IDBillzFan Posted July 12, 2012 Share Posted July 12, 2012 You don't understand that we CAN look back on the previous 10 (post ww2) recessions and note that the administrations policies have produced the weakest recovery ? Let him check with Axelrod and he'll get right back to you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
/dev/null Posted July 12, 2012 Share Posted July 12, 2012 On the topic of stone cold liars: http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2009/09/obama-mandate-is-not-a-tax/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted July 12, 2012 Share Posted July 12, 2012 Not this time... Given the nation's demographics at this place in history. Obviously not this time. But why? And please answer without the word demographics. So are you saying that there isn't cash sitting on the sidelines? Care to explain why 10 year and 2 year government bond yields are so low Could you imagine how !@#$ed we'd be if we had to pay real interest on all these loans we're making? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted July 12, 2012 Share Posted July 12, 2012 Obviously not this time. But why? And please answer without the word demographics. Because you !@#$ing baby boomers won't die!!! :devil: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joe Miner Posted July 12, 2012 Share Posted July 12, 2012 Obviously not this time. But why? And please answer without the word demographics. But it's the longest word he knows. How else will he sound smart? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted July 12, 2012 Share Posted July 12, 2012 Because you !@#$ing baby boomers won't die!!! :devil: Okay, so you're blaming the baby boomers. How exactly are they to blame for this anemic recovery? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dante Posted July 12, 2012 Share Posted July 12, 2012 Damn that Romney for running a business!! Doesn't he know the proper qualification to be President is to suck on the government's tit from birth?? Almost right.Birth, go to Uni for indoctrination, become a lawyer. THEN Prez. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joe Miner Posted July 12, 2012 Share Posted July 12, 2012 Okay, so you're blaming the baby boomers. How exactly are they to blame for this anemic recovery? Ooh Ooh, let me try: 1) Bush caused the economic collapse. 2) Baby Boomers couldn't retire due to stock market crashing 3) When the economy recovered, there were no open jobs from baby boomers that should have retired earlier but couldn't because of Bush. So due to demographics, this economic recovery can't be judged like recoveries in the past. This recovery actually worked, you just can't see it yet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Large Posted July 12, 2012 Share Posted July 12, 2012 Ooh Ooh, let me try: 1) Bush caused the economic collapse. 2) Baby Boomers couldn't retire due to stock market crashing 3) When the economy recovered, there were no open jobs from baby boomers that should have retired earlier but couldn't because of Bush. So due to demographics, this economic recovery can't be judged like recoveries in the past. This recovery actually worked, you just can't see it yet. Greenspan and this absurd idea that everybody should own a home, perhaps few is what caused the economic downturn- it is still happening today, there is word of a new wave of foreclosures.... the housing crisis is not settled and cleared yet, not by far... As for the recovery, why would it be robust, you have to ask yourself? Just cause? A robust economy usually happens because products produced here become more price competitive, individuals get some sort of access to credit/ cash, or Government outlays ALOT of money to stimulate the economy. IMHO, I think we will continue to see slow recovery, with timid jobs added for the very fact that boomers to youngsters like are not out spending money like crazy, they are either paying off debt, trying to get out of a bad mortgage or scrammbling to backfill all that retirement savings they lost in the crash. Also, if companies are doing just fine and making money with cleaner balance sheet and a smaller workforce, and there are no huge increases in demand and sales... why hire??? We may never see the jobs come back, people may need to get down with that very fact. Anecdotally, my circle of friends have adopted a very aggressive thing called Austerity. I have personally always been a barebones budget guy, but my friends who lived it up are cutting back cell phone plans, Cable/Dish, downgrading cars, cutting out trips, downsizing their home or using their extra spending money to pay down/ off their house, eating at home, and wearing their clothes longer than every before. I think we are seeing a fundamentally different America in aggregate that we have seen the last 30 years. The boomers are pretty much done, they are locked into the paths they have set. the 30 somethings like me, we are starting to wake up to the fallacy of the American dream being "buying" stuff and "Upgrading".... we save and pay off, and don't feel the need to risk our own personal financial health for the overal economy... that is serious business... we have realized the jobs don't pay as well, the incomes are stagnant, the social safety nets may be gone, so we are investing in ourselves... We are seeing a New America, get ready Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted July 12, 2012 Share Posted July 12, 2012 Okay, so you're blaming the baby boomers. How exactly are they to blame for this anemic recovery? What does you consider anemic? What do you consider acceptable? 