lotta talk of recession, here's the fresh stats on industrial production last week:
whoops, I guess they haven't heard of recession yet.
while we're on it, I notice that manufacturing has TRIPLED since 1970, tho 'cause soo much of the rest of the economy has grown even more in other sectors, this enables folks to misleadingly say it's "shruk"
S+P is down just under 10% this year. The last quarter it dropped over 10% was in 1998. In 1990 it dropped over 20%, and in terrible economy way back then was also last time price of big city housing stock fell (actually a bit more) than it's fallen since Jan last year. Not to mention over 80 bank failures in late 80s and early 90s.
You have to stretch back into the dark hours of bad 90s to find times as bad as these! Economy now isn't great, but jeeze! What if we experience a real recession like in 1992? Anybody remember those bad days? Been horrible since then...Or even long recession like 1980!? People who think times bad now will probably all kill themselves from shock and horror.
and that Federal deficit still climbing? I heard again in CNN some ignoramus that will be remain nameless tout our "huge" deficit by quoting a massive amount in nominal dollars--this is very misleading. A dollar today isn't worth what it was 20 or even 5 years ago. More importantly, when folks worry about debt, what they really mean is their ability to carry it. The Clintons in debt $500,000 isn't is bad as most of us in debt $50,000. They have much greater wealth and can carry that burden easier--even though debt is ten times the amount in nominal dollars. You gotta look at debt as a fraction of income/assets/wealth in order to think about it in any serious manner.
Thus, here's a chart prepared last week from OMB numbers, adjusting for these factors, showing our Federal debt still within historic norms, and always below the debt of the G-7 nations:
And this points to a good time-saving tip: anytime you hear anyone give debt comparisons of now to some other time or context, quoting just nominal dollar amounts, that person is obviously ignorant, or not interested in any serious analysis, or deliberately misleading. In any case, everything they ever say about the subject anymore should be ignored. This will save you time from not having to listen or read about 90% of what you come across on this topic in mass publications or television.
The OMB numbers show federal debt increased whopping 8% under the current president--while he dealt with a recession when he took office, a big stock market downturn, terrorist attack, war, and price of oil shooting up.
and household debt of Americans? Well, now we know that one has to ask that if debt is increasing, has wealth increased too? And it has. Here's the most recent I could find. It's been flat last year of course, but still wealth of Americans at historic highs. Not all income groups, and we all know aboutthe housing downturn, but still--the general trend is up along with the debt and one must discuss that when mentioning credit card debt, mortages, etc "burdening" consumers. Don't just quote absolute dollar figures...
above chart from this fine article in Business Week.
and that same CNN some ignoramus went on about shrinking middle class. Very recent study of latest figures availabe by Treasury dept shows that one can only argue the middle class has "shrunk" because so many have grown and gotten rich and moved in the upper classes. And about 50% of the folks in lowest income group in 1996 moved to higher one 10 years later, with lots other income mobility.
But this is all normal and usual patterns, nothing new here. All expected. Only income group to suffer in last 10 years studies is the very richest--and only 25% of those folks managed to stay in that top 1%. Treasury report sez: "The basic finding of this analysis, is that relative income mobility is approximately the same in the last 10 years as it was in the previous decade." (and one might add, decade before that, and before that, and...):
And here's a labor economist at a liberal rag looking over similar data (yes, has changed some since this article, but NOT MUCH, and will be nice positive change soon, if 225 years of history is any guide) , and telling fellow democrats why they should lay off this message of misery
so TO REPEAT, economy ISN'T doing real well now, but doesn't seem real bad--yet, anyway. We'll see. And if hundreds of years of history any guide, this hot topic will be overcome by something else sooner than later. Not that the new hot topic would be worth much ink:
Collapse of economy due to banking crisis (1893? 1907? 1932? 1987?) or deep recession (1879? 1910? 1932--well, that was a recession made into depression by Federal Reserve and stupid taxing/tariff policies) or end of cheap energy (trees 1700? Coal and blubber 1870?) population explosion (best seller predicting imminent collapse 1968)
I see Soros has another book out on imminent depression. Tho some folks now point out his last one with same prediction came out in 1998. At his age I'd put it 20-1 he won't live long enough for book with these predictions to finally be right.
People are scared that they, and no one, can forsee the future. Problems crop up all the time, but they get solved. Tho noone has a clue how the details will be worked out. If folks and the economy have suffcient freedom to exercise their creativity to feed their all too human greed, with all the competition about, every 'problem' or 'crisis' experienced has been solved in the long run. This has happened in a very boring and predictable manner over centuries, countless mind-numbing times, in all capitalist countries.
not exciting or sexy or sell newspapers and columns, nor feed apocalypitic fantasies and assorted related faiths, but just the dull plodding truth-- and the only reasonable approach to take.
whoops, I guess they haven't heard of recession yet.
while we're on it, I notice that manufacturing has TRIPLED since 1970, tho 'cause soo much of the rest of the economy has grown even more in other sectors, this enables folks to misleadingly say it's "shruk"
S+P is down just under 10% this year. The last quarter it dropped over 10% was in 1998. In 1990 it dropped over 20%, and in terrible economy way back then was also last time price of big city housing stock fell (actually a bit more) than it's fallen since Jan last year. Not to mention over 80 bank failures in late 80s and early 90s.
