DescentBB

Dow Jones is down another 240 points today and down about a 1000 point from its high a week or so ago. So the question is, are we headed for the double dip recession people were worried about and how much of the slide is attributable to the inept debt ceiling increase our elected officials passed ( notice this time I am not blaming any one party)?

I wonder how much that is attributed to Kraft cutting their house in half and basing it in another countries market.

double dip hell, this country never came out of the first recession. it was only the people with money that came out of the "recession". the average Joe (90% of the population) never left it.

CUDA wrote:double dip hell, this country never came out of the first recession. it was only the people with money that came out of the "recession". the average Joe (90% of the population) never left it.

We are talking about the stock market and not the recession per se

AH. I took DD as a reference to the recession, since that's how most economists describe it

The problem is if the Dow Jones takes another huge sell off, then it may very well be that the present 9.2% unemployment rate may be looked at as something desirable. In short another dip may very well drive the world into another depression. All because a few select politicians played god with the economy.

I was listening to one of the talking heads today that actually made some sense. At least sounded like he knew what he was talking about. I agree with him in that now that this process is started, let it continue until it finds it own level. The we are back to reality and is actually what should have happened instead of the massive bailout that was just another massive shift as today was.

Dow as of this moment is down 386 points for the day. I sold off my last stock this morning and every stock I have listed on my chart is down. I wonder how the politician will spin this as raising the debt ceiling was going to save us. Quite the opposite seems to be happening.

woodchip wrote:I wonder how the politician will spin this

It's all Bush's fault.
that's their standard reply for everything that goes wrong during this administration.

I don't recall seeing anyone saying that raising the debt ceiling was supposed to magically drive the Dow Jones up a thousand points. From what I understand, several other negative economic indicators released this week are driving the sell-off.

CUDA wrote:

woodchip wrote:I wonder how the politician will spin this

It's all Bush's fault.
that's their standard reply for everything that goes wrong during this administration.

Actually, it's ALL their faults, but especially Reagan, Clinton and Bush.

This is a problem because it took so long for people to agree on how to raise the ceiling. It made investors and speculators freak out, which caused the dip in stock indexes. From what I understand, selling in a panic in a time like this is the worst thing anyone can do.

So of course that is what will happen.

woodchip wrote:Dow Jones is down another 240 points today and down about a 1000 point from its high a week or so ago. So the question is, are we headed for the double dip recession people were worried about and how much of the slide is attributable to the inept debt ceiling increase our elected officials passed ( notice this time I am not blaming any one party)?

the second dip will not come until 2013, if it comes at all. You won't go into negatives for 3 quarters in a row until after the next election at least. By that time, though, the combination of low demand, European issues, Middle East unrest(oil price spikes) or a handful of other issues could send the country back into a recession. In the meantime, I still am sort of confident that we might right the ship, to a great extent. The thing that will bug most people is that we can have a robust recovery and still be looking at 8% unemployment, and an economy poised to be absolutely flattened by nations willing to actually gamble and invest in the technologies of the future, and educate the workers needed for same. Right now, many in the US are pushing us away from being part of that future, and they might well prevail until it is far too late.

While you can predict all you want Slick, If we have another 500 point drop today you can be looking at the very real possibility of a depression instead of recovery. Lets hope we don't see a cascade effect today in the stock market

woodchip wrote:The problem is if the Dow Jones takes another huge sell off, then it may very well be that the present 9.2% unemployment rate may be looked at as something desirable. In short another dip may very well drive the world into another depression. All because a few select politicians played god with the economy.

