News What is wrong with the US economy? Part 2

  • Thread starter Thread starter Greg Bernhardt
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Economy
Click For Summary
The U.S. economy is facing significant challenges, highlighted by the Federal Reserve's decision to maintain interest rates at 2%, which led to a market decline. AIG's stock plummeted by 45% due to concerns over its exposure to risky derivatives, prompting speculation about a potential Federal bailout. The Fed is reportedly considering a lending facility for AIG, with major banks like Goldman Sachs and J.P. Morgan Chase involved in discussions. Despite some recovery in AIG's stock, there are ongoing concerns about the broader implications of a potential AIG collapse on the financial system. The U.S. trade deficit has also widened, raising alarms about the country's economic stability as it continues to accumulate debt.
  • #901
Astronuc said:
It appears that the next problem in the US economy is the wave of defaults and foreclosures on commercial property. I've already seen that locally. Some commercial properties are going for half their previous value.
Maine is a bit ahead of the curve, there. If you have enough money to start a business, you can find vacant commercial space anywhere. You can buy such properties for a song, or you can rent at VERY attractive rates.

Unfortunately, the only segment of the economy that has grown here in recent years is call-centers. The problem with those jobs is that they are portable. The people operating the call center lease some commercial space, wire it for lots of phones (overhead cable trays and drop lines to workstations) set up cubicles with PCs and hire some bodies. If it becomes financially advantageous to operate elsewhere, it is a simple matter to set up another call-center, get it running, and close the existing one. Local folks found that out when MBNA closed its huge call-center in the Belfast area, throwing thousands out of work. It's safer going to work for a company that has made a significant capital investment at a location, though even that is not a guarantee of stability. The businesses with the largest capital investments (pulp and paper mills) are shutting down production lines or shutting down the mills entirely due to poor market conditions and unpredictable costs of energy and materials.

Combine this with the shut-down of all but one of the states large sawmill operations, and the fate of land-owners, wood-harvesters, truckers, etc is clear. Bad times for years to come - it takes a long time to turn something this big around.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #902
Al68 said:
And letting people keep their own money instead of confiscating it is "government intervention"? Wow. Just wow.

Uh, yes? Changing the tax rate for the purpose of economic stimulation is in fact government intervention. Feel free to tell me how that's not true, or how cutting taxes for rich people to stimulate the economy isn't cutting taxes for rich people to stimulate the economy
 
  • #903
Office_Shredder said:
Uh, yes? Changing the tax rate for the purpose of economic stimulation is in fact government intervention. Feel free to tell me how that's not true, or how cutting taxes for rich people to stimulate the economy isn't cutting taxes for rich people to stimulate the economy
I would never use the word intervention to mean a lack of or a reduction of a govt action. That's just not what the word means.

Tax cuts "stimulate" the economy in the same way that I could "stimulate" the population of flies in my house by swatting less of them. Would you say that the resulting flies in my house were caused by my "intervention" of swatting less of them? No, swatting less flies is a lack of intervention.
 
  • #904
Dying of Consumption
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/28/opinion/28roach.html
Stephen S. Roach, NYTimes Op-Ed Contributor, Nov 28, 2008

It’s game over for the American consumer. Inflation-adjusted personal consumption expenditures are on track for rare back-to-back quarterly declines in the second half of 2008 at a 3.5 percent average annual rate. There are only four other instances since 1950 when real consumer demand has fallen for two quarters in a row. This is the first occasion when declines in both quarters will have exceeded 3 percent. The current consumption plunge is without precedent in the modern era.

The good news is that lines should be short for today’s “first shopping day” of the holiday season. The bad news is more daunting: rising unemployment, weakening incomes, falling home values, a declining stock market, record household debt and a horrific credit crunch. But there is a deeper, potentially positive, meaning to all this: Consumers are now abandoning the asset-dependent spending and saving strategies they embraced during the bubbles of the past dozen years and moving back to more prudent income-based lifestyles.

