It's Official: Obama Saves The Country From the Worst Economic Disaster in Decades (WSJ)

[berni_mccoy]

And by doing so, he probably saved the global economy as well. Freeper heads can explode now. And I love how this is coming from the WSJ... you know they played this down as much as possible.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125185379218478087.html

WASHINGTON -- Government efforts to funnel hundreds of billions of dollars into the U.S. economy appear to be helping the U.S. climb out of the worst recession in decades.

But there's little agreement about which programs are having the biggest impact. Some economists argue that efforts such as the Federal Reserve's aggressive buying of Treasury debt and mortgage-backed securities, as well as government efforts to shore up banks, are providing a bigger boost than the administration's $787 billion stimulus package.

The U.S. economy is beginning to show signs of improvement, with many economists asserting the worst is past and data pointing to stronger-than-expected growth. On Tuesday, data showed manufacturing grew in August for the first time in more than a year. "There's a method to the madness. We're getting out of this," said Brian Bethune, chief U.S. financial economist at IHS Global Insight.

It's clear we aren't out of danger, but it's also clear we've been saved from an economic disaster. Fortunately, the true impact of the stimulus package has yet to be realized.

[ejpoeta]

1. republican reply.... it wasn't obama that fixed things.... either they would have

gotten better on their own or else bush fixed it. which is of course bullshit, but i can hear it now. they take no blame for anything that goes wrong, but want to claim responsibility for anything good.

[BlooInBloo]

2. And DUer reply: Unless everything is perfect, Obama is a sell-out.

[berni_mccoy]

3. Now, now there, they are only holding Obama's feet to the fire you see.

:sarcasm:

[BlooInBloo]

6. Oh that's right - I forgot.

[Cant trust em]

7. It's a pretty fine line they walk.

But you can always tell the difference.

[goclark]

139. Exactly ~ they are " keeping him honest."

:sarcasm:

[Cha]

88. That's a sick mentality..

that I never knew about until Obama won.

[byebyegop]

101. COSIGN! n/t

[info being]

117. Good that there are some conservatives on this board...

...who, like the WSJ, only care about GDP and the stock market. Thanks for correcting us, with all our silly Progressive ideas.

[bvar22]

130. Well HEY!

There are NO Wall Street Bankers in the unemployment lines.

In the Wall Street Journal World, everything is peachy.

Ruppert Murdoch is trying to give us a little good news, and YOU have to rain on his parade.
You should be happy for the Wall Street Bankers.
:party:

[krawhitham]

163. +1

[RandySF]

4. And the reply from some Democrats

"Why didn't he achieve this the day after the election?"

[librechik]

20. Liberal reply--sure, the banking sector is fat--but employment is down

and foreclosures are still the number one transaction (which is making the banks fat again)

They're just going to pump up the bubble again and not care who gets hurt, as usual.

[blue_onyx]

72. I'm sure they'll credit Bush

Republicans won't knowledge that the Obama stimulus and his assistance of the auto companies prevented a complete economic collapse. If McCain had been elected, the US auto industry would be gone...along with the millions of jobs connected with the auto industry. I don't even want to think about what things would like if McCain were president now.

[ejpoeta]

92. oh, that would be bad. i don't even want to think about it!!

[fascisthunter]

78. Liberal Reply: you are irrelevant

[mzmolly]

112. They'll claim it was the last minute bush bailout vs the targted interventions by Obama.

:eyes:

[Autonomy]

115. They were selling Bush down the river too

for the bank bailouts and "spending like a liberal", so there's nowhere for them to go when things get better.

[ejpoeta]

124. they may have been selling him down the river, but republicans seem to be very

good at revising history when it suits them. if things turn around, then it will either be the economy got better on its own or they will say that bush's bailout did it.

[Autonomy]

140. that is very true

but we can turn it on them to subvert the conservative "no government intervention/spending meme"

[Barack_America]

5. I love how Republicans like to downplay Obama's role in the bailout.

Like it or love it, it probably wouldn't have happened without Obama's support and his play at that WH meeting that called out congressional Republican obstruction.

Beyond Obama, neither the bailout nor the stimulus would have gone anywhere without Dems. So if these measures are responsible for turning the economy around, it's the Dems who get the credit.

[redqueen]

131. Meanwhile, the uber-progressives claim it's his baby.

:crazy:

[kentuck]

8. Save this article..

You will need it later.

[berni_mccoy]

10. Yep. Done.

[OHdem10]

9. Any Democrat who appears on any TV Program should repeat

this gist of this over and over and not for just one day.

Obama saved
the country from the worst economic disaster in
decades .........

You better believe this is what Republicans did with GWB.

Getting message out about accomplishments is imperative for
the party.

[berni_mccoy]

14. Yes, absolutely, they should.

[BlancheSplanchnik]

75. God yes. It's not enough to begin calling vile speech vile.

We HAVE GOT TO do that, identifying what's real and what's not.

We also MUST broadcast our successes

Excuse me for yelling but I just can't stand the triumph of propaganda. We have to stop it. Fucking rw christofascists pretending that gawd's word flows through them.... :puke: It's disgusting but even worse, it's dangerous.

[NewJeffCT]

118. And, they can also mention that Fox News' Rupert Murdoch

backs them up in his Wall Street Journal...

shout it out loud!

[pundaint]

129. bulllshit

I don't feel saved, my economy shows no signs of improvement. The war is expanding sucking out more of americas treasury, the only ones back to normal are the thieves.

[HamdenRice]

11. Stimulus worked. TARP earning the Treasury a profit. Fed winding down emergency lending.

It's not just repugs' heads who are exploding. DU's doomers and "let if failers", and others who looked forward to a genocide-by-starvation in Great Depression II of all us "useless feeders" seem to be in full blown meltdown.

Alas, the Trotskyite mob will not, in fact, inherit the commanding heights of the global economic and political system.

Btw, which flavor Hot Pockets did Mom serve the let it failers who should have been running the world by now, in the basement computer room this afternoon?

[Mudoria]

17. Indeed it has.

And I'm not sure they are eating Hot Pockets. Rather, I think they're in the backyard tending that garden many assured us we would need when western civilization fell so we could feed ourselves and be able to barter for other of life's neccessities.

[girl gone mad]

21. Once again, you repeat the TARP lie.

No shame.

We've lost 148 Billion so far on TARP alone.

[cherokeeprogressive]

38. How can you say TARP is earning the Treasury a profit?

Doesn't that require that all 700 BILLION dollars have to be paid back in full, PLUS?

Maybe I'm confused about what the word profit means. I always thought it meant recouping your total investment and getting extra money as well.

[notesdev]

39. It means

we're expected to believe the bad debt sold to us has the value these lying banks claimed it had at the top of the bubble.

If TARP were profitable, private investors would have done it.

[HamdenRice]

64. TARP wasn't a debt purchase. It was equity (preferred stock, warrants) in the banks

When you get the really, really basic stuff wrong about the program it's hard for many to understand why they should take your analysis seriously.

[notesdev]

67. My stuff is correct

You are incorrect:

"TARP allows the Treasury to purchase both “troubled assets” and any other asset the purchase of which the Treasury determines is “necessary” to further economic stability. Troubled assets include real estate and mortgage-related assets and securities based on those assets. This includes both the mortgages themselves and the various financial instruments created by pooling groups of mortgages into one security to be bought on the market. This category probably includes foreclosed properties as well.<2>

Real estate and mortgage-related assets (and securities based on those kinds of assets) are eligible if they originated (that is, were created) or were issued on or before March 14, 2008, the date of the Bear Stearns bailout.<2>

One of the most difficult issues facing the Treasury in managing TARP is the pricing of the troubled assets. The Treasury must find a way to price extremely complex and sometimes unwieldy instruments for which a market does not exist. In addition, the pricing must strike a balance between efficiently using public funds provided by the taxpayer and providing adequate assistance to the financial institutions that need it.<2>"


Covers a LOT more than equity and stocks. This is buying bad debt, pure and simple.