I was reading and listening yesterday to a couple of pessimist types, who actually made a good case for the threat of a second downturn in 2013-2014, which could result in US unemployment of around 15% for a decade or more.

predictions this morning is that with the downgrade in our credit it could cost the economy another 640,000 jobs

CUDA wrote:predictions this morning is that with the downgrade in our credit it could cost the economy another 640,000 jobs

The people I have seen and talked to over the past 24 hours indicate a less scary scenario, with far more threat coming from the continued push to slash government spending. That course has completely stagnated the British economy, slowed German recovery and, in the states, could lead to over 2 million jobs lost between Federal and State employment. Sometimes, as I said before, you need government to be there. It is in the National interest, something the Right seems to have put aside altogether.

callmeslick wrote: Sometimes, as I said before, you need government to be there. It is in the National interest, something the Right seems to have put aside altogether.

you don't need 2 in 10 People employed by the Government. THAT'S INSANE!!!

The federal government employs about 2.7 million people.

State governments employ about 5 million people.

Local governments employ about 14 million people.

actually, CUDA, there is nothing the least bit insane about it, if you expect a government to actually do stuff for society. Further, slashing those jobs when no other jobs are out there is just really bad economic policy.

callmeslick wrote:actually, CUDA, there is nothing the least bit insane about it, if you expect a government to actually do stuff for society.

No, I expect a “government” to “govern” not to do “stuff” for society. (other than what is required by the constitution)

Spidey wrote:

callmeslick wrote:actually, CUDA, there is nothing the least bit insane about it, if you expect a government to actually do stuff for society.

No, I expect a “government” to “govern” not to do “stuff” for society. (other than what is required by the constitution)

the purpose of the Constitution was to provide a framework for ongoing governance. It is NOT a set of limiting 'requirements' nor was it EVER intended to be.

Whatever…I totally disagree, but you still have govern confused with stuff.

Spidey wrote:Whatever…I totally disagree, but you still have govern confused with stuff.

no, I include in the General Welfare of the United States providing for the neediest members of society, so as not to put the nation on the path of anarchy and large-scale servitude of the poor.

gov·ern·ment
   [guhv-ern-muhnt, ‐er-muhnt] Show IPA
–noun
1.
the political direction and control exercised over the actions of the members, citizens, or inhabitants of communities, societies, and states; direction of the affairs of a state, community, etc.; political administration: Government is necessary to the existence of civilized society.
2.
the form or system of rule by which a state, community, etc., is governed: monarchical government; episcopal government.
3.
the governing body of persons in a state, community, etc.; administration.

gov·ern·ance
   [guhv-er-nuhns] Show IPA
–noun
1.
government; exercise of authority; control.
2.
a method or system of government or management.

char·i·ty
   [char-i-tee] Show IPA
–noun, plural -ties.
1.
generous actions or donations to aid the poor, ill, or helpless: to devote one's life to charity.
2.
something given to a person or persons in need; alms: She asked for work, not charity.
3.
a charitable act or work.

Funny I don't see the word charity anywhere in the definition of government OR in the framing of our Constitution

I won’t get into the “general welfare” debate, because most people don’t know the difference between “general” and “specific”.

So that debate would be pointless…but, I predicted your response.

CUDA wrote:[Funny I don't see the word charity anywhere in the definition of government OR in the framing of our Constitution

one, 'government' is merely the administration of a framework(such as the Constitution) to run a nation, state, city, whatever. That you don't see charity in the framing of the Constitution isn't a surprise, as it wasn't a concern at the time. The nation was largely agrarian, with extended families providing for most folks. Still,
workhouses and poorhouses were part of the accepted norm, and the charity of the wealthy was available to help a handful of folks. While we're at it, slavery was acceptable at the time as well. The point of a more progressive, modern vision of society is that such a society is better for a whole lot of people. The founders were quite aware that society and the nation would see massive, unknown changes. They provided a framework that was flexible enough to grow and evolve with those changes. What is great is that, to now, it has worked: virtually every generation has seen a better life for more people than the ones before it. The question before the US at the current moment is: will we try to make that trend continue, or take the nation back to the late 1800's, in terms of labor rights, economic fairness and provisions for the poor?

Spidey wrote:I won’t get into the “general welfare” debate

I suspected you wouldn't.....

Pointless, without an agreement of the very definition.

Spidey wrote:Pointless, without an agreement of the very definition.

which has been provided by several different Supreme Courts, as I recall.