It's The Economy, STUPID!.....

[FOTD]

"Given his dismal record, it is no surprise that Mr. Bush is now refusing to acknowledge the seriousness of the problems he has helped create."

Editorial
The Economy and the New Year

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/02/opinion/02wed2.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin

Published: January 2, 2008
As 2008 begins, house prices are still skidding, bank losses are still mounting, oil is again flirting with $100 a barrel and consumers are buying less as prices rise. To many, the wheels appear to be coming off the economy. To others, including President Bush and his aides, the economy is fundamentally sound and resilient.


Obviously, both camps cannot be right. Unfortunately, the preponderance of evidence is grim.

When Mr. Bush says the economy is strong, he is generally referring to rising wages, low unemployment and what he calls healthy economic growth. But wages have either fallen or failed to outpace inflation during most of his tenure. Job creation is now slowing from a pace that has long been subpar. Economic growth is also braking, if not contracting. In any event, growth during the Bush years has not been healthy; rather, it has been abnormally lopsided. Corporate profits have soared (until recently) and the rich have become richer, while most Americans have treaded water or lost ground, their troubling circumstances masked by an unprecedented borrowing binge, now exacting its toll.

The other presumed economic bright spots — business investment and exports — are less bright upon closer inspection. According to a new government report, orders for big-ticket commercial goods rose a spare 0.1 percent in November.

As for exports, they have surged lately, but the growth has not yet led to more manufacturing jobs or inflation-beating pay raises for existing factory workers. The relative health of exporters is also obscuring the fact that to be more competitive in the long term, corporate America needs health care reform and tax reform, two fronts on which the Bush administration has made no progress. Instead, much if not most of recent export growth is due to the weakening dollar, which makes American products more affordable elsewhere.

While the boost is welcome, relying solely on a weaker currency to correct America's trade imbalance has downsides. For one, a falling dollar interacts with global money flows in a way that complicates the job of the Federal Reserve to steer the economy. That was made clear again last week, when a top Chinese bank official warned of a destabilizing sell-off in dollar-based assets if the Fed continued to cut rates.

Hoping for the best is facile if not paired with preparation for the worst. Perhaps more than anything, a lack of preparation makes it hard to believe Mr. Bush's assurances that all will be well. The administration has operated in a state of economic denial for years: conducting wars while cutting taxes, piling up debt, neglecting to regulate the financial sector even as it went on a lending binge, and ignoring the pain that was sure to come when consumers, bankers and investors sobered up.

Given that record, it is no surprise that Mr. Bush is now refusing to acknowledge the seriousness of the problems he has helped create. Americans don't need more denial. They need an unvarnished appraisal of the nation's economy — including the politics and ideology that has driven it to this point. That is the only real hope for starting to turn things around.

[FOTD]

Stagflation cometh
The fallout from a combination of rising inflation and global recession seems inevitable: how can the world's economies survive it?
Joseph Stiglitz
http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/joseph_stiglitz/2008/01/stagflation_cometh.html


The world economy has had several good years. Global growth has been strong, and the divide between the developing and developed world has narrowed, with India and China leading the way, experiencing GDP growth of 11.1% and 9.7% in 2006 and 11.5% and 8.9% in 2007, respectively. Even Africa has been doing well, with growth in excess of 5% in 2006 and 2007.

But the good times may be ending. There have been worries for years about the global imbalances caused by America's huge overseas borrowing. America, in turn, said that the world should be thankful: by living beyond its means, it helped keep the global economy going, especially given high savings rates in Asia, which has accumulated hundreds of billions of dollars in reserves. But it was always recognised that America's growth under President Bush was not sustainable. Now the day of reckoning looms.

America's ill-conceived war in Iraq helped fuel a quadrupling of oil prices since 2003. In the 1970s, oil shocks led to inflation in some countries, and to recession elsewhere, as governments raised interest rates to combat rising prices. And some economies faced the worst of both worlds: stagflation.

Until now, three critical factors helped the world weather soaring oil prices. First, China, with its enormous productivity increases - based on resting on high levels of investment, including investments in education and technology - exported its deflation. Second, the US took advantage of this by lowering interest rates to unprecedented levels, inducing a housing bubble, with mortgages available to anyone not on a life-support system. Finally, workers all over the world took it on the chin, accepting lower real wages and a smaller share of GDP.