This is a painful but necessary adjustment. Since the mid-1990s, vigorous growth in American consumption has consistently outstripped subpar gains in household income. This led to a steady decline in personal saving. As a share of disposable income, the personal saving rate fell from 5.7 percent in early 1995 to nearly zero from 2005 to 2007.

In the days of frothy asset markets, American consumers had no compunction about squandering their savings and spending beyond their incomes. Appreciation of assets — equity portfolios and, especially, homes — was widely thought to be more than sufficient to make up the difference. But with most asset bubbles bursting, America’s 77 million baby boomers are suddenly facing a savings-short retirement.

Worse, millions of homeowners used their residences as collateral to take out home equity loans. According to Federal Reserve calculations, net equity extractions from United States homes rose from about 3 percent of disposable personal income in 2000 to nearly 9 percent in 2006. This newfound source of purchasing power was a key prop to the American consumption binge.

As a result, household debt hit a record 133 percent of disposable personal income by the end of 2007 — an enormous leap from average debt loads of 90 percent just a decade earlier.
These last two statements indicate an unsustainable situation.

So what's the solution?

Fix the wage crisis, help the big picture
http://marketplace.publicradio.org/display/web/2008/11/25/whats_the_fix_madrick/
Commentator Jeff Madrick says a lot of our economic problems root from a wage crisis that's been troubling the average worker for 35 years. He shares a list of solutions for our "What's the Fix" series.

Jeff Madrick: We've had a wage crisis in America for 35 years. One number tells it all: The typical man in his 30's today earns less after inflation than a man in his 30's did in the 1970's. The main reason typical family incomes have risen at all over the past 30 years is that women have gone to work.

The wage crisis is a big reason why Americans borrow so much. It's a big reason why rising health care costs are so painful, why a growing number of mortgages end in default. And it's a big reason why Americans want their taxes cut even more.

. . . .

Marketplace Series - "What's the fix?"
http://marketplace.publicradio.org/projects/project_display.php?proj_identifier=2008/10/24/whats_the_fix


Income growth a matter of perspective
http://marketplace.publicradio.org/display/web/2008/11/25/wolfers/
Steve Chiotakis: There are myriad of economic stimulus packages floating around Washington, and you'll likely hear about one issue in the debate: wage growth. But like everything else in D.C., there are two sides to the debate. The Democratic side -- wages are down for the poor and middle class. And the Republican side -- wages are up for the middle class. Who's right? Economist and commentator Justin Wolfers says it's all about the data.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Justin Wolfers: The Republicans describe the income of the average person, and that average income has risen by 10 percent since the year 2000 -- which is an OK, if not stellar rate of progress.

The Democrats focus instead on the typical household. Think about lining up all the households from poorest to richest, and choose the income of the household in the middle.

Economists call this median household income. You might call it middle-class income. Unfortunately, the income of this middle household has fallen since 2000, and it is now about $50,000. It's pretty unusual for the living standards of the middle class to decline like this.

Now, you might have a different definition of the middle class. But I have sliced and diced the data, and unless you want to start counting millionaires, you can't escape the conclusion that the middle-class incomes have declined.

How can the typical household be suffering economic decline, while the average rose? It's simple arithmetic: if someone earns 20 times as much as you, the average income statistics give them 20 times greater weight than you. Since 2000, the average income of the bottom 99 percent of taxpayers fell, while the incomes of the richest 1 percent grew. But the richest 1 percent are 20 times richer. So their rising incomes largely offset the falling incomes elsewhere.

So it turns out that Republicans and Democrats are each telling the truth -- just different truths. Which truth you care about may depend on where you stand in the pecking order.


As long as real incomes of the majority decline, so will the economy.


More families turning to food banks
http://marketplace.publicradio.org/display/web/2008/11/28/mm_food_banks/

and

The Worst Is Yet To Come: Anonymous Banker Weighs In On The Coming Credit Card Debacle
http://executivesuite.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/11/25/the-worst-is-yet-to-come-anonymous-banker-weighs-in-on-the-coming-credit-card-debacle/
By Joe Nocera
A few weeks ago, I published an e-mail message sent to me from an executive who works in the banking industry — and had become disgusted by what he sees all around him. This weekend, that same banker sent me another e-mail message, which he has also agree to let me publish. It’s another wake-up call. Too bad nobody is listening.

