« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

MEMBER DIARY

Jobs Report: Stagnation Continues

The June jobs report from the BLS is out this morning, and the findings are not pretty.  The headline number of the establishment survey is that only 80,000 net jobs were created last month, about 100k under the requisite amount to accommodate the population increase.  The working-age population grew by 189k in June, according to the household survey.  As such, there are now 29 thousand more unemployed than there were last month.  The U6 rate also ticked up to 14.9%.

Also, the labor participation rate and population-employment ration remain near all-time lows.  There are now 1.82 million more people not in the labor force now than just 12 months ago.  If you go back to January 2009, the month Obama took office, that number is a whopping 5.48 million!  This comes after several months of dismal jobs reports.  We’ve been averaging just 75,000 new jobs over the past three months.  What about minorities?  According to the household survey, unemployment among blacks ticked up almost a full point to 14.4%.

It‘s hard to articulate just how terrible and ominous these numbers are for the future of our economy.  Remember that just in order to break even with pre-recession levels, we need to create about 9 million jobs, at a clip of 300-500k per month.  The deeper the recession, the more robust of a recovery that is needed to break even.  Also, keep in mind that the population is still growing, so we must create even more jobs to accommodate that increase.

The miracle of the American economy throughout the post-WWII era is that we have recovered from every recession stronger than we were before each downturn.  At this point in the Reagan recover, we were creating over 300k new jobs each month – and that was when the population was much smaller.

Take a look at this chart comparing selected employment indicators from the time Obama took office in January 2009.  As you can see, the population has grown by over 8 million, yet employment has remained stagnant.

Employment Numbers June 2012 vs January 2009 (in millions)

Jan. 2009

Jun-12

Difference

Working-age population

234.739

243.155

8.416

Labor Force

154.236

155.163

0.927

Not in Labor Force

80.502

87.992

7.49

Number employed

142.187

142.415

0.228

We are now two years passed the end of the great recession, yet we are posting dismal jobs numbers and GDP growth of less than 2%.  This is endemic of a centrally planned European-style economy, not the American economy that we know.  Unfortunately, Republicans are just as guilty.  Their continued support for welfare, entitlements, and ant-free market policies continued to drag down the economy with more debt and market-distortions.

We will never fully recover until we enact pure free-market policies where success is not punished and failure is not subsidized.

Cross-posted from The Madison Project

Get Alerts

COMMENTS

  • commonsenseobserver

    It wouldn’t hurt Romney to respond directly to Obama’s and the MSM’s spin, especially about the American Jobs Act and his own 59-point plan, which needs to be dusted-off and updated anyway. Playing it safe is unsafe.

    • APA Guy

      It’s as though you haven’t followed politics a day in your life when I read many of your posts.

      Romney wins this election by making it about OBAMA’S FAILURES…THEN pointing out how low-tax solutions that unleash the American spirit work better than Obama’s failed government programs. He doesn’t replace Obama by allowing the MSM and Obama to change the narrative away from Obama’s horrible performance on the economy.

      • Joliphant

        Everyone of those points, has a constituency that will disagree with it. Absolutely no reason to set up a fixed target for Obama and company to shoot at.

        Let Obama’s performance speak for itself,

        • commonsenseobserver

          Entitlement reform, farm subsidies, free trade, labour reform, tax reforms (where Romney has not outlined anything), and immigration reform.

          But welfare reform is more popular.

          Which is why the message is as important as the policies themselves, and the policies themselves must be carefully-tailored.

      • garfieldjl

        Instead of playing defense, he can throw it right back in their faces.

        “My job at Bain Capital was to ensure that companies provided a return for investment for the investors, in order to do this companies had to make a profit, in order to make a profit that company has to be able to compete with foreign companies. When job destroying legislation starts flying out of Washington, it makes it so those companies have to move part of their operation overseas so they can compete with the foreign companies. Now, are you suggesting Mr. President, that I should have kept everything in the United States and let those companies go out of business so everyone lost their job? Let’s be quite clear, if you want to start casting blame for jobs going overseas, maybe you should start with yourself, instead of blaming the victims of your destructive policies.”

        Obama continuing on the jobs overseas garbage…

        “Contrary to popular belief, generally corporations don’t like moving everything overseas, I know Democrats love to claim that it is cause businesses don’t want to pay the higher wages, but that isn’t it. The problem is all the idiotic regulations flying out of Washington makes doing business here so expensive that it is actually cheaper and less of a headache to deal with the expensive move overseas so they simply don’t have to deal with the Washington idiocy.”

        Now I think people can come up with a way to say it more elequently than I can, but the point is we can use it to go on offense…

        • APA Guy

          THAT is Romney’s charge right now…worked for Clinton and Reagan, and it will work for Romney.

          In the meantime, Romney needs only tell the public that low taxes and unleashing the American spirit will revive our greatness both here and abroad. That and hammering O on his economic failures…day…after day…after day…relentlessly.

