^^^^ It's a "message board"; it doesn't matter, haven't you heard?

^^^ Shut the fuck up, you phallus.

Meanwhile--back IRL--this is the headline:

White House putting off release of budget update

Quote :

"WASHINGTON — The White House is being forced to acknowledge the wide gap between its once-upbeat predictions about the economy and today's bleak landscape."

http://www.wral.com/news/political/story/5610081/

Change We Can Believe In.

7/20/2009 9:30:30 PM

Rep. Cliff Stearns should be applauded for this skewering of Paulson

http://zerohedge.blogspot.com/2009/07/paulson-pwned.html

Whats wrong Dalton, you're dick can't get erect so you have to crush on mine?

[Edited on July 20, 2009 at 9:37 PM. Reason : .]

7/20/2009 9:35:59 PM

Solid forecasting

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HQ79Pt2GNJo

7/28/2009 11:16:30 AM

The Recession is Over
Now what we need is a new kind of recovery.
Published Jul 25, 2009
From the magazine issue dated Aug 3, 2009

Quote :

"The U.S. has historically responded with resilience and flexibility to periods of economic distress."

http://www.newsweek.com/id/208633/page/1

Krugman: Recession Is Over

http://abcnews.go.com/video/playerIndex?id=8176904

What, these people didn't check with NBER first?! GASP!!!1 I'm shocked and outraged!
BTW, if you give a shit what Newsweek thinks, they place blame for the economic downturn--I saw Bush's name nowhere on the list:

Who Is to Blame?

http://www.newsweek.com/id/186180

7/28/2009 1:54:22 PM

it isn't over until I get a job when I graduate in the Spring then it will be over.

7/28/2009 2:22:37 PM

^^ i've heard very few people blaming Bush for the recession.
The most important responsible person under Bush's Administration is on the list, though - Chris Cox of the SEC.

And of course, Greenspan, but that's not Bush's fault.

The part that Bush played was continuing to sell an "ownership society" to the public, just like every President for the last 30 years has, and standing idly by, and to an extent cheerleading, as Wall Street took over the world using laws passed under Clinton. But these are minor factors compared to people/businesses/agencies who had a direct hand in the bubble and crash.

--

and, we can all honestly hope that the recession is over, but what are all the cheerleaders going to do after the current "dead cat bounce" in the stock market starts to dive again and we wind up double-dipping later this year and next
http://www.calculatedriskblog.com/2009/07/feldstein-risk-double-dip.html





Not to mention, there is a LOT of pain still on the horizon with falling Commercial Real Estate, and an upcoming wave of Alt-A and OptionARM mortgages that are going to reset, which could make the current foreclosure rates look like peanuts
http://tinyurl.com/doctorhousing-AltA-OptionARM







[Edited on July 28, 2009 at 2:38 PM. Reason : img]

7/28/2009 2:30:06 PM

We either double dip when the powers that be grow a sack and force mark to market rules, or we muddle along with a 3-5 year jobless recovery as the debt overhang eats into any growth we'd like to establish.

7/28/2009 2:53:46 PM

^^ That was a good post, agentlion. But I think there's been plenty of blame here toward Bush concerning the economy. Reasonable people know that presidents don't control the economy--they can certainly have an effect on it, though.

And I don't hold Bush blameless. He can be held accountable for some poor appointments and a lack of oversight, to be sure. We all know that presidents get the credit or the blame for what happens on their watch. I simply thought that Bush often got too much blame for things that went wrong and not enough credit for things that went right.

And, yeah, I was just making fun of the crowd here who were continually howling "NBER, NBER!!!1" when the GDP was growing at a decent rate. But now that Krugman and Newsweek are declaring the recession over, I don't hear the same complaints about waiting for the NBER numbers, that's all.

7/29/2009 12:37:18 AM

^ there's a large psychological component to the investment side of the economy, they are trying to keep that side optimistic to hope it can jump start everything else.

7/29/2009 1:41:21 AM

^ I think a large portion of the economy in general is psychological rather than 100% numbers and technical analaysis. If people believe a certain economic policy, market trend, or analysis is positive on the economy then it kind of creates a self fulfilling prophecy. Where as if boo hoo and respond pessimisticly then the opposite will happen.

