I am wondering if this is true anymore particularly if 70% of our economy consists of consumer spending and huge amounts of debt. At the very least there some level circularity going on because unemployment affects consumer confidence.
where I live it is required by law, and is probably the case in many other localities, if the pension fund falls below a certain funding level or can't meet obligations then that must be covered by a tax levy such as a hike in property tax.
I believe that taxpayers are already underwriting pension funds indirectly through government support of the stock market.
The billions (trillions – whatever) of dollars that are generally said to be going to “Wall Street” (i.e. the stock market) from FED and/or Treasury are causing the stock market to increase. Thus, pension funds that own substantial amounts of stocks are increasing their asset value. The higher the market goes, the less risk to pension plan insolvency and need for direct government support.
In the 1950’s it was common to hear: “What’s good for General Motors is good for the country.” It seems now we are thinking: “What’s good for Goldman Sacks is good for the country.” Just as there was some truth in the 1950’s about GM, there may be some in truth today about Goldman.
It is an historic truism: When the rich get sick, the poor die. Accordingly, we had better keep Goldman et. al. healthy unless and until there evolves a political economy never seen before in history. Sad – but, true! History is unequivocal in this respect.
1) It's far from ideal situation but it's better to have these homes occupied than remain vacate;
2) In terms of rent and mortgage payment, this is an implicit acknowledgment that homes were highly leveraged and total (PITI) payments probably far exceed 31% of income after including second mortgages.
3) We still have a huge negative equity problem that continues to be ignored by policy makers. The foreclosure problem will only grow until we address the negative equity problem. Extension of housing tax credit won't do it. If people can't afford to sell their home because their mortgage is underwater the home market will remain extremely weak.
A major post on munis elicited only one comment on munis and lots of drivel. Does no one invest in them or live in a city or state in the US which needs them to survive??????
Reminds me of Penelope Ash's (psuedonymous) title, except this is bound to be non-fiction. Anyone taking bets on who is to be the next CEO of GS (Ex-Obama)?
If Al-queda had hatched a really clever plan to wreck our economy using naked shorts, we might even be at war in Switzerland now. But the friendly banksters? No harm, no foul.
Frank T.
"The statistical probability of losing money on only 1 out of 65 days goes a little beyond just skill."
Certainly you're not suggesting that just because Goldman Sucks enjoys an ownership stake, both overtly and coverly, in the following organizations, they have some type of insider knowledge? (InterContinental Exchange, ICE US Trust, DTCC, Markit Group, ELX Futures, Climate Exchange PLC [which owns various crucial climate exchanges throughout the planet, the perfect vehicle for speculation and manipulation of carbon derivatives and carbon offsets], as well as operating the premier indexes on oil/energy, mortality, etc.)
And, of course, there is their old chairman, Stephen Friedman, enjoying intel access from his position on the President's Intelligence Advisory Board.
The perfect situation for refining the process, and this time around, having their lackeys in the US government finance and create that future "insurance exchange" for trading, speculating and manipulating those mortality-linked securities, mortality derivatives, mortality swaps, and q-forwards on.
Ain't life sweet and corruption grand?
(Look for Lloyd Blankfein's soon-to-be-published novel, "Naked Came the Short-Seller" -- at your local bookstore real soon now....)
when they were campaigning. That's the huge problem, so many of these true Progressives/Populists or let's say not corrupt Dems are sidelined in Congress, from committee positions to leadership.
...said "financial coup d'etat" instead of just agreeing with Michael Moore when he said it in his interview with her.
Our oligarchs have one very distinct advantage over, say, the Russian oligarchs: Nobody with a big megaphone calls them oligarchs. And, of course, hardly anyone of renown takes it amiss when so many of them inhabit both the high places and interstices of one administration after another.
but the last post reneges on what he was saying earlier, which is a jobs "V" recovery, so this is new to claim he's now saying a GDP "V" (which also is various states of questionable, mainly because Q3 GDP is all about Stimulus effects) with a "L" jobs. This is assuredly new. I also don't recall him calling for a new definition of recession.
What I would like to know about, at the moment, is have jobs dissipated in being offshore outsourced, for the trend lines in "jobless" recovery, esp. 2001 there was a mass exodus of jobs and has been for a decade. Evidence that manufacturing has shrank down to 12.2% of GDP and also STEM (techie jobs) total jobs has shrank.
