in terms of labeling, perhaps this is the new terminology which should be used.

In watching the weekend flame out on calling a bottom (or not, with various insults flurrying about in bit land) on housing, this is the question I didn't see addressed (which you just did) CRE.

How big, overall, of a market is CRE in comparison to residential real estate?

Obviously, these crashes don't happen in a vacuum. I am trying to find their exposure. I heard it could be at least $200 billion in CRE exposure.

The other day I was losing track of all the zero places in trillion dollars. Now I am having trouble with short hand dollars.

it's trillion, yes you're reading it right, trillion dollars, not billion.

bailing out the financial oligarchy. But balk at spending money on providing health care coverage to 43 million Americans. That is sad and pathetic.

It is big, big, bad, bad news. I know of a husband and wife that built a new house last year. They both work at Harley and could be seeing two earners going on unemployment.

ok, one element I think can reduce friction going on is keyword "recovery".

An anonymous poster (with lots of rage beyond the above I might add) suggested we need new terminology for "jobless recovery".

I think this is a good idea. But what?

EI cyclical upswing?
Macro economic data upturn?

I basically said something similar but they still are offshore outsourcing jobs, as evidenced by the many reports. IBM being the most outrageous, 5k jobs where they told U.S. workers to keep their job they need to move to India and work for India level salaries, in one shot.

So, they are going after the high end jobs but even on in sourcing, use of guest worker Visas to further displace U.S. workers, labor arbitrage, this is going on in masse but these offshore outsourcers, those workers, who have been stealing the jobs....are also getting training experience and these countries are determined to move up the food chain...so now jobs are plain being created abroad by U.S. corporations instead of first creating them here, forcing Americans to train their replacements and then moving the jobs offshore...

It's very difficult to track too. Finding out job creation overseas by U.S. corporations and then determining if those jobs are labor arbitrage.

On the rest of the indicators, come on folks, this is beyond complex. We have the Zombie Banks, derivatives still out there, no real oversight and then we have the real economy, massive deficits, a housing sector (which I was shocked to see it was contributing > 3.5% to GDP! at one point), we have the entire consumer debt economy coming to a dry well....

so many elements, so little data so we really need to stay analytical to figure this out. I do believe we have an abby normal situation in many respects, which is why you see NDD returning to the S&L crisis as well as the Great Depression for historical data...
the problem is....this ain't the S&L crisis in terms of policy prescriptions, or the Great Depression, in terms of FDR administration policy prescriptions...
this is also in this globalization shit hole where we have wealth transfer (IMHO) going to "emerging" economies (how can China be labeled a EE????)

Well, I'm not sure if Seeking Alpha has seen it and this is the author's bullet points or if this is contained within Moody's report:

• Recent signs of recovery are largely due to government support and the return of investors’ confidence and risk-taking.
• The losses that we expect financial firms to incur over the coming quarters are high, keeping financial fundamentals weak, and their ability to generate sufficient earnings to offset credit losses and maintain investors’ confidence remains a key question.
• A crucial challenge will be the transition to a world where government systemic support is withdrawn and replaced by tighter regulation. The main pitfall associated with this transition will be rolling over significant sums of maturing debt at reasonable cost. As discussed here, the withdrawal of support is expected to be particularly stressful for banks, which benefit systemically and individually from this support in proportionally greater number than other types of financial institutions.
• Higher credit and funding costs will lead to lower earnings, which may in turn force a re-pricing of credit risks and, by extension, a contraction of liquidity for corporates and households. Such contraction, if material from a macroeconomic point of view, would cause a credit squeeze and a potentially negative feedback loop on banks’ and other firms’ business opportunities and credit quality.
• The form and timing of new regulation affecting capital and liquidity resources, as well as the resulting impact on equity returns, could result in significant business model challenges. This could contain both positives and negatives for creditors.
• These forces will allow for a greater credit differentiation among firms, with clearer “winners” and “losers”, especially once government support has been withdrawn.

But it looks fairly common sense. Can we get $550 if we write common sense?