13,000!!!

[billythrilly7th]

http://money.cnn.com/2007/04/25/markets/markets_nyopen/index.htm?cnn=yes

The stock market and the economy continue to boom!!

Congrats to the stock holders on this amazing milestone.

Measuring by all historical standards..... Kudos, President Bush on the booming economy. You take your punches on the Iraq war. But you get your praise when praise is due. Keep up the good work on the economy.

Stocks jumped in the first moments of trade Wednesday as investors pushed the Dow over the 13,000 level after better-than-expected economic figures and good corporate earnings.

The Dow Nasdaq and S&P all rose in the early going.

A government report on durable goods orders showed stronger-than-expected demand for big-ticket items, as the 3.4 percent gain was well above the 2.5 percent rise forecast by economists. The February reading was also revised up to a 2.4 percent gain from the original reading of a 1.7 percent gain, and a key measure of business spending in the report showed the best gain since September 2004.

And even the new jobs being created in the employment sector are not just crappy ones.

It's all good in da hood.
:)

[billythrilly7th]

My friend works at the DNC and he just snapped this picture of Tom Froten, DNC economic policy advisor for the 2008 elections, after he heard the news about the 13,000.

http://www.crystalinks.com/frustration.jpg

I hear ya, Tom.
:D

[WarrenP]

Considering we were supposed to be in the worst economy since Hoover, I can't wait until it starts to get good.

[tourdeforce]

Isn't the home sales market in shambles right now? This morning, CNN said it was in the worst slump in 18 years.

Not to mention the record number of foreclosures going on.

And the loss of 3.2 million factory jobs (one in six) lost since 2000.

[jst5150]

Unfortunately, stock trends having nothing to do with economic trends. Fortunately, for those 30 stocks listed on the Dow Jones industrials, all is well.

[SC Harrison]

The stock market and the economy continue to boom!!



Do me a favor, pal. Try not to say the word "boom" if you're standing anywhere near my portfolio. She's kinda skittish. :)

[billythrilly7th]

Unfortunately, stock trends having nothing to do with economic trends. Fortunately, for those 30 stocks listed on the Dow Jones industrials, all is well.

By all historical standards of measurement from stock performance to unemployment the economy is booming.

[billythrilly7th]

Isn't the home sales market in shambles right now? This morning, CNN said it was in the worst slump in 18 years.

Well, I do remember how much praise you gave Bush for the housing boom we had over the past six years, so because of that it's only fair that you get to criticize the current downward trend.

But that's still like saying to a baseball player who hit 70, 64, 87, 78 and 67 homeruns in consecutive years that he stinks because he only hit 57 this year.

Housing is fine.
http://dwb.sacbee.com/content/business/24hr_business/story/3606960p-12891602c.html

Sales of new homes rebounded slightly in March, helped by better weather, but the gain was not enough to offset big declines in the previous two months.

The Commerce Department reported Wednesday that new home sales rose 2.6 percent in March compared with February, when new home sales had plunged to the lowest level in nearly seven years. New homes were sold at a seasonally adjusted annual rate of 858,000 units in March. The March improvement was just half what analysts had expected and still left the sales pace 23.5 percent lower than a year ago as the housing industry continues to go through a painful adjustment after an extended boom period which was ignored by Tourdeforce from the AW messageboards.

It's already rebounding.

Unemployment is low.

Tech jobs are up.

The stock market is breaking records.

All is well on the economic front here in the U.S.A.

[WildScribe]

Guys... I think he's serious.

[jst5150]

By all historical standards of measurement from stock performance to unemployment the economy is booming.
To which, I'll allow an economist to reiterate my point: "Stocks are shares of ownership in corporations. So the amount that investors are willing to pay for stocks tells us what they think about the well-being of corporate America. If these investors- rich individuals, and managers of pension and other investment funds-believe profits will be growing strongly in the coming period, they will be willing to pay more for their shares of owner ship. Then the Dow will rise."

http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Economics/StocksvsEconomy_DS.html

Author's bio is here: http://www.economics.umb.edu/facstaff/macewan.html

jt

[Rainy Night]

I lost my job and house ( I sold it at a loss due to the slump) a year ago and can't seem to get a new job, been working as a temp for the past 6 months.

Excuse me if I'm a little bitter, but things aren't all that good.

[billythrilly7th]

I lost my job and house ( I sold it at a loss due to the slump) a year ago and can't seem to get a new job, been working as a temp for the past 6 months.

Excuse me if I'm a little bitter, but things aren't all that good.

How many times in my life am I going to have to listen someone compare their personal situation to the overall conditions?

But I hope things get better for you, Rainy. Seriously.

And anyone else who hasn't been able to take advantage of the powerful economy, low unemployment and skyrocketing bull market.

There's money out there.

Go grab it. It's yours for the taking.

[Rainy Night]

Well, I took advantage of the goodtimes during the Clinton era.

It wasn't until GW came into office that everything went to hell.

It'll get better after the next election. I'm confident of that.

[billythrilly7th]

[quote=billythrilly7th;1291837]And anyone else who hasn't been able to take advantage of the powerful economy, low unemployment and skyrocketing bull market.
[quote]
Well, I took advantage of the goodtimes during the Clinton era.

It wasn't until GW came into office that everything went to hell.

PFFH!!!

Yeah. Bush aplogizes that the Clinton stock market bubble burst and ushered in a recession.

And then we had the worst terrorist attack in history.

The miracle of George Bush is that the economy is as strong as it is and by all historical standards of measurement, booming.

We easily could have gone into a depression after 9/11. the WORLD TRADE CENTERS were knocked down. Luckily, sound economic policy led us from that danger zone.

And clearly we are way past the danger zone and back into a golden era.

Congrats on 13,000, Dow.

Onward and upward!

And I suggest everyone get their piece of the pie while the pickins is good.

[billythrilly7th]

It'll get better after the next election. I'm confident of that.

What exactly is "get better?"

Lower than a 4.5 unemployment rate?

MOREEEE of a bull market?

The housing market which was booming but you held on too long booms again?

Please fill me in on EXACTLY what you're hoping gets better, so it's in the archive and we can look back and see how your prediction faired.

Thank you.

Gotta go.

[Rainy Night]

I'm just saying... personal experience... things were better under Clinton.

http://www.newsandjava.com/Amelen-Clinton%20vs%20Bush-%20No%20Contest.htm

[Rolling Thunder]

Let the market correction...............begin!

