The U.S. Economy: Stand by for more worse news

[joepistole]

Same complaint I made in this post 873:
andin my post 869:
"You should try giving documentation for your assertions, at least half the time as a first step. That will not hurt you. "
In fact I'm begin to think you don't know how to quote a reference source as you never do that despite this suggestion.

Lol, I think the record is clear. You have repeatedly refused to acknowledge record of reference material from the Census Bureau and BLS and instead favor politicized opinion pieces specious web sites and advertisements. October 31 draws near BillyT. Instead of attacking and lying about me, you should be working on your excuses.

 

[Billy T]

Lol, October 31 draws near BillyT. Instead of attacking and lying about me, you should be working on your excuses.

I don't need any excuses - more than seven years ago I made a prediction, with + or - one month timing error margin. That expires 30 November 2014.

I have long ago said not to expect excuses - just an acknowledgement that I got the timing wrong.
It is hard to be precise to ~1% about both what and when 7+ years in advance.

 

[Billy T]

... You have repeatedly refused to acknowledge record of reference material from the Census Bureau and BLS ...

Again as I told you in prior post 875:

... BTW: The burden of getting references is on the one making assertion, you, not your readers, must quote and give link that can be checked. As I do!

I don't have time to search thru what BLS has to say on the subject. It is your responsibility, not mine, to quote them but you only CLAIM they disagree with my referenced sources. Here is my post 869 again telling my two source, in red text, which you distrust:

foot note of Source was given in my post as I almost always do:

Quoting from the first foot note of post 864:
"Rental rates increased 1% during the third quarter to an average of $1,111 a month nationwide, according to Reis Inc., REIS -0.73% a real-estate research firm that collects data on 79 U.S. metropolitan areas. That was up 3.3% from the same quarter a year ago. Last quarter's 1% increase was faster than the second quarter's 0.9% rise. Apartment rents have risen nationally for 23 straight quarters and are 15.2% higher than they were at the end of the recession in 2009.** The figures suggest the five-year squeeze on renters shows little sign of easing." Quote from WJS 1 October 14 issue. Read more here: http://online.wsj.com/articles/apartment-rents-are-rising-steadily-and-quickly-141222060

and Quoting from start of post 862;
" ... from the article text at: http://seekingalpha.com/article/2553215-why-the-market-topped-out?ifp=0
"Median inflation adjusted family income is down ~7% from its previous peak in 2007 and is down ~4% since the recession officially ended in June 2009."

I.e. 15.2 nominal + 4 of "inflation adjustment" = the 19.2% real rise in median rental rates since 2009 as I asserted.

You should try giving documentation for your assertions, at least half the time as a first step. That will not hurt you.

Not my problem that you consider WSJ and Seeking Alpha as "politicized opinion pieces specious web sites and advertisements" as no-one agrees with you.

 

[joepistole]

I don't need any excuses - more than seven years ago I made a prediction, with + or - one month timing error margin. That expires 30 November 2014.

I have long ago said not to expect excuses - just an acknowledgement that I got the timing wrong.
It is hard to be precise to ~1% about both what and when 7+ years in advance.

LOL you have been all over the map on your " margin of error". You have made it clear you will never admit your core analysis and forecast is wrong - you just got the dates wrong. This is reminiscent of all those religious zealots who have repeatedly predicted Armageddon. They just keep changing the dates rather than admit they don't know what they are talking about.

 

[joepistole]

Again as I told you in prior post 875:
I don't have time to search thru what BLS has to say on the subject. It is your responsibility, not mine, to quote them but you only CLAIM they disagree with my referenced sources. Here is my post 869 again telling my two source, in red text, which you distrust:Not my problem that you consider WSJ and Seeking Alpha as "politicized opinion pieces specious web sites and advertisements" as no-one agrees with you.

You don't have the time to do the research but you do have time to write about and make predictions as if you had done the research.

Here is the danger Billy T, if someone takes you seriously, they are going to lose a lot of money. If you want to lose your money fine. But a lot of folks have worked very hard for their money and they cannot afford to lose it.