          • commonsenseobserver

            Even if the economy is sour, Romney shouldn’t allow himself to be defined as a vampire or outsourcer, especially if there’s a chance for him to make the case for “unleashing the American spirit” by countering those false attacks.

          • APA Guy

            But there is a way to answer that without swinging at a pitch in the dirt. There is a reason Obama wants to talk about Bain and anything else but the economy he created. He knows it’s a loser…and so is he if Mitt keeps the narrative about Obama’s economic record.

      • commonsenseobserver

        And that Romney doesn’t. Especially the former.

        Now, as for Romney’s own plan, yes, of course I don’t expect him to release specifics now, but I expect him to have people working on it.

        He did articulate a positive message in his response, but he should have called them out on their lies directly, and waved his thick booklet for everyone to see.

      • commonsenseobserver

        If he doesn’t have a clear and coherent plan to reverse and replace those failures.

        Yes, low-tax solutions, of course, are one. But I don’t understand the Conservative obsession with taxes. There’re also many other low-hanging supply-side and demand-side fruit.

        Monetary policy, entitlement reform, tax simplification and reform, welfare reform, budget reform, government reform, healthcare reform, and the military, are areas where he should either expand on his plans or make a bolder and more convincing case for them.

        • commonsenseobserver

          By saying that it’s because of Congress’s refusal to pass Obama’s Porkulus 2.0. We need to push back like Obama did against McCain’s gas tax holiday idea.

          • APA Guy

            I honestly don’t mean to sound harsh here, but I seriously wonder if you have ever studied election history at all.

            Herbert Hoover…Jimmy Carter…Bush Sr…the precedent has been set from generation to generation. The public will blame the incumbent when an economy is in the toilet…every time. The only thing that can save Obama is if he is able to make Romney such a villain and poor alternative that the public chooses to leave him in office by default. Mitt Romney is far too smart to allow that to happen and wins handily by making OBAMA’S RECORD the only issue.

          • commonsenseobserver

            Truman, remember?

          • APA Guy

            Trust me, this is an election model that has worked at every turn. Reagan hammered Carter relentlessly…then swooped in with lower taxes with a message that government is not the solution, but the problem. He talked about America’s greatness. Mitt needs only follow that model to whip O in November.

          • commonsenseobserver

            “This President puts his faith in government. We put our faith in the American people” is a message which should have embodied Mitt’s strategy. I don’t think it does now.

          • APA Guy

            And remember, this thing is just getting started…and Romney will have a HUGE war chest.

          • commonsenseobserver

          • commonsenseobserver

            On ads which could be easily rebutted by a single one. At most, we’ll have to use a fifth of what he spent.

          • APA Guy

            The Obama team never thought money would be an issue…and now they find themselves scrambling to try to match Romney, which will NEVER happen.

            Romney really is in an excellent position. He’s essentially even with a sitting president presiding over a TERRIBLE economy…and he has yet to begin to spend that money annihilating Obama on his record.

            I’m as optimistic as I have ever been heading toward the convention. If Romney makes a smart VP pick and focuses his attacks on Obama’s record, he’ll win.

          • commonsenseobserver

            Even if most don’t trust them, the New York Times and the Washington Post have a large audience in Middle America.

            Like the Guardian in Britain is obviously a left-wing rag but people actually think it’s fair and balanced, and continue reading it.

            And Romney hasn’t exactly charmed the Murdoch press either.

          • APA Guy

            Old news they are…and not very good news, either.

          • commonsenseobserver

            And most have a wide nationwide circulation, including USA Today.

  • gflyer3364qt

    Watching Obama self-destruct. While I’m here, he’s having Hillary sign the Small Arms Treaty on July 27. In addition to the failing economy he’s going to run having signed a global gun control treaty (which is dead on arrival in the Senate, but will make a perfect issue to attack him on) in an election year.

  • julianusrex

    is another Obama supporter. It’s good for him politcally that more and more people suffer in this way.

    • GT350

      I’m unemployed and I can’t stand the guy. I network with a lot of professionals in the same boat. Most of us realize that Obamanomics is the reason our jobs (and careers) have vaporized.

      Despite 20 years of high level work experience, CPA, advanced degrees, etc, I’m lucky to get an interview. Obamanomics has been one gigantic wet blanket on economic activity.

  • Tbone

    I think not. I think I’ll wait and see if the Republicans get in and repeal it. Of course, if they get in and don’t repeal it I am not hiring anyone.

    Multiply me by about a million and you can kiss this economy good bye .

    • earlgrey

      Wouldn’t have to worry about the election. The next best thing would be to allow you to vote one million times in all 57 states.

  • Brookhaven

    And, will the numbers be revised down again in two weeks?

    • hafeed

      This report has April going from 77K to 69K, and May going from 68K to 77K. One of the things that made May so brutal was that revisions were all downward. That may happen yet again.

      Why do revisions seldom get media coverage? I’ve seen the first draft numbers used in discussions even when the number was revised.

      • Hafeed

        April 77K to 68K
        May 69K to 77K

      • Brookhaven

        It’s now part of the process.

