Market crash: are we there yet ?

[PBzeer]

In a very technical sense, yes it was. It's like comparing feed corn to sweet corn though. The New Deal created public jobs, while the war effort put private business back on it's feet, and it's the private sector that creates growth, not the public sector.

[121Guy]

I said:

"A "doubling" in the Dow from its recent bottom would still not put it above an all time high".

The recent trading bottom was just above 7000....right? For it to double...just above 14,000.

For gold to double it would have to trade at $1500 ....right? Wasn't the top put in just under $1100?

I majored in math.

Good luck!

121Guy

[121Guy]

Originally Posted by PBzeer

In a very technical sense, yes it was. It's like comparing feed corn to sweet corn though. The New Deal created public jobs, while the war effort put private business back on it's feet, and it's the private sector that creates growth, not the public sector.

The government SPENDS. Their only legitimate revenue source is taxes. Which I believe they waste more than they actually spend. Only in government can it be "ok" for a project like the new Capitol Visitors Center to be budgeted at 8.8 million but end up costing us 56 milion....but the skylights are mice!

Private industry CREATES.

I find it repugnant that the people who suck up all the government services, and do not pay taxes. decide how we are to be governed.

121Guy

[121Guy]

Originally Posted by xort

Um, doubling the dow at 8200 would put it at 16,400. the high was about 13,000+. Check you math. it is seriously doubtful you will see huge gains in the short term in the dow. long term, who knows

military jobs are not exactly high paying jobs that will boost the economy

Military jobs would provide a place for non skilled people to learn necessary carrer skills and avoid dependence on the government....and by extension you and I. A life of dependence, is not a very nice one.

121Guy

[CrazyRu]

So-o-o, Is WW III in order?
Georgia, fully dependant on US, attacks Russia.
As soon as US dumps Pakistan in favor of India as new best friend we see escalation of military conflicts there…
Good way to escape paying defficit too - burn it in war

[JohnRPollard]

Originally Posted by TropicCat

It's much higher than that. BLS uses the 150,000 number to represent new workers entering the work force each month.

So 150K x 12 = 1.8 million in the last year, on top of the jobs that have been reported lost. Remember the unemployment numbers released are tiered. Newspapers publish the lower figure. The higher number is BLS's attempt to account for those who have fallen off it's radar.

All the numbers are at the BLS website.

Apologies if this has been previously discussed.

There has been quite a bit of discussion about the unemployment rate. But I'm not sure if we are comparing apples to apples when we cite an unemployment rate of 10% today and compare it to an unemployment rate of 10% 30 years ago (I'm just making those figures up).

I see a big difference between the two, primarily due to the prevalence of two-income families in today's world. Where 20 or 30 years ago a lay-off/lost job would leave a family without any income, in the modern society it is more likely to leave the typical family with 40-60% income, augmented by unemployment benefits.

So when we talk about high unemployment rates and what their effect will be, we need to view it in context. I am not saying that times won't be tough, but my prediction is that a 10% or even 15% unemployment rate will not be as devastating to households as it might have been 30 or more years ago.

[xort]

jrp has a very good point, during the Greatest Depression of the 30's, there was no such thing as 2 income families when unem hit 25%. We're now at 7% and everybody wants to count the unreported. Why? they aren't looking for work or are unemployable. What kind of person 'gives up?

[PBzeer]

There are any number of differences between then and now that aren't accounted for by simple numbers or percentages.

[wind_magic]

Originally Posted by xort

Agreed

EVERYBODY knows we are inflating the money supply. The markets are forward looking. So why is gold down from it's high of $1100? Especially when short term treasuries are paying zero.

It's just supply and demand. There has been a flight to cash from riskier assets, so it's driven the price of cash up to very high levels. People are worried about being able to pay their mortgages, car payments, etc, so they are all fighting for the available cash with whatever assets they have that they can sell. Government competition through money creation isn't currently keeping up with demand.

Edit - I forgot to mention gold!

Precious metals are actually doing very well, though nothing much is doing as well as $us cash at the moment (meaning the last few months). Yes, the $us price of gold has fallen, but compare that price to the industrial commodities such as copper, or oil, and you get a different story, the price of gold and other precious metal has stayed very strong. Gold is also very strong against the stock market, against corporate debt, and against some foreign currencies especially in emerging markets.

Precious metals are also two separate markets right now - the spot paper market which is running about 9.50$us/oz for silver, for example, and the retail physical market which has gone it's own way and appears to consumers as a very high premium over spot, sometimes as much as 5$us/oz or more. No doubt about it, people ARE buying gold and silver, whether they will continue to buy it if and when deflation continues is anybodies guess. It will all depend on how much competition the government gives people who hold $us.

[CrazyRu]

Official unemployment rate always puzzle me.

For example. Trucking industry magazines were telling that there is 30% drop in trucks on road last winter. They were telling it well before reality sank into Wall Street. It is well known fact that first to suffer in trucking industry are small business owners, one truck owners-operators. Most of them are self-employers and, as such, are not eligible for unemployment benefits. Here we see 30 % shrink in one of the largest US industry, and, surprise, there is no hint of it in official numbers …
Another example? My girlfriend is graphic/web designer. She is a small fish, nothing fancy. She always worked as a contractor, getting her 1099 tax form. She lost her job twice last year, settling for small one time contracts now and about 70% drop in income. She is not eligible for unemployment benefits.
I just wonder, with all shift toward part-time contractor jobs in recent years and service based economic, how many people in work force are not eligible for unemployment benefits?
Between my friends there are many. I am not typical – I’m immigrant, or am I?