Strap in and hold oooon

[The Cheesehusker, Trade Warrior]

Deutsche Bank is closer to blowing up than anyone likes

Too soon to say "how bad this can be"

Best case - we're done in another week or so and fantastic buying opportunities abound - look what's happened to NKE, GOOG and FB after reporting spectacular earnings

Worst case - worse than 2008 as credit freezes up on a broader scale.


Great timing on having to be away for a couple days....regional meeting today and tomorrow in Indy. Most people get to go to Florida or Vegas or Nawlins for big company meetings. Grain companies go to Indy - in February. Ah well - beats the trip to Dubuque a few years ago...

[agavi...@gmail.com]

I think we're generally blind to the precarious state of the economy. Unemployment is incredibly high, manufacturing & shipping have essentially stopped, credit is free because many has no place to go. I think we've not yet learned our lessons from the previous crash.

[J. Hugh Sullivan]

On Thu, 11 Feb 2016 03:53:11 -0800 (PST), "the_andr...@yahoo.com"
<agavi...@gmail.com> wrote:

>I think we're generally blind to the precarious state of the economy. Unemp=
>loyment is incredibly high, manufacturing & shipping have essentially stopp=
>ed, credit is free because many has no place to go. I think we've not yet l=

>earned our lessons from the previous crash.

Deutsche Bank was one of the banks I consulted daily when I was in
Cash Management. With a $50,000,000 limit for a bank or a country I
needed several outlets.

Just two days ago I read where more jobs are available now than in a
long time. With socialists in office I guess people get paid better
for not working.

Hugh

[Futbol Phan]

On Thursday, February 11, 2016 at 5:53:14 AM UTC-6, the_andr...@yahoo.com wrote:
> I think we're generally blind to the precarious state of the economy. Unemployment is incredibly high, manufacturing & shipping have essentially stopped, credit is free because many has no place to go. I think we've not yet learned our lessons from the previous crash.

Employment is 'incredibly high'? Manufacturing has 'essentially stopped'? You need other sources that Faux News:

http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS14000000

https://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/OUTMS

http://www.nam.org/Data-and-Reports/State-Manufacturing-Data/2014-State-Manufacturing-Data/Manufacturing-Facts--United-States/

[Con Reeder, unhyphenated American]

On 2016-02-11, Futbol Phan <sgz...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thursday, February 11, 2016 at 5:53:14 AM UTC-6, the_andr...@yahoo.com wrote:
>> I think we're generally blind to the precarious state of the economy. Unemployment is incredibly high, manufacturing & shipping have essentially stopped, credit is free because many has no place to go. I think we've not yet learned our lessons from the previous crash.
>
> Employment is 'incredibly high'? Manufacturing has 'essentially
> stopped'? You need other sources that Faux News:

You mean like those extremely trustworthy Obama administration statistics?

>
> http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS14000000
>
> https://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/OUTMS
>
> http://www.nam.org/Data-and-Reports/State-Manufacturing-Data/2014-State-Manufacturing-Data/Manufacturing-Facts--United-States/

--
Fast, reliable, cheap. Pick two and we'll talk.
-- unknown

[xyzzy]

So this is what you're reduced to. Sputtering conspiracy theories about faked government statistics.

ADP's jobs numbers are consistently higher than the govt numbers. So if they're fudging them they aren't doing it right.

[Con Reeder, unhyphenated American]

So you're saying Bernie Sanders is full of it?

Government statistics can be like any statistics -- technically correct
with cherry-picked parameters.

For instance, your and Obama's favorite "XX consecutive quarters of
private sector employment growth". The loosening of SSI eligibility,
and its use in record amounts, has fueled the growth of the long-term
"discouraged" levels. They vanish from inclusion in the headline labor
force numbers. Goverment employment reporting ignores them entirely.

There have been no strong quarters of employment growth similar to
those we have seen in past recoveries. We have basically seen trickles
of part-time jobs along with some promotions and hires due to the
increasing number of retirements. This is borne out by the utterly
stagnant take-home pay numbers; if employment really was strong we
would be seeing wage growth.