        And the reason (as you stated) is people will continue to use the pre-revision numbers even after the revision is out. This makes the jobs numbers look better than they actually are.

        The Obama administration is fudging the numbers to make themselves look better. That’s the only reason that explains why this happens again, and again, and again.

        • mcsul

          I think that every admin. for the last while has gone through the “big announce” –> “quiet revision” process. It’s probably necessary to some extent, but I’m not sure why they don’t just report the monthly numbers one month later?

          Data in the report:

          1) The Bad – New jobs obviously missed estimates by a non-trivial amount.
          2) The Good-ish – Avg workweek and Avg yoy pay are up very slightly.
          3) The Odd – The ADP prediction (usually comes out a couple days before the official report) was for 169k new jobs. ADP has been over-estimating a bit recently, but that’s a swing and a miss for sure.
          4) Overall – Better than negative, but very, very slow.

          To the point about disability, it would be interesting to see more data on this. What categories? If it’s age-related, well that’s something that’s going to happen naturally to us anyhow as demographics shift. If it’s something else, that’s worth looking at closely.

  • renl57

    “Let’s All Learn To Speak Chinese”

    • wintermute

      eee… aar… sahn…

      • renny

        The Mooch could never wrap her mouth around those ideograms.

  • renl57

    More workers joined the federal government’s disability program in June than got new jobs, according to two new government reports, a clear indicator of how bleak the nation’s jobs picture is after three full years of economic recovery.

    The economy created just 80,000 jobs in June, the Bureau of Labor Statistics reported Friday. But that same month, 85,000 workers left the workforce entirely to enroll in the Social Security Disability Insurance program, according to the Social Security Administration.

    The disability ranks have outpaced job growth throughout President Obama’s economic recovery. While the economy has created 2.6 million jobs since June 2009, fully 3.1 million workers signed up for disability benefits.

    In other words, the number of new disability enrollees has climbed 19% faster than the number of new jobs created during the sluggish recovery. (Even after accounting for people who left the disability program because they died or aged into retirement, the disability ranks have climbed more than 1.1 million in the past three years.)

    http://news.investors.com/article/617233/201207060945/disability-climbs-faster-than-jobs-under-obama.htm

    Makes sense, doesn’t it?
    Disabled workers for a disabled economy.

    • jaykitsap

      I think I have a very bad case of Obama Derangement Syndrome and need treatment bad

      • Brookhaven

        You do have to wonder if the Obama admin has expanded the definition of “disabled” so it now covers more individuals.

        Just look at what they have done with the food stamp (excuse me–SNAP) program.. They’ve expanded it to the point that it’s almost impossible for someone NOT to qualify.

        • 6eorge Jetson
          • 6eorge Jetson

            (Although I do think it’s funny, it comes across as Daniel Horowitz-originated.)

  • izoneguy

    The owners are bidding their time until Obama is gone.

    Many of them I know are contributing to conservatives instead of
    hiring more people. They know if Obama is elected again then they
    may not have a business left that can hire more employees…..

    Obama and the Marxists just don’t understand why their policies
    are not working. This is why communism has always failed
    and will continue to do so.

  • shadowbear12

    Sorry to hear about all the suffering. Thought is would tey some encouragement. I first started voint when “Jimmy” was in office and we hade double digit inflation, interest rates, and unemployment. When Reagan got in office, things turned quickly around. Freedom works and it works extremely well. When freedom reigns we can actually out up with a lot of liberal b.s. and still be wealthy. Help is on the way.

  • norino2012

    This is all part of Obama’s pan to run this country into the ground. He is running his plan to perfection. How much longer until he is successful?

  • americanviewpoint

    The economy was seriously tanking before Obama got in, and so even if he were eliminated and all of his legislation reversed, why will things be better than they were in the Fall of 2008? If anything, we are in worse shape with an additional $5T of debt. If Obama alone were the root cause of all of our problems, why did we have problems before he got in? What specifically are we going to change beyond those things added by Obama?

    • checkmate2012

      and what shall we do about the economy going forward? I’m open to any and all suggestions that you can provide.

    • Dave_A

      Carter ratcheted it up with the CRA, and Clinton put it into overdrive…

      Bush made some minor efforts to slow it down, but wasn’t able to get anything done…

      BUT…

      That had mostly run it’s course by late 2009. Thanks to the FDIC, Federal Reserve, Goldman, and the 3 major retail banks (Chase, BoA, and Wells Fargo), most of the weak banks had been sold off to their stronger competitors (a remarkably free-market solution to the problem)…. TARP money was being repaid… The housing sector was still crushed, of course, but everything else had stabilized…

      The problem here? Obama’s reaction to a problem that had basically worked itself out, cast a cloud of regulatory DOOM over the private sector…

      Which is why we’re still stagnating…

      Remove that cloud, and away we go….

      • 6eorge Jetson

        and a good number of folks forget about the housing bubble.

        The Dems did everything they could to encourage Americans to purchase larger & larger homes. Which a critical mass fell for, and are now underwater.