Today, we are bailing out the banks because of their greedy and deceptive lending practices in the mortgage industry. But this is just the tip of the iceberg. More is coming, I’m sorry to say. Layoffs are being announced nationwide in the tens of thousands. As people begin to lose their jobs, they will not be able to pay their credit card bills either. And the banks will be back for more handouts.

I received a catalog today from Casual Living and in big bold print on the front page, it said “BUY NOW, PAY NOTHING”. Then in significantly smaller print underneath, it said, (until April). That mantra has been sung throughout the credit markets over the last 10 years. The banks waive a carrot in front of the consumer and reel them in and encourage them to go deeper and deeper into debt. They do this by prescreening customers through credit reporting agencies, mailing offers to apply, and to transfer balances at teaser rates or zero percent financing. They base it on credit score and not on capacity to repay. A good credit score does not equate to the ability to repay debt.

Over my career, I have seen thousands of consumers that have credit card lines in excess of their annual salaries. Some are sinking under their burden. Some have been fiscally responsible and have minimal amounts outstanding. My 21-year-old daughter, who’s in college, gets pre-approved offers all the time. She has no ability to repay debt, yet the offers flow in just the same. We all know how these lines are accumulated. The banks, in their infinite stupidity, keep upping credit lines because the customer pays the minimum payments on time. My daughter’s credit line started at $1,000 and has been increased over the last two years to $4,400. She has no increased earnings to support this. But the banks do it without asking. And without being asked. The banks reel in the consumer, charge interest rates higher than those charged by the mob, increase lines without the consumer asking and without their consent, and lure them into overextending. And we can count on the banks to act surprised when they aren’t paid back. Shame on them.

As a banker, let me describe what we do wrong when we accept and review an application for a credit card. First, we don’t verify income. The first ‘C’ of credit: Capacity to repay, is completely ignored by the banks, just as it was in when they approved subprime mortgages. Then we ask for “household income” — as if other parties in the household could be held responsible for that debt. They cannot. And since we don’t ask for any proof of income, the customer can throw out any number they think will work for them. Then we ask if they rent or own and how much they pay. If their name is not on the mortgage, they can state zero. If they pay $1,000 in rent, they can say $500. (Years ago we asked for a copy of the lease to verify this number.) And finally, we don’t ask how much of a credit line the consumer is looking for. The banker can’t even put that amount into the system. There isn’t any place on the application for that information. We simply put unverified information into a mindless computer and the computer gets the person’s credit score and grants them the biggest line that score and income (ha!) qualifies for.

. . . .

The previously published email

Peeking Under the Kimono: A Big Banker Speaks Out
http://executivesuite.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/10/30/peeking-under-the-kimono-a-big-banker-speaks-out/
By Joe Nocera
A banker at a large bank sent the following to Nocera.
I’m a 35-year veteran in the banking industry. And I’ve spent the better part of my career working for the big banks as a small business banker and credit underwriter. Small business lending, in industry terms, is defined as a business that has less than $20 million in revenue and that borrows less than $5 million. I’ve been a lender for most of those years and I’ve been appalled at the changes in the industry.

The government has already done plenty for the big banks. It needs to stop worrying about them now. Instead, it need to pump money into the local community banks because those are the bankers who understand their markets, and know the businesses in their markets. They lunch with small business owners at Rotary Clubs and Chamber meetings. They learn, first-hand, about their businesses and the challenges they face. They go to their stores and factories and “kick the boxes.” And most importantly, they learn about the ways in which those business owners are making the tough decisions in cutting back expenses to stay ahead of this economic crisis.

Big banks like the one I work for typically have an aversion to lending to companies whose sales and profitability trends are deteriorating, even in tough times like these. Thus, very credit-worthy businesses are having their lines cut back or closed down. Not only are banks not making new loans, they are systematically withdrawing from the loan commitments they already have in place.

. . . .
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #905
That statement on incomes is still misleading. Incomes have not "fallen since 2000", they fell for 4 years, then rose for 3 years. And didn't you read the source you quoted?
As long as real incomes of the majority decline, so will the economy.
"The majority" is not a term used there. The sound byte the democrats used is one data point representing the median. It doesn't tell you anything about the majority. In fact, since one person who has seen a large drop (say, due to unemployment) will skew the data downward, it is almost certain that "the majority" have seen an increase in income since 2000.
 
Last edited:
  • #907
Commercial real estate is also facing a crisis.

Even as the holiday shopping season begins in full swing, the same events poisoning the housing market are now at work on commercial properties, and the bad news is trickling in. Malls from Michigan to Georgia are entering foreclosure.


Unlike home mortgages, businesses don't pay their loans over 30 years. Commercial mortgages are usually written for five, seven or 10 years with big payments due at the end. About $20 billion will be due next year, covering everything from office and condo complexes to hotels and malls.

The retail outlook is particularly bad. Circuit City and Linens 'n Things have sought bankruptcy protection. Home Depot, Sears, Ann Taylor and Foot Locker are closing stores.

Those retailers typically were paying rent that was expected to cover mortgage payments. When those $20 billion in mortgages come due next year — 2010 and 2011 totals are projected to be even higher — many property owners won't have the money.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27928745/

One large resort and two Malls are in trouble locally. The companies are unable to get financing to pay off the large balloon payments that are due.
 
  • #909
Art said:
So the fundamentals of the economy are still strong? :biggrin:

Yes, the trouble is that the fundementals are buy now, worry about credit card later!
 
  • #910
kronon said:
Apologies if this has already been posted. Its extraordinary. Video of Peter Schiffs comments over 2006/07.



OmCheeto said:
...But as far as I can tell, Mr. Schiff wasn't guessing. He knew...
Note that a couple of months ago when gold was just over a $1000, people should invest in gold and Schiff said on CNN it was going to several thousand as the US economy tanked. It is now at $816. Also Schiff has been predicting this crash since 2002 when the Dow was at ~8000, and kept doing so while the Dow climbed to ~14000.
5:00 -
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=drJ6QxSO5gw&feature=related
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #911
Astronuc said:
'Distortion' would more aptly replace 'perspective' in that NPR piece.

I'd like to see 'household' income completely banned from the economic lexicon, henceforth replaced with per capita income, as 'household's very across, well, almost everything.

https://www.amazon.com/gp/sitbv3/reader?asin=0465003494&pageID=S03U&checkSum=nefgtWl2vEehNJUfOXYp0a9lSVRiIZT5iujeReo8Zy8="&tag=pfamazon01-20, Thomas Sowell:
It is an undisputed fact that the average real income ... of American households rose by only 6 percent over the entire period from 1969 to 1996. ... But it is equally undisputed that the average real income per person in the United States rose by 51 percent over that very same period. How can both of these statistics be true? ...
...
Differences in household size are very substantial from one income level to another. U.S. Census data show 39 million people living in households whose incomes are in the bottom 20 percent of household incomes and 64 million people living in households in the top 20 percent. Under these circumstances, measuring income inequality or income rises and falls by households can lead to completely different results from measuring the same things with data on individuals. Comparing households of highly varying sizes can mean comparing apples and oranges. Not only do households differ greatly in the numbers of people per household at different income levels, the number of working people differ even more widely.

In the year 2000, the top 20 percent of households by income contained 19 million heads of households who worked, compared to fewer than 8 million heads of households who worked in the bottom 20 percent of the households. These differences are even more extreme when comparing people who work full-time and year-round. There are nearly six times as many such people in the top 20 percent of households as in the bottom 20 percent. Even the top five percent of households by income had more heads of household who worked full-time for 50 or more weeks a year than did the bottom 20 percent...

