|
call to action posted:If this is "sunny" growth, we're hosed considering wages haven't grown in any significant way and everyone that found jobs post 2008 did so in lovely temp work. This is a treading water economy at best. Yeah, that is where I am leading, that this is about the best your going to get and not only will it get worse, it may be a much longer recession. There is a high probability isn't going to be any real stimulus and if anything spending will likely be cut even further. Also, there are some worrying signs of overheating in coastal housing markets. That said, signs of another recession are going to be relatively minute in the beginning, very modest increases in unemployment for example. Ardennes fucked around with this message at 20:31 on Feb 14, 2017 |
#
?
Feb 14, 2017 20:14
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 8, 2024 15:19 |
|
|
We didn't actually fix any of the issues that led to 2008 and we're now actively making them worse so yeah this is going to get ugly.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2017 20:23
|
|
|
Proud Christian Mom posted:We didn't actually fix any of the issues that led to 2008 and we're now actively making them worse so yeah this is going to get ugly. Dodd-Frank might have make any financial crash for manageable (although there were still plenty of issues with the law) but yeah we are prepping to jump without a parachute right now.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2017 20:32
|
|
|
MiddleOne posted:I think you might have just articulated yourself poorly with your earlier argument because now you're making sense. I think I triggered some people by implying financial products aren't all Wall Street scams that hurt the economy.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2017 20:38
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:I think I triggered some people by implying financial products aren't all Wall Street scams that hurt the economy. True. There are some legitimate financial products that are only backed and commodified by Wall Street scams.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2017 20:41
|
|
|
I'm pretty sure my car loan from my credit union doesn't have anything to do with a scam but I'll go check under the hood for tentacles to make sure.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2017 21:00
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:I'm pretty sure my car loan from my credit union doesn't have anything to do with a scam but I'll go check under the hood for tentacles to make sure. Yeah you should, maybe you'll learn something about how loans are repackaged and resold And that's assuming you're not being directly predated upon: https://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/21/opinion/an-avoidable-crash-in-car-loans.html
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2017 21:01
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:I'm pretty sure my car loan from my credit union doesn't have anything to do with a scam but I'll go check under the hood for tentacles to make sure. Hmmmm. https://www.google.com/amp/www.marketwatch.com/amp/story/guid/BC6AA1D8-49EB-11E6-8B4F-F82544D59F96?client=safari
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2017 21:02
|
|
|
Most car loans are predatory.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2017 21:02
|
|
|
A worse scenario I see re:finance regulation is that the republicans will cut every regulation they can, then because of Trump & his cabinet's popularity they get ousted from office in 4 years, and then the democrats get to clean up & blamed for the resulting financial crash/crisis.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2017 21:08
|
|
|
I'm frankly starting to believe that even credit as a public service would work better for all-around growth&stability than private banking. What you'd lose in efficiency of allocation you'd gain in less active subversion of regulations and some central control on how much we want to rely on private debt growth as an economy.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2017 21:11
|
|
|
double nine posted:A worse scenario I see re:finance regulation is that the republicans will cut every regulation they can, then because of Trump & his cabinet's popularity they get ousted from office in 4 years, and then the democrats get to clean up & blamed for the resulting financial crash/crisis. There Is probably going to be recession before or after the midterm elections .
