Joblessness Drops? Hold the Applause [View article]
Literally your analogy should be:
Three minutes ago we got twenty holes in our ship. Two minutes ago we got eight more This past minute we got only three more holes....
To ask your own question, "Are you closer to getting the ship fixed?" Of course not. But the PACE of new holes is slowing, after all. That's good news. Time to party.
On Aug 07 12:11 PM davidbdc wrote:
> Another way to look at it is if your ship had twenty holes in it > and you had fixed 8 and then you fixed 3 more.....Are you closer > to getting the ship fixed? > > I say yes. So I'm happy that a few more holes were fixed and lets > keep fixing!!
Nissan’s Leaf: First Big Mistake Right Out of the Blocks [View article]
The first big mistake was calling it the "Leaf." This will sound off-putting to mainstream consumers and condescending to those with a greener orientation. In other words, both their core market and the market they would like to entice will probably not respond well to this name. How do I know? Ask yourself if you can picture telling your buddy you just bought a Leaf. I am light green as a consumer and I find it insulting. Surely they could have come up with a name that makes us think of clean air and nature without having to call the car "Clean-Air-and-Nature."
But I agree overstating mileage doesn't help their cause either.
More on Capital Ratios of U.S. Banks [View article]
The problem is that bank accounting is a slippery fish. If I could "mark-to-make believe" like they can, I would be very rich on paper too.
It is possible that these banks are solvent. It is plausible that many are not. The problem is that we can't really know when the numbers are being gamed as they are. That makes me shy as a potential investors in financials and nervous as a consumer in this economy.
On Aug 02 06:46 PM bbro wrote:
> Study up on bank accounting....these banks were not insolvent except > Ctiibank ( which it isn't now).
1 Month, 24 Bank Failures: Random Event or Wilting Economy? [View article]
I was around for '87. And if you think we are going to come out of this as quickly as we did then, you haven't been paying attention. We are like the addicted gambler who keeps borrowing more to hit it big. Sure there are some wins, but the trend is down. Down badly. But I'm sure if you can lend me a C-note this next one's a winner, okay? Don't bet against the house. Is the US still the house?
On Aug 02 11:14 PM FB5000 wrote:
> > Were you around in October 1987? > > My point here - if you have pulse and have paid attention you will > notice that despite the hype that we are at the "end of days" there > has been a lot of bad stuff happen before and guess what - we are > still here. > > Two lessons that I have learned. > 1. You don't win betting against the house. > 2. You don't bet against America > > That's all. >
You're right, of course. The analogy I have been using lately is this:
If you are on a diet and the first month you gain 15 pounds but the next month you only gain 3 pounds, how do you feel? Are you happy that you are turning the corner? No you are unhappy that you are still gaining weight and the diet is not working.
This is why I can not get excited about "less bad."
On Aug 02 01:28 PM whidbey wrote:
> The Friday GDP has been variously misunderstood. The government spending > notwithstanding, the results were negative. But as is so > fashionable these days, the trend is for less decline, so all is > well. >
Taking an Honest Look at GDP Calculation [View article]
I agree that you have to look past certain interpretations of the GDP numbers, but I think the GDP is only one number anyway and can't be made to give a perfect snapshot. GROSS domestic product is by definition not NET productivity, so making a lot of subtractions for debt servicing and such doesn't make a lot of sense to me. That doesn't mean the points made here and elsewhere about what the GDP is really telling us are less valid, only that I think we shouldn't try to toy with the number too much to get it reflect something it was never intended to. In some sense it is really just "gross domestic spending" and so, yeah, if much of that is government spending then that is cause for concern, mostly because it is unsustainable and funded by borrowing.
On Aug 02 10:30 AM John Lounsbury wrote:
> > 1. Consumption funded by debt (such as government deficit spending) > should not be valued in GDP the same way as that funded by "earned" > income. I do not think the debt should be subtracted directly, though. > It should be subtracted as a discounted value of future cash flows > to service the debt. I think this would be much less than the simpler > direct subtraction. >
Taking an Honest Look at GDP Calculation [View article]
Dave, I think you missed that housing purchases were included in "I" (Investment). So the housing collpase would subtract from GDP even while the increased renting added to it.
