• Hello, this board in now turned off and no new posting.
    Please REGISTER at Anabolic Steroid Forums, and become a member of our NEW community!
  • Check Out IronMag Labs® KSM-66 Max - Recovery and Anabolic Growth Complex

This is the same thing that happened during the Great Depression in the 30's

LAM

Is Doin It 4 Da Shorteez
Registered
Joined
May 18, 2002
Messages
16,294
Reaction score
1,432
Points
0
Location
Las Vegas & St. Croix
WASHINGTON (AP) -- Consumers are spending more to fill their tanks, feed their families and pay the rent. At the same time, the number of people applying for unemployment benefits has reached the highest level in three months.

The latest government data show that inflationary pressures and a depressed job market are hurting an economy that barely grew in the first half of the year.

Higher prices could also keep the Federal Reserve from taking major steps to stimulate the growth next week when policymakers meet.

When prices rise, consumers cut back on big purchases, such as appliances, furniture and vacations. Mixed reports on manufacturing Thursday and flat retail sales in August suggest that may already be happening.

A decline in demand forces businesses to put off hiring and even lay off workers. In August, the economy added zero net jobs. Unemployment benefit applications have increased in three of the past four weeks.

"Unless spirits improve soon, businesses will ramp up layoffs, consumers will pull back, and the economy will fall back into recession," said Mark Zandi, chief economist at Moody's Analytics.

Consumer prices rose 0.4 percent in August, according to the Labor Department's Consumer Price Index. Prices for food, energy, rent, and clothing all increased. Excluding volatile food and energy costs, core prices increased 0.2 percent.

Some inflation can be healthy for the economy because it encourages people to spend and invest rather than sitting on their cash. More spending drives corporate growth, which makes businesses more likely to hire people.

For the 12 months that ended in August, core prices surged 2 percent. That's the biggest year-over-year increase in nearly three years, and it's at the high end of the Federal Reserve's informal inflation target.

Rising inflation is a key reason Macroeconomic Advisors lowered its growth estimate for the July-September quarter from 1.9 percent to 1.6 percent. The economic consulting firm said higher prices will reduce consumer spending.

Economists don't expect prices to rise much further, mostly because employers aren't hiring much or handing out big raises. Still, the spike in prices over the past year has cut into consumers' pay and limited their purchasing power.

"In an environment where you're now looking at zero job growth, it will be difficult to have much success passing on any additional costs," said Tom Porcelli, chief U.S. economist at RBC Capital Markets.

Unemployment benefit applications rose to 428,000 last week, the Labor Department said in a separate report. And the four-week average, a less volatile measure, rose for the fourth straight week to 419,500, the highest level in eight weeks.

Applications need to fall below 375,000 to indicate that hiring is increasing enough to lower the unemployment rate. They haven't been that low since February.

The unemployment rate stayed at 9.1 percent for the second straight month in August. It has been above 9 percent for all but two months since May 2009 -- one month before the recession officially ended.

U.S. factories have helped drive growth over the past two years. But manufacturing began to falter this spring, slowed by supply chain disruptions caused by the Japan crisis and diminished consumer demand.

Overall factory output rose in August for the second straight month, according to a report from the Federal Reserve. The gain was driven by strong auto production. Carmakers have rebounded over the past two months, mostly because supply chains are flowing more freely.

Many economists took that as a positive sign in the otherwise gloomy data.

Still, two regional surveys from Federal Reserve banks showed manufacturing contracted in the Northeast and Mid-Atlantic this month.

"The common thread among all of today's data is one of weakness," Porcelli said.

The Fed will discuss additional stimulus measures at its two-day meeting next week. Most economists expect it will announce a plan to shift money out of short-term securities and into longer-term Treasury bonds. The move could lower rates on mortgages, auto loans and other consumer and business loans.

But some Fed officials are worried the Fed's policies could push inflation higher. Last month, three board members opposed the Fed's decision to keep interest rates near zero for the next two years, unless economic conditions changed dramatically. It was the first time as many members dissented from a decision in almost 20 years.

Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke acknowledged last week that rising commodity prices had pushed up inflation this year. But he said it was likely to moderate in coming months.

There are some signs that core inflation, which the Fed pays close attention to, could level off soon. Cotton prices have come down from the spring, and clothing costs are expected to follow. New-car prices were unchanged for the second straight month in August, after rising earlier this year.

"The combination of disappointing growth but rising core inflation puts the Fed in a difficult situation," said Michelle Meyer, an economist at Bank of America Merrill Lynch.

AP Business Writer Daniel Wagner contributed to this report.

