Dow over 17,000. thank you again President Obama. [W:1017, 2344]

[Fenton]

it is for you because you write so many incorrect posts I never said he was, this is again incorrectyup, 2001 to 2006.

Only a lib could attribute 1% increase in Homeownership rates to a " bubble ".

1993 Homeownership rates were 63%
2000 Homeownership rates were 68%.

A 5% increase under Clinton.

Under Bush rates rose another 1%

 

[Conservative]

right here:We went over this yesterday.....which for you was a long time ago, erased from your memory.

Uh-huh

So somehow this is me making that statement?

What you posted shows that the relaxed regulations which obviously would have led to major sub prime loan failures didn't happen thus Bush played a minor role in creating the problem.

 

[Gimmesometruth]

So somehow this is me making that statement?

What you posted shows that the relaxed regulations which obviously would have led to major sub prime loan failures didn't happen thus Bush played a minor role in creating the problem.

Um, con, there were major subprime failures, they did happen.

What I posted showed that Wallison was lying on many levels.

 

[Gimmesometruth]

Only a lib could attribute 1% increase in Homeownership rates to a " bubble ".

1993 Homeownership rates were 63%
2000 Homeownership rates were 68%.

A 5% increase under Clinton.

Under Bush rates rose another 1%

Oh, you still think that the "bubble" refers to ownership rates!

Hint: It ALWAYS referred to a price bubble.

FFS fenton, I didn't think it was this bad.

 

[Conservative]

Um, con, there were major subprime failures, they did happen.

What I posted showed that Wallison was lying on many levels.

That is quite different than you claiming that I made the statement that there weren't any major sub prime failures which I DID NOT SAY

 

[Gimmesometruth]

That is quite different than you claiming that I made the statement that there weren't any major sub prime failures which I DID NOT SAY

You can't repeat what you say with any accuracy, so I'll repost it for what...a 5th time:

What you posted shows that the relaxed regulations which obviously would have led to major sub prime loan failures didn't happen thus Bush played a minor role in creating the problem.

Subprime loan failures happened in a major way, so if you want to amend your incorrect statement, be my guest. What you posted makes no sense.

 

[Conservative]

You can't repeat what you say with any accuracy, so I'll repost it for what...a 5th time:

What you posted shows that the relaxed regulations which obviously would have led to major sub prime loan failures didn't happen thus Bush played a minor role in creating the problem.

Subprime loan failures happened in a major way, so if you want to amend your incorrect statement, be my guest. What you posted makes no sense.

My point on this thread has always been that President Bush wasn't alone in creating the bubble and causing it to burst. That is what I have stated and what I stand by. Never did I think that sub prime failures didn't happen because THEY DID, just not enough to cause the bubble in the first place to burst. They helped create the bubble but there were many factors causing it to burst.

 

[Kushinator]

My point on this thread has always been that President Bush wasn't alone in creating the bubble and causing it to burst. That is what I have stated and what I stand by. Never did I think that sub prime failures didn't happen because THEY DID, just not enough to cause the bubble in the first place to burst. They helped create the bubble but there were many factors causing it to burst.

This is about the most reasonable thing i've ever seen you write on this forum.

I agree.

 

[Gimmesometruth]

My point on this thread has always been that President Bush wasn't alone in creating the bubble and causing it to burst. That is what I have stated and what I stand by. Never did I think that sub prime failures didn't happen because THEY DID, just not enough to cause the bubble in the first place to burst.

There you go again, changing what you said.....and making it even worse. Subprime purchases DID cause prices to rise (the bubble), defaults and the decline in housing prices were one in the same, you can't extract or divide one from the other. But this is again different from your previous argument that "it was not the sub prime loans between 2004-2007 that caused the crisis."

They (subprimes) helped create the bubble but there were many factors causing it to burst.

I await your proof that it was the sub prime loans between 2004-2007 that caused the crisis

 

[winston53660]

My point on this thread has always been that President Bush wasn't alone in creating the bubble and causing it to burst. That is what I have stated and what I stand by. Never did I think that sub prime failures didn't happen because THEY DID, just not enough to cause the bubble in the first place to burst. They helped create the bubble but there were many factors causing it to burst.

They were a highly contributing factor. And then mix those in with some AAA rated loans and do a credit default swap and wallah you got a time bomb ticking.

 

[DA60]

BTW, my prediction for today's job's report is that the Fed will say that a moderate number of jobs were created.

But that will be the 'seasonally adjusted' number (which means almost nothing to me as it is just BLS creative math).

The 'not seasonally adjusted' number (or 'the actual number') will be (imo) FAR worse...perhaps even negative.


But I could be wrong...we will see in a few hours.

 

[pinqy]

BTW, my prediction for today's job's report is that the Fed will say that a moderate number of jobs were created.

But that will be the 'seasonally adjusted' number (which means almost nothing to me as it is just BLS creative math).

The 'not seasonally adjusted' number (or 'the actual number') will be (imo) FAR worse...perhaps even negative.


