Posted By: geoff  on Thursday, August 14, 2008

Ah... you see it right there: Jim's main problem is that he has yet to realise that the new answer to everything (you know: life, the universe, &) is "drill more!"

If only the oil companies could drill offshore, there would be no recession, the mortgage crisis would fade away, puppies would be fluffier, politicians would stop commiting adultery, etc.

Posted By: Chris H  on Monday, August 18, 2008

Yet our dollar has made a resurgence against the global currencies for the forst time in more than a decade.

"Fueling," (IF you'll excuse the pun) the drop in oil prices.

What the politicians who said it's all in our head mean is that the media needs to stop creating the problem!

From Fannie and Freddie to every other negative report they can drum up to scare us. Make no mistake, Fannie and Freddie are solid, there was no bailout as they have not borrowed any tax payer dollars. That being from the line of credit they have ALWAYS had with the FED/Treasury.

Home sales have risen, the come back has started, STOP listening to the media. Get back to work and buy a home under the best conditions EVER! Low interest rates and low home prices. IT'S NEVER HAPPENED before!!! Take advantage of the "glass half full" instead of the media's ever present "glass half empty"...

Once all teh REO's are sold, we'll be back to a regular "appreciating" home market. This time with only solid loan programs...

Posted By: outsider  on Monday, August 18, 2008

Hightower is right on target. A recession by any other name smells just as bad. It's time to end tax cuts for the weathy few, reduce our overblown military expenses, and get the working class working again.

Posted By: Donald Wolberg  on Monday, August 18, 2008

There are numbers that are discrete quantifications of reality and help describe reality, but there are also numbers that slip into insignificance when all the numbers are looked at and are used to misrepresent reality. Unfortuantely, Mr. Hightower would seem to be more interested in a rather typical and crass political agenda of characterture rather than characterization. The orice is the loss of an opportunity for serious discussion of significant issues.



The american economy is the largest in the world with a $13.5 trillion GDP (that's $1,500 billion), and at least two of our States are would be in a list of the 10 largest economies in the world. This accomplishment is the model of all modern industrial societies and is emulated by the developing world highlighted by India and China and their journey into the 21st Century. The U.S. unemployment rate is 5.7% and has been mostly under 5% for the last 8 years. In orhte rwords, about 95% of Americans have been employed for the last 8 years, another record not matched in most of the world. If Mr. Hightower is correc that some 9 million Americans are now unemployed (and I am not certain this is the correct number), it means that 180 million are employed (or about 94 out of every 100 workers). In most of the world (and the U.S.) this is still about as full employment as you can find and in the lats 6 years has only varied about 2% (2 of 100). The current housing situation and foreclosures is another interesting misuse of numbers. For example, the percentage of mortgages in default or behind seems to be between 3.5% and 4%. Therefore, 96% 0r 96.5% of all mortgages are being paid on time. Of the 3.5-4% behind, about 1.5% are apparently in the process of renegotiation. Of course, the reality is that over the last 30 years, 2-4% is the usual default rate!



Of course we have seen economic issues such as very high energy costs, high food prices and increased inflation. All are serious issues. If gasoline costs Americans $3.65/gallon and oil is $120/barrel, the reality is that oil is being pumped in the Middle east for less than $2 a barrel and Saudis motorists pay 45 cents a gallon, drivers in Venazuela 12 cents, and Libyans 55 cents. But the fact is that it is the Congress, dominated by the Democratic Party that does not allow increased production of our own energy resources. The Congress encourages biofuels, now dominated by corn, and which has led to increased food costs, tied to increased diesel costs for trucks that hauls or fuel. A tractor trailer that needs 300 gallons of diesel pays $1500 for a fill at $5/gallon and not $300 at $1. Of course it is former Senate Majority leader Tom Daschel, a Democrat, who is the chief lobbyist for the corn to alcohol industry and an Obama advisor.



Despite the difficulties in the economy, we see that baseball stadiums are full each game, concert tickets at $245 get sold, and Americans can even be seen smiling. One wonders if the doom and gloom economic picture offerred by those with a political agenda is the "fall back" after the Iraq war isasue collapsed with the accomplishments of our soldiers and the leadership of General Patraeus. One notices how quicklu the "war card" of the Democrat party has fallen off the table.



Numbers cannot tell us if the economic glass is half full or half empty and it is only by understanding what half full or half empty really means that provides the perspective required. In the end, the discussion is worthwhile if agendas are put out front and not hidden.

Posted By: outsider  on Monday, August 18, 2008

I must comment on Mr. Wohlberg's assertion that somehow increasing production of oil in the US will lower consumers' energy costs. The countries he cites with cheap gas — oil producers all — have NATIONAL oil companies; we do not. (In Iran, for example, low prices of gas are actually subsidized by the goverment). Any oil produced in the territorial US will be sold on the open market (at least 50 percent of the "American" oil in Alaska is exported right now). More oil will likely mean more profits for oil companies, but not necessarily lower prices for US consumers, especially if demand increases and the US remains the biggest oil buyer.



And as far as Wohlberg's comment about "hidden agendas" is concerned, he vilifies Democrats alone for our economic woes. Perhaps he has a hidden agenda of his own?  Also, by the way, I don't think the Iraq war issue is dead  — not after it was entered into on false information and has taken the lives of over 4,000 Americans and many more Iraqis, cost billions of dollars, and has had its own negative effect on our citizens and our economy.

Posted By: Donald Wolberg  on Monday, August 18, 2008

I appreciate "Outsider" reading my comments but I wonder who Wohlberg is? Darn guy is stealing my ideas.



Of course, elsewhere I have written that national oil, owned and controlled by governments, dominate the oil patch (about 85%). American companies can produce, if they had access to American resources to which they are denied. But there are huge resources right here ot be developed.



Elsewhere I have written severely of the Bush administration, slow to respond, and lacking leadership on many issues. Unfotunately, I am not clever enough to have a "hidden" agenda, but do feel it is time to consider a third and possibly fourth party initiative to consider the serious issues of our time. The political scene would be richer with a real Liberal and Conservative party going at it (in my opinion). With a Congress where some 75% of our representatives end up millionaires, such a real revolution, along with term limits are worth considering. I do believe Mr. Obama lacks the substance to be President, and is largely an empty suit. Mr. McCain is experienced but quixotic, yet seems to have the clarity and depth to be an effective leader.



Somehow, there is nothing "hidden" here.

Posted By: C A Herrmann  on Monday, August 18, 2008

Not an employment problem? What are you folks smoking? Illegal immigrants are leaving. More and more employees are working reduced hours and biting their fingernails worrying about getting laid off.

The supposed fiscal conservatives in control for the last 8 years have us in debt to China for how many trillion? And our President's "good friends" the royal Saudi family have us over a barrel. Our cash is funding religious fundamentalism through the Saudis.

All is right with the world! I feel sorry for my grandchildren. They cannot inherit the same US that I was fortunate to inherit.

Enough of my rant.

Posted By: LL Potts  on Monday, August 18, 2008

Go, Jim, Go! You are one of the things I miss about Texas!

Posted By: Kaye  on Monday, August 18, 2008

"Wohlberg" or whatever he calls himself seems to poo-poo everyone and everything with his endless facts & figures.  Perhaps he's too high in his tower to feel the crunch.  



I agree with outsider! Hightower is right on target. A recession by any other name smells just as bad. It's time to end tax cuts for the weathy few, reduce our overblown military expenses, and get the working class working again.

