|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On December 12 2014 12:56 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On December 12 2014 12:45 IgnE wrote: Lol. I wish we had jonny on record back in 2007. There were signs back in '06 / '07 that a recession was on the near horizon. For example, a flat yield curve. If you think a recession or crisis is on the horizon now, I'd have to ask what makes you think that. Gut feeling? Or can you justify your opinion somehow?
I don't know if you think a hindsight argument about the worst financial crisis we've had in 80 years helps your cause. I just wish we had you on record in 2007. Don't pretend like you knew it was coming. Maybe you were just a young jonny, thinking about business school. A jonny who couldn't be expected to have real insight in the economy at the time. At least we will have you on record for the next one.
On December 12 2014 13:07 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On December 12 2014 13:02 Nyxisto wrote: well the one trillion dollar of student debt are certainly going to blow at some point. Household debt is still below pre-crisis levels, and debt service is still quite low by historical standards. If you're worried about debt, you should be far more worried about Canada than the US.
Home ownership and wealth increases for the bottom 90% also at a historical low.
|
On December 12 2014 13:26 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On December 12 2014 13:09 Nyxisto wrote:On December 12 2014 13:07 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On December 12 2014 13:02 Nyxisto wrote: well the one trillion dollar of student debt are certainly going to blow at some point. Household debt is still below pre-crisis levels, and debt service is still quite low by historical standards. If you're worried about debt, you should be far more worried about Canada than the US. While public debt has doubled since 05, which in the end is going to be paid by the tax payer anyway. That rise of debt simply seems unsustainable. Tax hikes and spending cuts have cut the deficit. We'll have to do more over the long run, but last I checked the Eurozone was more indebted.
The EU averages at 87% public debt which would put them well below the United States(at over 102 roughly). The comparison aside that doesn't change the fact that doubling your debt every decade with barely 1-2% real growth anywhere seems "a little" unsound.
|
On December 12 2014 13:32 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On December 12 2014 12:56 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On December 12 2014 12:45 IgnE wrote: Lol. I wish we had jonny on record back in 2007. There were signs back in '06 / '07 that a recession was on the near horizon. For example, a flat yield curve. If you think a recession or crisis is on the horizon now, I'd have to ask what makes you think that. Gut feeling? Or can you justify your opinion somehow? I don't know if you think a hindsight argument about the worst financial crisis we've had in 80 years helps your cause. I just wish we had you on record in 2007. Don't pretend like you knew it was coming. Maybe you were just a young jonny, thinking about business school. A jonny who couldn't be expected to have real insight in the economy at the time. At least we will have you on record for the next one. I'm asking you to justify your opinion, not claim that I predicted the last crisis. It tells me a lot that you're already getting shitty.
Show nested quote +On December 12 2014 13:07 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On December 12 2014 13:02 Nyxisto wrote: well the one trillion dollar of student debt are certainly going to blow at some point. Household debt is still below pre-crisis levels, and debt service is still quite low by historical standards. If you're worried about debt, you should be far more worried about Canada than the US. Home ownership and wealth increases for the bottom 90% also at a historical low. You'll have to offer some explanation.
The home ownership rate varies by country and isn't correlated with crisis at all, so I'm not sure where you're going with that. Also, the rate in the US is around where it was in the 90's so I'm not sure why you think that's an issue. Also, home ownership means more mortgage debt and home ownership has historically carried a pretty crummy rate of return.
Yes, people haven't been saving much and wealth for most isn't going up. But that doesn't strike me as an issue that would have some near-term tipping point. The labor market continues to slowly improve, and savings seem to be improving along with it.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
well since you guys are talking about economic collapse, a traumatic event, only drastic shocks will qualify. public debt will not lead to such a shock event unless certain political events happen, like stupid debt ceiling stuff or drastic tax hikes just because.
economy is not doing well in terms of capacity but that in itself won't lead to financial crisis. if you look at financial leverage as a balloon, the U.S. is growing https://www.chicagofed.org/research/data/nfci/background , but not that big yet. consumers are still deleveraging, but banks are ballooning, with a lot of MBS and asset value tied stuff changing hands. still, the next crisis may come from overseas.
