This isn't a recovery it is a cover-up

Despite the Administrations claims that we are in a recovery evidence from October has shown differently.

Mortgage applications are at a 12 year low...how can there possibly be a recovery in the Housing Sector if less consumers are buying houses?

http://www.businessinsider.com/mortage-applications-fall-to-12-year-low-2009-11

Maybe because the banks are committing fraud.

http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2009/11/bank-of-america-foreclosure-shenanigans.html

Housing starts are down 11%

The homeowner credit evidently did a good job of pushing demand forward. Giant drop in October.

http://www.businessinsider.com/housing-starts-rise-4-2009-11

Inflation is heating up.

http://www.businessinsider.com/cpi-3-2009-11

Businesses holding more cash

"In a series of supplementary questions (see Supplemental Reports tab), respondents were asked about their cash holdings and debt financing. More than 40 percent of manufacturers expected cash holdings to increase over the next year, while 24 percent expected them to decline—in sharp contrast to results from an identical survey conducted a year ago, when more manufacturers had expected cash holdings to decline than to rise. Respondents were also asked about expected changes in their outstanding debt; in the current survey, 39 percent of manufacturers said that they anticipated declines, while just 16 percent expected increases—again, a noteworthy change from last year’s survey, when nearly as many respondents had anticipated increases as decreases in debt. In response to a related question on current cash holdings, 34 percent of firms said that they were currently holding higher than usual (excess) cash balances, up from 20 percent in the November 2008 survey."

GDP in the third quarter largely attributable to Cash for Clunkers and Stimulus spending on infrastructure. Private sector expansion actually declined in 2009.


This isn't a recovery it is a cover-up.

banks are still failing...

There are warnings about a tanking commercial RE market

Companies are still failing, and still shedding jobs

It's a thinly-veiled cover up, IMO.

Construction of buildings with five or more dwelling units in them was down a lot.

Single-family housing is still bumping along the bottom -- pretty much unchanged.

and people are building houses?

For completions, without seasonal adjustments (which would compare with mortgages)

                     total    single   2-4    5+
September 2009        64.7      43.4   1.6    19.7
October 2009          66.8      49.0   1.0    16.8

So completions of single-family houses went up, while completions of Multiple Dwelling units went down.

But I believe that the volue of home-sale mortgages includes more sales of existing homes than sales of new homes. Plus, sales would be differnt than inventory, since builders may be working off or adding to their inventory of unsold homes.

that mortgage apps would go down and sales went up, unless a good portion of the sales were taking place by institutions and not individuals.

now they have looted the treasury and are throwing big parties for themselves.

that is not a recovery.

:sarcasm:

better than money will get you throuigh times of no dope.-Phynius

"we" just aren't part of the "plan". (and jake, we seem to be missing a certain "cut and paste" queen, seen her?)

:rofl:

could be!

controlled crash so they could scare the American people into borrowing trillions to pay then off to hold off the eventual crash. However, the bubble is near the end and they are scrambling to squeeze out as much blood out of the middle class as they can before the bubble finally bursts. I do not see a way out without a complete devaluation of our dollar. Someone please talk me down.

K & R

I can understand holding on to property if hyperinflation is coming. That also explains why banks don't want to restructure mortgage loans and would rather take the property, even though they can't make immediate profit on it. This would also explain why Wall Street had the government NOT help homeowners pay some of the principle on their homes. The banks will sell a $300K house for $500K in two years. But why are the corps holding on to cash that will be worth a lot less?

What you are seeing is an odd mix. Labor is deflationary (i.e people are getting paid less to do more) and the same with housing values if you take out the artificial demand stimulated by the tax breaks, however consumer goods will be inflationary because the materials it takes to build them will cost more, oil in particular will increase which will increase prices on all retail products and food (you have to ship it somewhere to sell it, it requires energy to manufacture or grow, etc)

Building a new house will also be more expensive because it relies on commodities which are rising in prices vs. old homes that have already had their commodities paid for.

This is an odd time where the dollar will buy less commodities but more labor. Interesting huh?

And now they're doing it. That would imply, however, that they are holding onto cash to hire a lot more lower paid workers. That would imply that this whole recession was planned to lower US wages.

I don't see a plan with an end game, I see greedy people reacting to circumstances and doing the best they can to ensure they get the most out of it.

I really don't think they are that smart. It is more of a group of people with sociopathic tendencies willing to do things most people would throw-up thinking about doing such things in order to profit off it themselves. Since Reagan, our society has allowed such people to reach the top of society.

If you are willing to do awful things, you will go far in America.

I have my theories, but I'd like to hear yours.

I'm not talking about the Greatest Generation, I'm talking about their parents. Due to the financial regulations imposed by FDR, that generation generally had a friendly relationship with their banks (because the regulations prevented the banks from becoming monster) therefore there was less resistance to giving the banks more leeway. Over the next 30 years that generation has died out leaving the Baby Boomers who thanks to their 401(k)s have had a rather beneficial relationship with Wall Street throughout the 80s and 90s.

Why did Reagan join with the banks, GE had been financing his activities for nearly 30 years prior to his ascent to the Presidency. GE's largest line item is GE Capital it was simply a pay off of a long term investment.

Bush was funded by the banks as was Clinton and Bush II. Now we have Obama that when you take a look at campaign finance reports was funded by banking as well.

And you're right about being backed by banking.

But the reason they could actually pull what they did in the Reagan era is that the CIA (which is Wall Street intelligence) knew that the USSR was going bankrupt by the mid to late 70s. The US/CIA agitated in Afghanistan to bring the USSR to the bitter end. With the threat of communism on the way out, the New Deal reforms and programs-- brought about to keep the US from unrest, possible revolution and the end of capitalism ruing the Depression era--could start being phased out as well. That's what has been going on since the late 70s.

If Obama gets a second term, Social Security and Medicare will be taken out of the Federal budget and the people will have to pay for these programs outright, like the new health care bill. This will mark the bitter end of the New Deal.

Russia is currently being surrounded by NATO and Pravda recently had an editorial about the fear of a US attack on Russia. Won't happen, but it's interesting that they are afraid of it.

Russia started to have trouble with productivity and expansion. Things worked well when Stalin was in control and would kill anyone who fucked up but after his reign of terror the books started being cooked (more so than they were during Stalin). So the communist party would like about production and other numbers to make things look well, when the people were getting less and less. That and the entire politburo became insanely corrupt. Russia also became dependent on trade with the west for grain to feed it's empire. The primary thing they traded was oil, which in the 1970s wasn't that expensive.

Afghanistan was used by the west to drive down the price of oil with the OPEC nations and therefore they had to send more oil to get the same amount of grain.

Russia is actually paying us back right now for that. More dollars for less oil.

History is a beautiful thing.

There was all the media talk about what a bunch of sclerotic old fossils were in the Politburo at the end of Brezhnev's time as the Soviet leader.

However, after GW Bush was elected (or stole the election) in '00, the cabinet that he appointed were mostly in their late '60s and '70s. No doubt Cheney had a lot to do with the selection. They were mostly as old as W's father, i.e. old enough to have been drafted in WW II and cold war veterans.

:tinfoilhat:

The New World Order picked us off one at a time.

:tinfoilhat:

to provide for the Winner.

When the Internet Bubble burst, many feel that a worried Greenspan "fixed" the Economy by lowering interest rates and encouraging the Real Estate Securitization Bubble. Well, that worked out well, huh?

So now, hot on the heels of that collapse, the Fed has lowered interest rates to less than one percent. And those clever guys and gals on Wall Street have a new game: The Dollar Carry Trade.

And bank profits are included in the GDP...

...

More Here:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=389&topic_id=7023210

and rewards the banks and speculators for their irresponsible behavior. It isn't a good mix for future economic growth.

:applause: