Does Anyone feel like Bailing

[classicman]

Originally Posted by tw

Put $7trillion into perspective.

more than the output of the entire US last year.

Originally Posted by tw

One study using 1929 as an analytical basis says a bottom will occur when stocks have dropped by 80% of their 2007 value.

Don't get carried away there tw - What were the default rates and jobless percentages in '29? You know that this is not a realistic comparison...

[tw]

Originally Posted by classicman

Don't get carried away there tw - What were the default rates and jobless percentages in '29? You know that this is not a realistic comparison...

This is one analyst projection by associating percentages and chart characteristics to those in 1929. Neither I nor the analysts says it is correct. He is simply noting similar trends AND therefore a possible scenario. Meanwhile, when everyone was saying they had never seen anything this bad (in late October), well it has already gotten much worse then anybody thought even back then. Those who have predicted the worst are now accused of being too optimistic. Reasons why are discussed in another thread called "How the GAME is played."

If I read another prediction correctly, Obama is talking about the need for another $700billion TARP. And this is no longer for buying up bad assets. That Paulson strategy has even been abandon by Paulson.

Bottom line remains. We have invented massive assets that really never existed. Then enriched those who invented these fictions. Now those assets have vaporized leaving massive debt obligations. Who will provide that money? Well, the best American allies (ie Saudis) have put up some. But few will loan us money due to mythical America accounting standards. So, the government must issue corporate welfare in various forms, then the government can get foreigners to provide that cash.

Few other American financial institutions can be trusted anymore. You will see foreigners putting up circuit breakers to protect the world from American MBA games. Paulson is creating massive government debts, then gives that money to American companies with the biggest hands out.

Time to be fair was back when wacko extremists were saying, "Reagan proved that deficits don't matter." It was obvious back then only to a few how often George Jr was lying. Time to pay for not paying attention. Except it is worse than even the worst projections - and then last week got even worse again.

Worst part - there is no certainty. Even the most negative predictions have become too optimistic.

[classicman]

I must have missed where you answered my question about the default rates and jobless percentages in '29 compared to today? They are straightforward questions one must know the answers to before drawing any similarities or basing conclusions upon. I'm actually surprised that you didn't know this before basing an argument on that which may or may not be true. One must first know the facts before drawing any conclusions. Since you failed to provide any supporting evidence upon which you were basing your argument in post , I'll do it for you.

~Mortgage defaults in the United States were in the 50% range as compared to the current rate of approx. 10%.

~Additionally, the unemployment rate reached nearly 25% during the Great Depression compared to 6.5% for the month ending in October 2008.

~Bank failures were also at 20%.

~The stock market lost 89% of its value from its peak during the Great Depression.

~ Industrial production fell by nearly 45% between the years 1929 and 1932.
~ Home-building dropped by 80% between the years 1929 and 1932.
~ From the years 1929 to 1932, about 5000 banks went out of business.

Contrast that with figures from across the pond. Glasgow experienced 30% unemployment whilst in Newcastle the major industry of ship building fell by 90% and unemployment rose to 70%.


Just a final perspective - The stock market from '29 - 32 reached a high of $381.17 and fell to a low of $41.22.

Are there similarities, yes. Is it going to happen again - doubtful. IS this all GWB's fault? Absolutely not. Did he make matters worse, yes. There is more than enough blame to go around and it started long before him.

[tw]

Originally Posted by classicman

I must have missed where you answered my question about the default rates and jobless percentages in '29 compared to today?

Obviously we are not at the 80% drop of the stock market, the 50% mortgage default, the 25% unemployment rate, etc. That was his point. All those factors in 1929 - and we were currently on the same path for all those adverse numbers. Did I say the stock market had hit the bottom yet? Obviously not.

His projection using 1929 suggests how much worse things could get.

[TheMercenary]

Damm we have a 25% unemployment rate? really?

[classicman]

Don't we have a few more options now than we had then to prevent that?

[xoxoxoBruce]

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

Damm we have a 25% unemployment rate? really?

No.

[classicman]

Originally Posted by tw

You are quoting Shakespeare again - right? Again demonstrating your wealth of earned knowledge. And justifying attacks on Pico and Me.

Would that be Pico and Me and me? Just askin... as you were or are or ...

[lookout123]

Without joining either side of this argument I'd like to point out that 6.5% today is similar to 12-13% during the great depression due to the fact that 1 person losing their job generally meant one family out of work while 1 person losing their job today generally means one half of one family losing their job.

No it isn't scientifical but it is worth thinking about when comparing raw numbers.

[glatt]

Originally Posted by lookout123

Without joining either side of this argument I'd like to point out that 6.5% today is similar to 12-13% during the great depression due to the fact that 1 person losing their job generally meant one family out of work while 1 person losing their job today generally means one half of one family losing their job.

No it isn't scientifical but it is worth thinking about when comparing raw numbers.

It seems to me you got those numbers reversed. 4 people would have to lose their jobs today to equal 2 people losing their jobs in the 30's.

[lookout123]

Hmmm. 6.5% today means 6.5% of american workers. In 1929 typically the man worked, woman stayed home so each family only had one worker... so 6.5% of workers doubled would would have the effect of 12-13% unemployment in 1929. IF what we are actually looking at is how many families are without income.

Right? Or did I completely screw that up - I'm bad at that kind of thing.

[Pico and ME]

That thinking would change the % of families without income, but not the % of total workers without income. Still it is an interesting dynamic when comparing the two generations. And you would think that it means that fewer households are actually in peril. However, I wonder how many households have two incomes just to survive...to get the bills paid. Losing one of those incomes would hurt many families, putting them on or below the poverty line. For instance, I only have a part-time job. Losing my husbands income would cause a lot of distress.

[lookout123]

Certainly families are at peril, but consider the difference. In 1929 if Bob lost his job and Judy was already a stay at home mom there was ZERO income to buy food and pay the mortgage/rent. In 2008 if Bob loses his job and Judy still has hers life gets shitty but they can probably still eat and pay the rent.

[ZenGum]

Do we (well, you) have 25% unemployment?

There are two "correct" answers:

(1) No.

(2) Not yet. Which was what I think TW's source was getting at.

I doubt it will go that high. One of the effects of the depression was to make governments realise that they could, and sometimes should, interfere to keep the economy going. Keynes and all that.

[classicman]

Originally Posted by Pico and ME

However, I wonder how many households have two incomes just to survive...to get the bills paid.

For all the stuff they couldn't really afford in the first place?

Originally Posted by lookout123

Certainly families are at peril, but consider the difference. In 1929 if Bob lost his job and Judy was already a stay at home mom there was ZERO income to buy food and pay the mortgage/rent. In 2008 if Bob loses his job and Judy still has hers life gets shitty but they can probably still eat and pay the rent.

Not if the had an ARM that just went up. Some of them can't afford the increase with both of them working.