Economy is roaring

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The markets are generally roaring.

The "economy" in terms of real wages, household income, manufacturing and retail sectors, debt and deficit spending, debt to income ratios are all a mess.

But hey, MY 401k is awesome.

Real wages are actually increasing. Debt to gdp ratio has remained largely unchanged since Obama's days, and many economists are predicting that it'll actually decrease starting from 2019's tax receipts once capital gains and income tax revenues start rolling in. Consumer confidence is near all time highs, inflation is being controlled very well, and near record unemployment.

Economy is roaring and you can't stand it

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
My 401K is up 12% since Dec 1. Jesus H

Unglaublich

The leftists hate when "ordinary" people (meaning those who never earned six figures) save their money, invest for retirement, and see big increases under Trump. The market is almost 60% since he was elected!



So awful!!@!!!

Who's going to vote crazy Dem with a growing 401k and 529 for their kids?


It’s not sustainable you dummy


Hilarious. Looking for bad economic news so they can win elections. No wonder democrats hate capitalism. Independence, self sufficiently, and orange man bad!

It seems to me that the "great recession" of 2008 did not happen under a "socialist" (if we are saying that the president has a lot to do with the economy). People do remember that. They also remember that a more liberal president was the one who had to stabilize the situation. Was it perfect? Heck no. However, it could have been worse. If we have a war or other major spending, the same thing that happened under Bush will happen again (a pumped up economy and then a crash). Heck, even without war Trump is racking up major debt. This cannot be denied. All looks wonderful right now, but there are no crystal balls. One thing is clear . . . we need to make sure Social Security and Medicare are kept solvent as back stops. It doesn't matter how "rich" you might seem to be today . . . those are back stops for EVERYONE.

Climate change is going to be the much bigger issue affecting the economy. Even Trump can't stop that.

DP. The Great Recession had as it roots the liberal dream of "equality" - and in this case, that even low-income people are entitled to own their own homes. So while there wasn't a socialist at the helm when the Great Recession took root, the ideal behind it - "everyone gets a house!" - did indeed smack of socialism. Sorry, but cocktail waitresses and retail clerks with a HS degree earning $40,000 are NOT entitled to buy a $400,000 townhouse with a "no-doc" loan.

(Reminds me of a woman I know, who barely squeaked through high school and now works in a low-level office job. She was complaining to me (yes, to me) that it "isn't fair" that I have a nice home and she can only afford to rent. My response to her was that maybe she could take some classes at the local community college and work into a higher-paying job, and she told me she was "too tired" after a day of work to go to night class.)

The issue wasn’t fundamentally affordable/subprime loans.

It was unscrupulous and unregulated loan officers and, more importantly, greedy and unregulated banks who padded their securities with junk.

Trump has been trying to dismantle important regulations to prevent these which just puts us all at risk again.

There was bi-partisan agreement in the nineties (Clinton's presidency, not sure whether that is here not there) that having a high level of home ownership was a positive social good. Short version is that people would take more pride in the house where they lived and their neighborhood and crime would fall. Fannie Mae instituted the first program of accepting mortgages with lower market standards.

More and more of these subprime mortgages were made and unregulated subsidiaries of investment banks (especially Bear, Lehman, and Merrill) got into the act because they found they could securitize these mortgages and meet heavily increased demand for housing securities at European banks and insurance companies. (Won't go into the reasons behind Euro demand here.) The demand was so great, that these subsidiaries basically could accept almost any mortgage they could buy. The supply mostly came from mortgage banks in places like California, Nevada, and Florida that were very lightly regulated by states (note that most did not come from mainstream banks).

At some point, the inability of people getting these mortgage loans had to come home to roost. It would not have been at the outset when the push began but later. It occurred during Bush's presidency, but again, am not sure that this is either here nor there.