That game is up. China is now facing inflationary pressures. What's more, if the US convinces China to let its currency appreciate, the cost of living in the US and elsewhere will rise. And, with the rise of biofuels, the food and energy markets have become integrated. Combined with increasing demand from those with higher incomes and lower supplies due to weather-related problems associated with climate change, this means high food prices - a lethal threat to developing countries.

Prospects for America's consumption binge continuing are also bleak. Even if the US Federal Reserve continues to lower interest rates, lenders will not rush to make more bad mortgages. With house prices declining, fewer Americans will be willing and able to continue their profligacy.

The Bush administration is hoping, somehow, to forestall a wave of foreclosures - thereby passing the economy's problems on to the next president, just as it is doing with the Iraq quagmire. Its chances of succeeding are slim. For America today, the real question is only whether there will be a short, sharp downturn, or a more prolonged, but shallower, slowdown.

Moreover, America has been exporting its problems abroad, not just by selling toxic mortgages and bad financial practices, but through the ever-weakening dollar, in part a result of flawed macro- and micro-policies. Europe, for instance, will find it increasingly difficult to export. And, in a world economy that had rested on the foundations of a "strong dollar," the consequent financial market instability will be costly for all.

At the same time, there has been a massive global redistribution of income from oil importers to oil exporters - a disproportionate number of which are undemocratic states - and from workers everywhere to the very rich. It is not clear whether workers will continue to accept declines in their living standards in the name of an unbalanced globalisation whose promises seem ever more elusive. In America, one can feel the backlash mounting.

For those who think that a well-managed globalisation has the potential to benefit both developed and developing countries, and who believe in global social justice and the importance of democracy (and the vibrant middle class that supports it), all of this is bad news. Economic adjustments of this magnitude are always painful, but the economic pain is greater today because the winners are less prone to spend.

Indeed, the flip side of "a world awash with liquidity" is a world facing depressed aggregate demand. For the past seven years, America's unbridled spending filled the gap. Now both US household and government spending is likely to be curbed, as both parties' presidential candidates promise a return to fiscal responsibility. After seven years in which America has seen its national debt rise from $5.6tn to $9tn, this should be welcome news - but the timing couldn't be worse.

There is one positive note in this dismal picture: the sources of global growth today are more diverse than they were a decade ago. The real engines of global growth in recent years have been developing countries.

Nevertheless, slower growth - or possibly a recession - in the world's largest economy inevitably has global consequences. There will be a global slowdown. If monetary authorities respond appropriately to growing inflationary pressure - recognising that much of it is imported, and not a result of excess domestic demand - we may be able to manage our way through it. But if they raise interest rates relentlessly to meet inflation targets, we should prepare for the worst: another episode of stagflation.

If central banks go down this path, they will no doubt eventually succeed in wringing inflation out of the system. But the cost - in lost jobs, lost wages, and lost homes - will be enormous.

In cooperation with Project Syndicate, 2008.

[rwarn17588]

Sorry, FOTD, but I don't see inflation on the horizon.

Inflation in November hit 4.31 percent, which is higher from the usual 2.5 to 3 percent range. But there were higher spikes during two months in 2005, and that wasn't much of an inflationary year, either.

http://www.inflationdata.com/inflation/inflation_rate/CurrentInflation.asp

Stagnation? Perhaps, especially with the housing market tanking. But inflation? Hardly.

[TeeDub]

Just another view about lies and statistics.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/12/04/ninflation04.xml

Anything can be shown if you have enough numbers to manipulate.  Even the books of the US aren't immune.  They keep 2 sets of books, one that shows what they want, another to show the real value.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2006-08-02-deficit-usat_x.htm

[FOTD]

quote:Originally posted by rwarn17588

Sorry, FOTD, but I don't see inflation on the horizon.

Inflation in November hit 4.31 percent, which is higher from the usual 2.5 to 3 percent range. But there were higher spikes during two months in 2005, and that wasn't much of an inflationary year, either.

http://www.inflationdata.com/inflation/inflation_rate/CurrentInflation.asp

Stagnation? Perhaps, especially with the housing market tanking. But inflation? Hardly.

Inflation is a mere part of the equation of the real rate of interest which equates to the difference you can get on a secure investment (ten year treasuries or bank cd's) and inflation.....so, the real rate of interest equates to almost zero.

I recall when people would borrow at 10% and put that in cd's at %15 back in the late 70's and early 80's.....then the banks went broke.

[FOTD]

quote:Originally posted by rwarn17588

Sorry, FOTD, but I don't see inflation on the horizon.

Inflation in November hit 4.31 percent, which is higher from the usual 2.5 to 3 percent range. But there were higher spikes during two months in 2005, and that wasn't much of an inflationary year, either.

http://www.inflationdata.com/inflation/inflation_rate/CurrentInflation.asp

Stagnation? Perhaps, especially with the housing market tanking. But inflation? Hardly.

Fed's Inflation Fears Might Trump
Calls for Another Big Rate Cut
Monetary-Policy Makers
Appear to Have Less Room
To Maneuver Than in Past
By GREG IP
January 4, 2008; Page A3
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB119940394997266181.html?mod=hpp_us_whats_news
Slowing factory activity, weakening job growth and a credit crunch have investors expecting aggressive interest-rate cuts from the Federal Reserve.

But this week's surge in the prices of oil and gold underlines why the Fed may not have the freedom to ease monetary policy as much as it did in 2001, when the economy slumped, or as much as many on Wall Street want.
The Fed and the markets agree the economic outlook is worrisome. Minutes of the Fed's December meeting released Wednesday show Fed policy makers share Wall Street's concern that the economy could fall into recession. The minutes raised the prospect of "substantial" further rate cuts if a self-reinforcing spiral of tightening credit and weaker growth develops.

The real disconnect is over inflation. The Fed thinks it is a bigger risk than it was in 2001, and bigger than Wall Street and many prominent economists think. That forces the Fed to accept a greater risk of recession than it did in 2001. That could mean either fewer rate cuts than anticipated by futures markets, which see the Fed's short-term rate target falling to 3% by year-end from 4.25% now, or a quicker reversal of the rate cuts.

Today's situation is in sharp contrast to the Fed's last rate-cutting cycle. In early May 2001, a survey of private-sector forecasters put the odds of recession at 35%. But by that point the Fed, under then-Chairman Alan Greenspan, had already slashed its target for the federal funds rate by two percentage points, to 4.5%, while declaring weak growth to be a bigger worry than inflation. The economy ultimately did experience a mild recession in part because of that September's terrorist attacks, and the funds rate ended the year at 1.75%.

Today, private-sector economists put the odds of recession at 38%, yet the Fed has cut the funds rate only one percentage point since August and has yet to say weaker growth worries it more than inflation.
Mr. Greenspan, who retired last year, said in a recent interview that inflation risks are much greater today than in 2001 and thus his successor, Ben Bernanke, has less freedom to shore up the economy with steep rate cuts than he did. "This is a much tougher monetary-policy environment than anything I experienced," he said.

The most obvious inflationary threat is from oil. It has risen to almost $100 a barrel now from $61 at the end of 2006. That has sent the 12-month overall inflation rate up sharply, to 4.3% in November. By contrast, oil hovered just at just less than $30 for most of 2001 before sinking after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, and inflation ended the year at 1.6%.

The Fed pays more attention to core inflation, which is less volatile because it excludes food and energy. But that picture is also troubling. Since April 2004, core inflation measured by the Fed's preferred price index has been at or above the top of policy makers' preferred 1.5% to 2% for all but five months, notes Doug Elmendorf, a former Fed economist who is now a scholar at the Brookings Institution. It dipped in the spring of last year before edging higher by year end.

The Fed, by allowing inflation to consistently run higher than its preferred range, risks feeding higher expectations of inflation in the public, which will make it harder to get inflation back down, Mr. Elmendorf noted.

Similar concerns bedevil the European Central Bank, whose ability to lower rates has been constrained by inflation of 3.1% in the countries that use the euro. The ECB aims to hold inflation just below 2%. (See related article.)
Perhaps the most important contrast with 2001 is one that gets little attention. Back then, the Greenspan-led Fed was optimistic that the spread of new technology had boosted worker productivity growth and thus the speed at which the economy could grow without bumping up against capacity constraints. Fed staff that June put the economy's noninflationary "potential growth" rate at 3.4%.

Since then, slower growth in both productivity and the labor force has led Fed policy makers to put potential growth at only about 2.5%. Thus, inflationary bottlenecks could develop at much more moderate growth rates than they did in 2001.

Vincent Reinhart, a former senior Fed staffer now at the American Enterprise Institute, said that pessimistic view of potential growth anchors officials' inflation concerns. It changes little between meetings, so it is discussed less than the rapidly changing prospects for growth. But Mr. Reinhart said the persistence of that concern is why the Fed has yet to put growth concerns clearly ahead of inflation in its postmeeting statements.

To many outsiders, the inflation concern is misplaced. "I see little chance of the kind of wage-price spiral that has set off inflation in the past," former Treasury Secretary Larry Summers, now a managing director at hedge-fund manager D.E. Shaw Group, said in a recent speech. "If I'm wrong and [easier monetary policy] creates undue inflation pressures, they can be removed gradually at a moment of much less financial peril."

Harvard University economist Martin Feldstein has also called for sharp cuts in interest rates, arguing that if higher inflation results, "the Fed would have to engineer a longer period of slower growth to bring the inflation rate back to its desired level."

But if inflation does rise as a result of overly easy monetary policy now, getting it back down could require much tighter monetary policy and even a recession.

"If in fact the economy bounces back fairly quickly and inflation remains elevated, then if monetary policy is very aggressive now, you might find yourself in a terribly inflation-risky environment later next year," Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia President Charles Plosser, one of the Fed's most hawkish policy makers, said in a recent interview. And if inflation expectations rise, getting them back down "might prove to be costly."

Mr. Bernanke, whose term is up for renewal in 2010, certainly wants to avoid a recession. But he would probably prefer a mild recession now to a high risk of increased inflation and a deeper recession later.

[FOTD]

All of our econimic statistics are skewed, or "republicanized."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2008/jan/04/economics.useconomy

US jobless figures up as economy suffers severe downturn

Shares went into sharp retreat on both sides of the Atlantic today as gloomy jobs data from the United States heightened fears over prospects for the global economy.

On Wall Street, the Dow Jones Industrial Average tumbled more than 180 points, taking it below the 13,000 level. In London, earlier gains were wiped out, with the FTSE 100 index trading more than 140 points down towards the close.

Unemployment in the US rose to its highest level in more than two years last month as the job-creation machine in the world's biggest economy virtually ground to a halt, according to figures released in Washington today.

The Labor Department prompted fresh speculation on Wall Street that the Feberal Reserve would cut interest rates later this month when it said the jobless rate rose from 4.7% to 5% in December. It also sent the FTSE 100 index down into negative territory, wiping out earlier gains, and pushed the dollar down against a range of currencies including sterling.

Employers added a mere 18,000 jobs last month - the weakest performance by non-farm payrolls since 2003, when the economy was starting to recover from the short-lived recession that followed the collapse of the dotcom bubble.

Economists had expected 70,000 jobs to be created last month, and bond prices rallied immediately after the announcement by the Labor department in anticipation that the Federal Reserve will cut interest rates for a fourth time in a row at the end of this month.

Pierre Ellis, senior economist at Decision Economics in New York said: "The bond market rallied because the unemployment rate moved up in a shocking way and that's the sort of political dynamite that may make the Fed more prone to easing than otherwise."

President Bush was meeting with the Fed chairman, Ben Bernanke, and the treasury secretary, Hank Paulson, today to discuss ways of boosting the economy.

A breakdown of today's official US data showed that during December, manufacturing industries shed 31,000 jobs and construction businesses cut another 49,000. There were 31,000 more government jobs creater and 44,000 were added in education and health services, but retail industries cut more than 24,000 jobs.

Weekly hours of work were unchanged at 33.8 in December but overtime hours dropped to 3.9 from 4.1 in November.

1-4-08

The data has to be inaccurate. Just think of all the "illegals" that are or will be out of work due to the housing/building mess. Unemployment is actually MUCH HIGHER.

[FOTD]

"I'm a walking economy," a man was overheard to say. "My hairline's in recession, my waist is a victim of inflation, and together they're putting me in a deep depression."

"Fact is, I used to be indecisive, but now I'm not sure."

[FOTD]

quote:Originally posted by rwarn17588

Sorry, FOTD, but I don't see inflation on the horizon.

Inflation in November hit 4.31 percent, which is higher from the usual 2.5 to 3 percent range. But there were higher spikes during two months in 2005, and that wasn't much of an inflationary year, either.

http://www.inflationdata.com/inflation/inflation_rate/CurrentInflation.asp

Stagnation? Perhaps, especially with the housing market tanking. But inflation? Hardly.

Bought food the past year? Gas? Energy? Those items are not used in their numbers. Add those in, I'll bet inflation is over 10%

[FOTD]

This guy is worse than Jimmy Carter.
Looks like he's coming to grips with his own deceptiveness....

"CHICAGO — President Bush, in a marked shift from his usual upbeat economic assessments, conceded here on Monday that the nation faces "economic challenges" due to rising oil prices, the home mortgage crisis and a weakening job market.

"We cannot take growth for granted," Mr. Bush said in a speech to a group of business leaders in which he acknowledged that "recent economic indicators have become increasingly mixed."

But even after a government report on Friday that showed unemployment jumped to 5 percent last month from 4.7 percent in November, Mr. Bush stopped short of warning that the nation may be about to enter a recession.

Democrats in Congress and on the campaign trail echoed the president's sobering view. With a number of analysts now predicting that an economic downturn could be imminent, both Mr. Bush and Congressional Democratic leaders say they are considering whether a rescue package is necessary to counter the threat of a recession, in which economic activity declines and joblessness increases over an extended period of time.

But the two sides would undoubtedly take vastly different approaches, setting up a clash that could dominate the 2008 election campaign and the remainder of the Bush presidency.

If the past is any guide, Mr. Bush is likely to favor broad-based tax cuts of the sort he pushed through early in his presidency. Democrats are discussing more targeted relief — tax cuts, spending programs or a combination of the two — to help lower- and middle-income Americans who would be hurt the most if the economy falters.

"This is going to be a battle over doing more of what George Bush has done for the past six years, or doing more for the middle class," Representative Rahm Emanuel of Illinois, the chairman of the House Democratic Caucus, said in a telephone interview after spending the day in Chicago with Mr. Bush. "That's where the fissure is going to be."

The clash comes as the latest negative signs on the economy, coupled with uncertainty in the housing and credit markets, have forced Mr. Bush to abandon his usual sunny rhetoric and paint a darker picture of the economy's condition.

After months of insisting that the economy's fundamentals are strong — a theme he reiterated on Monday — Mr. Bush did not mince words. He acknowledged that "many Americans are anxious about the economy," and he noted that "jobs are growing at a slower pace." He said core inflation was low — "except when you're going to the gas pump, it doesn't seem that low."

Still, the White House is not convinced it must act. The deliberations are tightly held, and aides to Mr. Bush say he will not make a decision about whether to offer a stimulus package, or what it should contain, until later this month, in time for his State of the Union address scheduled for Jan. 28. Appearing in New York on Monday, Mr. Bush's Treasury secretary, Henry M. Paulson Jr., echoed that approach, and cautioned against any rush to action.

"Working through the current situation and getting the policy right," Mr. Paulson said, "is more important than getting the policy announced quickly."

On Capitol Hill, Democrats were positioning themselves to get ahead of any proposal the White House might present. Aides to Nancy Pelosi, the House speaker, said that she had yet to conclude decisively that a stimulus package was needed, but that she had met with a group of economic advisers last month who urged her to take swift action aimed at stabilizing the jittery economy and lifting consumer confidence.

The group included Lawrence H. Summers, a Treasury secretary under President Bill Clinton; Felix G. Rohatyn, the financier and former ambassador to France; and Laurence D. Fink, the chairman and chief executive of BlackRock, the global investment firm.

An aide to Ms. Pelosi said the three were "unanimous in saying that we should move out ahead." In an interview over the weekend, Mr. Summers said he believed that there was now a greater than 50 percent chance of a recession this year.

"My view is that now is the time to be thinking about policies that would provide recession insurance," Mr. Summers said, "and if we wait until it's entirely clear that there is a recession, it will be too late."

But Democratic leaders said there was already a general consensus within the party that any stimulus package would be temporary and targeted to the middle class and the poor. Among the proposals under consideration are a $500 across-the-board rebate, possibly to be returned to taxpayers in their paychecks through the payroll tax system, as well as a plan to restore the $1,000 per child tax credit to many low-income families that currently do not qualify for it.

Polls show Americans are now more concerned with the economy than the war in Iraq, a trend that is reflected in the presidential campaigns. In New Hampshire on Monday, as the candidates furiously courted voters on the eve of that state's crucial primary vote, pocketbook issues like the price of home heating oil and health care took center stage.

"The economy's beginning to have some problems, which I'm worried about," Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York told a group of voters on Monday morning in Portsmouth, N.H. "We've got this energy crisis, with oil now at $100 a barrel," she said, citing consequences "for our economy, for our security, for the problem of global warming."

On the Republican side, Mike Huckabee, the former Arkansas governor, sounded similar themes, recalling his humble roots as he tried to persuade voters that he understood their "struggle." Gas prices, home heating costs and health care bills keep going up, Mr. Huckabee said, "but your paycheck doesn't go up to cover it."

As for the Bush administration, Mr. Paulson, the Treasury secretary, tried to offer assurances that the White House is not standing still. He said the administration may seek to expand a program begun last year to help homeowners who cannot afford to repay subprime mortgages once they are adjusted upward.

Mr. Bush had expected to spend his final year in office focused on foreign affairs — he leaves Tuesday for the Middle East — and a few domestic issues, like reauthorizing his signature education bill, No Child Left Behind.

But the president has had trouble getting credit for the economy even when times were good, and he can ill afford to leave office on an economic sour note. Mr. Bush is well aware that if he does not appear to share the public's concern, he — and, more important for the 2008 elections, his party — could easily look out of touch.

"I think Bush is looking not to give the Democratic candidate any more ammunition than necessary," said Bruce Bartlett, a Republican economist who has been highly critical of the administration. "If we are in the middle of a recession in November, obviously the Republican Party is going to be blamed for that."

Still, Mr. Bush must be careful not to depress the economy with pessimistic talk, and so his speech in Chicago on Monday offered a delicate balancing act. "People said, 'Are you optimistic?' I said, 'Absolutely, absolutely optimistic,'" Mr. Bush said. "Do I recognize the reality of the situation? You bet I do."

Desolation Row?

[TeeDub]

quote:Originally posted by FOTD

This guy is worse than Jimmy Carter.
Looks like he's coming to grips with his own deceptiveness....

Can you paraphrase into your own arguments and just cite someone else's story for factual validation?    Just curious as I hate when people read to me.

[FOTD]

^ my prior post was an AP story.

Don't read it if you don't need to. But for those with an open mind take interest because things are not what we are being told....the bottom line in the Bushevik Revolution.

http://www.inflationdata.com/inflation/Inflation_Articles/M3_Money_supply.asp


"The writing is on the wall. When the Government starts hiding data the problem is big! If this trend continues, inflation is going to come roaring back big time. We will see the late 70's all over again. The war is Iraq and the Billions in Hurricane damage have to be paid for somehow and the "hidden tax" is the easy way out.

Now is the time to begin stocking up on inflation hedges. "
Updated- March 16, 2006


http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/7176255.stm



Read more: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/7176255.stm

[FOTD]

Good bye Age of Affluency or A Cure for Afluenza?

"The message is a number of things. One, there's a cost to this excessive consumption. There's an environmental cost, there's a social cost -- and there's a personal happiness cost. This is what's really interesting. A lot of people think buying all this stuff is making us happier, but recent data has come out showing that it's not so. So we're trashing the planet, we're trashing communities -- and we're not even having fun. If we were at least having fun, we might want to reconsider. But it's not even fun anymore, so we need to rethink how we make, use and relate to the stuff in our lives."

http://www.alternet.org/story/72568/

http://www.storyofstuff.com/

[FOTD]

Faith based economy....Great job Bush! Nice work Bible-Thumpers! Congrats to the NeoCons.

[FOTD]

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601103&sid=abh8h7M3uKBA&refer=us
Nobel-Winning Economist Blames Bush Tax Cuts, Greenspan for Recession Threat


http://www.hillbillyreport.com/blog/2008/01/its-the-economy.html


Junk Bond Crisis.....a must read:
http://articles.moneycentral.msn.com/Investing/JubaksJournal/TheNextBankingCrisisOnTheWay.aspx?vv=550

It will be bigger than sub prime.

We are in a financial crisis.