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2017 21:11
|
|
|
 Here is so u6 data to take into consideration. Obviously, not everything is predictable but certainly there is a pattern. Ardennes fucked around with this message at 00:01 on Feb 15, 2017 |
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2017 21:22
|
|
|
call to action posted:Yeah you should, maybe you'll learn something about how loans are repackaged and resold Bundling loans and reselling them is not inherently a scam. Bundling, misrepresenting, and reselling loans is a scam. MiddleOne posted:Most car loans are predatory. Oh word? I'd love to read about that. Crowsbeak posted:Hmmmm. quote:Still, the auto-loan market is far from the powder keg that the mortgage market was when the globe plunged into a financial crisis eight years ago, according to loan and credit experts. Pretty sure you didn't read this.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2017 21:41
|
|
|
Yeah it says delinquency is rising always the sign of good times ahead.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2017 21:45
|
|
|
Ardennes posted:
What is this supposed supposed to mean? Edit: did you mean U6 unemployment? Squalid fucked around with this message at 22:40 on Feb 14, 2017 |
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2017 22:37
|
|
|
Ardennes posted:I think the penitent issue here is if consumer debt levels have return to dangerous levels or not, especially since we live in an environment where "good regulation" no longer exists. That said, the data so far is mixed and we are still in a fairly "sunny" period of growth with relatively low levels of unemployment and even some very modest wage growth. The question is how long this period is going to last, and historical trends seems to indicate another 12-18 months. I think this thread jumped the gun, although I guess it doesn't hurt to be too cautious. 12-18 months? Just in time for me to graduate into a recession 
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2017 23:44
|
|
|
Squalid posted:What is this supposed supposed to mean? Yes, sorry u6 unemployment. We are in a periodic low for unemployment, but "lows" haven't lasted more than 2-3 years and the "floor" for u6 unemployment in the mid 2000s was higher than 1990s. We will have to see if unemployment shifts in the near term but if it stabilizes around 9.1-9.4 or if it increases from that range it isn't a great sign. skull mask mcgee posted:12-18 months? Just in time for me to graduate into a recession It happens to the best of us, maybe have a plan b? Ardennes fucked around with this message at 00:10 on Feb 15, 2017 |
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2017 00:04
|
|
|
I feel like unemployment measures understate the precarity of working class Americans moreso than they did in the past. If you're a factory worker in the 50s, there needs to be some serious economic poo poo going down before you're kicked to the curb, whereas millions of modern Americans are working on-demand gig jobs that could mean unemployment nearly the instant demand starts to decline.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2017 00:15
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:I can't afford to buy a house with cash. But I could afford a mortgage payment. Getting the house now, as opposed to 30 years in the future, benefits me significantly. you're ignoring the value of timing here completely. I'm not ignoring that at all, because as I've said repeatedly I'm not talking about individual decisions. You're responding to my posts because you seem to have an ax to grind with people who criticize debt, but I've said that credit is necessary in every single post I've made on these last few pages. If I say that the mortgage crisis was a bad thing are you going to assume that I'm suggesting that people stop living in houses? Large amounts of consumer debt are not sustainable and will always lead to periods of recession as people are forced to rein in spending and even credit worthy borrowers are unwilling to take on more debt. Why do you think subprime lending exists in the first place? Why do you think banks lend to anyone with less than stellar credit? And just to be clear, since you seem hellbent on misinterpreting my posts, I'm not saying that it's a bad thing that people with poor credit are able to buy houses and cars.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2017 00:25
|
|
|
skull mask mcgee posted:12-18 months? Just in time for me to graduate into a recession Lucky for you anybody predicting a recession with that kind of precision selling you a fantasy, regardless of what the tea leaves say
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2017 00:29
|
|
|
Squalid posted:Lucky for you anybody predicting a recession with that kind of precision selling you a fantasy, regardless of what the tea leaves say There is probability of a recession, and as more factors line up that probability increases. When you talk about economic cycles there isn't certainty, but at the same time, if I was just getting out of school I would plan more defensively. I do think it is irresponsible to ignore "tea leaves" considering our past even if it doesn't give you a complete picture of what is going to happen. Ardennes fucked around with this message at 05:09 on Feb 15, 2017 |
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2017 00:36
|
|
|
Paradoxish posted:I'm not ignoring that at all, because as I've said repeatedly I'm not talking about individual decisions. You're responding to my posts because you seem to have an ax to grind with people who criticize debt, but I've said that credit is necessary in every single post I've made on these last few pages. If I say that the mortgage crisis was a bad thing are you going to assume that I'm suggesting that people stop living in houses? quote:Large amounts of consumer debt are not sustainable and will always lead to periods of recession as people are forced to rein in spending and even credit worthy borrowers are unwilling to take on more debt. Why do you think subprime lending exists in the first place? Why do you think banks lend to anyone with less than stellar credit? And just to be clear, since you seem hellbent on misinterpreting my posts, I'm not saying that it's a bad thing that people with poor credit are able to buy houses and cars. Subprime lending exists for the same reason all lending exists, it's a way to turn capital into profit. Banks lend to people with lovely credit because they can charge risky buyers more interest, which mitigates the increased risk of default. What do you mean by large amounts of consumer debt? How much is large? If by large you mean too much, sure, too much household debt is a bad thing. But I question whether too much household debt is itself responsible for downturns, rather than an accelerant. Here's the IMF (of all places) discussing exactly this and recommending government interventions to address over leveraged households in a downturn. https://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/weo/2012/01/pdf/c3.pdf
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2017 01:27
|
|
|
Squalid posted:Lucky for you anybody predicting a recession with that kind of precision selling you a fantasy, regardless of what the tea leaves say  Luckily you don't need to be that precise to predict a recession within a window of a few years, especially considering recovery doesn't really exist anymore
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2017 20:29
|
|
|
call to action posted:
I'm afraid I'm a bit dense, I don't quite understand your point. Is it just that another recession will likely happen eventually?
