U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 06-08-2016, 10:53 AM
 
Location: Alameda, CA
7,465 posts, read 3,939,198 times
Reputation: 1368

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by pknopp View Post
For the same reason Bernanke should have listened when he was being warned that housing was about to collapse but he refused to. For the same reason Greenspan has been forced to admit he made a huge mistake.



Sure, and Bernanke said he didn't buy it either, that the banks and housing were on solid footing.
What does Greenspan's admission that he was wrong on regulating investment banks and OTC derivatives have to do with interest rates?

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/24/bu...anel.html?_r=0

On a day that brought more bad news about rising home foreclosures and slumping employment, Mr. Greenspan refused to accept blame for the crisis but acknowledged that his belief in deregulation had been shaken.
He noted that the immense and largely unregulated business of spreading financial risk widely, through the use of exotic financial instruments called derivatives, had gotten out of control and had added to the havoc of today’s crisis. As far back as 1994, Mr. Greenspan staunchly and successfully opposed tougher regulation on derivatives.
But on Thursday, he agreed that the multitrillion-dollar market for credit default swaps, instruments originally created to insure bond investors against the risk of default, needed to be restrained.
“This modern risk-management paradigm held sway for decades,” he said. “The whole intellectual edifice, however, collapsed in the summer of last year.”
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 06-08-2016, 11:12 AM
 
Location: Los Angeles
14,379 posts, read 7,918,260 times
Reputation: 6635
Quote:
Originally Posted by knowledgeiskey View Post
4.7% unemployment. Payrolls rise to 38,000. Thanks, Obama!!!

Things are so good that even MSN is jumping on the "this economy pretty much sucks" bandwagon.

Main page MSN News this morning:

Who's getting richer? Hardly anyone
Income per American reported on tax returns in 2014 was $30,320, or $693 less than in the year 2000.

The Two Groups Who Won

The larger small group is workers with sophisticated skills, especially those who can command $100,000 to $400,000 a year. That pay level includes many physicians, lawyers, bankers, financial analysts and managers of enterprises owned by investors, nonprofits and government. << government always pay themselves first

More than three-quarters of all increased pay from 2000 through 2012 went to this group, comprised of about 7% of workers. Their gains continued in 2013 and 2014.
This small group enjoys rising incomes because – thanks to education and their refined ability to use math, science and reading – they are in demand by the private, nonprofit and government sectors.

The second group doing well consists of those already rich enough to own stocks, whether privately held or publicly traded.

Who's getting richer? Hardly anyone

AS I stated way back in the beginning of this thread "the only people that have enjoyed income boosts are those in the investment class"

Actual unemployment (using real data) is around 12-16%
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-08-2016, 01:23 PM
 
788 posts, read 338,345 times
Reputation: 318
Quote:
Originally Posted by WilliamSmyth View Post
I'm not of the opinion that everything is wonderful, but it is no where as bad as many are claiming. I also don't believe as the OP stated that we are at full employment, but we are not far from it.

You mentioned food stamps.

SNAP Costs and Caseloads Declining | Center on Budget and Policy Priorities

SNAP caseload growth slowed substantially in 2012 and 2013, and caseloads fellby about 2 percent in 2014 and another 2 percent in 2015. For more than two years, fewer people have participated in SNAP each month than in the same month one year earlier. The number of people receiving SNAP has fallen by 2.6 million people since peaking in December 2012.[4] In 42 states, the number of SNAP participants was lower in December 2015 than in December 2012.[5]

I'm not sure what statistic you are referring to when you state "The number of people no longer working is at levels not seen for decade". The number of people in the U3 or U6 are way off the former highs. If you are referring to the number of people Not in the Labor Force (NILF), then of course the numbers are high. Baby Boomers are retiring and Millennials are coming of age. The largest segment in the NILF category are retirees. Students make up another large slice. The disabled, which is also influenced by the aging of the population, also makes up a large segment.
You remind me of the old saying about liars figure, and figures lie.

Realistic unemployment is in double-digits. Every other indicator of economic health is in the tank. Just accept the truth, the reality, the facts, and only then can we move forward. Which begs the question:

You DO want to move forward, don't you?

To be honest, I have my doubts. In fact, I suspect your ilk's only real interest is putting lipstick on a pig, because recognizinig a problem is the first step in fixing it, and you guys seem to pretend that we are fine or nearly so - NO PROBLEM HERE.

I strongly suspect if a GOP assumes POTUS, you guys will be screaming bloody murder about how bad the economy is, blaming the POTUS, and Demanding a fix - even tough it is the same economy that Obama has us all suffering under now.

Listen to Sean Hannity for a week or so, and you'll understand (assuming, again, that you really WANT to understand). The choice is yours - ignorance (or pretending), or informed.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-08-2016, 02:17 PM
 
Location: Alameda, CA
7,465 posts, read 3,939,198 times
Reputation: 1368
Quote:
Originally Posted by Propulser View Post
You remind me of the old saying about liars figure, and figures lie.

Realistic unemployment is in double-digits. Every other indicator of economic health is in the tank. Just accept the truth, the reality, the facts, and only then can we move forward. Which begs the question:

You DO want to move forward, don't you?

To be honest, I have my doubts. In fact, I suspect your ilk's only real interest is putting lipstick on a pig, because recognizinig a problem is the first step in fixing it, and you guys seem to pretend that we are fine or nearly so - NO PROBLEM HERE.

I strongly suspect if a GOP assumes POTUS, you guys will be screaming bloody murder about how bad the economy is, blaming the POTUS, and Demanding a fix - even tough it is the same economy that Obama has us all suffering under now.

Listen to Sean Hannity for a week or so, and you'll understand (assuming, again, that you really WANT to understand). The choice is yours - ignorance (or pretending), or informed.
I try to avoid basing my opinions of the economy based on who holds the White House. In fact, in most situations, I believe the POTUS is not the determining factor for economic health: either positive or negative. I do blame politicians of both parties because of their resistance to regulate OTC derivatives which enabled the financial collapse of 2007/2008.

Sean Hannity, you can't be serious. I actually have a degree in Economics; I think think there is very little a political hack like Hannity can teach me about economics. Although I'm sure if by some miracle a Republican is elected POTUS he will claim everything is now wonderful.

BTW: Job Openings in U.S. Rose in April to Match Highest in Records - Bloomberg

Job openings unexpectedly rose in April to match the highest level since records began in 2000
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-08-2016, 04:06 PM
 
788 posts, read 338,345 times
Reputation: 318
Quote:
Originally Posted by WilliamSmyth View Post
I try to avoid basing my opinions of the economy based on who holds the White House. In fact, in most situations, I believe the POTUS is not the determining factor for economic health: either positive or negative. I do blame politicians of both parties because of their resistance to regulate OTC derivatives which enabled the financial collapse of 2007/2008.

Sean Hannity, you can't be serious. I actually have a degree in Economics; I think think there is very little a political hack like Hannity can teach me about economics. Although I'm sure if by some miracle a Republican is elected POTUS he will claim everything is now wonderful.

BTW: Job Openings in U.S. Rose in April to Match Highest in Records - Bloomberg

Job openings unexpectedly rose in April to match the highest level since records began in 2000
Pardon me, but I think that is exactly what you do. You've twisted and contorted yourself into a pretzel to make sloth look like vigor, and for no other conceivable reason than the current occupant is a Democrat. I refuse to play the rays card, so tell me, what else could cause you to describe a pig with lipstick as a beauty queen, or at least a "woman" instead of what it really is - a pig with lipstick.

This country will never get back to being America until we face the fact that Obama did what he promised he would do, i.e. fundamental change America - and he has, for the worse....far, far worse. That our economy, our debt situation, or unity as a people has been seriously compromised, i.e. damaged, by Obama.

Last edited by Propulser; 06-08-2016 at 04:47 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-08-2016, 07:24 PM
 
77,713 posts, read 33,130,619 times
Reputation: 15507
Quote:
Originally Posted by WilliamSmyth View Post
What does Greenspan's admission that he was wrong on regulating investment banks and OTC derivatives have to do with interest rates?
Seriously?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-09-2016, 07:19 AM
 
Location: Alameda, CA
7,465 posts, read 3,939,198 times
Reputation: 1368
Another week of low layoffs.

Jobless Claims in U.S. Unexpectedly Fell to 264,000 Last Week - Bloomberg

Filings have been below 300,000 for 66 consecutive weeks -- the longest stretch since 1973 and a level economists say is typically consistent with a healthy labor market.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-09-2016, 07:21 AM
 
77,713 posts, read 33,130,619 times
Reputation: 15507
Quote:
Originally Posted by WilliamSmyth View Post
Another week of low layoffs.

Jobless Claims in U.S. Unexpectedly Fell to 264,000 Last Week - Bloomberg

Filings have been below 300,000 for 66 consecutive weeks -- the longest stretch since 1973 and a level economists say is typically consistent with a healthy labor market.
Then there is no reason to not raise rates, correct?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-09-2016, 08:17 AM
 
Location: Alameda, CA
7,465 posts, read 3,939,198 times
Reputation: 1368
Quote:
Originally Posted by pknopp View Post
Then there is no reason to not raise rates, correct?
Why raise the rates now when the negative impacts of low rates (weak dollar, high inflation) have not yet been seen?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-09-2016, 08:32 AM
 
77,713 posts, read 33,130,619 times
Reputation: 15507
Quote:
Originally Posted by WilliamSmyth View Post
Why raise the rates now when the negative impacts of low rates (weak dollar, high inflation) have not yet been seen?
Because money was never intended to be free. It's an artificial device to inflate the markets, nothing more. That has never ended well.

And tell the person in line at the grocery store that inflation is low.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. | Please obey Forum Rules | Terms of Use and Privacy Policy

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top