U.S. Consumer Confidence Index Rises to 2-Year High

[PaceAdvantage]

Feb. 2 (Bloomberg) -- Confidence among U.S. consumers rose to the highest in two years last month as gasoline prices eased and the job market expanded.

The Reuters/University of Michigan's final index of sentiment increased to 96.9 in January from 91.7 in December. The figure compares with a preliminary reading of 98 released on Jan. 19.

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601103&sid=a0PWX4usdTLU


Yup, the economy SUCKS! Bush BAD!

I betcha Bush's poll ratings when it comes to the economy are in the toilet as well, yet consumer confidence is at a high....how does one reconcile this apparent paradox?

[skate]

we're just gonna have to wait and find out what Sec. has in mind.:rolleyes:

or even a Hiccup;)

[boxcar]

Yup, the economy SUCKS! Bush BAD!

I betcha Bush's poll ratings when it comes to the economy are in the toilet as well, yet consumer confidence is at a high....how does one reconcile this apparent paradox?

Yup...the economy is sooooooooo very bad that my entrpreneurial wife tripled her volume of business last year from the previous year, and her sales in the first month of this year almost equalled what she did all last year.

I have advised her, though, to feign sympathy for the Doomers and Gloomers by crying on her trips to the bank.

Boxcar

[boxcar]

[QUOTE=skate]we're just gonna have to wait and find out what Sec. has in mind.:rolleyes:

You will have a very long wait.

Boxcar

[Tom]

If it would only rise as fast as our trade deficit.:bang:

I see two big thing here - one side of nay-sayers always looking for negative, and another side ignoring real negatives in favor of postiive soudn bytes.
I don't care how great the stock market gets, or consumer confidence, or whater, bottom line we have serious economic isses here that nobody is addressing. Out trade deficit is the results of years of studpidiy from the oval offices. Fast track trade agreements area constitutionally illegal - that power is the congress, yet we allow congress to illegally tranfer that power to presidents. And then without exception, every fast track deal has been bad for the US.

National savings is now essenmtially non-existent. This is a very bad thing.

We have very serious fisscal issues.

[Secretariat]

If it would only rise as fast as our trade deficit.:bang:

I see two big thing here - one side of nay-sayers always looking for negative, and another side ignoring real negatives in favor of postiive soudn bytes.
I don't care how great the stock market gets, or consumer confidence, or whater, bottom line we have serious economic isses here that nobody is addressing. Out trade deficit is the results of years of studpidiy from the oval offices. Fast track trade agreements area constitutionally illegal - that power is the congress, yet we allow congress to illegally tranfer that power to presidents. And then without exception, every fast track deal has been bad for the US.

National savings is now essenmtially non-existent. This is a very bad thing.

We have very serious fisscal issues.

Tom,

We do have some serious financial issues. Consumer Confidence is up primarily due to seasonally lower gas prices. Can't be unemployment because it just rose a tenth of a percent. Here's some news on that front.

"Factories, automotive companies, home builders and furniture makers all cut jobs last month, casualties of the housing slump and the ailing auto industry. Hotels and motels, clothing stores, and telecommunications companies also shed jobs.

"Businesses were not in the greatest hiring mood," said Joel Naroff, president of Naroff Economic Advisors.

Against this backdrop, January's unemployment rate rose from 4.5 percent in December to its highest point since September

The average time that the 7 million unemployed people spent in their job searches was 16.2 weeks in January, up from 15.9 in December.

Economists, however, predict economic growth will be slower this year, which should push up the unemployment rate to 4.9 percent from last year's rate of 4.6 percent, a six-year low. "

The DOW has been on a nice run, and the Nasdaq is trying. So if consumer Confidence is up and the budget is doing fine, why haven't GW's poll numbers come up? Because of Iraq, but also because the lower and middle class doesn't feel it's getting any gain out of this supposedly robust economy. Wages over the last six years have not kept up with inflation, the median income is still overall flat, poverty figures remain at records, the us trade and budget deficit still remains very high, and we're being asked to squander another couple hundred billion in a war most Americans think is a waste of money and life.

Sometimes a small paper gets to the heart of what a local community feels, and I put this link becasue I think it describes a lot of Americans.

http://www.coshoctontribune.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070203/OPINION01/702030320

"Personal savings must rise

Most people in America are living paycheck to paycheck.

According to a study released by the Commerce Department, the rate of personal savings fell below negative 1 percent - the lowest in 74 years. That means people are saving at the lowest rate since the Great Depression."

[Suff]

Yup, the economy SUCKS! Bush BAD!

I betcha Bush's poll ratings when it comes to the economy are in the toilet as well, yet consumer confidence is at a high....how does one reconcile this apparent paradox?

I have not seen much Economy bashing? Here anyway? I'm buying. Said as much all week.

Some fundementals are iffy, and supply side economics is risky, e.g floating currency.

The biggest indicator that should be of concern to Supply Siders is that the Euro just passed the Dollar as the most widely held.

[Tom]

Bush said that he is concerned over the discrepancy between CEO pay and worker pay, and said governement has turned its head for over 25 yeaes.
Whether you agree with this or not, one ting is certain - HE AND DADDY BUSH were in the presidency or vice for 18 of them! :lol::lol::lol:

[boxcar]

According to a study released by the Commerce Department, the rate of personal savings fell below negative 1 percent - the lowest in 74 years. That means people are saving at the lowest rate since the Great Depression."

Well, you know, Sec, I betcha that if more Americans had learned in school what it means to make a budget and live by it, more people would be saving. But they didn't learn this important life-enhancing lesson (after all it was far more important to learn how to use condoms), plus they prefer living for the moment. As such, people spend like drunken sailors, which is why personal debt is so high. Very much of this boils down to personal problems -- personal responsibility -- more than anything else.

Boxcar

[chickenhead]

have to agree with box. personal savings at all time low, flat screen tv sales at all time high. hard to blame that on the economy.

[Tom]

That certainly is a valid point, but I think, like just saying we created 1 million new jobs - more facts are needed. What was the value of those jobs? Who are buying the TVs and who are scrapping to buy food?
The economy is not bad for all nor is it food for all.

The point is, it could be VERY MUCH better is our useless governement officials - BUSH included - would do thier damn jobs.

[boxcar]

That certainly is a valid point, but I think, like just saying we created 1 million new jobs - more facts are needed. What was the value of those jobs? Who are buying the TVs and who are scrapping to buy food?
The economy is not bad for all nor is it food for all.

The point is, it could be VERY MUCH better is our useless governement officials - BUSH included - would do thier damn jobs.

They did do their jobs. Nanny Fed raised the minimum wage, don't ya know?

Boxcar

[skate]

They did do their jobs. Nanny Fed raised the minimum wage, don't ya know?

Boxcar

oh yeh! here we have sec. telling us "we can look for a n increase in unepmloyed".

timing is right-on and happens to come with a wage increase.

hey, which is fine, but i hate to hear all the crying about the rate going up.

id like a 57.60 wage minny.

[skate]

I have not seen much Economy bashing? Here anyway? I'm buying. Said as much all week.

Some fundementals are iffy, and supply side economics is risky, e.g floating currency.

The biggest indicator that should be of concern to Supply Siders is that the Euro just passed the Dollar as the most widely held.

ok, im selling.
what have you got?

[PlanB]

oh yeh! here we have sec. telling us "we can look for a n increase in unepmloyed".

timing is right-on and happens to come with a wage increase.

hey, which is fine, but i hate to hear all the crying about the rate going up.

id like a 57.60 wage minny.

What a A-Licker you've become. In spite of your every dumb post about how this economy functions--I over-looked them--but why would you align yourself with the absolutely-economic-DimWits here? Trying to be clever with a Min wage that hardly anyone in this economy manages, is just cruel. I gather that YOUR'E worth so much more than the now Minimum Wage?

[skate]

If it would only rise as fast as our trade deficit.:bang:

I see two big thing here - one side of nay-sayers always looking for negative, and another side ignoring real negatives in favor of postiive soudn bytes.
I don't care how great the stock market gets, or consumer confidence, or whater, bottom line we have serious economic isses here that nobody is addressing. Out trade deficit is the results of years of studpidiy from the oval offices. Fast track trade agreements area constitutionally illegal - that power is the congress, yet we allow congress to illegally tranfer that power to presidents. And then without exception, every fast track deal has been bad for the US.

National savings is now essenmtially non-existent. This is a very bad thing.

We have very serious fisscal issues.



gently now.
trade def. has been going down for about 3 Q's and our total worth has been going up, much faster.

we have been increasing over 3%(four years now), that 3% is on an amount over $13 trillion.
that trade def. has been going down and i believe it to be under 3% of net gdp.

a $10(per barrel) drop in oil will add about 1/2% to GDP. should continue in our favor.

Whether or not, a trade deficit is good or not, relates to the business cycle. in a strong economy, countries import more. this should help limit inflation by providing price competition, it provides goods over the ability to meet the supplies.
during a recession, it is just the opposite.

the issues you refer to are being addressed.
our growing (we lead the world, nodody is even close) resources are around $110 trillion, this generates our $13 (at least) trillion per year economy.

those figures equal a 12% yeild which compares to our interest (which is controled by the feds) near 6%.

when these bloggers show 'how fast our money is going (ie rotating, thats all)' what they do not show is the clear increase in our economy, this (if they were to chart or graph) would have to move Twice as fast.
but then who would care? it would take away the intrigue.

i , also, do not care for the market to go up or down. more money is to be made when the market goes down. it is about that time, why not, sell.

we should be looking at the facts... otherwise, we tune into the crapola.

somebody look this up , please. our increase in GDP last year and the year before and the year before, in each year, that increase is equal to the whole GDP of China.

[PlanB]

^^ so persuasive a post. ahhh, i wonder what roubini would say? hehe

[skate]

Tom,

We do have some serious financial issues. Consumer Confidence is up primarily due to seasonally lower gas prices. Can't be unemployment because it just rose a tenth of a percent. Here's some news on that front.

"Factories, automotive companies, home builders and furniture makers all cut jobs last month, casualties of the housing slump and the ailing auto industry. Hotels and motels, clothing stores, and telecommunications companies also shed jobs.

"Businesses were not in the greatest hiring mood," said Joel Naroff, president of Naroff Economic Advisors.

Against this backdrop, January's unemployment rate rose from 4.5 percent in December to its highest point since September

The average time that the 7 million unemployed people spent in their job searches was 16.2 weeks in January, up from 15.9 in December.

Economists, however, predict economic growth will be slower this year, which should push up the unemployment rate to 4.9 percent from last year's rate of 4.6 percent, a six-year low. "

The DOW has been on a nice run, and the Nasdaq is trying. So if consumer Confidence is up and the budget is doing fine, why haven't GW's poll numbers come up? Because of Iraq, but also because the lower and middle class doesn't feel it's getting any gain out of this supposedly robust economy. Wages over the last six years have not kept up with inflation, the median income is still overall flat, poverty figures remain at records, the us trade and budget deficit still remains very high, and we're being asked to squander another couple hundred billion in a war most Americans think is a waste of money and life.

Sometimes a small paper gets to the heart of what a local community feels, and I put this link becasue I think it describes a lot of Americans.

http://www.coshoctontribune.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070203/OPINION01/702030320

"Personal savings must rise

Most people in America are living paycheck to paycheck.