They should not be taking. advice from someone who doesn't have time to do the research.

 

[Michael]

One more time, the economy collapsed years ago. Let's see:
Murder Inc and our never ending wars?
Check
The State paying mothers to put their 3 week old infants into State regulated Day Supervision Factories so they can get to work to pay form Murder Inc?
Check
Most Americans cannot afford a home?
Check
A fat 20% of Government School graduates are functionally illiterate?
Check
The top 0.1% racking in 110% of the gains in GDP while the bottom 80% are poorer?
Check
Flag waving Americans defending Dear Leader to the death?
Check

Need I go on? The economy collapsed decades ago. This is a slow motion train wreck that will take decades more to play out.

 

[joepistole]

One more time, the economy collapsed years ago. Let's see:
Murder Inc and our never ending wars?
Check
The State paying mothers to put their 3 week old infants into State regulated Day Supervision Factories so they can get to work to pay form Murder Inc?
Check
Most Americans cannot afford a home?
Check
A fat 20% of Government School graduates are functionally illiterate?
Check
The top 0.1% racking in 110% of the gains in GDP while the bottom 80% are poorer?
Check
Flag waving Americans defending Dear Leader to the death?
Check

Need I go on? The economy collapsed decades ago. This is a slow motion train wreck that will take decades more to play out.

Yeah, the economy did collapse, some 85 years ago. It is referred to as The Great Depression. But unfortunately for you since then it has grown considerably. Back then most people didn't have refrigeration. They didn't have a strong healthcare care system. Diseases like Polio were still ragging and there were no cures. There were no antibiotics. There were wars. You may have heard of them WWI and then WWII. We have not had a world war since WWII. Homeownership today is higher that it was in 1984 even with the recent Great Recession which was brought about by the deregulation you and those like you so cherish. The wealth inequality problem you like to rail about is a real problem, but it will not be solved by giving the keys to the kingdom along with a carte blanche to the folks you defend and advocate for.

 

[Billy T]

... Homeownership today is higher that it was in 1984 even with the recent Great Recession which was brought about by the deregulation ...

As usual, you just give your opinion, without checking the facts; but seldom are you so misleading - Home ownership peaked in 2004 and has been decreasing ever since. (More than a decade) You could also say home ownership today is higher that in 1935, so what? You are hidding the decade long trend downward.

The homeownership rate in the U.S. fell to a 19-year low as rising prices and tight credit kept many first-time buyers out of the property market. ...
The homeownership rate for all Americans peaked at 69.2 percent in June 2004 and plunged as the housing market crashed, according to the Census Bureau.

The share of Americans who own their homes was 64.7 percent in the second quarter, down from 64.8 percent in the previous three months, the Census Bureau said in a report today. The rate matched the level in the second quarter of 1995. *

But I guess you can disregard the above as Bloomberg, like my WSJ references, is just ""politicized opinion pieces specious web sites and advertisements."

* I.e. home ownership went up for 9 years and then has been going down for 10 and still is.

 

[billvon]

As usual, you just give your opinion, without checking the facts

He is absolutely correct. Homeownership in 1984 was 64% It then rose to 69% around 2004 (due primarily to people "flipping" and buying homes they could not afford) and has since declined to 65% - still higher than 1984. This is a good thing in my book; it is a correction to bring the market back to sanity. (Long term average has been about 65%.) I would not want a return to the sort of "get a home for no money down, no credit and no rational thought!" attitude that pervaded the market right before the bubble burst.

 

[joepistole]

He is absolutely correct. Homeownership in 1984 was 64% It then rose to 69% around 2004 (due primarily to people "flipping" and buying homes they could not afford) and has since declined to 65% - still higher than 1984. This is a good thing in my book; it is a correction to bring the market back to sanity. (Long term average has been about 65%.) I would not want a return to the sort of "get a home for no money down, no credit and no rational thought!" attitude that pervaded the market right before the bubble burst.

I have to agree. Ten years ago housing credit was way out of line. It was unsupportable.

