Seeking Alpha

May Nonfarm Payrolls: +69K vs. consensus of +150K, prior 79K (revised). Unemployment 8.2% vs...

May Nonfarm Payrolls: +69K vs. consensus of +150K, prior 79K (revised). Unemployment 8.2% vs 8.1% expected, 8.1% previous.
Comments (113)
  • Sanitylost
    , contributor
    Comments (476) | Send Message
     
    QE 3 is a done deal. I guess this means this is good for the market right ? Put your tin foil hats on folks sanity is taking a back door.
    1 Jun 2012, 08:32 AM Reply Like
  • bixbubba
    , contributor
    Comments (230) | Send Message
     
    hat tip to ECRI
    1 Jun 2012, 08:33 AM Reply Like
  • Angel Martin
    , contributor
    Comments (1304) | Send Message
     
    yup! this just raised the probability of them being right by a lot,

     

    in this report we have bad nonfarm, falling hours, falling AWE... just ugly, april was revised down a lot !

     

    the household isn't as bad, it was up and is up 450K since Jan

     

    i'm surprised the market is not down more
    1 Jun 2012, 08:46 AM Reply Like
  • GaltMachine
    , contributor
    Comments (1139) | Send Message
     
    bixbubba,

     

    And Hussman. From this week's commentary:

     

    http://bit.ly/Nj1RIO
    "We will undoubtedly have moments of promising news that will relieve economic and Euro-area concerns for brief periods of time. Part of the reason that the markets have been fairly complacent despite deterioration on these fronts is exactly the hope and expectation of investors for these transitory but unpredictable moments of relief. If one steps back from the trees to observe the forest, the reality of the situation is that Europe is already largely in recession, the global economy is slipping quickly toward the same outcome, and in my view, the U.S. is also entering a recession that will ultimately be dated as beginning in May or June of 2012 (i.e. now). The economic headwinds already in place are likely to make any meaningful budget progress virtually impossible in the Eurozone, and without meaningful budget progress, the likelihood of continued bailouts to peripheral European states is slim. So while short-lived bouts of hopeful enthusiasm are likely, the reality of the situation is much more challenging."
    1 Jun 2012, 10:12 AM Reply Like
  • Steve Carter
    , contributor
    Comments (7) | Send Message
     
    +1 on ECRI. Looks like they are getting it right...unfortunately, again.
    1 Jun 2012, 08:34 AM Reply Like
  • enigmaman
    , contributor
    Comments (2686) | Send Message
     
    OUCH! this is huge, at what point will John Q public finally get it, finally realize that Obamanomics is a complete and utter failure. You have Bernanke and now A Greenspan saying as much. Yet here we have Obama once again preaching the virtues of his Hope and Change message as he drives us off the cliff at an accelerating speed.
    1 Jun 2012, 08:36 AM Reply Like
  • 867046
    , contributor
    Comments (398) | Send Message
     
    More to the point, with China, Brazil, Europe, and India slowing down, how is Mitt going to get to his 4% or 6% unemployment?
    1 Jun 2012, 08:42 AM Reply Like
  • D_Virginia
    , contributor
    Comments (2280) | Send Message
     
    > how is Mitt going to get to his 4% or 6% unemployment?

     

    By cutting taxes on the wealthy, of course! :)
    1 Jun 2012, 08:45 AM Reply Like
  • jwbrewer
    , contributor
    Comments (317) | Send Message
     
    Well, this is what spending trillions and trillions and trillions..(you know the rest) and following a defunct economist named Keynes by a bunch of 'highly intelligent Ivy educated leaders (just ask them how smart they are)' gets you?
    1 Jun 2012, 08:52 AM Reply Like
  • jwbrewer
    , contributor
    Comments (317) | Send Message
     
    Last time I check, Mitt isn't the president. Lord Obama, son of Mother Gaia with his greek columns and teleprompter is. But nice try in deflecting though...well, actually it was pretty lame.
    1 Jun 2012, 08:55 AM Reply Like
  • wyostocks
    , contributor
    Comments (7834) | Send Message
     
    d-v
    Any thoughts about how the Obama administration has brought the unemployment down these past three plus years?
    1 Jun 2012, 08:57 AM Reply Like
  • D_Virginia
    , contributor
    Comments (2280) | Send Message
     
    > Any thoughts about how the Obama administration has brought
    > the unemployment down these past three plus years?

     

    One thought: they /actually/ have brought unemployment down these past three plus years.

     

    No one is saying Obama is doing a great job -- well, Terry I guess :) -- but I challenge anyone to provide realistic evidence that a 2013-2017 Romney administration would do any better for anyone but the financial industry (you know, the government's owners).

     

    Remember, this is America -- we don't get to vote for who we think will do a good job, we are stuck having to vote for the one who scares us a little less than the other one. :)
    1 Jun 2012, 09:14 AM Reply Like
  • mickmars
    , contributor
    Comments (1323) | Send Message
     
    Wow, lots of implied hope and change thrown Mitt Romney's way.