|
On December 12 2014 14:07 Nyxisto wrote:Show nested quote +On December 12 2014 13:26 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On December 12 2014 13:09 Nyxisto wrote:On December 12 2014 13:07 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On December 12 2014 13:02 Nyxisto wrote: well the one trillion dollar of student debt are certainly going to blow at some point. Household debt is still below pre-crisis levels, and debt service is still quite low by historical standards. If you're worried about debt, you should be far more worried about Canada than the US. While public debt has doubled since 05, which in the end is going to be paid by the tax payer anyway. That rise of debt simply seems unsustainable. Tax hikes and spending cuts have cut the deficit. We'll have to do more over the long run, but last I checked the Eurozone was more indebted. The EU averages at 87% public debt which would put them well below the United States(at over 102 roughly). The comparison aside that doesn't change the fact that doubling your debt every decade with barely 1-2% real growth anywhere seems "a little" unsound. Growth in the US is stronger than in the Eurozone, still not great, but if you're worried about the US you should be terrified for Europe.
As for the debt, we need to do more to balance the budget for the long run, but I don't think there's an impending crisis there. The deficit has been reduced markedly in the past few years, with many feeling that such austerity has held back the recovery.
Projections: + Show Spoiler +
|
On December 12 2014 14:17 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On December 12 2014 13:32 IgnE wrote:On December 12 2014 12:56 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On December 12 2014 12:45 IgnE wrote: Lol. I wish we had jonny on record back in 2007. There were signs back in '06 / '07 that a recession was on the near horizon. For example, a flat yield curve. If you think a recession or crisis is on the horizon now, I'd have to ask what makes you think that. Gut feeling? Or can you justify your opinion somehow? I don't know if you think a hindsight argument about the worst financial crisis we've had in 80 years helps your cause. I just wish we had you on record in 2007. Don't pretend like you knew it was coming. Maybe you were just a young jonny, thinking about business school. A jonny who couldn't be expected to have real insight in the economy at the time. At least we will have you on record for the next one. I'm asking you to justify your opinion, not claim that I predicted the last crisis. It tells me a lot that you're already getting shitty. Show nested quote +On December 12 2014 13:07 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On December 12 2014 13:02 Nyxisto wrote: well the one trillion dollar of student debt are certainly going to blow at some point. Household debt is still below pre-crisis levels, and debt service is still quite low by historical standards. If you're worried about debt, you should be far more worried about Canada than the US. Home ownership and wealth increases for the bottom 90% also at a historical low. You'll have to offer some explanation. The home ownership rate varies by country and isn't correlated with crisis at all, so I'm not sure where you're going with that. Also, the rate in the US is around where it was in the 90's so I'm not sure why you think that's an issue. Also, home ownership means more mortgage debt and home ownership has historically carried a pretty crummy rate of return. Yes, people haven't been saving much and wealth for most isn't going up. But that doesn't strike me as an issue that would have some near-term tipping point. The labor market continues to slowly improve, and savings seem to be improving along with it.
What is correlated with crisis? Are you in the business of predicting crises? You are only discussing commonly accepted indicators of economic health, which itself only deals with growth and lack thereof. Underlying fragility is the problem: lack of wage growth, worldwide, lack of wealth in the bottom 90%, volatile energy prices, eurozone malaise.
|
On December 12 2014 12:06 {CC}StealthBlue wrote: Stick a fork in Obama as he's done for. The far right which comes in January will be no fan of is and won't to afraid to torpedo any type of bill like this. And he burned his bridge with the Progressives, which he will need to favor in hopes of type of air time with the new House and Senate.
Also he just backed for the repeal of every single reform that will still in place sine the Financial Crisis. The far right was going to torpedo everything remotely Obama anyway so I don't see how anything has changed.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On December 12 2014 18:22 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On December 12 2014 14:17 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On December 12 2014 13:32 IgnE wrote:On December 12 2014 12:56 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On December 12 2014 12:45 IgnE wrote: Lol. I wish we had jonny on record back in 2007. There were signs back in '06 / '07 that a recession was on the near horizon. For example, a flat yield curve. If you think a recession or crisis is on the horizon now, I'd have to ask what makes you think that. Gut feeling? Or can you justify your opinion somehow? I don't know if you think a hindsight argument about the worst financial crisis we've had in 80 years helps your cause. I just wish we had you on record in 2007. Don't pretend like you knew it was coming. Maybe you were just a young jonny, thinking about business school. A jonny who couldn't be expected to have real insight in the economy at the time. At least we will have you on record for the next one. I'm asking you to justify your opinion, not claim that I predicted the last crisis. It tells me a lot that you're already getting shitty. On December 12 2014 13:07 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On December 12 2014 13:02 Nyxisto wrote: well the one trillion dollar of student debt are certainly going to blow at some point. Household debt is still below pre-crisis levels, and debt service is still quite low by historical standards. If you're worried about debt, you should be far more worried about Canada than the US. Home ownership and wealth increases for the bottom 90% also at a historical low. You'll have to offer some explanation. The home ownership rate varies by country and isn't correlated with crisis at all, so I'm not sure where you're going with that. Also, the rate in the US is around where it was in the 90's so I'm not sure why you think that's an issue. Also, home ownership means more mortgage debt and home ownership has historically carried a pretty crummy rate of return. Yes, people haven't been saving much and wealth for most isn't going up. But that doesn't strike me as an issue that would have some near-term tipping point. The labor market continues to slowly improve, and savings seem to be improving along with it. What is correlated with crisis? Are you in the business of predicting crises? You are only discussing commonly accepted indicators of economic health, which itself only deals with growth and lack thereof. Underlying fragility is the problem: lack of wage growth, worldwide, lack of wealth in the bottom 90%, volatile energy prices, eurozone malaise. crisis is pretty much always financial, unless a big destructive war or natural disaster happens that destroys physical production. the u.s. is not a commodity reliant place and it is in control of its own currency, which denominates its own debt.
all the fed/imf modeling use DSGE though, which was known to not predict the first crisis. it has no idea about what banks are doing exactly, just some general leverage level and whatnot.
|
The economy is doing well but asset prices are unattractive from a risk reward basis. I really hope that the correction doesn't carry over to mainstreet but im skeptical.
We have an unprecedented demographic timebomb in the boomers wanting liquidation of their savings putting huge selling pressure on asset prices to worry about. As well as their draw on social services at retirement age there is no historical equivalent to draw solutions from.
We also have the unwinding of QE and how the distortions that caused will shake out. It remains to be seen whether the 40% decline in commodities is a leading indicator of underlying weakness in the economy or whether the weakness is isolated to its own supply/demand and stays in its own sector/asset.
Thats why I weakness in the economy happening before the 2016 election.
|
On December 13 2014 00:49 Wolfstan wrote: The economy is doing well but asset prices are unattractive from a risk reward basis. I really hope that the correction doesn't carry over to mainstreet but im skeptical.
We have an unprecedented demographic timebomb in the boomers wanting liquidation of their savings putting huge selling pressure on asset prices to worry about. As well as their draw on social services at retirement age there is no historical equivalent to draw solutions from.
We also have the unwinding of QE and how the distortions that caused will shake out. It remains to be seen whether the 40% decline in commodities is a leading indicator of underlying weakness in the economy or whether the weakness is isolated to its own supply/demand and stays in its own sector/asset.
Thats why I weakness in the economy happening before the 2016 election.