  • americanviewpoint

    Private sector investment banks, operating in an area that was not strongly regulated, made huge (trillion $), highly leveraged bets that ultimately collapsed like a house of cards in 2008. This was enabled by private sector ratings agencies like Moody’s declaring as AAA (very safe) these collateral debt obligations that should have been judged as junk. Mortgage companies made bad loans that fed the system (and much as I would like to blame Freddie and Fannie, about 75% of the defaults were on loans originated by private sector firms).

    We can make the case that government forced each of these groups to act this way, but the reality is that investment bankers, ratings agency people, and leaders of mortgage companies are paid very highly to only make smart investments that bring back big returns, and government can’t easily force them to invest in something they don’t want.

    I am not only interested in what we can say that brings political advantage, but also what can we actually do to address the problem. Because, if you haven’t noticed, the economy really sucks, and I don’t want to go through the same thing 10 0r 20 years from now.

    • 6eorge Jetson

      With the GSEs subsidizing $5 trillion of below private market rate prime loans, where did you think the private sector investment banks were going to go? If the private sector had $5 trillion more of it’s own risk-accepting capital in prime loans, a lot of the concentration in the subprime market would have been alleviated.

    • 6eorge Jetson

      that was maxing out the size of his or her home.

      Yes, loose-financing threw gas on the fire, but there are a lot of prime borrowers that are underwater now not because of a lack of time-of-loan-origination borrowing qualification but rather because prices crashed.

  • americanviewpoint

    Regarding the role of Freddie and Fannie, see THE FINANCIAL
    CRISIS INQUIRY REPORT (http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/GPO-FCIC/pdf/GPO-FCIC.pdf); those government institutions acted recklessly, but so were the private sector mortgage companies. And I agree that American homeowners contracted for mortgages that they could not pay are also at fault. But getting rid of Obama and anything he has done in the past 3 years does not address the problem that occurred before he came on the scene.

    6eorge Jetson, I am not sure I understand your argument about the GSEs subsidizing $5 trillion of below private market rate prime loans, how did that force investment banks to make stupid bets on CDO’s?

    • Dave_A

      CDOs are debt insurance, nothing more, nothing less…

      The investment banks took them out to ‘hedge’ their activity in the real-estate markets… Never considering that a sector-wide bubble could result in all those policies being called in…

      If you want to establish blame for the housing bubble, you have to start at the source.

      You see, all of the activities of the private-banks would have been perfectly SAFE and LOGICAL if the market were not polluted with worthless sub-prime debt.

      CDOs & Derivatives? No problem – most of the debt is good, very few of these will ever be called in…

      Mortgage backed securities? If it’s all prime debt, they’re a great idea…

      Brokered mortgages? If the borrower is properly qualified, again, no problem…

      None of the mechanics used by the private sector were bad in and of themselves.

      And there was no problem with a lack of regulation.

      It’s the government-mandated low lending standards, that collapsed the entire house by rotting out the foundation…

      OVER-REGULATION in the name of universal home-ownership, is what killed the golden-goose…

      • americanviewpoint

        The Wall Street leaders who created the CDO’s were paid big bucks to make smart choices about risk – we can’t argue that they were blameless because the whole basis for their high compensation is that they can understand all market conditions (including government distortion of the marketplace) and make the best possible investments. And in dollar terms, the collapse of the leveraged CDO market is what caused the collapse of the entire investment banking community in the Fall of 2008 (the high leveraging increased the impact of the housing collapse by a factor of 10 or more).

        And the ratings agency executives – their whole job is to take in all information, and make a judgement on how good certain investments are. The whole basis for their industry is that they will see through all the smoke-screens, and when they rate something as AAA, that means they understand the risks and that this investment is extremely safe.

        And the mortgage company executives in places like Countrywide – their job (and high compensation) is to enter into mortgage contracts that will make the company money. They are supposed to understand the risks of the mortgage contracts that their company signs. The systematic weaknesses in the housing bubble should have been obvious to those who were getting paid 6-, 7- and 8-digit salaries as experts in this field. Government standards did not force these companies to enter into contracts with negligible substantiation for the income claims of the potential borrowers, nor to disregard the possibility that the housing bubble could collapse.

        If we are actually interested in solving problems, above and beyond politics, we have to deal with all of the actual facts, and not just the world as we would imagine it to be.

        • acat

          because they sold everything they produced to Fannie and Freddie ….
          and Fannie and Freddie failed to perform proper due diligence, buying a lot of fluffed up bad paper.

          The mortgage houses were, in fact, in the business of making bad loans because they got their profit up front, eh?

          Mew

          • americanviewpoint

            But their incompetence was responsible for only about 25% of the failed mortgages

          • acat

            is that Fannie and Freddie were designed to fail, and that Fannie and Freddie proved that the analysis by those six-and-seven-figure-wonks was, bluntly, crap.