[HamdenRice]

69. You obviously haven't read any news papers about this since last September

That was how the legislation was written, but it was broad enough to also include equity. Before the Treasury implemented TARP, Prime Minister Gordon Brown of the UK, initiated his own bailout, and purchased equity in British banks. This had a very significant stabilizing impact.

So looking at what happened in the UK and in consultation with Barney Frank, the Treasury basically ditched its original plan and did not purchase the debt assets, but purchased preferred stock in the banks, plus warrants.

You could look it up.

[HamdenRice]

61. Do a little reading about the program. Eg, $700 billion was never spent

As you can see there is a huge amount of misinformation swimming around out there. About $700 billion was authorized. Less than $500 was ever actually spent.

As for whether you have to have it all paid back before you can tell whether it's making money, compare it to a bank account. If you put $1,000 in the bank and after 1 year your bank statement says you've earned $30 in interest, even if you haven't withdrawn the entire $1030, you know you've made a profit.

The TARP recipients have been paying 5% interest, plus profit on warrants to the Treasury. Several of the biggest recipients have paid back the money plus dividends, while there have been few if any defaults.

Hence recent news reports are saying that on balance, TARP has been profitable to the Treasury.

[notesdev]

66. Phantom profits are no less phantom for being held by the government

If this is a profitable program, let them prove it - cash out the warrants and stocks. It can't be done without crashing the equity markets. This is the same game played with mortgage loans, let's pretend it's worth something and hope that is never actually put to the test.

Speaking of basic facts, the basic fact is that we have no idea where the first $350 billion of the program went because they refuse to tell us.

[HamdenRice]

70. This is the danger of arguing with someone devoid of facts

"let them prove it - cash out the warrants and stocks"

That's exactly what has happened with several of the biggest TARP recipients.

Please read something from the real world before you continue making these magisterial pronouncements.

[notesdev]

103. Noted

I will refrain from engaging you further until you learn the facts. The only major TARP recipients who bought back their warrants did so at below-market prices, using funds from other bailout programs. And we still have $350 billion that you are ignoring the existence of.

There is no way I am falling for this shell game. I wonder how bad it is going to get before you too see what more and more people are seeing every day - that there is no recovery, and there isn't going to be any because the problem that caused the downturn is not being fixed.

[girl gone mad]

94. We're still out $148 B on TARP, so far.

http://ethisphere.com/ethisphere-tarp-index-report/

If you have an IRA with 10 stocks, 2 of them are up 10% and the other 8 are down 10%, that doesn't mean you're making a profit. The news reports you are citing are in essence only looking at the 2 up stocks in the IRA analogy. They are ignoring AIG, Citi, etc. and pretending that TALF, TIP, PPIP, SCAP, etc. never happened and we're not on the hook for multiple trillions, some of which was used to payoff TARP warrants so that the banks could get out from under any kind of oversight.

Unless we have a full audit of the Fed and the Treasury dept, there is absolutely no way to know exactly how much money we are losing, but it is a certainty that we are losing money.

[HamdenRice]

119. Well, at least I agree with your reasoning

Conversely, if you have a 401k and 8 stocks are up 15% and 2 are either flat or down a few ticks, then you can conclude that on balance you are profitable.

Also, these stories are not saying that all the bailouts are profitable. The two stories are that TARP so far is profitable and that the Fed has made a profit over the last year. AIG was never going to be profitable and no one said it would be.

[FrenchieCat]

12. This good news will be ignored...here and elsewhere,

although we here and elsewhere debated the size of the stimulus and the nationalization of banks for weeks after weeks. I remember what these boards looked like then; the same way they look like now in reference to how badly Obama is managing the health care reform issue. That too shall pass, and when it does, no one will remember how this board looked during the time. Amazing how memory is so fleeting and easy to erase.

[scheming daemons]

13. Not by those of us who know what's up and shine a light on the haters...

Be they extreme right or misguided progressives.

[redqueen]

15. Cue the haters...

[hedgehog]

16. He's taking pot shots from the Right for interfering in the free market

and pot shots from the Left for not taking the banks down. Meanwhile, how many people are aware of how close we came to total disaster? For us, it would have meant being out of work and/or losing retirement savings. If this thing had gone global, people at the bottom would be dying of starvation today.

[notesdev]

40. How close did we come to disaster?

I would like to hear someone articulate it. In Congressional testimony neither Hank Paulson nor Ben Bernanke could do so.

Until I hear a coherent explanation, I will continue to believe that it was nothing but a scare tactic designed to intimidate the country out of a staggering amount of money.

[hedgehog]

49. My personal experience is this: both my husband and son work for firms

with plants all over the world. A year ago orders and projects were being canceled and everyone was holding their breathe . No one wanted to spend a dime making product because everyone was afraid there'd be no customers. Now, Asia is back up to speed and Europe is getting ready to come back on-line. Yeah, the bankers caused it but if they'd gone down they would have dragged the rest of us with them.

[notesdev]

52. Sorry, that's not convincing

Let's try real data instead of anecdotes. We're talking about trillions of dollars being (borrowed in our name and) spent on this; the reasonable standard of evidence for an expenditure of this magnitude is "rock solid". Anything less does not justify trillions in bailouts.

The real data shows we're screwed left and right and up and down.

with regards to:
"Yeah, the bankers caused it but if they'd gone down they would have dragged the rest of us with them."

I call that financial terrorism.

What industry do your family members work in, by the way?

[hedgehog]

74. Oh, I agree that it was financial terrorism, all right. Now that we have the

breathing space, it's time to really reform the system.

I don't want to get too specific about what industries, let's just say one works in basic metals and the other works for an outfit that supplies a basic industrial supply. Both of these guys are industries about as far from the end consumer as you can get. When their companies see orders, it's because other companies feel good about the situation about 6 months ahead.

[girl gone mad]

95. Doesn't make much sense..

since the banks didn't increase lending as a result of the bailouts. In fact, lending continues to decline to this day.

review of investor presentations and conference calls by executives of some two dozen US-based banks by the New York Times found that "few cited lending as a priority. An overwhelming majority saw the program as a no-strings-attached windfall that could be used to pay down debt, acquire other businesses or invest for the future."<42> The article cited several bank chairmen as stating that they had no intention of changing their lending practices to "accommodate the needs of the public sector" and that they viewed the money as available for strategic acquisitions in the future.

Moreover, while TARP funds have been provided to bank holding companies, those holding companies have only used a fraction of such funds to recapitalize their bank subsidiaries.<43>

In other words, banks have used the money to speculate and buy out other banks. The money didn't end up going out to the real economy. Your husband and son are probably seeing an increase in work as a result of the stimulus program, not the bank bailouts.

[A HERETIC I AM]

55. How about this, from someone who was literally "in the trenches" last September...

Read this OP carefully. The DU'r who posted it at the time worked for a major international bank in lower Manhattan. If you can close the subjective part of your mind for just a few minutes and be objective, you might find this not only very enlightening, but damned interesting.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=4106676&mesg_id=4106676

The answer to your question, if you don't care to read it completely, is damned close.

If there are portions you don't understand, it would behoove you to ask for clarification.

BTW, I'm not trying to be a smartass, just trying to answer your question.

[notesdev]

62. You strengthen my case

This is the hubristic and provincial illusion that finance controls all and that what is bad for the financial sector is bad for everybody.

It would have been a disaster for the bankers primarily. Everyone else would have maybe felt a little pain from the adjustment, but nowhere near the pain we're feeling now (which will only get worse).

Here's the key belief that the disaster story rests on:

"AIG defaulting on their counterparties would have obliterated the financial system. There would be no lending of money anywhere."

I call bullshit on that. Only lenders who were so irresponsible that their solvency depended on an insolvent counterparty would have stopped lending - and hey, look at the record, they stopped lending anyway. Goldman claimed to be fully hedged against an AIG default, yet took $13B from the government - 100% payoff - on contracts that had not even been triggered.

This is financial terrorism. They are trying to scare the shit out of you by throwing things at you that you do not understand. Take the time to learn how these things work and you will see that there is NO basis for their claims that it would have created an economy-wide disaster.

