Do you have stats on people out of the labor force?

4/8/2009 11:40:12 PM

do you mean U6 (part-time when would rather be fulltime, "discouraged" or "marginally attached" workers)? If so, those were included

those graphs are from here - there are more data and graphs available
http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com/2009/04/close-look-at-accelerating-rate-of.html

4/8/2009 11:47:56 PM

Ah, thanks. Sorry.

4/9/2009 1:55:49 AM

U6 is worthless because it did not exist before '94 and is therefore uncomparable with any real recession but 2001 which was the softest recession in U.S. history as I understand it.

Using U3 it is about as high as it got in the '91 recession and still well below the '81 recession.

We will need to wait for unemployment to start dropping before we can say how bad this recession was. And that it is still rising is not evident that it will continue to rise; afterall, in all previous recessions the turn around was abrupt.

4/9/2009 10:28:28 AM

Current Intrade Odds

GM to announce before Dec. 31, 2009 it will file for Chapter 11 Bankruptcy: 74.3%
Tim Geithner to depart as Secretary of the Treasury before June 30, 2009: 11.2%
Advance GDP figure for Q1 2009 to be -4.0% or worse: 83%
US GDP growth for Q2 of 2009 will be postive: 10.1%
US GDP growth for Q3 of 2009 will be postive: 32%
US GDP growth for Q4 of 2009 will be postive: 50%
US GDP growth for Q1 of 2010 will be postive: 73%
US Unemployment Rate Dec 2009 greater than 10.0%: 61%
US Unemployment Rate Dec 2009 greater than 10.5%: 45%
US Unemployment Rate Dec 2009 greater than 11%: 35%
US Unemployment Rate Dec 2009 greater than 11.5%: 10%

4/9/2009 10:35:50 AM

We may not be able to accurately compare U6 numbers to previous recessions, but that doesn't mean it's "worthless".

Just going by the numbers, U6 means that almost 1 out of 5 people are un or underemployed. Comparison or no, that's a pretty big deal

4/9/2009 10:37:58 AM

Recessions are usually big deals. I don't think any here would argue otherwise.

4/9/2009 10:39:56 AM

well, you, for one, have been arguing for months that this particular recession wasn't really a big deal at all.

4/9/2009 11:03:06 AM

You've argued in this very thread the exact opposite.

4/9/2009 11:03:30 AM

There is a difference between saying any recession is a big deal, all stop, and saying this recession is somehow special, a bigger deal than other recessions. The former I accept, the latter I reject as there is so far no justification.

4/9/2009 11:09:55 AM

so you still argue that this is a "business cycle recession" and not a failure of the entire financial system in general, which has much graver implications than a business-cycle recession where one or a handful of industries boom and bust, but the underlying financial system (which supports all industries) is still healthy.

4/9/2009 11:14:22 AM

The financial system has failed before. It failed rather spectacularly in the 80s and left the federal government owning millions of houses and billions of dollars in the hole after bailing out S&Ls.

So, no, the current financial fiasco is not that different from other recession cycles.

4/9/2009 11:58:38 AM

http://www.voxeu.org/index.php?q=node%2F3421

Quote :

"To summarise: the world is currently undergoing an economic shock every bit as big as the Great Depression shock of 1929-30. Looking just at the US leads one to overlook how alarming the current situation is even in comparison with 1929-30."

The Economist summarizes:

Quote :

"All of which is to say that the handwringing over the state of economics is somewhat premature. We remain in the thick of a great test of economic policy. Given an economic shock as large or larger as that which set off the Great Depression, world leaders have responded very differently from their counterparts almost a century ago. If we still find ourselves in deep Depression, then economists will have much to apologise for. If instead the outcome is much better this time around, then the field of economics will have succeeding in preventing a great deal of human suffering."

(http://www.economist.com/blogs/freeexchange/2009/04/this_is_a_test.cfm)

This is a test of the emergency economics response system. Beeeeeeeeeeeeeeppppp ...

I'm sure this one is different, although perhaps not so much in apocalyptic terms. Rather, I think it's like a realigning recession. Some fundamental shift is happening in the world of business and personal finance; the facile thing is to say that credit will be more expensive and markets will be more regulated. But I don't think that's it. Markets are too complex to regulate effectively and credit is a permanent fixture of consumer finance; as it stands, the Chinese market, for example, has a huge savings rate and could eventually subsidize another credit boom among consumers worldwide.

Any ideas on what's next?

4/10/2009 1:41:30 AM

Well, according to Time Magazine, "More Quickly Than It Began, The Banking Crisis Is Over"
http://www.time.com/time/business/article/0,8599,1890560,00.html

That would make this banking crisis a tad shorter than the 1987 crisis.