According to a study released by the Commerce Department, the rate of personal savings fell below negative 1 percent - the lowest in 74 years. That means people are saving at the lowest rate since the Great Depression."

nope. what your last post says is "people are NOT saving".
they're hinting, debt.;)

[PlanB]

Good Night all. Skate has more 20 page quotes & 1 paragraph retorts ready. Have Fun, fellow cappers.

[skate]

Tom,

We do have some serious financial issues. Consumer Confidence is up primarily due to seasonally lower gas prices. Can't be unemployment because it just rose a tenth of a percent. Here's some news on that front.

"Factories, automotive companies, home builders and furniture makers all cut jobs last month, casualties of the housing slump and the ailing auto industry. Hotels and motels, clothing stores, and telecommunications companies also shed jobs.

"Businesses were not in the greatest hiring mood," said Joel Naroff, president of Naroff Economic Advisors.

Against this backdrop, January's unemployment rate rose from 4.5 percent in December to its highest point since September

The average time that the 7 million unemployed people spent in their job searches was 16.2 weeks in January, up from 15.9 in December.

Economists, however, predict economic growth will be slower this year, which should push up the unemployment rate to 4.9 percent from last year's rate of 4.6 percent, a six-year low. "

The DOW has been on a nice run, and the Nasdaq is trying. So if consumer Confidence is up and the budget is doing fine, why haven't GW's poll numbers come up? Because of Iraq, but also because the lower and middle class doesn't feel it's getting any gain out of this supposedly robust economy. Wages over the last six years have not kept up with inflation, the median income is still overall flat, poverty figures remain at records, the us trade and budget deficit still remains very high, and we're being asked to squander another couple hundred billion in a war most Americans think is a waste of money and life.

Sometimes a small paper gets to the heart of what a local community feels, and I put this link becasue I think it describes a lot of Americans.

http://www.coshoctontribune.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070203/OPINION01/702030320

"Personal savings must rise

Most people in America are living paycheck to paycheck.

According to a study released by the Commerce Department, the rate of personal savings fell below negative 1 percent - the lowest in 74 years. That means people are saving at the lowest rate since the Great Depression."


oh, indubitably!
meanwhile, back at the ranch, notice that 2006 was without recession.
2006 follows the recessions from 2003, 2004, 2005, which also never occured.

good griffers, im still shuddering from the press (your) and economist (nobles at that) warnings in each and every year.

[PaceAdvantage]

Good Night all. Skate has more 20 page quotes & 1 paragraph retorts ready. Have Fun, fellow cappers.

Your transformation has been nothing short of amazing.

[PaceAdvantage]

The DOW has been on a nice run, and the Nasdaq is trying. So if consumer Confidence is up and the budget is doing fine, why haven't GW's poll numbers come up? Because of Iraq, but also because the lower and middle class doesn't feel it's getting any gain out of this supposedly robust economy.

Then this begs a VERY interesting question. WHO EXACTLY IS BEING POLLED when it comes to "Bush" confidence numbers, and WHO EXACTLY IS BEING POLLED when it comes to CONSUMER CONFIDENCE numbers?

You read many polls, I suspect. How are Bush's numbers when it comes to the ECONOMY only? Do they provide breakdown's like this in terms of the economy, foreign relations, etc.?

I need to reconcile these two divergent sets of polls (Bush opinion polls and consumer confidence polls). This doesn't make sense. But if I can get to the bottom of it, it may explain a LOT!

[wonatthewire1]

<<WHO EXACTLY IS BEING POLLED when it comes to CONSUMER CONFIDENCE numbers?>>

Consumer confidence numbers are usually done by the University of Michigan. You could probably ask them about their polling procedures. Excellent graduate business school BTW.

Gas prices coming down would be a good reason for the higher numbers; nobody is talking about the prices coming down but plenty were when they were going up. Since I live in SUVille where none are needed; gas prices were a big discussion issue over the summer.

Winter clothing is sitting in the stores and discounted heavily though the recent cold spell here might clear them out.

You raised a good question about polls in general as to who is getting those calls! We have never had a listed phone number; so I'm not a good candidate for calling anyway.

As for how other people are doing; I do know quite a few co-workers who are living paycheck to paycheck; but they are living well beyond their means in an expensive state. A little adjusting to their economic reality would do them some good and aid their ability to save.

[Bala]

.......Commerce Department, the rate of personal savings fell below negative 1 percent - the lowest in 74 years. That means people are saving at the lowest rate since the Great Depression." Sec, this lie is repeated Ad nauseam.

Mutual funds are at record levels of cash. Same for bond, index and hedge funds. State and city pensions funds are awash in a torrent of capital. Home ownership is at an astonishing 65% of total population. We {USA} truly are the envy of the world. {and the American left}

Where do you think all this money comes from? Americans save for what they want. More details at the Federal Reserve web site.



_________________________________________
“Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery.” ~ Winston Churchill

“Envy is the art of counting the other fellow's blessings instead of your own.” ~ Harold Coffin

“You can't be envious and happy at the same time” ~ Frank Tyger

[Secretariat]

Sec, this lie is repeated Ad nauseam.

Mutual funds are at record levels of cash. Same for bond, index and hedge funds. State and city pensions funds are awash in a torrent of capital. Home ownership is at an astonishing 65% of total population. We {USA} truly are the envy of the world. {and the American left}

[font=Verdana, sans-serif][size=2]Where do you think all this money comes

In the case of home ownership - from a LOT of debt, mortgaging, not saving. That's one reason foreclosures continue to rise and hit records recently.

In the case of mutual funds, and bond, index and hedge funds these are not the tools of the lower middle class and working poor. If you check the wage stagnation over the last six years, the loss of good paying manufacturing jobs and the record-settign poverty figrues from the Bureau of Labor and Statistics, you'd realize that whiel some are doing better than a few years ago, you'd realize most from those brackets are living pay check to pay check, and many are living with no savings and on credit cards. For some ,they're one hospital trip away from bankruptcy.