What HAS created an economy-wide disaster has been the bailout reaction - the ransom paid to these thieves at financial bomb-point. This would not have happened had these banks been seized and liquidated by the FDIC as per the black letter of the law. The shock would have been sharp and temporary and we would already be well on our way to recovery, instead of grasping at straws looking for green shoots in manipulated industry indices.

[girl gone mad]

96. If you believe in trickle down economics,

then this post is right on the money.

If, on the other hand, you believe that a strong economy starts and ends with a healthy manufacturing sector and a large, thriving middle class, then you'll see Lucky Luciano's writing for the whine fest that it was. "Poor me, I made some bad bets. Bail me out because rich people are what makes the world go around. Waaaah!"

[Lucky Luciano]

110. DUPE.

[Lucky Luciano]

111. I did not make bad bets. Others did. I did lose my job

three weeks after that post - took nine months to get another gig - fucking sucked. More interesting role this time in the high frequency space.

[HamdenRice]

121. Again, this was widely covered. Would you believe Democracy Now?

Around the time of the panic of September 2008, Amy Goodman interviewed a very left economist who was a harsh critic of the bailout. He nevertheless said that something had to be done and that we were a few hours away from having to buy groceries with gold coins because the entire banking system was on the verge of collapse.

Two things happened that led us to the edge of a global financial blackout -- ie, you would not have been able to use an ATM, and you wouldn't even have been able to cash a paycheck, and almost every large company would have had to shut down because of the complete freeze of the commercial paper market.

First, banks stopped lending to each other. That doesn't sound like a big deal unless you understand how banks work. When you cash a paycheck in your bank drawn from your employer's bank, from the bank's perspective that's an inter-bank loan. That stopped. We were hours away from no bank cashing any other bank's checks. You can read about it here, where I described it before the whole bailout debate, and while it was happening:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x4027506

The second thing that happened was that the $4 trillion commercial paper market came to a complete standstill. Commercial paper is a form of short term loan that companies use to even out cash flow. Commercial paper is used by many companies to meet payroll, as well as to purchase inventories. The loans come from money that people deposit (mostly small depositors, because the interest rate is low) in "money market" funds. They are treated like savings accounts. One money market fund lost money -- something that had not happened in 30 years. People all over the country rushed to withdraw their money market funds. There was no money for commercial paper, and companies all over the country prepared to shut down and lay off everyone.

The best story on commercial paper and what happened was on "This American Life." It's a mouse click away.

[WestSeattle2]

136. I believe we came within 24 hours of a total meltdown:

On Thursday <18 September>, at 11am the Federal Reserve noticed a tremendous draw-down of money market accounts in the United States, to the tune of $550 billion was being drawn out in the matter of an hour or two. The Treasury opened up its window to help and pumped a $105 billion in the system and quickly realized that they could not stem the tide. We were having an electronic run on the banks. They decided to close the operation, close down the money accounts and announce a guarantee of $250,000 per account so there wouldn’t be further panic out there…

If they had not done that, their estimation is that by 2pm that afternoon, $5.5 trillion would have been drawn out of the money market system of the United States, would have collapsed the entire economy of the United States and within 24 hours the world economy would have collapsed… It would have been the end of our economic system and our political system as we know it.”


That's not to say that we have not been ripped off. In the words of Rahm Emmanuel, "never let a serious crisis go to waste."

[HamdenRice]

141. Yes, that was the scariest day since 1929. Btw, do you have a link?

It's a miracle that somehow the system survived that day. For several days after, there was no inter-bank lending, and we came close to the average person not being able to deposit a paycheck.

[WestSeattle2]

156. Here is one link to a video

http://current.com/items/89805122_usa-was-3-hrs-away-from-economic-political-collapse-in-september-2008.htm

[WestSeattle2]

157. Better link - PBS documentary

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/meltdown/view/

[notesdev]

18. If you think this economy is 'fixed'

then you may be right, but not in the sense of 'repaired' or 'put back together'.

It's fixed to give you the short end of the stick and strip as much of your income as possible and hand it to the banking sector.

Any economist who says the worst has passed probably also did not see the bubble until after it popped.

Back to reality: the economy's fundamentals suck. Wages are dropping, employment is dropping, debt is continuing to rise, both banks and governments are playing accounting games to try and hide just how terrible their financial positions really are, and all the bullshit being pulled by Bernanke & Co. poses a serious threat to destroy the value of the dollar.

Anyone who looks at a deflationary depression with its initiating causes not only unsolved but worse every day, and calls that an improvement, either has a screw loose or is being paid to lie to you.

[girl gone mad]

23. All of the bad debt remains..

though much of it has been transferred from private balance sheets onto the public balance sheet. Banks are still reducing lending, consumer spending is weak, bankruptcies are way up. Party like it's 2007.

[Cant trust em]

26. Did anyone think that the recession would end in 6 months?

It's going to be a long haul out, but this is a positive step.

[notesdev]

27. It's been 21 months

and counting... the recession started in December 2007.

Look at the article, it's all about celebrating how the bankers got their money, it has absolutely nothing to do with the actual economy that you and me live in.

[Cant trust em]

28. "On Tuesday, data showed manufacturing grew in August for the first time in more than a year."

Is that not a good thing?

[notesdev]

31. Heh, look at the actual underlying figures

This latest 'green shoots' BS comes from trying to read into the ISM index what isn't there.

You can find the breakdown on this page:
http://www.ism.ws/ismreport/mfgrob.cfm

Basically, they're saying a one-month improvement on a couple of index components means the economy is recovering. Conveniently they ignore all the other components which says that the situation still sucks (notably 13 consecutive months of dropping employment, and 40! consecutive months of dropping inventory).

What is going on is essentially a sleight-of-hand magic trick; they've diverted economic activity from elsewhere and funneled it into Cash for Clunkers, and in a very temporary fashion have manipulated the index components that appear to be improving. But the moment the diversion of money stops, so does all the apparent improvement.

When looking at the economy from the average person's point of view, there are only three things that really matter. One, are there jobs available? Two, are wages rising relative to prices? Three, is the currency stable or strengthening? Those are the fundamental factors that affect your quality of life.

Bottom line: you can't eat a manipulated technical indicator.

P.S. Did I mention the index just happens to exclude the effects of additional industry and production being moved out of the country?

[Cant trust em]

34. I'm not saying that everything is perfect now, but why is it so difficult to...

accept one piece of good news?

I understand the totality of the problem, but I am able to recognize a good thing when I see it even though it's not perfect.

This would be like going into the doctor's office and they say that I have prostate cancer, an ulcer and high blood pressure, but since my last checkup the excercises I've started doing has lowered my cholesterol. While I'm happy that I have lower cholesterol, that doesn't mean that I'm in good health. I'm going to continue to exercise.

[notesdev]

35. Because it's bullshit, it's not real good news

It's like you have two dollars, one in each hand. You take the dollar from your left hand and put it in your right hand. Now, conceal your left hand and proudly display the "economic improvement", as the money in your right hand has doubled! Surely this must be a great sign for the economy!

Of course, that is ridiculous, but that is exactly what we are being expected to believe here in interpreting this as good news.

You have to remember, in looking at these things, that you're dealing with people who lie for a living. What's their incentive to tell you the truth?

[Cant trust em]

43. Based on the link you provided it looks like there are many industries

that are seeing an improvement.

Sorry, but I'll remain cautiously optimistic.

[Zynx]

46. That's a damn odd reading of the ISM index. New Orders and Production, the two most important

indicators in the composite, are massively positive. The employment index is actually barely negative and at its best level in a very long time. Inventories being too low is a good thing because production has to pick up at least somewhat.

Also, the index has been improving for months now. New orders and production have been either flat or positive for three months in a row.

[notesdev]

54. Those are also the indicators

most subject to direct manipulation (e.g., Cash for Clunkers). And, I might add, the few positive trends in it are weak and short, while the negative trends are strong and long.

Again, what matters is employment, wages, and the strength of the currency that workers are paid in. And on all three we are in disaster territory already and continue to get worse.