4/10/2009 11:28:18 AM

since when do you get your economic news from Time?

[Edited on April 10, 2009 at 11:41 AM. Reason : .]

4/10/2009 11:41:21 AM

^^

Wells Fargo makes a profit in one quarter, so Time declares the whole crisis over? Even Cramer's news outlet isn't that bullish:

Quote :

"Citigoup CEO Vikram Pandit conveniently left out charges and other annoying costs, and teased the market with vague comments about the bank having the best quarter since the third quarter of 2007, when Citi last posted a net profit. Note that he didn't say Citigroup is having a better quarter than it did back in 2007. So this can't be interpreted as promise about net income for the quarter. Bank of America CEO Ken Lewis commented on profit before provisions -- also leaving out all the nasty stuff that will no doubt destroy the bank's bottom line. Lewis also has cautioned that trading results were weak in March."

http://www.thestreet.com/story/10484333/2/todays-outrage-hurray-for-wells-fargo.html

4/10/2009 12:24:48 PM

This is rather interesting. It is quite amazing how the whole world is so content to point the finger at the US with little evidence to show for it.

Quote :

" AT the recent meeting of G-20 nations in London, officials from many nations agreed on one thing -- that the United States is to blame for the world recession. President Obama agreed, speaking in Strasbourg of "the reckless speculation of bankers that has now fueled a global economic downturn." One problem with this blame-game is that last year's recession was much deeper in many European and Asian countries than it was in the United States. By the fourth quarter of 2008, as the nearby table shows, real US gross domestic product was just 0.8 percent smaller than it had been a year earlier. The contraction was twice as deep in Germany and Britain and much worse in Japan and Sweden. In February, US industrial production was 11.8 percent lower than a year before -- while Singapore was down by 22.4 percent, Sweden by 22.9 percent and Japan by 38.4 percent. What was the mechanism by which US problems were supposedly spread to other countries? It wasn't international trade. The dollar value of US imports didn't start to fall until August 2008, and imports of consumer goods didn't fall until September -- many months after Japan and Europe fell into recession. Indeed, most of the economies that fell first and fastest were not heavily dependent on exports to the United States. Even Japan accounted for just 6.6 percent of US merchandise imports last year, compared with 15.9 percent for both Canada and China -- whose economies fared relatively well. Even if all of the weakest European and Asian economies could plausibly blame all their troubles on the relatively stronger US economy, how could anyone possibly blame banks? There were no bank failures last year in Japan, Sweden, Canada or any other country on this list except Britain. And US and British banks didn't fail until September-October -- at least nine months after the Japanese and European recessions began. Yet it's clearly US/UK banks being fingered as the villains. German Finance Minister Peer Steinbrueck, for example, criticized an "Anglo-Saxon" attitude in America and Britain that encouraged risky lending and investment practices because of "an exaggerated fixation on returns." But Germany's GDP and industrial production was down 19.2 percent for the year ending in January -- versus an 11.4 percent decline in Britain and a similar US drop. Are we supposed to believe that German (and Japanese) firms are more dependent on US and UK banks than American and British firms? Another problem with blaming the United States is that the timing is all wrong. If the US recession had simply spread to other countries like a mysterious infection, shouldn't the US economy have been the first to start contracting? Yet US industrial production only started to decline from its peak after January 2008 -- long after production began to slow in Canada (July 2007), Italy (August 2007), France (October 2007) and the Euro area as a whole (November 2007). Aside from a one-month uptick in February 2008, Japan's industrial production peaked in October 2007. By January 2008, when both the US and European recessions are said to have begun, the OECD leading indicators were lower by nearly 0.8 points from a year before in the US -- but down 2.3 points in Sweden, 2.8 points in Japan, 2.6 points in Korea and 4.1 points in Ireland. Those leading indicators correctly anticipated much deeper recessions in the latter four countries. And the most famous leading indicator -- monthly stock prices -- peaked in October 2007 in the US and UK, four months after stocks had peaked in Japan and the Euro area. What did all the contracting economies have in common? Not all had housing booms -- certainly not Canada, Japan, Sweden or the other countries at the bottom of the economic-growth list. What really triggered this recession should be obvious, since the same thing happened before every other postwar US recession save one (1960). In 1983, economist James Hamilton of the University of California at San Diego showed that "all but one of the US recessions since World War Two have been preceded, typically with a lag of around three-fourths of a year, by a dramatic increase in the price of crude petroleum." The years 1946 to 2007 saw 10 dramatic spikes in the price of oil -- each of which was soon followed by recession. In The Financial Times on Jan. 3, 2008, I therefore suggested, "The US economy is likely to slip into recession because of higher energy costs alone, regardless of what the Fed does." In a new paper at cato.org, "Financial Crisis and Public Policy," Jagadeesh Gokhale notes that the prolonged decline in exurban housing construction that began in early 2006 was a logical response to rising prices of oil and gasoline at that time. So was the equally prolonged decline in sales of gas-guzzling vehicles. And the US/UK financial crises in the fall of 2008 were likewise as much a consequence of recession as the cause: Recessions turn good loans into bad. The recession began in late 2007 or early 2008 in many countries, with the United States one of the least affected. Countries with the deepest recessions have no believable connection to US housing or banking problems. The truth is much simpler: There is no way the oil-importing economies could have kept humming along with oil prices of $100 a barrel, much less $145. Like nearly every other recession of the postwar period, this one was triggered by a literally unbearable increase in the price of oil.""

