Video: "America is in worse shape than a year ago"

JMapleton

Diamond Member
Nov 19, 2008
4,179
2
81
Not saying I agree or disagree. But this man brings up an important point. He claims retail sales are not up and analysts are fudging the numbers.

From Yahoo Tech Ticker:
Retail Sales Up but America in "Dramatically Worse Shape" vs. a Year Ago, Davidowitz Says.
Davidowitz: Wall St.-D.C. Bigwigs "Buried Our Country ... They Sold Us Down the River

He also states the very obvious fact that the guys who caused the problem are now trying to fix it.

Guy talks a little nutty, he's from NY. But he makes some important points.

Anyone care to verify or refute the retail numbers they man claims?
 
Last edited:

Trianon

Golden Member
Jun 13, 2000
1,789
0
71
www.conkurent.com
Not saying I agree or disagree. But this man brings up an important point. He claims retail sales are not up and analysts are fudging the numbers.

From Yahoo Tech Ticker:
Retail Sales Up but America in "Dramatically Worse Shape" vs. a Year Ago, Davidowitz Says.
Davidowitz: Wall St.-D.C. Bigwigs "Buried Our Country ... They Sold Us Down the River

He also states the very obvious fact that the guys who caused the problem are now trying to fix it.

Guy talks a little nutty, he's from NY. But he makes some important points.

Anyone care to verify or refute the retail numbers they man claims?

I approve this message:)
people are deleveraging their debt, at least some try to, spending is probably staying flat or going down in reality, so where is reported extra spending would come from? Sure govt doesn't buy much in retail... Financial reports look more and more like propaganda, just look at latest Fed meeting minutes and market reaction... no logic whatsoever.
 

werepossum

Elite Member
Jul 10, 2006
29,873
463
126
I don't think anyone disagrees that American is in worse shape than a year ago, they only disagree about whether we can now blame Obama or must still blame Bush. I tend to agree with his retail numbers - I've noticed that Wal-Mart (supposedly a big winner in this recession) has drastically cut its stock, new retail construction is dead, and retail leases are still going down with way more net closures than new contracts. The bigger disagreements though are whether the reforms pushed through by the Democrats are going to fundamentally help or hurt us, and how close to the bottom and the turn-around we are. Even if government does nothing - even if government makes it worse - we will eventually pull out of the recession.
 

StageLeft

No Lifer
Sep 29, 2000
70,150
5
0
There are many like him, and he's not the first to complain about the arsons fighting the fire. I also think it's crazy. I am overall much more pessimistic than the general consensus appears to be right now. But it appears to be a minority position and there are many smarter than me who hold the other view so with that I basically don't really know what the story is.

I think things are not so good because unemployment still sucks a lot, foreclosures are very high, government debts are high and growing at incredible rates. I mean basically in every way the US appears to be in a worse spot, looking down a wider barrel, than after the last recession.

Truly the US is actually in a worse spot than it was a year ago. It may not be "in a recession" (thanks in great part to vast government deficits), but it's certainly not in any meaningfully way stronger than it was a year ago. I think the stock market of 11k right now is fantasy land, but I may very well be wrong.
 

woolfe9999

Diamond Member
Mar 28, 2005
7,153
0
0
By what statistical measure are we "worse than we were a year ago?" Monthly job numbers: massive loss ---> modest gain. Economic decline ---> economic growth. Manufacturing data. Retail sector data. Consumer confidence. The stock market. Basically every single major economic indicator is better than it was a year ago.

This guy is a joke. He was one of those people who, a year ago, said we were headed into economic armageddon, and now he wants to not look like a fool, so he pretends that white is black, up is down.

I can see someone arguing that the recovery we are clearly in is temporary, and that we may well have a double dip recession in our future, but to say we are worse off now than a year ago is a pure fiction meant to prop up someone's ego.

- wolf
 

JMapleton

Diamond Member
Nov 19, 2008
4,179
2
81
By what statistical measure are we "worse than we were a year ago?" Monthly job numbers: massive loss ---> modest gain. Economic decline ---> economic growth. Manufacturing data. Retail sector data. Consumer confidence. The stock market. Basically every single major economic indicator is better than it was a year ago.

This guy is a joke. He was one of those people who, a year ago, said we were headed into economic armageddon, and now he wants to not look like a fool, so he pretends that white is black, up is down.