 

[joepistole]

As usual, you just give your opinion, without checking the facts; but seldom are you so misleading - Home ownership peaked in 2004 and has been decreasing ever since. (More than a decade) You could also say home ownership today is higher that in 1935, so what? You are hidding the decade long trend downward.But I guess you can disregard the above as Bloomberg, like my WSJ references, is just ""politicized opinion pieces specious web sites and advertisements."

* I.e. home ownership went up for 9 years and then has been going down for 10 and still is.

I give facts BillyT, you just don't like them. You wish I didn't. I use record or reference material or data from credible sources, not specious opinion pieces and web sites or advertisements. As Billvon pointed out and as I previously stated there was this little thing called The Great Recession which was preceded by a glut of unsustainable mortgage loans which was a direct result of financial deregulation (i.e. repeal of Glass–Steagall, and passage of the Commodity Futures Modernization Act).

Contrary to your assertions, homeownership appears to be stabilizing at around 65% which is still higher than it was back in 1984.

http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/USHOWN

http://www.census.gov/housing/hvs/files/currenthvspress.pdf

 

[Billy T]

Facts worth 1000 words kill claims that we are in recovery mode. (Corporation selling to foreigners are doing well / very cash rich, as are the top 5% or so who own most of their stock.)

Seven years later, {from end of 2007} most Americans have put their finances in order, reducing all kinds of consumer debt. So it's no small insult, after the injury of the recession, that many aren't being rewarded for smarter spending. Americans are making a lot less money* and own fewer assets, the Federal Reserve said last month, even as stocks reach new highs.

* In real value (purchasing power) terms, not nominal salaries.

I give facts BillyT, you just don't like them. You wish I didn't. I use record or reference material or data from credible sources, not specious opinion pieces and web sites or advertisements. ...

NO Joe, you give invented LIES, which even your own link REFUTES - See the true facts from your link below.
I know you often make up your lies, so I check your links (If they even exist. ... To "rub your nose in it," I asked you 17 times for one claimed to be from bloomberg.)
What I wish is that you stopped inventing lies and were truthful and that you did not cast slurs on the Census Bureau and Bloomberg. (My 2 links of this post.)

Table 4. Homeownership Rates for the United States: 1995 to 2014 (in percent)
Year . 1st Quarter . 2nd Quarter . 3d Quarter . 4th Quarter
↓
2014…64.8……………65.0…………...65.4
2013…64.7……………65.0…………...65.5…………...64.4
2012…65.3……………65.5…………...65.2…………...65.4
2011…66.4……………65.9…………...66.3…………...66.0
2010…67.1……………67.3…….……..67.8...............68.4 ... The long term* DECLINE IN PERCENT OF HOME OWERSHIP IS NOW ABOUT ~3%
AND ACELERATING AS MORE PEOPLE LOSE THEIR HOME - BECOME RENTERS. I. e. is now "accelerating" at >4% rate (from above data 65.4/ 68.4)
* I.e. The average of the top 10 quarters of this data is: 65.09 vs. last 10 quarter average of 66.93. This decline is in graph at your link, that will not post here.
2009…………………………...…………... I'm too lazy to fit all the data that copies vertically into horizontal format.
Here is next block of four (for 2009's quarters). It averages 68.55%:
68.5
69.1
68.6
68.0
2008…………………………...…………... But note Joe's own link REFUTES HIS FALSE CLAIM. - (NOT UNUSUAL FOR JOE)
2007…………………………...…………...
2006…………………………...…………...
2005…………………………...…………...
2004…………………………..…………...
2003…………………………..…………...
2002………………………….…………...
2001……………………............……..
2000..........................................
1999..........................................
1998..........................................
1997..........................................
1996..........................................
1995..........................................
67.8
67.8
67.5
67.1
66.7
65.9
65.4
65.1
64.2
66.9
67.4
68.1
68.2
68.7
68.6
69.2
68.0
67.6
67.6
67.7
67.2
66.6
66.0
65.7
65.4
64.7
66.9
67.6
67.9
68.2
69.0
68.8
69.0
68.4
68.0
68.0
68.1
67.7
67.0
This break is just to separate last 10 quarters to make sum accurately. (It is 669.3)
66.8
66.0
65.6
65.0
66.5
67.2
67.5
67.8
68.9
69.0

 

[Billy T]

SUMMARY: During last decade US debt increase rate has been slightly more than a trillion dollars annually !