[Cant trust em]

59. From your perspective, what indicator could you see today that would be positive?

Job growth and wages are typically at the end of the cycle. So based on where we are today, what would be a positive indicator?

[notesdev]

63. Prosecutions and debt washout

This is what to look for as leading indicators of a recovery:

#1 - prosecutions of those responsible. Nobody in their right mind is going to invest money only to let it be stolen by thieves again. If crime pays in this country, people are going to take their money to a place where they have some reasonable protections from financial fraud.

#2 - defaults and paydowns on debt. Fundamentally what is crushing the life out of the economy is the enormous debt overhang, public and private. All of the surplus of this country has been diverted to interest payments on debt, and is not available to invest in new business and new jobs. Easy way to calculate, add the total of public and private debt in the U.S., and when this figure starts to decrease that will indicate we are on the way to recovery.

[Cant trust em]

71. I just had an interesting chat with my boss about the housing bubble

So I work for an economic development agency in San Francisco and one of our programs is homeownership counseling. Our ED sits on the board of an organization that makes sure that banks are servicing needs of California. They just had a meeting with US Bank about their role in holding mortgages, being the servicer, and acting as the trustee for the investors who have purchased the mortgage backed securities. There is little relationship between the homeowner and their initial mortgage, and the investor who now owns the security. If the value of the mortgage goes down, the investor is shielded from that loss.

Thanks for your posts today. I've enjoyed our exchange.

[Grinchie]

145. I agree with you Notesdev

After the Enron fiasco Bankrupted California the first time, and caused the state to finally put the nail in the coffin of the IT industry as far as I was concerned, I devoted the last 6 years of my life to understanding how the economy works, and learn what to watch, and how to interpret wildly disparate indicators of the economy.

The most important aspect of the economy that I discovered is the simplicity of it when you focus on Fundamentals. Everything else is fluff, manipulation, and control, either by the Fed, Hedge Funds, Goldman Sachs, Government intervention, Military, etc.

The cheerleaders here seem to think that some etheric improvement showboats a recovery, but they are the same people that think that consolidating unsecured debt by taking out a second mortgage is a good idea, just like they read about in the magazines that "Advise" them how to handle money. They don't realize the massive quantities of money that the top 1% has to manipulate the Stock Market on a daily basis, nor do they consider the tremendous damage done to industry by supporting a useless standing army, which needs periodic conflict to justify.

History is repeating itself, and the cheerleaders are still in a dream state.

No, the Commercial sector has been lobotomized, and the only way to rebuild them will be via capital investment here at home, but alas, China has the resources, raw material, tools, etc that will be required to refit all the empty derelict industrial spaces , and that isn't going to help our economy in the slightest.

The number of Heavy Industry location in the Bay Area continues to stagnate and decay. Sitting empty for the 3 years I've been staying in the Bay Area, and the outlook is pretty grim.

The carrying costs must be staggering.

[notesdev]

155. I did something very similar

For me it was about four years ago, but it was the same story. I went from not wanting to know a thing about finance to becoming intensely interested, after my first experience looking to be a home buyer. The prices were so outrageous it made no sense to me; I did not buy. I'm glad I trusted my instincts; I'd be $150k underwater, at least, had I believed the folks who now tell us about "green shoots" and "recovery".

When assessing the economy as a whole, it really does come down to fundamentals. Where the market is at doesn't matter if people can't find food to eat, can't afford to gas their cars to get to work, and so on.

People need work to make money, and that money has to be worth something, enough to buy what they need to get by. Should those basics not be met, everything else is superfluous.

There's a couple of historical paths we can follow at this point - presuming that there is no sudden bout of honesty, decency, and integrity in government and the financial sector - and the better of the two is 1990s Japan. The other possible outcome - deflation turning over into hyperinflation - comes right out of Weimar Germany, and there's a very simple scenario to repeat. In 1930s Germany, marks were paid to cover war reparations; those marks came flooding back into the country to buy up all the country's resources, causing the currency to be worth less than the paper it was printed on. We could potentially experience the same thing with our Treasury debt, if those dollars held abroad (2/3rds of our monetary base) come home. A third alternative might be an Argentina scenario, but because banks have no business if the currency is worth nothing, I find that one less likely.

[Grinchie]

160. I doubt that Honesty or Decency are going to be prime commodities in the next few years

Simply because there are too many people that believe in unbridled Capitalism despite the fact that serious controls need to be invoked in order to maintain the ecological carrying capactiy of the Earth. We see continued warnings from Scientists regarding Global Climate Change, yet nothing is being done, and the main stream media is resorting to Demo vs Repug game shows on behest of the ruling power base, which is distinct and separate from either party.

Enron, on top of the DotCom bubble demonstrated very clearly that even if you Bought real estate at the right time, the Economy could suffer massive tectonic shifts in as little as one year, and their was no safety net for anyone caught in the path. The secret to their Game was debt, and the more the merrier. They really don't care if you are productive, employ people, or are bettering the environment. If you owe money, then they will take it out of your hide.

Now we see that the big banks are immune from debt, and have various mechanisms for shifting it Enron style to other account, virtually invisible from Public scrutiny. Only now, we see that the U.S. Government is a willing participant in the fraud, and provides a backstop for the Banks and allows them to feed the fraud.

As far as the Rise of Hitler and Nazi Germany, the main point that many people don't seem to connect is that Hitler came to power in 1933. This is many years after the Weimar Inflationary event, but smack dab in the middle of the Great Depression. If one realizes that the Depression affected every nation quite drstically, you quickly start asking the 64,000 dollar question, and that is, How did Hitler get all the funding to build his War machine up from literally nothing, to a million man standing army in 5 years? Also don't forget that he was holding huge, Hollywood style rally's, feeding, clothing, and equipping all of these troops, nazi youth organizations, gutting the government of moderates, etc..

It takes a crapload of money to do that. But almost every country in the world was suffering with the Great Depression, so where was the money coming from? It was the lack of money in the neighboring Europen countries that induced their timidity when it came to calling out Hitler on the rebuilding of the Army after WW1. They were having a hard time on their own, and they were actually watching Hitler and were admiring his accomplishments. There are more than a few indications that Big Business or the Corporations of the timer were enamored with Hitler, as he was bringing them lots of business and money, as well as demonstrating a new type of leadership that appeared to get things done. Think Prescott Bush, and IBM for example.

I get the impression that this money was all debt incurred, and by the time 1938 came around, Hitler realized that the bill was coming due, so he did the only thing he could do, and that is start a war to make the Central Banks that loaned him the money in the first place, even more money. When Allies finally committed themselves to the war, the final piece of the Profit machine was in place, and the Central Banks, Corporations, and other moneylenders made all their money back on the backs of the Millions of people killed or displaced by the war.

America must never fall for the War Game again, but we have an incredibly sophisticated War machine sitting idle. The U.S. is broke, and they are desperately trying to figure out a way to pushback the margin call that is inevitably coming.

The sad thing about war, is that it confiscates property and wealth from legal owners without any care or reason. No deed will help anyone if the tanks come rolling through the yard, or the population lies starving and diseased in the street.

[girl gone mad]

79. We've spent trillions trying to clean up..

Wall Street's mess, throwing good money after bad, creating moral hazard left and right.

I'm glad that the administration is glad that the Bankers have gotten a whole lot richer. Other than that, what they have to show for the bailouts is a blip up in manufacturing that didn't even translate into more jobs or more work hours. Where's the beef? We're still deflating, big time. As the critics predicted, we have had as much success with the Japanese zombie bank model as Japan had.

[Cant trust em]

83. it's premature to draw a comparison.

No shit it's just a blip. We just started the policies.

Recovery isn't going to happen overnight.

[girl gone mad]

99. Just started what policies?

We've had to backstop our banking industry to the tune of somewhere between 23 and 37 Trillion dollars. We've pumped another $1T into the economy through stimulus programs. Many other governments are spending large amounts, too. But we are still deflating, we are still losing jobs, consumers are still retrenching. Creating more debt to help rich people stay rich and get richer has not been of much, if any, benefit to the rest of the economy.

It looks like these meager green shoots are already priced in to the stock market at this point.