I think I have said this before in this thread, but there is plenty of blame to go around for the financial crisis and it it disingenuous to pin it on one party or the other. As I think I said earlier, this is a classic case of the road to hell being paved with good intentions.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
My 401K is up 12% since Dec 1. Jesus H

Unglaublich

The leftists hate when "ordinary" people (meaning those who never earned six figures) save their money, invest for retirement, and see big increases under Trump. The market is almost 60% since he was elected!



So awful!!@!!!

Who's going to vote crazy Dem with a growing 401k and 529 for their kids?


It’s not sustainable you dummy


Hilarious. Looking for bad economic news so they can win elections. No wonder democrats hate capitalism. Independence, self sufficiently, and orange man bad!

It seems to me that the "great recession" of 2008 did not happen under a "socialist" (if we are saying that the president has a lot to do with the economy). People do remember that. They also remember that a more liberal president was the one who had to stabilize the situation. Was it perfect? Heck no. However, it could have been worse. If we have a war or other major spending, the same thing that happened under Bush will happen again (a pumped up economy and then a crash). Heck, even without war Trump is racking up major debt. This cannot be denied. All looks wonderful right now, but there are no crystal balls. One thing is clear . . . we need to make sure Social Security and Medicare are kept solvent as back stops. It doesn't matter how "rich" you might seem to be today . . . those are back stops for EVERYONE.

Climate change is going to be the much bigger issue affecting the economy. Even Trump can't stop that.

DP. The Great Recession had as it roots the liberal dream of "equality" - and in this case, that even low-income people are entitled to own their own homes. So while there wasn't a socialist at the helm when the Great Recession took root, the ideal behind it - "everyone gets a house!" - did indeed smack of socialism. Sorry, but cocktail waitresses and retail clerks with a HS degree earning $40,000 are NOT entitled to buy a $400,000 townhouse with a "no-doc" loan.

(Reminds me of a woman I know, who barely squeaked through high school and now works in a low-level office job. She was complaining to me (yes, to me) that it "isn't fair" that I have a nice home and she can only afford to rent. My response to her was that maybe she could take some classes at the local community college and work into a higher-paying job, and she told me she was "too tired" after a day of work to go to night class.)

The issue wasn’t fundamentally affordable/subprime loans.

It was unscrupulous and unregulated loan officers and, more importantly, greedy and unregulated banks who padded their securities with junk.

Trump has been trying to dismantle important regulations to prevent these which just puts us all at risk again.

There was bi-partisan agreement in the nineties (Clinton's presidency, not sure whether that is here not there) that having a high level of home ownership was a positive social good. Short version is that people would take more pride in the house where they lived and their neighborhood and crime would fall. Fannie Mae instituted the first program of accepting mortgages with lower market standards.

More and more of these subprime mortgages were made and unregulated subsidiaries of investment banks (especially Bear, Lehman, and Merrill) got into the act because they found they could securitize these mortgages and meet heavily increased demand for housing securities at European banks and insurance companies. (Won't go into the reasons behind Euro demand here.) The demand was so great, that these subsidiaries basically could accept almost any mortgage they could buy. The supply mostly came from mortgage banks in places like California, Nevada, and Florida that were very lightly regulated by states (note that most did not come from mainstream banks).

At some point, the inability of people getting these mortgage loans had to come home to roost. It would not have been at the outset when the push began but later. It occurred during Bush's presidency, but again, am not sure that this is either here nor there.

I think I have said this before in this thread, but there is plenty of blame to go around for the financial crisis and it it disingenuous to pin it on one party or the other. As I think I said earlier, this is a classic case of the road to hell being paved with good intentions.

The intentions were not the problem - at all. It was the individual and collective greed along with lack of regulations/oversight* that forced us all to hell.

*Regulations/oversight that Trump is currently trying to dismantle. He wants to feed the greedy pigs and DGAF what happens in the long-run.

[Anonymous]

It is hilarious to see the Democrats twisting themselves like a pretzel to argue that this economy is not doing well when they know perfectly well that it has been exceptional.

They have to do this because when push comes to shove voters base their votes on the economy in terms of how it is faring and how they feel in terms of consumer confidence.