This definitly does not eliminate the figures, numbers, and rational logical thought process that goes into economic planning but overall humans as individuals often do not act rationally.

This is why I have tried to be patient and give Obama some breathing room. Even though I think his economic policies are garbage; the mere act of inspiring/making people think its a good plan could bump the economy to the green. This does not excuse crappy policies which will fail to work no matter the optomism. The contrary holds true. The GOP by berating and automatically rebutting everything Obama or the liberal congress does could reinforce a negative perception leading to failure of policies that may actually have been logically sound. For example if Rush Limbaugh convinces me with 100 of my conservative buddies in Kinston NC that Obama is detremental to the economy and we are about to enter the 2nd Great Depression; we may decide to hoard our money instead of going down to Ricky Bobby Chevy to buy a new truck. With a decrease in sales Ricky Bobby Chevy ends up going to bankrupt. With these people out of work the local bar gets less patronage and the snowball takes off.

[Edited on July 29, 2009 at 8:41 AM. Reason : a]

7/29/2009 8:36:04 AM

hooksaw:

Quote :

"The Recession is Over"

Kinda like Mission Accomplished in 2003!

Quote :

" Now what we need is a new kind of recovery. blah blah What, these people didn't check with NBER first?! GASP!!!1 I'm shocked and outraged! BTW, if you give a shit what Newsweek thinks, they place blame for the economic downturn--I saw Bush's name nowhere on the list: "

Quote :

"i've heard very few people blaming Bush for the recession. "

You are exactly right. Just like how I don't think Bush, although biased towards war, was not the mastermind behind the false intelligence
and PR push to win support to invade Iraq. Bush did create or design any single policy or executive action that led to the recession. What
he did do is entrust certain persons to be his "right arm" as far as economic decisions are concerned. While even these people too did not
single handedly cause the recession they were contributors. Nonetheless as president just like any other leader he must take the shit when
stuff goes down or bask in the glory when everything goes great.

[Edited on July 29, 2009 at 8:50 AM. Reason : a]

7/29/2009 8:49:50 AM

The Hot Waitress Economic Indicator

Quote :

"The hotter the waitresses, the weaker the economy. In flush times, there is a robust market for hotness. Selling everything from condos to premium vodka is enhanced by proximity to pretty young people (of both sexes) who get paid for providing this service. That leaves more-punishing work, like waiting tables, to those with less striking genetic gifts. But not anymore. A waitress at one Lower East Side club described to me what happened there: 'They slowly let the boys go, then the less attractive girls, and then these hot girls appeared out of nowhere. All in the hope of bringing in more business. The managers even admitted it. These hot girls that once thrived on the generosity of their friends in the scene for hookups—hosting events, marketing brands, modeling—are now hunting for work.' A Soho restaurateur I know recently received applications from 'a couple of classic Eastern European fembots. Once upon a time, these ladies must’ve made $1,500 a night lap dancing. At my place, they're not going to make that in a week.'"

http://www.businessinsider.com/the-hot-waitress-economic-indicator-2009-8

8/10/2009 4:49:37 PM

Finally, after 33 pages you stopped cheerleading.

8/10/2009 5:20:45 PM

^ Eat shit, troll. It's simply information for heterosexuals.

8/10/2009 5:33:48 PM

Honestly, that's one of the most sound and logical assumptions to be made about the economy in a long time.

8/12/2009 2:55:27 AM

^ Well, if you liked that obscure economic indicator, how about the Latvian Hooker Index?

Latvian Hookers Signal No Recovery for Economy: Matthew Lynn

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601039&sid=aSRh7Cf2DTrU

8/12/2009 5:54:35 PM

i really hate that the recent rash of somali pirate incidents blew the graph correlating global warming to number of pirates.

8/12/2009 6:35:02 PM

Krugman provided an interesting nugget this morning :

Quote :

"Perspective on the Eurobounce There’s been quite a lot of reporting on the eurobounce — the surprising early return to growth in Germany and France. It’s important, however, to keep some perspective. Here’s real GDP in Germany and the United States, with 2nd quarter 2008=100: Yes, Germany grew in the second quarter — but this was after suffering a much deeper slump than the US, despite the fact that Germany didn’t have a housing bubble. "

For fun, I did the same as the above, except added several more countries and used Q107 as the base. It is interesting how well the US has faired thus far compared to these other countries.



[Edited on August 15, 2009 at 6:42 PM. Reason : ,]

8/15/2009 6:36:25 PM

John Robb did an article the other day on the absence of a consumer recovery:

Quote :

"Here's a contrarian view on why economic recovery isn't in the cards. Unlike the last Century's experience, the American "consumer" is broken (this isn't reflected in the vast bulk of economic modeling/projections). How broken? The best exploration of this that I've found is from Elizabeth Warren (here's a video of her presentation on the topic before the crisis, worth watching in its entirety). The top line is that the American consumer, prior to the financial crisis, was already fragile due to: * Stagnant incomes. Median per capita income has stagnated for 30 years and is now headed lower. The only increase in household income came from adding the income of a spouse (that typically gets less than the male income earner). The value generated by mighty productivity increases over the last thirty years was routed to the financial markets (aka casinos) and not shared with American workers. * Increased fixed expenses. The costs and amount spent on variable consumption have fallen (clothing, food, autos, etc.) over the last thirty years -- which puts the lie to the "over consumption" charge. Instead, the median cost of housing, health, and the costs of work (childcare, two cars, etc. brought on due to a need for sending two people to work) have skyrocketed with very little improvement in the quantity or value of the goods/services received. * The entry ticket to the middle class has skyrocketed. This is due to the costs of education. Instead of publicly subsidized education (k-12 used to be sufficient for entry), we now have 6 years (pre-school and college) that are directly charged to the American family. Those costs have ballooned into budget breakers."

Full Article:
http://globalguerrillas.typepad.com/globalguerrillas/2009/08/no-consumer-recovery.html

Link to the video he references:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=akVL7QY0S8A


FWIW

8/16/2009 10:44:49 AM

I almost created a new thread for this

Is this what you guys mean by a free market

Banks are free to account for assets however the fuck they please

http://www.reuters.com/article/marketsNews/idINN1946918220090819?rpc=44

This

Quote :

"WASHINGTON, Aug 19 (Reuters) - U.S. regulators plan to gauge how severe of a hit banks will take from an accounting change that will force them to bring more than $1 trillion of assets back on their books."

Just blows my mind. We gave them all our tax money AND relaxed rules for them so that they wouldn't be rendered instantly insolvent, and now we're trying to figure out how we can roll those assets back in slowly so that the banksters that fucked us all can keep their high paying salaries, their lifestyles, and their favorable donations to candidates of their choice?

This shit is fucking infuriating.

8/19/2009 9:47:06 PM

A.I.G. Stock Rises, and Many Ask Why

Quote :

"American International Group stock shot up to $50 on Thursday, capping a fourfold gain in the last two months, despite the fact that it was written off as a hopeless case less than a year ago. For all the optimism taking hold in the markets these days, it is hard to find a tangible explanation, The New York Times's Mary Williams Walsh writes. 'Who would want to buy a stock that's still 80 percent owned by the government?' wondered William T. Fitzpatrick, an equity analyst at Optique Capital. Shares ended the day at $47.84, a gain of 27 percent from the previous close of $37.69."

http://dealbook.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/08/28/aig-stock-rises-and-many-ask-why/

[Edited on August 28, 2009 at 10:10 AM. Reason : .]

8/28/2009 10:09:38 AM

Recovery already? Recession over? Maybe. Maybe not.

http://tinyurl.com/kor5fk

Quote :

"The markets continue to make new highs, but watch out. Long-term mutual fund investors have reversed this month, selling shares, rather than dumping money in. Based on the first two weeks of the month, September's outflows will be bigger than the inflows seen in the last three months combined."

9/17/2009 10:52:40 PM

Quote :

"Bank of America said Monday it will pay the U.S. government $425 million to end a federal backstop of assets related to its purchase of troubled brokerage Merrill Lynch earlier this year. The government agreed to guarantee $118 billion in assets in January as part of a plan to help BofA absorb Merrill Lynch, which was on the verge of failure. In exchange, BofA agreed to pay the U.S. a fee of 3.7%. On Monday, BofA said it will pay $425 million to the Treasury Department, Federal Reserve and Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation to terminate the agreement. The Charlotte, N.C.-based bank said Monday's decision was part of a broader effort "to reduce its reliance on government support and return to normal market funding." "

http://money.cnn.com/2009/09/21/news/companies/BofA/index.htm?postversion=2009092119

ZOMG Obama is a communist and is trying to take over the banks and other industries to make them all socialist!!! Lets not forget his big governments spending!!

oh nvm BoA is paying the gov't back to stay the fuck out their business.

9/22/2009 8:28:26 AM

Can one of the libertarians explain whey the banks get money at 0% from the taxpayer to loan to the taxpayer at 5%? Why can't I get money at 0% and just cut the middleman out of the loop?

9/22/2009 8:42:04 AM

Because the republicrats want control and are willing to sacrifice your financial future to get it.

j/k They sincerely believed it was necessary. They were wrong, but in a democracy we are all entitled to have our opinions turned into law.

[Edited on September 22, 2009 at 9:13 AM. Reason : ,,.]

9/22/2009 9:12:32 AM

On a lighter note

http://theindex.puma.com/

9/22/2009 9:27:32 AM

Quote :

"oh nvm BoA is paying the gov't back to stay the fuck out their business."

This shouldn't even occur in the first place.


I've become addicted to the Clusterstock chart of the day. Yesterday's covered the impending ARM adjustments once interest rates start rising again:

Quote :

"The Option Arm Armageddon was supposed to strike in the spring of 2009. Across the country, option adjustable-rate mortgages (ARMs) were set to detonate and start a new wave of foreclosures. But it never happened. We made it well past when this chart from Credit Suisse showed the option ARMs were supposed to begin to hit. And the crisis didn't come. Why not? Well, when interest rates dropped to historically low levels as the Fed fought the financial crisis, the wave of resets was held off. Unfortunately, low interest rates won't last forever -- they'll now likely strike next year and continue well into 2011. Many borrowers who now have the option of making payments so low that they don't even cover the interest are seeing their original loan balance grow, even as their home values continue to fall or remain flat. The chart below shows that the option ARM reset problem is comparable to the subprime problem, and will likely last for quite some time. Armageddon may have been forestalled but it hasn't been overcome."

http://tinyurl.com/n2nwmp

Quote :

"They sincerely believed it was necessary. They were wrong, but in a democracy we are all entitled to have our opinions turned into law."

You have more faith in our politicians than I do.

9/22/2009 10:41:20 AM

Oh and, big surprise, the Federal Reserve is not going to have the Treasury requested review of how the Fed is run ready by the Oct 1 deadline. The Fed obfuscating and delaying investigation . . . imagine that.

9/22/2009 10:43:32 AM

Obama Will Spend More on Welfare in the Next Year Than Bush Spent on Entire Iraq War, Study Reveals
September 23, 2009

Quote :

"(CNSNews.com) – As a candidate for president, Barack Obama decried the financial toll that the Iraq war was taking on the economy, but Obama's proposed spending on welfare through 2010 will eclipse Bush's war spending by more than $260 billion. 'Because of the Bush-McCain policies, our debt has ballooned,' then-Sen. Barack Obama told a Charleston, W.V., crowd in March 2008. 'This is creating problems in our fragile economy. And that kind of debt also places an unfair burden on our children and grandchildren, who will have to repay it.' During the entire administration of George W. Bush, the Iraq war cost a total of $622 billion, according to the Congressional Research Service. President Obama's welfare spending will reach $888 billion in a single fiscal year--2010--more than the Bush administration spent on war in Iraq from the first 'shock and awe' attack in 2003 until Bush left office in January."

http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/54400

Wow.

9/23/2009 6:19:00 PM

^ the above link brought to you by L. Brent Bozell's CNS News, based solely on a slanted and dishonest report by the Heritage Foundation.

yeah. that's a big "wow".

seriously, dude, do you ever get your news from credible sources?





[Edited on September 23, 2009 at 6:37 PM. Reason : ]

9/23/2009 6:35:30 PM

so is the link factually inaccurate, or do you just not like the source? Cause, you know, that could have a bearing on the debate and whatnot.

9/23/2009 6:36:24 PM

the link that the source article cites is broken. i havent had the time or [care] to track it down independently.

i do know that everything the ultra-rightwing, christian evangelical Heritage Foundation ever reports on is slanted at best, and outright lies at worst.

i don't expect this to be any different.

