1
0

Obama prevented a depression.


 invite response                
2012 Sep 13, 3:07am   39,723 views  69 comments

by Raw   ➕follow (0)   💰tip   ignore  

http://content.usatoday.com/communities/theoval/post/2011/11/obama-we-prevented-another-great-depression/1#.UFIRXI1mTyA

We were able to prevent America from going into a Great Depression," the president said last night during a fundraiser at a supporter's home in Washington. "We were able to, after a series of quarterly GDP reports that were the worst that we've seen since the Great Depression, reverse it and get the economy to grow again," Obama said. "We've seen 20 straight months of consecutive job growth." Republican presidential candidates note that unemployment has gone up under Obama and sits at 9%. Whoever wins the GOP presidential nomination will probably argue that Obama's spending programs and business regulations block...

#politics

« First        Comments 41 - 69 of 69        Search these comments

41   deepcgi   2012 Sep 17, 6:29pm  

All is well. Upwards of a quadrillion in derivatives risk. No problem. Faith in fiat never faileth. No danger in hyper-extending leverage on food stuff commodities, because too many people will never be hungry at the same time.

42   freak80   2012 Sep 18, 12:47am  

dunnross says

housing is not 100% deflated from the last bubble.

It is about 90% deflated, though. At least nationally:

http://www.multpl.com/case-shiller-home-price-index-inflation-adjusted/

43   freak80   2012 Sep 19, 12:20am  

dunnross says

Hardly need to look hard. Take the entire peninsula from San Francisco, all the way down to San Jose.

That area is expensive because of the high-paying tech jobs. Locally, anything can happen to RE.

A few years ago western North Dakota was nothing but ghost towns. Now, RE is booming thanks to the Bakken oil play.

RE goes up when there's a flood of money coming in.

That doesn't mean anyone should buy if they can rent something similar for less.

44   dunnross   2012 Sep 19, 2:33am  

freak80 says

That area is expensive because of the high-paying tech jobs. Locally, anything can happen to RE.

High-paying tech jobs is a myth. We are 12 years past the tech crash, and people are still talking about high-paying tech jobs. Average income in Palo Alto is $52K/year, and people are still talking about high-paying tech jobs. Health care, finance & mining pays much more than tech, these days, but people are still talking about high-paying tech jobs. When will you ever learn?

45   dunnross   2012 Sep 19, 2:34am  

freak80 says

Now, RE is booming thanks to the Bakken oil play.

So are houses in Bakken more expensive than Palo Alto? Not by a long shot, but, they should, because oil is something people need a lot more than getting an Apple 5 upgrade.

46   rfsanders   2012 Sep 19, 2:45am  

In my own, partially-informed opinion:

George W. Bush and Barack Obama (with TARP and the Stimulus Act) both worked to DELAY a depression.

Greenspan lowered interest rates during the booming in the 90s, instead of raising them. That tossed the Fed into a downward spiral, where they've felt forced to lower rates until they can't anymore (0%).

Credit below 7% for 10 years is distorted. It attracts investment capital away from slow, steady deposits like CDs and Money Market accounts toward weird, crazy stuff like Hedge Funds -- as investors scramble to make their 3% to beat inflation. Normally CDs would easily pay 3%+ under 7% interest rates.

The distorted credit markets and capital flow toward hedge funds are to blame for:

- Oil speculation [runaway gas prices]
- Crop speculation [runaway food prices]
- The '03-'08 housing bubble [runaway house prices]
- Student loan bubble [runaway tuition prices]
- Payday lending cancer

Americans have been burned so badly over the past 10 years, many are cutting back, despite low interest rates. Low interest rates only attract borrowers who shouldn't have borrowed in the first place.

This is a deflationary spiral ... which is happening simultaneously with an "inflation" in fuel and food prices (from bubbles). It's bizarre. I've never seen anything like it.

The only way to fix the problem is to raise interest rates and/or just wait for systemic failure and restructuring... a.k.a GREAT DEPRESSION II. Until then, we're stuck in this sludgy, distorted mess.

Presidents will continue short-sighted policies which further delay the pain. QE2 and QE3 are not about saving the economy -- they are about keeping it afloat temporarily until 2016. Every president from Clinton, to Bush Jr., to Obama is playing hot potato. It's remarkable they've been able to postpone the crash/readjustment for 12 YEARS! But it will come!

47   freak80   2012 Sep 19, 2:58am  

dunnross says

So are houses in Bakken more expensive than Palo Alto? Not by a long shot, but, they should,

There's a lot more land open for development in ND than Palo Alto.

dunnross says

because oil is something people need a lot more than getting an Apple 5 upgrade.