            Mew

          • americanviewpoint

            Freddie/Fannie were not the largest drivers of the problem – just look at the dollars involved, and where the greatest percentage of defaulted mortgages came from. To only focus on them misses those with even more responsibility, and that is important not because of politics, but because this recession really sucks, and I would rather not go through this all over again. At some point, the political process has to actually solve problems, otherwise it’s just sports without the uniforms.

          • acat

            Who wrote the bad paper?
            Who said it was good?
            Could the ones writing it have known it was bad?
            If so, why did they write the bad paper?

            Who bought the bad paper?
            Did they check whether it was good?
            Could their checks have revealed that it was, in fact, bad?
            If so, why did they buy bad paper?

            The answers are, lots of banks and mortgage companies, lots of bank officers and mortgage company officers, yes, because they knew they could sell the bad paper and make profit, Fannie and Freddie, no, yes, politics.

            You can say that some of the banks got caught, but that’s more a function of losing at a game of musical chairs, not a business choice.

            The real losers are both the people now who can’t get mortgages because banks aren’t lending .. and We The People, who are on the hook for the political shenanigans that propped up Fannie and Freddie.

            Mew

          • garfieldjl

            The Community Reinvestment act was what caused the mess…

            Banks that refused to go along with it faced retailiation from the Feds.

            People like Barack Obama working for ACORN worked to exploit the system to get people into loans that they couldn’t afford.

            The free market didn’t cause this mess, bad government policies caused it.

          • checkmate2012

            The blame started with Chris Dodd and Barney Frank with the CRAct. As others have said, Bush and others demanded that Freddie and Fannie be audited to stop the loose loans and get a handle on their outstanding debt.

            But the Dems insisted it is a “right” for all to own a home so it continued regardless of one’s ability to pay or how risky the loan would be to low income earners.

            The Banks were forced to make these risky loans and therefore, got creative to spread the risk via mortgage-backed derivatives. And Fannie/Freddie was willing and able to buy them up.

            Fast forward and who gave us the financial wrecking-ball bill? Frank/Dodd. How’s that working out? We still don’t know with thousands of regulations yet to be written by unelected officials.

            Lastly, this is so typical of the Left to call something a “right” or “social justice” as now with healthcare. Because it’s a so called “right”, the gov’t is blowing up the entire system to provide for 6% of the population that either don’t have it, maybe they’re still young and invincible or don’t want it because they’re well-off and pay cash or simple can’t afford it…take your pick.

            It’s social redistribution plain and simple: housing, healthcare, welfare, and the list goes on, least not, the UN.

          • jimmyg

            “in 2005, faced with ominous signs the housing market was in jeopardy, bank regulators proposed new guidelines for banks writing risky loans. Today, in the midst of the worst housing recession in a generation, the proposal reads like a list of what-ifs:
            _Regulators told bankers exotic mortgages were often inappropriate for buyers with bad credit.
            _Banks would have been required to increase efforts to verify that buyers actually had jobs and could afford houses.
            _Regulators proposed a cap on risky mortgages so a string of defaults wouldn’t be crippling.
            _Banks that bundled and sold mortgages were told to be sure investors knew exactly what they were buying.
            _Regulators urged banks to help buyers make responsible decisions and clearly advise them that interest rates might skyrocket and huge payments might be due sooner than expected.
            Those proposals all were stripped from the final rules. None required congressional approval or the president’s signature.
            “In hindsight, it was spot on,” said Jeffrey Brown, a former top official at the Office of Comptroller of the Currency, one of the first agencies to raise concerns about risky lending.”

            Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,460044,00.html#ixzz204SnHF49

            I do not think you can point to one event or law as the cause of the mortgage bubble. The banks and mortgage bankers were making big money and as a result, they wanted to prevent regulation of their industry. If I were them I would have done the same thing. Hindsight being 20/20, the regulators should have regulated, and the banks and lenders should have been more restrictive in their lending practices.

          • americanviewpoint

            And getting rid of Obama addresses some problems. And cutting back government over-reach addresses some problems. But what about the part of the problem that is squarely in the private sector – there were major economic entities able to act in ways that benefited themselves but harmed the rest of us. Nobody was holding a gun to the head of Lehman Brothers or Countrywide or Goldman Sachs, and if they had been, the CEO’s at those firms would have just laughed at the threat. It was not just a single firm that screwed up, they all did, and as far as I know, nothing will stop them from screwing up the economy again some time in the future. I don’t know if the rest of you have profited by the economic collapse of the past 4 years, but it has really been a painful time for me and mine. So I would like the whole problem to be addressed, not just part.

            If it is ideologically impermissible to say that sometimes part of the problem is not just the government but also how big business operates, then I’ll just be quiet.

          • 6eorge Jetson

            But I don’t know how you get there politically. The TBTF camp has a lot of lobbying muscle to defeat that.

            There’s no pure answer here, as doing that would likely destroy some shareholder value. To which I’d say to the banks to go pound sand. But I’m just a very small shirker named JoJo

          • Dave_A

            http://www.redstate.com/dcacklam/2012/06/03/the-false-narrative-of-too-big-to-fail/

          • http://impudent.edublogs.org/ kyle8

            Small banks are not any more vulnerable than larger banks. What makes a bank vulnerable is one thing, and one thing only. Bad debt.