You have to stretch back into the dark hours of bad 90s to find times as bad as these! Economy now isn't great, but jeeze! What if we experience a real recession like in 1992? Anybody remember those bad days? Been horrible since then...Or even long recession like 1980!? People who think times bad now will probably all kill themselves from shock and horror.
and that Federal deficit still climbing? I heard again in CNN some ignoramus that will be remain nameless tout our "huge" deficit by quoting a massive amount in nominal dollars--this is very misleading. A dollar today isn't worth what it was 20 or even 5 years ago. More importantly, when folks worry about debt, what they really mean is their ability to carry it. The Clintons in debt $500,000 isn't is bad as most of us in debt $50,000. They have much greater wealth and can carry that burden easier--even though debt is ten times the amount in nominal dollars. You gotta look at debt as a fraction of income/assets/wealth in order to think about it in any serious manner.
Thus, here's a chart prepared last week from OMB numbers, adjusting for these factors, showing our Federal debt still within historic norms, and always below the debt of the G-7 nations:
And this points to a good time-saving tip: anytime you hear anyone give debt comparisons of now to some other time or context, quoting just nominal dollar amounts, that person is obviously ignorant, or not interested in any serious analysis, or deliberately misleading. In any case, everything they ever say about the subject anymore should be ignored. This will save you time from not having to listen or read about 90% of what you come across on this topic in mass publications or television.
The OMB numbers show federal debt increased whopping 8% under the current president--while he dealt with a recession when he took office, a big stock market downturn, terrorist attack, war, and price of oil shooting up.
and household debt of Americans? Well, now we know that one has to ask that if debt is increasing, has wealth increased too? And it has. Here's the most recent I could find. It's been flat last year of course, but still wealth of Americans at historic highs. Not all income groups, and we all know aboutthe housing downturn, but still--the general trend is up along with the debt and one must discuss that when mentioning credit card debt, mortages, etc "burdening" consumers. Don't just quote absolute dollar figures...
above chart from this fine article in Business Week.
and that same CNN some ignoramus went on about shrinking middle class. Very recent study of latest figures availabe by Treasury dept shows that one can only argue the middle class has "shrunk" because so many have grown and gotten rich and moved in the upper classes. And about 50% of the folks in lowest income group in 1996 moved to higher one 10 years later, with lots other income mobility.
But this is all normal and usual patterns, nothing new here. All expected. Only income group to suffer in last 10 years studies is the very richest--and only 25% of those folks managed to stay in that top 1%. Treasury report sez: "The basic finding of this analysis, is that relative income mobility is approximately the same in the last 10 years as it was in the previous decade." (and one might add, decade before that, and before that, and...):
And here's a labor economist at a liberal rag looking over similar data (yes, has changed some since this article, but NOT MUCH, and will be nice positive change soon, if 225 years of history is any guide) , and telling fellow democrats why they should lay off this message of misery
so TO REPEAT, economy ISN'T doing real well now, but doesn't seem real bad--yet, anyway. We'll see. And if hundreds of years of history any guide, this hot topic will be overcome by something else sooner than later. Not that the new hot topic would be worth much ink:
Collapse of economy due to banking crisis (1893? 1907? 1932? 1987?) or deep recession (1879? 1910? 1932--well, that was a recession made into depression by Federal Reserve and stupid taxing/tariff policies) or end of cheap energy (trees 1700? Coal and blubber 1870?) population explosion (best seller predicting imminent collapse 1968)
I see Soros has another book out on imminent depression. Tho some folks now point out his last one with same prediction came out in 1998. At his age I'd put it 20-1 he won't live long enough for book with these predictions to finally be right.
People are scared that they, and no one, can forsee the future. Problems crop up all the time, but they get solved. Tho noone has a clue how the details will be worked out. If folks and the economy have suffcient freedom to exercise their creativity to feed their all too human greed, with all the competition about, every 'problem' or 'crisis' experienced has been solved in the long run. This has happened in a very boring and predictable manner over centuries, countless mind-numbing times, in all capitalist countries.
not exciting or sexy or sell newspapers and columns, nor feed apocalypitic fantasies and assorted related faiths, but just the dull plodding truth-- and the only reasonable approach to take.
Nice and simple no juggling jobs gained-omitting jobs lossed--comparing best month/period to worst.