News What is wrong with the US economy?

[edward]

No, you're supposed to substantiate your claim.

Are you kidding , you did it for me. My claim was that the market has not always been this skittish. Historically the market has only been volatile during times of crises. Have we been in a continuous crisis since 1985?? not hardly. And the graphs show it. Yet admittedly there have been more times of crisis since 1985 than in the previous 20 years.


I can not remember or find any evidence of a time when the market fluctuated so much on a nearly day to day basis as it has in the past year.

 

[russ_watters]

I'll get back into this thread more tomorrow probably, but I just want to point out two things:

First, of course, here we are, just under 3 months from when the stock market started it's "correction" as I called it (actually, it wasn't bad enough to actually be a correction) and the market has fully recovered. No bear market. I dropped out of the thread because I didn't want to do a day-to-day back-and-forth about what the stock market was doing. It did take longer than I expected to get back up - I didn't realize how bad the sub-prime mortgage thing was (bad, but not on par with things like the S&L scandal).

Second, volatility. People keep talking about it like it means something - like we're seeing something unusual here. We aren't. The stock market goes up. The stock market goes down. The stock market goes back up again. That's what it does. All told, the Dow went down slightly less than 9% from it's high and recovered in less than three months. That's not bad at all.

A "correction" is a 10% drop. A Bear Market is a 20% drop. We had bear markets in 2000, 2001 and 2002, including three swings of more than 15% over a 6 month period and an overall drop of 33% from 2001 to 2002 that took more than two years to recover from. (I've pointed this out before)

If that isn't enough, there are actual measures of volatility. Here's one: http://finance.yahoo.com/q?s=^vix
Here's the historical values:
http://www.investmentu.com/IUEL/2005/20050729.html
At 18.5, we're above the volatility of the past two years and below the volatility of the previous six. The index briefly (for less than 2 months) went up as high as 31, indicating a relativly short and minor period of volatility as people tried to get a handle on the sub-prime mortgage issue and real estate downturn (a 1-2 punch that didn't end up being that bad).

Jeez, you people have short memories and thin skins!

[edit: heh - these are the same links others posted. Edward, did you read your own link? Btw, 1998-2001 (first half) was not a time of crisis, it was high volatility due to the internet boom.]

 

[russ_watters]

I can not remember or find any evidence of a time when the market fluctuated so much on a nearly day to day basis as it has in the past year.

One day in the past 3 months is worth remembering and it was the seventh biggest drop in market history - so it was only barely worth remembering. If you can't remember some of the others that were worse, you are just plain not trying hard enough:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_stock_market_crashes

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

My claim was that the market has not always been this skittish. Historically the market has only been volatile during times of crises.

You realize, of course, that the second of these two sentences does not support the first. Neither does the chart. The current volatility index is 18.49. Run a line across the chart you linked to at the 18.49 level. The low for this year was 9.39. Run a line across your chart at that level. The high this year was 37.50. Run a line across you chart at that level. Compare this to your statement:

I can not remember or find any evidence of a time when the market fluctuated so much on a nearly day to day basis as it has in the past year.

 

[edward]

Guys I am not talking about; record highs, record lows or corrections. I have lived through them. Perhaps volatility isn't the word I should be using although it is the word most frequently used by the media.

For about the third time I am stating that I have never seen the market make the frequent and smaller down 250 up 240 cycles that I have seen in the past year or so.

I could be wrong, but I honestly just do not remember a prolonged period of time with this type of fluctuation.

The news media doesn't help with their constant hype of the situation. For that matter IMHO the media, including the Internet, could be part of what drives the situation.

I can also see, however, that these smaller fluctuations could be a result of market manipulation.

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

For about the third time I am stating that I have never seen the market make the frequent and smaller down 250 up 240 cycles that I have seen in the past year or so.

The climate is getting milder. When I was a child, we used to get snowstorms where the snow would come up to my waist. But nowadays it only comes up to my knees.

 

[Futobingoro]

We should make sure we aren't getting confused about the magnitude of these "smaller cycles." Movements of 250 points are certainly more likely to happen when the Dow is in the vicinity of 13,000 points. This may seem enormous, for instance, to someone who grew up in the 80s, during which the Dow passed 2000. Percentages are probably a better choice to focus on. It's not too difficult to drum up volatility furor by noting drops and gains of 300 points - it sounds large. The calculated volatility indeces (though I don't know how they are calculated) probably take proportion into consideration.

 

[edward]

The climate is getting milder. When I was a child, we used to get snowstorms where the snow would come up to my waist. But nowadays it only comes up to my knees.

And I am gaining physical strength. When I was a young man I could barely carry $10 worth of groceries, now I can easily carry $50 worth.

OK so I am an old fogey, but seriously, I can not remember ever having heard the term: "The markets are nervous today" the number of times that I have in in this past year.

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

I still see the glass, whether half full or half empty, as setting to close to the edge of a jiggly table. Hopefully it will eventually jiggle back towards the center.

I not sure you get the gist of the expression 'half empty or half full'. It is really asking whether you are optimistic or pessimistic, it has nothing to do with glasses. Are we to take your 'edge' comment as meaning you are pessimistic? Keep this principle in mind:

Pessimism never pays.

Unless of course, it does. For instance, I note that the VIX is down nearly 10% today. I've lived a long time and have seen many things too. This is the most volatile that the market in volatility has ever been. If you truly believe that people are selling volatility too cheaply, why not buy it from them?

In any event, as with life itself, the market always has been and always will be close to the edge of disaster. Meanwhile, I'm planning to market a couple of new financial instruments. VIX futures, and options on VIX futures. My advertising will say "If you think the markets are volatile now, just wait and see what tomorrow brings". What do you think?

 

[russ_watters]

A good article the other day on volatility: http://www.usatoday.com/money/perfi/funds/2007-10-03-volatility-q3_N.htm?csp=34

The funny thing about the article is that the title doesn't match the content of the article! The title is "More volatility could lie ahead for investors" (which is, of course, trivally true) while the article says:

If you're feeling queasy from the leaps and plunges of your 401(k) account, brace yourself. The market's gyrations aren't likely to slow anytime soon.

One reason: Historically speaking, volatility was unusually low from 2002 through most of 2007, says Russ Koesterich, head of investment strategy at Barclays Global Investors.

"Money was cheap and plentiful, and in that type of environment, volatility is usually low," Koesterich says. The market is returning to more normal levels of volatility now.

But I suppose if they had titled it: "Volatility returning to normal after years of being unusually low - people with short memories and a fear of their own shadows skittish; everyone else, unfazed" it wouldn't be very catchy, and a little cumbersome.

 

[russ_watters]

Guys I am not talking about; record highs, record lows or corrections. I have lived through them. Perhaps volatility isn't the word I should be using although it is the word most frequently used by the media.

For about the third time I am stating that I have never seen the market make the frequent and smaller down 250 up 240 cycles that I have seen in the past year or so.

I could be wrong, but I honestly just do not remember a prolonged period of time with this type of fluctuation.

Well then the problem here is simply that you aren't considering the fact that a 250 point rise or fall is 1.8% of 14,000 but 3.6% of 7,000. Of course there are more 250 point rises or falls today than there ever were before! It would be very unusual if there weren't.

Black Monday in 1987 was a drop of 508 points, or just over 20%. It was the second worst percentage drop in history. To equal it today, we'd need a drop of 2900 points. Could you imagine a drop of 2900 points in a single day!? [edit: And the 1987 Bear Market doesn't even make the list of the top 10 worst in history, below.]

The greatest points loss was 684 points on 9/18/01, just after 9/11. Unfortunately, I'm having trouble finding good info about that crash - such a big event that there isn't much news about it! . Near as I can tell, the market was trading in the 9,000 range before that day, making it a 7.6% drop

What we are seeing today comes nowhere close to those types of magnitude.

The news media doesn't help with their constant hype of the situation.

Yes. That's what the article I posted did with it's lousy title.

Here's an interesting article:

...And the Crash of 2007 Begins

http://chartingstocks.net/2007/03/04/and-the-crash-of-2007-begins/

Unfortunately, it was published in March.

Here's a list of the ten worst crashes since 1900: http://mutualfunds.about.com/cs/history/p/crash10.htm

Now these are not one day events (part of my point here is that one-day events are largely meaningless and because of that, I can't find a list of them), but anyway, only two of these happened in the past sixty years and only one in the past 30. Number 10 is 2000-2002, during which the market lost 38% of its value. Due to the fact that the market was vastly overvalued and people knew it, this one caused about the mildest recession you can have and still call it a recession. And we did not double-dip after 9/11.

Given the clear fact that the markets have been far more stable in the past 60 years than in the previous 50, I don't get too worried even by a one-day, 500 point drop.

 

[russ_watters]

The climate is getting milder. When I was a child, we used to get snowstorms where the snow would come up to my waist. But nowadays it only comes up to my knees.

Clever. Yeah, I noticed the same thing. A 20" snowstorm just doesn't seem as bad as it did when I was half the height I am today.

 

[russ_watters]

In any event, as with life itself, the market always has been and always will be close to the edge of disaster. Meanwhile, I'm planning to market a couple of new financial instruments. VIX futures, and options on VIX futures. My advertising will say "If you think the markets are volatile now, just wait and see what tomorrow brings". What do you think?

I'm in.

 

[turbo]

When I was a kid, Maine used to get snowstorms of several feet over a blizzard of several days, and we'd be digging out continuously. In the last few years, there has not been enough snow for people to operate their snowmobiles, and you can buy them with low miles for dirt cheap. I have an International Trail System trail running 1/2 mile along the eastern border of my property, and for most of the past 3 winters there has not been enough snow to even bother grooming the trails. The president of the snowmobile club and the trail-master had to trailer their $10,000 sleds to the Canadian border to put any miles on them in the last couple of years. This part of the world is warming big-time - the only controversy is about the cause.

 

[edward]

Well then the problem here is simply that you aren't considering the fact that a 250 point rise or fall is 1.8% of 14,000 but 3.6% of 7,000. Of course there are more 250 point rises or falls today than there ever were before! It would be very unusual if there weren't.

Black Monday in 1987 was a drop of 508 points, or just over 20%. It was the second worst percentage drop in history. To equal it today, we'd need a drop of 2900 points. Could you imagine a drop of 2900 points in a single day!? [edit: And the 1987 Bear Market doesn't even make the list of the top 10 worst in history, below.]

The greatest points loss was 684 points on 9/18/01, just after 9/11. Unfortunately, I'm having trouble finding good info about that crash - such a big event that there isn't much news about it! . Near as I can tell, the market was trading in the 9,000 range before that day, making it a 7.6% drop

What we are seeing today comes nowhere close to those types of magnitude.

Yes. That's what the article I posted did with it's lousy title.

Here's an interesting article: http://chartingstocks.net/2007/03/04/and-the-crash-of-2007-begins/

Unfortunately, it was published in March.

Here's a list of the ten worst crashes since 1900: http://mutualfunds.about.com/cs/history/p/crash10.htm

Now these are not one day events (part of my point here is that one-day events are largely meaningless and because of that, I can't find a list of them), but anyway, only two of these happened in the past sixty years and only one in the past 30. Number 10 is 2000-2002, during which the market lost 38% of its value. Due to the fact that the market was vastly overvalued and people knew it, this one caused about the mildest recession you can have and still call it a recession. And we did not double-dip after 9/11.

Given the clear fact that the markets have been far more stable in the past 60 years than in the previous 50, I don't get too worried even by a one-day, 500 point drop.

Russ

Thanks for the links and info.

There is a lot more on my mind than just the recent nervous market. Watching John Bogle on Moyers reinforced some of the things that I have been thinking about.

I think what bothers me most about short term profit taking practices is that it doesn't contribute anything to society in general. It looks to me like a big casino where some must lose in order for others to profit.

And I do realize that the markets have alwys been that way to some extent.

Back in the day, the long term investors provided companies with the means to develop and market new products. That just doesn't seem to be the case anymore. I just see investors swapping pieces of paper with the sole intention of trying to come out on top with a quick deal.

If the "go for the quick profit" scene can support and contribute to the overall economy that's great. Personally I have reservations that this type of investing will ever be self sustaining over the long run. But then that is just my opinion.

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

I think what bothers me most about short term profit taking practices is that it doesn't contribute anything to society in general.

But you do realize that without the secondary market, the primary market could not exist.

 

[edward]

But you do realize that without the secondary market, the primary market could not exist.

jimmysnyder

Of course I realize this. But what I am seeing since the computer age is a secondary market gone wild. When the market sector that gives back nothing to society starts to heavily outweigh that which benefits society, can it be self sustaining in the long term?

There has always been a delicate balance to the system. When the market falls it seems as if it is always the secondary market that triggers it with all of those nervous investors bailing out.

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

When the market sector that gives back nothing to society ...

Again, without the secondary market, there is no primary market. That is what the secondary market gives to society. It is not enough that the secondary market exist, it must fluctuate.

 

[russ_watters]

There is a lot more on my mind than just the recent nervous market. Watching John Bogle on Moyers reinforced some of the things that I have been thinking about.

I just read the transcript and honestly I didn't find much compelling about it. It is certainly true that there are sectors of the economy that are not properly regulated, so let's fix them! It doesn't mean the whole economy is headed toward a crash.

I think what bothers me most about short term profit taking practices is that it doesn't contribute anything to society in general. It looks to me like a big casino where some must lose in order for others to profit.

There are plenty of games you can play in this casino that are not zero-sum. Try your hand at the CD game - you're a guaranteed winner!

The belief that investing is a zero-sum game is common and straightforwardly wrong. There are, in fact, very few (if any) investments that are zero-sum.

Back in the day, the long term investors provided companies with the means to develop and market new products. That just doesn't seem to be the case anymore. I just see investors swapping pieces of paper with the sole intention of trying to come out on top with a quick deal.

Daytrading came about because of the internet. But I doubt it is a significant fraction of the market. I really don't know what the percentages are, but no sane person would day-trade with their 401k. You stick that money in an S&P index fund and leave it there for the next 40 years.

If the "go for the quick profit" scene can support and contribute to the overall economy that's great. Personally I have reservations that this type of investing will ever be self sustaining over the long run. But then that is just my opinion.

The beauty of the stock market (and the economy in general) is that the more more people play, the more everybody wins.

 

[turbo]

There is a guy who works with my wife that is jumpy as all get-out, and when he sees a particular fund dropping in his 401K, he sells, locking in his losses, and switches to one that is gaining value, perhaps overpaying as a result and incurring transaction fees. My wife and I are pretty stoic about swings, try to stay diversified in aggressive, moderate, and (very little) stable funds and just hang in there. Every year or so we assess where we are and usually just hang on to what we've got and ride out the swings. When the economy was going through some gyrations, my IRA gained 10% in value in the first 6 months after I established it and transferred my several 401Ks into it.

There is some danger in allowing poor adherence to fiduciary responsibilities enrich fund managers by letting them churn their clients' accounts. Investment firms that are run this way should be forced to shape up or be run out of business because they are a friction on our economy and they serve no useful purpose beyond self-enrichment.

I did some homework before choosing an investment firm, and now I've got an adviser at the Principal Group who gets in touch with me every 6 months or so to see if my motivations or exposure to market risks have changed. No hard-sell, no breathless recommendations, no problems. They pay 80% more than the highest rate that any local bank would offer me on my money-market account as well. I'm not trying to give out financial advice, just trying to acknowledge that there are some solid players out there that are honest and deliver what they promise.

 

[Astronuc]

Living Paycheck to Paycheck Gets Harder
http://biz.yahoo.com/ap/071019/stretching_paychecks.html

The calculus of living paycheck to paycheck in America is getting harder.

What used to last four days might last half that long now. Pay the gas bill, but skip breakfast. Eat less for lunch so the kids can have a healthy dinner.

Across the nation, Americans are increasingly unable to stretch their dollars to the next payday as they juggle higher rent, food and energy bills. It's starting to affect middle-income working families as well as the poor, and has reached the point of affecting day-to-day calculations of merchants like Wal-Mart Stores Inc., 7-Eleven Inc. and Family Dollar Stores Inc.

Food pantries, which distribute foodstuffs to the needy, are reporting severe shortages and reduced government funding at the very time that they are seeing a surge of new people seeking their help.

While economists debate whether the country is headed for a recession, some say the financial stress is already the worst since the last downturn at the start of this decade.

From Family Dollar to Wal-Mart, merchants have adjusted their product mix and pricing accordingly. Sales data show a marked and more prolonged drop in spending in the days before shoppers get their paychecks, when they buy only the barest essentials before splurging around payday.

"It's pretty pronounced," said Kiley Rawlins, a spokeswoman at Family Dollar. "It seems like to us, customers are running out of food products, paper towels sooner in the month."

Wal-Mart, the world's largest retailer, said the imbalance in spending before and after payday in July was the biggest it has ever seen, though the drop-off wasn't as steep in August. . . . .

 

[Astronuc]

Stocks Sink on Black Monday Anniversary
http://biz.yahoo.com/ap/071019/wall_street.html
Friday October 19, 10:00 pm ET

By Tim Paradis, AP Business Writer
Stocks Plummet Amid Lackluster Profit Reports, Credit Concerns on Black Monday Anniversary

NEW YORK (AP) -- The Dow Jones industrial average dropped more than 360 points Friday -- the 20th anniversary of the Black Monday crash -- as lackluster corporate earnings, renewed credit concerns and rising oil prices spooked investors.

The major stock market indexes turned in their worst week since July after Caterpillar Inc., one of the world's largest construction equipment makers, soured investors mood Friday with a discouraging assessment of the U.S. economy. In a week dominated by mostly negative results from banks facing difficult credit markets and rising mortgage delinquencies, investors appeared surprised that an industrial name was feeling an economic pinch, too.

Reports from Honeywell International Inc. and 3M Co., themselves big industrial names, gave investors little incentive to take chances on the market. In one bright spot, Google Inc. rose after reporting stronger-than-expected profits.

Investor sentiment took another hit when Standard & Poor's downgraded another batch of residential mortgage-backed securities, adding to investor unease about credit quality. The latest reduction follows a similar move earlier in the week and affects more than 1,400 classes.

And oil prices appeared on some investors' list of worries after briefly moving above the psychological barrier of $90 per barrel for the first time.

. . . .

The bump that the equities markets got with the Fed's rate cuts could not be sustained.

I've heard that more economists forsee recession ahead.

 

[turbo]

I've heard that more economists forsee recession ahead.

You can bet on it. Milk, eggs, and other food-stuffs have undergone double-digit inflation in the last year, and the push for ethanol (green as it may seem) will further drive up the cost of corn used for other purposes, including feed for chickens, pigs, and cows, further driving up food costs. The instability in oil prices caused by Bush's ill-advised adventures in the Persian Gulf will benefit his Saudi buddies and the domestic oil industry, while further eroding the abilities of US citizens to keep up with their bills. This oil-price manipulation is a big thing in Maine, where public transportation is practically non-existent (the cost of gas determines how much of your take-home pay you get to spend on other things), available jobs are often quite distant, and winter heating costs can be daunting. You don't have to squeeze working families too much harder in too many more places to precipitate job losses, foreclosures, and localized collapses that may extend state-wide.

Unless Congress starts reining in this administration, I see an economic collapse in the near future. Unfortunately, the true conservatives and the liberals are scared to unite across party lines (to save their cushy jobs) and lack the balls to challenge the crooks, creeps, and liars in the administration and the neocons that pull their strings.

 

[Astronuc]

Homeowners’ Reduced Equity May Slow Spending
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/08/business/08borrow.html

The Whitteys and others like them are at the center of deepening worries that the economy is headed for a substantial slowdown, possibly even a recession, as the artery of cash from Americans borrowing against the value of their homes has sharply narrowed.

The economy is over-leveraged, and likely many will not repay interest on principal on debt.

I've heard recently that the major banks have not disclosed all their losses - they might not even know until December.

The Bush administration is spending but taking in less.

More economists are seeing a recession ahead.

Price of energy (esp. oil) is increasing and dollar is falling meaning that outflow of cash is increasing and the trade imbalance will increase.

As for jobs - certainly more jobs are created - but at lower wages and salaries.

Markets and Dollar Sink as Slowdown Worry Increases
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/08/business/08econ.html

US productivity may have increased, but that may largely be due to people working more than 40 hrs, but not getting paid for more than 40 hrs.

 

[Astronuc]

From the NYTimes Dealbook -

E*Trade Financial lost more than half its market value Monday, after an analyst suggested that the company might have to seek bankruptcy protection if panicked customers withdraw deposits because of its faltering mortgage investments.

E*Trade, an Internet-based brokerage firm and bank, called the analyst's comments "irresponsible" and assured customers Monday that it remained "well capitalized by regulatory standards." Other analysts said the risk of bankruptcy for E*Trade was remote. But the 59 percent drop in its stock fueled speculation about the company's future.

TD Ameritrade Holding has already expressed an interest in buying E*Trade, and some were theorizing that it could try again now that E*Trade's price tag has dropped so sharply. But others doubted that TD Ameritrade would want to revisit talks amid the recent turmoil.

The big problem now in the economy is the undisclosed losses of various financial institutions. Another big problem is speculative investing - now that some instruments have lost value.

Ben Bernanke has warned that the worst is yet to come. But have the various troubled institutions provided full disclosure.

Goldman Sachs Chief Executive Lloyd Blankfein is on track to receive a year-end bonus of "at least $75 million in cash and stock," The New York Post reported Sunday, citing undisclosed sources.

Good for him - bad for investors whose money GS uses to do business. What did Blanfein do to deserve such largesse. Nothing.

Examining the 'Squandering' of American Promise
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=16217374

Fresh Air from WHYY, November 12, 2007 · Author Robert Kuttner writes in The Squandering of America that many of the economic policies and regulations established during the New Deal have since been replaced by a more business-friendly free market system. Kuttner is the founder and co-editor of The American Prospect.

Very interesting perspective on regulation and the role and failures of the US government in regulating the financial markets.

 

[ShawnD]

From the NYTimes Dealbook - The big problem now in the economy is the undisclosed losses of various financial institutions. Another big problem is speculative investing - now that some instruments have lost value.

When talking about growth investment, when has this ever not been true? Most investors would describe themselves as growth investors - they are placing a bet that a stock price will climb. They are not betting that a company will make money (value investor), but they are speculating that a company's future earnings will be good. This has always been the case. This is just one more cycle in the market; many have come before it and many will come after it.

Ben Bernanke has warned that the worst is yet to come. But have the various troubled institutions provided full disclosure.

This always depends on who is looking at what side. Me? I'm totally psyched. Banks are going to take a massive hit from the sub-prime thing, and right now they're giving high dividends to keep investors interested in their stock. High dividends are not sustainable, so the dividends will eventually be cut. I don't know how to check American banks, but right now Bank of Montreal is paying a 4.8% dividend. What do you think happens when BMO announces a loss for Q4 of 2007 and Q1 of 2008, and cuts dividends at the same time? The stock price tanks and you buy everything on sale. It's like going to Sears and finding a lawn mower on sale for $50. Everybody wins.


There's nothing wrong with the markets. Most investors are just too stupid to figure out how the market works, and they blindly throw their money at the first person to promise "low APR, low XYZ, low PER, low OCD" or "low" anything followed by 3 letters. People need to stop blaming the economy when they lose their shirts in the market. Somebody making wise investments won't be cut down so easily.

 

[Supercritical]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21931446/

"Low dollar 'threatens the life' of Airbus"

Mr Enders indicated to unions that Airbus could shift an increasing proportion of R&D activities to countries outside Europe and would have to move more production to dollar-zone economies.

"We need to question our business model. It is no longer sustainable," he said.

Airbus is having a great year orders-wise, with some sources reporting http://www.justplanes.com/Orders2007.htm booked than rival Boeing. The weak dollar, however, may reduce the significance of orders and increase the focus on profitability. The American sector of the highly-international aerospace industry stands to gain from the weak dollar as Boeing competes against Euro-pegged Airbus and Lockheed-Martin seeks to secure orders for its F-16/F-35 against competition from the Eurofighter Typhoon, Saab Gripen and Dassault Rafale.

 

[russ_watters]

The A320 is a great plane, but Airbus should be worried that the A380 has 36 orders and the 787 has 391.

 

[drankin]

The A320 is a great plane, but Airbus should be worried that the A380 has 36 orders and the 787 has 391.

And that is just fantastic for my situation. We have a 787 cargo door my company designed that is being tested in our shop right now.

Keep those orders coming!

 

[Astronuc]

The president denies the US economy is in recession, while some (or many) economists disagree.

Unemployment Report Shows Economic Frailty
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=87991782

All Things Considered, March 7, 2008 · Though the nation's unemployment rate fell to 4.8 percent in February, employers actually cut payrolls by a net 63,000 jobs. The rate fell because so many people decided to stop looking for work — a new sign of weakness in the economy.

Apparently government hiring boosted the numbers of the employed, which offset the decline in non-government employment.

Economy Lost 63,000 Jobs in February
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=87978667

February job losses were widespread, with hefty cuts coming from construction, manufacturing, retailing, financial services and a variety of professional and business services.

. . . overall, the national unemployment rate eased slightly to 4.8 percent from 4.9 percent in January — but that was because the number of people in the workforce fell by 450,000 last month.

So the 'real' unemployment is much higher, and of course, the government generally ignores underemployment.