Re: Small-business bankruptcies up 81% in CA, closures are up even more
Curly Surmudgeon
wrote:
> http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-smallbiz-
bankruptcy22-2009dec22,0,4357844,print.story
> Small-business bankruptcies rise 81% in California
> With credit tight and consumers still pinching their pennies, many
> business owners find they can't go on.
>
> As credit lines have shrunk and consumers have cut back on spending,
> thousands of small businesses have closed their doors over the last
> year. The plight of struggling firms has been aggravated by the
> reluctance of banks to lend money, said Brian Headd, an economist at the
> Small Business Administration's office of advocacy.
>
> "While bankruptcies are up, overall, small-business closures are up even
> more," Headd said.
>
> California has been particularly hard hit. The latest data show
> small-business bankruptcies up 81% in the state for the 12 months ended
> Sept. 30, compared with the previous year. Filings nationwide were up
> 44%, according to the credit analysis firm Equifax Inc.
>
> The actual number of small businesses in trouble is probably higher,
> experts said, because many owners file for personal bankruptcy rather
> than seek protection for the business.
>
> Dennis McGoldrick, a bankruptcy lawyer in Torrance, said his clients are
> all stuck in similar situations -- capital is hard to come by, customers
> are tough to attract and debt is piling up.
>
> "We can't keep up," McGoldrick said. "There's more people that want to
> come in every day than I can see."
>
> Cecily McAlpine, who filed for bankruptcy protection for her Cold Stone
> Creamery franchise this spring, said the experience was humiliating but
> she had no choice.
>
> Receipts at the fledgling Compton ice cream shop plunged dramatically
> during the recession, and by late 2008 she was paying her employees out
> of her pocket.
>
> "When the refrigerator died, that was it; I'd just had it," McAlpine
> said. "That was the day I broke. I just started throwing stuff away."
>
> McAlpine recently withdrew her bankruptcy filing after selling all the
> store equipment and paying off her creditors. She is slowly paying off
> some back-rent and utility debt, and will officially dissolve her
> business in the next couple of weeks, she said.
>
> "I still feel scarred and like a loser," she said. "Even though I'm not
> in it anymore, it's still there." ...
> Over the last year, the Los Angeles, Riverside/San Bernardino and
> Sacramento metropolitan areas have led the nation in small-business
> bankruptcy filings, said Tim Klein, a spokesman for Equifax.
>
> About 19,000 small businesses filed for bankruptcy in California during
> the 12 months ended Sept. 2009, up from 10,500 the previous year.
>
> During September alone, 2,229 small businesses filed for protection, up
> from 1,503 filings in September 2008, the firm reported.
>
> Kathleen March, a bankruptcy lawyer in Los Angeles, said she often
> pushes her clients to file for personal bankruptcy instead of a business
> filing because it's easier.
>
> Many people also close down their businesses thinking that will solve
> their problems, only to find their companies' debt lives on, March said.
>
> "The norm is if you're running a small business, you will have to either
> cosign or personally guarantee the significant debts," she said. "The
> business itself can shut down, but the people cosigned all the debts.
> So, the individuals are then saddled with these huge debts."
>
> A client who owned a surf shop was paying for business expenses from the
> client's own funds long before filing for personal bankruptcy, she said.
>
> "In this economy, anything that isn't a necessity is a tough business to
> be in," March said. "And the majority of my clients have waited too long
> to file for bankruptcy and in the process made things worse on
> themselves financially as a result."
Yup, the economic recovery is still very fragile and has a long way to go.
The Obama Administration should use the $45,000,000.00 in TARP funds
being repaid by BofA, Citi and Goldman Sachs to create one million jobs
at $45k/year, not using the funds to shore up failing banks.
--
Regards, Curly
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Vote Republican, Suffering Builds Character
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Observer
Er, that'd come out to 1,000,000 jobs at 45 *dollars* per year.
__
The last official act of any government is the looting of the nation.
Curly Surmudgeon
I left out three zeros in the bank repayment. Should have been $45
_Billion_ being repaid now. That's still a million $45,000.00 jobs from
just this repayment with hundreds of billions more scheduled over the
next couple of years.
Let's nation-build America, not Iraq or Afghanistan. Or any other
nation, ours first.
Observer
<CurlySu...@live.com> wrote:
Duly noted. I thought 45 million seemed on the low side.
Gotta find a way to allow private business to create said jobs, tho.
CorpGov jobs don't do much but drain the taxpayer.
>Let's nation-build America, not Iraq or Afghanistan. Or any other
>nation, ours first.
How 'bout NOT destroying OTHER nations, to begin with? That'd be a
good start.
Curly Surmudgeon
Agreed in the normal course of events but America is now suffering
multiple catastrophes left by the Bush administration. That calls for
abnormal action. Using money being paid back doesn't "cost the taxpayer."
>>Let's nation-build America, not Iraq or Afghanistan. Or any other
>>nation, ours first.
>
> How 'bout NOT destroying OTHER nations, to begin with? That'd be a good
> start.
Where can I vote for that?
Observer
<CurlySu...@live.com> wrote:
Sure it does. i.e. the taxpayer is STILL on the hook for those funds,
no matter where they get re-allocated.
>>>Let's nation-build America, not Iraq or Afghanistan. Or any other
>>>nation, ours first.