There has been no real recovery from our bad recession, due to Obama
administration policy and the resource misallocation it fostered and
the overregulation it has wrought.

Sanders doesn't have much of a clue, but he has one thing right -- the
middle class is hurting. It is hurting because the current administration
has put a straitjacket on growth.

--
Opportunity is missed by most people because it is dressed in
overalls and looks like work. -- Thomas Edison

[Michael Press]

In article <56bcc15e...@news.eternal-september.org>,

You are a Democrat so you know exactly what is going on.

--
Michael Press

[agavi...@gmail.com]

Employment is at 10% if we use the U6, which we should. It's worse when you count everyone of working age who isn't working. Even moreso when you count the underemployed and real wages have stagnated.

The shipping indices are showing quite a bit of weakness through very low pricing. Because there is less to ship.

CURRENT NAM data disagrees with your 2014 data.
http://www.nam.org/Newsroom/eNewsletters/Global-Manufacturing-Economic-Update/2016/Global-Manufacturing-Economic-Update--February-2016/

And, finally, if you have to begin your argument with an appeal to a supposed greater authority, your point is already weakened. I don't watch TV news of any sort.

[J. Hugh Sullivan]

On Fri, 12 Feb 2016 00:44:38 -0800, Michael Press <rub...@pacbell.net>
wrote:

I will have to turn the lights out when I leave.

Hugh

[xyzzy]

The fact of the matter is that all this U6, labor force participation, etc talk is nothing more than wingnut goalpost moving to avoid admitting the Obama economy has done quite well.

After all when Romney pledged to get unemployment down to 6% he wasn't talking about U6 or labor force participation, etc. And if he had been elected and accomplished it, you and Connie would be crowing about how great a president he is. Even though Obama actually did better.

[agavi...@gmail.com]

I wouldn't. I think the BLS numbers are pure propaganda.

[Con Reeder, unhyphenated American]

On 2016-02-12, xyzzy <xyzzy...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Friday, February 12, 2016 at 7:49:23 AM UTC-5, the_andr...@yahoo.com wrote:
>> Employment is at 10% if we use the U6, which we should. It's worse when you count everyone of working age who isn't working. Even moreso when you count the underemployed and real wages have stagnated.
>>
>> The shipping indices are showing quite a bit of weakness through very low pricing. Because there is less to ship.
>>
>> CURRENT NAM data disagrees with your 2014 data.
>> http://www.nam.org/Newsroom/eNewsletters/Global-Manufacturing-Economic-Update/2016/Global-Manufacturing-Economic-Update--February-2016/
>>
>> And, finally, if you have to begin your argument with an appeal to a
>> supposed greater authority, your point is already weakened. I don't
>> watch TV news of any sort.
>
> The fact of the matter is that all this U6, labor force participation,
> etc talk is nothing more than wingnut goalpost moving to avoid
> admitting the Obama economy has done quite well.

Name a similar period of low growth in the American economy.
Name a similar anemic recovery.

> After all when Romney pledged to get unemployment down to 6% he wasn't
> talking about U6 or labor force participation, etc. And if he had been
> elected and accomplished it, you and Connie would be crowing about how
> great a president he is. Even though Obama actually did better.

If he had done it with anemic growth and reduced the rate by
moving people out of the labor force, I don't think he would have
won any plaudits.

--
"The formula for achieving a successful relationship is simple: you
should treat all disasters as if they were trivialities but never
treat a triviality as if it were a disaster." -- Quentin Crisp

[JGibson]

I do think the U6 is a better measure. But its trend is the same as the others:

http://www.macrotrends.net/1377/u6-unemployment-rate

[J. Hugh Sullivan]

On Fri, 12 Feb 2016 05:52:28 -0800 (PST), xyzzy <xyzzy...@gmail.com>
wrote:

>The fact of the matter is that all this U6, labor force participation, etc =
>talk is nothing more than wingnut goalpost moving to avoid admitting the Ob=
>ama economy has done quite well.=20

It has done quite well for dumb shits who couldn't live with
government crutches. It hasn't for more talented people - which is not
saying they have suffered - just held back.