Impeachment is not even on the radar of most voters other than those who hate Trump and that group represents a relatively small but vocal portion of the voters. Impeachment does not matter to most voters because they know it is a totally partisan affair and we saw this with the hearings in the House and we will see it again when it comes to the trial in the Senate.

Yes, there are many who don't like Trump and others who tolerate him but they are less concerned with optics and more with results.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It is hilarious to see the Democrats twisting themselves like a pretzel to argue that this economy is not doing well when they know perfectly well that it has been exceptional.

They have to do this because when push comes to shove voters base their votes on the economy in terms of how it is faring and how they feel in terms of consumer confidence.

Impeachment is not even on the radar of most voters other than those who hate Trump and that group represents a relatively small but vocal portion of the voters. Impeachment does not matter to most voters because they know it is a totally partisan affair and we saw this with the hearings in the House and we will see it again when it comes to the trial in the Senate.

Yes, there are many who don't like Trump and others who tolerate him but they are less concerned with optics and more with results.

The economy is cyclical and there is a strong argument that Trump’s actions did not help and may actually make things worse when the economy turns. The massive debt, tax cuts for the wealthy, and deregulation are fine when things are good but like the Bush administration when it turns things could get ugly.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
My 401K is up 12% since Dec 1. Jesus H

Unglaublich

The leftists hate when "ordinary" people (meaning those who never earned six figures) save their money, invest for retirement, and see big increases under Trump. The market is almost 60% since he was elected!



So awful!!@!!!

Who's going to vote crazy Dem with a growing 401k and 529 for their kids?


It’s not sustainable you dummy


Hilarious. Looking for bad economic news so they can win elections. No wonder democrats hate capitalism. Independence, self sufficiently, and orange man bad!

It seems to me that the "great recession" of 2008 did not happen under a "socialist" (if we are saying that the president has a lot to do with the economy). People do remember that. They also remember that a more liberal president was the one who had to stabilize the situation. Was it perfect? Heck no. However, it could have been worse. If we have a war or other major spending, the same thing that happened under Bush will happen again (a pumped up economy and then a crash). Heck, even without war Trump is racking up major debt. This cannot be denied. All looks wonderful right now, but there are no crystal balls. One thing is clear . . . we need to make sure Social Security and Medicare are kept solvent as back stops. It doesn't matter how "rich" you might seem to be today . . . those are back stops for EVERYONE.

Climate change is going to be the much bigger issue affecting the economy. Even Trump can't stop that.

DP. The Great Recession had as it roots the liberal dream of "equality" - and in this case, that even low-income people are entitled to own their own homes. So while there wasn't a socialist at the helm when the Great Recession took root, the ideal behind it - "everyone gets a house!" - did indeed smack of socialism. Sorry, but cocktail waitresses and retail clerks with a HS degree earning $40,000 are NOT entitled to buy a $400,000 townhouse with a "no-doc" loan.

(Reminds me of a woman I know, who barely squeaked through high school and now works in a low-level office job. She was complaining to me (yes, to me) that it "isn't fair" that I have a nice home and she can only afford to rent. My response to her was that maybe she could take some classes at the local community college and work into a higher-paying job, and she told me she was "too tired" after a day of work to go to night class.)

The issue wasn’t fundamentally affordable/subprime loans.

It was unscrupulous and unregulated loan officers and, more importantly, greedy and unregulated banks who padded their securities with junk.

Trump has been trying to dismantle important regulations to prevent these which just puts us all at risk again.

There was bi-partisan agreement in the nineties (Clinton's presidency, not sure whether that is here not there) that having a high level of home ownership was a positive social good. Short version is that people would take more pride in the house where they lived and their neighborhood and crime would fall. Fannie Mae instituted the first program of accepting mortgages with lower market standards.

More and more of these subprime mortgages were made and unregulated subsidiaries of investment banks (especially Bear, Lehman, and Merrill) got into the act because they found they could securitize these mortgages and meet heavily increased demand for housing securities at European banks and insurance companies. (Won't go into the reasons behind Euro demand here.) The demand was so great, that these subsidiaries basically could accept almost any mortgage they could buy. The supply mostly came from mortgage banks in places like California, Nevada, and Florida that were very lightly regulated by states (note that most did not come from mainstream banks).