2-3% growth. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted July 12, 2012 Share Posted July 12, 2012 What does you consider anemic? What do you consider acceptable? 2-3% growth. For a recovery after a deep recession like we had probably somewhere between 3.5 and 4% however when I'm talking recovery I'm not just talking GDP I'm talking jobs, manufacturing output, retail sales, and consumer sentiment. All of which have been pretty crappy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
/dev/null Posted July 12, 2012 Share Posted July 12, 2012 For a recovery after a deep recession like we had probably somewhere between 3.5 and 4% There's that number again So we need average growth Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted July 12, 2012 Share Posted July 12, 2012 There's that number again So we need average growth Seeing I have no idea what I'm talking about I got that number by rolling dice. Scary huh? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted July 12, 2012 Share Posted July 12, 2012 (edited) The reason we normally have such rapid recoveries out of recessions is because of the nature of what causes the recession in the first place. Recessions are a known quantity in economic circles. They are the result of the business cycle. Cheap credit leads to malinvestment in unsustainable markets by creating the appearance of marginalized risk. Once the market adjusts to real supply and demand structure, the over investment is realized, and must be liquidated, which causes a downturn in the economy. This is all the recession is: the market readjusting itself to malinvestment. In our system, the way we move the economy forward again after the market adjusts is to create another artificial boom. The example we are dealing with today is Alan Greenspan intentionally creating the housing boom in response to the tech bubble bursting. When the tech bubble burst the malinvestment was allowed to liquidate naturally to bring the economy back into equillibrium; and markets always must be allowed to do this if a recovery is going to happen. Unfortunatly, because this new bubble was tied to the places where people live, and the entire global financial system, people panicked, and the market was never allowed to liquidate all of the malinvestment. It was proped up, and we were told that the recession must not be allowed to happen. The reality is, however, that the market has a mind of it's own, and will always readjust to actual supply and demand curves, and no amount of super cheap credit can prevent it. The reason we haven't have a recovery is because, to date, the housing market has not ben allowed to bottom out and the malinvestment to liquidate. Edited July 12, 2012 by TakeYouToTasker Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KD in CA Posted July 12, 2012 Share Posted July 12, 2012 The reason we normally have such rapid recoveries out of recessions is because of the nature of what causes the recession in the first place. Recessions are a known quantity in economic circles. They are the result of the business cycle. Cheap credit leads to malinvestment in unsustainable markets by creating the appearance of marginalized risk. Once the market adjusts to real supply and demand structure, the over investment is realized, and must be liquidated, which causes a downturn in the economy. This is all the recession is: the market readjusting itself to malinvestment. In our system, the way we move the economy forward again after the market adjusts is to create another artificial boom. The example we are dealing with today is Alan Greenspan intentionally creating the housing boom in response to the tech bubble bursting. When the tech bubble burst the malinvestment was allowed to liquidate naturally to bring the economy back into equillibrium; and markets always must be allowed to do this if a recovery is going to happen. Unfortunatly, because this new bubble was tied to the places where people live, and the entire global financial system, people panicked, and the market was never allowed to liquidate all of the malinvestment. It was proped up, and we were told that the recession must not be allowed to happen. The reality is, however, that the market has a mind of it's own, and will always readjust to actual supply and demand curves, and no amount of super cheap credit can prevent it. The reason we haven't have a recovery is because, to date, the housing market has not ben allowed to bottom out and the malinvestment to liquidate. I've read a few articles about the end of 2012 being the start of the next housing decline. Too soon in your opinion? How much longer can Washington keep pushing it off? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jauronimo Posted July 12, 2012 Share Posted July 12, 2012 Student loans are the next big credit bubble. Look out for-profit educational institutions, the defaults are steadily rising, because everyone is entitled to go to college just like its everyone can buy a house. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted July 12, 2012 Share Posted July 12, 2012 I've read a few articles about the end of 2012 being the start of the next housing decline. Too soon in your opinion? How much longer can Washington keep pushing it off? The first decline never ended, you were only told it did to inspire consumer confidence. We are les than half way through the housing bust, and the commercial realestate bust is only just begining. We're a long way from the bottom, and the longer we try to push back the recession with more cheap credit, the worse it will get. Interest rates should likely be at almost 30% right now. Student loans are the next big credit bubble. Look out for-profit educational institutions, the defaults are steadily rising, because everyone is entitled to go to college just like its everyone can buy a house. That's an unsettleing, yet strong, possibility. Unsettleing because I can't figure out how I can profit from it, unlike the last bubble; strong, because you're absolutely correct in your observations about that market. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smears Posted July 12, 2012 Share Posted July 12, 2012 You can always tell the lame threads/idiotic crusades by the incessant need of the thread starter to respond to every post. I think about that every time..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Large Posted July 12, 2012 Share Posted July 12, 2012 The reason we normally have such rapid recoveries out of recessions is because of the nature of what causes the recession in the first place. Recessions are a known quantity in economic circles. They are the result of the business cycle. Cheap credit leads to malinvestment in unsustainable markets by creating the appearance of marginalized risk. Once the market adjusts to real supply and demand structure, the over investment is realized, and must be liquidated, which causes a downturn in the economy. This is all the recession is: the market readjusting itself to malinvestment. In our system, the way we move the economy forward again after the market adjusts is to create another artificial boom. The example we are dealing with today is Alan Greenspan intentionally creating the housing boom in response to the tech bubble bursting. When the tech bubble burst the malinvestment was allowed to liquidate naturally to bring the economy back into equillibrium; and markets always must be allowed to do this if a recovery is going to happen. Unfortunatly, because this new bubble was tied to the places where people live, and the entire global financial system, people panicked, and the market was never allowed to liquidate all of the malinvestment. It was proped up, and we were told that the recession must not be allowed to happen. The reality is, however, that the market has a mind of it's own, and will always readjust to actual supply and demand curves, and no amount of super cheap credit can prevent it. The reason we haven't have a recovery is because, to date, the housing market has not ben allowed to bottom out and the malinvestment to liquidate. Really Solid Post- Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted July 12, 2012 Share Posted July 12, 2012 I guess Romney thought it was good strategy to lie about how long he was at Bain. What a terrible campaign in a very winnable election year. Mitt Romney stayed at Bain 3 years longer than he stated Public Filings Disagree On Romney's Role At Bain Capital Not sure about the actual legitimacy of this one but, if so...wow! Romney may have committed felony lying about role with Bain Getting back to this point, the SEC filing is not the smoking gun, especially if you understand how private equity operate their funds. Thus, even though Romney is listed as head of Bain Capital & the investing funds, it's very possible that he did not have active control of the investments, especially if the funds listed in the SEC filings had already invested in the companies by 1999 (which was the case in the filings in the link). This is Romney's official position (from Boston Globe) - “Since February 11, 1999, Mr. Romney has not had any active role with any Bain Capital entity and has not been involved in the operations of any Bain Capital entity in any way,’’ according to the footnote. Romney made the same assertion on a financial disclosure form in 2007, during his first run for president. The way I'm reading the filings and his explanation for Bain involvement is that he stopped running Bain's new investments after 1999, which is consistent with how private equity works. Just because his name appeared on the filings, doesn't mean he was making new investment decisions. The formality of his separation agreement in 2002 is also consistent with him retaining his nominal position with the firm, but not having direct involvement anymore. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts