Something doesn't seem right about today's jobs number.....

SFNit

Well-Known Member
Oct 7, 2008
6,312
1,714
1
The jobs number in December was probably increased due to the warm weather, just the winter jobs growth the last two years was diminished due to cold weather.

One analyst put the increase at 97,000 extra jobs.

http://www.calculatedriskblog.com/2016/01/merrill-warm-weather-added-nearly.html

Of course, that doesn't explain why the economy added 300,000 jobs in October. Maybe things are actually going pretty well![/QUOTE]


What "things" are you referring to?

Given the expected lackluster 4th Quarter corporate earnings reports and the economic forecasts for growth in 2016, one would think businesses wouldn't be in a hiring mode, let alone hiring at relatively high levels....
 
Last edited:

CDW3333

Well-Known Member
Mar 10, 2010
13,178
3,533
1
1,100 DOW points and a 9.9% U6 unemployment rate disagree with you.
The U6 rate was at or above 9% for 57 of George Bush's 96 months in office and I'm sure you were bemoaning that situation.

Actually, I'm pretty sure you weren't.

U6 was at 7.3 when Bush took office and 14.2 when he left.

U6 was at 14.2 when Obama took office and 9.9 now.

The Dow was at about 8000 when Obama took office it is now over 16,000.

The Dow was at about 10,000 when Bush took office and was at about 8,000 when he left.

Do you see the difference between Republican economic policies and Democratic economic policies?

http://portalseven.com/employment/unemployment_rate_u6.jsp

https://finance.yahoo.com/q/hp?s=^DJI&a=00&b=29&c=2001&d=00&e=9&f=2016&g=m&z=66&y=132
 

m.knox

Well-Known Member
Gold Member
Aug 20, 2003
104,851
58,284
1
The U6 rate was at or above 9% for 57 of George Bush's 96 months in office and I'm sure you were bemoaning that situation.

Actually, I'm pretty sure you weren't.

U6 was at 7.3 when Bush took office and 14.2 when he left.

U6 was at 14.2 when Obama took office and 9.9 now.

The Dow was at about 8000 when Obama took office it is now over 16,000.

The Dow was at about 10,000 when Bush took office and was at about 8,000 when he left.

Do you see the difference between Republican economic policies and Democratic economic policies?

http://portalseven.com/employment/unemployment_rate_u6.jsp

https://finance.yahoo.com/q/hp?s=^DJI&a=00&b=29&c=2001&d=00&e=9&f=2016&g=m&z=66&y=132

You were laughing when you typed this, correct? Even I can't be that disingenuous lol... Then again, you are a lawyer and a democrat.

Democratic policy = Barney Frank = safety and soundness of Fannie and Freddie are not an issue........ Everyone must own a house..... So much so that the government will buy mortgages from private banks so they can lend more....... That ended well... lmfao.

C'mon Chaz.........
 

SFNit

Well-Known Member
Oct 7, 2008
6,312
1,714
1
The U6 rate was at or above 9% for 57 of George Bush's 96 months in office and I'm sure you were bemoaning that situation.

Actually, I'm pretty sure you weren't.

U6 was at 7.3 when Bush took office and 14.2 when he left.

U6 was at 14.2 when Obama took office and 9.9 now.

The Dow was at about 8000 when Obama took office it is now over 16,000.

The Dow was at about 10,000 when Bush took office and was at about 8,000 when he left.

Do you see the difference between Republican economic policies and Democratic economic policies?

http://portalseven.com/employment/unemployment_rate_u6.jsp

https://finance.yahoo.com/q/hp?s=^DJI&a=00&b=29&c=2001&d=00&e=9&f=2016&g=m&z=66&y=132
Ummmm....we've been through all of this before....I am not interested in rehashing all of that. Why is it you revert to the "but GWB was worse" position in every discussion?

We were discussing how the recent employment numbers may or may not make sense. The economy has been at or near stall speed for a prolonged period and virtually all economic forecasts are for more of the same (if not worse). Yet, these employment figures seem to indicate job growth. Simple question, how does one reconcile this? If you're going to the "George Bush did it" BS, just forget it, we were trying to have a intelligent conversation here.
 
