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

[Hoss]

Interestingly, it doesn't seem to be driven by the loudmouth right wingers, either. They are, after all, the ones who have been calling for hyperinflation and imminent doom for five years now. Thus far, their predictions have failed to prove correct.

Well double-dumbass on you!

[AquaMan]

You have to compare beans and semi trucks to prove you can play ignorant?

How about recovering a sofa but not being done yet vs. a recovered sofa in your living room with people sitting on it.

Recovering from a fever of 104 degrees but still have a temperature of 101 degrees.  Improving but not completely well yet. Recovered would be 98.6, no headache...

You know the difference and my point.

Listening to the network news the other night you would thing everything was back to normal as if nothing ever happened with the DOW closing at 14,000.

\\

You think I'm ignorant but you listen to network news...and pay attention to people who really are ignorant.

Really, when even economists can't agree on "what the condition of our condition is in", when they mix politics and myth into their formulations of strategies to emerge from this recession....you listen to folks who wear makeup?

I repeat. There is no guarantee of recovering your losses from a recession, a depression or bad stock market decisions. It took a war and two decades to totally recover from 1929 (if you don't include the opportunity losses). I suspect we have that long to totally recover these losses. However, we are not flailing hopelessly. People are making money right now.

[Red Arrow]

\\

You think I'm ignorant

Read what I wrote, not what you want it to say.  I wrote " to prove you can play ignorant?".  Your comparison of a recovering alcoholic (There is no such thing as a recovered alcoholic according to what I've read and from several recovering alcoholics I know.) and a recovered sofa is absurd.

I repeat. There is no guarantee of recovering your losses from a recession, a depression or bad stock market decisions. It took a war and two decades to totally recover from 1929 (if you don't include the opportunity losses). I suspect we have that long to totally recover these losses.

You can repeat it as many times as you want, it won't change anything.  Any one individual may not recover his/her losses.  I agree, that's the way it is.  If the economy in general has not recovered its losses, I believe that is something else and it may take several decades to totally recover as you noted above.

However, we are not flailing hopelessly. People are making money right now.

Where did I say we are flailing hopelessly?  I agree that we are doing better than a few years ago.  My objection is to the network new trying to portray that all is totally back to normal with the DOW closing at 14000.  I do believe it should be adjusted for inflation to present day to represent the same purchasing power.  $1.00 in 2007 has the same purchasing power as $1.11 in 2012. (http://www.bls.gov/data/inflation_calculator.htm)  Recovering to $1.00 does not represent a recovery to even 2007 purchasing power.  We can disagree on whether or not  it should also be adjusted for a reasonable interest rate.  Please read what I write and don't try to spin it.

[nathanm]

We can disagree on whether or not  it should also be adjusted for a reasonable interest rate.

That would be double counting. The risk free rate of interest is almost always directly related to inflation expectations.

[AquaMan]

If you want to argue english and semantics you have the wrong guy. I know when I am being disparaged, when arguments are specious and when someone is tilting at windmills. I honestly have no idea why you would ask me about the tense of those two words in context of this thread. Its an old thread that I didn't spend much time re-reading.

Conservatives want to believe that a Liberal or Progressive president simply cannot bring us out of this morass. When a Bush was in office Liberals and Progressives didn't want to give them much credit either. The wonder years of Clinton economics were widely dismissed by Republicans as lies, exaggerations and destructive.

When I watch and listen to a variety of "experts" from economic and business venues, ranging from MSNBC to NPR to Fox, and none of them can even agree on the facts, I have to believe that we're plowing new ground right now. One opinion is about as good as another if you can find the research, the studies, the statistics to back you up. But its impossible to not notice that when home sales are climbing, when businesses are investing in capital goods and when new oil and gas reserves are being found...we just might be moving in a positive direction.

Of course, you wouldn't perceive that from reading this forum. 

[Red Arrow]

I honestly have no idea why you would ask me about the tense of those two words in context of this thread.

I'll try again.   

I said that we haven't recovered yet.  We are in the process of recovering and have made some significant gains.  You just want to be argumentative and are looking for a reason to claim to have been insulted.  I certainly don't consider "when arguments are specious and when someone is tilting at windmills" to be a compliment when I was trying to make a point which I believe is relevant.  You don't have to agree.

[AquaMan]

Don't bother trying if you keep going off in a different direction than the premise of your post, which was,

What's that worth when adjusted for inflation?

Now add in what it should be worth considering the time value of money.  Pick a reasonable interest rate, say 5%.

I saw a spot on the TV news (Ch 8, not FOX) proudly proclaiming that a 401K worth $125,000 before the crash dipped to a bit over $61,000 but should now be worth $131,000 (approx) and shows that the economy has recovered. 
At 5% return, an investment worth $125,000 in late 2008 should be worth $125,000 x (1.05^4) = (approx)$152,000. We ain't back yet.

No one other than a dumb newscaster drew the inference that we have recovered (have to take your word for it that they said that). They just read the scripts put before them and they likely didn't even know they blundered.

But my response was that you seem to think we are only recovered as an economy when all those losses are restored. As though there was any guarantee that those investments would have grown at all, much less an assumed 5%. Or that the economy suffered inflation rather than stagflation. Lots of investments sour during good times or stay stagnant. But right now, the stock market is making folks money. Recovery may be in progress.

Once the economy reaches un-employment rates at half the current rate, when our balance of trade is positive, when productivity is healthy and the stock market flattens out will you still insist on restoring your losses before deeming our economy recovered?

[Red Arrow]

Don't bother trying if you keep going off in a different direction than the premise of your post, which was,

Feel free to read whatever you want  into my post.  Don't claim "If you want to argue english and semantics you have the wrong guy." unless you want me to come to a conclusion of why you are the wrong guy that you don't like.   (hint: that is NOT a compliment)

My premise was that "We ain't back yet.", nearly the only thing you didn't highlight. I never said we have made no progress.  All the stuff you highlighted was in support of my premise.  I prefer to collect/present data and then draw a conclusion rather than jump to a conclusion and then try to find data to support it.  You are free to disagree with my supporting statements.  I might have respected your response if you had said something like the Econ 303 definition of recovered is....  but you didn't do that.  You are also free to disagree about my understanding of the attitude (not exact words) presented by the networks although it seems you didn't watch them to form your own opinion.  Your attitude toward me has been every bit as demeaning as you claim my attitude toward you has been.

Recovery may be in progress.

I guess that is good enough, no need to try for more.

Or that the economy suffered inflation rather than stagflation.

Did you look at the link to the Bureau of Labor Statistics inflation calculator? (http://www.bls.gov/data/inflation_calculator.htm)  I believe that if it now takes $1.11 to purchase the same thing that could be purchased in 2008 for $1.00, we have had inflation.  It takes more money to buy the same thing.  Perhaps you have a different definition of inflation.  Maybe you know more than the BLS.

I am (and so are you) near retirement age.  My retirement will be delayed, if I get there at all, not by poor choices in investments on my part but because of the general economy.  Yes, I personally am going to judge "recovered" by whether I get to retire.  It does not matter to me whether if fits some theoretical economist's definition of recovered (past tense, process complete).

[heironymouspasparagus]

DJIA is probably one of the worst ways to get an idea of how the economy is doing that exists.  Red, there are many adjustments made to that thing, perhaps not for inflation (I don't know about that one) but for companies moving onto and off of the average, plus it seems like that K factor they use is moved around just depending on how the guy feels that day who decides what the adjustment should be.  Did he have his fiber for breakfast?  Was he regular, or feeling a little bathroom anxiety from a lost opportunity??  Who knows.  We have gone from about 6,000 to the current 14,000.  It's carp!  That is a 100% increase!  Nothing like that happened in the company stocks that make up the DOW - not even close!!

Wanna know how I know?  Started a little 'portfolio' over on Yahoo finance many years ago.  On Jan 28, 2008, I adjusted it to a "reference point" to see what happens in the future.  Background; to start this "fantasy football,...er, uh, portfolio", I pretend acquire 100 shares of each stock at the value that day.  For this exercise, it was about $152,000 on that date.

Kraft (Mondelez) is now gone.  Exxon is gone.  United Healthcare is now there.  Changes are made that cannot be rationally factored in by the numbers seen on the DOW.

Today, that portfolio sits at about $182,000, for a fantasy gain of about $29,000 or almost 19%.  It was up $1900 just on Friday!!  Far cry from the 100% + increase in the DOW.  The DOW really is worthless as any kind of indication of economic anything.

[Teatownclown]

^^ Heiry, you could have put it in an index and doubled your money.  Your return was much better than cash or bonds return.
You should be more grateful there isn't %30 unemployment. There are special situation opportunities all over the place. But YOU should stay away from investing.

[dbacks fan]

So which is it?

[AquaMan]

Feel free to read whatever you want  into my post.  Don't claim "If you want to argue english and semantics you have the wrong guy." unless you want me to come to a conclusion of why you are the wrong guy that you don't like.   (hint: that is NOT a compliment)

My premise was that "We ain't back yet.", nearly the only thing you didn't highlight. I never said we have made no progress.  All the stuff you highlighted was in support of my premise.  I prefer to collect/present data and then draw a conclusion rather than jump to a conclusion and then try to find data to support it.  You are free to disagree with my supporting statements.  I might have respected your response if you had said something like the Econ 303 definition of recovered is....  but you didn't do that.  You are also free to disagree about my understanding of the attitude (not exact words) presented by the networks although it seems you didn't watch them to form your own opinion.  Your attitude toward me has been every bit as demeaning as you claim my attitude toward you has been.
I guess that is good enough, no need to try for more.
  Did you look at the link to the Bureau of Labor Statistics inflation calculator? (http://www.bls.gov/data/inflation_calculator.htm)  I believe that if it now takes $1.11 to purchase the same thing that could be purchased in 2008 for $1.00, we have had inflation.  It takes more money to buy the same thing.  Perhaps you have a different definition of inflation.  Maybe you know more than the BLS.

I am (and so are you) near retirement age.  My retirement will be delayed, if I get there at all, not by poor choices in investments on my part but because of the general economy.  Yes, I personally am going to judge "recovered" by whether I get to retire.  It does not matter to me whether if fits some theoretical economist's definition of recovered (past tense, process complete).

Congratulations. You've won a debate with yourself. I never took Econ 303. Did you? I had 1000, macro, micro, whatever. But all you've done is confirm my suspicion that you, and a lot of other conservatives, will not be happy till you've been restored to your previous condition which, like I said, took two decades and two wars after the great depression. And you are no better at following an argument than I am. I wasn't saying we had no inflation, I was saying that when you throw in all these variables that affect an investment, you can't just pick the ones you want. If you're going to live in "what could have happened" world, throw in some domestic terrorism, some hurricanes, some tornadoes and a dose of Tea Party flavoring.

I wish you luck in recovering your investments in time to retire comfortably. But you can never make up for your opportunity loss.

[guido911]

Figured this could go here.

Over the years, the personal exemption and standard deduction have not kept pace with inflation, so today 70% of the population is subject to income taxes. Almost 60 million returns, mostly under $20,000 in gross income, pay no income tax, largely the result of the earned-income and child tax credits. The individual income tax today raises $950 billion annually through 144 million tax returns. Of this, the top 40 million returns pay about $856 billion and the bottom 104 million returns only about $94 billion.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323701904578276210776108672.html?KEYWORDS=jay+starkman

[nathanm]

RA, the economy as a whole has recovered. Unfortunately, the job market has failed to do so, probably largely thanks to increased automation. There's a surprising amount of onshoring of manufacturing now, but it's almost all being done by robots. Sadly (or happily, depending on your perspective), they're getting cheaper and easier to integrate into existing work flows. Even fast food places are beginning to use robots to make your food.

I just wonder what we're going to do with the millions of folks who still work in these sorts of jobs. On the bright side, it frees up people to do more creative (or productive) things that robots can't do. I'm just not sure what's going to keep them from becoming destitute in the interim.

[heironymouspasparagus]

Unfortunately, the job market has failed to do so, probably largely thanks to increased automation. There's a surprising amount of onshoring of manufacturing now, but it's almost all being done by robots. Sadly (or happily, depending on your perspective), they're getting cheaper and easier to integrate into existing work flows. Even fast food places are beginning to use robots to make your food.

I just wonder what we're going to do with the millions of folks who still work in these sorts of jobs. On the bright side, it frees up people to do more creative (or productive) things that robots can't do. I'm just not sure what's going to keep them from becoming destitute in the interim.

At the same time, as we have made work more technical, we maintain the same levels of high school dropouts, so the actual gap between the needs of the economy for trained workers, and the supply of people able to be trained for those jobs, is increasing.  Bad combination.  I would use the phrase "perfect storm" but it has been used to death...