Hugh

[RSFC Moderator]

On Friday, February 12, 2016 at 8:52:30 AM UTC-5, xyzzy wrote:

> On Friday, February 12, 2016 at 7:49:23 AM UTC-5, the_andr...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > Employment is at 10% if we use the U6, which we should. It's worse when you count everyone of working age who isn't working. Even moreso when you count the underemployed and real wages have stagnated.
> >
> > The shipping indices are showing quite a bit of weakness through very low pricing. Because there is less to ship.
> >
> > CURRENT NAM data disagrees with your 2014 data.
> > http://www.nam.org/Newsroom/eNewsletters/Global-Manufacturing-Economic-Update/2016/Global-Manufacturing-Economic-Update--February-2016/
> >
> > And, finally, if you have to begin your argument with an appeal to a supposed greater authority, your point is already weakened. I don't watch TV news of any sort.
>
> The fact of the matter is that all this U6, labor force participation, etc talk is nothing more than wingnut goalpost moving to avoid admitting the Obama economy has done quite well.

Who knew Krugman, DeLong and Sanders were part of the VRWC?

Yes, there is happy data, but there is some not so happy data, too. Is the economy terrible? No. Doing quite well? Only if the goal posts have been taken to town and are hanging in the bar.

Actually, according to the always sober Zerohedge, the bar may be where the recovery is happening:
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-02-05/update-waiter-and-bartender-recovery

[Futbol Phan]

On Friday, February 12, 2016 at 9:10:11 AM UTC-6, Con Reeder, unhyphenated American wrote:
> On 2016-02-12, xyzzy <xyzzy...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Friday, February 12, 2016 at 7:49:23 AM UTC-5, the_andr...@yahoo.com wrote:
> >> Employment is at 10% if we use the U6, which we should. It's worse when you count everyone of working age who isn't working. Even moreso when you count the underemployed and real wages have stagnated.
> >>
> >> The shipping indices are showing quite a bit of weakness through very low pricing. Because there is less to ship.
> >>
> >> CURRENT NAM data disagrees with your 2014 data.
> >> http://www.nam.org/Newsroom/eNewsletters/Global-Manufacturing-Economic-Update/2016/Global-Manufacturing-Economic-Update--February-2016/
> >>
> >> And, finally, if you have to begin your argument with an appeal to a
> >> supposed greater authority, your point is already weakened. I don't
> >> watch TV news of any sort.
> >
> > The fact of the matter is that all this U6, labor force participation,
> > etc talk is nothing more than wingnut goalpost moving to avoid
> > admitting the Obama economy has done quite well.
>
> Name a similar period of low growth in the American economy.
> Name a similar anemic recovery.

Name a similar recession.
Name a credible economist who predicted we would be fully recovered and more, including an unemployment rate of 3% or 4%, by now.

[dotsla...@gmail.com]

Waaa. You aren't cleaning up our messes fast enough!

Sorry. Recovering from the consolidated gop rule of 01 to 07 is freakin tough. Spaghetti monster willing, we won't have to love through that sort of batshit crazy governance again any time soon.

I may be a little grumpy. Just spent forty five minutes driving 4 miles on the madison beltway. Walker seems even more determined than most conservatives to prove the "inherent" incompetence of government.

