Financial News

[southsider2k5]

First of all, it's a fun game your side gets to play. Water down the stimulus to be less effective by getting 60% of it as tax cuts, and then express how appalled you are that it wasn't as effective as it could have been.

 

Then at the same time, the economy at least stops its free-fall and settles into a hover, the pace of job loss slows dramatically, interest rates DO NOT rise like they would if the government was doing too much borrowing, and yet you insist that the stimulus somehow is doing nothing.

 

You may not like them, and there's certainly going to be debate about which model is correct, but to bury your head in the sand and shout "LALALA I can't hear you" every time someone shows math that has been done by economists for years is just embarrassing. But I guess that's how your side can come up with the idea that the correct response to this collapse is some combination of tax cuts and a balanced budget amendment.

 

Sure it wasn't as effective as it could have been for many reasons, most of them dealing with the factors the Democrats put in, such as spending in 2013, focus on things that don't matter, and wasteful spending.

 

And if you don't understand why interest rates haven't risen being entirely artificial, I am not sure where we can even go with this conversation.

[Balta1701]

And if you don't understand why interest rates haven't risen being entirely artificial, I am not sure where we can even go with this conversation.

And if you don't understand why the Fed is artificially keeping interest rates down, well, actually, considering your side wants a balanced budget during a time when the actual interest rate should be like -7%, I'm really not that surprised.

[southsider2k5]

And if you don't understand why the Fed is artificially keeping interest rates down, well, actually, considering your side wants a balanced budget during a time when the actual interest rate should be like -7%, I'm really not that surprised.

 

I never said I didn't understand it. My point is you can't say that rates are low and that is proof that there isn't inflation, when in fact the Fed is throwing trillions of dollars to make sure that isn't happening. It doesn't prove anything, except that they are obviously scared of something, and it isn't deflation.

[Balta1701]

I never said I didn't understand it. My point is you can't say that rates are low and that is proof that there isn't inflation, when in fact the Fed is throwing trillions of dollars to make sure that isn't happening. It doesn't prove anything, except that they are obviously scared of something, and it isn't deflation.

Um, throwing around trillions of dollars is exactly what you'd do to prevent deflation.

[southsider2k5]

Um, throwing around trillions of dollars is exactly what you'd do to prevent deflation.

 

It is what you do to prevent the collapse of the banking industry, when they are going into that sector of economy.

[Balta1701]

It is what you do to prevent the collapse of the banking industry, when they are going into that sector of economy.

And it's also what you do to prevent 25% unemployment, which is why fiscal policy has come in.

[southsider2k5]

And it's also what you do to prevent 25% unemployment, which is why fiscal policy has come in.

 

I can see how spending in a few years saves jobs now...

[Balta1701]

I can see how spending in a few years saves jobs now...

So, is your argument that we're going to be 100% out of the hole we've dug by the end of 2011 such that the continuing dollars won't be needed, that the projects that money is being spent on (mainly energy and construction at that point) is unimportant, or that we should have made the stimulus bigger and more focused on job growth in the first place?

[southsider2k5]

So, is your argument that we're going to be 100% out of the hole we've dug by the end of 2011 such that the continuing dollars won't be needed, that the projects that money is being spent on (mainly energy and construction at that point) is unimportant, or that we should have made the stimulus bigger and more focused on job growth in the first place?

 

Like I said in the other thread, I quit. There is no point.

[Balta1701]

Switching topics rather than responding to that...I think this would be a very good move by the FDIC and a way to institute reasonably solid regulations without having to go through the Congress, which the banks already own.

The FDIC, which collects fees from all banks to repay depositors in failed banks, is considering a plan to reduce the fees paid by companies that take specified steps such as paying bonuses in the form of stock that cannot be sold immediately. Banks that don't comply would face higher fees, on the theory that bankers paid solely for short-term results will take greater risks, increasing the chances of a bank failure.

 

The agency's board agreed by a 3 to 2 margin Tuesday to seek public comment on a preliminary version of the proposal, which could be adopted later this year.

 

FDIC Chairman Sheila C. Bair said that "a growing body of evidence and common sense and academic literature" showed that bonuses for short-term performance had played a role in fomenting the financial crisis. She said the FDIC's approach would reinforce guidance from the Federal Reserve instructing companies to tie compensation to long-term performance.

[kapkomet]

Like I said in the other thread, I quit. There is no point.

 

Government Saves. Make it a bumper sticker, baby. Oh, the irony all wrapped in those two words.

[Cknolls]

because all things considered, $6 million is chump change.

 

Hell, Peavy will get that for 10 starts this year.

 

 

Way to miss the point. Evil wallstreet bankers should be taxed and hung. Pseudo gov't institutions , ,,,ok to pay outrageous bonuses for f***ing up the entire mortgage mkt.

[Cknolls]

Like I said in the other thread, I quit. There is no point.

 

 

Watch this math produce a decline in the unemployment rate:

 

 

With the birth/death revision and the benchmark revision both expected to be a huge negative number, i.e. unemployment closer to 11%, how do you hide the decline,sorry too good to pass up? You reduce the number of people seeking jobs. And what do you get= a smaller rise in unemployment, or better yet, a decilne in the unemployment rate.

 

 

 

[kapkomet]

Watch this math produce a decline in the unemployment rate:

 

 

With the birth/death revision and the benchmark revision both expected to be a huge negative number, i.e. unemployment closer to 11%, how do you hide the decline,sorry too good to pass up? You reduce the number of people seeking jobs. And what do you get= a smaller rise in unemployment, or better yet, a decilne in the unemployment rate.

 

 

EXACTLY. I've been predicting this for quite some time. It will mysteriously happen in the late summer... just in time for the elections, and they will walk on the water to say what good they've done.

[Cknolls]

Big picture here: The Assn of American Railroads December 09' carload reportis now out...and the sequentials stunk in all segments, (Chemical,Industrial,etc..) not as rosy as it seems out there.

[NorthSideSox72]

Obama wants to cover the $150B or so from TARP that the gov't is likely to actually lose, but adding a liability levy of 15 mills to financial institutions with assets greater than $50B (about 50 or so banks fall in that category)... whether or not they received TARP money, and whether or not they have paid it back.

 

So, I'm all for making people pay for their mistakes. But doing this across the board is business-stupid. It says, hey, you banks who were actually pretty responsible? Yeah, you have to pay for the mistakes made by your risk-taking cohorts. Not a good approach.

 

Better approach: Highest levy on firms with biggest TARP bailouts and/or those who still have money unpaid, smaller amounts for those who used TARP but repaid it, and ZERO for those who took ZERO.

 

Article.

 

[Balta1701]

The problem with that approach is how Paulson did TARP originally. He brought a bunch of banks into the room and insisted that they take the money, so that investors wouldn't learn which banks needed the cash and flee those banks. Turned out that Citi and BofA were in even worse shape and needed a couple hundred bil extra so investors got past that pretty quick, but the objection there is obvious; you can't punish people for taking TARP money when they were forced to take TARP money.

[NorthSideSox72]

The problem with that approach is how Paulson did TARP originally. He brought a bunch of banks into the room and insisted that they take the money, so that investors wouldn't learn which banks needed the cash and flee those banks. Turned out that Citi and BofA were in even worse shape and needed a couple hundred bil extra so investors got past that pretty quick, but the objection there is obvious; you can't punish people for taking TARP money when they were forced to take TARP money.

Sure you can, just like you could force them to take it - but if you look at the companies that took TARP money, they needed it. Show me a large bank that took TARP money who didn't need it.

 

You seriously think its more fair to make everyone pay for some peoples' mistakes?

 

[Cknolls]

Obama wants to cover the $150B or so from TARP that the gov't is likely to actually lose, but adding a liability levy of 15 mills to financial institutions with assets greater than $50B (about 50 or so banks fall in that category)... whether or not they received TARP money, and whether or not they have paid it back.

 

So, I'm all for making people pay for their mistakes. But doing this across the board is business-stupid. It says, hey, you banks who were actually pretty responsible? Yeah, you have to pay for the mistakes made by your risk-taking cohorts. Not a good approach.

 

Better approach: Highest levy on firms with biggest TARP bailouts and/or those who still have money unpaid, smaller amounts for those who used TARP but repaid it, and ZERO for those who took ZERO.

 

Article.

[/quote

 

And how do you deal with companies like GE that had 200+billion in commercial paper backstopped? They should have to pay something too! But what?

 

 

Also, GS and MS SHOULD NOT be bank holding companies any longer.

[NorthSideSox72]

Here's a question... who here has a particularly favored unemployment number they think is most accurate? There are a few (or more) different rates bantered about, which include or exclude different groups. It seems like an ideal number would exclude retirees, students and people under 18, and those on some sort of government disability. Leaving the rest as the true picture. Is there a number that shows that, specifically?

 

[NorthSideSox72]

And how do you deal with companies like GE that had 200+billion in commercial paper backstopped? They should have to pay something too! But what?

 

 

Also, GS and MS SHOULD NOT be bank holding companies any longer.

What exactly was the backstop for GE? I am not familiar with the details of that one.

 

[mr_genius]

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/December-ret...ml?x=0&.v=9

 

December retail sales drop 0.3 percent

Retail sales drop 0.3 percent in December as sales for all of 2009 plunge by record amount

 

For the year, sales fell 6.2 percent, the biggest decline on records that go back to 1992. The only other year that annual sales fell was in 2008, when they slipped by 0.5 percent...

 

The 6.2 percent fall in the government's retail sales figure is only the second decline on records that go back to 1992. In all other years, even during previous recessions, retail sales, which are not adjusted for inflation, have managed to increase.

 

 

[kapkomet]

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/December-ret...ml?x=0&.v=9

 

 

"Government Saves".

[Balta1701]

Here's a question... who here has a particularly favored unemployment number they think is most accurate? There are a few (or more) different rates bantered about, which include or exclude different groups. It seems like an ideal number would exclude retirees, students and people under 18, and those on some sort of government disability. Leaving the rest as the true picture. Is there a number that shows that, specifically?

The problem with those suggestions you make is...what happens when the numbers of people on disability grows relative to population (has been happening at least the last 15 years), or when people take early retirements because of a bad job market, or when unemployment is rampant amongst students who want to work?

[NorthSideSox72]

The problem with those suggestions you make is...what happens when the numbers of people on disability grows relative to population (has been happening at least the last 15 years), or when people take early retirements because of a bad job market, or when unemployment is rampant amongst students who want to work?

I didn't say it was a perfect number - I'm saying its closer to reality than the commonly reported number is.