On Aug 02 05:40 AM Dave Wrixon wrote:
> The one thing I got out of this is the fact that mortgages are not > counted but rents are. Doesn't this mean a collapse in the housing > market actually boost GDP? People that are not buying and not living > in cardboard boxes must be renting something even if it is only a > trailer home. So GDP gets a massive spur. Of course as the economy > recovers one would expect this to provide a massive drag on the GDP > figures as well. Of course you might expect a revision in the methodology > by then to make things look rosier!
HTL, You're right of course. And I didn't really mean conspiracy in the New World Order sense, only in the sense of market manipulation (which takes some level of conspiring to make happen unless it is one lone person doing the manipulating). And you're right, a correlation wouldn't PROVE anything. Nonetheless I think it is instructive (and fun) to track some of the predictions made in the articles and comments in SA and seeing if they pan out. The higher a person's hit rate, the more I accept his/her general concept of market moving. We are dealing with such fractional understanding of a fraction of the whole picture that it is a wonder we are ever right!
Good luck, and I'll be watching for that pullback.
On Aug 01 05:56 PM H. T. Love wrote: "Anyway, the any predicted results certainly only support manipulation or conspiracy circumstantially."
The knock on "conspiracy theories" is that they always use historical data to "prove" them right and never predict the future. That is why I really appreciate this comment. If one is looking to support the idea that GS is manipulating the market (something some people flatly refuse to believe), then it is instructive to see if reasoned predictions about what shape this manipulation may take prove true. I for one will be watching to see if this pattern develops. If it does, I think that is good support for the premise on which your prediction is based. In other words, if things DO play out this way, your reasons for why it did would make a lot of sense.
On Aug 01 10:32 AM H. T. Love wrote: "As to a time-frame, I'm certainly not brazen enough to call it. My only thought is that it must occur before any further reports on real GDP, or other influential statistics, can be issued that are substantially more negative than expected. Since we have so many weekly items that *might* fit this description, I think they have to get it done pretty quickly."
This Rally Is Sustainable: Halftime Report, Part 2 [View article]
I agree on both counts. I enjoy reading both positive and negative opinions and think there is usually some truth in both sides. I have a problem with some people who are gloom and doom and seem to be hoping for collapse. I am in the other negative camp. I would LIKE to see reason to cheer, but have a hard time finding positive measurements that resonate with my sense of what is happening. I think we are deeply damaged by the impact of the credit bubble and its aftermath. Sometimes the Bulls remind me of the Black Knight form Python's Holy Grail. As he is disassembled by King Arthur's sword, he keeps insisting it's only a flesh wound and "I've had worse." There is a place for (and a power to) positive thinking. But sometimes it seems divorced from what is actually happening. In 2011 this post will be long gone and I will either have changed my mind about the economy or I will feel vindicated. But I think it will take at least that long before we start seeing healthy activity, recession or no.
On Jul 23 09:35 AM David Van Knapp wrote:
> JohnBinTN: You should post more. Your positive attitude is refreshing, > and SA needs more of it for balance.
This Rally Is Sustainable: Halftime Report, Part 2 [View article]
"The strongest argument that this rally is sustainable is the historical pattern that bull markets start about 6-7 months before the ends of recessions, combined with evidence that the recession is entering its final stages."
If this bull market started in April, as you suggest, 6-7 months out puts us in October. If this is the strongest argument and it suggests the recession is ending in October, I don't think it is a very good case.
I love basketball, but I rarely cheer when my team, which was down by 26 points closes the gap to "only" 18. The problem with trends is that they can look positive ("We've out scored them 2-1 in the last three minutes") when the real picture is negative ("The score is 100 to 82"). Eventually trends will improve, but we are a long way off from ever catching up to where want to be, in both the market and the economy. End of recession? Maybe soon. Recovery? Don't hold your breath.
James Surowiecki notes that while the feds can stimulate, most states are legally bound to feed a downturn by balancing budgets: There must be 50 ways to kill recovery. Gotta hike tax, Jack; just write an IOU, Stu.[View news story]
Roll up your sleeves, Steve Make a new plan, Stan Eliminate some jobs, Bob Make some new fees, Lee
Wield the budget axe, Zack Seek some more aid, Wade Float some new debt, Brett Find a revenue stream, Wahim
Why This Is No Time for Buy and Hold [View article]
Cloward and Piven evolved from their early days as radical youth. By the 80's they were touting "the politicization of the Welfare State." By that they meant that since Reagan used welfare issues specifically in his platform, that welfare in some form or other had become an entrenched part of society (an entitlement). They argued this permanence was a GOOD thing (because it helped the poor) and this was a departure from their earlier assertion that it kept the poor trapped in a system that did not serve them.