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2017 22:10
|
|
|
Squalid posted:I'm afraid I'm a bit dense, I don't quite understand your point. Is it just that another recession will likely happen eventually? they happen fairly periodically is what he's saying
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2017 22:25
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2017 22:43
|
|
|
Hmm so since recessions reoccur every four years, and it's been 8 years since the last one, a recession occurring now is twice as likely as it was in 2010 correct?
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2017 00:08
|
|
|
call to action posted:
Looks like we got a lot better at mitigating recessions after ww2.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2017 00:17
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:Looks like we got a lot better at mitigating recessions after ww2. That's because we regulated the banks in the aftermath of the Great Depression.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2017 00:32
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:Looks like we got a lot better at mitigating recessions after ww2. thats because its log scale
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2017 00:32
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:Looks like we got a lot better at mitigating recessions after ww2. Yes, switching away from the gold standard helped a lot
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2017 00:33
|
|
|
readingatwork posted:That's because we regulated the banks in the aftermath of the Great Depression. Condiv posted:Yes, switching away from the gold standard helped a lot Yes, and Keynesian policy generally. Dairy Days posted:thats because its log scale The x axis isn't log scale, recessions really have been less frequent and shorter since ww2. You could re-plot the red line with a kink after 1940, with a relatively flat slope beforehand and a steeper one afterword and it would fit better. JeffersonClay fucked around with this message at 00:45 on Feb 16, 2017 |
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2017 00:42
|
|
|
The sample size is too small plus the line between technical recession and periods of close to zero growth is fine enough that that table is pretty meaningless. At least for the markets, forward looking indicators like CAPE have been saying we're due for a correction since 2013 but tough luck on bears. Think the S&P has been averaging 15% over the past 7 years.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2017 00:46
|
|
|
shrike82 posted:tough luck on bears. Whoa hey Michelle Bachman, the gays don't cause recessions.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2017 01:23
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:Looks like we got a lot better at mitigating recessions after ww2. Actually if you notice it got worse after deregulation.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2017 06:04
|
|
|
shrike82 posted:The sample size is too small plus the line between technical recession and periods of close to zero growth is fine enough that that table is pretty meaningless. See I'm no bull but I know bullshit when I see it. Even when the signs of a recession/recover seem obvious there's no way you can predict when exactly they will come. It's incredibly hard even say exactly what is happening now, economists routinely fail to identify recessions until they've already been underway for months. So imagine the absurdity of a post like that of Ardennes' in which through careful study of the 'trends' as he calls them, he can confidently warn of a recession in 12-18 months. Of course in January 2016 he was warning that America was in the process of entering a "great stagnation," and eight months ago he "wouldn't dismiss the growing possibility of a recession in the next 6-9 months." One begins to wonder from what ugly recess he pulls these estimates. Skull mask mcgee, before fretting about your job prospects have you considered checking to astrology section of your local paper? You might find its predictions more hopeful and no less plausible than those itt.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2017 06:16
|
|
|
