Economic Recovery

  1. The Economy Is Still at the Brink

    http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C01E2D6173DF934A35755C0A96F9C8B63&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=1

     
  2. jcsd
  3. A lot of this mess could be largely avoided if the government hadn't stepped in years ago to continue this crazy scherade of propping up the US economy against the rest of the world and continuing to rely on the cheap easy credit that has moved the US economy along for the past 10-15 years.

    China, the Middle East, and the rest of Eurasia have been largely willing to finance are debt (in ever increasing percentages relative to domestic markets) while the government continues to think that the solution to this idiotic policy that was started by the government and the FED, is... guess what? MORE OF IT.... we continue to flood the currency markets and everything else with cheap money.... just this week we had a record $106 billion treasury auction.... guess when the last record was? Two weeks ago. We will need to roll over about $1 trillion this year and add $2 trillion more debt to continue financing these crazy bailout schemes that set us up for more dire pain down the road.

    All the things that the government does in the name of "helping" the economy have large unintended consequences down the road... cheap money led to the stock market bubble, and after it burst Greenspan lowered rates like a madman and inflated the housing bubble, followed by a quick rate increase that hammered the economy, followed by this supposed "crisis" and a quick jump to 0% interest rates..... which will surely incite either A) large inflation if the FED doesn't raise rates as the economy strengthens or B) jarring the economy back down as rates skyrocket as a result of this buildup of artificially low interest rates.

    The US economy is 70-75% driven by internal consumption mostly financed from the rest of the world (most the BRIC nations) and we cannot hope for a true recovery without a VAST restructuring of our economy that can only be accomplished if government realises that they are the problem, they caused this mess, and the sooner they get out of the way the sooner the market can allocate productive work where it needs to go and turn the economy around for the better (not just a short term bubble-rally).
     
  4. Astronuc

    Staff: Mentor

    Recovery's Missing Ingredient: New Jobs
    Experts Warn of A Long Dry Spell
    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/06/21/AR2009062101859.html

    A friend was telling me about discussion on one the news programs in which an economist described various scenarios.

    Some optimists predict a 'V-shaped' recession, which is apparently fairly typical of recessions over the past several decades. Others are predicting a 'W-shaped' recession, and the middl peak may be lower than the outer ends.

    Still some pessimists predict and 'L-shaped' recession, i.e., little recovery for a long time.

    And another pessimist thinks the recession shape with be that of an upside-down square root sign (√).
     
  5. Per se, jobs do not directly contribute to economic recovery. It could be said that nonproductive jobs, jobs that neither sustained nor enhanced the economic infrastructure, but depleted it, contributed to the economic collapse; working for a blue sky company only produces blue sky--and at a price.

    Jobs produce economic recovery through productivity.
     
  6. bleedblue1234,

    Low interest rates didn't contribute to the 1994-2000 market bubble. 401K savings plans, internet investing, and start-up companies did.

    The Federal Reserve Corp was once said to manipulate interest rates to what they have decided is an optimal amount to hold the rate of inflation to 4.0 to 4.5 percent a year, under the assumption of constant economic conditions. But things happen.

    The prime lending rate, defined as 3.5% above bank-to-bank overnight loans by the WSJ, was managed to ~5.0% between '94 and 2000. The market down-turn put the old-money interdependent business institutions at economic risk and in need of the liquidity of low interest rate loans. This, as one of the interdependent businesses, the Fed was eager to supply from 2001 unti 2005 when they thought they had avoided a '28 style depression. Doh!

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Federal_Funds_Rate_(effective).svg

    So the wasted labor, lost to poor investments in the evolving technologies of the personal computer, the internet and communications, was defered to other hands. And yes, through the availability of cheap loans, the low lending rates contributed to the housing market bubble, obliged by an eager public who had no idea they were betting into a false economy.

    Another bubble, less spoken of, was of consumerism, where paper profits were spent before realized.

    Pretty mushy reasoning in my ramblings above, right? I wish someone here could pin things down better.
     
    Last edited: Jun 25, 2009
  7. OmCheeto

    OmCheeto 2,080
    Gold Member
    2014 Award

    I agree with Mr. Obama.

    Economics: A social science.

    It's very simple, it you stop and think about it for a few years.
     
  8. Can you eat confidence? Can you live sheltered in economic confidence with central heating? Can you drive economic confidence or does someone have to take some physical matter and rearrange it so you can push your foot down to make it go? We are physical creatures.

    Talk can motivate people to add value to a rock and turn it into steel. Has Mr. Obama talked about any of these things? Will Mr Obama get around to these things; will Mr Obama motivate the legislation to promote these, or is he a very handsome, charming and confident critter in a suit offering no more than another Tennessee Valley Authority?

    I'm not so easily taken by the charismatic. If he looses the self-grandure, starts to stutter, comes back ranting about RICO laws for corporate and governmant thieves, and it actually has demosterable effect, then maybe I could believe he's more than hot air.
     
    Last edited: Jun 26, 2009
  9. Confidence in future ==> more Investments (Less savings also I believe) ==> Real production.
     
  10. Ivan Seeking

    Ivan Seeking 12,529
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    http://www.conference-board.org/economics/bci/pressRelease_output.cfm?cid=1
     
  11. Office_Shredder

    Office_Shredder 4,499
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    You don't grow food if you don't think anyone will buy it. You don't build houses if you think nobody will buy it. You don't advertise your central heating installation business if you think nobody will call you. At its most base level, the economy is people doing things for each other, with an efficient means of exchange (money), and this only happens because everyone's confident that the system works
     
  12. People will eat. Farmers will grow food. Perhaps more soy and fewer artichokes.

    I think you put your finger on it, whether you know it or not.

    Poorly gauged confidence in the stock market lead its collaspe. Poorly gauged confidence in housing has left many upside down, owing more principle than they have equity. Confidence in the state of the economy 2000-2007 led to irrational consumer choices, which seems to be what you recommend.
     
    Last edited: Jun 26, 2009
  13. yes as long as investment goes into things like production (factories, infrastructure, the works) but almost all of the capital in the US has been diverted from these such things and into frivolous items that produce no long term economic growth.....

    and savings are necessary to finance large capital projects...
     
  14. mheslep

    mheslep 3,465
    Gold Member

    What recovery? There has to be one in progress for them to be missing. The credit crisis seems to have eased, but a 'recovery' addresses GDP, and it still moving the wrong way.
     
  15. Ivan Seeking

    Ivan Seeking 12,529
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    So your position is that once Obama waved his magic wand, all of the numbers should instantly reverse? :rolleyes: The question is whether the contraction is slowing or not.

    http://www.marketwatch.com/story/gdp-revised-to-55-decline-in-first-quarter
     
  16. Astronuc

    Staff: Mentor

    Well - I keep hearing that the rate of decline is lessening. But unemployment will apparently continue to increase to something like 10%.

    On the other hand, I've heard mentioned "The credit crisis - part 2", which is apparently developing.
     
  17. Ivan Seeking

    Ivan Seeking 12,529
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    As you know, that is why it is called a lagging indicator.

    We will see. I haven't heard anything suggesting that we will see a crisis like that already seen. Keep in mind that a normal recession turned disasterous because of the hidden CDS losses, and reckless lending practices.

    Of course I have seen half of the alphabet [and now an inverted mathematical symbol] used to predict the nature of the recovery. And, of course, the worst case scenarios are precisely what the Obama admin was concerned about and trying to prevent with bold and decisive actions, and based on lessons from history. The inverted square root, or an L-shaped recovery were precisely the situations the Obama team was trying to prevent based on lessons from Japan.
     
    Last edited: Jun 26, 2009
  18. Astronuc

    Staff: Mentor

    I don't care for the hype on the recovery. I want to hear the facts and dispassionate analysis.

    Meahwhile - good news for Michigan:

    http://marketplace.publicradio.org/display/web/2009/06/26/pm_michigan/
    26 June 2009 - http://www.genewscenter.com/Content/Detail.asp?ReleaseID=7157
    Now if they can find long term employment for the other 99,000 people who lost their jobs in the last year, and the others who lost their job the year before that.
     
  19. I disagree with President Obama on most things, but I think it is too soon to be expecting a recovery. Remember, when Ronald Reagan came into office, and the Federal Reserve employed a contractionary monetary policy to contol inflation, which drove the economy into a steep recession, and taxes were cut to help the economy recover, the recession lasted from July 1981 to Novermber 1982. That is more than a year.

    We cannot expect the economy to turn around within six months, especially with a financial crises of this magnitude. I am surprised the Obama administration itself seems to be a bit surprised on this, that the economy isn't "recovering" so fast. Give it at least another six months or a bit more to make a recovery IMO.
     
  20. mheslep

    mheslep 3,465
    Gold Member

    How do you go there from a question about the claims of recovery?
    Your question. It appears that it is slowing in some sectors, to the good, but that does not make a recovery.
     
  21. mheslep

    mheslep 3,465
    Gold Member

    Same here.
     
Know someone interested in this topic? Share a link to this question via email, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Have something to add?