I can see someone arguing that the recovery we are clearly in is temporary, and that we may well have a double dip recession in our future, but to say we are worse off now than a year ago is a pure fiction meant to prop up someone's ego.

- wolf

His point, which I think you missed, is that we used debt to buy this temporary rebound in the economy, but the fundamentals of the economy are in shambles. If you spend trillions of dollars, yes you are going to see some gain, but that does not fix the underlying problem and all it does it delay the inevitable.
 

sandorski

No Lifer
Oct 10, 1999
70,715
6,266
126
His point, which I think you missed, is that we used debt to buy this temporary rebound in the economy, but the fundamentals of the economy are in shambles. If you spend trillions of dollars, yes you are going to see some gain, but that does not fix the underlying problem and all it does it delay the inevitable.

The initial slip into Recession was the Inevitable. Depression was Inevitable, without the Stimulus. What is Inevitable now is not so clear.
 

heyheybooboo

Diamond Member
Jun 29, 2007
6,278
0
0
Not sure what the point is.

He claims retail sales are not up

LOL

And I claim I'm good looking.


By what statistical measure are we "worse than we were a year ago?" Monthly job numbers: massive loss ---> modest gain. Economic decline ---> economic growth. Manufacturing data. Retail sector data. Consumer confidence. The stock market. Basically every single major economic indicator is better than it was a year ago.

This.

Not saying it's great --- just better, on a monthly and annual basis. Except for maybe energy prices, the pressure on state and local gov'ts and the long-term jobs outlook. It's just going to take time for inventories and jobs to rebound from the 'Great Recession'. No big surprise --- welcome to Econ 101.

BEA National Income and Product Accounts Table

Census Monthly & Annual Retail Trade





--
 

Fern

Elite Member
Sep 30, 2003
26,907
174
106
By what statistical measure are we "worse than we were a year ago?" Monthly job numbers: massive loss ---> modest gain. Economic decline ---> economic growth. Manufacturing data. Retail sector data. Consumer confidence. The stock market. Basically every single major economic indicator is better than it was a year ago.
-snip-
- wolf

I believe we're worse off as regards delinquencies and foreclosures for both residential and commercial real estate loans.

However I was unable to find any data yet for the Q1 of 2010.

Fern
 
Dec 30, 2004
12,553
2
76
I believe we're worse off as regards delinquencies and foreclosures for both residential and commercial real estate loans.

However I was unable to find any data yet for the Q1 of 2010.

Fern

FACLfigure1.jpg


closest to 1q I've got
 
Dec 30, 2004
12,553
2
76
Math is undeniable is it not. My personal life has neverbeen better little debt . Thats only because We have always practiced fiscal responsiability. Our government doesn't do this its lost . Denile is a river of tears

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ML4sjhesCTA&NR=1

what's the point of fiscal responsibility if they penalize savers with low interest rates while they inflate all the debt (and your savings) away?
 

First

Lifer
Jun 3, 2002
10,518
271
136
Fact is the economy is unquestionably better in terms of total growth, jobs, wages, retail, real estate, etc. Dollar is stronger by 10%-15% across the board against the two largest other currencies in the world. All the doomsayers claiming we were headed for worse continue to be wrong. Etc.
 

Nemesis 1

Lifer
Dec 30, 2006
11,366
2
0
Its called the Rich stealing from all. Control was goal , But they lost control and now its simple matter of true Math or fictional math . I got to stay with true Math no matter what interest I am paid as long as I am fiscally responsiable for myself thats all I can do, I need $$$ for one thing and only one thing . FOOD / Shelter everthing else is irrelavent. I don't live in a $300,OOO dollar home . It wouldn't be prudent if I want a race car and other things we enjoy . So I had to live within my means . Racing sucks up a tremenddious amount of money . Banks don't lend money for race cars. So I had to use money on hand . I told you guys about Terry my cousin . The saint of the clan. Biggest dam theif I ever seen . Beutiful home cars trucks . Today he has nothing exactly what he deserves. The Prick .
 

Nemesis 1

Lifer
Dec 30, 2006
11,366
2
0
Fact is the economy is unquestionably better in terms of total growth, jobs, wages, retail, real estate, etc. Dollar is stronger by 10%-15% across the board against the two largest other currencies in the world. All the doomsayers claiming we were headed for worse continue to be wrong. Etc.

Dreamer
 

aphex

Moderator<br>All Things Apple
Moderator
Jul 19, 2001
38,572
2
91
Am i crazy or does the OP's title not make any sense?
 