At some point, the inability of people getting these mortgage loans had to come home to roost. It would not have been at the outset when the push began but later. It occurred during Bush's presidency, but again, am not sure that this is either here nor there.

I think I have said this before in this thread, but there is plenty of blame to go around for the financial crisis and it it disingenuous to pin it on one party or the other. As I think I said earlier, this is a classic case of the road to hell being paved with good intentions.

The intentions were not the problem - at all. It was the individual and collective greed along with lack of regulations/oversight* that forced us all to hell.

*Regulations/oversight that Trump is currently trying to dismantle. He wants to feed the greedy pigs and DGAF what happens in the long-run.

The intention was to make more people homeowners. This was the good intention. However, the only way to expand home ownership was to make mortgages available to people who were shut out of the home market because they could not meet traditional credit standards.

Fannie and Freddie agreed to buy mortgages with lower credit standards, and if you see earlier in the thread, the Democrats were the strongest supporters of them continuing to buy these mortgages. The mortgages that were privately securitized generally were generated by state, not regulated federally regulated, mortgage banks so it is not clear that there is anything there for Trump tod roll back there as they continue to be state-regulated. Fannie and Freddie are currently under federal conservatorship.

The securitizers were unregulated subs of investment banks. All the important investment banks are now regulated on a consolidated basis--meaning with their subsidiaries--by the Federal Reserve. No one is trying to dismantle that.

Yes, as things got rolling there were unscrupulous and greedy people who realized they could profit by the relaxation of credit standards that began with the Fannie/Freddie programs. But none of that would have been possible with the initial bipartisan support for increased homeownership.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The markets are generally roaring.

The "economy" in terms of real wages, household income, manufacturing and retail sectors, debt and deficit spending, debt to income ratios are all a mess.

But hey, MY 401k is awesome.

Real wages are actually increasing. Debt to gdp ratio has remained largely unchanged since Obama's days, and many economists are predicting that it'll actually decrease starting from 2019's tax receipts once capital gains and income tax revenues start rolling in. Consumer confidence is near all time highs, inflation is being controlled very well, and near record unemployment.

Economy is roaring and you can't stand it

And real median household income is increasing. It is higher than the previous peak of 2007. Likewise, debt to income ratios have been declining from their peak in 2010 and are now below 1, about where they were in 2004.

Retail sales are increasing, but the delivery method has changed because of structural changes arising from shifts in consumer preferences. Not much anyone can do about that.

Manufacturing growth is forecast to outrun general economic growth.

https://mapifoundation.org/economic/2018/3/4/marked-strengthening-in-the-us-manufacturing-outlook

[Anonymous]

There is this record debt to GDP thingee going on . . .

https://www.cnn.com/2020/01/13/economy/global-debt-record/index.html

[Anonymous]

I said this pages ago in this threat, but a lot of the economic trends are driven by the boomers who, as a group, are at their peak earnings and investments before beginning to gradually deplete their savings in retirement:

Boomers are preparing for pending retirement by maxing out 401(k)s and other investments and savings accounts, keeping the markets hot;
A few more retire each month which opens up opportunities and helps keep unemployment low;
Many boomer retirees are healthy and wealthy enough to travel, dine out, etc. so there is a boom in hospitality and leisure employment;
Other boomers who are not so healthy are driving the boom in health care employment.

One other thing that was largely overlooked in the jobs reports is that majority of recent job gains have been for women working in services industries. The number of women on payrolls now exceeds the number of men. When you add farmers and self-employed, there are more men working, but employment gains in payroll jobs have been mostly for women.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
My 401K is up 12% since Dec 1. Jesus H

Unglaublich

The leftists hate when "ordinary" people (meaning those who never earned six figures) save their money, invest for retirement, and see big increases under Trump. The market is almost 60% since he was elected!



So awful!!@!!!

Who's going to vote crazy Dem with a growing 401k and 529 for their kids?


It’s not sustainable you dummy


Hilarious. Looking for bad economic news so they can win elections. No wonder democrats hate capitalism. Independence, self sufficiently, and orange man bad!

It seems to me that the "great recession" of 2008 did not happen under a "socialist" (if we are saying that the president has a lot to do with the economy). People do remember that. They also remember that a more liberal president was the one who had to stabilize the situation. Was it perfect? Heck no. However, it could have been worse. If we have a war or other major spending, the same thing that happened under Bush will happen again (a pumped up economy and then a crash). Heck, even without war Trump is racking up major debt. This cannot be denied. All looks wonderful right now, but there are no crystal balls. One thing is clear . . . we need to make sure Social Security and Medicare are kept solvent as back stops. It doesn't matter how "rich" you might seem to be today . . . those are back stops for EVERYONE.

Climate change is going to be the much bigger issue affecting the economy. Even Trump can't stop that.

DP. The Great Recession had as it roots the liberal dream of "equality" - and in this case, that even low-income people are entitled to own their own homes. So while there wasn't a socialist at the helm when the Great Recession took root, the ideal behind it - "everyone gets a house!" - did indeed smack of socialism. Sorry, but cocktail waitresses and retail clerks with a HS degree earning $40,000 are NOT entitled to buy a $400,000 townhouse with a "no-doc" loan.

(Reminds me of a woman I know, who barely squeaked through high school and now works in a low-level office job. She was complaining to me (yes, to me) that it "isn't fair" that I have a nice home and she can only afford to rent. My response to her was that maybe she could take some classes at the local community college and work into a higher-paying job, and she told me she was "too tired" after a day of work to go to night class.)

The issue wasn’t fundamentally affordable/subprime loans.

It was unscrupulous and unregulated loan officers and, more importantly, greedy and unregulated banks who padded their securities with junk.

Trump has been trying to dismantle important regulations to prevent these which just puts us all at risk again.

There was bi-partisan agreement in the nineties (Clinton's presidency, not sure whether that is here not there) that having a high level of home ownership was a positive social good. Short version is that people would take more pride in the house where they lived and their neighborhood and crime would fall. Fannie Mae instituted the first program of accepting mortgages with lower market standards.

More and more of these subprime mortgages were made and unregulated subsidiaries of investment banks (especially Bear, Lehman, and Merrill) got into the act because they found they could securitize these mortgages and meet heavily increased demand for housing securities at European banks and insurance companies. (Won't go into the reasons behind Euro demand here.) The demand was so great, that these subsidiaries basically could accept almost any mortgage they could buy. The supply mostly came from mortgage banks in places like California, Nevada, and Florida that were very lightly regulated by states (note that most did not come from mainstream banks).

At some point, the inability of people getting these mortgage loans had to come home to roost. It would not have been at the outset when the push began but later. It occurred during Bush's presidency, but again, am not sure that this is either here nor there.

I think I have said this before in this thread, but there is plenty of blame to go around for the financial crisis and it it disingenuous to pin it on one party or the other. As I think I said earlier, this is a classic case of the road to hell being paved with good intentions.

The intentions were not the problem - at all. It was the individual and collective greed along with lack of regulations/oversight* that forced us all to hell.

*Regulations/oversight that Trump is currently trying to dismantle. He wants to feed the greedy pigs and DGAF what happens in the long-run.

The intention was to make more people homeowners. This was the good intention. However, the only way to expand home ownership was to make mortgages available to people who were shut out of the home market because they could not meet traditional credit standards.

Fannie and Freddie agreed to buy mortgages with lower credit standards, and if you see earlier in the thread, the Democrats were the strongest supporters of them continuing to buy these mortgages. The mortgages that were privately securitized generally were generated by state, not regulated federally regulated, mortgage banks so it is not clear that there is anything there for Trump tod roll back there as they continue to be state-regulated. Fannie and Freddie are currently under federal conservatorship.

The securitizers were unregulated subs of investment banks. All the important investment banks are now regulated on a consolidated basis--meaning with their subsidiaries--by the Federal Reserve. No one is trying to dismantle that.

Yes, as things got rolling there were unscrupulous and greedy people who realized they could profit by the relaxation of credit standards that began with the Fannie/Freddie programs. But none of that would have been possible with the initial bipartisan support for increased homeownership.

The intention was to expand homeownership by loosening credit guidelines, not approving loans for every tom, dick, and harry. Predatory lenders ABUSED the system because they could. With better oversight and regulation from the onset we could have had expanded home ownership without destroying the economy.

"Increased homeownership" wasn't the problem.

[Anonymous]

And deregulation now isn't just about specifically repeating the same abuse with MBSs. As history shows us, the greedy pigs will take advantage whenever or however they can. With a corrupt, greedy pig in the White House I'm sure they are all feeling pretty ballsy now. What will they do next?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
There is this record debt to GDP thingee going on . . .

https://www.cnn.com/2020/01/13/economy/global-debt-record/index.html

Debt to GDP ratio has remained virtually unchanged under Trump. ACTUALLY, what the data clear indicate is the fact that debt to GDP growth has virtually stopped under Trump. It skyrocketed under Obama. Watch debt to GDP start to decrease over the next 4 years while Trump is in office.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
There is this record debt to GDP thingee going on . . .

https://www.cnn.com/2020/01/13/economy/global-debt-record/index.html

Debt to GDP ratio has remained virtually unchanged under Trump. ACTUALLY, what the data clear indicate is the fact that debt to GDP growth has virtually stopped under Trump. It skyrocketed under Obama. Watch debt to GDP start to decrease over the next 4 years while Trump is in office.

It skyrocketed under Obama because he was cleaning up the recession that happened at the end of the Bush administration. Sheesh.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
There is this record debt to GDP thingee going on . . .

https://www.cnn.com/2020/01/13/economy/global-debt-record/index.html

The debt/deficit problem will not go away unless there is meaningful entitlement reform. Currently, mandatory spending (medicare/medicaid/social security, interest on the debt) is 66-67% of all federal spending. It continues to go up, and the medicaid/medicare portion is forecast to accelerate. Rolling back the tax cuts will not change that. Taxing the rich more will not change that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

The intention was to expand homeownership by loosening credit guidelines, not approving loans for every tom, dick, and harry. Predatory lenders ABUSED the system because they could. With better oversight and regulation from the onset we could have had expanded home ownership without destroying the economy.

"Increased homeownership" wasn't the problem.

Except it happened because of the law of unintended consequences. Bill Clinton hired Roberta Achtenberg in 1993 to run HUD. Achtenburg went on a her social justice warrior crusade to increase home ownership among the poor and minoritiesby threatening, harassing, berating and bullying banks to provide mortgages to people who would absolutely never have qualified previously. Between 1993 and 1999, more than 2 million of such clients obtained mortgages to become homeowners. Achtenburg hired an army of lawyers to setup offices all across the country to strong arm banks into handing out easy loans. Mortgage officers at banks were literally REQUIRED to hand out terrible loans to be able to achieve a good Community Reinvestment Act rating under Achtenburg's draconian system. Easy mortgages were the invention of the Democrats and Bill Clinton, without question. Under Achetenburg, gone were the simple days of loaning money to people who could prove that they could repay.

Also, you completely failed to mention THAT IT WAS BILL CLINTON WHO KILLED GLASS STEAGALL. After killing Glass Steagall, it paved way for the Commodities Futures Modernization Act of 2000, which was once again signed by Bill Clinton. The CFMA paved way for all of the housing market derivatives that blew up the economy. But it was the death of Glass Steagall that allowed banks to get to the point that they were 'too big to fail'. Everything with respect to the 2008 meltdown from easy loans due to Achtenburg's SJW initiatives, to killing GS, to signing into law CFMA were done by the Democrats.