Unemployment Rate Increasing

[guido911]

I am sure that the 2.6 million jobs lost since November 2008 is just a coincidence:

http://link.gs/p6st

[nathanm]

I am sure that the 2.6 million jobs lost since November 2008 is just a coincidence:

http://link.gs/p6st

So businesses are cutting jobs because they didn't like the results of the election? Not because of the economic crisis that began under the previous administration?

[Hoss]

Kinda like the 4256 lives lost in Iraq since March 2003 are a coincidence?

Oh, you won't say anything about that, though.

[guido911]

So businesses are cutting jobs because they didn't like the results of the election? Not because of the economic crisis that began under the previous administration?

Oh, it's Bush's fault. There have been approximately 4.4 million jobs lost since December 2007, a believed start date of the recession. Of that 4.4M lost in those fifteen months, 2.6M occurred since Obama was elected. Just saying.

http://www.thesunsfinancialdiary.com/charts/february-2009-unemployment-rate-81-highest-25-years-chart-day/


Here's something else to chew on (which is also Bush's fault I guess):

                   Since election day, the DIA is down nearly 31%

                   Since Inauguration Day, Jan. 20, 2009, the DIA is down nearly 17%


Now, I am not foolish enough to lay this all (or even most) at Obama's feet. However, we passed the spendulus bill and the unemployment figures have not improved and Wall Street is tanking. The question is, at what point does Obama own the economic crisis? Could his talking down the economy (averting a "catastrophe) in order to get people behind spendulus have worsened the situation?   

[nathanm]

Now, I am not foolish enough to lay this all (or even most) at Obama's feet. However, we passed the spendulus bill and the unemployment figures have not improved and Wall Street is tanking. The question is, at what point does Obama own the economic crisis? Could his talking down the economy (averting a "catastrophe) in order to get people behind spendulus have worsened the situation?   

So you honestly believe the economic situation can be turned around in a single month. You must believe Obama is Christ himself. 

[guido911]

So you honestly believe the economic situation can be turned around in a single month. You must believe Obama is Christ himself. 

Come on Nate, that's not what I was implying and you darn well know it. What has set me off today was his inane comment that the economy may not turn around until next year.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/08/us/politics/08obama.html?_r=1

He needs to shut up and quit scaring the American people.

[nathanm]

Come on Nate, that's not what I was implying and you darn well know it. What has set me off today was his inane comment that the economy may not turn around until next year.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/08/us/politics/08obama.html?_r=1

He needs to shut up and quit scaring the American people.

I find the honesty quite refreshing as compared to the constant snow jobs we've endured for so long. (before Bush, even)

[guido911]

Here is an AP article that I found on Drudge that summarizes my position as to this economy becoming Obama's economy.

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5hzxMIm4EJQJddvV_ZHPkN1pw8nJwD96P7RC80

As for appreciating the honesty Nate, while I understand what you are getting at, I do not think my portfolio can take much more of this honesty.

[Cats Cats Cats]

Your portfolio can't take much more?  It's called a bubble and that is what happens.  You were warned long ago to pull your money out.  Even on fox news but everybody laughed (even called unAmerican)

.

This guy would have been in Ron Paul's cabinet if he was elected. 

Job losses feed more job losses.  The fundamentals of the economy are strong my a$$.  How about having some personal responsibility for your finances and stop blaming other people because you lost money betting the market will go up.  If you were smart and all knowing about Obama, you should have shorted the market the second he got elected.  Then you would have made 20% or 30% if you shorted the DJIA. 

[cannon_fodder]

1)  Please see what he (Guido) is doing boys and girls.  When Bush was elected the economy went into the crapper and everyone blamed Bush.  1 year in 911 happened and everyone blamed Bush.  The basis for both of those events began well before Bush was elected and President Clinton was put on definitive notice of both - and failed to decisively act. 

I assume Guido is doing the same thing with his tongue at least flirting with his cheek.

2) Presidents effect the economic mood.

Obama's rhetoric probably does have a negative effect on the markets.  There is realism, then there is alarmism.  Sometimes it is a fine line.

In Bushes' first State of the Union address he commented that the economy may have rocky times ahead, and he was thrashed for it.  The market dropped soon after and the talking heads lamented that if the President doesn't have confidence in the economy then why should the public?  Markets are reactionary whores and the man at the top can pimp slap them in short order. 

3) That's not to say all is rosy.

The fundamentals of the economy are indeed sound.  There is nothing inherently broken about the underlying economy that would prevent a recovery from starting any day.  Resources are still being harvested, production continues, and most people go about their daily lives.

IMHO, it started out as a market correction in several sectors including some IPO/tech stocks that started their insanity again, but also clearly the housing market.  Historically the housing market goes up about 4% a year.  Sometimes more, sometimes less... but on average just under 4% in real estate.  Over the long haul housing is about 33% of a persons income, since numbers have been kept that ratio is pretty steady. 

When the market jumps 10, or even 30% a year for a decade straight and people are spending 50+% on housing - it should have been apparent that something had to give.  The government was happy to encourage the spike - after all everyone should own a home.  Then toss in lenders, borrowers, real estate agents, appraisers and bankers being greedy to profit from the quasi-governmental system and the bubble could keep growing.  The housing bubble needed to deflate somehow, since the government was encouraging it the only realistic way was to pop.

So the over consumption of housing has stopped.  The excess lending that enabled it has stopped.  The excess consumption that came from over lending has slowed way down.

It needed to happen.  I hope we learn from the lesson and consume within our means and figure out that not everyone is better off in a $250,000 house.  I doubt it, but I hope we learn and the economy recovers as something other than a hyper-consumption economy.

4) Solutions are Obamas gamble.

So Obama did not cause the economic crisis.  The debate can now rage on if he made it worse, or if he helped solve the problem.  The debate won't ever actually be solved (no one is sure if the New Deal helped or lengthened the Great Depression), but that's where the discussion should be.

Personally, I really hope encouraging over consumption and reinflating the housing bubble isn't his ultimate solution.  Kinda' seems like getting an alcoholic a bottle of Vodka to help him with his withdrawal symptoms.  Might help, but probably won't help the long term problem.

[we vs us]

It's going to be Obama's economy sooner rather than later.  He obviously can't be held responsible for the causation, but will be on the hook for its continuance. He's got his filthy socialist hands all over this thing now, but it's going to be a year or so before his filthy socialist rescue plans can be fairly judged or not.

Using the markets as a primary gauge for success is a mistake, IMO.  They're so skittish these days as to be almost completely unreliable.  Blowing gently on your TV when CNBC is on could tank the Dow, it's so fragile.  So it's no wonder that a little truth telling by the President could give Wall Street the collective vapors.  But as you say, CF, there's a fine line between realism and alarmism, and while I see him as a (long overdue) realist, if you're already inclined to alarmism then more alarm is what you'll hear (and I'm talking about the markets here).

I'm not sure what fundamentals are currently sound, though.  All of our major indicators are waaaaay down (unemployment, manufacturing, consumer confidence, you name it). There's a huge gaping hole where our investment banking system used to be, and huge chunks of the retail banking system may or may not be insolvement.  Credit is frozen, and our housing markets are -- by and large -- "correcting" in a major way.  Are people still performing basic economic activities, like showing up for work and buying groceries?  Yes, but there's nothing to indicate that a whole lot more is happening. 

[guido911]

It's going to be Obama's economy sooner rather than later.  He obviously can't be held responsible for the causation, but will be on the hook for its continuance. He's got his filthy socialist hands all over this thing now, but it's going to be a year or so before his filthy socialist rescue plans can be fairly judged or not.

Using the markets as a primary gauge for success is a mistake, IMO.  They're so skittish these days as to be almost completely unreliable.  Blowing gently on your TV when CNBC is on could tank the Dow, it's so fragile.  So it's no wonder that a little truth telling by the President could give Wall Street the collective vapors.  But as you say, CF, there's a fine line between realism and alarmism, and while I see him as a (long overdue) realist, if you're already inclined to alarmism then more alarm is what you'll hear (and I'm talking about the markets here).

I'm not sure what fundamentals are currently sound, though.  All of our major indicators are waaaaay down (unemployment, manufacturing, consumer confidence, you name it). There's a huge gaping hole where our investment banking system used to be, and huge chunks of the retail banking system may or may not be insolvement.  Credit is frozen, and our housing markets are -- by and large -- "correcting" in a major way.  Are people still performing basic economic activities, like showing up for work and buying groceries?  Yes, but there's nothing to indicate that a whole lot more is happening. 

Man, after reading that,I am not sure if life is not worth living anymore.

[we vs us]

Man, after reading that,I am not sure if life is not worth living anymore.

Well, ya know . . . I'm an optimist, but even so.  We're in a pretty deep hole right now. 

Just think if we'd had private social security accounts!  Man, how screwed would we be then?

[Cats Cats Cats]

No, we are going to take our health savings accounts and our social security accounts and invest them in mutual funds.  Then you too could lose your retirement, medical care, and your socialist retirement all at the same time!

[USRufnex]

I am surprised nobody seems to want to compare these unemployment stats to the last time unemployment was this high..... 1982, aka the Reagan Recession... guido blames Obama the same way circa 1982 liberals blamed Reagan.... then the Reagan admin rolled back his 1981 tax cuts... not once, but twice... during a recession... oh, the irony.