Total Public Debt Outstanding 31 October 2014 (millions of dollar): 17,937,160
..............(Held by public: 12,857,056 / By government agencies: 5,080,104)
Total Public Debt Outstanding 31 October 2004 (millions of dollar): 7,429,677
..............(Held by public: 4,318,485 / By government agencies: 3,111,192 )
Above from: ftp://ftp.publicdebt.treas.gov/opd/opds102004.pdf & ftp://ftp.publicdebt.treas.gov/opd/opds102014.pdf
But lots more here: http://www.fiscal.treasury.gov/fsreports/rpt/mthTreasStmt/mthTreasStmt_home.htm.
(a link that is up dated each month -typically about two weeks into the next month)

 

[joepistole]

Facts worth 1000 words kill claims that we are in recovery mode. (Corporation selling to foreigners are doing well / very cash rich, as are the top 5% or so who own most of their stock.)
* In real value (purchasing power) terms, not nominal salaries. NO Joe, you give invented LIES, which even your own link REFUTES - See the true facts from your link below.
I know you often make up your lies, so I check your links (If they even exist. ... To "rub your nose in it," I asked you 17 times for one claimed to be from bloomberg.)
What I wish is that you stopped inventing lies and were truthful and that you did not cast slurs on the Census Bureau and Bloomberg. (My 2 links of this post.)

Table 4. Homeownership Rates for the United States: 1995 to 2014 (in percent)
Year . 1st Quarter . 2nd Quarter . 3d Quarter . 4th Quarter
↓
2014…64.8……………65.0…………...65.4
2013…64.7……………65.0…………...65.5…………...64.4
2012…65.3……………65.5…………...65.2…………...65.4
2011…66.4……………65.9…………...66.3…………...66.0
2010…67.1……………67.3…….……..67.8...............68.4 ... The long term* DECLINE IN PERCENT OF HOME OWERSHIP IS NOW ABOUT ~3%
AND ACELERATING AS MORE PEOPLE LOSE THEIR HOME - BECOME RENTERS. I. e. is now "accelerating" at >4% rate (from above data 65.4/ 68.4)
* I.e. The average of the top 10 quarters of this data is: 65.09 vs. last 10 quarter average of 66.93. This decline is in graph at your link, that will not post here.
2009…………………………...…………... I'm too lazy to fit all the data that copies vertically into horizontal format.
Here is next block of four (for 2009's quarters). It averages 68.55%:
68.5
69.1
68.6
68.0
2008…………………………...…………... But note Joe's own link REFUTES HIS FALSE CLAIM. - (NOT UNUSUAL FOR JOE)
2007…………………………...…………...
2006…………………………...…………...
2005…………………………...…………...
2004…………………………..…………...
2003…………………………..…………...
2002………………………….…………...
2001……………………............……..
2000..........................................
1999..........................................
1998..........................................
1997..........................................
1996..........................................
1995..........................................
67.8
67.8
67.5
67.1
66.7
65.9
65.4
65.1
64.2
66.9
67.4
68.1
68.2
68.7
68.6
69.2
68.0
67.6
67.6
67.7
67.2
66.6
66.0
65.7
65.4
64.7
66.9
67.6
67.9
68.2
69.0
68.8
69.0
68.4
68.0
68.0
68.1
67.7
67.0
This break is just to separate last 10 quarters to make sum accurately. (It is 669.3)
66.8
66.0
65.6
65.0
66.5
67.2
67.5
67.8
68.9
69.0

Have you been hitting the hooch BillyT? The material I provided on homeownership from the St. Louis Fed complete with charts was pretty self evident. It is quite clear, homeowner ship today is higher than it was in 1984. When you have to cherry pick as you do, you should question your premise. You shouldn't have to keep pounding square blocks into round holes. And as I explained previously, homeownership has come down because of the liquidity crisis of 2007-2009 which was brought about by deregulation of the banking industry. The St. Louis Fed isn't lying BillyT. Now I know you adhere to some wild conspiracy theories related to the Federal Reserve, but that doesn't make them real.