[MattW]

Wow - I didn't know that a booming economy would be another thing people could despise Bush for...

The man could literally shit gold bricks, and someone would bitch that he didn't bother to wipe them off.

[McDuff]

Guess what else (http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2006-04-02-federal-spending_x.htm) is growing! (http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-riskshift3oct10,1,6867777,full.story?ctrack=2&cset=true)

No, seriously, economic growth is a good thing, although it really is worth taking consideration of long term factors such as inequality, income volatility, debt to income ratios and other factors which play into how that wealth is distributed through the population. However, it's hardly as if Bush can take credit for a trend that started in the mid 1970s and has been around more or less continuously since then. The Dow would have hit 13000 sooner or later unless the economy were actually in recession. What matters from the point of view of governments in the present moment is rarely whether the economy grows at all, but what they're doing with the money generated, where it's going in the economy, whether they're speeding it up or slowing it down, and what the long term impacts are.

Bush isn't doing anything especially appalling in the economy right now, aside from spending all that taxpayer money on a bloody foolish war, mainly because the US economy is a bigger beast than even someone as knuckle-headed as Bush can balls up, but he similarly hasn't made any vast leaps towards fixing any of the longer-term structural problems that plague the federal tax and spend system. His contributions have been aimed towards shoring up or increasing the existing inequalities within the system which, while appealing to certain short-sighted conservative sensibilities which look at pure growth numbers and neglect other factors, don't help most people in a country with a Gini coefficient rapidly approaching .5.

Bush gets a C on the economy, which is hardly enough to make up for the failing grades he's getting everywhere else.

[Rainy Night]

http://tvnewslies.org/bushbudget.gif

Hmmm.....

[Joe270]

This is really funny. So when the hapless democrat who wins the next election (and I strongly suspect they will) they get to blame the then tanking economy on Bush, too?

The economy has shrugged off 911, bad news from many quarters, yet still juggernauts on, and if Bush wasn't there, it would be even better?

I just don't get this, he's not allowed any credit but must shoulder all the blame.

[Joe270]

By McD's post, using Rainy's chart, that means Clinton benefited by Bush 1's economic policy and Bush 2's deficit numbers are really Clintons.

Hmmm. Interesting.

[Rainy Night]

By McD's post, using Rainy's chart, that means Clinton benefited by Bush 1's economic policy and Bush 2's deficit numbers are really Clintons.

Hmmm. Interesting.
I don't see how you make that connection.

[robeiae]

Last time I checked, Congress was responsible for collecting and spending tax money.

Oh, wait--that means we can credit the newly elected Dem Congress for the stock market going up. Cool.

Really, this expectation of comparing current economic conditions to actions of the current denizens of the Oval Office is the cat's meow.

[robeiae]

Oh, and here is a much better deficit chart, for those interested:

http://www.uuforum.org/deficit.htm

[Rainy Night]

I'm heading home from my temp job now... I'll probably stop and get gas, pay around $3 a gallon... Funny, gas was half the price under Clinton...

Bush = Texas = Oil Industry = Huge Profits

Hmmmm... I'm sure there's no correlation.

Here... read this ---

NOW THE REAL TRUTH

Submitted by MEDAN1040 on Tue, 2006-10-24 12:52.

Amazing how bushits complain when anyone blames gas price increases on bush, yet they want to give him credit when the price decreases. How wonderful it sounds that gas prices have fallen 80 cents since August. Of course we saw this same type phenomenon happen last year too. The average Florida regular price on 09/05/05 was $3.012. The prices then started to fall hitting bottom on 12/15/05 @ $2.187. By 01/23/06 it was back up to $2.40. By 04/24/06 is up to $2.953.

In fact, gas prices have increased in the December to March period each year since December 2001. So get ready to hear the excuses like increased oil usage for heating. By the way, in the 20 years prior to 2001, this December to March increase only happened 5 times (25%).

And of course one other little fact that's left out in bushits storytelling is that in January 2001 when sadly bush took office, according to the U.S. Department of Labor the average gas price was $1.525.

How about the Gross Domestic Product - in 2004 yes the GDP was up 3.91%, the highest increase in the bush years. During the Clinton years, the average year to year increase was higher than that 4 separate years. In fact, in the last 4 years of the Clinton administration the annual average increase of the GDP was 4.2%. For Clinton's 8 years, the average was 3.71%. Compare that to the average of 2001-2005 @ 2.4%, or to the average of the 4 years prior to Clinton (daddy bush) @ 2.15%.

U.S. Bank issued an “Economic Prospects” report on 10/16/06. Regarding economic growth, they wrote …. Are combining to slow growth over the second half of the year to just 2 ¼% and especially in the 3rd quarter when we estimate growth was below 2%.” The report also states “GDP growth in 2007 and 2008 is expected at 3.3%”.

By the way, unlike bushit stories, the bush tax subsidies for the wealthy actually began in 2001 when the lowest bracket was kept the same, but the higher tax brackets were all lowered by 0.5%.

Regarding Federal Tax revenue, for the first time since 1983, annual tax revenue declined - due to bush's tax subsidies for the wealthy. The earlier decline was of course due to the Reagan tax cut. In 1984, however, social security benefits became taxable for the first time and tax revenue shot up 10%. However the biggest tax revenue increase during the Reagan years was 1987 when tax revenue shot up 13.3%. This is when Reagan was smart enough to realize the problems his earlier tax cuts were causing, so he changed course (something that stubborn mules can not do).

From 1982 - 2001, the average increase in tax collections was 6.6%. The small tax law changes in 2001 lowered that year's increase to 1.5%, the lowest annual increase since the decline of 1983. But in 2002 when more of the wealthy tax subsidies kicked in, this revenue fell 5.3%, over $112trillion. These revenues fell another $63.7trillion in 2003 (or almost $176trillion less than 2001). In 2004, tax revenue started to go back up but it was still over $110trillion lower than 2001. Finally in 2005 tax revenue exceeded 2001 tax revenue. Suddenly, bushits are claiming that the increased tax revenue is a sign of a healthy economy. Yet the same people claimed that high tax revenue under Clinton was bad (remember the "it's your money" BS). So it seems that high tax revenue is good or bad depending on who is President.