There was a time when it was meaningful to speak of the "the idle rich" and the "toiling poor" but that time has long past. Most households in the bottom 20 percent by income do not have any full-time, year-round worker and 56 percent of these households do not have anyone working even part time. Some of these low-income households contain single mothers on welfare and their children. Some such households consists of retirees living on Social Security or others who are not working, or who are working sporadically part time because of disabilities or for other reasons.
...
Most statistics on income inequality are very misleading in yet another way. These statistics almost invariably leave out money received as transfers from the government in various programs for low-income people which provide benefits of substantial value for which the recipients pay nothing. Since people in the bottom 20 percent of income recipients receive more than two-thirds of their income from transfer payments, leaving those cash payments out of the statistics greatly exaggerates their poverty -- and leaving out in-kind transfers as well, such as subsidized housing, distorts their situation even more. In 2001, for example, cash and in-kind transfers together accounted for 77.8 percent of the economic resources of people in the bottom 20 percent.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #912
Art said:
So the fundamentals of the economy are still strong? :biggrin:
Gee, could that post be any more useless?
 
  • #913
mheslep said:
'Distortion' would more aptly replace 'perspective' in that NPR piece.

I'd like to see 'household' income completely banned from the economic lexicon, henceforth replaced with per capita income, as 'household's very across, well, almost everything.

https://www.amazon.com/gp/sitbv3/reader?asin=0465003494&pageID=S03U&checkSum=nefgtWl2vEehNJUfOXYp0a9lSVRiIZT5iujeReo8Zy8="&tag=pfamazon01-20, Thomas Sowell:
D'oh - I keep forgetting about the shrinking household size thing and the distribution of single and double income households. Very good points.

[edit] I'm curious as to why the census bureau doesn't break up individual incomes into fifths like they do for household incomes. It makes it harder to interpret the data when everyone gets so lumped together. That's why I use the household tables instead of the individual tables.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #914
mheslep said:
Note that a couple of months ago when gold was just over a $1000, people should invest in gold and Schiff said on CNN it was going to several thousand as the US economy tanked. It is now at $816.
Perhaps he has a lot of gold. Maybe if the price goes way up he'll be rich.
I believe I was trying to imply that I trust his analysis. I never said anything about him not being human. :wink:

I suppose the lust for gold is such an old tradition, one shouldn't worry too much about it's value going down. Until of course, people figure out it's really just a pretty, shiny metal, with little real value. (Outside of electronics, space helmet visors, dental crowns, and O2 sensors.)

Also Schiff has been predicting this crash since 2002 when the Dow was at ~8000, and kept doing so while the Dow climbed to ~14000.
5:00 -
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=drJ6QxSO5gw&feature=related

Makes one wonder how the crash would have been different had it happened in 2002-3.
 
  • #915
OmCheeto said:
Makes one wonder how the crash would have been different had it happened in 2002-3.
The Dow would have crashed from ~8000 to ~8500. Some crash.
 
  • #916
If the crash was in 2002... didn't we have a crash in 2002? What happened to the dot com bust?
 
  • #917
Manufacturing index hits 26-year low.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081201/ap_on_bi_ge/economy_manufacturing;_ylt=Avuf97.LKfDr2kHRhCCPdSKs0NUE
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #918
turbo-1 said:
Manufacturing index hits 26-year low.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081201/ap_on_bi_ge/economy_manufacturing;_ylt=Avuf97.LKfDr2kHRhCCPdSKs0NUE
This is one of the main reasons that the Dow and NASDAQ dropped more than 4% in the first hour of trading.

Oct. construction spending down 1.2%, which was more than expected, and this is another reason.


But wait - it gets even better!

Credit card industry may cut $2 trillion of lines: analyst
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20081201/bs_nm/us_finance_research_oppenheimer
(Reuters) – The U.S. credit card industry may pull back well over $2 trillion of lines over the next 18 months due to risk aversion and regulatory changes, leading to sharp declines in consumer spending, prominent banking analyst Meredith Whitney said.