http://www.nypost.com/php/pfriendly/print.php?url=http://www.nypost.com/seven/04092009/postopinion/opedcolumnists/it_didnt_start_here_163630.htm

4/10/2009 9:11:31 PM

didn't read the whole thing, but this jumped out at me.....

Quote :

"And US and British banks didn't fail until September-October -- at least nine months after the Japanese and European recessions began."

apples:oranges

it might as well say "us/british banks failed in September, 9 months after the US recession began"

4/10/2009 9:16:31 PM

^^

Maybe but I think it's fair to say that bank failures made this the Great Recession we are currently experiencing versus a more normal "business cycle" recession.

4/11/2009 2:06:20 PM

CR does this once a week or so and I'm just blown away reading them

http://www.calculatedriskblog.com/2009/04/another-house-price-round-trip-to-1990s.html

Wish I had some money to scoop some of these up.

4/13/2009 12:09:53 PM

Quote :

" didn't read the whole thing, but this jumped out at me..... "

Read the rest. You are missing the point of the article.

4/14/2009 7:32:43 AM

what's one way for banks to book record profits this quarter?

well, for one, they could change their reporting schedule for no apparent reason and simply don't report on a month that happened to have $1.3B in losses
http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2009/04/how-to-puff-up-earnings-goldman-sachs-style/

Quote :

"Isn’t GS on a December to February calendar? Well, there is a small asterisk about that. It seems that GS is moving from a December to a quarterly calendar. Meaning their latest Q is January thru March. But what of December, with all t he AIG monies and the comparison to the strong December 2007 and all? In a word, Orphaned: "Goldman’s 2008 fiscal year ended Nov. 30. This year the company is switching to a calendar year. The leaves December as an orphan month, one that will be largely ignored. In Goldman’s news release, and in most of the news reports, the quarter ended March 31 is compared to the quarter last year that ending in February. The orphan month featured — surprise — lots of writeoffs. The pre-tax loss was $1.3 billion, and the after-tax loss was $780 million. Would the firm have had a profit if it stuck to its old calendar, and had to include December and exclude March?""

4/14/2009 4:06:27 PM

Quote :

"? 2008 was the worst year in the history of the Fortune 500 for America’s largest companies; ? Profits fell from $645 billion in profits in 2007, to just $98.9 billion - an 84.7% decline; ? Eleven of the top 25 largest corporate losses in list history took place last year; ? Insurance giant AIG posted a $99.3 billion loss — the biggest corporate loss of all time; ? Thirty-eight companies disappeared from the list altogether; ? Newcomers to the Fortune 500 list: Polo Ralph Lauren, Visa and Mastercar; ? 15 women ran Fortune 500 companies in 2008 — an all-time high; ? One out of every six working Americans — 25.6 million people — work for the nation’s largest companies;"

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/04/19/sunday/main4954725.shtml

[Edited on April 20, 2009 at 11:57 PM. Reason : .]

4/20/2009 11:55:48 PM

4/22/2009 10:49:44 PM

4/26/2009 2:27:50 PM

I'm not worried about the economy. Obama's team is on top of things.



ZZZzzz. . . .

4/28/2009 4:25:58 AM

Welcome back, sir!

4/28/2009 5:29:26 AM

^

You know you missed me--SAY IT!!!1 I mean, type it. . . .

4/28/2009 5:33:44 AM

I seriously have missed him, TSB has gotten so boring

4/28/2009 7:47:30 AM

^ Thank you.

And now this: The stimulus is not working!

Despite Stimulus Funds, States to Cut More Jobs
Budget Shortfalls Prompt Mass Layoffs

Quote :

"Eleven weeks after Congress settled on a stimulus package that provided $135 billion to limit layoffs in state governments, many states are finding that the funds are not enough and are moving to lay off thousands of public employees."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/05/11/AR2009051103062.html

[Edited on May 14, 2009 at 1:23 AM. Reason : .]