>>
>> How 'bout NOT destroying OTHER nations, to begin with? That'd be a good
>> start.
>
>Where can I vote for that?
I fear that's not an option.
HH&C
> On Wed, 23 Dec 2009 17:41:42 -0500, Observer <noone@nowhere> wrote:
> > On Wed, 23 Dec 2009 22:33:27 +0000 (UTC), Curly Surmudgeon
> > <CurlySurmudg...@live.com> wrote:
>
> >>On Wed, 23 Dec 2009 09:50:36 -0500, Observer <noone@nowhere> wrote:
>
> >>> On Wed, 23 Dec 2009 01:31:54 +0000 (UTC), Curly Surmudgeon
>
> >>>>On Tue, 22 Dec 2009 13:10:52 -0700, Winston_Smith <not_r...@bogus.net>
Ummm, where did the money come from?
> >>Let's nation-build America, not Iraq or Afghanistan. Or any other
> >>nation, ours first.
>
> > How 'bout NOT destroying OTHER nations, to begin with? That'd be a good
> > start.
>
> Where can I vote for that?
The jihadists vetoed your vote.
HH&C
> maybe not. OK, banks wanted to get out from under so they can keep
> raping the system so they gave it back. The taxpayer dodged a bullet.
> Nothing was accomplished since they never used it to make loans, which
> was the advertised purpose in the first place.
>
> It's a whole other decision - of the same magnitude - if we care to
> put it at risk a second time. It's not clear to me at all where the
> payback for the taxpayer is from what amounts to a handful of jobs in
> 150 million.
>
> We need hundreds of thousands of jobs that are other than handouts.
> We need something like 150,000 jobs created every month just to keep
> up with population. Add a bunch more for immigaration. Add in
> replacing the forever lost jobs, the ones that went offshore. Fourty
> five thousand, once, for one year and then gone is a rainstorm that
> doesn't get the sidewalk wet.
Almost nothing was done to keep people in their homes or to prevent
defaulting. And the 5-year ARMS are coming due...
Observer
wrote:
>Observer <noone@nowhere> wrote:
>It was put at risk the first time. A gamble. Maybe we get it back,
>maybe not. OK, banks wanted to get out from under so they can keep
>raping the system so they gave it back. The taxpayer dodged a bullet.
>Nothing was accomplished since they never used it to make loans, which
>was the advertised purpose in the first place.
>
>It's a whole other decision - of the same magnitude - if we care to
>put it at risk a second time.
WE didn't want to risk it the first time. OUR leaders didn't care
what WE wanted.
>It's not clear to me at all where the
>payback for the taxpayer is from what amounts to a handful of jobs in
>150 million.
>
>We need hundreds of thousands of jobs that are other than handouts.
>We need something like 150,000 jobs created every month just to keep
>up with population. Add a bunch more for immigaration. Add in
>replacing the forever lost jobs, the ones that went offshore. Fourty
>five thousand, once, for one year and then gone is a rainstorm that
>doesn't get the sidewalk wet.
__
Curly Surmudgeon
wrote:
> Observer <noone@nowhere> wrote:
> It was put at risk the first time. A gamble. Maybe we get it back,
> maybe not.
Nope, read my original posting. BofA, and I think Wells Fargo and Citi,
_are_ paying back about $45-$50 Billion. There is no additional risk or
cost to the taxpayer.
Recycle those funds to a 2010 WPA creating a million jobs to infuse local
economies. One major problem today is the velocity of money. Money
movement came to a screeching halt in 2008. People aren't spending for
many reasons and that permeates the entire economic system.
> OK, banks wanted to get out from under so they can keep
> raping the system so they gave it back. The taxpayer dodged a bullet.
> Nothing was accomplished since they never used it to make loans, which
> was the advertised purpose in the first place.
Agreed. The stated reason and excuse didn't work but those funds were
secured by ownership and executive bonus limitations so banks are paying
them back asap. That's good, let's reuse the money in a more productive
manner, job creation.
Creating a million, or more, jobs will take a lot of burden off
overloaded welfare agencies and unemployment rolls. That means that
local and state agencies can free that money up for deferred
infrastructure projects doubling the effect. If we double the $50
billion then suddenly there is $100 billion infusing the economy.
> It's a whole other decision - of the same magnitude - if we care to put
> it at risk a second time. It's not clear to me at all where the payback
> for the taxpayer is from what amounts to a handful of jobs in 150
> million.
Removing a million jobless from the rolls would drop official numbers by
10%. If you are one of the jobless that is very significant.
> We need hundreds of thousands of jobs that are other than handouts. We
> need something like 150,000 jobs created every month just to keep up
> with population. Add a bunch more for immigaration. Add in replacing
> the forever lost jobs, the ones that went offshore. Fourty five
> thousand, once, for one year and then gone is a rainstorm that doesn't
> get the sidewalk wet.
Agreed but waiting for a mortally wounded economy to rebound just pushes
more people onto the jobless market and delays recovery. Any trip begins
with the first step.
Observer
wrote:
>Observer <noone@nowhere> wrote:
>>On Wed, 23 Dec 2009 18:29:03 -0700, Winston_Smith wrote:
>
>>>It was put at risk the first time. A gamble. Maybe we get it back,
>>>maybe not. OK, banks wanted to get out from under so they can keep
>>>raping the system so they gave it back. The taxpayer dodged a bullet.