If this is relevant at all to the discussion, I guess I would say that it shows even Cloward and Piven don't believe in the C&P Strategy anymore. I seriously doubt Obama has given it any thought. I'm with ConceptWizard... There is manipulation going on, but it is not to bring down the system -- at least not intentionally, and CERTAINLY not to benefit the poor.
Six Signs Economy Is Turning the Corner [View article]
You've got a BBA and you think the President runs the economy? What do they teach kids these days?
On Jul 19 05:28 PM whisperonthewind wrote:
> So with my BBA, I'm out of work, I can't afford to move, and there > are no jobs. Soon, I'll be looking for that transition to welfare, > or maybe I'll just look for a refrigerator box. Thank you, Mr. President.
CIT: A Turning Point in the Financial Crisis [View article]
I am stunned when I read comments like this (which I'm seeing a lot more of lately). We have awfully short memories when we try to convince ourselves it was really not all that bad. "It was just that we were worried. Some of the cornerstones to the global financial systems were not actually insolvent, it was just that we all worried they might be. Then we woke up. Really nothing to it..."
This kind of revisionism will likely ensure we end up in a similar mess in the future. "It wasn't that we leveraged risk too much, it was that we started to worry about it."
On Jul 20 07:12 AM apppro wrote:
> <<You mean it was all just a fear induced hallucination? You sure > about?>> > > Pretty much! > We will see that history will write that after we allowed shorts > to take down Lehmans for their own greed & hubris, we all convinced > ourselves that the end was here out of our own fear and ignornace. > > > Fear is a very powerful emotion - far more powerful then greed.<br/> > > www.youtube.com/watch?...
Joblessness Drops? Hold the Applause [View article]
Three minutes ago we got twenty holes in our ship.
Two minutes ago we got eight more
This past minute we got only three more holes....
To ask your own question, "Are you closer to getting the ship fixed?" Of course not. But the PACE of new holes is slowing, after all. That's good news. Time to party.
On Aug 07 12:11 PM davidbdc wrote:
> Another way to look at it is if your ship had twenty holes in it
> and you had fixed 8 and then you fixed 3 more.....Are you closer
> to getting the ship fixed?
>
> I say yes. So I'm happy that a few more holes were fixed and lets
> keep fixing!!
Nissan’s Leaf: First Big Mistake Right Out of the Blocks [View article]
But I agree overstating mileage doesn't help their cause either.
More on Capital Ratios of U.S. Banks [View article]
It is possible that these banks are solvent. It is plausible that many are not. The problem is that we can't really know when the numbers are being gamed as they are. That makes me shy as a potential investors in financials and nervous as a consumer in this economy.
On Aug 02 06:46 PM bbro wrote:
> Study up on bank accounting....these banks were not insolvent except
> Ctiibank ( which it isn't now).
1 Month, 24 Bank Failures: Random Event or Wilting Economy? [View article]
Don't bet against the house. Is the US still the house?
On Aug 02 11:14 PM FB5000 wrote:
>
> Were you around in October 1987?
>
> My point here - if you have pulse and have paid attention you will
> notice that despite the hype that we are at the "end of days" there
> has been a lot of bad stuff happen before and guess what - we are
> still here.
>
> Two lessons that I have learned.
> 1. You don't win betting against the house.
> 2. You don't bet against America
>
> That's all.
>
Broad Weakness in Q2 GDP [View article]
If you are on a diet and the first month you gain 15 pounds but the next month you only gain 3 pounds, how do you feel? Are you happy that you are turning the corner? No you are unhappy that you are still gaining weight and the diet is not working.
This is why I can not get excited about "less bad."
On Aug 02 01:28 PM whidbey wrote:
> The Friday GDP has been variously misunderstood. The government spending
> notwithstanding, the results were negative. But as is so
> fashionable these days, the trend is for less decline, so all is
> well.
>
Taking an Honest Look at GDP Calculation [View article]
On Aug 02 10:30 AM John Lounsbury wrote:
>
> 1. Consumption funded by debt (such as government deficit spending)
> should not be valued in GDP the same way as that funded by "earned"
> income. I do not think the debt should be subtracted directly, though.
> It should be subtracted as a discounted value of future cash flows
> to service the debt. I think this would be much less than the simpler
> direct subtraction.
>
Taking an Honest Look at GDP Calculation [View article]
I think you missed that housing purchases were included in "I" (Investment). So the housing collpase would subtract from GDP even while the increased renting added to it.
On Aug 02 05:40 AM Dave Wrixon wrote:
> The one thing I got out of this is the fact that mortgages are not
> counted but rents are. Doesn't this mean a collapse in the housing
> market actually boost GDP? People that are not buying and not living
> in cardboard boxes must be renting something even if it is only a
> trailer home. So GDP gets a massive spur. Of course as the economy
> recovers one would expect this to provide a massive drag on the GDP
> figures as well. Of course you might expect a revision in the methodology
> by then to make things look rosier!
Why GDP Stats Are Still Ugly [View article]
You're right of course. And I didn't really mean conspiracy in the New World Order sense, only in the sense of market manipulation (which takes some level of conspiring to make happen unless it is one lone person doing the manipulating). And you're right, a correlation wouldn't PROVE anything. Nonetheless I think it is instructive (and fun) to track some of the predictions made in the articles and comments in SA and seeing if they pan out. The higher a person's hit rate, the more I accept his/her general concept of market moving. We are dealing with such fractional understanding of a fraction of the whole picture that it is a wonder we are ever right!
Good luck, and I'll be watching for that pullback.
On Aug 01 05:56 PM H. T. Love wrote:
"Anyway, the any predicted results certainly only support manipulation or conspiracy circumstantially."
Why GDP Stats Are Still Ugly [View article]
On Aug 01 10:32 AM H. T. Love wrote:
"As to a time-frame, I'm certainly not brazen enough to call it. My only thought is that it must occur before any further reports on real GDP, or other influential statistics, can be issued that are substantially more negative than expected. Since we have so many weekly items that *might* fit this description, I think they have to get it done pretty quickly."
This Rally Is Sustainable: Halftime Report, Part 2 [View article]
On Jul 23 09:35 AM David Van Knapp wrote:
> JohnBinTN: You should post more. Your positive attitude is refreshing,
> and SA needs more of it for balance.
This Rally Is Sustainable: Halftime Report, Part 2 [View article]
If this bull market started in April, as you suggest, 6-7 months out puts us in October. If this is the strongest argument and it suggests the recession is ending in October, I don't think it is a very good case.
I love basketball, but I rarely cheer when my team, which was down by 26 points closes the gap to "only" 18. The problem with trends is that they can look positive ("We've out scored them 2-1 in the last three minutes") when the real picture is negative ("The score is 100 to 82"). Eventually trends will improve, but we are a long way off from ever catching up to where want to be, in both the market and the economy. End of recession? Maybe soon. Recovery? Don't hold your breath.
James Surowiecki notes that while the feds can stimulate, most states are legally bound to feed a downturn by balancing budgets: There must be 50 ways to kill recovery. Gotta hike tax, Jack; just write an IOU, Stu. [View news story]
Make a new plan, Stan
Eliminate some jobs, Bob
Make some new fees, Lee
Wield the budget axe, Zack
Seek some more aid, Wade
Float some new debt, Brett
Find a revenue stream, Wahim
and on and on it goes....
Why This Is No Time for Buy and Hold [View article]
If this is relevant at all to the discussion, I guess I would say that it shows even Cloward and Piven don't believe in the C&P Strategy anymore. I seriously doubt Obama has given it any thought. I'm with ConceptWizard... There is manipulation going on, but it is not to bring down the system -- at least not intentionally, and CERTAINLY not to benefit the poor.
Six Signs Economy Is Turning the Corner [View article]
On Jul 19 05:28 PM whisperonthewind wrote:
> So with my BBA, I'm out of work, I can't afford to move, and there
> are no jobs. Soon, I'll be looking for that transition to welfare,
> or maybe I'll just look for a refrigerator box. Thank you, Mr. President.
CIT: A Turning Point in the Financial Crisis [View article]
This kind of revisionism will likely ensure we end up in a similar mess in the future. "It wasn't that we leveraged risk too much, it was that we started to worry about it."
On Jul 20 07:12 AM apppro wrote:
> <<You mean it was all just a fear induced hallucination? You sure
> about?>>
>
> Pretty much!
> We will see that history will write that after we allowed shorts
> to take down Lehmans for their own greed & hubris, we all convinced
> ourselves that the end was here out of our own fear and ignornace.
>
>
> Fear is a very powerful emotion - far more powerful then greed.<br/>
>
> www.youtube.com/watch?...