But I could be wrong...we will see in a few hours.

if you had a house on the beach and needed to know if the water level was rising so you would know if you needed to take precautions, would you accept the change from low tide to high tide as evidence things were getting worse? Or would you want to adjust for changes in the tide?

 

[DA60]

if you had a house on the beach and needed to know if the water level was rising so you would know if you needed to take precautions, would you accept the change from low tide to high tide as evidence things were getting worse? Or would you want to adjust for changes in the tide?

No idea...but your example is EXTREMELY obscure imo.

I don't care what the ignorant media, the ignorant masses or the corrupt/ignorant Congress wants. I WANT the actual numbers every month with no 'adjustments' at the whim of the BLS.

You don't agree...so be it.

 

[pinqy]

No idea...but your example is EXTREMELY obscure imo.

That the water level goes up and down due to the tide is an obscure reference? OK, there's this force called "gravity," where all objects are attra ted to each other in proportion to their size and distance. The gravitational effects of the sun and thee moon, combined with the earth's rotation cause a periodic rising and lowering of the oceans. Other randomly occurring factors also affect water level. So, on most seashores, the water level rises once or twice a day, an exceeds once or twice the day at measurable and predictable intervals.

If one has a house on the beach, then one has to know the general trend of water level. If due to erosion, tectonic shifts, whatever, the waters are rising, then it's important to know and take precautions (or find a sucker to buy the place).

But if you measure it at high tide and then at low, it will look like the water level has dropped very quickly, and vice versa. So to actually know what's going on, you have to measure the periodic changes and mathematically factor that out to know what's happening. The alternative is to average the levels or only compare high tide to high tide and low tide to low tide.

Same thing with Employment.... It always goes up in October and June, and always goes down in December and January. So very year it looks like employ goes down in January. But how much is the real trend and how much the normal, periodic, changes? How much is the tide? To account for it, you have to compare January nobly to January, or factor out the normal January change.

I don't care what the ignorant media, the ignorant masses or the corrupt/ignorant Congress wants. I WANT the actual numbers every month with no 'adjustments' at the whim of the BLS.

The adjustment s aren't made on a whim or any kind of decision. Here's the free non-copywrited software https://www.census.gov/srd/www/x13as/

But please share your method: how can you tell how much of the month to month change is a trend, or simply seasonal change?

 

[mmi]

Over the past twelve months, the number of unemployed has dropped from 8,920,000 to 7,971,000, a decline of 12.6%. The rate has fallen from 5.7% to 4.9%.

The number of long-term unemployed (more than six months) dropped from 2,776,000 to 2,089,000, a decline of 24.7%.

Part-time for economic reasons dropped from 6,784,000 to 5,988,000, a decline of 11.7%.

Sounds like a pretty good year to me.

 

[DA60]

BTW, my prediction for today's job's report is that the Fed will say that a moderate number of jobs were created.

But that will be the 'seasonally adjusted' number (which means almost nothing to me as it is just BLS creative math).

The 'not seasonally adjusted' number (or 'the actual number') will be (imo) FAR worse...perhaps even negative.


But I could be wrong...we will see in a few hours.

Looks like I was right.

The seasonally adjusted establishment number (the advertised number) was only 151,000.

But the actual, not seasonally adjusted household survey number was a drop of 666,000.

 

[jbander]

As I have stated over and over again but partisans who simply have been indoctrinated to blame Bush for everything ignore it. There are a lot of players that caused the housing bubble to burst INCLUDING Bush but NOT Bush alone. The bubble wasn't created in 2004-2007 but the term trigger means the bullets left the gun. The bullets were put into the gun long before 2004-2007. As I just posted here is a good article on the subject. Those who still want to blame Bush solely are going to do so and pick out of this article what they want. Those of us who see the bigger picture however understand that Bush alone didn't cause the problem and the problem was going to eventually burst in spite of Bush.

https://business.cch.com/images/banner/subprime.pdf

Bush deserves what he gets, he destroyed our economy and almost destroyed the country. I didn't, Obama didn't. Simply look at his list of deregulations and and see how those industries that were deregulated fit into the cause of the destroyed economy, I love it, a Quote from doctor conservative-"Those of us who see the bigger picture however understand that Bush alone didn't cause the problem and the problem was going to eventually burst in spite of Bush." This from one of the leaders of no think. This is a wonderful place, humor around every corner, kind of like the regressives seeing a Commie behind every corner.

 

[DA60]

That the water level goes up and down due to the tide is an obscure reference? OK, there's this force called "gravity," where all objects are attra ted to each other in proportion to their size and distance. The gravitational effects of the sun and thee moon, combined with the earth's rotation cause a periodic rising and lowering of the oceans. Other randomly occurring factors also affect water level. So, on most seashores, the water level rises once or twice a day, an exceeds once or twice the day at measurable and predictable intervals.

If one has a house on the beach, then one has to know the general trend of water level. If due to erosion, tectonic shifts, whatever, the waters are rising, then it's important to know and take precautions (or find a sucker to buy the place).

But if you measure it at high tide and then at low, it will look like the water level has dropped very quickly, and vice versa. So to actually know what's going on, you have to measure the periodic changes and mathematically factor that out to know what's happening. The alternative is to average the levels or only compare high tide to high tide and low tide to low tide.

Same thing with Employment.... It always goes up in October and June, and always goes down in December and January. So very year it looks like employ goes down in January. But how much is the real trend and how much the normal, periodic, changes? How much is the tide? To account for it, you have to compare January nobly to January, or factor out the normal January change.

The adjustment s aren't made on a whim or any kind of decision. Here's the free non-copywrited software https://www.census.gov/srd/www/x13as/

But please share your method: how can you tell how much of the month to month change is a trend, or simply seasonal change?

Sorry man...I am not nearly interested enough to read that - not trying to be rude.

I have told you time and again...all I am interested from you is whether the stats I quote from the BLS are correct.

And since the ones I did post are directly from the BLS, I assume they are accurate.

So your and my business is concluded on this.


I told you, I try not to debate with closed minded people. And when it comes to the BLS, your mind seems INCREDIBLY closed.

Good day.

 

[jbander]

Looks like I was right.

The seasonally adjusted establishment number (the advertised number) was only 151,000.

But the actual, not seasonally adjusted household survey number was a drop of 666,000.

There is only one number to gage the underemployment rate and that is the seasonal adjusted numbers. It increases or decreases, is nothing as far as a comparative statistics, when farmers come of their field and road builders start fishing in the winter when roads can't be built and that include builders and most outdoor work in cold climates. Putting Seasonal workers in and not out makes the statistic useless, takes away the value completely using unemployment number as a gauge or standard or anything.

 

[jbander]

Um, con, there were major subprime failures, they did happen.

What I posted showed that Wallison was lying on many levels.

I always love the regressive blame game . Every president from Hoover on did something to help get people into their own house, one of the big pushers of this was Bush the baby killer.

 

[pinqy]

Sorry man...I am not nearly interested enough to read that - not trying to be rude.

I have told you time and again...all I am interested from you is whether the stats I quote from the BLS are correct.

And since the ones I did post are directly from the BLS, I assume they are accurate.

So your and my business is concluded on this.


I told you, I try not to debate with closed minded people. And when it comes to the BLS, your mind seems INCREDIBLY closed.

Good day.

You may not mean to be rude, but neither do you care about being civil, nor do you care about being right or wrong. I tried, politely to explain why seasonal adjustment is used, when it's better, and when not. But you don't care, and have no argument to always prefer unadjusted. And you have the balls to call ME closed minded? I read your posts, and consider your arguments, when you actually bother to form an argument rather than bare assertions. But you have never made a convincing argument about BLS manipulation or inaccuracies. You haven't even tried.

Let me know if you ever want a reasonable discussion. I won't hold my breath.

 

[pinqy]

Looks like I was right.

The seasonally adjusted establishment number (the advertised number) was only 151,000.

But the actual, not seasonally adjusted household survey number was a drop of 666,000.

And what do you think that means? Employment has NEVER gone up in January. Ever. So is -666,000 good or bad? What's the actual direction once you account for the loss of seasonal jobs?

Oh, and how come you have never mentioned the unadjusted number when it's better?

 

[mmi]

I am not nearly interested enough to read that

Sure sounds like a loser's stance to me.

>>not trying to be rude

I'll grant you that. I figure it comes to you effortlessly.

>>all I am interested from you is whether the stats I quote from the BLS are correct.

And fwiw I couldn't give a flying eff what yer "interested in."

>>the ones I did post are directly from the BLS, I assume they are accurate.

Numbers don't mean much unless you place them in proper context. Let me ask what you think of this: 458.

So is -666,000 good or bad?

Well, it seems to be in the low range historically. Under Obummer, we've averaged an unadjusted loss of 1,334,000 jobs in January, ranging from a low of last year's 638,000 to a high of 2,914,000. No wait, the high under the commie rat is Jan 2001 — 1,560,000. The nearly three million loss was 43's going-away present to the country in Jan 2009. So the weak, feckless, indecisive dictator's average Jan unadjusted loss has been 1,013,000. 666,000 isn't a bad number in that … context.


143,350,00 Americans were employed two weeks before Christmas in 2008. By the time the terrorist sympathizer was standing before Congress a month later, that figure had dropped to 140,436,000, down from a high of 146,867,000 in Jul 2008. Next month the unadjusted number will be more than 150 million. And DA60 won't mention the big increase.

Hard to believe, but I suppose that's just me being close-minded.

 

[Fenton]

Um, con, there were major subprime failures, they did happen.

What I posted showed that Wallison was lying on many levels.

Wallison never lied.

As a matter of fact the 2011 SEC investigation totally vindicated him

 

[Fenton]

I always love the regressive blame game . Every president from Hoover on did something to help get people into their own house, one of the big pushers of this was Bush the baby killer.

But Homeownership rates only increased 1% over Bush's entire Presidency.