 

[Michael]

As you can see, the New Economy is doing fantastic.

 

[joepistole]

As you can see, the New Economy is doing fantastic.

I think this is a good demonstration of what happens when you use unvetted data from advocacy groups. When you get vetted data, come back and we will have a discussion. Further you are misrepresenting the numbers. The advocacy group says 1 0ut of 30 were homeless at some point during the course of a year. It could have been a day or two days. It says nothing about the length or duration of homelessness.

And homelessness is a problem that isn't necessarily related to economics. There are homeless people even in the best of times. There have always been homeless people. People are homeless for non economic reasons like alcoholism, drug abuse, dysfunctional families...children run away from home. At one point in my life I would have fit into their definition of homeless. I ran away from home as a child and lived at a local lake. It wasn't because I didn't have a home to go to. I had a home. I didn't like it. I was homeless by choice. It had nothing to do with the economic circumstances of my family. So your attribution of the homeless problem to the "new economy" is either ignorance of the problem or blatant demagoguery.

 

[Michael]

The advocacy group says 1 0ut of 30 were homeless at some point during the course of a year.

Try to not step on any homeless children on your way to 'picking up some good deals' off the poor and destitute people of Detroit.

You may find this to come as a little bit of a shock, but children who are homeless, even for a short period of the year, are in a state of shock. Living THAT vicariously is difficult enough for an adult - but it's life damaging to a child. Of course, this is ideal for Progressive Socialists. They'd love nothing better than to see multiple generations of American children raised shit-scared of having a place to sleep or when they'll get their next meal. Who better to vote for, and support, much more Progressive Socialism.

See, building childhoods out of rock solid family and sound foundations is to a Statist, like garlic is to a vampire. But, raise generations of scared weak children in broken families in dystopian State-run welfare ghettos, this is the Socialists' ideal world. It's why the State pays mothers more NOT to be married.

Don't worry Joe, you can still pick up cheap slum-housing in the Progressive shithole run into the ground across 40 years called Detroit. And there's an endless supply, multiple generations, of weak broken functionally illiterate Americans fully supportive of, and dependent on, the Progressive Police State.

Let's see how that works out for us.

 

[joepistole]

Try to not step on any homeless children on your way to 'picking up some good deals' off the poor and destitute people of Detroit.

You may find this to come as a little bit of a shock, but children who are homeless, even for a short period of the year, are in a state of shock. Living THAT vicariously is difficult enough for an adult - but it's life damaging to a child. Of course, this is ideal for Progressive Socialists. They'd love nothing better than to see multiple generations of American children raised shit-scared of having a place to sleep or when they'll get their next meal. Who better to vote for, and support, much more Progressive Socialism.

See, building childhoods out of rock solid family and sound foundations is to a Statist, like garlic is to a vampire. But, raise generations of scared weak children in broken families in dystopian State-run welfare ghettos, this is the Socialists' ideal world. It's why the State pays mothers more NOT to be married.

Don't worry Joe, you can still pick up cheap slum-housing in the Progressive shithole run into the ground across 40 years called Detroit. And there's an endless supply, multiple generations, of weak broken functionally illiterate Americans fully supportive of, and dependent on, the Progressive Police State.

Let's see how that works out for us.

And your evidence is where? Your ad hominem attacks doesn't change the fact you are using unchecked sources with an interest in beefing up the numbers. Not does it change the fact people are homeless for a variety of non economic reasons. Each day thousands of children, mainly teenagers, runaway from home.