Posted By: Barb  on Monday, August 18, 2008

Mr. Wolberg I disagree with your figure of 5.7%..that is only the 'official' figure.  My husband was laid off 4 years ago..he gave up looking for another job after a year and a half..we are living on my SSA and pension and our savings.  My son was in construction and hasn't had work for quite awhile.  He was not eligible for unemployment so he is not in those figures.  And that is just one family.  Has anyone checked the welfare rolls..have they increased because those who are no longer eligible for unemployement benefits still have not found work?

Just an observation

Posted By: Stan  on Monday, August 18, 2008

I've attached nemployment statistics for the past 50 years, every July 1, according to http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/data/UNRATE.txt

1958-07-01   7.5

1959-07-01   5.1

1960-07-01   5.5

1961-07-01   7.0

1962-07-01   5.4

1963-07-01   5.6

1964-07-01   4.9

1965-07-01   4.4

1966-07-01   3.8

1967-07-01   3.8

1968-07-01   3.7

1969-07-01   3.5

1970-07-01   5.0

1971-07-01   6.0

1972-07-01   5.6

1973-07-01   4.8

1974-07-01   5.5

1975-07-01   8.6

1976-07-01   7.8

1977-07-01   6.9

1978-07-01   6.2

1979-07-01   5.7

1980-07-01   7.8

1981-07-01   7.2

1982-07-01   9.8

1983-07-01   9.4

1984-07-01   7.5

1985-07-01   7.4

1986-07-01   7.0

1987-07-01   6.1

1988-07-01   5.4

1989-07-01   5.2

1990-07-01   5.5

1991-07-01   6.8

1992-07-01   7.7

1993-07-01   6.9

1994-07-01   6.1

1995-07-01   5.7

1996-07-01   5.5

1997-07-01   4.9

1998-07-01   4.5

1999-07-01   4.3

2000-07-01   4.0

2001-07-01   4.6

2002-07-01   5.8

2003-07-01   6.2

2004-07-01   5.5

2005-07-01   5.0

2006-07-01   4.7

2007-07-01   4.7

2008-07-01   5.7



Note that the July unemployment rate has varied from a minimum of 3.5% in 1969 up to a maximum of 9.8% in 1982.  The average from 1958 to 2008 is 5.87%.  You might also note that while Congress was run by Democrats (up to 1994) the rate averaged 6.16%, while run by Republicans (1995-2006) it averaged 5.06%, and since the Democrats have been running it again, the average has climbed to 5.2%.



Too bad though, the facts and figures just can't compete with your feelings and emotions.  Have a nice day!

Posted By: Karl  on Tuesday, August 19, 2008

Guess what Stan?



In my home state, the unemployment rate is around 8.5% !!



Have A Nice Day!!!!

Posted By: Donald Wolberg  on Tuesday, August 19, 2008

Interesting numbers from Stan regarding unemployment rates. The numbers would be even more interesting if plotted agains population. As I recall, we were about 154 million when President Eisenhower assumed office in 1952 and are now 330 million. In the 54 years our population has more than doubled and the number of jobs available has more than doubled as well. Regarding employment, I recall reading a study that indicated that the average American will have as many as 8 jobs douring a career, far different from the 1 or 2 jobs 50 years ago. If this is true, the in-between unemployment of workers shows that there is a more fluid pattern to employment and unemployment. Of course certain sectors will be hit harder than others: if housing starts slow, construction opportunities diminish. If fuel prices are too high, impacts sift through the economy. But it is apparent from Stan's research that the present rate is just about average for 50 years and is not an anomaly.

Posted By: John Handforth  on Tuesday, August 19, 2008

Interesting figures, Stan.  Thank you.

Please make note of the period from 1964 to 1969.  Unemployment was at its lowest due to being in a war economy.  While we are at war now, we have less troops, far lower casualties and more automated methods of making war associated materials.  All of these things, plus a larger population contribute to more people looking for work.

There's also another factor that skews the unemployment figures.  When a person can no longer draw unemployment benefits, they are no longer counted as unemployed.  My benefits ran out some time ago, but I am still looking for work.  I just don't count for anything anymore, except in the hearts of my family.