>>>Nothing was accomplished since they never used it to make loans, which
>>>was the advertised purpose in the first place.
>>>
>>>It's a whole other decision - of the same magnitude - if we care to
>>>put it at risk a second time.
>>
>>WE didn't want to risk it the first time. OUR leaders didn't care
>>what WE wanted.
>
>I hear you. There were two "we"s. The ones that got to vote and the
>ones that were ignored.
IIRC, 95%+ of the <cough> "people" were against the bank bailouts, yet
both the Dumb and Pug presidential "candidates" took time off
campaigning to vote AGAINST the will of the people.
WTF?
Observer
wrote:
>Curly Surmudgeon <CurlySu...@live.com> wrote:
>>On Wed, 23 Dec 2009 18:29:03 -0700, Winston_Smith wrote:
>>> Observer <noone@nowhere> wrote:
>>>>On Wed, 23 Dec 2009 23:06:06 +0000 (UTC), Curly Surmudgeon wrote:
>>>>>On Wed, 23 Dec 2009 17:41:42 -0500, Observer <noone@nowhere> wrote:
>>>
>>>>>> Gotta find a way to allow private business to create said jobs, tho.
>>>>>> CorpGov jobs don't do much but drain the taxpayer.
>>>>>
>>>>>Agreed in the normal course of events but America is now suffering
>>>>>multiple catastrophes left by the Bush administration. That calls for
>>>>>abnormal action. Using money being paid back doesn't "cost the
>>>>>taxpayer."
>>>>
>>>>Sure it does. i.e. the taxpayer is STILL on the hook for those funds,
>>>>no matter where they get re-allocated.
>>>
>>> It was put at risk the first time. A gamble. Maybe we get it back,
>>> maybe not.
>>
>>Nope, read my original posting. BofA, and I think Wells Fargo and Citi,
>>_are_ paying back about $45-$50 Billion. There is no additional risk or
>>cost to the taxpayer.
>
>How do you figure? We, the taxpayers, borrowed a bunch of money and
>"lent" it to the banks. Dad borrows money and lends it to the kids.
>We, the taxpayers, got paid back. The kids came through (under threat
>of grounding).
No. A pledge of money was made, with the taxpayers as being
collateral, for said loan. I certainly lent noting, as I would have
insisted on a contract with whom I was lending to.
>Now. What to do with (fiat) cash in hand. We, the taxpayers, can pay
>back OUR loan or we can do something else with it.
>
>We may or may not get our money back from that something else. We may
>lose it, all gone. But either way, we still have to pay back our, the
>taxpayers, loan. That's now part of the national debt. Which is
>costing us, the taxpayer, interest every minute we dither.
>
>It's like you took a loan from a bank (in my fantasy world they are
>making loans) and over paid a bill. You got the excess refunded. You
>can NOT do what you wish with the check. You still owe the bank what
>you borrowed.
>
>>Recycle those funds to a 2010 WPA creating a million jobs to infuse local
>>economies. One major problem today is the velocity of money. Money
>>movement came to a screeching halt in 2008. People aren't spending for
>>many reasons and that permeates the entire economic system.
>>
>>> OK, banks wanted to get out from under so they can keep
>>> raping the system so they gave it back. The taxpayer dodged a bullet.
>>> Nothing was accomplished since they never used it to make loans, which
>>> was the advertised purpose in the first place.
>>
>>Agreed. The stated reason and excuse didn't work but those funds were
>>secured by ownership and executive bonus limitations so banks are paying
>>them back asap. That's good, let's reuse the money in a more productive
>>manner, job creation.
>>
>>Creating a million, or more, jobs will take a lot of burden off
>>overloaded welfare agencies and unemployment rolls. That means that
>>local and state agencies can free that money up for deferred
>>infrastructure projects doubling the effect. If we double the $50
>>billion then suddenly there is $100 billion infusing the economy.
>
>And they only last one year. Then the money is gone and the guy is
>out of work again. Not a lot of improvement.
>
>Plus, no Double, no triple PLUS - the job was yet some more growth in
>government employment. That's exactly the wrong way to go.
>
>>> It's a whole other decision - of the same magnitude - if we care to put
>>> it at risk a second time. It's not clear to me at all where the payback
>>> for the taxpayer is from what amounts to a handful of jobs in 150
>>> million.
>>
>>Removing a million jobless from the rolls would drop official numbers by
>>10%. If you are one of the jobless that is very significant.
>
>That only last one year. At the price of $45 billion dollars. Which
>we have to repay sometime. With the interest clock ticking. But we
>won't be getting it back from some guy we hired. He thinks it's his.
>
>>> We need hundreds of thousands of jobs that are other than handouts. We
>>> need something like 150,000 jobs created every month just to keep up
>>> with population. Add a bunch more for immigaration. Add in replacing
>>> the forever lost jobs, the ones that went offshore. Fourty five
>>> thousand, once, for one year and then gone is a rainstorm that doesn't
>>> get the sidewalk wet.
>>
>>Agreed but waiting for a mortally wounded economy to rebound just pushes
>>more people onto the jobless market and delays recovery. Any trip begins
>>with the first step.