I can make money in any kind of market, as I did with SCO and TLT this week and last. http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=114&topic_id=69285&mesg_id=69309 and http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=114&topic_id=69478&mesg_id=69487

I was short the markets in 2008. I went long the Yen just before it rallied. I didn't lose a dime in the crash. I am telling you all of this (partly to brag, and also) to make the point that you would be better off listening to impartial economic observers. Part of my job is to analyze the economy, inside and out. I don't have a political agenda, financial agenda or business agenda here. I simply don't see anything we can hang our recovery hat on at this point. When I see real positive signs, my opinion will change.

[berni_mccoy]

42. Sheesh. No one said it was "fixed". The article discusses the fact that we avoided a disaster

There is still much to do, but the impact of the stimulus package has yet to be truly seen. It's going to have a big impact, but for now, it's still too soon to say how big. What we do know is that it saved us from going into the abyss.

[Cant trust em]

57. It's best to just ignore these people.

This is the epitome of glass half empty vs. glass half full thinking.

[girl gone mad]

81. Ignoring them in 2007 and 2008 was the best strategy, too.

Pure genius.

:eyes:

[Cant trust em]

86. Yes. I will ignore people who can't recognize even one shred of good news.

Is it wonderfully fantastic game changing news? No, but it's a positive indicator nonetheless. If you can't admit that then it makes me think we're on totally separate planets.

[bvar22]

133. Did you ignore "these people" in 2006?

I didn't.
I cashed out (Oct 2006), and am very happy!
"These people" saved me a lot of grief.
I thank them every day.

[Grinchie]

146. Lol, I cashed out years ago as well

I've never been happier or more secure in my entire adult life!

The ability to be completely debt free, and totally liquid during this deflationary event is the most enjoyable thing that I have ever experienced, and I doubt if I will ever be fooled back into the Fraud that is called the U.S. Economy ever again.

One thing that is disturbing however, is that once people see how well off, happy, healthy and serene we are, there is a gradual change towards jealousy as they observe our freedom and compare their own lifestyle to ours. It doesn't take long for people in the Rat Race to get the idea how screwed they are when they watch someone else enjoying the joys of life such as education, hobbies, art, agriculture and creativity. Most of all, the free time we have, and the ability to put real thought into important decisions, whereas most other people are moving so fast that they don't have time to think about the consequences of their actions.

I know that their are a lot of people on DU that are fully invested in the Rat Race, or the illusionary world of Stock Ownership and materialism, but that's all they know. When it comes down to true happiness, and the ability to move freely throughout the world at will, they find that they are ultimately trapped in the same spot along with the rest of their belongings.

[debbierlus]

105. Fixed - we just lost another 300,000 jobs in August and we haven't addressed any of the core issues

Fixed. If you mean rigged, yeah, its fixed alright.

I can't believe I am reading this as a serious opinion on DU.

[info being]

116. And the US will collapse anyway once China decides to make it so

So I agree with you, I'm not celebrating.

[sendero]

120. You can't tell these people anything.

... they believe what they want. They believe things like "jobless recovery" even though it is as strong an economic oxymoron as could possibly be contrived.

They believe in "profitable banks" although every single analyst with a shred of credibility says all of the big banks are still insolvent.

The wholly unjustified optimism around here reminds me of the wingnuts that were "just sure" that our adventure in Iraq would turn out well.

Well, it did not, it cannot and it is not, same as our "recovery".

[uberblonde]

19. Nah, there's another dip coming.

The commercial real estate market is about to collapse - because Obama didn't take over the banks and make them swallow their losses, he only postponed the inevitable.

[Blue_Tires]

22. major kick!

[Kansas Wyatt]

24. Is the manufacturing improvement due to Cash for Clunkers?

Now that the Cash for Clunkers program has ended, won't the manufacturing shrink again, since sales will drop a lot compared to where it was at during the program?

I don't want to be the skunk at the lawn party, but has this country ADDED quality jobs, instead of continuing to lose good jobs and replacing them with minimum wage jobs?

There are only a few on Wall Street, but there are millions on Main Streets across the country still waiting. If the millions on Main Street still face ruin, whether the economy crashes or not, what is the difference for them?

My point is.... When is the Government going to start doing something for the People, instead of Corporate America all the time. Corporate America is the problem, not the solution.

[Cant trust em]

25. Job growth is typically the last factor of the economy to recover.

First things stabilize, then there is room for growth.

Let's be patient...but not too patient.

[Kansas Wyatt]

29. Jobs first to go and last to recover...

Again, Corporate America is the problem, not the solution.

Manufacturing will drop again, now that the Cash for Clunkers program has ended, and there is nothing to replace it.

Patience is for people still thinking they are going to somehow win the Corporate American Government Shell Game.

[Cant trust em]

30. Here's a question for you re: manufacturing

I see this as a poker game between labor and the corporations. Labor's gamble is that they provide a hard working, local workforce. From the corporate perspective, they can call that and move jobs overseas.

Philosophically, would it be worth it to lower union wages to keep jobs here?

There are clearly a lot of details surrounding that question, but in essence would that be something to consider?

[Kansas Wyatt]

36. Now that we HAVE a Democratic Congress & White House...

What happened to the PROMISE to put an end to the EXPORTING of jobs? Oh yes, the Democrats sold everyone out to Corporate America.

You do know that we USED to have laws regulating Corporate America, don't you? Promise... What promise?


Make no mistake about it... We are not in a poker game, we are in a shell game.

[girl gone mad]

84. Now you are talking about wage deflation.

I wish Democrats would take a good look at this post and pay close attention to the game the DLCers are trying to play.

Wage deflation will not get us out of the deflationary cycle we are currently in. If we don't get wage growth, we will not get recovery. The government can keep printing money and handing over our future earnings to the banks and corporations but eventually even that gig will be up.

[Cant trust em]

90. In a deep recession, should the focus be on wage growth or job growth

They are certainly connected, but I'm not sure they are the same thing.

I'm not really sure. I'm just thinking out loud here.

[notesdev]

159. They both come from the same root

which is greater demand for labor.

This is why importing labor and offshoring jobs has been so destructive the the quality of life in this country, and why wages have gone nowhere in over a decade.

[girl gone mad]

82. Come on.

In what other recessions has job growth lagged by 18+ months? How much longer can the green shooters push this canard?

[Cant trust em]

85. The great depression.

That's the other recession that job growth lagged significantly.

[notesdev]

32. I addressed that a few posts above

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=6445515&mesg_id=6446702

[earth mom]

33. Fixed for whom? The rich mo fos who own stocks by the bucketload?

What about JOBS? REAL JOBS that pay living wage or better?

Let's see the WSJ tell this to the people living in tent cities and losing their homes by the thousands.


What else can we expect from the "WALL STREET" Journal? :eyes:

[berni_mccoy]

37. Jesus people. No one said it was "fixed". We averted DISASTER for everyone.

There is still a lot to be done, but we avoided a global economic meltdown not seen in the history of the modern world.

[earth mom]

41. I guess it's NOT a disaster for those who've lost jobs and homes right?

:eyes:

[berni_mccoy]

44. Yes, it would be a disaster for them too, but instead of the current population

who has lost their jobs and homes, we'd be looking at 5-6 times that number of people now. And there would be no coming back from it.

[earth mom]

50. The stock market is nothing more than a GIANT ponzi scheme.

I'd love to have seen it crash and burn and for REAL commerce by the people-the little guys-rise from it's ashes.

Instead we've got the same old shit different day. :thumbsdown:

But "thank gawd it passed" ain't that so? :puke:

[notesdev]

45. What disaster exactly?

I would really like to hear what this terrible scenario would have been.

My suspicion is that it would have been a disaster for the banking cartel, and everyone else would have gotten through it just fine. And had we done the right thing at the time, we would genuinely be on the road to recovery, rather than on the road to a Japanese-style 'lost decade'. Make that a second lost decade, actually - this decade also qualifies.

[Zynx]

51. Oh because letting the major banks fail was the surest path to recovery.

[notesdev]

53. In fact it was, and still is

Every last one of them is insolvent. Maintaining them means you and me paying off their debts.

For less money we can build a brand new banking system without such liabilities, and without handing massive rewards to the criminals who caused the problem.

[berni_mccoy]

58. Krugman and all other Economists who know anything would disagree with you.

[girl gone mad]

89. Not true.

Stiglitz, Galbraith, Reich, etc. were all against the bailouts as (mis)handled. Krugman was an outlier, and even he argued for nationalization rather than a blind infusion.

[girl gone mad]

87. Giving trillions to failed banks certainly has not been.

They aren't lending, just speculating with those monies while the job losses mount and the people grow poorer and angrier.

We should have let the bondholders eat their losses and bailed out Main Street instead.

[A HERETIC I AM]

60. How about your local grocery store being empty within 4 days?

If the financial markets had a complete and utter collapse, meaning no one would lend a cent to anyone, your local Safeway/Publix/Krogers/whathaveyou plus your local gas station and virtually every other retailer would have been empty inside a week.

Why?

Because the overwhelming majority of goods delivered in this country are at some point moved by truck. The vast majority of truck transport in this country buys its fuel at truckstops using essentially credit cards. The largest provider of these transactions is a company you likely have never heard of unless you have worked in the transportation industry.

Comdata

Comdata is privately held. If they had suddenly become unable to access the money markets and their cards had begun to be rejected by truckstop operators, commerce would have ground to a halt. If trucks don't move, nothing gets delivered. Full stop. Literally.

[notesdev]

65. Other ways would be found

to finance the purchases. If necessary, direct loans from the government could have provided all the necessary liquidity without pushing trillions of private debt onto the public.

Somehow, we found a way to supply food to groceries before all this financial foolery. So I don't believe for a moment that our food supply is dependent on being able to supply multi-million dollar bonuses to banking executives.

[A HERETIC I AM]

76. You're obviously a very smart person. Please explain how you would get...

the hundreds of millions of dollars worth of nationwide daily fuel transactions completed if the likes of the Comdata's of the world were unable to function. How would you get cash to an over the road driver in West Bumfuck Montana with empty fuel tanks without some sort of credit conduit.

"Other ways would be found to fund the purchases"

Really? How? Please explain, because at the end of the day, I am really nothing more than an uneducated trucker that has 10 miles worth of fuel in his tanks and I am sitting at the fuel island at a truckstop in Montana and my Comadata fuel card has just been rejected. I've got $40.00 in cash in my wallet and I need about $600.00 worth of fuel today (I'll need the same amount tomorrow or the next day too.) BTW, my reefer tank is almost empty also, so I can't afford more than a few hours delay. The ATM is either empty or has rejected my card.

"Somehow, we found a way to supply food to groceries before all this financial foolery."

If it was less risky and more profitable to have truckers carry several thousand in cash on them to pay for fuel purchases, trucking companies would do it and Comdata would have no market.

"So I don't believe for a moment that our food supply is dependent on being able to supply multi-million dollar bonuses to banking executives."

The king of the non-sequiter statements. Kudos.

[HamdenRice]

122. Thanks for this VERY IMPORTANT subthread

I just have come to believe that those who dismiss how severe the crisis was last September simply don't work in the real world. Everywhere you turn in the real world of work, there is some aspect of the financial system -- and almost every part of it collapsed last year in a domino effect. I was not aware of how truckers pay for gas, but it figures it would be some specialized financial firm that relies on commercial paper -- which could not be sold last year.

I wrote upthread how even the simple act of cashing a paycheck or using an ATM almost became impossible last September. I remember a liberal Democratic Congressman who helped write the TARP bill being interviewed on tv, and he said we were literally hours away from a complete collapse.

A few other examples -- Letters of credit simply stopped being issued because banks didn't trust each other. Letters of credit are used to finance all international shipping, and the ports simply stopped:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=114x46023#46183

Companies that order parts and raw materials use commercial paper to even out their cash flow. Commercial paper simply stopped.

Grocery stores borrow from lines of credit to purchase wholesale food. I suppose the upside of your story is that you wouldn't have been stranded without gas because there wouldn't have been any food purchases anyway if there were no credit system for grocery stores to order food. :rofl:

It just seems that we are trying to argue with people who have a singular image of "finance" as a "ponzi scheme" of "banksters" and who have no idea that people who make real stuff, people who sell stuff, people who ship stuff, people who employ people to do all this stuff -- all rely on a system that ground to a complete halt last fall.

[Grinchie]

150. The beauty of your post is amazing

For you describe a system that has dire consequences if it were to fail..

In the old days, before credit cards, they had an instrument called a "Check". For some reason, the banks really hate "Checks" today, and they have made it more and more difficult to use "Checks". You might want to try using only Personal Checks for one month on all purchases to get a drift for what I am talking about.

Apparently, checks when sent through the mail to the Credit Card company or ATT or the Electric Company are fine and danady, but god forbid some "shady" trucker using a check to buy fuel.

Notesdev is right, considering that the Banking Lobby spent millions on Check 21, removing a little thing called "Float" for us, but giving them up to 10 days of free use of your money.

You are a victim of the incremental destruction of low tech systems in favor of seemingly more convenient systems that have no backup whatsoever, and you will vehemently protect it because it's the only system you know.

[A HERETIC I AM]

152. I started driving over-the-road in 1987.

And if you are younger than 33 years old, I drove my first 18 wheeler when you were still shitting yellow.

Since carrying large amounts of cash in the cab of a truck is and always has been very risky, (ever seen a sign on the cab of a truck that says "Driver carries no cash"? That's because drivers USED to carry lots of cash and were common targets for thieves) in those days fuel purchases were paid for by check. My dispatcher would give me a stack of them. But guess what? They were checks issued by Comdata. The procedure to get one approved to pay for fuel was time consuming and tedious but still involved Comdata or a similar firm approving the purchase over the phone. The checks have largely disappeared primarily because cards are easier, faster and not nearly as subject to fraud as the checks were. If a driver is working for a company that hasn't paid its bills, the card gets rejected, just as the checks in the old days would have failed to get authorized.

You might want to try using only Personal Checks for one month on all purchases to get a drift for what I am talking about.
Apparently, checks when sent through the mail to the Credit Card company or ATT or the Electric Company are fine and danady, (sic) but god forbid some "shady" trucker using a check to buy fuel.

First, why put the word "shady" in quotes? Rather large and broad brush you have there. It has nothing to do with drivers being shady. Second, if you think using checks is such a good idea, until you have put on 375 gallons of diesel right alongside 15 other drivers at the Iowa 80, The Petro at Ruther Glen, VA, the TA at Lake Station, IN Wytheville, VA or Ontario, CA and then have to wait while each and every one of them gets a $500 or $600 check manually approved, you DON'T get the "drift" of what I'm talking about. There is a huge difference between you paying AT&T or the Electric company by personal check and a truck driver paying for fuel the same way. You and your house tend to be rather sedentary. They know where to find you. A truck driver is a mile further down the road for every minute that passes once he leaves the truckstop.

The amount of the daily fuel transactions that take place in this country are truly mind boggling and have intrinsic risks for both trucking companies and fuel providers. Those providers and the trucking companies have been doing what they can to reduce that risk for decades. The majority of that risk is mitigated in one way or another by the money markets and the issuance of commercial paper.

notesdev asked a specific question;

What disaster exactly? I would really like to hear what this terrible scenario would have been.

I gave him an answer. Apparently he, you and girl gone mad either chose not to believe this was a possibility or think I don't know what I'm talking about.

Perhaps I don't. After all, I only have my 20 plus years of driving experience in every one of the lower 48 states and 3 Canadian Provinces, buying fuel in most, if not all of them at some point or another. After all that, it is quite possible I have no idea how the system works or what the fuck I am talking about.

Edited for spelling

[notesdev]

153. Nobody's arguing with your description

it simply does not follow, however, that a bailout of insolvent banks was necessary to prevent a disruption. Those funds could just as easily have gone to companies like Comdata, and that's just one alternative solution.

It certainly was not necessary to preserve obscene bonuses on Wall Street, of that there should be no question.

