for a year now...

http://money.cnn.com/2008/12/01/news/economy/recession/index.htm?postversion=2008120115

So explain why it's important to ignore the problem and say everything's great instead of acknowledging the problem and fixing it? Step 1 to recovery...

12/1/2008 3:44:44 PM

Considering we have been in a recession for a year now, the U.S. economy is rather impressive. Unemployment less than 7% would be a dream in many other countries, and yet this is our recession figure?

12/1/2008 6:26:21 PM

that's our U3 figure. The "real" unemployment U6 figure is up to something like 12-13%
But you can expect U3 to continue to rise anyway

12/1/2008 6:27:56 PM

me along with all those banker types were laid off in the last month or so.

so no 7% isnt the right number

12/1/2008 6:36:20 PM

yeah, me too.
my lost job won't officially show up until February or March, when I start drawing unemployment

12/1/2008 6:43:02 PM

hooksaw got pwnt by stat corrections

12/2/2008 12:51:06 AM

It should not matter whether you report U3 or U6 as long as you are consistent and your audience understands the distinction.

12/2/2008 2:17:54 AM

Quote :

"So explain why it's important to ignore the problem and say everything's great instead of acknowledging the problem and fixing it? Step 1 to recovery..."

well, duh.

as soon as they admitted this IS a recession, the market dropped another ~800 points.

obviously they should have kept their fool mouths shut.

12/2/2008 2:50:05 AM

``

[Edited on December 2, 2008 at 7:32 AM. Reason : no time]

12/2/2008 7:12:27 AM

Taking bets on how long it takes hooksaw to come into the thread and admit he was wrong.


I'm betting on -Never-

12/2/2008 8:25:02 AM

Quote :

"It should not matter whether you report U3 or U6 as long as you are consistent and your audience understands the distinction. "

The problem is the measuring, corrections, and reporting are sometimes based on models that aren't modernized or don't accurately assess the numbers during quickly changing economic conditions - like recessions.

For the first half-3/4s of this year the birth/death adjustment to unemployment was causing a severe understatement of the number. Perhaps if we would have gotten real numbers sooner then more people would have taken the crisis a little more seriously. This is just one small example of where the numbers reported by the BLS and our government can't be taken at face value.

[Edited on December 2, 2008 at 9:11 AM. Reason : .]

12/2/2008 9:09:26 AM

Quote :

"that's our U3 figure. The "real" unemployment U6 figure is up to something like 12-13% But you can expect U3 to continue to rise anyway"

agent

Wow, someone has been reading the Big Picture.

Look, just because the liberal economics blogs tell you that this is the "real" unemployment figure, doesn't actually mean it is objectively the best measure of unemployment. It all depends on what you're interested in. There are 6 estimates of unemployment reported by the BLS nased on household survey data, U6 being the most broad. So broad in fact that it includes people that ARE employed (people that are employed in part-time positions for economic reasons). That's why it's better understood as a measure of "labor underutilization" than strictly as a mesure of unemployment.
http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t12.htm

So you really have to ask yourself what you're trying to measure when choosing which measure to look at. If you are strictly interested in joblessness (which I assume you are since you're talking about UNemployment), this isn't the measure you're looking for. Unfortunately, I think it's pretty clear a lot of pundits are just looking for the measure that fits their political agenda best.

For good evidence of this, try searching the Big Picture's blog or Paul Krugman's columns to find them using the U6 measure before 2006. Chances are you will not find it. Why? Because U6 had actually been falling since 2002. Falling at the exact time that Krugman and others were complaining about a "jobless recovery".

Now, I'm not saying that U6 isn't useful. I'm just saying that it is only one of many measures of labor utilization we should consider. It is no more "real" than any other measure. Unless, of course, you have a political interest in picking the biggest number at any given time. But you're so objective and non-partisan, I'm sure you'd never do that.

[Edited on December 2, 2008 at 9:43 AM. Reason : ``]

12/2/2008 9:26:29 AM

Quote :

"Look, just because the liberal economics blogs tell you that this is the "real" unemployment figure, doesn't mean it is true. "

This pretty much renders anything you type after this null and void.

12/2/2008 9:29:03 AM