 

[elte]

I was perusing the news and I came upon the name, Jim Rickards. He is very concerned about the collapse of money.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/10/06/us-investment-author-financialpanics-idUSKCN0HV12720141006

http://moneymorning.com/ext/articles/rickards/25-year-great-depression.php?iris=262714

Earlier, I heard that fracking might only be able to boost our oil output for a short while longer. That was on NPR. These two factors added together are very concerning for the U.S. and the world economy.

 

[joepistole]

I was perusing the news and I came upon the name, Jim Rickards. He is very concerned about the collapse of money.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/10/06/us-investment-author-financialpanics-idUSKCN0HV12720141006

http://moneymorning.com/ext/articles/rickards/25-year-great-depression.php?iris=262714

Earlier, I heard that fracking might only be able to boost our oil output for a short while longer. That was on NPR. These two factors added together are very concerning for the U.S. and the world economy.

And who is Jim Rickards? He is a salesman. He is in the business of selling gold and stocks. If you would have taken his advice, you would have bought gold at $1,900 plus/per ounce which is now worth $1,1xx and change per ounce. Mr. Rickards makes money selling stuff, including his books to unsophisticated ignorant folks. And I am sure he makes good money at it. A lot of folks do, while the poor bastards they deceive get gleefully taken to the poorhouse.

In that brief article Rickards misrepresents Mr. Buffet's beliefs and positions. Mr. Buffet believes in our system of commerce and in the dollar. Mr. Buffet is buying all kinds of assets as he has for decades. He always buys when assets are on sale. If you know Buffet, you would know he views downturns as opportunities for investment. And Mr. Rickard forgot to mention, Buffet also lends money to companies and lent a lot of money to companies during the downturn a few years ago. Further, Rickards misrepresents the monetary system by leaving out a lot of facts and his statements are contradictory to his own statements. If the monetary system collapses as he claims, everything would get taken down, gold, stocks, everything, hard assets or not. If money is worthless as he claims, how are businesses going to make money? How are they going to pay their bills? Rickards crap works with folks who have little knowledge of business, economics and finance, and that is why he and those like him do it.

The Federal Reserve System, central banks, were created and empowered to ensure confidence. Their power and effectiveness was clearly demonstrated during the liquidity trap of 2008-2009. Now, if Republicans in congress start monkeying with monetary and fiscal policy as they have attempted to do three times since taking over the House of Representatives (e.g. debt default), they could indeed screw things up as badly as Mr. Rickards is predicting. But anything short of that, there is no chance in hell Mr. Rickards Armageddon will happen. China's problems and it does have some very real problems, could drag the US and world economy down, but not that much because China is an export based economy and certainly wouldn't cause a loss of confidence in the US or the US currency. The US exports precious little to China, so the US economy isn't terminally hinged on China. The US imports almost 4 times as much as it exports to China. The US exports less than 10 billion dollars a month to China...considering the US economy is 17 trillion dollars, that 10 billion dollars isn't much.

Further, that "100 trillion dollar meltdown" is several trillion dollars more than the entire income of the world. So for his Armageddon, no one in the world would exchange even a so much as a dollar in goods and services for more than a year. That's way out there friend...way off the deep end out there.

This board used to be populated by folks like you. Now they are licking their wounds wondering why, despite having been told multiple times why. The answer, the truth, just isn't compatible with their DNA.

If you heard on NPR that fracking is just a flash in the pan, then you heard wrong.


"A good portion of the growth in global oil reserves in BP's report comes from the United States. According to BP, the U.S. has 44.2 billion barrels of oil reserves, which is 26% higher than it previously thought. It's also quite a bit more optimistic than the U.S. Energy Information Administration, which recently increased its estimate to 33.4 billion barrels of reserves, or 15% more than previously thought.
The overall cause for that surge in oil reserves is that America's shale oil plays -- the Bakken, Eagle Ford and Permian Basin -- are now being unlocked through horizontal drilling technology." http://www.usatoday.com/story/money...the-world-was-533-years-of-oil-left/11528999/

There are several shale deposits that are just now in the very early phases of development. It takes time to build out the infrastructure for oil development of this magnitude.