Why would baby boomers liquidate their assets? Theyll probably only liquidate the parts they need and that money goes into other assets.
|
Because they have no retirement savings. Reverse mortgages are booming.
|
On December 12 2014 18:22 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On December 12 2014 14:17 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On December 12 2014 13:32 IgnE wrote:On December 12 2014 12:56 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On December 12 2014 12:45 IgnE wrote: Lol. I wish we had jonny on record back in 2007. There were signs back in '06 / '07 that a recession was on the near horizon. For example, a flat yield curve. If you think a recession or crisis is on the horizon now, I'd have to ask what makes you think that. Gut feeling? Or can you justify your opinion somehow? I don't know if you think a hindsight argument about the worst financial crisis we've had in 80 years helps your cause. I just wish we had you on record in 2007. Don't pretend like you knew it was coming. Maybe you were just a young jonny, thinking about business school. A jonny who couldn't be expected to have real insight in the economy at the time. At least we will have you on record for the next one. I'm asking you to justify your opinion, not claim that I predicted the last crisis. It tells me a lot that you're already getting shitty. On December 12 2014 13:07 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On December 12 2014 13:02 Nyxisto wrote: well the one trillion dollar of student debt are certainly going to blow at some point. Household debt is still below pre-crisis levels, and debt service is still quite low by historical standards. If you're worried about debt, you should be far more worried about Canada than the US. Home ownership and wealth increases for the bottom 90% also at a historical low. You'll have to offer some explanation. The home ownership rate varies by country and isn't correlated with crisis at all, so I'm not sure where you're going with that. Also, the rate in the US is around where it was in the 90's so I'm not sure why you think that's an issue. Also, home ownership means more mortgage debt and home ownership has historically carried a pretty crummy rate of return. Yes, people haven't been saving much and wealth for most isn't going up. But that doesn't strike me as an issue that would have some near-term tipping point. The labor market continues to slowly improve, and savings seem to be improving along with it. What is correlated with crisis? Are you in the business of predicting crises? You are only discussing commonly accepted indicators of economic health, which itself only deals with growth and lack thereof. Underlying fragility is the problem: lack of wage growth, worldwide, lack of wealth in the bottom 90%, volatile energy prices, eurozone malaise. I don't just look to 'growth or lack thereof'.
Lack of wage growth and continued unemployment means that there is still plenty of slack in the labor market. As more people return to work more will have more money to spend and firms will have to compete harder for new hires. That points to continued expansion.
I'm not sure how lack of wealth will lead to a crisis. While problematic, that seems like an issue that will play out over decades rather than lead to an acute crisis. People will have to learn to save more and / or delay retirement. Sounds more like a social issue rather than an economic issue.
Commodity prices seem to have turned in our favor. We've been held back by the commodity boom over the past two decades. The next leg of falling prices should help the US economy as a whole. It effectively means a raise for consumers and gives the Fed more room to keep rates low.
Yeah, the Eurozone is still in rough shape. Maybe you should be predicting crisis there? They haven't done a good job at capitalizing their banks either. Greece is at least showing signs of life (finally), fwiw.
Also, the era of government austerity seems to be over. Government spending isn't retarding growth anymore which may offset some weakness in other areas.
|
The U.S. Justice Department has confirmed that Indian tribes can decide to grow and sell marijuana on their lands as long as they follow the same federal conditions laid out for states that have legalized the drug.
Oregon U.S. Attorney Amanda Marshall said the announcement on Thursday addresses questions raised by tribes about how legalization of pot in states like Oregon, Washington and Colorado would apply to tribal lands.
Only a handful of tribes have expressed any interest in growing and selling marijuana, said Marshall, who co-chaired a group that developed the policy.
"That's been the primary message tribes are getting to us as U.S. attorneys," Marshall said from Portland. "What will the U.S. as federal partners do to assist tribes in protecting our children and families, our tribal businesses, our tribal housing? How will you help us combat marijuana abuse in Indian County when states are no longer there to partner with us?"
Marshall warned the announcement is not a green light to tribal authorities — and that marijuana is still illegal under federal law. The U.S. government's prosecution priorities involve pot-related gang activity, violence, sales to kids and trafficking continue, she said.
Problems could arise for tribes with lands in states that still outlaw marijuana, due to the likelihood that marijuana could be transported or sold outside tribal boundaries, she added.
Marshall said with 566 tribes around the country recognized by the federal government, there will be a lot of consulting going on between tribes and federal prosecutors. As sovereign nations, some tribes have their own police, some rely on federal law enforcement, and some call in state and local police.
