Today in the economy

That's what Democrats do, they sick the "little guy" against people who have done well for themselves. How the hell else would they be able to impliment their policies if they didn't get the middle class and lower to want something for nothing?


What do you want to know about MSNBC? MSNBC is a bastion of liberal propaganda...check out their on air talent, bar Joe Scarborough and guest of Morning Joe Pat Buchannan they are all FAR LEFT LIBERALS, just call me out when I get to a name that doesn't belong...

Keith Olberman
Rachel Maddow
David Shuster
Mika Brzezinski
Andrea Mitchell
Contessa Brewer
Chris Matthews
David Gregory

MSNBC is the left's version of Fox News


3. The bonuses were in poor taste and given at a bad time and probably to people who don't deserve them HOWEVER, it isn't the government's place to pick and choose who gets what kind of pay in what is supposed to be a capitalist economy. I just think the precedent that COULD be set because of this issue is very dangerous. If the government just decides "We're taking your money" not because of taxes, not because of anything illegal (This isn't in reference to AIG specifically of course), but "just because" then our entire economic system is ruined even more than it seems is the case right now.

It just seems to be a very slippery slope if the government was to just take all of that bonus money away from AIG...it's not like those guys won't pay taxes on those bonuses.

3/25/09

USA - Core Durable Goods Orders

Actualhttp://ecal.forexpros.com/images/spacer.gif3.90%|Forecasthttp://ecal.forexpros.com/images/spacer.gif-2.00%|Previoushttp://ecal.forexpros.com/images/spacer.gif-3.00%

Derivative of Durable Goods Orders that omits the Transportation components.

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

USA - New Home Sales

Actualhttp://ecal.forexpros.com/images/spacer.gif337.00K|Forecasthttp://ecal.forexpros.com/images/spacer.gif302.00K|Previoushttp://ecal.forexpros.com/images/spacer.gif309.00K

Determines the annualized amount of new residential buildings that were sold during the last month.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by killersheep

3/25/09

USA - Core Durable Goods Orders

Actualhttp://ecal.forexpros.com/images/spacer.gif3.90%|Forecasthttp://ecal.forexpros.com/images/spacer.gif-2.00%|Previoushttp://ecal.forexpros.com/images/spacer.gif-3.00%

Derivative of Durable Goods Orders that omits the Transportation components.

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

USA - New Home Sales

Actualhttp://ecal.forexpros.com/images/spacer.gif337.00K|Forecasthttp://ecal.forexpros.com/images/spacer.gif302.00K|Previoushttp://ecal.forexpros.com/images/spacer.gif309.00K

Determines the annualized amount of new residential buildings that were sold during the last month.

---

Durable goods going up is good but it now depends whether those goods get shipped out to businesses to replace stuff they've sold.

Housing less relevant. That number is subject to change. From the report :

Sales of new one-family houses in February 2009 were at a seasonally adjusted annual rate of 337,000, according to estimates released jointly today by the U.S. Census Bureau and the Department of Housing and Urban Development.

This is 4.7 percent (±18.3%) above the revised January rate of 322,000, but is 41.1 percent (±7.9%) below the February 2008 estimate of 572,000.


So this report is accurate to plus or minus 18% by its own admission. Could be subject to a large alteration later. Also, year on year, sales down at least 30%. So not good.

Existing home sales numbers that we saw a few days ago were almost half foreclosed homes sold off by the banks. So the numbers of actual sales are just pathetic compared to a year previous.

Some housing predictions. There'll be two bottoms in the housing markets.

First single-family housing starts and new home sales will bottom.

Then existing homes will bottom. The first bottom may happen this year, the second could take another two years. Exactly when they happen depends on how many more trillions the government pumps into the economy and when, or various other events. But certainly prices will continue to fall, they're not at bottom yet.

We need to see residential investment and personal consumption expenditure start to turn around. These are the leading indicators that show us when we're coming out of recession. It could happen this year, probably next -- subject again to future events regarding government money-printing, international events etc. I can be more accurate as we get closer, it's hard even for my Infallibility to predict more than a week or three in advance at the minute with so much going on.

Unemployment is the biggest worry of this recesion right now (as of going to print with this post, subject to change due to future events etc.) The toxic assets that have bankrupted the banks are made up of individual mortgages (or are bets on those mortgages). If unemployment keeps going up then more and more people walk away from their mortgages and more and more assets become worthless, further bankrupting the financial system. The business classes don't care about unemploymnt normally, there's a few months recession then everything is back to normal apart from unemployed pepole and it's tough luck for them. Unemployment almost always persists and even goes up long after a recession technically ends. So we may see growth return late this year or next year and the recession end but unemployment continue to rise. this time that will affect everything as the solvency of the financial system and the abiltiy the government has to currently pretend it's solvent is governed by the value of those mortgage securities, the price of which is governed by people continuing to pay those mortgages and not walk away, etc. Even when the recession does end we're going to go sideways more than upward. Future growth will be very sluggish, subject to reverses, etc. etc.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lyle

That's what Democrats do, they sick the "little guy" against people who have done well for themselves. How the hell else would they be able to impliment their policies if they didn't get the middle class and lower to want something for nothing?