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

Low wage jobs can not support the consumption based economy in the US. Too much home wealth was lost by the babyboomers during the hosing market crash and now those that can save are doing so. Those in the bottom 2 income quintiles can not afford to save as they spend 100% of their income.

With the loss of gov stimulus to early when unemployment was still high GDP growth has slowed to a crawl.

Graph: Personal Saving Rate (PSAVERT)
http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/graph/?g=2eE

http://www.forecasts.org/gdprealgrowth.htm

http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2011/07/11/overtime-not-wage-increases-drive-income-growth/
 
Last edited:
The middle class is being screwed, which was the bulk of our economy. The rich can care for themselves (pay rent, food, utilities, etc.) and it pays to be poor (unemployment, Medicaid, Share of Cost, etc).
 
"The Fed will discuss additional stimulus measures at its two-day meeting next week. Most economists expect it will announce a plan to shift money out of short-term securities and into longer-term Treasury bonds. The move could lower rates on mortgages, auto loans and other consumer and business loans".

Oh, great! Round three of giving away our tax $ with nothing to show for it.
And could'a, would'a, should'a but it's not!
 
Look at the bright side, if you're fortunate enough to be in the top 1% this is great news. :)
 
maybe after the next market crash (bonds) people will wake up and realize that this economy that weights far too heavily on investment and capital is a failure.

sadly at this point far too have many of delusions of wealth and are still holding onto false economic dreams.

home values in many areas are going to continue to drop as more and more lose the home and demand increases. a lot of the boomers (roughly 25% of the US pop) that haven't lost the home are upside down or if not will need to sell to increase monies for retirement.

the FRB should have raised rates years ago but can't due to the numbers of those getting paid low and stagnant wages. the OECD was calling for it almost 2 years ago. the central bank in the US is planning on keeping rates at 0% for another 2 years +/-
 
A Fistful of Dollars:
Lobbying and the Financial Crisis†
Deniz Igan, Prachi Mishra, and Thierry Tressel
Research Department, IMF‡
May 06, 2010

Abstract

"Has lobbying by financial institutions contributed to the financial crisis? This paper uses
detailed information on financial institutions’ lobbying and mortgage lending activities to
answer this question. We find that lobbying was associated with more risk-taking during
2000-07 and with worse outcomes in 2008. In particular, lenders lobbying more intensively on issues related to mortgage lending and securitization (i) originated mortgages with higher loan-to-income ratios, (ii) securitized a faster growing proportion of their loans, and (iii) had faster growing originations of mortgages. Moreover, delinquency rates in 2008 were higher in areas where lobbying lenders’ mortgage lending grew faster. These lenders also experienced negative abnormal stock returns during the rescue of Bear Stearns and the collapse of Lehman Brothers, but positive abnormal returns when the bailout was announced. Finally, we find a higher bailout probability for lobbying lenders. These findings suggest that lending by politically active lenders played a role in accumulation of risks and thus contributed to the financial crisis."

http://apps.olin.wustl.edu/FIRS/PDF/2010/1463.pdf
 
Unfortunately a war or two hasn't brought us out of this one.
 
The middle class is being screwed, which was the bulk of our economy. The rich can care for themselves (pay rent, food, utilities, etc.) and it pays to be poor (unemployment, Medicaid, Share of Cost, etc).

There's definitely at least two Americas, the rich are on capitalism and the poor are on socialism.
 
The unemployment rate stayed at 9.1 percent for the second straight month in August. It has been above 9 percent for all but two months since May 2009 -- one month before the recession officially ended.

Real Unemployment Rises to 16.2% in June -- 25.3 Million People





(CNSNews.com) ??? The real unemployment rate rose to 16.2 percent in June, the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) reported on Friday, marking a return to levels not seen since January 2011.
The ???real??? unemployment rate is technically a combination of three measures of unemployment: the unemployment rate, the number of people working part-time who want full-time work, and the number of people ???marginally attached??? to the workforce.
Those who have left the workforce but would still like to be employed are considered marginally attached.
This figure is considered a more complete measure of unemployment because it captures a broader spectrum of those affected by the weak economy. Merely counting those who apply for unemployment benefits as ???unemployed??? does not fully account for everyone who is out of work or underemployed.

In this June 15, 2011 photo, job seekers, right, receive feedback on their resume's at a job fair in Southfield, Mich. More Americans applied for unemployment benefits last week, adding to evidence that the labor market is weakening. (AP Photo/Paul Sancya)

This real unemployment rate ??? known as the U6 rate ??? has been climbing since February 2011 when it was at 15.9 percent. Real unemployment peaked in October of 2009 at 17.4 percent, before falling into the 16 percent range for much of 2010.


