http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/09/05/the-un-recession/
Interesting comments(minus obvious gaff at bush), especially about how this is a very odd slowdown and you can't really label it.
I promise I won't explicitly blame this on him(you know who).. I blame a good bit of it on poorly managed unsustainable business practices(playing to the short term win).
We are not in a recession. Mrs McCain wore a $360,000 outfit to the RNC and that should prove that our economy is just fine.
John Brown wrote: We are not in a recession. Mrs McCain wore a $360,000 outfit to the RNC and that should prove that our economy is just fine.
They make clothes that cost that much?
On another note, should I know this? My sister is an editor for a fashion magazine, but shops at resale/thrift stores.
http://www.vanityfair.com/online/politics/2008/09/cindy-mccains-300000-outfit.html
I saw three stories for it looking for a photo of ms Stepford, I went with the highest number for shock value, all three listed the outfit between 280k and 360k
maybe he could have had another house, but bought that outfit instead?
insert rimshot here
No, they don't make clothes that cost that much, or if they do, Cindy McCain was not wearing them. There is a dumb story going around about her "$300000 RNC outfit" that assumes her 3 carat diamond earrings were a) real, b) not borrowed, and c) worth almost $300,000. One or all of those assumptions are probably wrong, but hey, it makes a good story I guess. Even if it were true, um, didn't we already know she was a tad on the wealthy side? I hate non-stories like this.
well then drop the stupid outfit and talk about the economic news...
(insert Ralph Wiggums Voice)I make people fight. (/ insert RW v)
I know the gas prices are adding a lot to the unemployment as many companies can't take the hit and can't pass the costs along. Or else are slimming down and shedding those excess employees.
And I still haven't figured out why diesel never came back down. It was all supposed to be about Katrina, but when those refineries, or whatever, came back online the prices would drop - never has.
true commodity prices, driven by consumption in the East, have hurt many items.
edit what I said above makes no sense. I meant to say I agree, commdity prices are high. Mostly due to consumption in asia, but with tons of other little factors thrown in(such as corn ethanol)...
ignorant wrote: true commodity prices, driven by consumption in the East, have hurt many items. *edit* what I said above makes no sense. I meant to say I agree, commdity prices are high. Mostly due to consumption in asia, but with tons of other little factors thrown in(such as corn ethanol)...
Where is Ignorant and what have you done with him?
John Brown wrote: http://www.vanityfair.com/online/politics/2008/09/cindy-mccains-300000-outfit.html I saw three stories for it looking for a photo of ms Stepford, I went with the highest number for shock value, all three listed the outfit between 280k and 360k
The outfit didn't cost that much, most of that figure, if you believe it, are attributed to the 3 carot diamond earings.
However, if she did wear something that expensive, she can. She can certainly afford it, and since when is that a crime?
In my other post regarding the issue I stated that it was poor timing with everyone in McCains camp harping about the elitist Obamas. I could care less about the fact that she wears 10 years worth of the average persons annual income once in a while... but I bet someone a little more jaded than me did.
John Brown wrote: I could care less about the fact that she wears 10 years worth of the average persons annual income once in a while...
Then why mention it?
So the average person makes 28-30K? I seem to remember a post on the old board where it was stated that the average reader here (magazine) was 60-70K(or better). Back on topic.No where did it state that she bought that outfit.Just like the movie stars at the academy awards , don't you think designers loan or give outfits to politicos for special occasions? The only reason for that particular post was to "stir the sauce". That didn't fall under the typical post whoring standards we've come to expect from Mr. Brown. 
On topic:
I know the Wall Street Journal is one of them crazy unreliable sources and all, but here's some good readin' for those who dig statistics rather than rhetoric. Not trying to paint an "everything is berkeleying sunshine and lollipops" picture, but I don't think it's as gloomy as the media's making it out to be; certainly not in our business, and certainly not talking fellow business owners (real estate agents aside:)
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122039890722392873.html?mod=rss_opinion_main
I like berkeleying sunshine and lollipops. Poopy, tell me more!
Per Schroeder wrote: I like berkeleying sunshine and lollipops. Poopy, tell me more!
You asked for it:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E_v468ptuXw
carguy123 wrote: And I still haven't figured out why diesel never came back down. It was all supposed to be about Katrina, but when those refineries, or whatever, came back online the prices would drop - never has.
I think it has something to do with the new "low-sulfer" standards and that is suposed to be why diesel is staying a dollar above gas
oldsaw wrote:ignorant wrote: true commodity prices, driven by consumption in the East, have hurt many items. *edit* what I said above makes no sense. I meant to say I agree, commdity prices are high. Mostly due to consumption in asia, but with tons of other little factors thrown in(such as corn ethanol)...Where is Ignorant and what have you done with him?
I'm going to cop out and say.. I'm under a bit of stress.
wife's pregnant 90k in student loans (starting soon) Hurricane/tropical storm(first one) Looking for a job a house that is now worth less than I paid for it...
Thats the short list.
poopshovel wrote: On topic: I know the Wall Street Journal is one of them crazy unreliable sources and all, but here's some good readin' for those who dig statistics rather than rhetoric. Not trying to paint an "everything is berkeleying sunshine and lollipops" picture, but I don't think it's as gloomy as the media's making it out to be; certainly not in our business, and certainly not talking fellow business owners (real estate agents aside:) http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122039890722392873.html?mod=rss_opinion_main
I think the key though is that real median(and mean) income hasn't really moved since 1998 if you look at 2007 dollars. Relative to costs our incomes have not increased under bush.
http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/income/histinc/h10AR.html <--- data
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/08/27/stagnation-nation/
That data above really spells out to me the big issue. Costs go up.. wages stay the same. = inflation While it can be argued that some inflation is needed, It is outpacing the meger 2.2% GDP growth that bush was able to muster.
Ignorant your "data above" reflects head of household aged 35-44 from your Krugman blog. Total family income would make a more accurate picture.
Agreed, head of household accounts for only about 5/8's the income in this family...
We are not in a recession. The average national income rose 3% in the past year. That is the exact opposite of a recession.
That being said, the housing market is in a recession... but that is a different ballgame.
clownkiller wrote: Ignorant your "data above" reflects head of household aged 35-44 from your Krugman blog. Total family income would make a more accurate picture.
I don't see how that changes it, by adding in the rest of the household the numbers may change but the proportion will remain the same.
Please look in the census data link under head of household 15 and up.
In 2007 Dollars 1999 was about $68,114. In 2006 it was $68,459 in 2007 it was $67,601
all numbers mean
Thats pretty telling.
i gree it is not a recession.. thats why the thread is tittled unrecession.
The real estate bubble pop has been forecast for a while, right down to those getting hit the worst being the ones who were not prudent (trying to flip houses, spent beyond their means, weird loans like ARMs etc). BTW, a lot of that was because the gubmint demanded that borderline and high risk borrowers be allowed to get loans and is a perfect example of why they should stay the hell out of things like that.
Fuel prices have raised prices all down the line, check fresh produce prices for an example.
So right now the economy is in a downturn, but as with all downturns it won't be permanent. I think it will straighten the housing and mortgage market out, which has been long overdue.
As far as that blog's numbers: the 2007 household income numbers are .993% of the 1999 numbers. If you consider that in a lot of cases the secondary breadwinner in the family was/is a part time real estate agent then there is a connection between the real estate market and the family income drop.
You'll need to log in to post.