[Grinchie]

161. Your opening line makes a lot of assumptions, and shows how young you are

Boo Hoo, checks are so inconvenient. Poor fricking you. What were you making, .18 cents a miles back then? Most likely a lot less, but you were humping your ass and lumping your own loads back then I reckon.

You state the obvious.. If their is no money, the checks don't get paid... I don't have a problem with that. It's called either being solvent, and being insolvent, and it's clear that this concept was or is alien to you.

How many times were your robbed while driving OTL?

I used Shady trucker, in the same respect that you quote above "If a driver is working for a company that hasn't paid its bills, the card gets rejected, just as the checks in the old days would have failed to get authorized.". Guess what, you are working for that company, and are a representative of that Company, and are automatically considered Shady. You see how that works? You actually believe that I haven't had experience in OTL, but that's the funny part, I was driving long before your ever were, and that's what I find humorous. It only took me a few years to see what a destructive, unrewarding, unhealthy, useless job Truck Driving was, especially considering the immense responsibilities that were continually adder to the burden of the Driver, year, after Year, after Year.

Boo Hoo, you have to wait in line along with other truckers, so you can park outside the Warehouse until they can unload your rig.. Cry me a river..

You don't make any other points than demonstrating what a fucked up career you chose to participate in. I have no sympathy for you, because you are the one that bought into the Privately Owned Operator and being your own "Master". Meanwhile J.B. Hunt hires H1-B's for less than a third of what you make, and you get to compete with them.

Too funny. Get back on your CB and step on the Wah Wah button to make yourslef sound funnier, because the story you just told is pretty pathetic.

Yeah Yeah, I'm heartless and insensitive because I don't appreciate the suffering you go through, enduring the carbon copy truck stops, milling about in the shops with all the other Obese, thick necked, ham fisted rednecks and Sikhs that comprise the Truck Drivers of today. Or perhaps you've grown tired of those Chicken fried steaks that are identical everywhere you drive.

Guess what, I _am_ heartless when it come to that disgusting waste of Human capability. I'm ashamed that people can actually convince themselves that spending 70 hours a week (or more) driving a truck is a living. It's more like debt slavery in your case, because that "Lawn Ornament" you drive is all your's buddy.

I don't buy the goods you deliver. I don't raise the cost of diesel to 4.00 a gallon either. You might want to think about taking a good look at your career and make a chacklist, if you can bear it when you see how abused you really are.

[A HERETIC I AM]

162. Assumptions, Huh? Damn, I'm so devastated. You certainly are a CB Rambo, aren't you?

Or the internet equivalent of one.

Actually, it was $.12 cents a mile, :) but that only lasted for a short time. The majority of my driving history was working in motorsports and mobile marketing. A truly fucked up career.

The last rig I drove, 3 years ago;



Another contract for the same operator;


I FUELED at truckstops but I slept in hotels.

I've been out of the business since 2006.

What the hell is "OTL"?

But hey, you're the expert, old hand. And you certainly showed me up, didn't you? I'm so humbled.

One other thing; I said I started driving OTR (Over The Road. I have no idea what OTL is supposed to mean) in 1987. I started driving tractor trailers in 1978, driving locally for 3 years. I'm going to defer to your vast experience in tranportation as your first truck must have been in the days of the Brockway. Congratulations. You're older than me. Well done. These durned computers sure are tricky, eh?

Have a nice day.

[Grinchie]

164. Have fun Nascar Dad..

Your right it is OTR, and I mixed up OTR and LTL.

I do remember Brockway, and a whole lot more.

It's been so long since I actually thought about that so called "Job", that I did make an error.

Nice pile a plastic and metal you have there. Nice and shiny, but underneath, still a big truck. You must be very proud of your life and the shiny truck you get to drive as long as the economy doesn't crash.

How much did Nextel pay you for plastering all their logos all over your rig and advertising for them?

As always, drive safe.

[jmowreader]

134. Do you know what it costs to fuel a truck?

This morning I pumped $273.48 worth of fuel into my two tanks. On Tuesday (tomorrow through Monday I have my home time, so my tractor will become a 17,000-pound lawn ornament) I will do it again. But the poster above you is correct: without Comdata, Fuelman and Transportation Clearing House (the three companies that handle fuel payment for the trucking industry; Comdata is the 1600-pound gorilla, TCH is dedicated to one brand of truck stop and may die out entirely because that brand is being purchased by another company that accepts Comdata, and Fuelman is the province of all these little mom & pop truck stops) commerce stops. Kinda hard to move shit in vehicles that burn 10 gallons per hour if you can't get any fuel.

How did we supply food to grocery stores before all this "financial foolery"? Totally irrelevant. The grocery business is completely different now. It's a lot more centralized--and there are far more manufactured foods. I haul a lot of food.

[notesdev]

135. That is immaterial

The Fed could just as easily lent money directly to Comdata and similar companies rather than the large, insolvent institutions that drove us to this debt crisis.

At most, we were looking at a few days of disruption before the solvent banks, if necessary backed up by the government, stepped up to take the place of the insolvent ones.

Instead, we have traded a few days of inconvenience for a decade or more of recession and stagnation. We are following the Japanese model precisely - housing boom, followed by bust, followed by bailouts, and now they are well into their second decade of going nowhere as a result of all the money destroyed in the maintenance of zombie institutions.

When they crash the currency (well on the way, look at the DX charts), you're not going to be able to fill your tank anyway, not because of a lack of financing, but because gasoline - which must be imported - will simply be too expensive, bought in devalued currency. And that situation will last far longer than the one that was feared.

[girl gone mad]

91. We were never at risk of this,

It's simply historical revisionism based on a shock and awe campaign undertaken by the banking sector.

Yes, a few large bondholders were at risk of losing money that they gambled on bad banks. There is ample evidence that the Fed and the banks were manipulating the markets to build support for TARP. The whole thing was a massive fraud. The world was not about to come tumbling down, but a lot of rich people were in danger of being on the wrong side of some bad debts.

[notesdev]

127. It's amazing that claims are being made here

that even Hank Paulson and Ben Bernanke, architects of the bailouts, did not and still do not make.

And if it did take us a few days to sort out a total implosion of the banking sector, I'm pretty sure we would have survived - and more, it would have been over in days rather than extended over a decade or more, and the cost would have been a tiny fraction of what we are being asked to pay.

Filling those grocery stores is going to be a lot harder when they get done trashing our currency. I bet we get the same people who give their fantasy stories today complaining about the price of gas tomorrow. Those truckers are going to have a lot harder time when the problem is they can't afford to fill the trucks at all, rather than having a temporary financing issue.

And none of them dare to broach the question of how we got to that point, because that would force them to admit that nothing has been solved at all.

[Grinchie]

148. It's lipstick on a pig on crutches.

You have not seen the meltdown yet.

[Initech]

47. We should institute a "Cash For Morans" program.

[kickysnana]

48. Translation: Any economic downturn is now totally on O,

Which is why so many of us said he needed to use the Swedish/Japanese model of letting it fail on Bushes watch, FIX IT, deal with the consequences rather than rely on advice from the people who caused the problem in the first place. Who propped it up by transferring trillions private debt to public debt.

That would be the second dip, the start of the second great depression because we have no more tricks in the bag and years of bad times because we squandered what we had left in 1929 what got us back on our feet.

Sadly O now owns the economy, mercenaries, wire taps and the rest of our loss of freedom, Afghanistan, and the health care system "reform" which appears to be just another massive giveaway to insurance and pharmaceutical companies.

[berni_mccoy]

56. Oh, so give up and let the people suffer to prove a political point? Nice.

Unlike you, I don't see that this is tool for leverage in the game of politics. People's lives depend on it.

[MISSDem]

68. Those on the left (read Paul Krugman) say we've been saved

while those on the right (read Harry Dent) say the worst is yet to come.

[4_TN_TITANS]

73. I totally disagree...

With all the jobless about to come off of the extended benefits, we're about to see ugly real quick. With no job and no gov benefits, what's left but crime to provide for a family?
I can only imagine what I would do to not have to face hungry children if I were in that situation.