It now appears that the real unemployment rate is returning to its 2010 levels, trending upward after staying slightly below 16 percent from February to May.


The total number of people who were truly unemployed in June was 25.3 million -- the 14.1 million who were unemployed, the 2.7 million who were marginally attached to the workforce and the 8.6 million who were
 
Muscle Gelz Transdermals
IronMag Labs Prohormones
There's definitely at least two Americas, the rich are on capitalism and the poor are on socialism.

There's still only one America. It's an oligarchy or plutocracy.
 
There's definitely at least two Americas, the rich are on capitalism and the poor are on socialism.

the capitalists are the biggest "socialists" in the US. the banks receive monies printed for them directly by the FRB and the big corps receive tax subsidies for their billion dollar industries and company's from the federal government thanks to lobbyists. top-down grants make the US economy more unstable not less.

capitalism in the US is a joke. "free markets" only exist at the state level and below
 
Last edited:
Low wage jobs can not support the consumption based economy in the US. Too much home wealth was lost by the babyboomers during the hosing market crash and now those that can save are doing so. Those in the bottom 2 income quintiles can not afford to save as they spend 100% of their income.

Yes.

Just about everyone I know, regardless of educational, skill, or professional background.

Boomers got hit and are getting hit. Retirees and older folks putting money into CDs and getting, what? 1%. Stock market dicey. Home equity vanquished. Many home unsalable or short salable.

I don't know anyone who is spending on durable good, let alone anything.

And yeah, an economy 70%+ dependent on consumer spending.

Gonna be rough for many years to come.
 
Well, look at the bright side; 50% of Americans are obese. Interesting how we are dirt poor as a country and people still have enough money to feed their fat elephant asses shitty food.
 
Well, look at the bright side; 50% of Americans are obese. Interesting how we are dirt poor as a country and people still have enough money to feed their fat elephant asses shitty food.

That's because we sale processed sugar as a food source, practically everywhere you go.
You can't even go into an electronic store without being bombarded by 10 racks for candy and fatass shit.
 
Yes.

Just about everyone I know, regardless of educational, skill, or professional background.

Boomers got hit and are getting hit. Retirees and older folks putting money into CDs and getting, what? 1%. Stock market dicey. Home equity vanquished. Many home unsalable or short salable.

I don't know anyone who is spending on durable good, let alone anything.

And yeah, an economy 70%+ dependent on consumer spending.

Gonna be rough for many years to come.

I have heard from several televised financial reports that 45% of consumption is fueled by those in the upper income quintiles and that they have not been saving and are a main reason as to the drop in the personal savings rate since the 80's. I have been looking for some hard data to support these statements and will post what I find. I find that plausible as I have have seen friends making close to 1M a year spend just about everything they make monthly on consumption.

I found some good info on imports but can't find the document right now but basically imports from China only account for about 3% or less of US consumables annually. I'm sure this correlates with consumption targeted at those in the lower income quintiles.
 
That's because we sale processed sugar as a food source, practically everywhere you go.
You can't even go into an electronic store without being bombarded by 10 racks for candy and fatass shit.

Not to mention the $4 billion of our tax money we spend annually on corn subsidies so that high fructose corn syrup costs nothing to manufacture.
 
Not to mention the $4 billion of our tax money we spend annually on corn subsidies so that high fructose corn syrup costs nothing to manufacture.


If that's a boondoggle, just think about what ethanol subsidies are. Ethanol is the biggest cluster fuck, next to Obamacare, in the last 50 years.
 
next to Obamacare, in the last 50 years.

you should look into this more thoroughly if you think healthcare reform is not needed. health care cost are raising at 4% a year which is higher than real GDP growth AND substantially HIGHER than REAL INCOME GROWTH. by 2080 healthcare costs are going to account for 50% of GDP.

anybody that thinks the US doesn't need serious healthcare reform is short-sighted to say the least.

I suggest not getting economic advice from politicians on TV
 
So why don't you guys buy stocks of companies with good dividends and profit off this whole thing? Seems like if the above is true McDonalds would do well, Kroger and other grocery stores, buy the necessities type companies. I even think cell phone and cable providers would do well, or at least make it and pay you a dividend and recover eventually, people aren't gonna part with that stuff nowadays.

Then when rates go up and all the boomers get screwed again in the bond bubble Lam mentioned your stocks will do well as people scramble out of bonds looking for income.
 
???It???s Going to Get a Lot Worse???: ECRI???s Achuthan Says New Recession Unavoidable

Weakness in leading economic indicators has become so pervasive the Economic Cycle Research Institute now predicts a new recession is unavoidable.

"The vicious cycle is starting where lower sales, lower production, lower employment and lower income [leads] back to lower sales," co-founder Lakshman Achuthan declares in the accompanying video.

Whereas Achuthan said the jury is still out in late August, the weakness in leading economic indicators ??? and ECRI uses a dozen for the U.S. alone, he notes ??? has become a "contagion" that is spreading like "wildfire."

Although the recovery has been "subpar" by nearly every measure, Achuthan refutes the idea the economy never got out of recession in the first place. "Just because it looks and feels a certain way doesn't mean it's a recession," he says. "You haven't seen anything yet. It's going to get a lot worse."

It's too soon to predict just how bad it's going to get, but he expects another spike in unemployment and further expansion of the federal government's $1 trillion deficit. This forecast has huge ramifications for the 2012 election and the already struggling U.S. consumer and Achuthan says a "mild" recession is the best-case scenario.

By now you may be wondering what separates ECRI's recession call from the myriad other recession calls out there. First, ECRI's primary raison d'etre is predicting recession and recovery calls. Second, and more importantly, The Economist reports ECRI has never issued a "false alarm" on a recession call, meaning many of the Chicken Littles currently declaring "the sky is falling" might actually be right this time around.

It's Going to Get a Lot Worseâ???: ECRIâ??????s Achuthan Says New Recession Unavoidable | Daily Ticker - Yahoo! Finance

Economic Cycle Research Institute | Public Home | ECRI
 
Unfortunately a war or two hasn't brought us out of this one.

manufacturing output is what saved Reagan during his presidency and this was due to the cold war. the problem is that the economy is dynamic not static, it's constantly changing. it "appears" to be the same on the surface but it is constantly changing under the surface. this is why techniques that may have worked in previous recession recovery years will not work now or will be substantially less effective.
 
Last edited:
Last edited:
LAM,

Thanks for the ECRI report.

It says a lot.
 
Then when rates go up and all the boomers get screwed again in the bond bubble Lam mentioned your stocks will do well as people scramble out of bonds looking for income.

the OECD wanted all the central banks to increase rates last year but that is a no go in the US. can't raise interest rates with so many people suffering from wage stagnation and the FRB and the financial system is well aware of this. Fed said rates would probably be at 0% for another 2 years, this is why the bond derivative market is blowing up. another thing that people don't realize is that if your home isn't appreciating at the rate of inflation or higher you aren't earning any "real" equity once adjusted for inflation. in the US monetary inflation averages about 30% a decade. many in the middle class have no clue how screwed they are.
 
WORKING PAPER #564
PRINCETON UNIVERSITY
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS SECTION
May 2011
Version: May 4, 2011

Job Loss in the Great Recession:
Historical Perspective from the Displaced Workers Survey, 1984-20101


http://www.irs.princeton.edu/pubs/pdfs/564.pdf
 
"3 The Rate of Job Loss
Information on rates of job loss is presented most accessibly in graphical form, and the discussion here is organized around a series of figures.

Figure 3 contains plots of adjusted three-year job loss rates computed from each of the ten DWSs from 1984-2010 along with the civilian unemployment rate for the year preceding each survey. The cyclical behavior of job loss is apparent, with job-loss rates clearly positively correlated with the unemployment rate ( = 0.80).6 Both unemployment and job-loss rates were very high in the two most serious recessionary periods (1981-83 and 2007-09, the 1984 and 2010 survey years respectively). While the unemployment rates were comparable in 1983 and 2009 (9.6 percent vs. 9.3 percent), the job loss rate was much higher in the 2007-2009 period than in the 1981-83 period (16.0 percent vs. 12.8 percent). This suggests that the Great Recession was associated with a much higher job loss rate than the norm, which makes it of particular interest to study the consequences of job loss in the most recent period.

Figure 4 contains three-year rates of job loss by year for each of four education categories. Not surprisingly, job loss rates are dramatically higher for less educated workers than for more educated workers. For example, the job loss rate for workers with twelve years of education was 9.4 percent in 1997-99 (the lowest in the sample period) compared with 14.3 percent in 1981-83 and 19.4 percent in 2007-09. In contrast, the job loss rate for workers with at least sixteen years of education was 5.4 percent in 1987-89 compared with 6.9 percent in 1981-83 and 11.0 percent in 2007-2009. Clearly, there is a strong cyclical pattern in job loss rates for less educated workers. Among more educated workers, there is a more complicated pattern. Consider workers with at least 16 years of education. Early on, there was little cyclical movement of job loss rates for these workers. Job loss rates fell only slightly in the recovery from the early 1980s recession. However, the rate of job loss increased substantially in the 1989-91 period, did not fall much during the subsequent recovery, increased again from 1997-2003, before falling through 2007. In the most recent period (2007-09), the job loss rate of college graduates increased sharply (from 6 percent in 2005-07 to 11 percent in 2007-09). While the 2007-09 rate of job loss for college graduates is substantially below the rate for workers with more education, it is at a historically high level. The conclusion is that more educated workers are less vulnerable to job loss, but even their vulnerability has increased over time."

"4.2.2 Duration of Unemployment among Reemployed Job Losers
Figure 12 contains plots of the mean and median time unemployed (in weeks) until a job is found for those job losers who were successful in nding a job. Interestingly, the mean time to job nding was a week higher in 2004 than in 2010 (14.5 weeks vs. 13.4 weeks). Median time to job nding is highest in 2010 than in earlier years, though only one week higher than in 2004 (8 weeks vs. 7 weeks). The contrast with reported durations of spells in progress among unemployed workers ( figure 2) is striking. Mean unemployment duration for spells in progress in 2010 was almost 35 weeks, with a median of about 25 weeks. As noted above, the analogous fi gures for time to employment for reemployed job losers is a mean of 13.4 weeks and a median of 8 weeks. On the one hand, this is surprising because the time to employment for reemployed job losers is the length of a completed spell of unemployment, while the duration of unemployment reported in the CPS is for spells in progress (incomplete). On the other hand, the durations reported in the DWS are for completed spells and omit the spells still in progress. These spells omitted in the DWS are the longer spells so that the mean duration is biased downward as an estimate of the length of all spells. Additionally, there is the usual length-biased sampling problem when examining the duration of spells in progress at a point in time, as in the CPS so that the sample of spells reported in the CPS is biased toward longer spells.

I conclude from this analysis and from the finding that only 56 percent job losers in the 2010 DWS report ever nding a job after displacement (fi gure 10) that those job losers in the Great Recession who were successful in finding a new job did not take an inordinately long time to find work. However, a much higher fraction of job losers have been unsuccessful in fi nding a job, and these workers have very long spells of unemployment."
 
5.2.1 Di fference Estimates of The Change in Earnings as a Result of Job Loss

I begin the analysis of earnings changes by examining the di erence in real weekly earnings for job losers between the post-displacement job and the job from which the worker was displaced.14 The solid line in gure 15 shows the average proportional decline, by survey year, in real weekly earnings between the lost job and the survey-date job for all workers who lost a job, were re-employed at the survey date, and were not self-employed on either the lost job or the new job. It is clear that there is a cyclical component to the earnings decline, with larger declines in slack labor market periods. The average earnings decline in the current recession is the largest since 1984 at 17.5 percent. This compares with a decline of 14.1 percent in 1984 and 15.9 percent in 1992.
 
6 Concluding Remarks

Job loss and worker dislocation are facts of life in the U.S. economy, and they are part of an efficient labor allocation process. However, the costs of job loss have been particularly severe in the Great Recession. During this period (job loss in 2007-2009) I find that

* About 16 percent of people aged 20-64 reported having lost a job.

* Less than 50 percent of job losers are employed in January 2010 (a much lower fraction than in earlier periods).

* While reemployed job losers did not suer particularly long spells of unemployment,
the large number of job losers who did not nd a new job have very long spells of unem-
ployment. This is reinforced by the extremely long durations of spells of unemployment
in progress reported in the basic CPS (a mean of about 35 weeks in 2010).

* About 20 percent re-employed full-time job losers are holding part-time jobs (a much
higher fraction than in earlier period).

* Job losers who found new jobs earned on average 17.5 percent less on average on their new jobs than on the lost job, and losers of full-time jobs earnings 21.8 percent less on average than on the lost job.

* Counting foregone earnings increases enjoyed by non-losers, full-time job losers who find new full-time jobs suffered a total earnings loss of about 11 percent less on average
on their new jobs than they would have had they not been displaced.


The measures I focused on likely substantially understate the true economic cost of job
loss. First, time spent unemployed by those workers who are re-employed is not considered.
Second, more hinges on employment, particularly full-time employment, in the U.S. than in
other developed countries. Health insurance and pensions are closely linked to employment,
and many workers do not have alternative access to these important benets. This makes
job loss an expensive and damaging event on average.
To conclude, while job loss is a fact of life in the U.S., the consequences of job loss in
the Great Recession have been unusually severe. Most importantly, job losers in the Great
Recession have been much less successful at nding new jobs (particularly full-time jobs) than
in the aftermath of earlier recessions. It is not yet clear what the long run consequences of
prolonged inability to nd work for job losers on their future labor market outcomes will be.
 
Back
Top