>
>Including one of a cliff. Old saying - watch your step.
Curly Surmudgeon
Certainly a majority although I don't think it was near that unanimous.
At least the Obama Administration got some ownership or loan documents
rather than just handing out cash like Bush's $700 billion giveaway.
Both are said and done. Some of that money is now returning. In a
normal economy I'd demand that it be used to repay debt but this is
anything but a normal economy.
You've heard mention of another stimulus bill floated. Using the
repayments for job creation would negate the need.
Curly Surmudgeon
wrote:
> Curly Surmudgeon <CurlySu...@live.com> wrote:
>>On Wed, 23 Dec 2009 18:29:03 -0700, Winston_Smith wrote:
>>> Observer <noone@nowhere> wrote:
>>>>On Wed, 23 Dec 2009 23:06:06 +0000 (UTC), Curly Surmudgeon wrote:
>>>>>On Wed, 23 Dec 2009 17:41:42 -0500, Observer <noone@nowhere> wrote:
>>>
>>>>>> Gotta find a way to allow private business to create said jobs,
>>>>>> tho. CorpGov jobs don't do much but drain the taxpayer.
>>>>>
>>>>>Agreed in the normal course of events but America is now suffering
>>>>>multiple catastrophes left by the Bush administration. That calls
>>>>>for abnormal action. Using money being paid back doesn't "cost the
>>>>>taxpayer."
>>>>
>>>>Sure it does. i.e. the taxpayer is STILL on the hook for those funds,
>>>>no matter where they get re-allocated.
>>>
>>> It was put at risk the first time. A gamble. Maybe we get it back,
>>> maybe not.
>>
>>Nope, read my original posting. BofA, and I think Wells Fargo and Citi,
>>_are_ paying back about $45-$50 Billion. There is no additional risk or
>>cost to the taxpayer.
>
> How do you figure? We, the taxpayers, borrowed a bunch of money and
> "lent" it to the banks. Dad borrows money and lends it to the kids. We,
> the taxpayers, got paid back. The kids came through (under threat of
> grounding).
>
> Now. What to do with (fiat) cash in hand. We, the taxpayers, can pay
> back OUR loan or we can do something else with it.
>
> We may or may not get our money back from that something else. We may
> lose it, all gone. But either way, we still have to pay back our, the
> taxpayers, loan. That's now part of the national debt. Which is
> costing us, the taxpayer, interest every minute we dither.
>
> It's like you took a loan from a bank (in my fantasy world they are
> making loans) and over paid a bill. You got the excess refunded. You
> can NOT do what you wish with the check. You still owe the bank what
> you borrowed.
>
>>Recycle those funds to a 2010 WPA creating a million jobs to infuse
>>local economies. One major problem today is the velocity of money.
>>Money movement came to a screeching halt in 2008. People aren't
>>spending for many reasons and that permeates the entire economic system.
>>
>>> OK, banks wanted to get out from under so they can keep raping the
>>> system so they gave it back. The taxpayer dodged a bullet. Nothing
>>> was accomplished since they never used it to make loans, which was the
>>> advertised purpose in the first place.
>>
>>Agreed. The stated reason and excuse didn't work but those funds were
>>secured by ownership and executive bonus limitations so banks are paying
>>them back asap. That's good, let's reuse the money in a more productive
>>manner, job creation.
>>
>>Creating a million, or more, jobs will take a lot of burden off
>>overloaded welfare agencies and unemployment rolls. That means that
>>local and state agencies can free that money up for deferred
>>infrastructure projects doubling the effect. If we double the $50
>>billion then suddenly there is $100 billion infusing the economy.
>
> And they only last one year. Then the money is gone and the guy is out
> of work again. Not a lot of improvement.
No prediction can ever be guaranteed, neither your's of disaster or mine
of hope. Adding $50, or $100, or $150, billion in cash circulating in
the economy creates even more jobs. Jobs that will continue as the WPA
peters out.
> Plus, no Double, no triple PLUS - the job was yet some more growth in
> government employment. That's exactly the wrong way to go.
Yes, a multiplier effect. That's been proven under many programs, most
recently the "Cash For Clunkers" program.
As we agreed above, those WPA jobs peter out but the private industry
jobs which were spurred by a higher velocity of, and additional, cash
will remain.
>>> It's a whole other decision - of the same magnitude - if we care to
>>> put it at risk a second time. It's not clear to me at all where the
>>> payback for the taxpayer is from what amounts to a handful of jobs in
>>> 150 million.
>>
>>Removing a million jobless from the rolls would drop official numbers by
>>10%. If you are one of the jobless that is very significant.
>
> That only last one year. At the price of $45 billion dollars. Which we
> have to repay sometime. With the interest clock ticking. But we won't
> be getting it back from some guy we hired. He thinks it's his.
Discussed above, the private sector jobs created to support another
million workers and the added cash to the economy will remain long after
the WPA program dies.
>>> We need hundreds of thousands of jobs that are other than handouts. We
>>> need something like 150,000 jobs created every month just to keep up
>>> with population. Add a bunch more for immigaration. Add in replacing
>>> the forever lost jobs, the ones that went offshore. Fourty five
>>> thousand, once, for one year and then gone is a rainstorm that doesn't
>>> get the sidewalk wet.