I'm placing bets the unemployment rate comes in at 9.97% and that will be due to some falling off the rolls, no longer counted. That magic 10% is political dynamite so I think we will see "resistance" to the magic 10% if manipulation possible. ;)
This one I'm not so sure because so many of these jobs are due to the consumer going bust.
..."print positive" in New Deal democrat's post at BB. I am still trying to understand if he actually meant a net increase in jobs. Not even the most optimistic economists surveyed by Bloomberg think so; the consensus range for Friday's BLS numbers run from 55,000 to 200,000. And ADP's reported net loss of 203,000 certainly doesn't presage anything positive when the government figures are released.
To be fair, NDd backed off on the jobs numbers in his post today, no doubt unbuoyed by the drop in the ISM service sector employment index and the lower than expected service sector growth index.
I have been of the opinion for many months that we could see a V-shaped GDP "recovery" and that L____________-shaped job recovery. That, in fact, is exactly what a "jobless recovery" is all about.
In the past four recessions, the bounceback to pre-recession levels went like this:
1973-75 - GDP: 24 months; Jobs: 24 months
1981-82 - GDP: 24 months; Jobs: 28 months
1990-91 - GDP: 18 months; Jobs: 31 months
2001 - GDP: 6 months; Jobs: 47 months
If the current recession continues this split-trend, let me repeat what I've been saying for a year: we need a new definition of recession.
As Mel Brooks once said as the King of France in the History of the World Part 1: "It's good to be the king!" Honestly, if you replaced the words "Goldman Sachs" with say "Communist" or something along those lines, everyone would be up and arms. I have never seen such an open coup de tat by a group within the US like GS. Well ok, maybe not a coup, but damn near close. Nearly every important economic position has been staffed by them. Hell, it wouldn't surprise me if they all belonged to the same fraternity!
After doing the reading/research for those posts is why I'm a little emotional on this.
It does scare me to no end, having big pharma control/fund studies and invade Academia.
The problem with "personal stories" generally, as with the Frontline episode is one cannot tell if this is the norm, the statistical average, etc....same is true when they interview laid off people or whatever...
(it's why I don't like documentary via personal story) I want the statistics.
Since you sound like this is your professional area, posts like the profits involved, affecting advanced R&D (which just made a mass exodus to China/India) are all fair game on EP.
That's a whole other kettle of fish and not just in pharmaceutical research. Corporate funding of Academic research, including economics is quite often accused of corresponding bias and I've suspected bias in some reports (esp. coming from Harvard Business School!) and also even in engineering, I've suspected some bias.
Seems like Sloan foundation is one of the "untouched" foundations who fund advanced R&D without expecting a "certain result" to me these days.
I thought I made my reservations clear, but maybe not. Is the pharmaceutical industry about money? Yes. God knows, we've seen more than enough of the ads that end with the black box caveat "side effects may include death." A product in search of a diagnosis is common. I think we overdiagnose and overtreat, and that brain imaging center was over the top. But we have come a long way from the "cold sheet" treatment.
If a doc has only 15 minutes for a patient, the prescription pad gets over-used. And, in many cases, the patient leaves happy -- a problem health care reform may (sadly) exacerbate. Lots more pills and less attention to disease.
There are many aspects to this issue. I don't know the study that claims 22% prevalence of low seratonin -- sounds like the ECA estimate for depression, which makes a good headline but (a) greatly overblown and (b) does not reflect extent of need for treatment or what kind.
The cases in the Frontline episode are likely cherry-picked, but the over-medication issue is, I think, a scarier story about which we do not know nearly enough. Still, I think the episode points to a problem that is not simple. Long term drug effects in developing brains should scare us, but also keep us asking questions.
Frank T.
I know what the chart says but there is something else. But this all change when our economy so far out of balance?
RebelCapitalist.com - Financial Information for the Rest of Us.
I am wondering if this is true anymore particularly if 70% of our economy consists of consumer spending and huge amounts of debt. At the very least there some level circularity going on because unemployment affects consumer confidence.
RebelCapitalist.com - Financial Information for the Rest of Us.
where I live it is required by law, and is probably the case in many other localities, if the pension fund falls below a certain funding level or can't meet obligations then that must be covered by a tax levy such as a hike in property tax.
RebelCapitalist.com - Financial Information for the Rest of Us.
I believe that taxpayers are already underwriting pension funds indirectly through government support of the stock market.
The billions (trillions – whatever) of dollars that are generally said to be going to “Wall Street” (i.e. the stock market) from FED and/or Treasury are causing the stock market to increase. Thus, pension funds that own substantial amounts of stocks are increasing their asset value. The higher the market goes, the less risk to pension plan insolvency and need for direct government support.
In the 1950’s it was common to hear: “What’s good for General Motors is good for the country.” It seems now we are thinking: “What’s good for Goldman Sacks is good for the country.” Just as there was some truth in the 1950’s about GM, there may be some in truth today about Goldman.
It is an historic truism: When the rich get sick, the poor die. Accordingly, we had better keep Goldman et. al. healthy unless and until there evolves a political economy never seen before in history. Sad – but, true! History is unequivocal in this respect.
1) It's far from ideal situation but it's better to have these homes occupied than remain vacate;
2) In terms of rent and mortgage payment, this is an implicit acknowledgment that homes were highly leveraged and total (PITI) payments probably far exceed 31% of income after including second mortgages.
3) We still have a huge negative equity problem that continues to be ignored by policy makers. The foreclosure problem will only grow until we address the negative equity problem. Extension of housing tax credit won't do it. If people can't afford to sell their home because their mortgage is underwater the home market will remain extremely weak.
RebelCapitalist.com - Financial Information for the Rest of Us.
is due to being sucker punched with various derivatives and MBS?
A major post on munis elicited only one comment on munis and lots of drivel. Does no one invest in them or live in a city or state in the US which needs them to survive??????
Reminds me of Penelope Ash's (psuedonymous) title, except this is bound to be non-fiction. Anyone taking bets on who is to be the next CEO of GS (Ex-Obama)?
If Al-queda had hatched a really clever plan to wreck our economy using naked shorts, we might even be at war in Switzerland now. But the friendly banksters? No harm, no foul.
Frank T.
RebelCapitalist.com - Financial Information for the Rest of Us.
...J'Accuse Jacuzzi would be the product manufacturer...
Coup sounds perfectly correct and on target. Maybe not the same fraternity, but I suspect they all socialize at the same hot tub.
"The statistical probability of losing money on only 1 out of 65 days goes a little beyond just skill."
Certainly you're not suggesting that just because Goldman Sucks enjoys an ownership stake, both overtly and coverly, in the following organizations, they have some type of insider knowledge? (InterContinental Exchange, ICE US Trust, DTCC, Markit Group, ELX Futures, Climate Exchange PLC [which owns various crucial climate exchanges throughout the planet, the perfect vehicle for speculation and manipulation of carbon derivatives and carbon offsets], as well as operating the premier indexes on oil/energy, mortality, etc.)
And, of course, there is their old chairman, Stephen Friedman, enjoying intel access from his position on the President's Intelligence Advisory Board.
The perfect situation for refining the process, and this time around, having their lackeys in the US government finance and create that future "insurance exchange" for trading, speculating and manipulating those mortality-linked securities, mortality derivatives, mortality swaps, and q-forwards on.
Ain't life sweet and corruption grand?
(Look for Lloyd Blankfein's soon-to-be-published novel, "Naked Came the Short-Seller" -- at your local bookstore real soon now....)
when they were campaigning. That's the huge problem, so many of these true Progressives/Populists or let's say not corrupt Dems are sidelined in Congress, from committee positions to leadership.
...said "financial coup d'etat" instead of just agreeing with Michael Moore when he said it in his interview with her.
Our oligarchs have one very distinct advantage over, say, the Russian oligarchs: Nobody with a big megaphone calls them oligarchs. And, of course, hardly anyone of renown takes it amiss when so many of them inhabit both the high places and interstices of one administration after another.
Not pretending to be an economist
but the last post reneges on what he was saying earlier, which is a jobs "V" recovery, so this is new to claim he's now saying a GDP "V" (which also is various states of questionable, mainly because Q3 GDP is all about Stimulus effects) with a "L" jobs. This is assuredly new. I also don't recall him calling for a new definition of recession.