            There were some banks in this last crises which simply did not make a lot of bad loans, they suffered a little and are doing quite well right now.

            Bigger is not best because if the big banks make mistakes they drag a large portion of the economy down with them.

            One of the major problems with theory over practice is that among free market economists it has long been held that Anti-trust is bad or at best useless. I do not agree with that.

            I think had we actually enforced our anti trust laws in the last thirty years we would have had far fewer incidents of the five mega-banks gobbling up regional competitors. And we would not have had “too big to fail”.

          • Dave_A

            The overwhelming majority of failed banks were regional/local concerns. In most cases, the result of this was sale to one of the healthy big-banks (Wells Fargo and Chase, primarily).

            And yes, there are some banks that didn’t make alot of bad loans… The #1 example is JP Morgan Chase – the ultimate ‘Megabank’…

            The mega-banks gobbling up regional competition MASSIVELY softened the blow of the 08 crash, as it kept losses private that would otherwise have fallen on the FDIC.

            Via the ‘fail it Friday, open for business as (Chase or Fargo) Monday’ model, the government actually ended up being less involved than what would have happened otherwise.

            ‘Small’ banks don’t have the capital to buy up failed competitors in this manner…

            ‘Small’ banks also generally don’t have proprietary-trading departments (like the big ones do) that can generate profits in the stock-market to offset losses in commercial/residential lending.

            When it comes to banks, bigger is better.

          • americanviewpoint

            If the government had that much control over banks,so much so that they could cause them to make decisions that were so financially ruinous, when Obama got in power he would have pushed the banks to re-negotiate the values of their contracts to avoid most of the foreclosures (which would have also hurt the banks, but not as much as the collapse of 2008 did).

            This magical thinking about how institutions actually work will not help advance our policy goals or address real world problems.

          • gekster

            1. The Dems forced the banks to make bad loans that led to the housing collasp before 2008, just to yell about Bush and evil Republicans.
            2. Obama forced the banks to keep up the loans on people who could not afford them in the first place that has kept up the housing collasp.
            Do a search on ‘Obama mortgage refinancing’ and educate yourself before looking any more a fool.
            That or a left wing idiot.

            Here’s some help.
            from:
            http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/02/01/obama-mortgage-refinancing-plan_n_1246765.html

            FALLS CHURCH, Va. ? Conceding his earlier housing programs have fallen short, President Barack Obama on Wednesday proposed a vast expansion of government assistance to homeowners, aiming to make lower lending rates a possibility for millions of borrowers who have not been able to get out from under burdensome mortgages.

            The president’s proposal is laden with election-year politics and faces a difficult path in Congress. Obama wants to pay for the estimated $5 billion to $10 billion cost with a fee on the nation’s largest banks, a proposal that has failed to win support even when Democrats controlled both the House and Senate.

            In addition, its potential impact could be limited by the fact that it would not apply to borrowers who are behind on their home loan payments, those most threatened by foreclosure.

            So forcing lower lending rates plus extra fees to pay for it doesn’t help lending (banks) institutions.
            Blame it all on your buddies in the Dem/leftist party.
            It’s all thier fault.

          • 6eorge Jetson

            Are you including the ~half-trillion of modified loans for deliquent borrowers that the GSEs are now holding?

          • 6eorge Jetson

            I am suspicious of his motives

          • americanviewpoint

            Not every problem that has ever happened is due to Obama or government action, even though there are plenty of problems you can attribute to those causes. The primary driver in the speculation on CDO’s that crashed the economy in 2008 was not the government – Goldman Sachs, Lehman Brothers, Bear Stearns and the rest of them got paid mondo bucks to out-think the rest of the market, including to out-think the effects of government distortion of the market. Getting rid of Obama does not fix this problem, and attributing all of the responsibility on Freddie and Fannie is dangerous because they only accounted for a portion of the problem. Does dogma require us to ignore the problems that won’t get fixed simply by electing Republicans and having them eliminate what Obama did?

            htttp://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/GPO-FCIC/pdf/GPO-FCIC.pdf

          • acat

            Fannie and Freddie are a government creation, and acted as a magnet for suspect loans…. banks and mortgage companies *knew* Fannie and Freddie weren’t properly diligent, so were able to pass all their bad paper to .. We The People.

            Blaming this on CDOs and on quants is silly – they *did* out-think the rest of us. The problem isn’t the CDOs, it’s the government free money window!

            Mew

          • garfieldjl

            The Republicans had been pushing for an audit of Fannie and Freddie since 2003, only for Democrats and their liberal media accomplices to stonewall and demonize the Republicans.

            This “mess” as you call it, was preventable, in fact Senator John S. McCain was one of the ones that was calling for an audit. Barack Obama when he entered the Senate joined Chris Dodd in stonewalling any attempts to put a stop to the irresponsible behavior.