[xyzzy]

On Friday, February 12, 2016 at 1:26:41 PM UTC-5, RSFC Moderator wrote:
> On Friday, February 12, 2016 at 8:52:30 AM UTC-5, xyzzy wrote:
> > On Friday, February 12, 2016 at 7:49:23 AM UTC-5, the_andr...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > > Employment is at 10% if we use the U6, which we should. It's worse when you count everyone of working age who isn't working. Even moreso when you count the underemployed and real wages have stagnated.
> > >
> > > The shipping indices are showing quite a bit of weakness through very low pricing. Because there is less to ship.
> > >
> > > CURRENT NAM data disagrees with your 2014 data.
> > > http://www.nam.org/Newsroom/eNewsletters/Global-Manufacturing-Economic-Update/2016/Global-Manufacturing-Economic-Update--February-2016/
> > >
> > > And, finally, if you have to begin your argument with an appeal to a supposed greater authority, your point is already weakened. I don't watch TV news of any sort.
> >
> > The fact of the matter is that all this U6, labor force participation, etc talk is nothing more than wingnut goalpost moving to avoid admitting the Obama economy has done quite well.
>
> Who knew Krugman, DeLong and Sanders were part of the VRWC?
>
> Yes, there is happy data, but there is some not so happy data, too.

My point is that this is ALWAYS the case. The economy is large and complicated. If every indicator is trending upward, well look for Bernie Madoff. It's just interesting watching people change which indicators they deem most important based on who's in office. Not saying my side doesn't do it too, btw.

I try to be consistent and look at job creation and fiscal health. It's why I changed from a Reagan Republican to a Clinton Democrat. For the longest time I thought Reagan was a golden age. When Bill Clinton raised taxes in 1993 and Gingrich issued dire warnings about the harm of raising taxes in a recession, I was sure we were doomed. Well we see what actually happened. I actually compared the actual results to the predictions of my side (at the time) and realized that my side was wrong and I had been on the wrong side. So I changed.

[jim brown]

Most people give way too much credit (and blame) on the POTUS. This economy is recovering because that's what capitalistic economies do when they are knocked down...Obama did little except spend an enormous amount of money and raise taxes a little...its silly to think that employing Obamacare did anything good for the economy, and I think we will find in the coming years that it is actually a burden.

Along those same lines, those that put the 08 recession solely at the feet of W. While his war spending and deficit spending didn't help, Obama has done worse w/r to deficits and look how we rebounded. The recession's housing trigger started years before and lays at the feet of both Dems and Repubs including Clinton.

Same thing with Clintons balanced budget...it wasn't achieved by one particular thing, but certainly was helped along by the Welfare reform act that Clinton very reluctantly signed as well as the Dot.com boom (which busted in time to give W a small recession) along with the Peace dividends, which can be attributed to Reagan/HW. Its all connected.

So what I'm trying to say is all this bragging about what Obama has done is really both premature and ill-advised...we could easily tank tomorrow or next week, and most likely we will see a setback in the next POTUS's reign, no matter who gets elected.

One thing we know for sure...if its a Republican he will get all the blame...if its a Dem, W will probably still get blamed.

[Ken Olson]

IAWTP

[Damon Hynes, Cyclone Ranger]

On Friday, February 12, 2016 at 8:31:58 PM UTC-6, jim brown wrote:


> Along those same lines, those that put the 08 recession solely at the feet of W. While his war spending and deficit spending didn't help, Obama has done worse w/r to deficits and look how we rebounded. The recession's housing trigger started years before and lays at the feet of both Dems and Repubs including Clinton.
>
> Same thing with Clintons balanced budget...it wasn't achieved by one particular thing, but certainly was helped along by the Welfare reform act that Clinton very reluctantly signed as well as the Dot.com boom (which busted in time to give W a small recession) along with the Peace dividends, which can be attributed to Reagan/HW. Its all connected.

Deeper recession because bigger economy. Obama did not do America a favor with the social engineering extreme makeover that he foisted on us. Cash for Clunkers, Fannie Med, the out-and-out corruption that is TARP, solar and wind, on and on. The recession should have been over by 2010 tops but the sine wave was perturbed so much, so Rooseveltesque that the misery hasn't ended.

> So what I'm trying to say is all this bragging about what Obama has done is really both premature and ill-advised...we could easily tank tomorrow or next week, and most likely we will see a setback in the next POTUS's reign, no matter who gets elected.

Obama knows exactly what he is doing. Cloward-Piven. It won't end in 2017, plenty of ticking time bombs left.

[Con Reeder, unhyphenated American]

Plenty -- Panic of 1837, Panic of 1873, Panic of 1893, Great depression.
The only one which didn't have a strong recovery was the Great Depression
which, coincidentally, also used the Democrat's heavy-handed goverment
intervention. Economists are pretty much decided that the "New Deal" kept
us down far longer than necessary.

> Name a credible economist who predicted we would be fully recovered
> and more, including an unemployment rate of 3% or 4%, by now.

We aren't fully recovered -- we haven't had the growth for that. Heroic
monetary measures have yielded nothing but a stock sugar high.

--
{((>:o}~ <<<<Oh look!!! An idolatrous image of the prophet!!! Surely
we must now avenge this blasphemy by burning down the world!!!

[The Cheesehusker, Trade Warrior]

The 151 interchange?

Not sure why that' Walker's fault?

[The Cheesehusker, Trade Warrior]

hah - I totally Miaed it!

[Michael Press]

In article <56bddbf6...@news.eternal-september.org>,

First turn off the running tap called the poverty program.

--
Michael Press

[Ken Olson]

This made me think of Don Q.

[J. Hugh Sullivan]

On Sat, 13 Feb 2016 12:18:20 -0800, Michael Press <rub...@pacbell.net>
wrote:

>> I will have to turn the lights out when I leave.
>>
>> Hugh
>
>First turn off the running tap called the poverty program.
>
>--
>Michael Press

I have no pull with socialist Dems.

Hugh

[dotsla...@gmail.com]

On Friday, February 12, 2016 at 6:49:23 AM UTC-6, the_andr...@yahoo.com wrote:
> Employment is at 10% if we use the U6, which we should. It's worse when you count everyone of working age who isn't working. Even moreso when you count the underemployed and real wages have stagnated.
>

These U6 figures?:

http://www.macrotrends.net/1377/u6-unemployment-rate

Dude, if you overlay that graph with potus terms, it sure makes the case for the dems.

When did wages start to stagnant, again?:

http://www.cbpp.org/income-gains-widely-shared-in-early-postwar-decades-but-not-since-then-0

Oh, right, 1980.

Cheers.

[Thomas R. Kettler]

In article <c46e9b9a-a21b-475b...@googlegroups.com>,

It's funny to see a conservative discussing underemployment or wage
stagnation. Whenever liberals discuss this, conservatives always rant
"class war".
--
Remove blown from email address to reply.

[agavi...@gmail.com]

You might want to trot your Dems vs GOP strawman back to wherever you store it. No one was discussing that.

[Ken Olson]

1980 - the last year of the Carter administration.

[Michael Press]

In article <56bff370....@news.eternal-september.org>,

Ea...@bellsouth.net (J. Hugh Sullivan) wrote:

You are a Democrat and were a whole-hearted Democrat
in the '60's. Own it.

--
Michael Press

[J. Hugh Sullivan]

On Sun, 14 Feb 2016 22:48:42 -0800, Michael Press <rub...@pacbell.net>

wrote:

>In article <56bff370....@news.eternal-september.org>,
> Ea...@bellsouth.net (J. Hugh Sullivan) wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 13 Feb 2016 12:18:20 -0800, Michael Press <rub...@pacbell.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >> I will have to turn the lights out when I leave.
>> >>
>> >> Hugh
>> >
>> >First turn off the running tap called the poverty program.
>> >
>> >--
>> >Michael Press
>>
>> I have no pull with socialist Dems.
>>
>> Hugh
>
>You are a Democrat and were a whole-hearted Democrat
>in the '60's. Own it.
>
>--
>Michael Press

I still am a Democrat of the 40s and 50s. I never switched to the
Defecation Party like the liberals did.

Hugh