     

    Somebody please enlighten me as to how he will significantly improve things over sad-sack Barak Obama? And "he knows business" is not an acceptable answer.
    1 Jun 2012, 09:19 AM Reply Like
  • wyostocks
    , contributor
    Comments (7834) | Send Message
     
    d-v
    " provide realistic evidence"

     

    Please explan to me and others just how one provides "realistic evidence" for a forecast or prediction.

     

    Obama meanwhile has a track record, albiet a lousy one.

     

    Let me help you out----Obamacare, government regulations and uncertainty created by the administration are just three reasons companies aren't hiring.
    1 Jun 2012, 09:21 AM Reply Like
  • D_Virginia
    , contributor
    Comments (2280) | Send Message
     
    > explan to me and others just how one provides "realistic
    > evidence" for a forecast or prediction.

     

    What specific plans has Mitt put forth? What are his policies? Any inkling of what he'll do in the white other than pass into law the official hating of Obama?

     

    > Obamacare, government regulations and uncertainty created by
    > the administration are just three reasons companies aren't
    > hiring.

     

    Incorrect, they're not hiring because there's no demand. You can take away every regulation on the books and they still wouldn't hire, because there's not enough demand to warrant hiring.

     

    Similarly, if demand picked up, you'd see hiring in a heartbeat, regulation or not. The math for business owners is simple: do what makes you money.

     

    This is basic economics, as opposed to voodoo economics. :)
    1 Jun 2012, 09:32 AM Reply Like
  • Greenspanblows
    , contributor
    Comments (148) | Send Message
     
    I love the way you try to blame this on Obama. What would you do in his shoes enigmaman?
    If there is anyone to blame, it is Alan Greenspan. The man who spoke above everyone's heads so that no one would know that he had no clue what he was talking about and many of his so-called facts were just theories. Theories that have been proven wrong now.

     

    Greenspan was warned about OTC derivatives and did nothing about it. Not only did he do nothing about it, he silenced and discredited those who tried to change regulations at the CFTC. Greenspan watched as many markets would form bubbles and do nothing about it. Greenspan advised US citizens to treat their homes like banks and pull out the equity. Greenspan fueled the speculation which has eventually brought us to where we are today, one big hot mess! Throw in one of the worst presidents ever (George W.) after
    Greenspans' term and you get the result we have today. Capitalism on the brink of collapse.

     

    Sorry folks but you heard it here first, it is going to take at least 20 years to dig ourselves out of this mess (best case scenario). I won't even discuss the worst case scenarios because I am not a bear and think the U.S. will pull through.

     

    And regarding Obama who I did not vote for, don't just jump on the bandwagon and blame him. He had nothing to do with this. He may make it worse but he is not the cause.
    1 Jun 2012, 09:42 AM Reply Like
  • jwbrewer
    , contributor
    Comments (317) | Send Message
     
    According to a recent study, U.S. business have been hiring and a vast majority has been overseas in much more business friendly enivorments..lower corp tax rates, wages..etc. You are right..Keynesian economics and central planning is voodoo economics and capital will flow to its greatest return. Now, it is true if there is an increase in Big Macs McDonald will hire and pay accordling..if there is a increase in demand for electronic equipment then a factory in China, India will hire. Voodoo economics (Keynesianism) only works in a closed system (producing a lower standard of living) and in the minds of Hopium smokers who dream of unicorn,fairydust, and rainbows.
    1 Jun 2012, 09:42 AM Reply Like
  • D_Virginia
    , contributor
    Comments (2280) | Send Message
     
    Got a link to this recent study? Somehow I suspect not. :)
    1 Jun 2012, 09:53 AM Reply Like
  • jwbrewer
    , contributor
    Comments (317) | Send Message
     
    You invited it:
    .http://on.msnbc.com/L3...
    http://on.wsj.com/L3hdyZ
    http://bit.ly/L31rGF

     

    Need more? Put down your Hopium pipe and see the clear picture
    1 Jun 2012, 10:01 AM Reply Like
  • jhooper
    , contributor
    Comments (5763) | Send Message
     
    "You can take away every regulation on the books and they still wouldn't hire"

     

    Gov regulations are price blind consumption taxes that raise fixed costs for production without regards to productive knowledge. If the fixed costs dropped drastically, industry in the US would become one of the most competitive places in the world and one of the safest for capital. Economic opportunity would increase at an exponential rate, and investors would need help in capitalizing on those opportunities. This is why they would hire. It might take 9 to 18 mos, but it would begin.

     

    The real voodoo economics is subsidizing consumption by capital erosion to get people to spend because such a plan relys on defrauding the public into believing the capital erosion is the same thing as income.
    1 Jun 2012, 10:08 AM Reply Like
  • enigmaman
    , contributor
    Comments (2686) | Send Message
     
    "but I challenge anyone to provide realistic evidence that a 2013-2017 Romney administration would do any better for anyone but the financial industry (you know, the government's owners)."

     

    DV, what realistic evidence did you require when you voted for Obama, someone without a lick of business sense. Now dont even try to tell me you didnt vote for Obama. Your remarks shine a light on who your real true love is and its not Romney.
    1 Jun 2012, 10:12 AM Reply Like
  • jhooper
    , contributor
    Comments (5763) | Send Message
     
    mick

     

    Good point. What is his plan to reduce gov price blind interventions? I have been saying this for a while, and its important to consider for the markets. Obama will continue over the cliff head first into destruction. Romney may just be content to hang on to the edge of the cliff with his fingers. Until we hear a politically feasible plan that will allow him to roll back the mountaing of gov mismanagement, you may still want to be very defensive with your investments even if Romney wins the election. There is still congress and the bureaucracy to consider. They are huge obstacles to enlightened economics and exponential prosperity.
    1 Jun 2012, 10:16 AM Reply Like
  • jhooper
    , contributor
    Comments (5763) | Send Message
     
    No, but he proclaimed to be a god that would fix it all. He clearly hasn't delivered.
    1 Jun 2012, 10:16 AM Reply Like
  • enigmaman
    , contributor
    Comments (2686) | Send Message
     
    this has nothing to do with what Mitt could do in the future its about OBAMA and what he has been unable to do in 3+ years.
    1 Jun 2012, 10:17 AM Reply Like
  • enigmaman
    , contributor
    Comments (2686) | Send Message
     
    DV- "This is basic economics, as opposed to voodoo economics" singing from another Obama love, so sweet

     

    BTW- why so down on Mitts Hope and Change, are you so invested in Obamas failures that you are willing to throw the baby out with the bath water
    1 Jun 2012, 10:21 AM Reply Like
  • enigmaman
    , contributor
    Comments (2686) | Send Message
     
    "Sorry folks but you heard it here first, it is going to take at least 20 years to dig ourselves out of this mess (best case scenario). "

     

    You asked me this "I love the way you try to blame this on Obama. What would you do in his shoes enigmaman? "

     

    Simply- I would stop digging
    1 Jun 2012, 10:24 AM Reply Like
  • jhooper
    , contributor
    Comments (5763) | Send Message
     
    Code du Travail
    By French law, once a company has at least 50 employees working
    inside France, management must create three worker councils,
    introduce profit sharing, and submit restructuring plans to the
    council if the company decides to fire workers for economic reasons.
    As a result, France has 2.4 times as many companies with 49
    employees as with 50. In fact, to circumvent the onerous labor laws
    and costs associated with compliance, many French companies
    that wish to expand their business and employee base beyond 49
    employees have simply sent production to surrounding countries
    including Tunisia or Romania. With near 10% unemployment in
    France, labor laws that were designed — 102 years ago, mind you
    — to aid workers appear to be exacerbating unemployment woes
    by sending jobs across the border.
    In the current Affordable care act, businesses with fewer than 50
    employees are exempt from having to provide health insurance.
    Will we become a nation of 49 employee firms?
    1 Jun 2012, 11:02 AM Reply Like
  • D_Virginia
    , contributor
    Comments (2280) | Send Message
     
    Excellent links, thank you!

     

    To quote your articles:
    "They're hiring overseas, where sales are surging" (demand)

     

    "Demand has grown dramatically this year in emerging markets like India, China and Brazil" (demand)

     

    "Meanwhile, consumer demand in the U.S. has been subdued" (demand)

     

    "The decision is based on demand: Asia-Pacific sales soared 38 percent in the first nine months of the year, compared with 16 percent in the U.S. Caterpillar stock is up 64 percent this year. " (demand)

     

    "As a greater percentage of our sales have been outside the U.S., we have seen our work force outside the U.S. grow" (demand)

     

    ""We've globalized around markets, not cheap labor. The era of globalization around cheap labor is over," he said in a speech in Washington last month. "Today we go to Brazil, we go to China, we go to India, because that's where the customers are." " (demand)

     

    In summary, jobs are mostly driven by DEMAND. Thank you so much for providing me with these articles that support that point, you're too kind! :)
    1 Jun 2012, 12:33 PM Reply Like
  • wyostocks
    , contributor
    Comments (7834) | Send Message
     
    D-v
    "Incorrect, they're not hiring because there's no demand."

     

    Wake up dude.
    The demand is not there for, as example, the three simple first grade examples I laid out for you.
    Sometimes, facts trump ideology.
    1 Jun 2012, 09:21 PM Reply Like
  • wyostocks
    , contributor
    Comments (7834) | Send Message
     
    And, just how often do "Gods" appear to mere mortals?
    1 Jun 2012, 09:23 PM Reply Like
  • wyostocks
    , contributor
    Comments (7834) | Send Message
     
    WTF are you trying to say?
    1 Jun 2012, 09:24 PM Reply Like
  • Christopher Cowan
    , contributor
    Comments (150) | Send Message
     
    You mean "Obama-Romney Care"
    2 Jun 2012, 03:44 PM Reply Like
  • Christopher Cowan
    , contributor
    Comments (150) | Send Message
     
    Unable to do because nothing will pass in Congress?
    2 Jun 2012, 03:49 PM Reply Like
  • wyostocks
    , contributor
    Comments (7834) | Send Message
     
    ev2
    please correct my memory. I don't recall Romney voting in either the house or senate.
    2 Jun 2012, 04:44 PM Reply Like
  • Christopher Cowan
    , contributor
    Comments (150) | Send Message
     
    In order to take an idea and put it in the house or senate for a vote, it does not require the author to be in the senate or house.
    3 Jun 2012, 01:55 AM Reply Like
  • WMARKW
    , contributor
    Comments (10291) | Send Message
     
    Right.....and Romney had soooooooo much influence on the DC crowd. And how did that happen....maybe it was his good pal Kennedy?
    3 Jun 2012, 10:38 PM Reply Like
  • WMARKW
    , contributor
    Comments (10291) | Send Message
     
    Especially during Obama's first 2 years. You do remember those right? "We'll read this bill after we pass it."
    3 Jun 2012, 10:39 PM Reply Like
  • SoldHigh
    , contributor
    Comments (1013) | Send Message
     
    Get rid of anti-business Obama, and businesses will be able to create jobs.
    1 Jun 2012, 08:40 AM Reply Like
  • D_Virginia
    , contributor
    Comments (2280) | Send Message
     
    Businesses can't create jobs without demand.
    1 Jun 2012, 08:45 AM Reply Like
  • jwbrewer
    , contributor
    Comments (317) | Send Message
     
    Business can't create jobs by over regulation and forced costs such as health care and above market wages followed by high taxes. Worked great for Greece and Spain..etc.
    1 Jun 2012, 08:59 AM Reply Like
  • jpiretti
    , contributor
    Comments (711) | Send Message
     
    Corporate profits...both nominal and (f) GDP are at all time highs. If this guy is anti-business, he is doing a lousy job of it.

     

    http://seekingalpha.co...
    1 Jun 2012, 09:17 AM Reply Like
  • mickmars
    , contributor
    Comments (1323) | Send Message
     
    So a Massachusetts Moderate with heavy Wall Street ties is gonna fix all this for the working man? Please.....

     

    Yes, Obama is worse, but Mitt is just another European Socialist himself.
    1 Jun 2012, 09:22 AM Reply Like
  • jwbrewer
    , contributor
    Comments (317) | Send Message
     
    Keep working it JP.. keep working it. BTW. You may want to recheck corporate profits again as well as their actual location.
    1 Jun 2012, 09:45 AM Reply Like
  • enigmaman
    , contributor
    Comments (2686) | Send Message
     
    DV-" Businesses can't create jobs without demand" BINGO- so now tell us what you think Obama has done to create demand. Remember this is not about Bush or Romney so focus on what Obama has done in this regard
    1 Jun 2012, 10:34 AM Reply Like
  • enigmaman
    , contributor
    Comments (2686) | Send Message
     
    neither glasses nor light can help those that refuse to see
    1 Jun 2012, 11:37 AM Reply Like
  • jhooper
    , contributor
    Comments (5763) | Send Message
     
    What drives demand? The ability to consume. What drives the ability to consume? The ability to produce. What drives the ability to produce? Innovation. What drives innovation? The human ability to learn.

     

    Supply drives demand, because without supply demand is meaningless. The ability to drive demand with supply requires advances in productive knowledge. Advances in productive knowledge only come from learning, and learning requires mistakes.

     

    Governments have guns. They don't have to learn from mistakes until it is too late to avert serious austerity. Just printing money mediums and handing them out relies on gov guns. Thus the supply of money mediums increases to "stimulate demand" and thereby "getting business going" is a consumption subsidy because it relies on the foundation of gov force.

     

    This reduces the incentives to innovate and create new products or improve the production methods of existing products. Using gov to increase the supply of money mediums via gov force is a subsidy for old technology and encourages malinvestment in highly depreciable assets. In other words it creates a bubble, that will lead to another recession.

     

    The only solution is to reduce regressive taxation on the poor via price blind gov regulations, and allow private price sensitive regulations to set new price and quantity equilibriums. This will improve the return on current opportunities where the returns to justify the risks, and economic opportunity will grow exponentially.

     

    Quickly, depreciable assets will deflate in price, and assets that can make such items (consumables) will inflate in price. Choice will grow with the opportunities, and so will the need for employees. In enlightened economics, jobs aren't paid for - they pay for themselves. In 24 to 36 mos, unemployment would be around 4% and GDP would be in the 8% to 9% range.
    1 Jun 2012, 01:45 PM Reply Like
  • Windsun33
    , contributor
    Comments (4275) | Send Message
     
    ".. Using gov to increase the supply of money mediums via gov force is a subsidy for old technology.."

     

    I think that is a point that a lot of people usually miss, and government always seems to miss. History is replete with examples of government pouring money into declining industries while ignoring new ones.
    1 Jun 2012, 02:26 PM Reply Like
  • D_Virginia
    , contributor
    Comments (2280) | Send Message
     
    > government pouring money into declining industries

     

    Such as investment banks! :)
    1 Jun 2012, 02:29 PM Reply Like
  • jhooper
    , contributor
    Comments (5763) | Send Message
     
    Exactly. Look how big the financial sector has grown. You saw a similar effect in housing when gov policy was to subsidize real estate. Real estate brokers were popping up left and right. The same situation exists in Europe.

     

    A central bank, when done from the perspective of improving the economy, whether through the voodoo mechanics of aggregate demand or as a lender of last resort, is basically a subsidy for the financial markets. Thus, whatever you subsidize you get more of, and presto we get more of financial markets.

     

    This was JP Morgan's mindset when he pushed for a Federal Reserve. JP was an investment banker. He made money doing deals. The amount of deals he could do was limited to his and his partner's capital and liquidity. However, if he could tap the capital of the populace at large, then there is no reason for him to stop doing deals. Thus, the financial markets inflate.

     

    Then the very people who advocated for gov's price blind intervention that leads to the inflation of specific markets, then moan about the very inflation they advocated for.
    1 Jun 2012, 02:43 PM Reply Like
  • jhooper
    , contributor
    Comments (5763) | Send Message
     
    http://bit.ly/Mg9NOs
    1 Jun 2012, 03:45 PM Reply Like
  • davidingeorgia
    , contributor
    Comments (2713) | Send Message
     
    Surprise! Welcome to the ongoing disaster that IS the Obama/Biden "recovery". Enjoy!
    1 Jun 2012, 08:40 AM Reply Like
  • bbro
    , contributor
    Comments (9597) | Send Message
     
    Ugly..Ugly...Ugly...
    1 Jun 2012, 08:40 AM Reply Like
  • davidingeorgia
    , contributor
    Comments (2713) | Send Message
     
    What? You mean there's not a reason we should just ignore this and sing happy songs together? Was that a hint of reality you just sniffed?
    1 Jun 2012, 08:43 AM Reply Like
  • mickmars
    , contributor
    Comments (1323) | Send Message
     
    Time to buy a house?
    1 Jun 2012, 09:24 AM Reply Like
  • Poor Texan
    , contributor
    Comments (3529) | Send Message
     
    david,
    bbro doesn't drink the kool aid and when he says ugly, it is there.
    1 Jun 2012, 10:03 AM Reply Like
  • WMARKW
    , contributor
    Comments (10291) | Send Message
     
    But.....what about the 52 week moving average???? :)
    1 Jun 2012, 10:37 AM Reply Like
  • davidingeorgia
    , contributor
    Comments (2713) | Send Message
     
    No? I could have sworn he's been telling me over and over again to ignore virtually every negative or mediocre indicator that's come out since...well, since I've first noticed his posts. So one report was finally bad enough to get his attention? Glad to hear it; welcome to reality, bbro. And the job situation is actually worse than this one report makes it look.

     

    http://bit.ly/KDSSmD
    1 Jun 2012, 10:57 AM Reply Like
  • Poor Texan
    , contributor
    Comments (3529) | Send Message
     
    David,

     

    I meant that bbro is a technician that relies on official numbers and doesn't have a political agenda on his comments. However, I have not agreed with his technical optimism as I don't think our current numbers are comparable to most historical trends due to the heavy Federal Reserve intervention.
    1 Jun 2012, 02:58 PM Reply Like
  • kkeate
    , contributor
    Comments (23) | Send Message
     
    Bloodbath the rest of the summer
    1 Jun 2012, 08:40 AM Reply Like
  • jwbrewer
    , contributor
    Comments (317) | Send Message
     
    Nothing to see here. Hey, look over there. Mitt is putting his dog on the roof and women at Georgetown need birth control.
    1 Jun 2012, 08:40 AM Reply Like
  • davidingeorgia
    , contributor
    Comments (2713) | Send Message
     
    Squirrel! :-) The Obama re-election theme in one word.
    1 Jun 2012, 08:44 AM Reply Like
  • mickmars
    , contributor
    Comments (1323) | Send Message
     
    Aren't they all bickering about gay marriage today? I mean, that's the real threat
    1 Jun 2012, 09:26 AM Reply Like
  • Windsun33
    , contributor
    Comments (4275) | Send Message
     
    Bah!! And here I thought the real threat to the economy was Planned Parenthood.
    1 Jun 2012, 10:06 AM Reply Like
  • WMARKW
    , contributor
    Comments (10291) | Send Message
     
    Don't you mean Planned Un-Parenthood?
    1 Jun 2012, 10:38 AM Reply Like
  • Poor Texan
    , contributor
    Comments (3529) | Send Message
     
    Windsun
    Well as soon as Planned Parenthood can get the abortion rate up to 100% there will be no economy.
    1 Jun 2012, 10:39 AM Reply Like
  • Windsun33
    , contributor
    Comments (4275) | Send Message
     
    The Obama recovery is now in full swing. I am looking more and more at going all cash for a while.
    1 Jun 2012, 08:42 AM Reply Like
  • J. A. Saglimbeni
    , contributor
    Comments (831) | Send Message
     
    I have a feeling that there will be new Hope and Change come November, but on a good note...I think the markets will end up at the end of the year...just think about this: Treasury yields at record lows and quality dividend stocks at valuations not seen since the 09' crash...

     

    J. A.
    1 Jun 2012, 08:44 AM Reply Like
  • D_Virginia
    , contributor
    Comments (2280) | Send Message
     
    Agreed, I think the last recession and the coming recession will turn a lot of growth investor into dividend investors.
    1 Jun 2012, 08:46 AM Reply Like
  • wyostocks
    , contributor
    Comments (7834) | Send Message
     
    d-v
    Or mattress stuffers.
    1 Jun 2012, 08:55 AM Reply Like
  • D_Virginia
    , contributor
    Comments (2280) | Send Message
     
    Yeah, mattress stuffing is looking like a pretty good investment some days. :)
    1 Jun 2012, 08:57 AM Reply Like
  • Storm Warning
    , contributor
    Comments (156) | Send Message
     
    Construction lost 28,000 jobs. Most probably not related to housing but this indicates the housing recovery is a phantom.
    1 Jun 2012, 08:47 AM Reply Like
  • wyostocks
    , contributor
    Comments (7834) | Send Message
     
    Where is Terry writing how the great work Obama is doing is saving the economy?
    1 Jun 2012, 08:48 AM Reply Like
  • WMARKW
    , contributor
    Comments (10291) | Send Message
     
    She's down at the SNAP line collecting her food stamps........
    1 Jun 2012, 09:10 AM Reply Like
  • sean.parmelee
    , contributor
    Comments (790) | Send Message
     
    Union break.
    1 Jun 2012, 12:26 PM Reply Like
  • Christopher Cowan
    , contributor
    Comments (150) | Send Message
     
    You are aware that more people were on food stamps under Bush..right?
    2 Jun 2012, 03:55 PM Reply Like
  • wyostocks
    , contributor
    Comments (7834) | Send Message
     
    Wrong....................
    In any event, it don't matter as he hasn't been President in 42 months.
    2 Jun 2012, 04:44 PM Reply Like
  • Papaswamp
    , contributor
    Comments (2198) | Send Message
     
    Completely incorrect....we are at record level food stamps..SNAP.
    26.7 million in 2007...Presently 46.4 million.
    2007-2010:
    http://1.usa.gov/KrhiRl
    Present:
    http://1.usa.gov/qbUdym
    2 Jun 2012, 09:18 PM Reply Like
  • Christopher Cowan
    , contributor
    Comments (150) | Send Message
     
    Using full year statistics(as you have done):
    Bush 2000-2008
    28 222 630 - 16 701 000 = 11 521 630 added
    Obama 2009-2011
    44,708,726-33,489,975 = 11 218 751 added
    That was what I was basing my info on, although using up to this month that it would be different.
    3 Jun 2012, 02:38 AM Reply Like
  • Windsun33
    , contributor
    Comments (4275) | Send Message
     
    EV2 - simply not true. SNAP is has been breaking all time records for the past several months, both by number of people and by percentage.
    3 Jun 2012, 10:49 AM Reply Like
  • D_Virginia
    , contributor
    Comments (2280) | Send Message
     
    Agree about the hard numbers re: SNAP, but context matters.

     

    Food stamp usage nearly doubled since the start of one of the worst economic downturns in history. This is not terribly surprising, even though it's still certainly undesirable, and certainly doesn't indicate any kind of "recovery".

     

    Funny thing though, food stamp usage also nearly doubled from 2000 to 2007,which was one of the /best/ economic booms in history -- at least for some, apparently.

     

    In summary:
    Obama Administration policies: meh
    Bush Administration policies: retarded :)
    3 Jun 2012, 11:24 AM Reply Like
  • Windsun33
    , contributor
    Comments (4275) | Send Message
     
    Part of the reason for the increase in food stamps usage over the past decade is the lowering of requirements to get on the SNAP program. You no longer have to be anything close to being in poverty nor hungry to get on the SNAP program.
    3 Jun 2012, 11:38 AM Reply Like
  • Papaswamp
    , contributor
    Comments (2198) | Send Message
     
    So wait..you are comparing a 2 term prez (Bush) to a 1 term (Obama)? Yes, I agree though..Bush didn't take over until Feb 2001..but still I'll take 8 v 3. Yea Bush was an idiot but food stamp expansion was half the rate..including Clinton's tech collapse which began May of 2000 (see the down turn in employment participation rate).
    3 Jun 2012, 08:38 PM Reply Like
  • Papaswamp
    , contributor
    Comments (2198) | Send Message
     
    He is trying to compare 8 yrs to 3 and make it seem even..let him go for it....
    3 Jun 2012, 08:39 PM Reply Like
  • Papaswamp
    , contributor
    Comments (2198) | Send Message
     
    8 yrs vs 3....and Bush is coming of a tech collapse plus 9-11. Now that said...I don't agree with a huge number of Bush policies (not that I think he really ran the show)....but you are comparing a 2 term presidency (plus some of the previous) to a 3/4 term prez....sorry you math doesn't work. Yes Obama come into a worse disaster than Bush, BUT he voted for (as Senator) and CONTINUED (as Prez) the exact same policies...You are defending the same people that have been running the 'show' for at least the last 12 yrs.....
    3 Jun 2012, 08:43 PM Reply Like
  • Christopher Cowan
    , contributor
    Comments (150) | Send Message
     
    I always like commentators that see both sides :)
    3 Jun 2012, 10:40 PM Reply Like
  • WMARKW
    , contributor
    Comments (10291) | Send Message
     
    He likes "fuzzy math".
    3 Jun 2012, 10:41 PM Reply Like
  • kkeate
    , contributor
    Comments (23) | Send Message
     
    Am I the only person who finds it somewhat amusing that people are know paying the Germans (negative bond yields) to hold their money?
    1 Jun 2012, 08:49 AM Reply Like
  • Ohrama
    , contributor
    Comments (512) | Send Message
     
    "prior 79K (revised)"
    I suppose the prior number was revised down big (The April jobs report, released Friday morning, found that the U.S. economy created a disappointing 115000 jobs - May 4, 2012). I wonder how was the other 3 months of 2012!
    1 Jun 2012, 08:51 AM Reply Like
  • sr1977
    , contributor
    Comments (336) | Send Message
     
    That's nothing, wait until this months 69K gets revised down to 40K next month. I think the goal is to get the non farms number into negative territory or something:

     

    ..."200K Americans went back to work at McDonald's for free food this month, up from 100K last month.."
    1 Jun 2012, 09:00 AM Reply Like
  • kkeate
    , contributor
    Comments (23) | Send Message
     
    Long $SWHC and gold, the world is falling apart
    1 Jun 2012, 08:55 AM Reply Like
  • dem816
    , contributor
    Comments (16) | Send Message
     
    Wake up Amerika!
    1 Jun 2012, 08:56 AM Reply Like
  • TheRenegade
    , contributor
    Comments (346) | Send Message
     
    History never repeats... I tell myself before I go sleep...

     

    and I dream of Japan...
    1 Jun 2012, 09:03 AM Reply Like
  • torahislife
    , contributor
    Comments (400) | Send Message
     
    Numbers could only be stretched so long. Refreshing to finally see the first glimmer of truth emerge. Enough pain and our leaders may do what's necessary to correct our sick economy. Send em all to prison is a good start.
    1 Jun 2012, 09:17 AM Reply Like
  • sean.parmelee
    , contributor
    Comments (790) | Send Message
     
    Refusing to believe number after number, then suddenly believing the one number that looks different, is a pretty good indication that you're not objective.
    1 Jun 2012, 12:27 PM Reply Like
  • Sp0ck
    , contributor
    Comments (25) | Send Message
     
    How come people only mention the participation rate when the unemployment goes down? PR is up .2 today, which is a lot, which is a good reason for unemployment going up as well. You people are a bunch of negative nancys.
    1 Jun 2012, 09:26 AM Reply Like
  • mickmars
    , contributor
    Comments (1323) | Send Message
     
    Good point about the participation rate. They actually wanted this number to look worse than it actually is. The justification they needed for QE3.

     

    After QE3, they'll start fudging the participation rate again to make employment look better than it really is.

     

    It's all just sad.
    1 Jun 2012, 09:31 AM Reply Like
  • D_Virginia
    , contributor
    Comments (2280) | Send Message
     
    Ssshhhh!!! Don't confuse people with context and facts!! :)
    1 Jun 2012, 09:33 AM Reply Like
  • Papaswamp
    , contributor
    Comments (2198) | Send Message
     
    It was all due to part time jobs. The loss of full time jobs erased all gains for the last 3 months. The entire rise in jobs was due to part time for economic reasons.
    "The number of Americans working full-time fell by 266,000 in May, erasing all the gains of the past three months. The total employment figure only rose because 618,000 more people got part-time jobs. Many of those people would rather be working full-time: The number of people classified as “part time for economic reasons” — meaning they’re working part-time because they can’t find a full-time job — rose by 245,000 to 8.1 million."
    http://on.wsj.com/M7JRSj
    1 Jun 2012, 03:07 PM Reply Like
  • sean.parmelee
    , contributor
    Comments (790) | Send Message
     
    Plot participation rate for the last few decades. It always bottoms in January-April and starts to rebound in May. The fact that it went up slightly this May as well means absolutely nothing in terms of new information. Let's see where the seasonal top in July and the seasonal bottom next January are--higher or lower than the previous ones.
    3 Jun 2012, 12:33 PM Reply Like
  • Stoploss
    , contributor
    Comments (1727) | Send Message
     
    So, when does the inability/refusal to create private sector job's by anyone in the current admin. become a ns issue all by it's little self??

     

    I would rather go the six months without anyone running anything. Running everything into the ground for the last three and a half years is getting old.
    1 Jun 2012, 09:28 AM Reply Like
  • surfnspy
    , contributor
    Comments (415) | Send Message
     
    Where's the "it's Bush's fault"?
    1 Jun 2012, 09:37 AM Reply Like
  • mickmars
    , contributor
    Comments (1323) | Send Message
     
    We'll get 4 years of "it's Obama's fault" out of Romney's mouth next.

     

    They're all the same.
    1 Jun 2012, 01:52 PM Reply Like
  • 2MuchDebt
    , contributor
    Comments (218) | Send Message
     
    And to think back in February of this year, Larry Fink said "investors should be 100% invested in stocks right now". Ha!

     

    http://on.wsj.com/LQvw9a
    1 Jun 2012, 09:45 AM Reply Like
  • sean.parmelee
    , contributor
    Comments (790) | Send Message
     
    Markets continued to rally for two months after that advice. What's your point?
    1 Jun 2012, 12:30 PM Reply Like
  • 2MuchDebt
    , contributor
    Comments (218) | Send Message
     
    You're kidding, right? My point is the market trend is risk-off, we're below the market levels from the date of his article, he made his call after a huge market rally from the lows in October 2011, all the data coming in is awful (do you see a trend and catch my drift?). It was bad advice to the mom and pop investors who might take his words as law. Look at some charts.
    1 Jun 2012, 12:42 PM Reply Like
  • sean.parmelee
    , contributor
    Comments (790) | Send Message
     
    For investors with very short time horizons, as I pointed out, $SPX rallied almost 100 more points after his call. These investors are very familiar with "sell in May and go away," and it made particular sense for such investors this year, considering Europe is arguably in worse shape than it was in 2010 and 2011 when summer declines occurred.

     

    For investors with longer time horizons, here's his advice in context:

     

    “I’m very bullish on the market,” he said, citing the increased liquidity from the U.S. and European central banks. “I think the market is focusing too much on noise like Greece. And yet we’re going to have a lot of volatility and we’re going to have to live with it.”

     

    A summer dip is one thing (arguably, a good thing for long-term investors, as it gives you great buy-in opportunities); a crash is another. He's suggesting that the fundamentals paint a positive long-term picture for equities.
    1 Jun 2012, 01:10 PM Reply Like
  • jhooper
    , contributor
    Comments (5763) | Send Message
     
    "He's suggesting that the fundamentals paint a positive long-term picture for equities. "

     

    For the ones that will survive, that is.
    1 Jun 2012, 01:19 PM Reply Like
  • sean.parmelee
    , contributor
    Comments (790) | Send Message
     
    Come on now. One weak NFP report and a small summer decline and you're declaring that many equities will not survive?
    1 Jun 2012, 01:35 PM Reply Like
  • jeanewight
    , contributor
    Comments (344) | Send Message
     
    When the shit hits the fan, politicians especially, and people in general, take an even more rabid delight in playing the blame game ,and the political machines spin, spin, spin on both sides of the aisle.
    1 Jun 2012, 10:01 AM Reply Like
  • Ashraf Eassa
    , contributor
    Comments (8973) | Send Message
     
    *sigh*

     

    Well, good buying opportunity for high quality stocks, then.
    1 Jun 2012, 10:12 AM Reply Like
  • untrusting investor
    , contributor
    Comments (9933) | Send Message
     
    Maybe so .... at much lower levels from current market. Maybe July or August/12??
    1 Jun 2012, 01:29 PM Reply Like
  • award360
    , contributor
    Comments (3) | Send Message
     
    and it will be played off as another (insert number here) months of consecutive job growth!....
    1 Jun 2012, 01:39 PM Reply Like
  • marpy
    , contributor
    Comments (709) | Send Message
     
    You can thank Obama and his blocking of projects like Keystone for a lot of the lousy numbers and pain on the American people!
    2 Jun 2012, 08:43 AM Reply Like
DJIA (DIA) S&P 500 (SPY)
ETF Tools
Find the right ETFs for your portfolio:
Seeking Alpha's new ETF Hub
ETF Investment Guide:
Table of Contents | One Page Summary
Read about different ETF Asset Classes:
ETF Selector

Next headline on your portfolio:

|