Source
|
WASHINGTON -- The fight over a subsidy for risky Wall Street derivatives trading isn't over quite yet. Sens. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) and David Vitter (R-La.) introduced an amendment Friday to strip out the controversial provision from the spending bill that would fund the government until next October.
The amendment forces Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) to choose between holding a vote to strip out controversial changes to Dodd-Frank in the House-passed omnibus, or anger the progressive wing of his caucus. Reid had already signed off on the funding bill in its current form, and the White House has also backed the measure and urged its passage.
The House passed the $1.1 trillion omnibus spending bill Thursday, fending off a Democratic rebellion over riders that would roll back aspects of the Dodd-Frank reform and weaken campaign finance laws. Reid said he shared his colleagues' reservations but urged Democrats to support the bill's passage nonetheless.
"I don't support the weakening of Dodd-Frank and the restrictions on the District of Columbia and other things, but I didn't write this bill. The Senate Democrats didn't write this bill alone," Reid said on the Senate floor Friday. "It's a compromise. That is what legislation is all about."
A spokesman for Reid did not immediately return a request for comment when asked if he would allow a vote on the measure.
Source
|
On December 13 2014 08:19 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Show nested quote +WASHINGTON -- The fight over a subsidy for risky Wall Street derivatives trading isn't over quite yet. Sens. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) and David Vitter (R-La.) introduced an amendment Friday to strip out the controversial provision from the spending bill that would fund the government until next October.
The amendment forces Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) to choose between holding a vote to strip out controversial changes to Dodd-Frank in the House-passed omnibus, or anger the progressive wing of his caucus. Reid had already signed off on the funding bill in its current form, and the White House has also backed the measure and urged its passage.
The House passed the $1.1 trillion omnibus spending bill Thursday, fending off a Democratic rebellion over riders that would roll back aspects of the Dodd-Frank reform and weaken campaign finance laws. Reid said he shared his colleagues' reservations but urged Democrats to support the bill's passage nonetheless.
"I don't support the weakening of Dodd-Frank and the restrictions on the District of Columbia and other things, but I didn't write this bill. The Senate Democrats didn't write this bill alone," Reid said on the Senate floor Friday. "It's a compromise. That is what legislation is all about."
A spokesman for Reid did not immediately return a request for comment when asked if he would allow a vote on the measure. Source Warren's pretty much the next Barney Frank at this point. I'll be glad when she's gone too, though I'm not holding my breath for it.
|
On December 13 2014 04:53 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On December 12 2014 18:22 IgnE wrote:On December 12 2014 14:17 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On December 12 2014 13:32 IgnE wrote:On December 12 2014 12:56 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On December 12 2014 12:45 IgnE wrote: Lol. I wish we had jonny on record back in 2007. There were signs back in '06 / '07 that a recession was on the near horizon. For example, a flat yield curve. If you think a recession or crisis is on the horizon now, I'd have to ask what makes you think that. Gut feeling? Or can you justify your opinion somehow? I don't know if you think a hindsight argument about the worst financial crisis we've had in 80 years helps your cause. I just wish we had you on record in 2007. Don't pretend like you knew it was coming. Maybe you were just a young jonny, thinking about business school. A jonny who couldn't be expected to have real insight in the economy at the time. At least we will have you on record for the next one. I'm asking you to justify your opinion, not claim that I predicted the last crisis. It tells me a lot that you're already getting shitty. On December 12 2014 13:07 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On December 12 2014 13:02 Nyxisto wrote: well the one trillion dollar of student debt are certainly going to blow at some point. Household debt is still below pre-crisis levels, and debt service is still quite low by historical standards. If you're worried about debt, you should be far more worried about Canada than the US. Home ownership and wealth increases for the bottom 90% also at a historical low. You'll have to offer some explanation. The home ownership rate varies by country and isn't correlated with crisis at all, so I'm not sure where you're going with that. Also, the rate in the US is around where it was in the 90's so I'm not sure why you think that's an issue. Also, home ownership means more mortgage debt and home ownership has historically