>>
>>Agreed but waiting for a mortally wounded economy to rebound just pushes
>>more people onto the jobless market and delays recovery. Any trip
>>begins with the first step.
>
> Including one of a cliff. Old saying - watch your step.
Winston, I respect your opinion and true conservativism but try to temper
it with the unique circumstances we're dealing with. Until money begins
flowing in the system no recovery will occur, or it will take decades.
Only a giant kick in the ass will launch us out of the disasters now
haunting America and the world.
Distasteful to be sure but that's part of a rational existence, sometimes
we have to do distasteful things to avoid an even more serious problem.
Suffering with a 10-20 year recovery serves no one. This minor risk is
worth the reward.
Curly Surmudgeon
wrote:
> Curly Surmudgeon <CurlySu...@live.com> wrote:
>>On Wed, 23 Dec 2009 18:29:03 -0700, Winston_Smith wrote:
>
>>> It's a whole other decision - of the same magnitude - if we care to
>>> put it at risk a second time. It's not clear to me at all where the
>>> payback for the taxpayer is from what amounts to a handful of jobs in
>>> 150 million.
>>
>>Removing a million jobless from the rolls would drop official numbers by
>>10%. If you are one of the jobless that is very significant.
>
> Thereby dropping unemployment numbers from 10% to 9%.
>
> We have 150 million workers and 10% unemployment. That's 15 million
> unemployed. (Closer to double if you use honest numbers.)
Official figures are 10.3 or 10.4 million unemployed.
> A million jobs means 14 million unemployed. 14/150 = 9%. Less than 1%
> improvement if you use honest numbers.
>
> Excuse me if I say less than excited "whoopee".
>
> Obama can do that by fudging the numbers one more time.
>
> Either way, that's eaten up by 5 months of layoffs at recent rates. You
> are behind the curve before your year is up.
Layoffs are declining even though this is a traditional season for
construction to be laid off. Housing starts are on the rise. Suffering
the status quo or a decade or two more isn't a solution.
If you have a better recovery plan then I'd like to hear it.
Curly Surmudgeon
wrote:
> Curly Surmudgeon <CurlySu...@live.com> wrote:
>>On Wed, 23 Dec 2009 20:45:11 -0700, Winston_Smith>wrote:
>>> Curly Surmudgeon <CurlySu...@live.com> wrote:
>>>>On Wed, 23 Dec 2009 18:29:03 -0700, Winston_Smith wrote:
>>>
>>>>> It's a whole other decision - of the same magnitude - if we care to
>>>>> put it at risk a second time. It's not clear to me at all where the
>>>>> payback for the taxpayer is from what amounts to a handful of jobs
>>>>> in 150 million.
>>>>
>>>>Removing a million jobless from the rolls would drop official numbers
>>>>by 10%. If you are one of the jobless that is very significant.
>>>
>>> Thereby dropping unemployment numbers from 10% to 9%.
>>>
>>> We have 150 million workers and 10% unemployment. That's 15 million
>>> unemployed. (Closer to double if you use honest numbers.)
>>
>>Official figures are 10.3 or 10.4 million unemployed.
>>
>>> A million jobs means 14 million unemployed. 14/150 = 9%. Less than
>>> 1% improvement if you use honest numbers.
>>>
>>> Excuse me if I say less than excited "whoopee".
>>>
>>> Obama can do that by fudging the numbers one more time.
>>>
>>> Either way, that's eaten up by 5 months of layoffs at recent rates.
>>> You are behind the curve before your year is up.
>>
>>Layoffs are declining even though this is a traditional season for
>>construction to be laid off.
>
> You are counting twice. Those are "seasonally adjusted" numbers that
> "declined". The seasonal factors are already taken out as part of the
> fudging process.
Nope, the 10.3/4% number is absolute. Way too high and twisted to avoid
reporting underemployed and those who have simply given up and fallen off
the rolls entirely.
Creating a million or more jobs will kick start the economy no matter
who's numbers you use.
> They way this has worked for the last umpteen years is great numbers are
> released. A month later they are quietly revised so that the new
> numbers can be great relative to the newly fudged numbers for last
> month. It's a shell game. It's been going on for years. Bush and
> Obama and probably before that. Liars figure.
Again, no matter how many are out of work the number is enormous. And no
matter how enormous it really is removing a million from one column and
adding them to the other is a major improvement in general and an even
more enormous help to those needing jobs.
Observer
wrote:
>Curly Surmudgeon <CurlySu...@live.com> wrote:
>
>>If you have a better recovery plan then I'd like to hear it.
>
>I suppose the guy on death row may have asked his attorney the same
>thing. We are busted and don't have any options. Robbing another
>bank and killing another cop won't help us much. IF we could manage
>to do that.
>
>Blame Bush, blame Clinton, blame a long list, but we all lived the
>good life on borrowed wealth, made apparently liquid by expanding the
>fiat money supply.
>
>Now the check has arrived and we find we can't pay the waiters bill.
>We may just have to eat beans and wash dishes for a while.
>
>"A while" is probably about the same time we spent on a bogus high.
>Someone that spent 150% of their earnings for ten years will have to
>live on 50% of their earnings for at least that long. Inflation,
>interest, and reduced wages will probably make it twenty years to dig
>out. This is what conservatives have been screaming about for
>decades.