            These “reforms” that the Democrats shoved in place do nothing to prevent another fiasco, instead they work to drive small banks out of business because they can’t afford to hire an army of lawyers to read through the mountain of new regulations.

            I’m sorry that you’ve bought the left’s pack of lies, but truth of the matter is that Republicans saw what was going to happen and repeatedly tried to do something to stop it, but the Democrats (some of whom were getting special loan deals (I would equate it to taking bribes) were only concerned about continuing to have their cash cows funnelling them money.

            It wasn’t private business that caused the housing crisis, it was government that caused the problem. Democrats prevented the problem from being fixed which would have prevented the crisis. Now the Democrats blame Republicans for their own mess.

          • http://impudent.edublogs.org/ kyle8

            Just like in any other great recession or depression. Sure there was too much speculation, too much debt. There always is and always will be a business cycle but most booms and busts are quite small.

            What sets this one apart is (1) Government meddling in the housing market (2) Government loose money policies (3) Crony capitalism especially on the part of the very people who were supposed to be watching the show, Frank and Dodd.

          • acat

            Carry on.

            Mew

    • 6eorge Jetson

      at non-subsidized mortgage rates, surely some or a great deal of the risk capital that was concentrated in the non-prime market would have flowed to the prime market. And pain signals from the prime market would surely have begun to make themselves known to the general market. The equilibrium and market dynamics would have been different. Not perfect, foresight never is, but surely better.

    • 6eorge Jetson

      i.e. that the interests of the shareholders/owners of the investment banks are being overriden by management with bonus targets in their sight, then, yes, I’d agree with you. That is a problem.

      I don’t believe its a coincidence that the IBanks didn’t fail when they were general partnerships with only mgmt’s capital at stake.

      • americanviewpoint

        How do we plan to address that?

        • http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens

          That’s enough out of you, concern troll.

    • 6eorge Jetson

      Helicopter denies it, but surely abnormally low rates in the presence of a Flip this House market bubble provided extra gas-on-the-fire if not the underlying kindling. By the time rates were raised, the Housing Bubble Monster was not going to be stopped by anything other than a popping.

      Thanks for the link. And no, I don’t blame the GSEs as the sole culprits. But a common theme of ALL of this is that these types of activities look attractive as long as someone else gets left holding the bag. And Obama is ALL about sticking someone else with the costs. (ObamaCare, Solyndra, GM giveaway to to the unions, runaway regulation, …)

      • aesthete

        the Fed, regulatory agencies, and some poor prognostication on the part of banks.

        Would there have been a bubble absent government intervention? Probably.

        Would that bubble have gotten as large as it did for as long as it did? Probably not, and that’s the real problem, isn’t it? Boom and bust cycles are part and parcel of market economies, but they typically don’t grow to be “too big to fail” absent governmental intervention: the markets have various natural mechanisms to prevent just that.

        So yes, the banks which made poor decisions in the environment that they were given likely would have made poor decisions regardless. However, these poor decisions had much more impact and longevity directly as a result of government policy which 1) sought a boom to make up for the pop of the Dot.com bubble, and which 2) sought mass homeownership as policy.

        • 6eorge Jetson

          which can happen when many actors make the same mistake (e.g. the tech bubble), but they are a whole lot more likely when a few actors (or one, the govt) drive the system.

          • http://impudent.edublogs.org/ kyle8

            It is lemming like behavior such as that which caused people in Amsterdam to speculate on Tulip bulbs of all things.

            But it can be opposed by sound government rules and exacerbated by rules that put too much value on debt and make debt too easy to obtain.

  • malvernpa

    The Democrats ( liberal, progressive, socialist, communist, Marxist, they are all the same in the current Democrat party) cannot be rehabilitated from their Marxist ( Marxism is redistributionism ) ways. The question remains can the Republicans be rehabilitated. The producers in America are the only group that are under constant attack by the Democrats, everyone else is in some government protected group. I am small business. I have watched my gross revenue decline by 50% since Obama took office. Those customers just went out of business so I need to understand that I am fortunate to even remain in business. This personal example is echoing all across America. Every plan by Obama and his Democrat Party has been focused on the non producers, failed green industry or unions. The economy is burning down and the Democrats are pointing the hose in the wrong direction. The question remains can the Republicans be rehabilitated. If one does not stand for something then they will fall for anything. What exactly do the Republicans stand for, our lives, our fortunes, our sacred honor, give me a break. Other than some of the governors what do Republicans stand for. Lip service no longer gets it done. Republicans lose elections because they by and large have no spine or B_lls, let that picture steep in your mind, that is what the Republicans look like from out here. They are trying to serve 2 masters and that is not going to get the economy back. McConnell tells us it is TOO HARD to repeal Obama care, Mitch have a look at what we see from statements like that. Do the seals sent on a mission say no this is too hard!!! Get the government out of the way of small business. Cut the Marxist junk out. If the republicans do not get it right, say and do the right thing they will get tossed out of office again and they will blame the Tea Party like Obama blames the Bush administration. BTY I am a life time conservative, republican voter and Tea Party member. Lets start by repealing Obamacare. This goes back a long way. We voted for Perot because the Republicans would not do the right thing. Here we are 20 years later and we are still trying t get the Republicans to hear us, do the Republicans understand that??? If they worked for me I would fire the republicans and make the Democrats clean porta potties for the rest of their lives.