The credit card is the second key source of consumer liquidity, the first being jobs, the Oppenheimer & Co analyst noted.

"In other words, we expect available consumer liquidity in the form or credit-card lines to decline by 45 percent."

Bank of America Corp, Citigroup Inc and JPMorgan Chase & Co represent over half of the estimated U.S. card outstandings as of September 30, and each company has discussed reducing card exposure or slowing growth, Whitney said.

A consolidated U.S. lending market that is pulling back on credit is also posing a risk to the overall consumer liquidity, Whitney said.

Mortgages and credit cards are now dominated by five players who are all pulling back liquidity, making reductions in consumer liquidity seem unavoidable, she said.
That will have a significant impact of the purchasing power of many Americans, but this is necessary in order to significantly reduce the number of consumers who are over-leveraged. However, that will surely have a cascading effect in the retail sector and will add to reduced tax revenues for states and local governments.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #919
According to Construction Data New England, housing starts in southern Maine (the most populous area of the state) are down from an average of 2100-2200 (years 2000 through 2005) to 1599 (2006), to 1293 (2007), to 841 (2008). Our housing industry has pretty much collapsed. It's a bad time to be a carpenter, operate a lumber-yard, operate a sawmill, or to be employed in the timber industry in general (harvesting, scaling, trucking, etc). People like my uncle (commercial and residential heating and refrigeration business owner) still get trouble calls, repairs, etc, but the collapse of the housing industry is pinching them badly, since there are few new installations to be made. A good friend of mine runs a small truck dealership. He buys used tractor-trailer rigs, rebuilds them (often transforming them from one use to another) and sells them. It's a buyer's market, with so many owner-operators failing right now, but he can't sell a truck to save his soul. His wife used to run his office - she is now working full-time at the local hospital.
 
  • #920
Office_Shredder said:
If the crash was in 2002... didn't we have a crash in 2002? What happened to the dot com bust?

Ok. You caught me. But like politics, I haven't followed the market in 30 years.
The DJIA dropped from about 11,000 to 8,500(-23%) between '01 and '03, but went back to 10,500 in '04.
Not quite the level of the current crash: 14,000 to 8,500(-40%)
Does anyone think we'll get back to at least 13,000 by this time next year?

Astronuc said:
Credit card industry may cut $2 trillion of lines: analyst
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20081201/bs_nm/us_finance_research_oppenheimer
That will have a significant impact of the purchasing power of many Americans, ...

How am I going to buy my cigarettes and beer? :eek:
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #921
Panel says US has been in recession since Dec. '07
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081201/ap_on_bi_ge/recession
WASHINGTON – The U.S. economy has been in a recession since December 2007, the National Bureau of Economic Research said Monday.

The NBER — a private, nonprofit research organization — said its group of academic economists who determine business cycles met and decided that the U.S. recession began last December.

The White House commented on the news that a second downturn has officially begun on President George W. Bush's watch without ever actually using the word "recession," a term the president and his aides have repeatedly avoided. Instead, spokesman Tony Fratto remarked upon the fact that NBER "determines the start and end dates of business cycles."
It seemed obvious at the time.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #923
Office_Shredder said:
If the crash was in 2002... didn't we have a crash in 2002? What happened to the dot com bust?
It wasn't considered a crash in the sense that there was an abrupt sell off, but the tech sector and NASDAQ subsequently lost a lot of value.

Consider this history.

Jan 03, 2000 3882.62
Mar 06, 2000 5058.62
Jan 01, 2001 2407.65 Down more than 50% from its high 9 months earlier
Mar 26, 2001 1840.26 Down about 64% from its high.
Sep 17, 2001 1423.19 Down about 72% from its high.
Sep 30, 2002 1139.90 Down about 78% from its high.
Dec 31, 2002 1335.51

There were intermittent recoveries during the gradual decline between Mar 06, 2000 and Sep 30, 2002. All markets took big hits surrounding the attacks on Sep 11, 2001. A slow and sustained recovery began Oct 1, 2002 and continued into 2003. Slow recovery from Jan, 2003 throught Oct 29, 2007 (NASDAQ composite 2810.38, which just about doubled in value), but now:

Oct 01, 2008 2069.40
Dec 01, 2008 ~1440.00 Down about 48% since it's relative high October 2007.