5/14/2009 1:22:44 AM

You quoted something that says the stimulus wasn't big enough... how does that help your point?

5/14/2009 1:26:43 AM

^ Um. . .this is what I was referring to--you know, the part I posted:

Quote :

"Eleven weeks after Congress settled on a stimulus package that provided $135 billion to limit layoffs in state governments, many states are finding that the funds are not enough and are moving to lay off thousands of public employees."

Billions of dollars were provided specifically to limit state governments layoffs, yet this has not happened. Discuss.

5/14/2009 1:45:37 AM

Nothing you've quoted implies that the money spent did not limit lay offs. In fact, the article actually states that the money was not enough, implying that more would've been better. It seems apparent that this article does not help the case you're trying to make.

I meant to thank you earlier, so let me do so publicly here. I was amused when you first created this thread, and again several months later. Now seeing you back here, defending (trying?) your perspective, I find more amusing still.

5/14/2009 2:38:14 AM

^ Um. . .thanks for sharing?

I don't think I'm defending anything at this point. Will/can you defend the following?

Bush Deficit vs. Obama Deficit in Pictures



Two wrongs don't make a right. And Obama's economic wrongs are way bigger than Bush's--yet some of you are saying it's still not enough.

[Edited on May 14, 2009 at 2:50 AM. Reason : Really?!]

5/14/2009 2:49:38 AM

I do think it is curious as hell that he shows back up in this thread right as this rally is running out of steam.

The Hooksaw Sell Indicator, patent it while you can.

5/14/2009 6:47:24 AM

good fucking lord....

http://www.chartoftheday.com/20090515.htm

5/17/2009 1:53:10 PM

^^^ I had actually seen that and was considering posting it. I was looking at:

http://business.theatlantic.com/2009/05/the_risk_of_debt.php

One thing I found notable was:

Quote :

"Obama's spending is not the only reason the deficits are so big--not by a long shot. But he is using the sticker shock to slide in big spending plans without paying for them. And while the US can certainly afford one $1.4 trillion year, it probably cannot afford 10 $600+ billion years. As private credit markets recover, government credit markets will start to reflect that reality."

I don't fault Obama as a politician for doing this kind of stuff. I would be lying if I said that I wasn't (at least) a little disappointed in his administration. He has so far done what any politician in his position would, and that's what I fault him for; acting like a politician.

But hey, what can we do? Aside, of course, from shorting treasury bonds like a good American.

http://www.google.com/finance?q=NYSE:TBT

5/17/2009 3:47:50 PM

it's also worth noting that the 2009 Budget (the largest deficit, by far, on the chart) is still Bush's budget. Obama's budgets don't officially start until 2010.

All the budget charts are somewhat disingenuous, if not flat-out misleading. This chart, for example, doesn't specify which budgets are Bush's and which are Obama's, but it is certainly implied that the "Actual" section, through 2008, is Bush's and the rest is Obama's, and that's what most americans would think because, hey, it's 2009 and Obama is president, therefore the 2009 budget is his.

5/17/2009 3:57:43 PM

Absolutely untrue. Congress refused to send the 2009 budget to Bush because they knew he would veto it. As such, although 2009 had started three months earlier, it was Obama that signed into law the bulk of the federal budget for 2009. As such, since it was Obama's signature on $2.5 trillion of 2009's $3.4 trillion of spending, I blame Obama. As for the deficits leading up to 2009, I blame Bush and the democrats which ruled congress.

5/17/2009 6:34:43 PM

^^ And even if your position were true, Obama's deficits will create debt trillions of dollars larger than Bush's, according to both CBO and White House estimates.



[Edited on May 18, 2009 at 3:17 AM. Reason : Here's one from OMB. ]

5/18/2009 3:16:36 AM

Just great.

Credit Card Industry Aims to Profit From Sterling Payers

Quote :

"Credit cards have long been a very good deal for people who pay their bills on time and in full. Even as card companies imposed punitive fees and penalties on those late with their payments, the best customers racked up cash-back rewards, frequent-flier miles and other perks in recent years. Now Congress is moving to limit the penalties on riskier borrowers, who have become a prime source of billions of dollars in fee revenue for the industry. And to make up for lost income, the card companies are going after those people with sterling credit. Banks are expected to look at reviving annual fees, curtailing cash-back and other rewards programs and charging interest immediately on a purchase instead of allowing a grace period of weeks, according to bank officials and trade groups. 'It will be a different business,' said Edward L. Yingling, the chief executive of the American Bankers Association, which has been lobbying Congress for more lenient legislation on behalf of the nation's biggest banks. 'Those that manage their credit well will in some degree subsidize those that have credit problems.'"