carried a pretty crummy rate of return. Yes, people haven't been saving much and wealth for most isn't going up. But that doesn't strike me as an issue that would have some near-term tipping point. The labor market continues to slowly improve, and savings seem to be improving along with it. What is correlated with crisis? Are you in the business of predicting crises? You are only discussing commonly accepted indicators of economic health, which itself only deals with growth and lack thereof. Underlying fragility is the problem: lack of wage growth, worldwide, lack of wealth in the bottom 90%, volatile energy prices, eurozone malaise. I don't just look to 'growth or lack thereof'. Lack of wage growth and continued unemployment means that there is still plenty of slack in the labor market. As more people return to work more will have more money to spend and firms will have to compete harder for new hires. That points to continued expansion. I'm not sure how lack of wealth will lead to a crisis. While problematic, that seems like an issue that will play out over decades rather than lead to an acute crisis. People will have to learn to save more and / or delay retirement. Sounds more like a social issue rather than an economic issue. Commodity prices seem to have turned in our favor. We've been held back by the commodity boom over the past two decades. The next leg of falling prices should help the US economy as a whole. It effectively means a raise for consumers and gives the Fed more room to keep rates low. Yeah, the Eurozone is still in rough shape. Maybe you should be predicting crisis there? They haven't done a good job at capitalizing their banks either. Greece is at least showing signs of life (finally), fwiw. Also, the era of government austerity seems to be over. Government spending isn't retarding growth anymore which may offset some weakness in other areas.
If we knew what would cause the next crisis and knew when it was coming we would alreadt be in crisis.
Lack of wealth doesn't cause economic crisis; it changes the politics of crisis. As the disenfranchised become further separated from the properity of the few, they are less likely to accept the elite's bargained resolution of future crises.
True crisis in the Eurozone is a crisis for everyone. No one here is worried about a wholly American crisis.
But you have heard it here folks, continued unemployment and lack of wage growth signals future expansion. All those returning to work for lower wages will have more money to spend.
|
On December 13 2014 08:45 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On December 13 2014 04:53 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On December 12 2014 18:22 IgnE wrote:On December 12 2014 14:17 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On December 12 2014 13:32 IgnE wrote:On December 12 2014 12:56 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On December 12 2014 12:45 IgnE wrote: Lol. I wish we had jonny on record back in 2007. There were signs back in '06 / '07 that a recession was on the near horizon. For example, a flat yield curve. If you think a recession or crisis is on the horizon now, I'd have to ask what makes you think that. Gut feeling? Or can you justify your opinion somehow? I don't know if you think a hindsight argument about the worst financial crisis we've had in 80 years helps your cause. I just wish we had you on record in 2007. Don't pretend like you knew it was coming. Maybe you were just a young jonny, thinking about business school. A jonny who couldn't be expected to have real insight in the economy at the time. At least we will have you on record for the next one. I'm asking you to justify your opinion, not claim that I predicted the last crisis. It tells me a lot that you're already getting shitty. On December 12 2014 13:07 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On December 12 2014 13:02 Nyxisto wrote: well the one trillion dollar of student debt are certainly going to blow at some point. Household debt is still below pre-crisis levels, and debt service is still quite low by historical standards. If you're worried about debt, you should be far more worried about Canada than the US. Home ownership and wealth increases for the bottom 90% also at a historical low. You'll have to offer some explanation. The home ownership rate varies by country and isn't correlated with crisis at all, so I'm not sure where you're going with that. Also, the rate in the US is around where it was in the 90's so I'm not sure why you think that's an issue. Also, home ownership means more mortgage debt and home ownership has historically carried a pretty crummy rate of return. Yes, people haven't been saving much and wealth for most isn't going up. But that doesn't strike me as an issue that would have some near-term tipping point. The labor market continues to slowly improve, and savings seem to be improving along with it. What is correlated with crisis? Are you in the business of predicting crises? You are only discussing commonly accepted indicators of economic health, which itself only deals with growth and lack thereof. Underlying