This is a good chart to play with.
http://finance.yahoo.com/echarts?s=%5EIXIC

or Summary Page
http://finance.yahoo.com/q?s=^IXIC

and the Dow
http://finance.yahoo.com/q?s=^DJI

----------------
For now, the crash is not abrupt, and the economy is not totaled. On the other hand, it's not just a fenderbender either. It's more like a chain reaction collision, and there are some severe injuries in addition to minor injuries. For some it's a temporary setback, but for others it's more severe, and some will not recover their losses, particularly those close to retirement or those beyond 50 who had much of their investments in the equities markets.

One big problem facing the recovery is the potential rise in oil and gas as the economy rebounds, and if the price of oil moves toward $75/bbl, that will have an adverse impact on the recovery.
 
Last edited:
  • #924
Another Bearish (or bloody) day in the equity markets.

The Dow 30 pretty much lost all the gains from last week! Just before the bell, the Dow 30 were down 7.5% below 8200. Perhaps it will rebound somewhat during the week, but it seems the markets are just going to be volatile until the economy stabilizes.

Elsewhere I heard speculation that the US economy will shed another 1 million jobs between Nov and end of 1Q 2009. The 4th quarter GDP is expected to fall at a -4% annual rate. I guess we will see in January.
 
  • #925
the thing about the DOW, look at it on the max timeline. the growth appears exponential since about 1980. Yahoo even charts it on a logarithmic axis. are we at the point now where if the market were to only grow linearly, that would be considered a failure? how are we supposed to sustain that, short of just printing huge piles of dollars?
 
  • #926
Astronuc said:
Panel says US has been in recession since Dec. '07
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081201/ap_on_bi_ge/recession
It seemed obvious at the time.

Maybe someone should go back through this thread and count how many times jimmysnyder expressed confidence that the US economy was not in recession since last December??
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #927
Proton Soup said:
the thing about the DOW, look at it on the max timeline. the growth appears exponential since about 1980. Yahoo even charts it on a logarithmic axis. are we at the point now where if the market were to only grow linearly, that would be considered a failure? how are we supposed to sustain that, short of just printing huge piles of dollars?
I don't immediately know why a small exponential growth can not continue far into the future. Economic growth does not necessarily require increased physical resource use. Continually increasing productivity of services could do it in theory. For instance, what is the upper limit on lines of code, or whatever measure that innovation morphs that metric into?
 
  • #928
quadraphonics said:
Maybe someone should go back through this thread and count how many times jimmysnyder expressed confidence that the US economy was not in recession since last December??
Zero.
 
  • #929
mheslep said:
I don't immediately know why a small exponential growth can not continue far into the future. Economic growth does not necessarily require increased physical resource use. Continually increasing productivity of services could do it in theory. For instance, what is the upper limit on lines of code, or whatever measure that innovation morphs that metric into?

well, have we really increased productivity that much, or have we just changed metrics? if we've changed metrics, then much of the panic is out of proportion.
 
  • #930
It's hard to measure productivity in terms of simple GDP. Especially in technology.
As things get cheaper to make - making them has less value and so productivity goes down (unless you can sell them for the same amount!) The only solution is to convince people to buy bigger and better versions of the same thing - if this spiral stops it's a recession.
But if that means you can only afford to buy the same size car, LCD TV or CPU as last year then should you worry?
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
3K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
4K
  • · Replies 21 ·
Replies
21
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
4K
  • · Replies 35 ·
2
Replies
35
Views
8K
  • · Replies 870 ·
30
Replies
870
Views
113K
  • · Replies 91 ·
4
Replies
91
Views
24K
  • · Replies 27 ·
Replies
27
Views
5K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
4K