  • checkmate2012

    i.e. Nov 6. There is no doubt in my mind that this destruction was exactly what he meant by, “fundamentally changing America”.

    This is no accident as far I’m concerned. It was in the planning for decades as well as his obscure rise from nowhere and scrubbing of any records on his past. Judge him by those he surrounds himself with and it’s clear what his intentions are for hope and change.

    It’s now or never for our country and the alarm bells need to be sounded across this land. We are in an emergency. And if Romney wins, he WILL need time to just stop the bleeding let alone perform miracles with the mess he’ll inherit. God Bless America.

  • Pingback: Handyortung

  • Pingback: Nelda Dimsdale

  • Pingback: Renetta Servidio

  • Pingback: electronic cigarette

  • Pingback: Welcome to My Blog

  • Pingback: Automobile Forum

  • Pingback: I was reading this

  • Pingback: HGH Advanced reviews

  • Pingback: zakopane noclegi

  • Pingback: skype pobierz

  • Pingback: Portal randkowy

  • Pingback: wzór cv

  • Pingback: Egal Gabbay CA

  • Pingback: backyard ideas

  • Pingback: Wedding planning

  • Pingback: Investment Opportunities

  • Pingback: spirits drink

  • Pingback: แทงบอลออนไลน์

  • Pingback: our website

  • Pingback: Links Eintragen

  • Pingback: Egal Gabbay California

  • Pingback: descargar musica gratis quien te quiere como yo

  • Pingback: borderlands

  • Pingback: click to read much more

  • Pingback: assassin's creed 3

  • Pingback: Best blushes ever

  • Pingback: foreclosure lawyer

  • Pingback: kozmetika pre muzov

  • Pingback: payday loans online

  • Pingback: distill wine

  • Pingback: guidance

  • Pingback: Aquaristik Bücher

  • Pingback: Pool Shop

  • Pingback: aquí

  • Pingback: furniture repair

  • Pingback: these records

  • Pingback: randka

  • Pingback: Baby Shower Favor Ideas

  • Pingback: หอพัก

  • Pingback: Video on Demand

  • Pingback: darmowa strona z randkami

  • Pingback: Aquariumfilter

  • Pingback: rewelacyjny portla randkowy

  • Pingback: darmowy serwis randkowy

  • Pingback: orlando home addition second story

  • Pingback: Gustavo Woolhouse

  • Pingback: odszukaj milosc swego zycia

  • Pingback: serwis randkowy

  • Pingback: paydayloanstim.com

  • Pingback: darmowa strona z randkami

  • Pingback: umow sie na randke

  • Pingback: adobe video editing

  • Pingback: qb coaches tucson

  • Pingback: tutorials for drawing

  • Pingback: payday loans

  • Pingback: seo company sydney

  • Pingback: Au Pair Agency

  • Pingback: emergency pediatric dentist discount

  • Pingback: assisted living las vegas

  • Pingback: buy vending management companies

  • Pingback: submit website

  • Pingback: laptop repairs belfast

  • Pingback: znajdz milosc

  • Pingback: http://www.streamdownload.net/portfolio/mtv-music-downloader-for-mac

  • Pingback: randki za darmo

  • Pingback: Arkadaslik

  • Pingback: randka

  • Pingback: School

  • Pingback: randki w rzeszowie

  • Pingback: dating northern ireland

  • Pingback: my latest article

  • Pingback: payday advance loans

  • Pingback: Investment House

  • Pingback: SEO Services Australia

  • Pingback: casino gaming

  • Pingback: Evan Adcock

  • Pingback: Youtube to mov

  • Pingback: cleaners

  • Pingback: star wars 7 news

  • Pingback: interesting publish

  • Pingback: résultats et rapports pmu d'aujourd'hui

  • Pingback: wedding planner italy

  • Pingback: your origin here

  • Pingback: madden 13 guide

  • Pingback: Laptop

  • Pingback: veteran

  • Pingback: here

  • Pingback: Best of Twitter

  • Pingback: fiyati

  • Pingback: Iolanthe

  • Pingback: express

  • Pingback: spectrum investment advisors

  • Pingback: Rolf Brais

  • Pingback: alfileres de boda

  • Pingback: look what I came across

  • Pingback: Diseño web barato

  • Pingback: Guy

  • Pingback: Donatien

  • Pingback: Chase

  • Pingback: ps3

  • Pingback: Shae Roddick

  • Pingback: meet online

  • Pingback: my latest post

  • Pingback: sofy rozkładane

  • Pingback: las vegas chapter 11 bankruptcy

  • Pingback: colorado springs traffic tickets

  • Pingback: norwegian casino

  • Pingback: bixenon

  • Pingback: texas driver education

  • Pingback: Caron