Posted By: Myke  on Tuesday, August 19, 2008

The mortgage companies that made these loans to people who couldn't afford them should be forced to keep and maintain those places until they can sell them for what it owed on them. Give the people back their down pymt and any money they have invested in these homes so they can find another place to live.If they can't sell them then burn them down and sell the land. That would take the foreclosures off the market and make our property worth something again. A big part of these houses were sold to illegals. Deport all the illegals and that will create jobs and save us billions a year in welfare, free meds, etc. Stop oursourcing jobs and stop China from shipping its poisoned goods to us.Buy American or don't buy it. They would have to make more stuff in America and that would mean more jobs. Stop selling our businesses to other countries. Soon we will own nothing in America.

When they talk about the people in America having jobs they are including the illegals. Just like Obama's health plan includes illegals.

Posted By: Tosh  on Tuesday, August 19, 2008

Hey, Myke...why should people who were stupid enough to take a loan they couldn't afford be given their money back when they can't make the payments?  The way I was brought up, if you can't afford it, don't buy it.  I had to pass on a killer deal on a home 2 years ago because, although I had 4 banks willing to give me a loan, the numbers said I could not afford it.  It is the responsibility of the BUYER to know their own limitations.  The bank is out for itself and while some of them may be unethical, they did not force anyone to borrow money from them.  I think a big part of the solution to this problem will be when people like that start to hold themselves accountable instead of relying on fiscally responsible people to bail them out.  

Posted By: Chuck  on Tuesday, August 19, 2008

I bet there are a lot more speculators in real estate and mortgages than there are in oil.  The guys in oil are probably smarter.  You were either a speculator or stupid to try "flipping properties" for fun and profit.  Unfortunately it falls upon us taxpayers to pay for their greed and/or stupidity.  I say let them, the weak sister banks, and the mortgage brokers go down with the ship because they will just be back for the next get rich quick scheme, ready to fleece more ignorant folks.

Posted By: New Hampshire thinker  on Tuesday, August 19, 2008

Very interesting statististics, Stan and  the many thoughts with respect to falling off the radar.  Do any of you recall when 30+ years ago it was predicted that America would no longer be an industrial nation but one of a service economy?  I guess it has finally arrived.  It was also predicted that the grandchildren of the greatest generation that lived through the second world war wouldn't have the standard of living that their parents had achieved.  Recently read some thoughts that said global dependency does not limit war, but may in fact encourage it, as noted by Russia's land grab for Georgia which now controls Russia's access to the Black Sea.

Cheers from New Hampshire.

Posted By: Dave  on Tuesday, August 19, 2008

The author obviously has a very superficial grasp of economics.  In addition, the American public is very whiny.  The policies he prescribes are very European.  Taxing the most productive citizens even more disproportionately than they already are will produce European sloth.  A real stimulus would be to provide more economic certainty by making tax reductions of the past years permanent. Not more bloated infrastructure spending to benefit the Dem's union cronies and pouring more money into the black whole that is the public education system.  As far as declining home values and foreclosures, the former is a result of an overabundance of homes being built and the latter is largely a result of personal irresponsability on the part of home buyers who bought more house than they could afford. Furthermore, you hardly ever hear about the upside to declining home values.  I thought the dems and liberals were all about affordable housing.  Well, a lot of young people I know have benefitted from the decline, making it more affordable to buy a home.

Posted By: Stug  on Tuesday, August 19, 2008

Mr. Wolberg writes:

"I do believe Mr. Obama lacks the substance to be President, and is largely an empty suit. Mr. McCain is experienced but quixotic, yet seems to have the clarity and depth to be an effective leader."



As per Merriam-Webster:

quixotic  

Main Entry: quix·ot·ic  

Pronunciation: \kwik-'sä-tik\

Function: adjective

Etymology: Don Quixote

Date: 1718

1: foolishly impractical especially in the pursuit of ideals; especially : marked by rash lofty romantic ideas or extravagantly chivalrous action

2: capricious, unpredictable



Do we really want another foolisly impractical, rash and capricious President making decisions that will impact our lives.  Can the country afford that caliber of mistake for another four years?