True, but people are still waiting in line to buy the iPhone 5. Apple is making money.

48   dunnross   2012 Sep 19, 3:33am  

freak80 says

There's a lot more land open for development in ND than Palo Alto.

ND is a state. Palo Alto is a city. Let's compare apples to apples here. Palo Alto is a city in California, which is a lot bigger than North Dakota.

49   freak80   2012 Sep 19, 3:44am  

dunross,

You've become unhinged.

The issue is supply of land. In ND they can build a new housing development almost anywhere. That's not true in coastal CA.

50   dunnross   2012 Sep 19, 3:56am  

freak80 says

The issue is supply of land. In ND they can build a new housing development almost anywhere. That's not true in coastal CA.

But this is nothing new. It was the same case back in 1980. Why am I asked to pay 10x more now?

51   freak80   2012 Sep 19, 5:04am  

dunnross says

But this is nothing new. It was the same case back in 1980. Why am I asked to pay 10x more now?

Is it 10X more even after inflation? Maybe it is, I don't know. Prices are crazy out there.

You're asked to pay 10x more now because people are standing in line to pay 10x more now. Why? Because demand went up and supply stayed the same. Econ 101.

The demand for a place to live is "inelastic" since you *must* have it. It's not like switching from beef to pork if beef gets too expensive. The supply is also inelastic, because of environmentalist wackos...er...excuse me...land use restrictions. That means big price swings with small changes in demand. Add in speculators and it gets even more volatile.

It's Econ 101.

52   dublin hillz   2012 Sep 19, 5:16am  

freak80 says

dunnross says



But this is nothing new. It was the same case back in 1980. Why am I asked to pay 10x more now?


Is it 10X more even after inflation? Maybe it is, I don't know. Prices are crazy out there.


You're asked to pay 10x more now because people are standing in line to pay 10x more now. Why? Because demand went up and supply stayed the same. Econ 101.


The demand for a place to live is "inelastic" since you *must* have it. It's not like switching from beef to pork if beef gets too expensive. The supply is also inelastic, because of environmentalist wackos...er...excuse me...land use restrictions. That means big price swings with small changes in demand. Add in speculators and it gets even more volatile.


It's Econ 101.

And lets not forget the Russian Immigrants. Ain't no place to have some vodka with caviar and herring like in a house in "silicon valley."

53   dunnross   2012 Sep 19, 11:21am  

freak80 says

You're asked to pay 10x more now because people are standing in line to pay 10x more now. Why? Because demand went up and supply stayed the same. Econ 101.

In Econ 101 they also teach you that demand is at the lowest and supply is at its highest at the bottom of the economic cycle. So, what kind of a bottom is this where demand is so much higher than supply?

54   dunnross   2012 Sep 19, 12:26pm  

robertoaribas says

What you would actually expect at a bottom is supply and demand to be back in equilibrium from having been out of balance with supply greater than demand...

Agree, but if 2012 was really the bottom, and we would have achieved equilibrium, then we wouldn't see people standing in line to pay 10x more than in 1980, now would we?

55   dunnross   2012 Sep 19, 11:52pm  

robertoaribas says

that number is shrinking by 1500 to 2000 a month

And how the heck do you come up with that number?

56   freak80   2012 Sep 19, 11:55pm  

dunnross says

Like I said before, you pea-brain bulls always need some lame excuse to keep you planted in your froggy pots.

dunnross,

Is that for real? You [are starting to] sound completely nuts.

I can't help but invoke Poe's Law right now. I'm not a "bull" on RE. I'm a happy renter. I rent for the ability to move whenever I want/need to.

I don't blame you for not wanting to pay outrageous prices just for shelter. That's why I don't live on the West Coast or in the Northeast Corridor. I refuse to make someone else rich just because "they got there first." I don't understand why anyone puts up with it, really. Unless they have a very good paying job they cannot get anywhere else.

You should move to some place less expensive. There are plenty of those places. You're living in one of the most expensive areas in the entire country.

57   Y   2012 Sep 20, 1:33am  

ONly because the banks are not filing for foreclosure on all their homes...
Using "foreclosures" as a metric is amateurish and a fools game.

The real measure of the industry is : How many houses are the banks holding on the books..

robertoaribas says

I add this to the fact that Phoenix has roughly 11,000 homes in foreclosure and that number is shrinking by 1500 to 2000 a month

58   freak80   2012 Sep 20, 5:00am  

dunnross says

Because manipulation cannot go on forever. Even the Soviet Union fell. Banks and the Fed have been manipulating gold prices since the 80's, but gold has caught up to them. Now gold tells the truth! This will happen with housing too.