9/23/2009 6:39:43 PM

^ So, you admit that you haven't checked, yet you refer to the story as a "dishonest report"? Who's really the dishonest one here?

Do you trust the US Liberal Politics Guide from About.com?

Quote :

"Spent & Approved War-Spending - About $800 billion of US taxpayers' funds spent or approved for spending through mid-2009, including $76 billion requested by President Obama and approved by Congress."

http://usliberals.about.com/od/homelandsecurit1/a/IraqNumbers.htm

And are you saying that Obama is not projecting the welfare expenditures listed? If so, would you mind simply confirming this? Thanks.

BTW, here's a link to the complete Heritage report, which is based on OMB and other government documents:

http://www.heritage.org/Research/Welfare/upload/SR_67.pdf

9/24/2009 9:57:10 AM

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/09/24/volcker-too-big-to-fail-s_n_298429.html

Yes, I know it's HuffPo, BUT I find it rather interesting that current economic adviser is speaking out against what Obama is doing....

9/24/2009 12:53:43 PM

My Clusterstock addiction continues:

Quote :

"The latest Case-Shiller reading showed another sequential uptick in July, which is all fine and well, but watch out: There's a huge flood of houses being held back from the market, either due to bank-ownership, or loan delinquency. Check out the chart below, from Amherst Securities. It shows the number of delinquent mortgages that have yet to be liquidated-- a number that Amherst puts at a shocking 7 million (135% of the number of houses sold in a year right now). Eventually the houses attached to these loans have to hit the market. When they do, expect them to go at a firesale."

9/29/2009 8:02:40 PM

^ Home sale prices in my neighborhood have begun going back up. They're not all the way back, but they're getting there.

9/29/2009 8:14:18 PM

Quote :

"They're not all the way back"

I should hope fucking not, considering how inflated everything was, and still is!

It's funny how we all forget that while on the one hand, high home prices are great for people who already own said homes, they suck for people who want to buy a home, and eventually lead to ridiculous loans to allow those people to get into ridiculously overprice houses, which eventually leads..... you get the picture

9/29/2009 8:23:46 PM

^ Well, deflated home prices worked out well for us. We had equity the day we moved in.

With a lot of folks upside down the way they are we ain't doing bad. I could sell today and make money.

9/29/2009 9:16:24 PM

Not after commissions you won't. Not after the 8k credit expires. That teeny tick up you see in sales prices are going to resume their downtrend for awhile longer.

9/29/2009 11:29:33 PM

Incorrect--I wasn't even factoring the $8K credit. And from what I understand, just FTR, you have to stay three years before you can sell to keep the credit.

In any event, home price where I live have ticked up more than a "teeny" bit. They're up about $10K.

PS: I have two brokers in the family.

9/29/2009 11:53:20 PM

I'm just going by Wake Gov data, which has sales for August 8/28 in my neighborhood and the last sales in your neighborhood were late July and they weren't for 10k more than your home - just based on wakegov.com data.

And the 8k credit has nothing to do with when they can sell and everything to do with the supply of buyers out there looking. Once the credit is done, the buyers for homes goes down, and that will put a halt to any .1% gain MoM we are seeing.

This is before we consider the shadow inventory of foreclosures, though I have a feeling it isn't so large in our area but it could be a factor.

And...you can drive around the area and see they continue to build the condos and townhouses all over the place.

[Edited on September 30, 2009 at 8:38 AM. Reason : .]

9/30/2009 8:37:49 AM

The Wake County info concerning home sales is not up to date. The info I posted was based on information given at an HOA meeting last week. Two sellers homes jumped from values of ~$200K to sale prices of ~$211K and $212K.

If I were to sell today, I guarantee that I could walk away with $10K and probably more. Give me another 24 months and I'll bet I can do $20K.

And there's this:

Quote :

"Q. If I claim the first-time homebuyer credit in 2009 and stop using the property as my main home before the 36 month period expires after I purchase, how is the credit repaid and how long would I have to repay it? A. If, within 36 months of the date of purchase, the property is no longer used as the taxpayer's principal residence, the taxpayer is required to repay the credit. Repayment of the full amount of the credit is due at that time the income tax return for the year the home ceased to be the taxpayer's principal residence is due. The full amount of the credit is reflected as additional tax on that year's tax return. Form 5405 and its instructions will be revised for tax year 2009 to include information about repayment of the credit. (05/06/09)"

http://www.irs.gov/newsroom/article/0,,id=206291,00.html

9/30/2009 11:46:51 AM

It's not really a surprise, but I don't think you fully grasp the macro economics of home purchases, ESPECIALLY in your price range where the 8k credit has a large impact. Then, consider the Fed is purchasing massive volumes of MBS exerting downward pressure on rates.