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/19/business/19credit.html

5/19/2009 5:38:46 AM

Quote :

"and charging interest immediately on a purchase instead of allowing a grace period of weeks, according to bank officials and trade groups."

I'd LOVE to see them try this shit. I'll cancel my rewards card immediately as I am sure millions of other people would, too.

I wouldn't put a ton of stock in any of this, it's just a ploy to pressure the politicians to not impose this legislation on them. And they'll probably cave.

Quote :

"“There will be one-size-fits-all pricing, and as a result, you’ll see the industry will be more egalitarian in terms of its revenue base,” said David Robertson, publisher of the Nilson Report, which tracks the credit card business. People who routinely pay off their credit card balances have been enjoying the equivalent of a free ride, he said, because many have not had to pay an annual fee even as they collect points for air travel and other perks. “Despite all the terrible things that have been said, you’re making out like a bandit,” he said. “That’s a third of credit card customers, 50 million people who have gotten a great deal.”"

Who does this guy think he is shitting? Every time I use my credit card, as opposed to cash, those fucks take some skin out of whoever it was I purchased from. I'd say it's the credit card douche bags who have gotten a good deal. We all know what happened, they pushed for the bankruptcy legislation, got it, then issued a shit ton of cards to people who, just like with homes, never should have gotten them. Now, as the default rates start to soar, they are trying to figure out some other ways to totally fuck the population over. This right here is the nutshell of that piece

Quote :

"Regulations passed by the Federal Reserve in December to curb unexpected interest charges would cost issuers about $12 billion a year in lost fees and income, according to industry calculations. The legislation before Congress would build on the Fed rules and would further squeeze banks’ revenue when they are being hit with a high rate of credit card charge-offs. The government’s stress tests showed that the nation’s 19 biggest banks will take on $82 billion in credit card losses in the next two years. "

Quote :

"Many retailers are angry at the high fees and plan to pass them on to shoppers once the Congressional legislation takes effect. "

That's kinda cool, right? We have 3-4 Credit Card companies getting to set the fee rate per transaction, and the consumer ultimately gets stuck with it.

[Edited on May 19, 2009 at 7:04 AM. Reason : .]

5/19/2009 6:48:10 AM

^

Quote :

"I wouldn't put a ton of stock in any of this, it's just a ploy to pressure the politicians to not impose this legislation on them."

Incorrect, I'm afraid--it's already happening. We pay our credit card bills on time and pay way more than is due, and we just got letters from two of our credit card companies about rate increases--and they're not backing down.

So, we paid off the cards and have no plans to use them for now. They can suck eggs.

And did you read these parts from the story above?

Quote :

"As they thin their ranks of risky cardholders to deal with an economic downturn, major banks including American Express, Citigroup, Bank of America and a long list of others have already begun to raise interest rates, and some have set their sights on consumers who pay their bills on time. The legislation scheduled for a Senate vote on Tuesday does not cap interest rates, so banks can continue to lift them, albeit at a slower pace and with greater disclosure."

Quote :

"Now, consumers who pay their bills off every month are issuing a rising chorus of complaints about shortened grace periods, new hidden fees and higher interest rates."

5/19/2009 7:43:39 AM

I read the entire thing, what point are you making?

5/19/2009 8:15:37 AM

^ I thought you were implying that the credit card companies weren't doing some of these things yet. I was simply indicating that they are doing them now.

If I misunderstood, my mistake.

5/19/2009 8:52:23 AM

No, I meant that they will threaten to do those things to prevent the legislation from passing. But you have a point as it looks like they are going to do them either way, and probably have lobbyist talking it up at the same trying to get the added effect of the killed legislation if possible.

5/19/2009 8:53:58 AM

Quote :

"I'd say it's the credit card douche bags who have gotten a good deal. We all know what happened, they pushed for the bankruptcy legislation, got it, then issued a shit ton of cards to people who, just like with homes, never should have gotten them. Now, as the default rates start to soar, they are trying to figure out some other ways to totally fuck the population over."

Do you have evidence of this or is it just a hunch?

5/19/2009 9:24:02 AM

Evidence of what, them charging the same rates for credit card transactions?

5/19/2009 9:57:20 AM

Evidence for each of the claims in the quoted sentence.

5/19/2009 10:09:16 AM

you're asking for evidence that credit card companies actively seek ways to screw people?
where have you been?

5/19/2009 10:21:45 AM