[cliffordu]

77. It would be stellar and long term if some fucking JOBS were created.

[berni_mccoy]

93. I know one way to create jobs... provide public insurance to the 45 million uninsured Americans

that ought to require some data-entry, bookkeeping, IT and support staff.

[cliffordu]

109. Now we're talkin'

That is an excellent point.

Give people money to go to school to become physician's assistants. I have one for a primary care provider...

[question everything]

80. Was posted last night

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x8620684

[alarimer]

97. One of those miraculous jobless recoveries.

Like Clinton's economic successes, it doesn't help working class or lower-middle class at all if there are no fucking jobs anywhere.

But the rich fucking assholes are no longer crying in their beer.

[berni_mccoy]

100. Did you even read the article? It's not talking about recovery.

It's talking about how we avoided a disaster.

[usregimechange]

98. kick!

[DallasNE]

102. It Is Not TARP

That is the underpinning for "data showed manufacturing grew in August for the first time in more than a year". This is the clear result of stimulus creating demand. Any economist that doesn't understand this ought to get out of the business of being an economist. That probably includes all supply-siders.

[notesdev]

132. Stimulus doesn't create demand

it pulls it forward from the future. Extra cars above and beyond the natural number that would be purchased without subsidy are cars that people won't be buying in the future.

Our whole economy is suffering from this problem; it's a good deal of how we got to where we are today. We have pulled forward SO much demand using debt financing, and now that debt financing has hit its mathematical limit, we can't fall back on our natural economy - we consumed much of today's demand in years past.

[DallasNE]

158. Cash For Clunkers

Was only a small part of the stimulus package. Some auto workers were called back to work as a result so even here the stimulus contributed to manufacturing growing in August. Plus, your sour grapes reply didn't even address the issues I raised in my first post. Apparently, I stepped on some supply-sider toes here.

[DUlover2909]

104. I am getting $5,000 back from the IRS because I am buying a $50,000 house.

For me, that's a pretty damned good stimulus package. When I get my IRS rebate I am planning to trade in my 1997 Honda Civic to buy a Ford Fusion hybrid.

Anyone have a problem with that?

[scheming daemons]

106. "Anyone have a problem with that?"

Yeah... the "Let-it-fail" Bolsheviks who want to see an end to all capitalism.


Those people will have a problem with it.



;-)

[JamesJ]

107. I hope you all don't mind if I don't join the celebration until I get working again!

[progressoid]

108. Well, the bank CEOs are certainly doing well. VERY well.

Executives at financial firms who received bailout funds get big salaries, report says

Chief executives of the top 20 financial firms that received taxpayer bailout funds averaged $13.78 million in personal compensation last year, according to a report released today.

The annual “Executive Excess” study, a project of the Institute for Policy Studies, this year looked at bank recipients of Troubled Asset Relief Program funds. Those 20 firms, which eliminated more than 160,000 jobs since Jan. 1, 2008, awarded a combined total of $3.2 billion— including bonuses — to their top five executives.

The compensation for those 100 top executives “would bankroll 66 weeks of unemployment insurance benefits for 160,000 workers,” the report said.

“America’s executive pay bubble remains unpopped,” said Sarah Anderson, who has worked on 15 previous executive pay reports.

http://www.kansascity.com/business/story/1419397.html

[western mass]

113. Bullsh***

Saying that billions of $$ in taxpayer giveaways to bankers saved the economy is the same spurious logic as saying that Bush's war in Iraw kept us safe from terrorists. We have zero evidence that the economy wouldn't be in the same state now without the corporate handouts.

but really, what would you expect from an article from the WSJ?

[Mari333]

114. anyone slapping the hands of companies who continue to outsource jobs?

until then, its all a wash. Until there are decent jobs that pay a living wage, its a wash.

[tclambert]

123. In the entire article they never once even mention Obama.

Plus, I could hear the WSJ's editors' teeth gnashing the whole time I read it. Very distracting.

[DireStrike]

125. I think they would play it up as much as possible

so when this "recovery" turns into bullshit, they can blame Obama, the democrats, and leftists for ruining a perfectly good, functioning economy.

[2Design]

126. I already saw where CNN is wanting to give Bush credit n/t

[DFW]

128. I'm no economist, but I think Krugman was right

If Obama had insisted on a bigger stimulus package, he would have gotten it, and the economy would have been
on a faster track to recovery than it appears to be now. As things stand, we have had some encouraging news,
but it is far from clear as to whether that news is going to be the rule or the exception to the rule. Until
such time as that becomes clear, it's OK to be happy about good news, but it is wrong to say that the storm
has passed.

[Demeter]

137. It's Official BS, Is What It Is

Nobody but a small cadre of high-flying banksters around the world has been saved from anything. Oh, and Uncle Ben Bernanke, who has had his appointment renewed 5 months early so he didn't have to sweat Christmas.

[thereismore]

138. Bush's tax cuts sowed the seeds of recovery.

:sarcasm:

[liberal N proud]

142. Republicans are OK with corporate socialism

Yet they want to make sure the people who pay for these bailouts get nothing when it comes to health care.

[Grinchie]

143. The Annual Pre-Labor Day Happy Puppies for everyone story.

But the writing still gives this positive puff piece away in all of it's Glory. "appear to be helping"

And thats the key phrase, because appearance are the only thing that the Cheerleaders spreading these Happy puppy stories care about, just as long as it buys more time for the DLC to wrest further control from the Progressives.

Personally, I see a floundering Obama, who although he is very likeable, appears to be prone to speechwriter-itis. The main symptom being that he is unable to eloquently articulate his leadership goals in a concrete manner without coaching from the invisible hand that directs him.

I'm not alone in seeing a distinct continuity of Government in respect to what we saw during the Bush era, and what is even more disturbing is the lack of followup on restoring the Rule of Law, crackdown on Corporate malfeasance, reduction of Governmental Secrecy, a dubious Economic Policy, and the appearance that Health Care Reform is a carefully staged, redetermined Game Show, meant to entertain and obfuscate, but the Corporate winners have already been determined and given the correct answers.

The Earth continues headlong towards environmental collapse, while our Government meddles in South America, Iraq, Afghanistan, and and allows the existence of contractors like Blackwater to skirt military accountabilty, and rewards them with big fat contracts.

For those that cheerlead this story, I can guarantee you one thing. If I had the cpability to print Trillions of Legal Tender, I could make the Economy appear to recover just as easily as the Federal Reserve has. The trouble is that the recovery is based upon the shadow of money. It's based on the idiotic "Cash for Clunkers" program, that destroyed working capital and resources, in order to sell some newer, shinier ones. Meanwhile, the states are left with massive layoffs, IOUs, and reduced services. Isn't that just great?

One thing that strikes me on this thread, is the immediacy and ferocity of the apologists in regard to the 180` turn of the Obama Administration to embracing the Corporate interests. The give him a chance meme, along with the "He didn't do it overnight" rant, is getting a little worn out at this point. Apparently, the cheerleaders have set no boundaries, and this rhetoric seems to be all that we'll hear for the next year or perhaps beyond.

The story yesterday was 6.6% annual growth in Productivity. So where are the wage increases for those workers, and where are the price reductions of the consumer?

No my little droogies, there are way too many conflicting and ominous signs present to buy into the Happy Puppy Puff Pieces to try and raise the spirits in time for Labor Day BBQ's.

Pardon me while I continue to observe the realities and take a close look at what Main Stream Media thinks would be a good opinion to foist on a tired, scared, unaware American citizenry.

[Individualist]

144. If DLC and WSJ say its true, then it's true...

:sarcasm:
:sarcasm:
:sarcasm:

[Orsino]

147. With a slightly less severe disaster?

Hurrah!

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

149. Well, he saved the banking industry.

The workers...not so much.

[scarletwoman]

154. +1

[bvar22]

151. ?

NOW we have Your Children’s Money too !!!
And there is not a fucking thing you can do about it!
Now THIS is “Bi-Partisanship” !
Better get used to it!!
Hahahahahahahahaha!