PDA

View Full Version : Economics Thread



Skylar1
08-05-2011, 01:34 PM
Starting a thread series based on the economic climate. Use this thread to discuss all things relating to the economy, and everything that goes along with it.

As of today the market index is reacting up and down with the jobs report that came back above expectations. (117,000 jobs added in July; 85,000 expected) double dip recession fears are still lingering, but it's anyone's guess what could happen next considering what the euro markets have been doing.

z3y2x1
08-07-2011, 05:18 PM
The US needs more revenue!

Skylar1
08-10-2011, 03:04 PM
The Dow has fallen over 700 points in the past 3 days now.


Looks more likely that we're heading back into another recession.

Eris
08-10-2011, 03:08 PM
Be sure to send a thank you letter to congress.

Skylar1
08-10-2011, 03:14 PM
Be sure to send a thank you letter to congress.
This is just ridiculous. I'm truely at a loss of words here.

Something is seriously wrong if your country's market loses 17%+ of it's worth in just a couple weeks, and the government is so deadlocked that tectonic plates feel indifference.

"inverstors loss 1 trillion just on monday alone" is a not something that sounds like happy times are ahead.

edit: and now it looks like bank of america might fail


WASHINGTON (CNNMoney) -- Washington leaders said "never again" to "too big to fail," vowing that the next time, they'd put a troubled big bank out of its misery.

But are they really ready for a big bank failure? Nobody knows.


This week's big stock dive in Bank of America -- which has balance sheets still loaded with the remains of the housing crisis -- has gotten Wall Street veterans thinking about what would happen if a big bank needed help from the government.

Shares of Bank of America (BAC, Fortune 500) , Citigroup (C, Fortune 500), Goldman Sachs (GS, Fortune 500) and Morgan Stanley (MS, Fortune 500) dropped more than 7% on Wednesday. They dropped by even more Monday, although there was a partial rebound the following day.

Bank of America got a bit of relief on Wednesday, with mortgage backer Fannie Mae agreeing to buy $500 million worth of servicing rights of some of the bank's bad mortgages. But Bank of America remains high on the watch list.

"I think the FDIC is ready, they've been getting ready for this for a while. The question is: Are Tim Geithner and Obama ready?" asked Christopher Whalen, a banking analyst with Institutional Risk Analytics. "Do we want this situation to muddle along? Or do we pre-empt and restructure?"

Banking analyst Richard Bove of Rochdale Securities told Fortune on Monday that such takeover rumors are "all baloney," since banks, including Bank of America, have far more liquidity and excess capital than they did in 2008.
Fed gives banks a break on swipe card fees

Others acknowledge that a worst-case-scenario run on the banks could force regulators' hands on a failure, since traditional bailouts aren't a political option. Experts on the frontline of the 2008 financial crisis say they don't believe regulators are truly prepared.

full article: http://money.cnn.com/2011/08/09/news/economy/too_big_to_fail/index.htm

Eris
08-10-2011, 03:35 PM
Here's a nice article where Greenspan suggests printing money as a solution to the debt problem. (http://www.cnbc.com/id/44051683)

Skylar1
08-10-2011, 03:38 PM
wow..

If it really comes down to that, we'll become post WWI germany

z3y2x1
08-10-2011, 06:43 PM
Not like there was a legitimate 'recovery' in the first place...

Velvet_Nightmare
08-10-2011, 07:27 PM
wow..

If it really comes down to that, we'll become post WWI germany

I'll start burning money on the stove...

z3y2x1
08-10-2011, 08:05 PM
For the fiscal hawks among us, the US could definitely save some money by ending all foreign wars, as well as the War on Drugs.

Eris
08-10-2011, 08:11 PM
For the fiscal hawks among us, the US could definitely save some money by ending all foreign wars, as well as the War on Drugs.

The problem with the American economy is that much of it was built around providing war materiel during WWII. So if you end the wars, these industries are no longer profitable, so moving away from this warlike way is going to hurt quite a lot. BUT, it isn't really sustainable either. It's the economic equivalent of trying to lift your self off the ground by tugging at your shoelaces really hard.

The war on drugs, however, is just ill conceived and is never going to be successful.

z3y2x1
08-10-2011, 08:31 PM
Great point. WWII was also such a boon to our economy (thinking in more intangible terms) in the sense that there was a much more well-defined path to victory, and a lot more support among the American public. A national unity. It was unlike Vietnam, Iraq, and even Afghanistan now, in which the citizens questioned, "What are we doing here?" I believe that the great amount of money spent (a.k.a. wasted, IMO) on these current wars outweighs the benefits/profits to the defense industries.

Velvet_Nightmare
08-10-2011, 09:06 PM
Going off of the current discussion, can someone answer a question for me, cause I seriously don't know the answer.

I live in a city with multiple military bases, they're our biggest employer. We have Lackland Air Force Base here, which is responsible for most of the training programs, including new recruits. Say we weren't in Iraq and Afghanistan, would the military downsize? And if so, would that downsize have any effect on my city, since as I said before, they are our main economic booster.

Eris
08-10-2011, 09:29 PM
Going off of the current discussion, can someone answer a question for me, cause I seriously don't know the answer.

I live in a city with multiple military bases, they're our biggest employer. We have Lackland Air Force Base here, which is responsible for most of the training programs, including new recruits. Say we weren't in Iraq and Afghanistan, would the military downsize? And if so, would that downsize have any effect on my city, since as I said before, they are our main economic booster.

It's a damned if you do, damned if you don't sort of situation. Downsizing the military is going to mean losing jobs, but at the same time, these are jobs that are paid for by tax money that the government can't afford to spend (and most importantly, these jobs don't contribute to the GDP, in a sense, it's all a sort of fancy unemployment benefit).