Pity we've had a dearth of fiscal conservatives in office for quite
some time. I fear, the more $ we throw at the problem, the deeper the
recession/depression and the longer it'll take to claw our way out of
it.
>I don't see any magic to change the simple math unless we do something
>radical like forgive all debts. That's really just a reversal of the
>money flow from poorer classes to the wealthy and I doubt they would
>let it happen even if one could find a moral justification to support
>it. That's what revolutions are made of. And they mostly start in
>bad economic times. Do the political math. And prepare.
Curly Surmudgeon
wrote:
> Curly Surmudgeon <CurlySu...@live.com> wrote:
> The last one produced mostly bonuses. No jobs. No loans to business to
> get it running again. Now you say dumping what was salvaged from that
> fiasco into make-work jobs will fix things? I for one highly doubt
> that.
So what? I'm not proposing more bonuses but *JOBS*.
>>> Plus, no Double, no triple PLUS - the job was yet some more growth in
>>> government employment. That's exactly the wrong way to go.
>>
>>Yes, a multiplier effect.
>
> Bankers and wall street have to spend their bonuses somewhere, huh?
Sarcasm doesn't carry well in this medium.
>>That's been proven under many programs, most recently the "Cash For
>>Clunkers" program.
>
> And now O wants Cash for Caulkers and a bunch of other stuff. All the
> clunkers program did was clear inventory off the books to improve the
> apparent paper position of the newly nationalized automobile companies.
> Convenient how that was timed? No? With the inventory cleared and the
> debts magically gone, he will say things are pretty good.
No. The Cash for Clunkers program was a raging success which carried
well beyond inventory reduction. Read up on the cascading effect.
> A lot of the sales were foreign models. Yes, they are "assembled" in
> the US but the drive train is imported, so all the good, skilled jobs
> are overseas and that's where most of Os handout went.
Fords contain parts made world-wide. The auto industry is global and no,
the cash for clunkers program didn't send the money overseas. A small
part undoubtedly. Do you think we should just shut done our economy to
spite the asians, italians, turks, romanians, Congolese and Chinese?
> Mostly the buyers were ones that would have bought anyway. For the
> environmental crowd - the models selected, and the ones turned in, only
> resulted in one or two MPG improvement - if that - and in a miniscule
> part of the American fleet.
Not so but even had it been the stimulus which occurred made it
worthwhile.
> No, you can not put lipstick on Obama's pig. His programs have been a
> big "O". Maybe we should start calling him President Zero.
Again, you're misstating events. Look at the DOW.
>>As we agreed above, those WPA jobs peter out but the private industry
>>jobs which were spurred by a higher velocity of, and additional, cash
>>will remain.
>
> But all the workers in Detroit are back now ??? Most of what you call
> "private industry" is big corporations and they are either owned or
> terminally regulated by our beloved government. The jobs that count are
> in small business and President Zero hasn't even tried to address that
> sector.
Detroit isn't the entire nation. In fact Detroit is hardly a pimple on
the baby's ass and Detroit will never return to it's heyday any more than
Pittsburgh will. Other regions of the nation have ended their decline
and will prosper.
>>>>> It's a whole other decision - of the same magnitude - if we care to
>>>>> put it at risk a second time. It's not clear to me at all where the
>>>>> payback for the taxpayer is from what amounts to a handful of jobs
>>>>> in 150 million.
>>>>
>>>>Removing a million jobless from the rolls would drop official numbers
>>>>by 10%. If you are one of the jobless that is very significant.
>>>
>>> That only last one year. At the price of $45 billion dollars. Which
>>> we have to repay sometime. With the interest clock ticking. But we
>>> won't be getting it back from some guy we hired. He thinks it's his.
>>
>>Discussed above, the private sector jobs created to support another
>>million workers and the added cash to the economy will remain long after
>>the WPA program dies.
>
> So will the debt, and interest on it, that we sink in that black hole.
> Unless you are talking gangs of workmen repairing and rebuilding roads
> and bridges, I don't see much comparison with the WPA. Today that's
> specialized labor and not just anyone can step in and do it. The days
> are gone when all you needed was a shovel and a strong back.
Yes, I used "WPA" intentionally. Let's use the first $50 Billion in loan
repayments to create a million (or more) WPA jobs. Let the unemployed
drive shovels, what's wrong with that? Our infrastructure was ignored
and left to rot by Bush for eight years so he could finance his wars of
foreign aggression. There are innumerable highway, bridge, dam, and
water projects that require little more than a strong back waiting.
>>>>> We need hundreds of thousands of jobs that are other than handouts.
>>>>> We need something like 150,000 jobs created every month just to keep
>>>>> up with population. Add a bunch more for immigaration. Add in
>>>>> replacing the forever lost jobs, the ones that went offshore.
>>>>> Fourty five thousand, once, for one year and then gone is a
>>>>> rainstorm that doesn't get the sidewalk wet.
>>>>
>>>>Agreed but waiting for a mortally wounded economy to rebound just
>>>>pushes more people onto the jobless market and delays recovery. Any
>>>>trip begins with the first step.
>>>
>>> Including one of a cliff. Old saying - watch your step.