If the tax revenue had continued it's 6.6% annual increase as it had done in the previous 20 years (12 years Republican, 8 years Democrat), the budget surplus that was inherited from the Clinton administration by bush would have survived. Instead we now have a deficit which has caused the U.S. to borrow $1.3trillion since 2001, 80% from foreign countries. The fact is that the U.S. economy is much like the homeowners who have survived the last few years by borrowing on their home equity. Only the blind can not see what is happening to these people now that the interest rates are climbing. So what will happen if China decides to take their money home now? WOW, what strong economic footing we have.

One last thing- the bushits like to harp on the unemployment rate since it is lower than last year. Ah, but the storytelling continues by not telling the whole story. Per the U.S Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics:

a)The current unemployment rate = 4.6%
b)The unemployment rate in December 2000 (last full Clinton month) = 3.9%
c)In August 2001, the unemployment rate had already climbed to 4.9%, so throw the 09/11 excuse out the window
d)The unemployment rate average for Clinton's 2nd term was 4.4%
e)The unemployment rate in December 1992 (last full bush I month = 7.4%
f)The unemployment average for GWB's first term = 5.5%

Yes, the average 1990's unemployment rate was 5.8%. The bushits just don't like to mention how this was, so here is a breakdown year by year:
bush I
1990 = 5.62%
1991 = 6.85%
1992 = 7.49%
Clinton
1993 = 6.91%
1994 = 6.1%
1995 = 5.59%
1996 = 5.41%
1997 = 4.94%
1998 = 4.5%
1999 = 4.22%

Yep, the average sure was 5.8%, but who's fault was that?

By the way,
a)the average rate for 2000 (Clinton's last year) was 3.97%.
b)The average rate for Clinton's 8 years was 5.2%, after inheriting bush I's 7.4%. And the rate declined every year.
c)The average rate for bush I's 4 years was 6.31%, and the rate increased every year. (At least gwb is doing better than daddy, for what that's worth)
d)The U.S. bank report noted above states “The unemployment rate is expected to drift up toward 5.1% by the spring of 2007.”

Now who is trying to fool who?

[robeiae]

Now who is trying to fool who?I don't think the author of that piece has a clue, so I guess I would say he/she has actually fooled you.

But that's cool.

[Rainy Night]

I don't think the author of that piece has a clue, so I guess I would say he/she has actually fooled you.

But that's cool.

Now why would you say that... really, give me a reason why you don't think the author has a clue and why you think I've been fooled.

The Dow's hit 13000 and unemployment is at 4.6 and everything's great and it's all beacause of Bush. Whatever...

Later,
RN

[robeiae]

Now why would you say that... really, give me a reason why you don't think the author has a clue and why you think I've been fooled.

The Dow's hit 13000 and unemployment is at 4.6 and everything's great and it's all beacause of Bush. Whatever...

Later,
RNPerhaps you should read what I said, again:
Last time I checked, Congress was responsible for collecting and spending tax money.

Oh, wait--that means we can credit the newly elected Dem Congress for the stock market going up. Cool.

Really, this expectation of comparing current economic conditions to actions of the current denizens of the Oval Office is the cat's meow.
Did I credit Bush for anything? No.

*sigh*

[Joe270]

This bothers me, every since Bush got elected this backstabbing has reached all new levels. When he won re-election, it's gone into the stratosphere.

What worries me is the bush haters don't care if they burn the entire country down so long as bush takes the fall. No good news can go untarnished. None of this crap is good for our country.

The mob rules.

[SC Harrison]

This bothers me, every since Bush got elected this backstabbing has reached all new levels. When he won re-election, it's gone into the stratosphere.

What worries me is the bush haters don't care if they burn the entire country down so long as bush takes the fall. No good news can go untarnished. None of this crap is good for our country.

The mob rules.

It's part of the formula for success, Joe. Our country didn't become great by being forgiving of its leaders.

Presidents have been vilified by the opposition from the dawn of our Republic, and only a few have been well-loved by much more than half of the people, especially towards the end of their stay in office. Every silver lining has its cloud, right? ;)

[Joe270]

There ya go, SC, sounds about right.

Why does anyone want that job? Man, talk about a tough gig.

[Rolling Thunder]

This bothers me, every since Bush got elected this backstabbing has reached all new levels. When he won re-election, it's gone into the stratosphere.

What worries me is the bush haters don't care if they burn the entire country down so long as bush takes the fall. No good news can go untarnished. None of this crap is good for our country.

The mob rules.

Depends on the mob, too. The Dems said they would clean up Congress after they got control. Stop all those nasty lobbyists from buying Republicans.

They kept their word. Now the lobbyists are giving their money to the Democrats. :ROFL:

That will teach those meany Republicans. ;)

[SpookyWriter]

There ya go, SC, sounds about right.

Why does anyone want that job? Man, talk about a tough gig.Free booze and loose women?

[Joe270]

Spook, I'd much rather own a strip club, same benefits, less crap.

[SpookyWriter]

Spook, I'd much rather own a strip club, same benefits, less crap.Oh yeah, I almost forgot the downside. Good point. Carry on.

[maestrowork]

The dollar is the weakest in years. So everything is relative. While the DOW seems high, when you consider the weak dollar... it's not really as rosy as you think.

[Joe270]

Low dollar, ooooh, Vegas is cheap. Bring on the yen and pounds. They all come to sin city, and we take all demominations.

[oswann]

The dollar is the weakest in years. So everything is relative. While the DOW seems high, when you consider the weak dollar... it's not really as rosy as you think.

This depends what you are looking to do with your dollars. We have the strongest euro we've ever had and all is not rosy either.

Os.

[McDuff]

Absolute budget deficit numbers aren't nearly as informative as income:debt ratios and the like (debt service payments as a percentage of tax receipts have shrunk over the past four years, for example). Deficits aren't always bad, especially if they can stimulate economic growth. I think Bush could have focussed the deficit spending better, but I don't think he's smashed the economy by overspending. America has structural debt problems that are unrelated to the federal budget deficit.

And Joe270, I don't know where the bloody fuck you pulled your interpretation of my post from, but it wasn't from anything I wrote. "By McD's post" "Bush's" numbers are Nixon's, not Clinton's, but really the numbers are generated by all those people in the population of the USA busying themselves away and being all productive and shit, same as most other presidents. You can't really credit Bush with rescuing a failing economy after 9/11 because his economic policy was the same in October 2001 as it was in August 2001. Like I said, he hasn't wrecked it, but I'm struggling to think of anything he's done which you can point to and say "oh yeah, that's why the USA isn't in a recession right now, thank God for Bush!"