  • Like
Reactions: m.knox

thecoolestfish

Well-Known Member
Nov 1, 2005
39,417
1,322
1
+292,000 in private sector jobs?......anyone seeing any evidence of that in the economy?

Maybe Perez used one of Catch's spreadsheets to tally the numbers this month?....

Not that I'm accusing this Regime of misrepresenting economic data.....

Huh? Sounds about dead on to me. Do you think it sounds too high or low? Country has been steadily creating jobs for years now, and the feds even started raising rates. Unlike 6 years ago, I don't know anyone without a job. I the past 6 months, I've pumped about $100k myself into the economy investing in property.

Take your partisan glasses off and open your eyes.
 

CDW3333

Well-Known Member
Mar 10, 2010
13,178
3,533
1
You were laughing when you typed this, correct? Even I can't be that disingenuous lol... Then again, you are a lawyer and a democrat.

Democratic policy = Barney Frank = safety and soundness of Fannie and Freddie are not an issue........ Everyone must own a house..... So much so that the government will buy mortgages from private banks so they can lend more....... That ended well... lmfao.

C'mon Chaz.........
Here we go again. Republicans will never accept responsibility for their errors (it wasn't George W. Bush, the most powerful man on the planet who caused the economic meltdown but a gay guy in the House) and because they never accept responsibility they can never be trusted with power.

It's like Trump and his bankruptcies. It's never his fault. Somebody else is always to blame.
 

SFNit

Well-Known Member
Oct 7, 2008
6,312
1,714
1
Here we go again. Republicans will never accept responsibility for their errors (it wasn't George W. Bush, the most powerful man on the planet who caused the economic meltdown but a gay guy in the House) and because they never accept responsibility they can never be trusted with power.

It's like Trump and his bankruptcies. It's never his fault. Somebody else is always to blame.
That about says it all. You know even less about economics than you do about politics......but keep it up, girl........your lib friends need their fix of stupidity for the day.....
 

m.knox

Well-Known Member
Gold Member
Aug 20, 2003
104,851
58,284
1
Here we go again. Republicans will never accept responsibility for their errors (it wasn't George W. Bush, the most powerful man on the planet who caused the economic meltdown but a gay guy in the House) and because they never accept responsibility they can never be trusted with power.

It's like Trump and his bankruptcies. It's never his fault. Somebody else is always to blame.

No.. you miss (again - imagine that?). It was government policy that caused the meltdown. Government policy that democrats defended with extreme passion (hence the Barney Frank reference). If the government doesn't buy mortgages from private banks, the meltdown never happens. Certainly you are objective enough to agree to that?
 

bdgan

Well-Known Member
May 29, 2008
60,327
36,237
1
The U6 rate was at or above 9% for 57 of George Bush's 96 months in office and I'm sure you were bemoaning that situation.

Actually, I'm pretty sure you weren't.

U6 was at 7.3 when Bush took office and 14.2 when he left.

U6 was at 14.2 when Obama took office and 9.9 now.

The Dow was at about 8000 when Obama took office it is now over 16,000.

The Dow was at about 10,000 when Bush took office and was at about 8,000 when he left.

Do you see the difference between Republican economic policies and Democratic economic policies?

http://portalseven.com/employment/unemployment_rate_u6.jsp

https://finance.yahoo.com/q/hp?s=^DJI&a=00&b=29&c=2001&d=00&e=9&f=2016&g=m&z=66&y=132

Liberal math at it's finest. I know, the economy was losing 800,000 jobs per month when Obama took office. Libs take that to mean we would have lost 67 million jobs by now if not for Obama. Really? It's amazing how you lemmings like to measure and extrapolate from the bottom.

The U6 numbers are not good. They weren't too good under Bush either but on average they were better (just like median family incomes). The stock market is a forward indicator and right now it's not too optimistic. We'll see.
 

thecoolestfish

Well-Known Member
Nov 1, 2005
39,417
1,322
1
That about says it all. You know even less about economics than you do about politics......but keep it up, girl........your lib friends need their fix of stupidity for the day.....