>>
>>Winston, I respect your opinion and true conservativism but try to
>>temper it with the unique circumstances we're dealing with. Until money
>>begins flowing in the system no recovery will occur, or it will take
>>decades. Only a giant kick in the ass will launch us out of the
>>disasters now haunting America and the world.
>
> I'm afraid it WILL take decades. What ever we do. The question is does
> "stimulus" change the duration and cost for the better? I think the
> answer is no; you think it's yes.
It will likely take decades even with another successful stimulus.
>>Distasteful to be sure but that's part of a rational existence,
>>sometimes we have to do distasteful things to avoid an even more serious
>>problem. Suffering with a 10-20 year recovery serves no one. This minor
>>risk is worth the reward.
>
> I can't see this over in 10 years. Starting maybe, but twenty years
> before we are back to "normal". If we ever get back. And if "normal"
> is still there. I think we will see a far different future than the
> continuation of the present. Get back to me a few decades and I'll tell
> you if I got it right.
>
> FDR told us how his programs were going to do, and how they were doing,
> great things. A decade later we started crawling out because we got
> "lucky" and had a world war.
That may be the road Obama is traveling but we need a stimulus _now_ or
it may be the only option he feels possible.
Curly Surmudgeon
> On Thu, 24 Dec 2009 15:17:38 -0700, Winston_Smith <not_...@bogus.net>
> wrote:
>
>>Curly Surmudgeon <CurlySu...@live.com> wrote:
>>
>>>If you have a better recovery plan then I'd like to hear it.
>>
>>I suppose the guy on death row may have asked his attorney the same
>>thing. We are busted and don't have any options. Robbing another bank
>>and killing another cop won't help us much. IF we could manage to do
>>that.
>>
>>Blame Bush, blame Clinton, blame a long list, but we all lived the good
>>life on borrowed wealth, made apparently liquid by expanding the fiat
>>money supply.
We can go back a century with blame but that doesn't fix what's broken
right now. America has stopped disintegrating and taken a breath before
deciding which way to go and how fast. This is the time to take decisive
action. Pulling the purse strings tight right now will guarantee a
return to the declining economy of a year ago.
The economy is based upon perception perhaps more than financial
fundamentals. Perception is much like a snowball rolling downhill. Dire
predictions drove the economy lower than deserved. The reverse is true
also and Obama is the man for the job. His demeanor and ability to
enthuse with speeches are critical to climbing out of this hole.
>>Now the check has arrived and we find we can't pay the waiters bill. We
>>may just have to eat beans and wash dishes for a while.
>>
>>"A while" is probably about the same time we spent on a bogus high.
>>Someone that spent 150% of their earnings for ten years will have to
>>live on 50% of their earnings for at least that long. Inflation,
>>interest, and reduced wages will probably make it twenty years to dig
>>out. This is what conservatives have been screaming about for decades.
>
> Pity we've had a dearth of fiscal conservatives in office for quite some
> time. I fear, the more $ we throw at the problem, the deeper the
> recession/depression and the longer it'll take to claw our way out of
> it.
>
>>I don't see any magic to change the simple math unless we do something
>>radical like forgive all debts. That's really just a reversal of the
>>money flow from poorer classes to the wealthy and I doubt they would let
>>it happen even if one could find a moral justification to support it.
>>That's what revolutions are made of. And they mostly start in bad
>>economic times. Do the political math. And prepare.
I know. That's why I'm willing to experiment in hope of changing the
most probable outcome. I've been a a failed nation-state. I've been
through a couple of Latin American revolutions. Neither are pretty.
If America is at that brink then there is no harm in a small gamble.
Curly Surmudgeon
wrote:
> Curly Surmudgeon <CurlySu...@live.com> wrote:
>
>>Layoffs are declining even though this is a traditional season for
>>construction to be laid off. Housing starts are on the rise.
>
> Starts may be up; sales are down - despite bargains and ObamaMoney to
> lure buyers in for a while. The bait is gone now, the sales are
> dropping. And how many more future defaults were lured into deals they
> can't swing without Uncle paying part of the tab?
>
> http://www.dailyfinance.com/story/new-home-sales-unexpectedly-plunge-in-
november/19292149/
> Disappointing New Home Sales in November May Be a Tax Credit Glitch
>
> New homes sales unexpectedly plunged 11.3% in November to a seasonally
> adjusted annual rate of 355,000, the U.S. Commerce Department announced
> Wednesday. Demand tapered off as the popular federal first-time home
> buyer credit was originally set to expire at the end of the month. It
> was eventually, however, extended by Congress.
>
> http://online.wsj.com/article/SB126157233578602825.html New-Home Sales
> Drop 11.3% As Impact of Stimulus Fades
>
> The U.S. economy is showing more signs of recovery, but new data on
> housing and household income underscored concerns that the economy could
> lose momentum next year as the impact of government stimulus fades.
> Sales of newly built homes fell 11.3% in November to a seven-month low,
> the Commerce Department reported, as the government's tax credit for
> first-time buyers was originally set to expire. "The housing rebound has
> so far been largely supported by government programs, raising questions
> of sustainability as these programs come to an end next year," said BNP
> Paribas economist Anna Piretti.