[Rolling Thunder]

No matter what happens in the next six months it will be a combination of the perfect bad economic storm. Housing has slumped from record highs but is really where it should be if speculators hadn't flooded the market. But it makes little difference, a glut is a glut and plenty of people are out of work. With gas likely to spike, inflation creeping higher, and the Fed ready to tighten credit, when the shift comes everyone on the middle rung down of the financial ladder is going to get whacked.

Bush and the Congress should both have a plan in place for this eventuality, working closely with the Fed. Either to avoid this slump or deal with it. But I think they're too busy sparring over Iraq to be focused enough on where we are heading. All it will take is that gas spike and consumer spending to drop off soundly.

They'll take notice then, but it will be too late.

[tourdeforce]

How is the unemployment rate calculated?

When someone's unemplyment benefits run out, are the till considered as unemployed?

When a former full-time staffer takes a part-time temp jump while they are looking to find a new 'real' job, are they still factored in to the unemployment number?

[SC Harrison]

No matter what happens in the next six months it will be a combination of the perfect bad economic storm. Housing has slumped from record highs but is really where it should be if speculators hadn't flooded the market. But it makes little difference, a glut is a glut and plenty of people are out of work. With gas likely to spike, inflation creeping higher, and the Fed ready to tighten credit, when the shift comes everyone on the middle rung down of the financial ladder is going to get whacked.



As far as the housing market is concerned, within the next few years a multitude of high-risk ARMs will be cycling up and forcing foreclosures. They've actually already started doing this, but I've seen some forecasts recently that say we've only seen a drop in the bucket compared to what's coming.

With all these empty houses on the market, new housing starts will collapse, impacting jobs, material usage, etc. It's not a pretty picture.

[McDuff]

Yeah, the long term problems with the US housing market aren't to do with speculators as much as with lenders taking on bad risks. And I don't think any of that can be blamed on Bush 53, or on Clinton or Bush 51 or Reagan. It's really somewhat outside the capacity of an individual president to deal with.

[Rolling Thunder]

Yeah, the long term problems with the US housing market aren't to do with speculators as much as with lenders taking on bad risks.

I do have to disagree with the first part of this, McDuff. We went through this same cycle in the late 80's/early 90's. Same deal then as now; market got hot, speculators pour in to make a quick profit, market folds, and the career people are left to wait it out. Now, much of this varies from region to region. Some areas are being hard hit while others are simply pinched. The thing is, during the hot market, land prices shoot up and stay put. This is due to speculation and land generally holds its value better than stocks. They won't unload land at bargain prices unless something else in the economy nudges those investors to do so.

I do agree with the second part though and we saw that as well during the prior boom. The change in bankruptcy laws will compound the issue, now that it is easier for lenders to take homes away. Gutting the 'homestead protection' portion of the law was a mistake. I looked at the newspaper last night and counted 15 pages of Sheriff Sales from bank foreclosures. A very nervous sight for my area, which averages 3 to 4 pages.

[billythrilly7th]

How is the unemployment rate calculated?



The same way it was calculated when Clinton was in office.

And today, the new unemployment numbers came out.

Dropped to 4.4!!

Holla!!

P.S. "Reagan proved that deficits don't matter."
Richard Cheney.

[billythrilly7th]

I'm just saying... personal experience... things were better under Clinton.

That's fine. Luckily history isn't judged and policy isn't made by random citizens' personal experience.

"Why are we fighting a war on terror? I didn't get hurt on 9/11. Everything seems fine to me."

So, you won't go on record with your SPECIFIC predictions of how the economy will get better if a democrat takes over the oval office I guess.

I don't blame you.

[Roger J Carlson]

I'm just saying... personal experience... things were better under Clinton.

http://www.newsandjava.com/Amelen-Clinton%20vs%20Bush-%20No%20Contest.htm
I was married in 1978. My household income and standard of living have increased every year since then, except for two.

In 1980, my wife was layed off to part-time and our income dropped in half (she made more money than me). Jimmy Carter was in office then. In 1997, I was layed off from my job and worked for a year at less than half my previous salary. Bill Clinton was in office in 1997.

Since GW Bush took office, my salary (both in terms of percentage and actual dollars) has increased at a greater rate than in any of the previous 22 years.

Therefore, by my personal experience, Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton were the worst two presidents in the last 29 years, while GW Bush is the greatest.

Ridiculous, isn't it?

[billythrilly7th]

Therefore, by my personal experience, Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton were the worst two presidents in the last 29 years, while GW Bush is the greatest.

Ridiculous, isn't it?

Yes.

Except for the Jimmy Carter being the worst part.
:)

[tourdeforce]

The same way it was calculated when Clinton was in office.


Are you sure?

Bush has been caught doing tricks with the numbers before.

[billythrilly7th]

Are you sure?

Bush has been caught doing tricks with the numbers before.

http://coastsider.com/images/uploads/humor/fuzzymath.jpg

[SC Harrison]

I do agree with the second part though and we saw that as well during the prior boom. The change in bankruptcy laws will compound the issue, now that it is easier for lenders to take homes away. Gutting the 'homestead protection' portion of the law was a mistake. I looked at the newspaper last night and counted 15 pages of Sheriff Sales from bank foreclosures. A very nervous sight for my area, which averages 3 to 4 pages.

There will be even more pages soon, I'm afraid. When the folks who can barely afford their $750 mortgage payment see it jump to $1,200 (or more), you'll start seeing entire neighborhoods of relatively new homes sitting empty.

I'm all for making home ownership a realizable dream, but these ARMs (and accompanying loan officers) are putting people into homes that are way out of their league. As far as I'm concerned, it's tantamount to fraud, and should be dealt with as such.

[oswann]

At what percentage do the offers exceed the demands?

Os.