I say this because the division between rich and poor keeps expanding. This is not a healthy thing for our economy.

Here's an excellent recent article that illsutrates why GW's numbers do not rise.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/01/26/AR2006012602151_pf.html

Separation Between Rich, Poor Widening in D.C., Study Finds

By D'Vera Cohn
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, January 27, 2006; B08

The gap between the city's richest and poorest families has continued to widen since 2000, as incomes at the top soared and those at the bottom barely budged, according to a report based on census data.

The District fits into a national pattern of widening inequality over the past two decades that was briefly interrupted by the booming economy of the late 1990s, according to the report released yesterday by two think tanks, the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities and the Economic Policy Institute. The gap also grew in Maryland and Virginia, the report said.

In the District, the richest families had incomes 12 times higher than the poorest ones early this decade, compared with seven times higher in the troubled economy of the early 1980s. The major reason for the widening gap: The highest incomes are growing more sharply than the lowest ones. Incomes at the top fifth rose 81 percent during those two decades, to an average of $157,700. Those at the bottom went up 3 percent, to an average of $12,700.

...

btw...why would Bush's Commerce Department lie?

[Bala]

.....why would Bush's Commerce Department lie? The Commerce Dept. lie by presenting an incomplete and inaccurate picture with their numbers.

Bob Brinker address this : http://rope.kgoam810.com/archive/kgo14.asx
Windows Media Player file. Starts right after the news. Link good for the next 24 hours only.

The working poor have access to free medical care and free trade schools. Also, higher education. In other words, the poor have the same access to opportunity as anyone else. Good paying jobs are directly correlated to your educational level.

[chickenhead]

that is actually one of the flaws about the savings rate, or something that should be known at least. We all know that the majority of wealth for most families is created by their home, i.e. a very highly leveraged position.

BUT, none of that equity is counted in the savings #'s. So while housing prices boomed, and people built up say $200K in equity over the last ~5 years or so around here, none of that is counted in that number. But of course that $200K does influence how much money people want to save, much less than if the equity did not exist.

[GameTheory]

Plus investment is much much higher, and is essentially the new savings. I could save my money at a half-percent interest if I wanted, but the very least I'm going to do with it is put it in a money-market or something that gets at least 5%.

Where do these numbers come from anyway? I haven't had a job since 2001 -- am I unemployed even though my income has gone up every year since then?

[Secretariat]

that is actually one of the flaws about the savings rate, or something that should be known at least. We all know that the majority of wealth for most families is created by their home, i.e. a very highly leveraged position.

BUT, none of that equity is counted in the savings #'s. So while housing prices boomed, and people built up say $200K in equity over the last ~5 years or so around here, none of that is counted in that number. But of course that $200K does influence how much money people want to save, much less than if the equity did not exist.

The problem with your assertion is it does not factor indebtedness into the equation ,and the interest necessary to pay off the equity.

[Secretariat]

The working poor have access to free medical care and free trade schools. Also, higher education. In other words, the poor have the same access to opportunity as anyone else. Good paying jobs are directly correlated to your educational level.

If this is the case why does the fiscal gap continue to widen as is evident in the DC study. Are people that much lazier or that much stupider than they were 10-20-30 years ago?

[Secretariat]

Motley Fool

‘….the trend is unmistakable. The national savings rate has been steadily declining, and many other measures of our preparedness for retirement don't look good. Survey upon survey shows that we fail to save enough money in our retirement accounts, we're carrying massive amounts of credit card debt, and we're drawing on our home equity at a furious rate.’

http://www.fool.com/personal-finance/retirement/2007/01/17/our-national-savings-rate-is-embarrassing.aspx

Quick! Guess what our national savings rate is these days. You might know that we're often advised to put aside 10% or more of our income each year, to build a nest egg for retirement. And you might (correctly) assume that on average, Americans don't save nearly that much. But just how badly are we doing? Well, consider these historical numbers for the U.S. personal savings rate:

 1984: 10.8%
 2001: 1.8%
 2003: 1.4%

Do you see a troubling trend? So do I. Care to guess where we landed in 2005?

 2005: (0.5%)

That's right -- negative savings!
Is that unprecedented? Well, not exactly. We hit negative levels for two years -- during the Great Depression.

…

http://www.finanznachrichten.de/nachrichten-2007-02/artikel-7683210.asp

MetLife Believes Negative Savings Rate is a Bellwether for the Future of the American Dream

MetLife, (Nachrichten) a leading insurance and financial services company, believes today's announcement by the Commerce Department about the negative U.S. savings rate, which is at its lowest level in 70 years, is a bellwether for the future of the American dream. The lack of savings, combined with the seismic shifts that have occurred in our society in the last few decades with regard to pensions, Social Security and health care, are increasingly putting the dream out of reach for most Americans. For the first time since the Great Depression, many individuals will need to fund and finance the risks that had previously been managed, in large part, by the government or their employer. Today, individuals are feeling a tremendous amount of stress at having to manage their financial futures.

A new study commissioned by MetLife -- The MetLife Study of the American Dream -- reveals that 60% of working Americans feel they carry more financial burdens than their parents did, and the overwhelming majority feel this burden will continue to grow for future generations.

...

Is it any wonder they're not voting for Bush. MetLife knows.

[lsbets]

Sec is a shining example of the dangers of the informatin age. Google a few keywords and find some quotes you don't understand and you too can think you're an expert on anything and everything, while actually knowing and understanding next to nothing.

[chickenhead]

The problem with your assertion is it does not factor indebtedness into the equation ,and the interest necessary to pay off the equity.

Sure it does factor in the indebtedness, i.e. the mortgage. The primary reason that buying a house has traditionally been a good investment is precisely the fact that it is a highly leveraged position. In fact it is the only leveraged investment most of us ever make. You know all of that though, right? Are there some problems with the subprime market...yes...people buying more house than they should have...yes. And? What exactly?

I think the problem Sec..is when you argue things, you often argue from conclusions backwards. I agree that our savings rate should be higher. I agree that our economy has some structural issues that need to be dealt with. But I firmly disagree that our savings rate is a prime example of any of those problems. Or that a mortgage is a bad thing. Or whatever your point is.

[Secretariat]

Sure it does factor in the indebtedness, i.e. the mortgage. The primary reason that buying a house has traditionally been a good investment is precisely the fact that it is a highly leveraged position. In fact it is the only leveraged investment most of us ever make. You know all of that though, right? Are there some problems with the subprime market...yes...people buying more house than they should have...yes. And? What exactly?

I think the problem Sec..is when you argue things, you often argue from conclusions backwards. I agree that our savings rate should be higher. I agree that our economy has some structural issues that need to be dealt with. But I firmly disagree that our savings rate is a prime example of any of those problems. Or that a mortgage is a bad thing. Or whatever your point is.

It's not me arguing here in the above, but MetLife and the Motley fool article.

"Survey upon survey shows that we fail to save enough money in our retirement accounts, we're carrying massive amounts of credit card debt, and we're drawing on our home equity at a furious rate."

If you buy a home on credit, (mortgage, indebtedness), and cannot afford to pay for it, it is not your home, and it wil lbe foreclosed (which are at record rates). The Metlife illustrates that the safety net of retirement approaches is making the American Dream of retirement more and more out of reach for most Americans. Both articles talk about the dangers of having the lowest savings since the Great Depression. The argument made here that there are more funds, stocks, 401K etc, are good things, but they don't come close to making up for what most Americans are going to be facing.

I think we agree that this trend towards less and less personal savings is not a good thing (although some seem to advocate it means nothing here), obviously MetLife and the other article I posted disagrees. As to housing, I think housing and mortagages are great investments, but when peopel obtain a mortage, and cannot pay it, it is not an investment, but an invitation to foreclosure w/o savings behind it.

[chickenhead]

and this has what to do with George Bush, is my point? I don't see Met Life or Motley Fool say anything about our economy. They are saying that people are not being very prudent.

The reason you could point to the Great Depression and say that the reduction in savings at that time was influenced by the economy is because the economy retracted. COnsumer spending was down, way down, during the Depression. That is more or less what a Depression is. Consumer spending is not down. The economy is not in a retraction. The economy is expanding. The economy is not putting downward pressure on savings.

Quite simply, people are choosing to spend money rather than save it (to a large degree). And I tend to agree with Boxcar, that the primary reason for this, is that the idea of living well within one's means has gotten to be a bit of a foreign concept. I brought up home equity, and GT brought up investments, only to show that there have been some structural shifts over time that would naturally make that number lower. Any honest accounting should mention that fact. But, I also think savings are actually down. People have counted more and more on capital appreciation on smaller savings, rather than actual savings, to feed retirement.

I think these consumer spending habits and saving habits pose a bit of a threat to the economy, rather than exist as an effect of the economy.

[GameTheory]

If this is the case why does the fiscal gap continue to widen as is evident in the DC study. Are people that much lazier or that much stupider than they were 10-20-30 years ago?Why do you always focus on the gap? If I'm making 50K and doing ok, and some guy somewhere gets richer by 10 million dollars, thereby widening the gap, it doesn't make me any poorer. The gap doesn't tell you anything about the level the people at the bottom are actually at. The gap means nothing. It is the actual standard of living that is important.

This is a well-studied psychological flaw in humans -- in most cases they would like to bring down those at the top rather than raise themselves up. Some people will work against their own self-interest no matter what opportunities they have because they are committed to seeing themselves as victims. When you take opportunities to improve yourself, you have to make the leap that you are responsible for your own life. That is a big leap for a lot of people, and they just aren't going to make it. It is contrary to all the stories they tell themselves about why their life sucks (or why they think it sucks). If you give the average non-rich person a million dollars, they will be right back to whatever economic level they started at within a year. This happens with something like 90% of lottery winners...

[chickenhead]

I just did my taxes...GT mentioned that maybe a cut in taxes would help with savings. I'm not a wealthy person, not quite 30, can't afford to buy a house yet, and I do save 10% or better of my money. I just tallied em up, my total state and fed tax payments this year were $24,000. That is a significant nut!

[GameTheory]

Savings is not a good deal nowadays. Savings isn't savings if it isn't making enough interest to maintain the same buying power over time. If you put your money in savings these days and leave it there, YOU ARE LOSING MONEY because you are losing buying power.

Please read this about the fallacy of the savings rate:

http://www.nationalreview.com/nrof_comment/tamny200412230932.asp

[chickenhead]

are ING Direct and the like considered savings? I think they would be...I get 5.05% through a no fee savings account right now. They're not all bad, just most of them.

[GameTheory]

are ING Direct and the like considered savings? I think they would be...I get 5.05% through a no fee savings account right now. They're not all bad, just most of them.I think it depends on the classification of the account. What a normal person considers savings is only considered savings by the government some of the time.

Like I was saying, for all I know the government considers me unemployed...

[GameTheory]

One of the orange ING accounts? Yeah, those are FDIC-insured savings, so that counts. Congrats, you're part of a statistic!

[chickenhead]

:jump:

I actually use Emigrant Direct, they're a little better than ING.

[Secretariat]

Why do you always focus on the gap? If I'm making 50K and doing ok, and some guy somewhere gets richer by 10 million dollars, thereby widening the gap, it doesn't make me any poorer. The gap doesn't tell you anything about the level the people at the bottom are actually at. The gap means nothing. It is the actual standard of living that is important.