Well, YOU are the one who started a thread asking the board to help you understand/accept some economic data/info that is perfectly clear and sensible to anyone with objectivity and at least 1/4 a brain.
 
  • Like
Reactions: NJPSU

CDW3333

Well-Known Member
Mar 10, 2010
13,178
3,533
1
Liberal math at it's finest. I know, the economy was losing 800,000 jobs per month when Obama took office. Libs take that to mean we would have lost 67 million jobs by now if not for Obama. Really? It's amazing how you lemmings like to measure and extrapolate from the bottom.

The U6 numbers are not good. They weren't too good under Bush either but on average they were better (just like median family incomes). The stock market is a forward indicator and right now it's not too optimistic. We'll see.
Historically, "good" U6 is about 8%. Two years ago it was 12.7%. Now it's 9.9. By the middle of Hillary Clinton's first year in office it will be back to "good" and you will have to find something else to complain about.
 

bdgan

Well-Known Member
May 29, 2008
60,327
36,237
1
Historically, "good" U6 is about 8%. Two years ago it was 12.7%. Now it's 9.9. By the middle of Hillary Clinton's first year in office it will be back to "good" and you will have to find something else to complain about.

Go ahead and tell yourself that these are good times for employees. But don't you find it peculiar that median family incomes are lower than they were 7 years ago? Don't you find it peculiar that a majority of Americans think the country is headed in the wrong direction?

And here's the ironic part of the story. Hillary will not get elected if the stock market doesn't stabilize. She's going to need the rich to get richer.
 

CDW3333

Well-Known Member
Mar 10, 2010
13,178
3,533
1
Go ahead and tell yourself that these are good times for employees. But don't you find it peculiar that median family incomes are lower than they were 7 years ago? Don't you find it peculiar that a majority of Americans think the country is headed in the wrong direction?

And here's the ironic part of the story. Hillary will not get elected if the stock market doesn't stabilize. She's going to need the rich to get richer.
Median family income isn't the proper measure of income inequality as you get the two-earner effect. More women have joined the labor force but that doesn't mean earnings have increased, just that more families have more than one earner. I've explained this to you before but you have shown yourself to be impervious to learning.

The proper measure is average hourly earnings and it peaked more than forty years ago. The big losses came during the Reagan/Bush I years.

But Obama being the magic Negro (as Rush calls him) used his time travel skills to keep earnings low this whole time. Blaming Obama for something that is a long-term problem is common among wingnuts.

Incidentally, this chart is through October 2014. The recently released BLS report shows average earnings at $21.22 an hour and are higher now than any time since the late 70s. http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tan...rs-real-wages-have-barely-budged-for-decades/

Wage_stagnation.png
 

crazyivan77

Well-Known Member
Dec 7, 2007
12,923
14,786
1
Median family income isn't the proper measure of income inequality as you get the two-earner effect. More women have joined the labor force but that doesn't mean earnings have increased, just that more families have more than one earner. I've explained this to you before but you have shown yourself to be impervious to learning.

The proper measure is average hourly earnings and it peaked more than forty years ago. The big losses came during the Reagan/Bush I years.

But Obama being the magic Negro (as Rush calls him) used his time travel skills to keep earnings low this whole time. Blaming Obama for something that is a long-term problem is common among wingnuts.

Incidentally, this chart is through October 2014. The recently released BLS report shows average earnings at $21.22 an hour and are higher now than any time since the late 70s. http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tan...rs-real-wages-have-barely-budged-for-decades/

Wage_stagnation.png

Funny you bring up income inequality and women. The NYT had an interesting article last month on how the rise of women is the real difference maker for income inequality over the last 30 years. Successful women don't marry unsuccessful men. Hence, the creation of power couples and "assortive mating" has placed more pressure to "marry well" and had concentrated wealth.....it's not a product of tax policy- rather it's a success of the upward mobility of the middle class over the last 2 generations, women earning more money, and waiting later to get married. Dems now want to punish success, rather than using it as a model of how you mobilize people out of poverty.