[McDuff]

I do have to disagree with the first part of this, McDuff. We went through this same cycle in the late 80's/early 90's. Same deal then as now; market got hot, speculators pour in to make a quick profit, market folds, and the career people are left to wait it out. Now, much of this varies from region to region. Some areas are being hard hit while others are simply pinched. The thing is, during the hot market, land prices shoot up and stay put. This is due to speculation and land generally holds its value better than stocks. They won't unload land at bargain prices unless something else in the economy nudges those investors to do so.
I'm not sure you can blame speculators though, they're a response to the hot market, and, sure, it's a feedback loop but there's no crime in trying to make money. OTOH, the actions of lenders were unethical at best and may have created some serious long term problems. Whoever comes into the White House next is going to inherit this housing market downturn as well as the expensive war in Iraq. It's not going to be an easy term for the Democrats to hold.

[Rainy Night]

No matter what happens in the next six months it will be a combination of the perfect bad economic storm. Housing has slumped from record highs but is really where it should be if speculators hadn't flooded the market. But it makes little difference, a glut is a glut and plenty of people are out of work. With gas likely to spike, inflation creeping higher, and the Fed ready to tighten credit, when the shift comes everyone on the middle rung down of the financial ladder is going to get whacked.

Bush and the Congress should both have a plan in place for this eventuality, working closely with the Fed. Either to avoid this slump or deal with it. But I think they're too busy sparring over Iraq to be focused enough on where we are heading. All it will take is that gas spike and consumer spending to drop off soundly.

They'll take notice then, but it will be too late.

Well said...

[Rainy Night]

There will be even more pages soon, I'm afraid. When the folks who can barely afford their $750 mortgage payment see it jump to $1,200 (or more), you'll start seeing entire neighborhoods of relatively new homes sitting empty.

I'm all for making home ownership a realizable dream, but these ARMs (and accompanying loan officers) are putting people into homes that are way out of their league. As far as I'm concerned, it's tantamount to fraud, and should be dealt with as such.

It's the same for retirees on a fixed income. A lot of people saw the opportunity to re-fi, take some equity and get a lower payment.

[tourdeforce]

People do need to be responsible for the messes that they get themsleves into.

Read the contract.

Understand the terms.

Think about the downside.

And if you are not capable of doing so, get someone that you can trust to do it for you. Otherwise, don't get involved.

[Rainy Night]

How is the unemployment rate calculated?

When someone's unemplyment benefits run out, are the till considered as unemployed?

When a former full-time staffer takes a part-time temp jump while they are looking to find a new 'real' job, are they still factored in to the unemployment number?

No, it's based on a survey done by the census bureau.

[SC Harrison]

People do need to be responsible for the messes that they get themsleves into.

Read the contract.

Understand the terms.

Think about the downside.

And if you are not capable of doing so, get someone that you can trust to do it for you. Otherwise, don't get involved.

Normally I would agree with this, but in the case of mortgage loans, the lending agency is supposed to exercise greater than normal due diligence. If an applicant has a debt burden that will hinder them from making payments on the higher percentage end of an ARM, the loan is bad and should not be awarded.

Look, it's not just about personal consequences. This phenomena has an extraordinary impact on several areas, from collective property value shrinkage to the sales of home-related goods, from the loss of local tax revenues to the increase in individuals requiring Federal support, and the list goes on.

By being overly aggressive with these loans, lenders are jeopardizing more than just the finance and/or real estate sectors. I think there's some legislation in committee right now, but I will have to look for a link later.

[Roger J Carlson]

How is the unemployment rate calculated?

http://dli.state.mt.us/resources/howrate.asp

Here's an interesting bit:
Most economists agree that a rate around 4.5 percent constitutes full employment — the point at which the number of available jobs matches the number of people seeking work. If unemployment rates drop below the full employment level, a labor market may begin to experience labor shortages and upward pressure on wages.

[billythrilly7th]

My favorite unemployment tidbit has always been...

"The unemployment rate doesn't take into account people who have given up looking for a job."
Unemployment Rate Tidbit


"That's it for me!! Can't find one. I quit!!!"

"What do you mean? Keep looking"

"I'm done!!! I can't find one."

"So, what are you gonna do?"

":Shrug:"

"Be a bum?!!"

"Yes."

"Go on Monster.Com or Craiglist. There's jobs available. Maybe not the perfect job, but you can do something until the right thing comes a long."

"Ahhhh!!! I don't feel like it. Uncalculate me in the unemployment rate, because I'm done with working!!Take me out of the employment pool. I quit!"

[Rainy Night]

That's fine. Luckily history isn't judged and policy isn't made by random citizens' personal experience.

"Why are we fighting a war on terror? I didn't get hurt on 9/11. Everything seems fine to me."

So, you won't go on record with your SPECIFIC predictions of how the economy will get better if a democrat takes over the oval office I guess.

I don't blame you.

Just what exactly am I not being blamed for? I'm just curious.

I'm not going to make predictions of how the economy is going to get better. I just went on record as saying despite the fact that the Dow hit 13,000 the economy is not that great.

If you think we're fighting a war on terror you are wrong. If it was a war on terror we'd have been focusing our efforts on finding Osama as opposed to removing Sadam from Iraq. Besides I thought we were discussing the economy not the war???

History is judged, and policy is made by random citizens... it's called voting. When enough random citizens decide they don't like current policy they will change policy by voting in someone in office whose policies reflect their own.

[maestrowork]

Since GW Bush took office, my salary (both in terms of percentage and actual dollars) has increased at a greater rate than in any of the previous 22 years.

You must be the exception. From 2000-2004, IBM has laid off at least 20,000 professionals. I didn't have a raise for four years, and I wasn't even at the top of my pay scale. In fact, NO ONE had a raise, and you risked being laid off if you weren't on a project. IBM stocks were hovering at 83 for four years.

I had a friend who got laid off in 2002 and still couldn't find a job now -- he was too high-level. Nobody was willing to pay him what he made. He had to sell his house and move to Seattle, living in a small condo.

During Clinton's years, from 1994 to 2000, my salary more than doubled from $45K to six figure. Granted, I changed jobs but the point is that the job market was flourishing. I had my pick of 3 high level jobs in 1996. IBM's growth rate was at almost 30% and their stock split 3 times and settled at over 100.

It's been 10 years now, and IBM's stock is still around 100 (no split).

So, from MY personal experience, the last 5 years have flat at best.

[maestrowork]

The housing market is due for a correction and it's about time. Plus the bubble of the sub-prime market -- if you don't think that will burst some time soon, you're naive. But. Real estate and financial services are always a sound investment. It will pick up again. Once it "hits bottom" (who knows when) it's a good time to buy. It doesn't really matter who's in charge at the White House or Congress.

I think we need to be serious about our debts, deficits and social security/medicare issue. With the baby boomers nearing retirement, the rapid rise in healthcare costs, and SS/medicare approaching bankruptcy in the next couple of decades, it's a cause for concern.

It always amazed me to see the same rhetorical patterns, no matter if you're GOPs or Dems... when things are rosy at the market, it's "claim the credit" time as if it really had anything to do with the sitting president or even Congress... and then if things are bad, no one dares to claim responsibilities -- instead, it's always someone else's fault. It's really the same old political shit, and I don't really give a crap. People lack brains to think anymore.

[billythrilly7th]

Just what exactly am I not being blamed for? I'm just curious. .

You're not being blamed for not wanting to go on record with specifs as to exactly HOW once a democrat takes over the economy will be better.

You said it, not me.

So, how, specifically, for the record will the economy be better?

Let's just get it in writing.

What is it you want? More of a bull market? Even lower unemployment than 4.4?

Lower inflation than we have right now, which by all historical standards of measurement is fantastic?

Gas prices being high isn't a measure of the economy.
High deficits isn't a measure of the economy.

Those are things that can AFFECT an economy.

So far so good though.

So, please tell me what it is that you believe a democrat can and will improve on.

Thank you.

[billythrilly7th]

If you think we're fighting a war on terror you are wrong. If it was a war on terror we'd have been focusing our efforts on finding Osama as opposed to removing Sadam from Iraq. Besides I thought we were discussing the economy not the war???

Pfffh...we are...lol

Uh...it was an example of how ridiculous it is to say "I'm doing bad, so everything must be bad" or "I'm doing good, so everything must be good."

The example could have been anything from "I didn't get hurt on 9/11" to "My daughter can read, so the school systems must be good."

Maybe you just didn't get that to come back with the "we're not fighting a war on terror, Iraq bla bla bla"

I think that must be it.

In in the interest of staying on the economy topic I won't even mention how ridiculous "If you think we're fighting a war on terror, you are wrong" is.

[Roger J Carlson]

You must be the exception. From 2000-2004, IBM has laid off at least 20,000 professionals. I didn't have a raise for four years, and I wasn't even at the top of my pay scale. In fact, NO ONE had a raise, and you risked being laid off if you weren't on a project. IBM stocks were hovering at 83 for four years.

I had a friend who got laid off in 2002 and still couldn't find a job now -- he was too high-level. Nobody was willing to pay him what he made. He had to sell his house and move to Seattle, living in a small condo.

During Clinton's years, from 1994 to 2000, my salary more than doubled from $45K to six figure. Granted, I changed jobs but the point is that the job market was flourishing. I had my pick of 3 high level jobs in 1996. IBM's growth rate was at almost 30% and their stock split 3 times and settled at over 100.

It's been 10 years now, and IBM's stock is still around 100 (no split).

So, from MY personal experience, the last 5 years have flat at best.In the last 5 years, my employer (a hospital system in a single Midwest city) added 4000 employees and my Manufacturer's Life stock has quadrupled in price.

My point, of course, is that you can't judge the economy's health by individual experience -- not even large numbers of individuals -- because individuals go through downturns in the best economies and some people prosper in even the worst economies.

[billythrilly7th]

We're also fueling a worldwide boom!!!

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/column.aspx?UrlTitle=american_resilience_fuels_glo bal_prosperity&ns=DonaldLambro&dt=04/26/2007&page=1

The world is in the midst of an economic boom that is raising living standards, creating jobs and improving the quality of life for billions of people.

That's not the story or picture we see on the nightly news shows, where the world is torn by civil war, terrorism, death, destruction and unending poverty. There is certainly much of that, but there is another compelling story that needs telling, too, because it has a lot to do with our economy and future well-being.

The past week's wealth-creating run-up in the stock markets, where the Dow Jones industrial average was breaking records and nearing 13,000, is the latest manifestation of the Bush economy's continuing strength and resilience. But its strong performance was also the result, increasingly so, of the global economy's growth -- from which we benefit as a nation of merchants and exporters selling our goods and services to the world.
"The good news on U.S. jobs highlights a welcome global phenomenon. Unemployment rates have fallen to lows in Europe, Japan, China, India, Brazil and many other areas," Bear Stearns economist David Malpass wrote earlier this month in The Wall Street Journal.



"While the U.S. itself is less openly exuberant than in the 1990s, most of the world is much better off economically." But let's not sell the U.S. economy short. The unemployment rate has dropped to 4.4 percent, disproving gloomy forecasts it would rise. More of us are working at increased pay scales (the average hourly wage was up to $17.22), which has been the driving force behind the rise in consumer spending and increased investments.
The dark, almost hysterical predictions that the collapse of the subprime home mortgages along with the decline in the housing market generally would send the economy into a recession have not born out. And the global economy's growth, denied by economic nationalists and leftist ideologues who see it as an evil force of exploitation and poverty, is helping us weather our housing and construction downturn.


And American Idol raised over 30 million for poor people around the world and here at home last night.

Thank you.

[maestrowork]

I agree that personal experiences are not good indications of real economic strengths. Even individual corporate performances aren't.

I can only say that outsourcing is a big thing with big corporation now, and it's not been kind to US workers...

We have to look at all the factors and it's complicated -- that's why none of us are economists or Chairman of the Federal Reserve... ;) Many of us can only speak from personal experiences, unfortunately.

My own experience of the last 5 years wasn't really that great. I did okay in investments, just because I knew my way around the stock market. But as far as corporate life was concerned, it sucked, and I was glad I got out. And my parents have been squeezed from all sides as far as healthcare, medicare and social services are concerned, and things are just getting worse at least where they are...

[billythrilly7th]

We have to look at all the factors and it's complicated -- that's why none of us are economists or Chairman of the Federal Reserve... ;)

lol..That is true.

My PHD in economics was not from a reputable school.

[maestrowork]

In the last 5 years, my employer (a hospital system in a single Midwest city) added 4000 employees and my Manufacturer's Life stock has quadrupled in price.

Healthcare always grow... so you're in a really good sector to begin with...

[ChunkyC]

We're also fueling a worldwide boom!!!
Um -- according to the quote you posted, the US economy is getting better as a result of the worldwide economic boom, the US economy is not the cause of it:
But its strong performance was also the result, increasingly so, of the global economy's growth -- from which we benefit as a nation of merchants and exporters selling our goods and services to the world.
Just wanna make sure facts are facts here. :)

[maestrowork]

Toyota has just passed GM as the #1 automaker in the world. We'd better catch up.

But who would want to buy a GM car, anyway? :)

[billythrilly7th]

Um -- according to the quote you posted, the US economy is getting better as a result of the worldwide economic boom, the US economy is not the cause of it:

Just wanna make sure facts are facts here. :)

It's a symbiotic relationship.

The better we are, the better the world is.

The worse we are the worse the world is.

Quite the contrary, a worldwide economic revolution is fully under way, and America is its leader and one of its chief beneficiaries. "The global economy is adding more to jobs, output, literacy and government tax receipts than ever in its history," Malpass said.



And vice versa.

Thank you.

[Roger J Carlson]

Toyota has just passed GM as the #1 automaker in the world. We'd better catch up.

But who would want to buy a GM car, anyway? :)I love my Grand Prix.

[ChunkyC]

It's a symbiotic relationship.
Of course it's a symbiotic relationship. That was exactly my point. A strong world economy, according to what you quoted, is having a positive impact on America's economy.

America is an economic leader in the sense that America has the largest economy in the world (for the moment). That doesn't automatically mean that every little thing that occurs in the world is a direct result of America's influence. It works both ways. Sometimes things start elsewhere and end up having an impact on the US economy. Any economist worth his salt knows that.

[billythrilly7th]

Of course it's a symbiotic relationship. That was exactly my point. A strong world economy, according to what you quoted, is having a positive impact on America's economy.


Yes, but we're the reason in the first place that there's a strong world economy.

We had a good economy. The world got a good economy. We get a better economy.

We have a bad economy. The world has a bad economy. We get a worse economy.

Thank you.

[ChunkyC]

Yes, but we're the reason in the first place that there's a strong world economy.
That's the opposite of what that specific quote in your post said.

But whatever. Personally, I don't care if it was some kid's lemonade stand in Tanzania that sparked an upturn in the global economy. As long as my mortgage rate stays low, I'm happy. :)

[billythrilly7th]

That's the opposite of what that specific quote in your post said.

The past week's wealth-creating run-up in the stock markets, where the Dow Jones industrial average was breaking records and nearing 13,000, is the latest manifestation of the Bush economy's continuing strength and resilience. But its strong performance was also the result, increasingly so, of the global economy's growth -- from which we benefit as a nation of merchants and exporters selling our goods and services to the world.

So...uh...:Shrug:

Both.

We have a strong RESILIENT BUSH economy which is fueling a global boom which is helping to fuel the RESILIENT BUSH economy.

But yeah..what you say next...

But whatever. Personally, I don't care if it was some kid's lemonade stand in Tanzania that sparked an upturn in the global economy. As long as my mortgage rate stays low, I'm happy. :)

Yes.

Me too.

We started it. They started it. Whatever. I'm down. Put me down.The World Economy and the United States economy is booming!

Thank you.

Lock thread.

[ChunkyC]

I agree, this is getting us nowhere.

[SpookyWriter]

No, but it is entertaining. Carry on folks.

[Rainy Night]

I gave up on this thread, I realized mine is a no win position. If the economy fails after the election then it’s the fault of the new regime, if the economy flourishes then it’s going to be Bush’s legacy.

My original point was and still is based on personal experience that it’s not so good right now, but what do I know I’m just a random citizen the flies below the republican radar.

I have a positive out look for the future, I’m confident things will get better.
Lock thread.

For once I agree...

[SC Harrison]

We have a strong RESILIENT BUSH economy which is fueling a global boom which is helping to fuel the RESILIENT BUSH economy.



Don't take this the wrong way, but...I wouldn't get so excited over what you read in an oped piece. I'm not saying Lambro is totally off-base, but he does love Bush quite a bit; enough so that he compares him to Abraham Lincoln in another article:

If President Bush's decision to send 21,500 troops to Iraq tells us anything about him, it is this: He isn't someone who bases his policies on the polls or the results of the last election.

He is acting on his deepest conviction that, as he said in his address to the nation, we are engaged in "the decisive ideological struggle of our time" against Islamic extremists who have declared war against the West and the United States, in particular.

Abraham Lincoln, beset by a series of defeats and setbacks in the Civil War, told the nation "we must think anew so that we may act anew." Bush, facing a long guerrilla war that his new secretary of defense said we are losing, essentially told Americans that failure was not an option and that we must readjust our military strategy so that "We can and we will prevail."

You'll have to pardon me if I don't swallow all of his assertions on the state of the economy and/or what's driving it.

[billythrilly7th]

You'll have to pardon me if I don't swallow all of his assertions on the state of the economy and/or what's driving it.

"I pardon you."

[Rainy Night]

So, please tell me what it is that you believe a democrat can and will improve on.

Thank you.

One last thing... during the Clinton years the Yankees won 4 World Series titles... since Bush took office, none...

My prediction... when the democrats are back in office you'll see the Yankees win a World Series again.

Write it down, I've gone on record.

[billythrilly7th]

One last thing... during the Clinton years the Yankees won 4 World Series titles... since Bush took office, none...

My prediction... when the democrats are back in office you'll see the Yankees win a World Series again.

Write it down, I've gone on record.

Well, thank god.

This prediction is more important to me that anything I could have hoped from you.

Thank you.

I pray you are right. If I have to muddle through the misery of a democratic administration the least I can do is be happy in October.

[SC Harrison]

"I pardon you."

If you ever do get elected President, I hope you don't look back at this and say, "Sorry, Steve. I already pardoned you once and you blew it, so you'll have to do the whole nickel."

[billythrilly7th]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070502/ap_on_bi_st_ma_re/wall_street

13,200!!