Trianon

Golden Member
Jun 13, 2000
1,789
0
71
www.conkurent.com
From WSJ:

http://online.wsj.com/article_email...72303998670976-lMyQjAxMTAwMDAwODEwNDgyWj.html

The rich and famous now have something in common with hundreds of thousands of middle and lower-class Americans: The bank is about to take their homes.

Houses with loans of $5 million or more will likely see a sharp rise in foreclosures this year, according to a RealtyTrac study for The Wall Street Journal.

Just this week, a Tudor mansion in Bel-Air belonging to film star Nicolas Cage was in foreclosure auction and reverted to the lender. On Wednesday, Richard Fuscone, a former top Wall Street executive, declared personal bankruptcy, forestalling a foreclosure auction that had been scheduled this week on his 14-acre Westchester mansion. Last month a Manhattan condominium owned by Italian film producer Vittorio Cecchi Gori was sold in a foreclosure auction for $33.2 million.

In February alone, 352 homes nationwide in this category were scheduled for foreclosure auction, the final step before a bank acquisition. That is the largest monthly number of these so-called notices of sale since the financial crisis began. By comparison, in all of 2009, there were 1,312 such notices.

View Full Image
Foreclose
Gabe Palacio for The Wall Street Journal

Banks had scheduled a foreclosure auction of Richard Fuscone's Westchester County, N.Y., mansion this week. But the former top Wall Street executive declared personal bankruptcy, delaying the auction.
Foreclose
Foreclose

Economists say the super-wealthy are among the last to lose their homes in a mortgage crisis because they usually have high savings, better access to credit and other means for staving off foreclosure. But many of them work in financial services and other industries hit especially hard by the crisis, and have seen their wealth shrink in the market crash.

While the numbers are modest compared with foreclosures at other income levels, they suggest the possibility of a sudden spike in bank takeovers of the wealthiest Americans' property. Typically half the notices of sale result in homes being turned over to creditors, though the figure could be slightly lower for the richest Americans who have more financial options, according to Daren Blomquist at RealtyTrac.

Big borrowers are more likely to default than ordinary people, according to data from First American CoreLogic. Its loan database, reflecting more than 80% of the overall home-loan market, includes 1,700 loans with balances of $4 million or more. About 14.8% of those loans were 90 days or more overdue at the end of January, compared with 8.7% for all home loans tracked by First American. Sam Khater, a senior economist at First American, said the bigger borrowers may be more prone to stop making payments when they have lost all their home equity.

Mr. Fuscone, Merrill Lynch's one-time head of Latin America, put his mansion up for sale in November, asking $13.9 million. But he couldn't find a buyer.

The court had scheduled a foreclosure auction for Thursday for the 18,471-square-foot mansion—with two swimming pools, two elevators, six fireplaces, 11 bathrooms and a seven-car garage. The personal bankruptcy filed in U.S. Bankruptcy Court Wednesday temporarily freezes the foreclosure process.

Reached by phone, Mr. Fuscone declined to comment. Brokers and real estate tracking companies say that his home is one of the most expensive properties to face foreclosure proceedings yet.

The phenomenon is not limited to the New York area. Banks have taken over homes with loans of $5 million or more in Georgia, North Carolina and Colorado, RealtyTrac says.

Mr. Cage had tried to sell his 11,817-square-foot Bel-Air property for $35 million but failed to get any offers, said James Chalke, a real-estate agent who had the listing. At a foreclosure sale Wednesday, the property attracted no bids from investors and so was acquired by the foreclosing lender. Annett Wolf, a spokeswoman for Mr. Cage, said he had no comment.

A representative of Mr. Cecchi Gori, producer of more than 200 films including "Il Postino" and "Life is Beautiful," said his financial situation is improving.

In Florida's Miami-Dade County, the three largest foreclosure filings initiated against homes in the past six months involved a 4,655-square-foot home in Sunset Islands; a 8,443-square-foot house in Coral Gables; and a condo in Miami Beach, according to Peter Zalewski, a principal of Condo Vultures. All three had mortgages of $3.5 million to $4 million.
[FORECLOSEjp]

Mortgage defaults began to surge in late 2006, mostly among borrowers with subprime mortgages, those for people with weak credit records or high ratios of debt to income.

Over the next few years defaults spread rapidly to better-heeled borrowers, especially those who got loans without documenting their income. At the end of 2009, nearly eight million households, or 15% of those with mortgages, were behind on mortgage payments or in the foreclosure process.

Wealthy people have the means to stretch out the distress process, sometimes for years.

"It's very, very difficult for these people to believe they've had such a severe reversal of fortune," says Maggie Navarro, a real-estate agent in Pasadena, Calif.

Marc Carpenter, a San Diego-based foreclosure specialist, adds that while it's much harder for potential buyers to get loans, there are also fewer buyers who can pay for top-dollar properties. "The upper end is definitely a lagging indicator," he says.

In his bankruptcy filing, Mr. Fuscone provided a list of his debts, including ones to the Greenwich Country Day School, American Express, Mercedes-Benz, a local hardware store, a pet store, and Richards of Greenwich, a fine-clothing store.

"My background is in the financial-services industry and I have been personally devastated by the financial crisis which came to a head in March 2008," Mr. Fuscone said in his bankruptcy declaration. "I have been sued by Patriot National Bank" as part of a foreclosure action. "I currently have no income for the 30-day period" following his bankruptcy petition.

C.W. Kelsey, owner of Greenwich Hardware, was among the local merchants owed money by Mr. Fuscone, though he wouldn't say how much.

"Traditionally, the majority of our credit problems were contractors," he said. "Now there are people you'd never expect two or three years ago to have problems, who live in multimillion dollar homes."
 

Narmer

Diamond Member
Aug 27, 2006
5,292
0
0
By what statistical measure are we "worse than we were a year ago?" Monthly job numbers: massive loss ---> modest gain. Economic decline ---> economic growth. Manufacturing data. Retail sector data. Consumer confidence. The stock market. Basically every single major economic indicator is better than it was a year ago.

This guy is a joke. He was one of those people who, a year ago, said we were headed into economic armageddon, and now he wants to not look like a fool, so he pretends that white is black, up is down.

I can see someone arguing that the recovery we are clearly in is temporary, and that we may well have a double dip recession in our future, but to say we are worse off now than a year ago is a pure fiction meant to prop up someone's ego.

- wolf

http://www.economist.com/world/united-states/displaystory.cfm?story_id=15664078

Slow going

Mar 11th 2010 | WASHINGTON, DC
From The Economist print edition


Why is the recovery jobless? Maybe because it isn’t a recovery

IN FEBRUARY, for the twenty-fifth time in 26 months, the American economy shed jobs. The toll—a decline of 36,000—was smaller than feared for a month of severe winter weather. But it was distressing nonetheless; another bit of evidence pointing towards a jobless recovery. Most economists estimate that the recession in America ended around the close of the second quarter of 2009, the last quarter in which GDP shrank. But during the second half of last year the economy still managed to lose more than a million jobs.

One explanation for the divergence of output and employment, which started to emerge while the economy was still shrinking, is that firms are now able to wring more productivity out of their workers. Rising labour productivity is a common feature of the early stages of recovery, as employers respond to increases in demand by working staff harder and delaying new hiring. But this time round productivity figures have been well above normal. Last week the Bureau of Labour Statistics reported fourth-quarter labour-productivity growth of 6.9%, after increases of 7.6% and 7.8% in the previous two quarters. That amounts to one of the strongest nine-month productivity performances America has notched up in the post-war period.

An alternative explanation for the divergence is that the American economy simply hasn’t been doing as well as the output figures have suggested. GDP—the total market value of output produced each year—is the most commonly used indicator of the “true” state of an economy. A theoretically equivalent but less commonly-cited indicator is Gross Domestic Income, which adds up wages, profits and taxes. In practice, the two numbers often move slightly out of step with each other, and a growing body of research hints that GDI, rather than GDP, should be given more weight in computing an estimate of the economy’s true direction.

By the light of GDI, the American economy looks a bit more pallid. According to the income measure, activity slowed at a 7.3% annual rate in the fourth quarter of 2008. GDP, meanwhile, recorded a 5.4% drop. And in the third quarter of 2009 (the most recent for which income data are available), GDI continued to contract while GDP notched up the increase that led many economists to announce the end of the recession.

The picture painted by GDI throughout the downturn is one of an economy substantially weaker than indicated by GDP: one more in line with the employment data and with the experience of most Americans. But whether productivity or unexpectedly weak growth is to blame for high unemployment, there is a danger that policymakers have failed to recognise the full extent of the slack in the economy. The result may be a disappointingly slow, fragile and jobless exit from recession.