It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

The "up-to-the-minute Market Data" thread

page: 396
189
<< 393  394  395    397  398  399 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 2 2009 @ 06:47 PM
link   
reply to post by Rockpuck
 


Ouch!

I think those green shoots Obama was seeing was something else they were growing in the WH garden.

And DaddyBare is on to something with the U1 numbers.




posted on Jul, 3 2009 @ 07:03 AM
link   
Just following up on some irregularities with the mere .1 percent increase in Unemployment U3 (which is complete BS) ... take a look:



The June job losses also were far worse than the forecast of a loss of 365,000 jobs by economists surveyed by Briefing.com.

The unemployment rate rose for the ninth straight month, climbing to 9.5 percent from 9.4 percent, and hitting another 26-year high. Economists had been expecting the unemployment rate to hit 9.6 percent.


www.cnn.com...

What interesting (Aside from the name of the article which is "Obama sees job figures 'sobering' ........................
Anyways.. what's interesting is as follows:

Economist predicted a net loss of 365,000 jobs .. and a .2% increase in unemployment from 9.4 to 9.6% ...

Instead.. we lost 467,000 jobs, a hundred thousand more than what was predicted, 1/3 more in fact.. and we only had a .1% increase?

To top it all off, initial claims for unemployment fell.

"Fuzzy math" or straight up lying through your teeth?

Putting it another way may make it look absurd to those who doubt:

90.5 percent of American's are still employed, and have not been effected by the depression aside from a shorter work week.




posted on Jul, 3 2009 @ 07:13 AM
link   
reply to post by Rockpuck
 


the reason for the lower number comes from use of fuzzy math and in this case the explain it by saying
Not seasonally adjusted -----------Seasonally adjusted
Not seasonally adjusted the numbers were 9.7 for the month
Once they applied the fudge factors that got reduced to 9.5
table A-12

[edit on 3-7-2009 by DaddyBare]



posted on Jul, 3 2009 @ 07:32 AM
link   
reply to post by DaddyBare
 


I know, but I was just pointing out we were not crazy here.. for the doubters.. the numbers show only an approximate relation to the actual job market.



I'm telling you guys, sooner or later we will loose a few hundred thousand jobs a month and unemployment will drop. I wonder, then, if they will alter the way unemployment is calculated?



posted on Jul, 3 2009 @ 07:48 AM
link   
well then, for the sake of doubters... let me help splane it lucy...

The number everyone uses are collected from the US department of labor. they reflect somewhere between 70 and 80% of unemployed persons actively seeking jobs.

There is however a large number of folks who never apply to the DOL. I never did when I was out of work but I didn't have to much trouble finding another job from my own contacts....

The new problem in getting a real idea of just how many people are out of work comes from so many people simply running out of benefits and being dropped from the program... Its likely there would be a corresponding increase in the welfare roles but those numbers aren't reported in the same manner.



posted on Jul, 3 2009 @ 09:52 AM
link   
So it looks like were about to start the long downward slide (Again)

Most Stocks Fall; MSCI World Extends Third Straight Weekly Drop

Looking pretty grim right now....Unless there's damn good news in the earnings reports out next week



posted on Jul, 3 2009 @ 10:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by Rockpuck
Just following up on some irregularities with the mere .1 percent increase in Unemployment U3 (which is complete BS) ... take a look:



The June job losses also were far worse than the forecast of a loss of 365,000 jobs by economists surveyed by Briefing.com.

The unemployment rate rose for the ninth straight month, climbing to 9.5 percent from 9.4 percent, and hitting another 26-year high. Economists had been expecting the unemployment rate to hit 9.6 percent.


www.cnn.com...

What interesting (Aside from the name of the article which is "Obama sees job figures 'sobering' ........................
Anyways.. what's interesting is as follows:

Economist predicted a net loss of 365,000 jobs .. and a .2% increase in unemployment from 9.4 to 9.6% ...

Instead.. we lost 467,000 jobs, a hundred thousand more than what was predicted, 1/3 more in fact.. and we only had a .1% increase?

To top it all off, initial claims for unemployment fell.

"Fuzzy math" or straight up lying through your teeth?

Putting it another way may make it look absurd to those who doubt:

90.5 percent of American's are still employed, and have not been effected by the depression aside from a shorter work week.



To make things even more strange. The month before last month it was about 560,000-640,000 jobs lost and the unemployment rate frose .4%...yet 467,000 only moved it .1%....

[edit on 3-7-2009 by RetinoidReceptor]



posted on Jul, 3 2009 @ 10:21 AM
link   
reply to post by DaddyBare
 


Exactly but add the illegal jobless illegal immigrants to the total and I can not even imagine the outcome of the numbers after all we have millions of illegals in the country.