Obviously, you didn't read the DC link study I put up. We're not talking people making 50K. We're talking about a widening gap that is leaving more and more people in poverty. Suggest you go back and look at my lin kto the DC article, and check out the poverty figures with the Bureau of Labor and Statistics.

[GameTheory]

Obviously, you didn't read the DC link study I put up. We're not talking people making 50K. We're talking about a widening gap that is leaving more and more people in poverty. Suggest you go back and look at my lin kto the DC article, and check out the poverty figures with the Bureau of Labor and Statistics.Obviously, you don't comprehend anything at all. I gave an example. I could have used any figure instead of 50k. 100k or 0.0002K, it doesn't matter -- the point is the same. The point is the gap doesn't tell you anything about standard of living; it tells you about a gap. The gap could be high and the people on the bottom could be doing well, and there could be a small gap and the people on the bottom doing badly. If we aren't talking about people making 50K, then let's talk about what they are making rather than how what they are making compares to someone else...

[Secretariat]

and this has what to do with George Bush, is my point? I don't see Met Life or Motley Fool say anything about our economy. They are saying that people are not being very prudent.

Of course they're saying people aren't being prudent. Why aren't they being prudent? Because most are living paycheck to paycheck w/o the abiltiy to sav long term for retirement which is what MetLife is pointing up. That the safety nets of Social Security and Medicare may not be there.

The Fed Chief Bernanke recently stated "the impact can be softened if private savings rise and the federal deficit, which the CBO estimates was $260 billion in fiscal 2006, is cut. The savings rate has been negative in recent months, while the United States is borrowing heavily from overseas to cover its budget deficits."

But Bernanke admitted that economists had found "no silver bullet" to boost household savings.

So if there is no silver bullet, and the Bush administration continues vast expenditures for war, he is talking about massive cuts to Soc. Security, AND severe premium raises for Medicare which he's already proposed. In other words senious will be paying more for Medicre while getting less in terms of Soc. Security. Add in that LESS personal savings are available, and more taxpapyer moeny is goign to a useless war, and more money is being borrowed from China for deficits, and this has a LOT to do with Geroge Bush. his war policies and profligate spending have contributed to the mess, not helped alleviate it. There has been much less personal savings during his reign, bigger deficits, more foreign borrowing ,more weakening of the US dollar, and higher indebtedness.

"But just like the massive deficits that we are accumulating on a federal level, no one seems to care about our personal deficits. Businesses want consumers to 'keep spending' and are willing to extend credit to just about anyone who can fog a mirror. While the borrow and spend is great for the economy in the short run, eventually consumers are going to have to pay up or declare bankruptcy. This lack of savings will eventually be reflected in a slower U.S. economy and a loss in the value of the U.S. dollar.

We are not alone in our calls for a weakening dollar. BNP Paribas SA, Deutsche Bank AG, and Standard Chartered PLC are sticking to forecasts that the dollar will weaken versus the euro by March 31. The have held their view even after the U.S. currency strengthened during the month of January. Deutsche Bank, Germany's biggest bank, predicts a dollar decline to $1.33 to the euro by the end of March. BNP, the biggest French bank, says the dollar will fall to $1.35. Standard Chartered predicts the dollar will drop to a record $1.38. These banks all share our view that the dollar is in a multiyear downtrend.

In yesterday's currency roundup, Chuck pointed out that the Indian rupee continues to slowly appreciate versus the U.S. dollar. Foreign direct investment will continue to protect the rupee's gains. Demand for the rupee will prevent the country's current-account deficit from widening. Many are predicting the rupee will reach 44 per dollar by the end of March and 43 by year-end. India's currency is among the top-ten performers in the world so far this year. The rupee will also benefit from India's credit rating upgrade this week from S&P who raised the ratings to BBB-, the lowest investment grade, on January 30. Gains in the rupee were curtailed at 1.8% last year as the government limited debt investment by foreigners, so we could see further government action if the rupee appreciates too rapidly."

[chickenhead]

Of course they're saying people aren't being prudent. Why aren't they being prudent? Because most are living paycheck to paycheck w/o the abiltiy to sav long term for retirement which is what MetLife is pointing up.

You have no basis for this. Consumer spending is UP. People are spending record amounts of money on techno gadgets, apparel, entertainment, dining out, hotel stays, etc.

A lot of people are living paycheck to paycheck. And a lot of those people are doing so by choice. In fact, most all economic indicators seem to indicate that. They are not unable to save enough for retirement, they are unwilling to save enough for retirement. And why not? Whoever said delayed gratification is fun? It's as much a cultural issue as anything.

You are trying to twist the data to support your view, rather than basing your view on what the data says. I mentioned that earlier, and that is my problem with you. You just grab stuff and assume it supports your position.

[GameTheory]

You just grab stuff and assume it supports your position.No he doesn't. He knows full well what the data suggests. He just grabs stuff and lies about it. No manipulation, misrespresentation, selective reporting, or willful omission is too egregious for him -- anyway anyhow he can get anything to appear to support his position and he will do it.

What he and others like him don't seem to realize is that their tactics are so obvious it reveals their position as weak, possibly even weaker than it actually is. All the evidence we need that he has no case can be found by the fact that he feels the need to lie constantly in order to make that case. If the truth was good enough, you'd have to assume he'd use it...

[Secretariat]

You have no basis for this. Consumer spending is UP. People are spending record amounts of money on techno gadgets, apparel, entertainment, dining out, hotel stays, etc.


Because consumer spending doesn't mean that wages have grown over inflation the last six years. It means people are going more in debt becasue they want things.

I posted the DC article and I hope you look at it.

Let me ask you something as opposed to me always having to reply?