So put your money where your mouth is. Cash out your 401k and take investment positions, with lots of leverage, based on those assertions. You'll be rich and make the rest of us look like fools.

59   leo707   2012 Sep 20, 6:05am  

SoftShell says

However, I personally know 3 people who stopped paying on their mortgage from 8 to 18 months, with the banks not starting the foreclosure process.

Once extrapolated, a legitimate assumption can be made.

You may be correct concerning foreclosed homes, but one cannot extrapolate data from an anecdotal fallacy, and have that result in "legitimate" assumptions.

60   Y   2012 Sep 20, 6:27am  

For a singular event, I agree.
But three separate events?? ( 3 distinct people not paying on their mortgage )

anecdotal
You used a personal experience or an isolated example instead of a sound argument or compelling evidence.
leo707 says

SoftShell says

However, I personally know 3 people who stopped paying on their mortgage from 8 to 18 months, with the banks not starting the foreclosure process.

Once extrapolated, a legitimate assumption can be made.

You may be correct concerning foreclosed homes, but one cannot extrapolate data from an anecdotal fallacy, and have that result in "legitimate" assumptions.

61   leo707   2012 Sep 20, 6:42am  

SoftShell says

For a singular event, I agree.
But three separate events?? ( 3 distinct people not paying on their mortgage )

an·ec·do·tal
adjective
1. pertaining to, resembling, or containing anecdotes: an anecdotal history of jazz.
2. (of the treatment of subject matter in representational art) pertaining to the relationship of figures or to the arrangement of elements in a scene so as to emphasize the story content of a subject. Compare narrative ( def. 6 ) .
3. based on personal observation, case study reports, or random investigations rather than systematic scientific evaluation: anecdotal evidence.

an·ec·dote
noun, plural an·ec·dotes or, for 2, an·ec·do·ta [an-ik-doh-tuh]
1. a short account of a particular incident or event, especially of an interesting or amusing nature.
2. a short, obscure historical or biographical account.

Three separate anecdotes do not turn it into a "viable" data set. Think of it this way...if you ever are supporting an idea and your data only includes yourself and/or people you know then it is all anecdotal evidence.

62   Politicofact   2012 Sep 20, 8:43am  

Call it Crazy says

Just make sure you redistribute the wealth you gain from the sale like Obama wants you to.

BULLSHIT, it's the Republicans that are redirecting upwards on an unprecedented scale over the last 30yrs. Some balance is now required. Enough of the TRICKLE LIES.

Enough is enough.

and as for Obama you far right so-called conservatives can thank him now.

"corporate profits have surged an average of 51.8% under Obama, the best out of any stretch of party control since 1933, S&P said. Profits increased at 12.5% per year in Clinton’s White House and 14.2% under Bush.

63   marcus   2012 Sep 20, 2:22pm  

Somebody needs to call a fowl.

64   marcus   2012 Sep 21, 12:01am  

dunnross says

However, the cost of new housing is much much lower than the price of a house. It takes 2 construction workers with a 5th grade education, 3 months to build an average house, for which a phd family works 30 years to pay it off. If you want to see what a fundamental cost of a house is, go to Detroit, where the median price of a house in the city is now $6,000. In 1982, the median was $47,000.

exaggerate much ?

65   dunnross   2012 Sep 21, 12:04am  

One more thing. What do you think is a fundamental cost of printing a one hundred dollar bill? My guess it's probably less than one cent. Gold and Silver is currency. Gold and Silver is hoarded by most central banks as currency is proof that it's currency. Why hasn't the price of $100 bill dropped to its fundamental level of 1c, but you think the price of silver will?

66   dunnross   2012 Sep 21, 12:05am  

marcus says

exaggerate much ?

No. Which part do you feel is an exaggeration?

67   freak80   2012 Sep 21, 12:52am  

Dunnross,

I think it's time to turn off the Peter Schiff, don't you?

68   dunnross   2012 Sep 21, 1:14am  

freak80 says

I think it's time to turn off the Peter Schiff, don't you?

Why? Only because you don't like what I am saying. The truth hurts, doesn't it?

69   freak80   2012 Sep 21, 2:28am  

dunnross says

Why? Only because you don't like what I am saying. The truth hurts, doesn't it?

lol. Do you and Darrell hang out together much?

You two should get together and start a hedge fund.

« First        Comments 41 - 69 of 69        Search these comments

Please register to comment:

api   best comments   contact   latest images   memes   one year ago   random   suggestions   gaiste