Stocks jumped Wednesday, sending the Dow Jones industrials past 13,200 for the first time after a strong reading on U.S. factory orders stoked investor optimism about the economy. The Dow gained more than 75 points and secured its second straight record close.
if(window.yzq_d==null)window.yzq_d=new Object();window.yzq_d['zHxvC9GDJGI-']='&U=13b63s5e3%2fN%3dzHxvC9GDJGI-%2fC%3d590248.10559548.11219210.2577455%2fD%3dLREC %2fB%3d4543881';http://us.bc.yahoo.com/b?P=vPiQ_kWTVvorYyfqRjgLOAHTjZYrA0Y5F5YAAJRU&T=1e4dt0dje%2fX%3d1178146710%2fE%3d8903535%2fR%3dn ews%2fK%3d5%2fV%3d2.1%2fW%3dH%2fY%3dYAHOO%2fF%3d40 79543359%2fH%3dY2FjaGVoaW50PSJuZXdzIiBjb250ZW50PSJ idXNpbmVzcztnaXZlO21lcmdlcjtpbnZlc3RtZW50O3RyYWRpb mc7c3RvY2s7UG9vcjtpdDtOYXNkYXE7ZGF0YTtkb2xsYXI7Y3V ycmVuY2llcztjcnVkZTtnb3Zlcm5tZW50O21vdmllO1N0b2NrI EV4Y2hhbmdlO05hc2RhcSBTdG9jaztyZWZ1cmxfd3d3X3lhaG9 vX2NvbSIgcmVmdXJsPSJyZWZ1cmxfd3d3X3lhaG9vX2NvbSIgd G9waWNzPSJyZWZ1cmxfd3d3X3lhaG9vX2NvbSI-%2fQ%3d-1%2fS%3d1%2fJ%3dE7519345&U=13b63s5e3%2fN%3dzHxvC9GDJGI-%2fC%3d590248.10559548.11219210.2577455%2fD%3dLREC %2fB%3d4543881
They said orders to U.S. factories rose 3.1 percent in March — the largest increase in a year — amid strong demand for commercial aircraft and a sharp rise in an indicator of how much companies are investing in their business. The increase easily outpaced the 2 percent rise analysts had been expecting.


Congrats stock holders and Americans.

[maestrowork]

Actually if we look at the Dow Jones chart since 2000, you would notice that the % rise is rather mild this year. 2004 and 2005 were pretty much flat. The standout year was 2003, in which it went from 8000 to 11000 in fewer than 10 months, which was a 37% jump. But if we look back, 2003 wasn't a strong economic year. If you look at the long-term trend, the only reason we had that 37% rise in 2003 was that we had a recession in 2001-2002 that brought the Dow from 11000 down to 8000, so in essence, 2003 was just a "come back" to where it was in 2001. Where am I going with this? Oh yeah, yes, we're at an all time high but I don't think it's clear indication that things are peachy...

Look at the chart again. The Dow only rose ~2500 points (or 20%) between 2000 and 2007. Even if we forget about 2000-2002 and only look at 2003-2007, it's only a 50% increase -- a far cry from the two decades prior (when the Dow doubled from 88 to 94, then tripled from 94 to 2000). Compare that to the six years prior (1994-2000): from 4000 to 11000! That's almost triple! So how come we weren't singing praise to Clinton and yet we're talking about the Bush economy?

So emotions and sentimentality are great. Long Live King George. But if you look at the data, the Emperor really has no clothes.

http://i38.photobucket.com/albums/e138/maestrowork/Screenshot_16.png

[oswann]

Has anyone mentioned the 1.3% economic growth in the past quarter?

http://money.cnn.com/2007/04/27/news/economy/gdp/index.htm (http://http://money.cnn.com/2007/04/27/news/economy/gdp/index.htm)

Os.

[robeiae]

So how come we weren't singing praise to Clinton and yet we're talking about the Bush economy?Ray, that's silly. The "Clinton Economy" was being praised on a daily basis. And ever since Bush became President, people have been bringing it up as a point of comparison, just as you are doing, here.

So emotions and sentimentality are great. Long Live King George. But if you look at the data, the Emperor really has no clothes.

Setting aside the fact that it's beyond silly to saddle Presidents with the primary credit/blame for the economy, if you were really going to try to do that, for some unknown reason, you'd have to factor in some kind of recognition for a business cycle, as well as a lag-time for economic policies. I'm not sure we know with certainty who is dressed and who is not.

[tourdeforce]

Economics, schmeconomics. Are the trains running on time?

[billythrilly7th]

So how come we weren't singing praise to Clinton and yet we're talking about the Bush economy?

Uh, that's very close to the most ridiculous thing you've ever said.

"Ray, that's silly. The "Clinton Economy" was being praised on a daily basis."
Robieae
5/2/07

'Nuff said.

[maestrowork]

Ray, that's silly. The "Clinton Economy" was being praised on a daily basis. And ever since Bush became President, people have been bringing it up as a point of comparison, just as you are doing, here.


Setting aside the fact that it's beyond silly to saddle Presidents with the primary credit/blame for the economy, if you were really going to try to do that, for some unknown reason, you'd have to factor in some kind of recognition for a business cycle, as well as a lag-time for economic policies. I'm not sure we know with certainty who is dressed and who is not.

Rob, we've had this discussion in the past. So no, I agree that it's silly to saddle Presidents with the primary credit/blame for the economy. I also understand that it takes years for any economic policies to take hold and produce results. I was only bringing up Clinton to make a point, which is to address Mr. Trilly and his likes: no, the Dow's 13000, considering the business cycles, weak sectors, unemployment rate, and the weak dollar, is not all that grand and it's not about G W Bush. Or any president in particular.

We see that all the time. When times are bad: "It really has nothing to do with the President" (or from the opposite camp: "It's all President X's fault") but when times are good: "President X does a great job!" That annoys me. But people want simplicity, and the economy is the easiest thing to assign blame or credit when a President's job performance is concerned. All the other things such as foreign policies, budgets, etc. are too complicated for most people to understand.

But thank goodness we don't have a bear market. That is something to be happy about, regardless to whom we want to give credits.

[Rainy Night]

http://money.cnn.com/2007/04/25/markets/markets_nyopen/index.htm?cnn=yes

The stock market and the economy continue to boom!!

Congrats to the stock holders on this amazing milestone.

Measuring by all historical standards..... Kudos, President Bush on the booming economy. You take your punches on the Iraq war. But you get your praise when praise is due. Keep up the good work on the economy.



And even the new jobs being created in the employment sector are not just crappy ones.

It's all good in da hood.
:)

What happened Billy?

Jezzuz what a difference 18 months can make.

[MattW]

Billy jinxed it by bringing attention to it.

[Bartholomew]

I vote we move it, instead of locking it.

[Dawno]

All threads in this forum were supposed to be locked - must be a db glitch.

Locking this one now.