As to the average hourly wage issue- it's equally as useless as the unemployment rate due to the explosion of the cash-based underground economy, now valued at $2 trillion- doubling under Obama. That's alotta lost tax revenue- caused mostly by policies that force business underground (Obamacare, perpetual government benefits, illegal workers, etc).

http://www.cnbc.com/id/100668336
 

CDW3333

Well-Known Member
Mar 10, 2010
13,178
3,533
1
Funny you bring up income inequality and women. The NYT had an interesting article last month on how the rise of women is the real difference maker for income inequality over the last 30 years. Successful women don't marry unsuccessful men. Hence, the creation of power couples and "assortive mating" has placed more pressure to "marry well" and had concentrated wealth.....it's not a product of tax policy- rather it's a success of the upward mobility of the middle class over the last 2 generations, women earning more money, and waiting later to get married. Dems now want to punish success, rather than using it as a model of how you mobilize people out of poverty.

As to the average hourly wage issue- it's equally as useless as the unemployment rate due to the explosion of the cash-based underground economy, now valued at $2 trillion- doubling under Obama. That's alotta lost tax revenue- caused mostly by policies that force business underground (Obamacare, perpetual government benefits, illegal workers, etc).

http://www.cnbc.com/id/100668336
I remember reading about the underground economy in the early Eighties, during the Reagan mega-recession, to explain why incomes were falling even though productivity was rising. It's a perennial favorite of the right wing. Those people aren't poor! They're just not reporting their incomes!!

It's stupid, but stupid right-wing ideas never die, they just get recycled over and over.

As for the rich marrying each other, that's always been the case. Used to be the smart guy would marry the boss's daughter. Now the boss's daughter has money in her right.

Nothing's changed.
 

crazyivan77

Well-Known Member
Dec 7, 2007
12,923
14,786
1
I remember reading about the underground economy in the early Eighties, during the Reagan mega-recession, to explain why incomes were falling even though productivity was rising. It's a perennial favorite of the right wing. Those people aren't poor! They're just not reporting their incomes!!

It's stupid, but stupid right-wing ideas never die, they just get recycled over and over.

As for the rich marrying each other, that's always been the case. Used to be the smart guy would marry the boss's daughter. Now the boss's daughter has money in her right.

Nothing's changed.

The boss used to marry the secretary. The doctor the nurse. The lawyer the stripper. Now it's 2 physician families. 2 lawyers. 2 stockbrokers. If you don't realize this your dumb, blind, or both. It's concentrated wealth, and the ultra-"right-wing" NYT agrees.

The other ultra-"right wing" CNBC reported a doubling of the underground economy under Barry. Not Reagan voters.

Are you this obtuse with your clients? They pay for this?
 

m.knox

Well-Known Member
Gold Member
Aug 20, 2003
104,851
58,284
1
The boss used to marry the secretary. The doctor the nurse. The lawyer the stripper. Now it's 2 physician families. 2 lawyers. 2 stockbrokers. If you don't realize this your dumb, blind, or both. It's concentrated wealth, and the ultra-"right-wing" NYT agrees.

The other ultra-"right wing" CNBC reported a doubling of the underground economy under Barry. Not Reagan voters.

Are you this obtuse with your clients? They pay for this?

He is indeed obtuse. He can't even acknowledge that if the government didn't buy mortgages from private banks the meltdown would never have happened.......

I do have to laugh though. SFNit nailed him, and he tries it again on you, but with Reagan this time.....

Why is it you revert to the "but GWB was worse" position in every discussion?

All why saying that rightwing ideas never die (like tax the rich, confiscate a family's wealth after death, increase corporate taxes, redistribute other peoples money..... never die to the left?). It's rich.
 

CDW3333

Well-Known Member
Mar 10, 2010
13,178
3,533
1
Time for a little harsh truth to enter Knoxxy's world:

"Eight years after arriving in Washington vowing to spread the dream of home ownership, Bush is leaving office, as he himself said recently, "faced with the prospect of a global meltdown" with roots in the housing sector he so ardently championed.

There are plenty of culprits, like lenders who peddled easy credit, consumers who took on mortgages they could not afford and Wall Street chieftains who loaded up on mortgage-backed securities without regard to the risk.