What I would like to know about, at the moment, is have jobs dissipated in being offshore outsourced, for the trend lines in "jobless" recovery, esp. 2001 there was a mass exodus of jobs and has been for a decade. Evidence that manufacturing has shrank down to 12.2% of GDP and also STEM (techie jobs) total jobs has shrank.
I'm placing bets the unemployment rate comes in at 9.97% and that will be due to some falling off the rolls, no longer counted. That magic 10% is political dynamite so I think we will see "resistance" to the magic 10% if manipulation possible. ;)
This one I'm not so sure because so many of these jobs are due to the consumer going bust.
..."print positive" in New Deal democrat's post at BB. I am still trying to understand if he actually meant a net increase in jobs. Not even the most optimistic economists surveyed by Bloomberg think so; the consensus range for Friday's BLS numbers run from 55,000 to 200,000. And ADP's reported net loss of 203,000 certainly doesn't presage anything positive when the government figures are released.
To be fair, NDd backed off on the jobs numbers in his post today, no doubt unbuoyed by the drop in the ISM service sector employment index and the lower than expected service sector growth index.
I have been of the opinion for many months that we could see a V-shaped GDP "recovery" and that L____________-shaped job recovery. That, in fact, is exactly what a "jobless recovery" is all about.
In the past four recessions, the bounceback to pre-recession levels went like this:
1973-75 - GDP: 24 months; Jobs: 24 months
1981-82 - GDP: 24 months; Jobs: 28 months
1990-91 - GDP: 18 months; Jobs: 31 months
2001 - GDP: 6 months; Jobs: 47 months
If the current recession continues this split-trend, let me repeat what I've been saying for a year: we need a new definition of recession.
Not pretending to be an economist
It should make the essay a little more amusing.
As Mel Brooks once said as the King of France in the History of the World Part 1: "It's good to be the king!" Honestly, if you replaced the words "Goldman Sachs" with say "Communist" or something along those lines, everyone would be up and arms. I have never seen such an open coup de tat by a group within the US like GS. Well ok, maybe not a coup, but damn near close. Nearly every important economic position has been staffed by them. Hell, it wouldn't surprise me if they all belonged to the same fraternity!
I wrote a long time ago, The Euphoric Drug of Profit in a 2 part series.
After doing the reading/research for those posts is why I'm a little emotional on this.
It does scare me to no end, having big pharma control/fund studies and invade Academia.
The problem with "personal stories" generally, as with the Frontline episode is one cannot tell if this is the norm, the statistical average, etc....same is true when they interview laid off people or whatever...
(it's why I don't like documentary via personal story) I want the statistics.
Since you sound like this is your professional area, posts like the profits involved, affecting advanced R&D (which just made a mass exodus to China/India) are all fair game on EP.
That's a whole other kettle of fish and not just in pharmaceutical research. Corporate funding of Academic research, including economics is quite often accused of corresponding bias and I've suspected bias in some reports (esp. coming from Harvard Business School!) and also even in engineering, I've suspected some bias.
Seems like Sloan foundation is one of the "untouched" foundations who fund advanced R&D without expecting a "certain result" to me these days.
I thought I made my reservations clear, but maybe not. Is the pharmaceutical industry about money? Yes. God knows, we've seen more than enough of the ads that end with the black box caveat "side effects may include death." A product in search of a diagnosis is common. I think we overdiagnose and overtreat, and that brain imaging center was over the top. But we have come a long way from the "cold sheet" treatment.
If a doc has only 15 minutes for a patient, the prescription pad gets over-used. And, in many cases, the patient leaves happy -- a problem health care reform may (sadly) exacerbate. Lots more pills and less attention to disease.
There are many aspects to this issue. I don't know the study that claims 22% prevalence of low seratonin -- sounds like the ECA estimate for depression, which makes a good headline but (a) greatly overblown and (b) does not reflect extent of need for treatment or what kind.
The cases in the Frontline episode are likely cherry-picked, but the over-medication issue is, I think, a scarier story about which we do not know nearly enough. Still, I think the episode points to a problem that is not simple. Long term drug effects in developing brains should scare us, but also keep us asking questions.
Frank T.
Pages