I think that the markets are starting to panic.



posted on Jul, 3 2009 @ 10:24 AM
link   
reply to post by Rockpuck
 


That is incredible taking into consideration that they have available bail out money to survive.

So as in the great depression banks are still crashing, but the big to fail banks are the ones getting all the money.



posted on Jul, 3 2009 @ 10:29 AM
link   
The Rising Mountain of Debt May Be the Next Crisis

Now can the mounting debt of the nation become the next economic crisis? some analyst are saying "yes".

So if this is true and our nation is increasing its debt by a trillion or more a year how can the government say that the nation is "recuperating"



The mountain of debt easily could become the next full-fledged economic crisis without firm action from Washington, economists of all stripes warn.

"Unless we demonstrate a strong commitment to fiscal sustainability in the longer term, we will have neither financial stability nor healthy economic growth," Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke recently told Congress.

Higher taxes, or reduced federal benefits and services — or a combination of both — may be the inevitable consequences.


Without higher taxes and cuts in government spending is not way to fix the financial debt in the nation.

But as we can see that is not what our present government have in mind, making government bigger and spending on unsustainable government programs is just making the economy more and more fragile.

www.cnbc.com...



posted on Jul, 3 2009 @ 11:02 AM
link   
economistsview.typepad.com...

Greenspan: Equity prices are key to recovery

Basically Greenspan is saying that if equity prices continue to rise, it will basically be a cure all...What is even more interesting is he said this (on June 25th)


Global stock markets have rallied so far and so fast this year that it is difficult to imagine they can proceed further at anywhere near their recent pace. But what if, after a correction, they proceeded inexorably higher?



Perhaps that means to buy the dips? It seems that the governments around the world are hell bent to pump the economy and markets full of illusion and money to make everything seem okay. And they can be successful over the short-intermediate term.

[edit on 3-7-2009 by RetinoidReceptor]



posted on Jul, 3 2009 @ 11:09 AM
link   
reply to post by RetinoidReceptor
 


Should we trust the man that helped kill the America economy?

I will have to differ with him because obviously he is dreaming,

the government now has a program that that is allowing people borrow more than their homes are worth it to keep afloat, when I saw the news on the government authorizing home owners to borrow more than the existing value of homes I thought it was a joke but is true.

US Home Prices Seen Falling 40% Overall: Analyst


U.S. housing prices will fall by a double-digit percentage from already beaten-down levels, resulting in an overall 40 percent plunge by the time foreclosures peak in the second half of 2010, Barclays Capital economist Michelle Meyer said.
AP

Meyer issued her forecast two days after the Standard & Poor's/Case-Shiller Home Price Indexes showed for April an 18.1 percent year-to-year decline, compared with 18.7 percent in March, in the rate of home price declines in 20 major U.S. metropolitan areas.

The indexes have tracked the prices of U.S. single-family homes since 1987.


I think Greenspan is becoming senile. Still I am waiting on when his prediction of equities will beocme true.

www.cnbc.com...


[edit on 3-7-2009 by marg6043]



posted on Jul, 3 2009 @ 11:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by marg6043
reply to post by RetinoidReceptor
 


Should we trust the man that helped kill the America economy?

I will have to differ with him because obviously he is dreaming,

I wonder what equity he is talking about, perhaps the government program that is allowing people borrow more than their homes are worth it to keep afloat, when I saw the news on the government authorizing home owners to borrow more than the existing value of homes I thought it was a joke but is true.

US Home Prices Seen Falling 40% Overall: Analyst


U.S. housing prices will fall by a double-digit percentage from already beaten-down levels, resulting in an overall 40 percent plunge by the time foreclosures peak in the second half of 2010, Barclays Capital economist Michelle Meyer said.
AP

Meyer issued her forecast two days after the Standard & Poor's/Case-Shiller Home Price Indexes showed for April an 18.1 percent year-to-year decline, compared with 18.7 percent in March, in the rate of home price declines in 20 major U.S. metropolitan areas.

The indexes have tracked the prices of U.S. single-family homes since 1987.


I think Greenspan is becoming senile.

www.cnbc.com...








I'm someone who thinks we are fu*ked for a long time but I am also someone who believes in just trading. If there is going to be a wave of confidence and buying in the overall markets then I want to ride that wave. Also...rising equity prices may not be the key to a recovery but it does instill confidence that things are getting better (though we all know it doesn't mean that). And I do believe the gov. has the means and will to attempt to manipulate those prices with their money and influence...



posted on Jul, 3 2009 @ 11:21 AM
link   
reply to post by RetinoidReceptor
 


Remember the toxic assets that is what brought the economy to the ground, but isn't those toxic assets generated from the housing booming years? So how can the markets survive without that ?

You know I am not economic expert and I don't claim I am but something doesn't add here. Isn't that the reason that volume of trading is so low? I am wrong?.



posted on Jul, 3 2009 @ 11:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by marg6043

You know I am not economic expert and I don't claim I am but something doesn't add here. Isn't that the reason that volume of trading is so low? I am wrong?.





The reason why the volume is so low is because there isn't a wide participation in the markets right now, especially with Joe on his TD Ameritrade account deciding to not get involved right now. I haven't bought a stock for months because I have just been trading Forex because I don't trust stocks right now and you have to stay in the stock market longer than Forex to make a good amount of money because you can only leverage yourself 2 times your capital in the equities markets and can leverage yourself 100+ times your capital in the forex market (some places allow you to go as far as 400 times which I think is crazy...)



posted on Jul, 3 2009 @ 12:06 PM
link   
reply to post by RetinoidReceptor
 


Greenspan is subtle.

He might be simply reiterating historical facts regarding *average* recessions. *Historically* the equity markets do recover before the rest of the general economy and sometimes without a serious *second correction* in the equities markets.

Except Al mentioned a correction.

The Great Depression is an example of the equity markets recovering too early which caused a deeper *correction* worse than the original 1929 drop!

So even if we get a *year long second correction* that drops the Dow back to 5500 Al could still technically be right in 2011. IMHO Al is admitting that the *green shoot bridge* they started this spring that was designed to keep the equity markets from total collapse is a bridge too far..

[edit on 3-7-2009 by fromunclexcommunicate]



posted on Jul, 3 2009 @ 12:23 PM
link   
reply to post by RetinoidReceptor
 


Equity prices, for the most part, are based on supply and demand. In theory. However, they are also related to inflation .. This is also based on the theory of inflation in conjunction with the Stock Markets in general. Of course, moderate inflation is proof of a growing economy, and an expansion of wealth, dramatic increases in Equity could prove disastrous. I think it odd Greenspan would want high inflation to combat the economic down turn.. as it doesn't solve fundamental problems relating to the economy.

However, he then said this:


But what if, after a correction, they proceeded inexorably higher?


This is, I believe the old man telling us to be watchful .. Once we hit the level of "Ok this is the normal level for Equity Pricing" and then we surpass that.. then we know the Government failed, and we will see a period of high to very high inflation (I don't believe we will see hyper inflation at any point) Due to the trillions (literally) pumped into the Markets World-wide we can only assume the inflation of available liquid capital is pushing the markets higher. This is seen in the fact that American workers only started depositing into Variable products in late May. Well after the steep .. "correction of the correction".

All in all, this will only mean the further deterioration of the Dollar, giving up all the ground we gained from the World currencies collapsing in on them selves..

He still has to watch what he says.. but if you read between the lines he's basically saying... We may be shooting for a correction .. but we may miss the target entirely..



posted on Jul, 3 2009 @ 12:43 PM
link   
I think it is amazing that markets have basically shrugged off California...I mean, with their now IOU payments and Arnold saying they are broke with no credit, the credit agenices will eventually rate their debt to junk status. This is extremely significant since California is has the 8th largest GDP...if their debt is junk status this will definitely strike a shock wave through the debt markets as well as the derivatives on that debt. Which it will NOT bode well for the stock market or the country. Many institutions will only accept IOU payments until a certain date. If I am not mistaken, Bank of America said after July 10th it won't accept them. Which is a short time. When will their bonds be CCC??? Honestly, if they just stop with their LIBERAL practices when it comes to spending money, they could have a surplus. That is why the California taxpayers voted down tax increases. They know they can just CUT spending.



posted on Jul, 3 2009 @ 01:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by Rockpuck

All in all, this will only mean the further deterioration of the Dollar, giving up all the ground we gained from the World currencies collapsing in on them selves..

He still has to watch what he says.. but if you read between the lines he's basically saying... We may be shooting for a correction .. but we may miss the target entirely..



I think what he is trying to say is that equities help lead the economy to growth and is more important than conventional theories insist. He also talks about the deflation vs. inflation problem, basically doesn't reveal anything new there. He mainly stated that if equity prices fall further back to the march lows or below that, then the "green shoots" will disappear.

Also he states that banks will either need the housing market to recover or share prices to rise in order to get capital in order to lend. So I guess he believes banks need more money without actually saying that...



posted on Jul, 3 2009 @ 01:13 PM
link   
reply to post by RetinoidReceptor
 





Also he states that banks will either need the housing market to recover or share prices to rise in order to get capital in order to lend. So I guess he believes banks need more money without actually saying that...


The housing market is not likely to recover for years and equity share prices are meaningless unless you sell when they are high. Bond shares could supply funding but that would only happen if the yields were attractive. Interest rates would have to rise substantially to compete with the red hot returns people are expecting from the equity markets when the green shoots arrive.



new topics

top topics



 
189
<< 393  394  395    397  398  399 >>

log in

join