---

1. Like I already pointed out, it's the GOP doing the populist anger thing, not the Democrats. The middle and lower class want not to have trillions of dollars of debt dropped on them by a few hundred dodgy bankers, but too late! The people getting something for nothing are the bankers getting tens of millions each in bonuses for having run their firms into the ground and the banks getting trillions of dollars of welfare to keep institutions that should be wound up in a capitalist society alive in a corporate socialist society.

Define "done well for themselves." Does making trillions of dollars of fraudulent deals, bankrupting the biggest insurance company in the world, being a big part of the biggest financial crisis in seventy years, exposing the US taxpayer to a guaranteed debt of 500 billion and a further $2.7 trillion of potential debt count as "doing well for yourself." ? Because that's what the guys at AIG did. I'd like you to explain exactly what it was that these guys did well.

I have no problem with people doing well for themselves. What I do have a problem with is people who crookedly caused a disaster it'll take decades and trillions in new taxes to recover from being rewarded for it and not thrown in jail. A capitalist system would lock them up, not pay them more millions. I don't understand why you're on the side of a bunch of corporate socialist criminals here. I thought you were a capitalist?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lyle

What do you want to know about MSNBC? MSNBC is a bastion of liberal propaganda...check out their on air talent, bar Joe Scarborough and guest of Morning Joe Pat Buchannan they are all FAR LEFT LIBERALS, just call me out when I get to a name that doesn't belong...

Keith Olberman
Rachel Maddow
David Shuster
Mika Brzezinski
Andrea Mitchell
Contessa Brewer
Chris Matthews
David Gregory

MSNBC is the left's version of Fox News

---

2. MSNBC hosts three hours of conservative programming and two hours of liberal programming every day. Because of this it's easily the most liberal TV news channel in America. But even with the bump in ratings it got by putting liberals on it's only watched by 0.5% of Americans, making it irrelevant except when conservatives want to use it to point out how liberal the media is. it's owned by General Electric, who make 2% of their revenues from NBC and its offshoots and over 40% from government contracting, or corporate socialism. And when a liberal guy who had MSNBC's highest ratings spoke out against the impending Iraq war, a view the majority of Americans shared, the only national journalist to speak against invading Iraq, he was immediately fired and has never worked again. That's how liberal the media is in America. Interestingly, ownership of media companies by bigger companies who do business with the governmant is banned by every democracy in the world other than America. To prevent corruption and maintain a free press, you know.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lyle

3. The bonuses were in poor taste and given at a bad time and probably to people who don't deserve them HOWEVER, it isn't the government's place to pick and choose who gets what kind of pay in what is supposed to be a capitalist economy. I just think the precedent that COULD be set because of this issue is very dangerous. If the government just decides "We're taking your money" not because of taxes, not because of anything illegal (This isn't in reference to AIG specifically of course), but "just because" then our entire economic system is ruined even more than it seems is the case right now.

It just seems to be a very slippery slope if the government was to just take all of that bonus money away from AIG...it's not like those guys won't pay taxes on those bonuses.

---

3. In a normal situation the government wouldn't try and reclaim those bonuses. But this wasn't a normal situation. This was a situation where the governemt had already taken the firm over, buying 80% of it to maintain confidence that its debts would be paid. Because if investors had lost confidence it would have melted down the entire global financial system. So these guys who made trillions of dollars of dodgy deals without a cent of capital to underwrite those deals (otherwise known as fraud) blew their company and almost the entire financial system up. If the governemt hadn't stepped in they'd be out of work altogether, never mind earning bonuses on top of their salary.

And the government had no problem setting a precedent by abrogating union contracts of auto workers as a condition of bailing out the automakers, why can't they do the same for bankers? Do you honestly believe that a bunch of crooks should be allowed to collect tens of millions in bonuses for bankrupting their company and costing the taxpayer hundreds of billions through fraudulent deals? And they will pay tax on the bonuses but with good tax lawyers they'll only pay a rate in the single digits, so the American taxpayer will get 5 or so percent back of the taxpayer money they originally gave these guys as bonuses for running up trillions of future debt to be paid by those taxpayers. Do you think that it's fair that a bunch of crooks can pay single digit tax rates on hundreds of millions in bonuses they got for bankrupting their firm with criminal deals while auto workers and similar-paid workers pay effectively half their salary in various taxes?

Can you reply to one two and three please?

I'm kind of getting into this late but let me take a shot here.

1. Democrat/Republican is interchangeable for blame here. There is plenty of blame to be spread around. We won't be able to get away from this until we can put a wedge between elected officials and lobbyists. What is your vote compared to hundreds of thousands of dollars for re-election?

2. I was against all of the bailouts from jump street. If you are too big to fail your to big to manage. Nationalize them and sell them off or let them fail. But since we did bail them out and the legislation protected the bonuses then I'm staunchly against the Gov't using a punitive tax. If they are guilty of fraud then prosecute them. But we set a dangerous precedent by canceling contracts and changing the tax code to be punitive. I really don't see what "fair" has to do with it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by VanChilds

I'm kind of getting into this late but let me take a shot here.

1. Democrat/Republican is interchangeable for blame here. There is plenty of blame to be spread around. We won't be able to get away from this until we can put a wedge between elected officials and lobbyists. What is your vote compared to hundreds of thousands of dollars for re-election?

2. I was against all of the bailouts from jump street. If you are too big to fail your to big to manage. Nationalize them and sell them off or let them fail. But since we did bail them out and the legislation protected the bonuses then I'm staunchly against the Gov't using a punitive tax. If they are guilty of fraud then prosecute them. But we set a dangerous precedent by canceling contracts and changing the tax code to be punitive. I really don't see what "fair" has to do with it.

---

I've been avoiding this thread like the plague, but I want to say that I agree with this 100%.

And we have a Saddo's first :beerchug:
CFH and I agree. I am a moderate conservative who is leaning more and more to the Libertarian party but I am sick of both parties.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by VanChilds

And we have a Saddo's first :beerchug:
CFH and I agree. I am a moderate conservative who is leaning more and more to the Libertarian party but I am sick of both parties.

---

Both parties represent essentially the same interests, they support corporations while paying lip service to the interests of the indivual middle/working class person. If I was an American, I would loathe them both even more than I do now. Not like the political parties here are any different, but because of the power the American Government wields their influence is a lot farther reaching.

As for my political leaning, I have some that are to the right and many that are to the left. I sympathize with the Libertarian position, but I'm unconvinced that it can ever become a true reality. I would describe myself as a leftist social democrat, with views somewhat in line with some leftist European governments. University has really turned me into a pinko though, I used to be much more conservative that I am now.

MSNBC has no conservative shows Kirkland....and if you think they do then you sir are a commie

Socially speaking I am a moderate. For the legalization of drugs. Very against gun control. Dislike abortion but kind of feel its none of my business. Gay marriage really isn't an issue to me. I see both sides arguments. Very against affirmative action. Firmly believe in seperation of church and state but I also believe our nation is founded on judeo-christian values. I just really hate white/christian apologists and being politically correct.

Now when it comes to size and scope of government and spending I am very libertarian. I would like to see a drastic decrease in the size and scope of our federal govt and more and more issues left up to individual states. I do not believe in wealth re-distribution and a big fan of a market economy with strong oversight.

As far as energy goes I'd like to see the nation's power grid on nuclear energy and a coal based synthetic gasoline to get us off of foriegn oil.

Strongly believe in border control. Deport illegals aggresively but more importantly jail employers of illegals no questions asked

Believe in a strong military as well as a pro-active foreign policy. Not pro war but in a world of rogue states and international terrorists I believe in the ability to unleash quick and decisive punitive military strikes. NO nation building and NO regime changes.

anyway thats me in a political nutshell

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by VanChilds

Socially speaking I am a moderate. For the legalization of drugs. Very against gun control. Dislike abortion but kind of feel its none of my business. Gay marriage really isn't an issue to me. I see both sides arguments. Very against affirmative action. Firmly believe in seperation of church and state but I also believe our nation is founded on judeo-christian values. I just really hate white/christian apologists and being politically correct.

Now when it comes to size and scope of government and spending I am very libertarian. I would like to see a drastic decrease in the size and scope of our federal govt and more and more issues left up to individual states. I do not believe in wealth re-distribution and a big fan of a market economy with strong oversight.

As far as energy goes I'd like to see the nation's power grid on nuclear energy and a coal based synthetic gasoline to get us off of foriegn oil.

Strongly believe in border control. Deport illegals aggresively but more importantly jail employers of illegals no questions asked

Believe in a strong military as well as a pro-active foreign policy. Not pro war but in a world of rogue states and international terrorists I believe in the ability to unleash quick and decisive punitive military strikes. NO nation building and NO regime changes.

anyway thats me in a political nutshell

---

Well, I agree with most of your first paragraph. Our perspectives diverge rapidly after that.

Lobbying is fundamentally essential to a capitalist economy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by killersheep

Lobbying is fundamentally essential to a capitalist economy.

---

I never claimed to be a capitalist. :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by killersheep

Lobbying is fundamentally essential to a capitalist economy.

---

I agree somewhat. I'd like to see 2-4 term limits so politicians don't get so firmly entrenched and know that sooner or later they will have to return to the private sector. Good turn over in the Congress and Senate would be a good thing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CFH

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by killersheep

Lobbying is fundamentally essential to a capitalist economy.

---

I never claimed to be a capitalist. :)

---

I know you're not man.

Here in the US, that's what we is :p