But the story of how the United States got here is partly one of Bush's own making, according to a review of his tenure that included interviews with dozens of current and former administration officials.

From his earliest days in office, Bush paired his belief that Americans do best when they own their own homes with his conviction that markets do best when left alone. Bush pushed hard to expand home ownership, especially among minority groups, an initiative that dovetailed with both his ambition to expand Republican appeal and the business interests of some of his biggest donors. But his housing policies and hands-off approach to regulation encouraged lax lending standards.

Bush did foresee the danger posed by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the government-sponsored mortgage finance giants. The president spent years pushing a recalcitrant Congress to toughen regulation of the companies, but was unwilling to compromise when his former Treasury secretary wanted to cut a deal. And the regulator Bush chose to oversee them - an old school buddy - pronounced the companies sound even as they headed toward insolvency.

******
Looking back, Keith Hennessey, Bush's current chief economic adviser, said he and his colleagues had done the best they could "with the information we had at the time." But Hennessey did say he regretted that the administration had not paid more heed to the dangers of easy lending practices.

And both Paulson and his predecessor, John Snow, say the housing push went too far.

"The Bush administration took a lot of pride that home ownership had reached historic highs," Snow said during an interview. "But what we forgot in the process was that it has to be done in the context of people being able to afford their house. We now realize there was a high cost."

*******

But for much of Bush's tenure, government statistics show, incomes for most families remained relatively stagnant while housing prices skyrocketed. That put home ownership increasingly out of reach for first-time buyers like West.

So Bush had to, in his words, "use the mighty muscle of the federal government" to meet his goal. He proposed affordable housing tax incentives. He insisted that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac meet ambitious new goals for low-income lending.

Concerned that down payments were a barrier, Bush persuaded Congress to spend as much as $200 million a year to help first-time buyers with down payments and closing costs.

And he pushed to allow first-time buyers to qualify for government insured mortgages with no money down. Republican congressional leaders and some housing advocates balked, arguing that homeowners with no stake in their investments would be more prone to walk away, as West did. Many economic experts, including some in the White House, now share that view.

The president also leaned on mortgage brokers and lenders to devise their own innovations. "Corporate America," he said, "has a responsibility to work to make America a compassionate place."

And corporate America, eyeing a lucrative market, delivered in ways Bush might not have expected, with a proliferation of too-good-to-be-true teaser rates and interest-only loans that were sold to investors in a loosely regulated environment. But Bush populated the financial system's alphabet soup of oversight agencies with people who, like him, wanted fewer rules, not more.

The president's first chairman of the Securities and Exchange Commission promised a "kinder, gentler" agency. The second was pushed out amid industry complaints that he was too aggressive. Under its current leader, the agency failed to police the catastrophic decisions that toppled the investment bank Bear Stearns and contributed to the current crisis, according to a recent inspector general's report.

As for Bush's banking regulators, they once brandished a chain saw over a 9,000-page pile of regulations as they promised to ease burdens on the industry. When states tried to use consumer protection laws to crack down on predatory lending, the comptroller of the currency blocked the effort, asserting that states had no authority over national banks."

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/21/business/worldbusiness/21iht-admin.4.18853088.html
 

m.knox

Well-Known Member
Gold Member
Aug 20, 2003
104,851
58,284
1
Time for a little harsh truth to enter Knoxxy's world:

"Eight years after arriving in Washington vowing to spread the dream of home ownership, Bush is leaving office, as he himself said recently, "faced with the prospect of a global meltdown" with roots in the housing sector he so ardently championed.

There are plenty of culprits, like lenders who peddled easy credit, consumers who took on mortgages they could not afford and Wall Street chieftains who loaded up on mortgage-backed securities without regard to the risk.

But the story of how the United States got here is partly one of Bush's own making, according to a review of his tenure that included interviews with dozens of current and former administration officials.

From his earliest days in office, Bush paired his belief that Americans do best when they own their own homes with his conviction that markets do best when left alone. Bush pushed hard to expand home ownership, especially among minority groups, an initiative that dovetailed with both his ambition to expand Republican appeal and the business interests of some of his biggest donors. But his housing policies and hands-off approach to regulation encouraged lax lending standards.