>
> http://jammiewearingfool.blogspot.com/2009/12/homes-sales-plunge-
unexpectedly.html
> Home Sales Plunge 'Unexpectedly'
"Existing Home Sales up Sharply in November"
http://www.calculatedriskblog.com/2009/12/existing-home-sales-up-sharply-
in.html
> It was "unexpected" since by now all Americans were supposed to be
> safely ensconced in the home of their dreams with Barack Obama paying
> their mortgages and utility bills, health care was going to be "free"
> for all, the world was going to love us again, Club Gitmo was to be
> shuttered, thereby improving our "image" around the world, Obama would
> have reduced the sea levels while eliminating mythical global warming
> and shiny magic unicorns would be delivering toys for all the kids. Or
> was that Santa Obama? Whatever, you have to laugh at these clowns from
> AP. Whenever it's depressing economic news somehow it's unexpected.
> Seriously, what alternate reality are they living in?
Of course, what else would you expect? Two factors enter into the
equation, the most important being inventory. The inventory of new homes
has been declining for four years. Plot *total* sales with a running
average though and you'll have a better view of trends than the
inevitable result of the end of a program. What you're posting about,
while true, is inevitable and an absolute worst case view.
For example:
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_pMscxxELHEg/SzI_HqpU-pI/AAAAAAAAHHI/o6uxrYR5sHg/
s1600-h/DistressingGapNov.jpg
shows that existing home sales are still climbing.
Substantiating data shows an existing home sales gain of 30% to 60% year
over year:
http://www.realtor.org/wps/wcm/connect/b12ed90040c0e6b29ddcff1890ffcf5b/
EHS_RELEASE_200911.xlsx?
MOD=AJPERES&CACHEID=b12ed90040c0e6b29ddcff1890ffcf5b
Curly Surmudgeon
wrote:
> Curly Surmudgeon <CurlySu...@live.com> wrote:
>>On Thu, 24 Dec 2009 16:47:39 -0700, Winston_Smithwrote:
>>> Curly Surmudgeon <CurlySu...@live.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>Layoffs are declining even though this is a traditional season for
>>>>construction to be laid off. Housing starts are on the rise.
>>>
>>> Starts may be up; sales are down - despite bargains and ObamaMoney to
>>> lure buyers in for a while. The bait is gone now, the sales are
>>> dropping. And how many more future defaults were lured into deals
>>> they can't swing without Uncle paying part of the tab?
>>>
>>> <http://www.dailyfinance.com/story/new-home-sales-unexpectedly-plunge-
in-november/19292149/>
>>> Disappointing New Home Sales in November May Be a Tax Credit Glitch
>>>
>>> New homes sales unexpectedly plunged 11.3% in November to a seasonally
>>> adjusted annual rate of 355,000, the U.S. Commerce Department
>>> announced Wednesday. Demand tapered off as the popular federal
>>> first-time home buyer credit was originally set to expire at the end
>>> of the month. It was eventually, however, extended by Congress.
>>>
>>> <http://online.wsj.com/article/SB126157233578602825.html>
> >> New-Home SalesDrop 11.3% As Impact of Stimulus Fades
> It's still a several year supply if another house never comes on the
> market.
I think you're mixing markets. The "New Home" inventory is very low as
there has been very little construction for 4-6 years. Low inventory
means low sales volume.
"Existing Homes" sales have grown as prices have dropped.
> That doesn't count the ones that banks own but haven't
> marketed, nor the massive amounts that haven't made a mortgage payment
> but the banks are ignoring to keep from further inflating what they own.
> Nor the ones that will tank when the majority of ARMS hit the wall in
> 2010.
Yup, and I predict home prices will decline a bit further before we see a
bottom. But those are side issues. You implied that home sales in
general are down by quoting only new home results for a single month
after close of an incentive program. That's misleading, total home sales
are up.
>>Plot *total* sales with a running
>>average though and you'll have a better view of trends than the
>>inevitable result of the end of a program. What you're posting about,
>>while true, is inevitable and an absolute worst case view.
>
> You like drawing lines. Economics. Climate. Draw some lines. That of
> course requires a whole lot of number fudging before you can apply
> pencil to paper IMHO. You have to boil a whole complex subject into one
> data variable vs time to make the graph to draw the line. The world
> just isn't that simple IMHO.
>
>>For example:
>>
>><http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_pMscxxELHEg/SzI_HqpU-pI/AAAAAAAAHHI/
o6uxrYR5sHg/s1600-h/DistressingGapNov.jpg>
>>
>>shows that existing home sales are still climbing.
>>
>>Substantiating data shows an existing home sales gain of 30% to 60% year
>>over year:
>>
>><http://www.realtor.org/wps/wcm/connect/
b12ed90040c0e6b29ddcff1890ffcf5b/EHS_RELEASE_200911.xlsx?
MOD=AJPERES&CACHEID=b12ed90040c0e6b29ddcff1890ffcf5b>
>
> To hear realtors tell it, it's always good and climbing. "Better offer
> full price before you lose it. Maybe 10% over." They are shills. In
> the worse of the Bush collapse they told us how good it was. We have
> hit bottom and started up a dozen times since then.
>
> You don't expect a stock broker to tell you to avoid stocks for a few
> years while the market sorts out. Same with real estate salesmen. It's
> always a good time to buy.
You can't fudge the number of houses sold.