So you're a renter looking to get in while you have an 8k incentive and ultra low rates. What happens when both of those things stop? Many of those on the margin aren't going to be sucked into buying a home. And, if the reality that green shoots was nothing more than weeds set in, you're going to see even more people tepid about getting into a home.

I mean, I hope you're right, I'll have our home listed by the end of the week and hope it sells sooner than later as I think the market will continue to slide a little before it truly sits at a bottom and can start the slow slow march upward. But to think a 5% jump (annualized to 10%) is reality, you have another thing coming.

[Edited on September 30, 2009 at 12:00 PM. Reason : .]

9/30/2009 11:57:26 AM

Quote :

"It's not really a surprise, but I don't think you fully grasp the macro economics [sic] of home purchases. . . ."

And there it is--this is why I haven't been responding to you and shouldn't have this time. You're just an asshole who just wants to be shitty and who doesn't know what he's talking about other than what he reads on the "financial blogs."

Have you ever even taken a macroeconomics course (or microeconomics, for that matter) at the college level? Well, I have.

Piss off. I won't respond to you further.

[Edited on September 30, 2009 at 12:14 PM. Reason : .]

9/30/2009 12:11:25 PM

Classic.

"You're a doo-doo head dummy.

I've taken a college class.

I'm ignorant to the fact that everyone on this board was required to take a macroeconomics class by NCSU"

9/30/2009 12:16:33 PM

^ The real problem is that you and your cohorts can't legitimately dispute any of the topic-related info that I posted.

Piss off. I won't respond to you further.

9/30/2009 12:22:48 PM

9/30/2009 12:24:12 PM

He did a good job arguing his point.

You're arguing that low interest rates and $8000 dollar credits are having no impact on demand or prices. Your argument that your home value will continue to go up even after these incentives are gone rests entirely on this assumption.

This is an incorrect assumption. He was incredibly civil given how dumb your argument is.

9/30/2009 12:32:14 PM

Quote :

"And there it is--this is why I haven't been responding to you and shouldn't have this time. You're just an asshole who just wants to be shitty and who doesn't know what he's talking about other than what he reads on the "financial blogs.""

I started to make the point in the last post that "I'm not trolling you" but I had a hunch you would respond how you did.

Please tell me how I don't know what I'm talking about related to home purchases? Also, please tell me why the information I read from financial blogs is apparently irrelevant?

Quote :

"Have you ever even taken a macroeconomics course (or microeconomics, for that matter) at the college level? Well, I have. "

Yeah, it's been more than 10 years ago though. Tell me how this is relevant to home purchases? I'm certainly interested to see what you have to say about home price trends in the area, but citing two anecdotes that on the surface seem to be rather extreme outliers isn't going to get it done.

Quote :

"Piss off. I won't respond to you further."

That's some real fear right there. You assume I have no econ knowledge, yet you don't want to respond to me to show how I'm wrong and you're right?

Quote :

"The real problem is that you and your cohorts can't legitimately dispute any of the topic-related info that I posted."

Are you joking? Recently, you've just been posting random tidbits of data in the thread and waiting for some liberal to reply to it in such a way that you can fire up the anger meter and go balistic.

Look, you posted a relatively bunk idea that home prices were now on the march up based on some HOA information.

If you sold your townhouse now for 211k at the average rate for commission costs (seems to be about 4.36% in Raleigh, more if you go full rep on the sale side), you'd be looking at a ~1800 profit. This is before considering a given home warranty (when seems to be popular these days), the costs of moving, and any potential closing costs required if you were actually going to purchase on the other end.


I'm not really going out of my way to clown you. You just make it a bit too easy to resist.

9/30/2009 12:32:15 PM

.

[Edited on September 30, 2009 at 12:47 PM. Reason : .]

9/30/2009 12:47:24 PM