As to the unpredictable part: He was adamantly against Bush's tax cuts as being unfairly weighted for the wealthy as well as against off-shore drilling as unnecessarily risky to the environment proportional to the potential benefit.  Now that he needs the votes of the Republican base to win he has flipped on both of those.  Is he just pandering, does he not have the moral fiber to stand up for what he believes?

I'll admit that Obama is largely an unknown, but he is hardly an empty suit when compared to McCain who doesn't appear to know what he stands for until his handlers have told him.  

Posted By: jack sprat  on Tuesday, August 19, 2008

Jim

“Multibillion-dollar national effort to rebuild and extend America's infrastructure.”

FYI, Pard, but that’s what the 15% plus gas tax is supposed to do, if your left sided buddies would quit dipping into the till we’d actually would have good streets, roads and bridges. Arguably the Roosevelt “back to work” scheme of WPA and CCC extended the depression. The worst time in my recollection wasn’t the Nixon wage freeze, but the Carter over-controlling era, which the unemployment figures reflect. Seems you want the worst back the soonest. No thanks. Industry prices are up because energy prices are up, get the “cost of manufacturing” down and production will go up. Oddly the lib solution is to not drill for the most plentiful energy source most immediately available, but to demand “windifacation” 10 years down the road, but not let the transmission lines be built. My Texas relatives would put you out into the “stupid” pasture, where they’re so stupid they can’t tell the he’s from the she’s. One sure way to “dampen” (liberal speak for destroy) our economy is with the promise of $10 to $20 trillion dollars in new taxes, or the promised obama version of Carter’s malaise, on steroids. Maybe he can have a status quo where half the people are not working, and they tax all the working (rich) people 100% (since we’re already paying more than 50% in taxes) and give it to the half not working.

Posted By: jack sprat  on Tuesday, August 19, 2008

Stan  

One small qualifier, the first thing that Willie J did to lower the unemployment was to add the employees of the government, not heretofore counted, while somewhat logical, more than a bit divisive, since we had a large military, which shows in the figures for 1992 and 1993. I believe that 5% to 5 ½ % is normally considered full employment. Not reflected with any degree of accuracy is the impact of 20 million illegal aliens “doing jobs Americans wouldn’t do”, like construction. As John Handforth points out he and I count as much as anyone else who no longer get any form of unemployment benefits, another change to the “counters count.” Unemployment benefits used to be 60 months, now in most states is 13 weeks, and even though Bush extended the benefits an additional 13 weeks, hardly 60 months. While I certainly can empathize with Karl's 8.5%, that is still far short of the 10%-12% unemployment consistently reported during the Carter debacle.

I also remember our good friends the Germans and Japanese intentionally trying to tank our dollar in an effort to lead the global economy during the ‘80’s. While the impact was there, it hardly lasted, unless the “doubters” have their way.

The “housing crisis” figures the “real” Donald Wolberg posted gives the leeway that the 97% figure I have heard consistently. I am a bit surprised that our economy of the last 8 years isn’t in worse shape, frankly the Dem’s and the MSM harbingers of doom and gloom have tried to talk our economy into the tank for purely partisan politics. If things weren’t bad enough how do they get elected?

Posted By: jack sprat  on Tuesday, August 19, 2008

"1: foolishly impractical especially in the pursuit of ideals; especially : marked by rash lofty romantic ideas or extravagantly chivalrous action"

Thanks a perfect description of the "community organizer" who wanted to help the poor, but only got them unlivable housing that had to be torn down and the only state senator who apparently supports abortion through the “forth trimester” as one pundit put it, after obama’s unintelligible reply that knowing when life begins was above his pay grade.