Squalid posted:Hmm so since recessions reoccur every four years, and it's been 8 years since the last one, a recession occurring now is twice as likely as it was in 2010 correct? That's not how recessions work, they're not a natural phenomenon. Political intervention can prop up asset-bubbles for a very long time and credit crunches can be delayed by all kinds of independent intervention. Take the Canadian housing bubble thread. Goons (me included) have been vary about it popping for the better part of almost 4 years. But even now, with most of the Canadian economy still in the poo poo from the oil prices failing and Chinese capital getting increasingly locked out by local laws people still haven't tipped over that panic axis which sends it all crashing down. The Swedish housing bubble is similar, income to household debt keeps spiraling out of control but due to the central bank consistently lowering the central rate for the last 2 years (currently at -0.5%) the date of a potential crash keeps getting pushed forward. You can hedge for a recession but I wouldn't advise hoarding cash for it. To go with the cliche, the market can stay irrational longer than you can stay solvent.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2017 07:46
|
|
|
Squalid posted:See I'm no bull but I know bullshit when I see it. Even when the signs of a recession/recover seem obvious there's no way you can predict when exactly they will come. It's incredibly hard even say exactly what is happening now, economists routinely fail to identify recessions until they've already been underway for months. So imagine the absurdity of a post like that of Ardennes' in which through careful study of the 'trends' as he calls them, he can confidently warn of a recession in 12-18 months. Of course in January 2016 he was warning that America was in the process of entering a "great stagnation," and eight months ago he "wouldn't dismiss the growing possibility of a recession in the next 6-9 months." One begins to wonder from what ugly recess he pulls these estimates. I still stand behind that "great stagnation" quote, currently Trump is in charge (as I long feared) and there is no fiscal policy to speak of. I think a period of "great stagnation" is already very possible in the near future if not arguably happening for much of the US. Wages are still barely budging, and while unemployment is lower the jobs being filled are usually with lower pay/hours. Also "wouldn't dismiss the growing possibility" isn't the strongest statement in the world. I will say I didn't have the unemployment data to stand behind then, and I should have waited until more of it came out but that said, historical trends in unemployment are matching up right now. Also, I am also just talking about historical probability and my interpretation of data, not actual predictions. If you have a different interpretation that is perfectly fine. That said, it sounds like you are taking this extremely personally. I suggest you just keep it to the actual discussion. MiddleOne posted:That's not how recessions work, they're not a natural phenomenon. Political intervention can prop up asset-bubbles for a very long time and credit crunches can be delayed by all kinds of independent intervention. Take the Canadian housing bubble thread. Goons (me included) have been vary about it popping for the better part of almost 4 years. But even now, with most of the Canadian economy still in the poo poo from the oil prices failing and Chinese capital getting increasingly locked out by local laws people still haven't tipped over that panic axis which sends it all crashing down. The Swedish housing bubble is similar, income to household debt keeps spiraling out of control but due to the central bank consistently lowering the central rate for the last 2 years (currently at -0.5%) the date of a potential crash keeps getting pushed forward. That is a fair point, that very low global interest rates and capital inflows (for example in the Canadian property market) have altered our assumptions of how long these bubbles can stay solvent. It is quite possible historically low interest rates do push a recession further out, but at the same time, wages aren't rising fast enough to support that housing market. What worries me is there eventually there isn't going to be the type of income necessary to support those assets in a sustainable manner. Also, Canada is in a bit of a weird situation since it is so dependent on commodities, and unemployment/growth have pretty moribund. I did notice the the Portland housing market may be cooling a bit, it use to be one of the fastest rising markets. http://www.oregonlive.com/front-porch/index.ssf/2017/01/portland_slams_brakes_on_risin.html Also, supposedly the capital controls/taxes are having an effect on the Vancouver housing market. http://www.theglobeandmail.com/real-estate/vancouver/vancouver-home-sales-drop-further-as-market-continues-to-soften/article33878876/ Ardennes fucked around with this message at 13:55 on Feb 16, 2017 |
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2017 12:16
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 8, 2024 15:19 |
|
|
SickZip posted:Housing
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2017 13:09
|
|