Bush did foresee the danger posed by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the government-sponsored mortgage finance giants. The president spent years pushing a recalcitrant Congress to toughen regulation of the companies, but was unwilling to compromise when his former Treasury secretary wanted to cut a deal. And the regulator Bush chose to oversee them - an old school buddy - pronounced the companies sound even as they headed toward insolvency.

******
Looking back, Keith Hennessey, Bush's current chief economic adviser, said he and his colleagues had done the best they could "with the information we had at the time." But Hennessey did say he regretted that the administration had not paid more heed to the dangers of easy lending practices.

And both Paulson and his predecessor, John Snow, say the housing push went too far.

"The Bush administration took a lot of pride that home ownership had reached historic highs," Snow said during an interview. "But what we forgot in the process was that it has to be done in the context of people being able to afford their house. We now realize there was a high cost."

*******

But for much of Bush's tenure, government statistics show, incomes for most families remained relatively stagnant while housing prices skyrocketed. That put home ownership increasingly out of reach for first-time buyers like West.

So Bush had to, in his words, "use the mighty muscle of the federal government" to meet his goal. He proposed affordable housing tax incentives. He insisted that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac meet ambitious new goals for low-income lending.

Concerned that down payments were a barrier, Bush persuaded Congress to spend as much as $200 million a year to help first-time buyers with down payments and closing costs.

And he pushed to allow first-time buyers to qualify for government insured mortgages with no money down. Republican congressional leaders and some housing advocates balked, arguing that homeowners with no stake in their investments would be more prone to walk away, as West did. Many economic experts, including some in the White House, now share that view.

The president also leaned on mortgage brokers and lenders to devise their own innovations. "Corporate America," he said, "has a responsibility to work to make America a compassionate place."

And corporate America, eyeing a lucrative market, delivered in ways Bush might not have expected, with a proliferation of too-good-to-be-true teaser rates and interest-only loans that were sold to investors in a loosely regulated environment. But Bush populated the financial system's alphabet soup of oversight agencies with people who, like him, wanted fewer rules, not more.

The president's first chairman of the Securities and Exchange Commission promised a "kinder, gentler" agency. The second was pushed out amid industry complaints that he was too aggressive. Under its current leader, the agency failed to police the catastrophic decisions that toppled the investment bank Bear Stearns and contributed to the current crisis, according to a recent inspector general's report.

As for Bush's banking regulators, they once brandished a chain saw over a 9,000-page pile of regulations as they promised to ease burdens on the industry. When states tried to use consumer protection laws to crack down on predatory lending, the comptroller of the currency blocked the effort, asserting that states had no authority over national banks."

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/21/business/worldbusiness/21iht-admin.4.18853088.html

Focus Chas. That's different from deflection. If the government (you see that's a key word here) didn't purchase the loans from private banks as a matter of government policy, would there have been a meltdown?

It's yes or no. What do you think? Are you focused enough to answer? I will give you a hint. Because I'm a nice guy. The "government" is composed of democrats and republicans (aka politicians).

And let me ask you this. How long was the government buying mortgages from private banks? Just Bush's 8 years?

You are desperate, and it is amusing.

Yes, Chas, we need more government... to be the arbiter of fairness and social justice........ and to phuck us with meltdowns......
 

CDW3333

Well-Known Member
Mar 10, 2010
13,178
3,533
1
Focus Chas. That's different from deflection. If the government (you see that's a key word here) didn't purchase the loans from private banks as a matter of government policy, would there have been a meltdown?

It's yes or no. What do you think? Are you focused enough to answer? I will give you a hint. Because I'm a nice guy. The "government" is composed of democrats and republicans (aka politicians).

And let me ask you this. How long was the government buying mortgages from private banks? Just Bush's 8 years?

You are desperate, and it is amusing.

Yes, Chas, we need more government... to be the arbiter of fairness and social justice........ and to phuck us with meltdowns......
Want to try that again in English?
 

indynittany

Well-Known Member
Feb 21, 2005
5,552
6,627
1
News flash! Politicians, when given power, will use it to their best political advantage.