Posted By: Cowgirl Up! - Texas  on Tuesday, August 19, 2008

Mr. Wolberg asked why we couldn't see unemployment against population.  Percentages are percentages.  Just like the flat tax.  if I make 100,000 and "Joe" makes 10,000 and the tax is 8%; I still pay an order of magnitude more than "Joe".  Apples and apples.

Posted By: Sandy  on Tuesday, August 19, 2008

You keeping telling it like it is.  I am for the Pickens plan too.   Let's get this darn election over with and get started building a better country. Let stop sending all of our money to countries who hate us and "DO IT RIGHT FOR OURSELVES".



Thank You.

Posted By: ETfromGermany  on Tuesday, August 19, 2008

Re: 'low' unemployment rate. Just because a person is not registered as unemployed, doesn't mean they are working. It means they stopped counting when their 6 months (give and take a few extension weeks or not) of unemployment benefits run out. The welfare recepients are not counted in that group, nor are others who had to make the choice of one income instead of 2-income homes. There a countless job seekers out there not being registered by the 'unemployment statistic'.



And compare the US with the rest of the world? Fair comparisons require equal factors. How about counting unemployed in Germany for 2 years, while they are being retrained for more high-skilled jobs? Or not counting students who don't have to pay tution for higher education and don't need to juggle education and job? Or parents being given a 'child raising stipend' by the government for staying home with a newborn for a number of years (with the specific goal of opening up the employment market AND proving quality care during those formative baby years).



I like the US, and think this nation has amazing strengths. But knowledge about other countries, and how they resolve their economic and social issues, is slim. I would like to read a better informed, more fair assessment and comparison next time.



Who knows - the American people might pick up a few useful ideas from the nations that have mastered some of the challenges the US is still struggling with? They have done so in the past, that's what makes America so unique and strong.

Posted By: John Handforth  on Tuesday, August 19, 2008

Cowgirl,

The flat tax is an interesting concept, but will never happen.  It would put too many financial advisers and tax preparation people out of work.  It would even reduce the number of people working for the I.R.S.  Government workers seem to grow entrenhed.  It's better than tenure.

Besides, how would the Democrats find a way to "tax the rich?"  You gave an example of one person making $100,000 and another making $10,000.  With a flat tax the higher paid one would pay $8,000 and the lower paid one would pay $800.  Under Obama, the higher paid one would pay $55,000 and the lower paid one would be given tax credits and a refund equal to almost have his earnings.  That would reduce a person's incentive to better themselves.

That might look good when you're young and starting out, but you'll never be able to buy a home if you are taxed to death.

Posted By: John Handforth  on Wednesday, August 20, 2008

------Correction-------



Cowgirl,



The flat tax is an interesting concept, but will never happen.  It would put too many financial advisers and tax preparation people out of work.  It would even reduce the number of people working for the I.R.S.  Government workers seem to grow entrenched.  It's better than tenure.



Besides, how would the Democrats find a way to "tax the rich?"  You gave an example of one person making $100,000 and another making $10,000.  With a flat tax the higher paid one would pay $8,000 and the lower paid one would pay $800.  Under Obama, the higher paid one would pay $55,000 and the lower paid one would be given tax credits and a refund equal to almost half his earnings.  That would reduce a person's incentive to better themselves.



That might look good when you're young and starting out, but you'll never be able to buy a home if you are taxed to death.

Posted By: Cowgirl Up! - Texas  on Wednesday, August 20, 2008

John H - Under Obama, the higher paid one would pay $55,000 and the lower paid one would be given tax credits and a refund equal to almost half his earnings.  That would reduce a person's incentive to better themselves.



That is precisely why I think Obama needs to go the way of the Dodo.  If you (not you John - the royal you) - want a better life - get off your lazy @$$ and work for it.  Don't stand there with your hand out and think I am going to fill your palm.  If people would stop electing nannies and work for their own "American Dream" the country would be MUCH better off.