fragility is the problem: lack of wage growth, worldwide, lack of wealth in the bottom 90%, volatile energy prices, eurozone malaise. I don't just look to 'growth or lack thereof'. Lack of wage growth and continued unemployment means that there is still plenty of slack in the labor market. As more people return to work more will have more money to spend and firms will have to compete harder for new hires. That points to continued expansion. I'm not sure how lack of wealth will lead to a crisis. While problematic, that seems like an issue that will play out over decades rather than lead to an acute crisis. People will have to learn to save more and / or delay retirement. Sounds more like a social issue rather than an economic issue. Commodity prices seem to have turned in our favor. We've been held back by the commodity boom over the past two decades. The next leg of falling prices should help the US economy as a whole. It effectively means a raise for consumers and gives the Fed more room to keep rates low. Yeah, the Eurozone is still in rough shape. Maybe you should be predicting crisis there? They haven't done a good job at capitalizing their banks either. Greece is at least showing signs of life (finally), fwiw. Also, the era of government austerity seems to be over. Government spending isn't retarding growth anymore which may offset some weakness in other areas. If we knew what would cause the next crisis and knew when it was coming we would alreadt be in crisis. Lack of wealth doesn't cause economic crisis; it changes the politics of crisis. As the disenfranchised become further separated from the properity of the few, they are less likely to accept the elite's bargained resolution of future crises. True crisis in the Eurozone is a crisis for everyone. No one here is worried about a wholly American crisis. But you have heard it here folks, continued unemployment and lack of wage growth signals future expansion. All those returning to work for lower wages will have more money to spend. Your first three points support my position. We can't see a crisis on the horizon - your theory that there will be one in a couple years is bullshit.
Lack of wealth doesn't cause a crisis - your theory that there will be one in a couple years is bullshit.
True crisis in the Eurozone... but there isn't one now, so your theory that there will be one in a couple years is bullshit.
Lastly, you've misread my point. It's reduced unemployment, with a corresponding increase in income coupled with a labor market more supportive of wage gains. This is really basic stuff, so I'm not sure where your confusion comes from. People who are unemployed don't have a lot of income. Returning to work increases their income and ability to spend. As the labor market tightens firms have to compete harder for workers and so wage gains become the norm.
|
But this isn't really an indicator if a country is crisis proof or not. Quite the contrary actually if these jobs are created purely by money printing, debt and social inequality. Increase of nominal values just looks nice but don't actually help anyone. The talk of Europe being in a worse situation seems a little weird. That a lot of people in Spain are unemployed does not change the fact that they have healthcare and a place to live. How is that better than having two jobs in the US and having none of it?
How does the average American college student profit from the amazing economic growth if their college tuition and rent rises five times faster than their income?
|
On December 13 2014 04:49 IgnE wrote: Because they have no retirement savings. Reverse mortgages are booming. Reverse mortgages are a wat tot make your bricks liquid that doesn't really have to do a whole lot with the amount of retirement savings you have.
|
On December 13 2014 03:16 RvB wrote:Show nested quote +On December 13 2014 00:49 Wolfstan wrote: The economy is doing well but asset prices are unattractive from a risk reward basis. I really hope that the correction doesn't carry over to mainstreet but im skeptical.
We have an unprecedented demographic timebomb in the boomers wanting liquidation of their savings putting huge selling pressure on asset prices to worry about. As well as their draw on social services at retirement age there is no historical equivalent to draw solutions from.
We also have the unwinding of QE and how the distortions that caused will shake out. It remains to be seen whether the 40% decline in commodities is a leading indicator of underlying weakness in the economy or whether the weakness is isolated to its own supply/demand and stays in its own sector/asset.
Thats why I weakness in the economy happening before the 2016 election.
Why would baby boomers liquidate their assets? Theyll probably only liquidate the parts they need and that money goes into other assets.
The stop putting cash into their retirement accounts and start withdrawing cash when they retire. The money goes into consumption not other assets. When a lot of people head to the exits in an orderly fashion asset prices still decrease, that orderly exit becomes an irrational rush to sell real quick.
|
|
|
|