Bush did jump on the home ownership bandwagon. And there is reason to believe that the more people who own their own homes is a good thing. He did at least try to rein in the disastrous behavior of Fannie and Freddie, which is more than any democrat did, but he was so obsessed with fighting al Queada and nation building in Iraq, he wasn't willing to expend the political capital to defeat the Chris Dodd and Barney Frank cabal. He was being politically pragmatic. His father was the same way. It's also why I barely give Jeb the time of day. I no longer believe that they are willing to fight for what they believe. And it's worth remembering that next to Dodd (then chairman of the Senate Finance Committee), the politician who received the most campaign contributions from Fannie and Freddie was first term senator Barrack Hussein Obama.

However, the moral hazards that led to the financial meltdown are numerous:
-Clinton put muscle into the Community Reinvestment Act so inner city banks were forced to make loans they knew would never be repaid
-Fannie and Freddie were buying up more and more sub prime loans so the actual lenders never had to carry the loans on their books
-Wall Street was buying these repackaged bad loans via derivatives and other more creative vehicles with the tacit understanding that the Fannie and Freddie stuff was guaranteed by the government (technically, it was not).
-Loans with no down payments and many more aberrations.


But what nobody here seems acknowledge is that when the tech bubble burst, the fed steadily lowered interest rates, especially after 9/11. The perfect storm of the above was crony capitalism and irresponsible governance all the way around, but the fuel for the bubble came directly as a result of the availability of cheap credit. Too many houses were built. Too many people began flipping homes. Too many people began using their home equity as an ATM machine. Etc... Then when the inflation the fed initiated with it's policies got to be a problem, they tightened. This is directly responsible for the fall in home values which put so many people underwater.

Had interest been allowed to find their natural levels, the poor governance of our elected officials would have been far less devastating to our economy. Debt is a tool, but basic laws of economics must be obeyed. What the fed has been doing, along with the other central banks, has been to sacrifice the future at the expense of the present. Both the borrower and the lender deserve to be treated fairly. And if you're not getting it, ask yourself. Are you angry that your money market account essentially pays you no interest? You should be incensed!! These mutant Keynesians are entrenched in governments and quasi government entities throughout the developed world. The supposedly independent Fed has been overreaching its mandate big time. Monetary policy was never intended to involve economic central planning like it has today.

There is a natural business cycle, but now it is being heavily distorted by a monetary policy designed to rig the game for the present at the expense of the future. The reason it's happening is that it greatly benefits the entrenched powers in both parties and in big business. We must address this or the economy and the government will collapse!!
 
Last edited:

bdgan

Well-Known Member
May 29, 2008
60,327
36,237
1
Leave it bdgan to leave out the fact that U6 increased under W and has come down under Obama. The U6 in 2009 was 14.2%. There was no Obamacare in 2009 to gum up the job creation.

I got it Catch. The economy still sucks because of Bush.

Of course all if your Obama measurements start from the depth of the recession. And Bush's first 7 years don't count for him, just the recession part.
 

2lion70

Well-Known Member
Gold Member
Jul 1, 2004
16,229
5,450
1
I sure hope some of our conservative friends here aren't trying to make a living in the financial/economic world. With their blinders they refuse to see reality which in the financial world leads to failure.
If all the 'rich' folks on Wall Street accept and use the numbers they must be correct and without bias. Only the politically blind can't see what is so evident.
Consider that there were very eager buyers for all thos MBS being sold leading up to the bubble burst. There was a lot of 'demand pull' for those mortgages, no matter how bad they were. Both Fannie and Freddie had a hard time supplying enough paper to meet that demand.
 

Catch50

Well-Known Member
Feb 5, 2003
34,691
2,025
1
I got it Catch. The economy still sucks because of Bush.

Of course all if your Obama measurements start from the depth of the recession. And Bush's first 7 years don't count for him, just the recession part.

Why don't you (bdgan) stick to the basic fact I have pointed out? And the LPR is going up.
 
Last edited: