steve graves

The Housing Bounce: Why It's Artificial

Only in the long run, Zack. If you're horizon is myopic, which I'm guessing yours is, then everything's fine and dandy.


On Sep 30 07:05 AM Zack Miller wrote:

> does it matter?

Big Banks in Trouble: Huge Mortgage Write-Downs Seem Inevitable

In 1990 the unemployment rate continued to rise for 15 months after the recession ended.

In 2001 the unemployment rate continued to rise for 19 months after the recession ended.


On Jun 23 05:59 PM Milkweed wrote:

> BTW Steve G. unemployment rates tend to lag a recovery by 6-8 months
> not a year and new unemployment claims tend go down nearer to the
> official recovery date than the turn in the unemployment numbers.
> Discouraged workers not counted in the unemployment stats tend to
> start looking again once the economy turns adding to the unemployment
> number even as new claims are dropping. So the jobs and housing markets
> can start recovering before the widely watched unemployment number
> recovers.

Big Banks in Trouble: Huge Mortgage Write-Downs Seem Inevitable

No, apparently you should take the reading comprehension class that you're referring to because I was directly referencing the following quote (from you):

"The housing market will bottom when people stop losing their jobs which should be coming in the not too distant future."

You're saying that people will stop losing their jobs in the not too distant future - or is my comprehension off? Is there some dark subtle twist between the lines that I'm missing? Does 'the not-too-distant future' not mean that it will happen soon? Actually I think I understood perfectly well, and as I've said your statement is incorrect based upon the following logic:

1.) Job losses continue for about a year even after a recession is officially over.
2.) This one ain't over, officially or otherwise.
3.) And it's is worse than anything we've seen in a long time because it is deeply rooted in our financial system, which means that its ill effects (based upon history, statistics, etc.) will be deeper and longer lasting than your normal, run of the mill recession.

In other words jobs losses will continue for the foreseeable future. There, does that about clear it up?


On Jun 23 05:11 PM Milkweed wrote:

> I see we have another candidate for reading comprehension class.
> Steve G. I did not say the recession was over. It might be, then
> again it may take a little longer but it will end. It's already been
> one of the historically longest so that would rule it out as average
> in duration and it's one of the most severe so that would rule out
> average magnitude. What does this have to do with the fact that it
> will end?

Big Banks in Trouble: Huge Mortgage Write-Downs Seem Inevitable

You should take your own advice, Milktoast. Unemployment continues to rise for three to five quarters after the average recession (based upon statistics, of course - not opinion). The current recession is neither over nor is it average - by any statistical measure it is more severe than anything we've dealt with in generations - which means that your assumption that people are going to stop losing their jobs in the near future not only lacks foundation but is basically ludicrous. But at least you're amusing...


On Jun 23 04:23 PM Milkweed wrote:

> Why do I think the job losses will end? Because this is not my first
> recession. The one thing all recessions have in common is "it's always
> different this time" and "we're not going to recover from this one".
> Evidently this is your first recession, watch and learn.

Big Banks in Trouble: Huge Mortgage Write-Downs Seem Inevitable

Defining "loser" (according to buoy, apparently): an individual who makes a wise financial decision rather than stubbornly remaining on a self-destructive course.


On Jun 22 09:42 AM buoy wrote:

> I agree with Milkweed, most people don't just walk away. And if you
> do, you're probably a loser.