1. Why have poverty figures jumped so over the last six years?

2. Why have deficits been so large over the last six years?

3. Why has the median wage not kept up with inflation over the last six years?

4. Why are foreclosures at a record high?

5. Why did this administration have to change the bankruptcy laws?

6. Why are our personal savings rate the lowest since the depression? Remember 401K plans and retirement options have been avalaible thorughto the 80's as well as today. And why would Bernake be worried about this factor?

7. Why is CEO pay now thousands of times more than average workers when in 1970 is was about 40 times? Why woudl even GW Bush make a speech addressing his concerns about this?

I could go on and on. Instead, we're told gadgets are up. So what? People buy gadgets because they are marketed to and it makes them less depressed to have things along the way. It doesn't translate into them doing better if they increase their indebtedness.

I'd appreciate if you could address a few of the questions I've posed.

GT feel free to join in rather than whining.

[GameTheory]

I'd appreciate if you could address a few of the questions I've posed.

GT feel free to join in rather than whining.Is there some point in trying to engage you with actual ideas? You list all these questions and yet you've ignored or dodged every question put to you...ever, as far as I can tell.

[chickenhead]

Because consumer spending doesn't mean that wages have grown over inflation the last six years. It means people are going more in debt becasue they want things.

I posted the DC article and I hope you look at it.

Let me ask you something as opposed to me always having to reply?

1. Why have poverty figures jumped so over the last six years?


Lets do just number 1. See attached for the graph:

http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/poverty/povertyrate.html

Take a look at the poverty rate, and explain to me the crisis in the poverty rate that is just not there. Explain to me how it "jumped so" over the last 6 years. I see an extremely minor uptick, which of course came on the heels of 9-11 and the stock market bubble. You honestly look at that graph and see doom and gloom? It is historically extremely low. Right?

[chickenhead]

1. Why have poverty figures jumped so over the last six years?
It hasn't

2. Why have deficits been so large over the last six years?
Fiscal Irresponsibility

3. Why has the median wage not kept up with inflation over the last six years?

30 million illegal immigrants.

4. Why are foreclosures at a record high?

Rampant real estate speculation by people who couldn't afford it.

5. Why did this administration have to change the bankruptcy laws?

I have no idea. They had to?

6. Enough with that.

7. Why is CEO pay now thousands of times more than average workers when in 1970 is was about 40 times? Why woudl even GW Bush make a speech addressing his concerns about this?

Because CEO's are making a lot more than they used to. And?

I could go on and on.

I've noticed.

[GameTheory]

Another flawed stat -- poverty.

I have an aunt that has been living below the poverty line for probably 20 years...in her 2-story 3-bedroom suburban house in a crime-free neighborhood with nice furniture, cable tv, internet, car, quality health insurance, life insurance, retirement plan w/ long-term health care lined up, investments, money in the bank, and her own business.

[chickenhead]

is she single?

[Secretariat]

Lets do just number 1. See attached for the graph:

http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/poverty/povertyrate.html

Take a look at the poverty rate, and explain to me the crisis in the poverty rate that is just not there. Explain to me how it "jumped so" over the last 6 years. I see an extremely minor uptick, which of course came on the heels of 9-11 and the stock market bubble. You honestly look at that graph and see doom and gloom? It is historically extremely low. Right?

The graph reveals a LOT!!! Thank you for posting it to buttress my argument.

The graph shows that "despite a recession", and recovery and now a supposedly booming economy - poverty is dramatically increasing (REMEMBER these figures are in millions on this chart - don't be fooled by the small slope, if it was in thousands it'd be a much more precipitous slope indeed). Now, look at your graph from 2000 onward!!!

"Number of People Living in Poverty Increased by 5.4 Million Since 2000. Since 2000, the number of people in poverty has increased by 5.4 million and the poverty rate is up by 1.3 percentage points. [U.S. Census Bureau, 8/29/06; Table B-1; Center for American Progress 8/29/06]

Number of Americans Living in Extreme Poverty Increased by 3.3 Million During the Bush Administration. The percentage of Americans living in extreme poverty, with incomes less than 50 percent of the poverty line, was the highest on record (43 percent). The number of Americans living in extreme poverty - 15.9 million - has grown by 3.3 million since 2000, and is now at its highest level since 1993. Census data also show a trend of deepening poverty among those who are poor. [Center for
American Progress 8/29/06; CBPP 9/1/06]"

Increases of 5.4 Milllion since 2000 and 3.3 Million in Extreme Poverty illustrate dramatically that the poor are NOT benefitting from this economy.

Good post. Thanks for the graph.

[chickenhead]

you really are that dishonest, aren't you.

You completely ignore the percentage of people living in poverty, which as the graph clearly shows has upticked only very slightly, back to mid 90's levels, and now jumped over to raw numbers of people, completely ignoring the fact that the population continues to grow every year, and as such, if nothing changes, every year would be a new record of # of people in poverty.

I'm done talking with you. You are a fool.

[skate]

oh i get a good laugh:lol: , thanks.



assets minus debts= networth, which are up 24% since 2002. not bad.

i have to think thatg 'sec. and company' just do not take the time to look outside from "the window-of-negatories".

and i guess it is that negative-news that sells.

IMO, the accounting system at work, just does not give a "true account".
about 20 or 30 items need adjusting before we can judge savings, worth or income.

take for example, retires, their income was recognized long ago and maybe they saved some, and now that they are spending, it is called spending, of which they get no savings.

401/IRAs, when spent, are a negative savings.

The term "RATE" alone has a built in question, if you want fairness. what is the rate against? i mean, if we make less now, then the rate would be higher, but of coarse we make $Trillions more now than we made in 1983, so , the rate could very well be lower, but the actual savings would be higher.

another ex.
you buy a stock for $50, that's saving.
you sell the stock for $150, you have a $100 gain, you buy a toaster, this gain is not a savings.

oh, many reason for overreacting when they report "savins RATE down":

then you have to ask, as others have on this post, what would be the reason to save? when interest rate is so low.

[Secretariat]

you really are that dishonest, aren't you.

You completely ignore the percentage of people living in poverty, which as the graph clearly shows has upticked only very slightly, back to mid 90's levels, and now jumped over to raw numbers of people, completely ignoring the fact that the population continues to grow every year, and as such, if nothing changes, every year would be a new record of # of people in poverty.

I'm done talking with you. You are a fool.

You are using a graph based on millions of people and saying a 5.4 million increase in poverty AND a 1.3% percetile increase since 2000 is "upticked only slightly?" coming OUT of a recession.

Coming out of a recession into boom times should mean LESS poverty, not more!

[chickenhead]

Coming out of a recession into boom times should mean LESS poverty, not more!

PEAK POVERY RATES BY DECADE

60's: 22,2%
70's: 12.6%
80's: 15.2%
90's: 15.1%
00's: 12.7%

Mr. Secretariat, based on observable history, as shown above, would you describe the 12.7% peak poverty rate of this decade as better than average, or worse than average?

Ok, I'll help, the average peak poverty rate of the the 60's through the 90's was 16.27% Is 12.7% above or below 16.2%??

What is the average rate over the 10 years prior to 2000? 13.6%

What is the average rate over the period 2000-2006?
12.15%

Mr. Secretariat, based on observable history, as shown above, would you describe the 12.15% average poverty rate of 2000-2006 as better than the preceding 10 years, or worse than the preceding 10 years?

In summary: You are a fool, or a blind partisan, to use this number for the justification you are looking for. How many ways can you be obviously wrong before you just admit it?

Just say: Wow, I guess I was wrong.

[Tom]

Nacny Pelosi just got her big jet for personal use - who many families on the brink are in poveraty now, thanks to the ego of this BITCH?



Oh, Sec....how does this affect Global Warming:eek:

And I thought Hllary was the biggest WHORE on the HILL!

[lsbets]

There you go again Chickenhead, trying to use facts and logic when arguing with someone who is not equipped to deal with either one.

[Secretariat]

Mr. Secretariat, based on observable history, as shown above, would you describe the 12.15% average poverty rate of 2000-2006 as better than the preceding 10 years, or worse than the preceding 10 years?



What I care is 5.4 million more people have joined the poverty roles since GW took office. That is an increae of 1.4%.

This thread began about an "improving economy" and consumer confidence.

My contention has been that if you are moving out of recession where there is to be expected more poverty than in a recovery, and on to what is described as a growing economy you would extraploate a reduction in poverty. Instead BOTH the rate and the numbers have increased. In fact poverty has not gone down AT ALL during the Bush regime.

This is 5.4 million more in poverty. That is a 1.4% increase. This is why when polls on GW are measured he gets no bump from the economy. Wall Street is doing fine. It's main street that is feeling the hurt.

[GameTheory]

The povery rate is determined by an income threshold. When the economy grows, this threshold rises "plunging" those on the border under the line. It doesn't really mean anything at such a small increase. (Except that Sec will tell another lie, but pretty much any event will cause that.) Unemployment also tends to go up temporarily when the economy grows because more people enter the labor force (people looking for a job), but until they find one they are considered unemployed. So a growing economy actually causes a slight increase in these negative stats temporarily -- there is a lag until they catch up.

And when you consider the hit the economy took after Sept 11th, it is... well, what else, dishonest (to say the least) to be acting like a 1.4% increase is actually a negative. And then when you also consider it has not risen since 2004 (2006 stats not in yet), I don't know what you're complaining about. It is rather a good sign in reality. On top of that, pretty much no expert person (on any side) thinks that the decades old official formula for computing poverty is much of a measure of anything at all. The census bureau itself admits as much and has alternate measures that put "real" poverty at anywhere from 8% to 19%. These are just stats -- playing around with numbers and moving thresholds around doesn't make people richer or poorer or live better or worse. Just more Sec BS!

[chickenhead]

The thing that I think is interesting, is that basically using Secretariats standards there has only been one good economic year in the history of our country. If the poverty rate is not at an all time low, then by definition it is a bad year. So just so everyone knows, 1973 was our last and only good year, with the poverty rate at 11.1%.

All of the Nineties were terrible too, absolutely terrible economic years (much worse than this decade). I know it seems like some of them were good, but if you think so you're just wrong. They were terrible. It doesn't matter if average and median net worth soared. Forget about that.

In fact, the 70's were the only good economic years our country has ever had, in it's whole history. According to Sec.

[Secretariat]

Some more on the poverty rate and median wage:

http://cbs4.com/topstories/local_story_055141357.html


Severe Poverty At Its Highest Level In America
US Corporate Profits At Highest Levels, Too
Feb 24, 2007

(CBS4) WASHINGTON The percentage of poor Americans who are living in severe poverty is the highest in thirty years, in which millions of working Americans are falling closer to the poverty line, and the gulf between this country’s ''haves'' and ''have-nots'' gets wider.

The McClatchy Company - owners of the Miami Herald – a CBS4 news partner - went through an analysis of 2005 census figures, the latest available, and found that nearly 16 million Americans are living in deep or severe poverty.

A family of four, with two children and an annual income of less than $9,903 -- half the federal poverty line -- was considered severely poor in 2005. So were individuals who made less than $5,080 a year.

At the same time, economists found worker productivity increasing sizeably since the brief recession of 2001, but wages and job growth have lagged behind. The share of national income going to corporate profits has dwarfed the amount going to wages and salaries. Median household income of working-age families, adjusted for inflation, has fallen for five straight years.

......

"The test of a civilization is in the way it cares for its helpless members."
- Pearl S. Buck

[Tom]

At least you have found a cure for poverty - getting paid to post these things on BB's! ;)

[JustRalph]

At least you have found a cure for poverty - getting paid to post these things on BB's! ;)

:lol: