Change

[Frixxxx]

Well, not even in office and we hear from Obama:

Obama seeks stimulus as jobs die, carmakers bleed

By Daniel Trotta
NEW YORK (Reuters) - President-elect Barack Obama called for urgent passage of a stimulus package to reinvigorate a faltering economy that saw unemployment hit a 14-year high on Friday while U.S. automakers reported billions in losses.
European Union leaders also met in Brussels ahead of a global summit in Washington next week, and French President Nicolas Sarkozy said they were united on an aggressive plan to reform the global financial system.
Obama addressed reporters after meeting with a team of economic advisers who are preparing him to take office on January 20 amid the world's worst financial crisis since the 1930s Great Depression.
"By calling this press conference he is sending a strong message that he is already on the job," said Greg Salvaggio, senior currency trader at Tempus Consulting in Washington. "He is showing he will be ready to hit the ground running."
The U.S. unemployment rate shot up to 6.5 percent in October, its highest level since March 1994, as another 240,000 nonfarm jobs were lost in October, raising the number of lost jobs for the year to 1.2 million.
"I want to see a stimulus package sooner rather than later. If it does not get done in the lame-duck session, it will be the first thing I get done as president of the United States," Obama said, referring to the period when the outgoing Congress meets between now and the end of the year.
Obama also called on President George W. Bush to join Congress in seeking aid for the ailing U.S. auto industry, which was seeking some $50 billion in emergency loans.

And this is change how? I don't see any change from that statement.

http://www.reuters.com/article/businessNews/idUSTRE49N5VU20081107?feedType=RSS&feedName=businessNews

I don't think this will save anything....First, but not last, Obamination.

I think the Oil Companies who have a reliance on cars on the road should step up and save their failing addicts.

 

[James48843]

I think the Oil Companies who have a reliance on cars on the road should step up and save their failing addicts.

You know, you might just have something there.

A 50 cent per gallon gasoline tax, dedicated only to U.S. car manufacturers.

Your right- the way is through the oil companies. As everyone knows- knocking the oil companies only means that you end up costing consumers by having these corporations pass on the expenses to consumers- but- you are right on target.

Good suggestion. It avoids having illegal import taxes on foreign cars- a violation of world trade standards- BUT- it does exactly what you need it to. Make the U.S. car companies competitive by helping them out.

Of course, you need to insist on some rules- like increase production of alternate fuel (flexfuel) ethanol vehicles, and linking future payment to increases in gas mileage fleet averages.

But the idea is intriguing.

A fifty cent gas tax- and use part of the money to pay for the wars, (after all, we still don't know how that 600+ billion bill is going to be paid) and part of the money to help the domestic automakers.

Thanks Frixxxx- you may have something there. I'll pass it along to the transition team.

 

[mick504]

Why is it that the US Automakers need a bailout....cause they are making crappy gas guzzling cars that need repairs often. I used to only buy Toyota and Honda cars but then one year I felt weak and patriotic and bought a Ford Taurus 1996; buy what a lemon....changed the transmission twice. It should have been free like a recall. I thought it was just my luck but I asked around and other Ford buyers had a same damn problem....that was my last ford....since 1977! If we pander to these people we will get more junk w/o them changing for the better.

 

[Birchtree]

You may be looking at the death of the UAW - now wouldn't that be a darn shame. Maybe they can buy the company - it was tried in the steel industry and worked fine.

 

[Frixxxx]

Thanks for the responses,

I think the things to watch our who President-elect obama is putting into office and his cabinet.

http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/11/10/1666561.aspx

To see what the press is looking at.

Please try and keep this honed to the economy and market.

 

[alevin]

http://http://online.barrons.com/article/SB122633310980913759.html

TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 11, 2008​

WHAT ONCE WAS UNTHINKABLE has come to pass this year: massive bailouts by the Treasury and the Federal Reserve, But what happens if the requests begin to strain the credit line of the world's most creditworthy borrower, the U.S. government itself? Unthinkable?

it's all adding up. If the late Sen. Everett Dirkson were around today, he might comment that a trillion here, a trillion there and pretty soon you're talking about real money.

Trillions are no hyperbole. The Treasury is set to borrow $550 billion in the current quarter alone and $368 billion in the first quarter of 2009. It may finally be catching up with Uncle Sam. That's what the yield curve may be whispering. But some economists are too deaf, or dumb, to get it.

The yield curve simply is the graph of Treasury yields of increasing maturities, starting from one-month bills to 30-year bonds. The slope of the line typically is ascending -- positive in math terms -- because investors would want more to tie up their money for longer periods, all else being equal.

The Treasury yield curve -- from two to 10 years, which is how the bond market tracks it -- has rarely been steeper. The spread is up to 250 basis points (2.5 percentage points, a level matched only in the past quarter century in 2002 and 1992, at the trough of economic cycles.

The steepening of the Treasury yield curve has been accompanied by an increase in the cost of insuring against default by the U.S. Treasury. It may come as a shock, but there are credit default swaps on the U.S. government and they have become more expensive -- in tandem with an increase in the spread between two- and 10-year notes.

Scott Minerd, the chief investment officer for fixed income at Guggenheim Partners, a Los Angeles money manager, estimates that total Treasury borrowing for fiscal 2009 will total $1.5 trillion-$2 trillion. That was based on $700 billion for TARP, a $500 billion-$750 billion "cyclical deficit," an additional $500 billion stimulus program and some uncertain amount for the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp.

However it comes about, Backshall's charts of the yield curve and the spread on U.S. Treasury CDS paint a dramatic picture. Both the yield spread and the cost of insuring debt moved up sharply together starting in September.

At the beginning of the Clinton Administration in the early 1990s, adviser James Carville was stunned at the power the bond market had over the government. If he came back, Carville said he would want to come back as the bond market so he could scare everybody. I read somewhere a few weeks ago that Clinton got a rude shock in his early administration when he was told bond market reality would not allow him to implement some of his intended plans. He got really PO'd too. The President-elect may come to think Clinton had it easy by comparison.

That's why I'm in wait and see mode. the magnitude of our current debt/credit subsistence economy indicate 1) no quick fixes possible at national level regardless of administration?, as evidenced by multiple quick fixes tried over and over this past year... Either that or 2) the wrong quick fixes have been applied over the past year by both parties jointly. KD's analyses would indicate that #2 is more true than #1, at least it would have been more true last fall, maybe still true.

I wish adminstration/congress would have tried/would be willing to try KD's solutions or something similar. Other solutions being implemented for sure are still not working.

Insanity=doing same thing over and over, expecting different outcomes, as I've mentioned previously.

 

[Frixxxx]

Revive of my Change Thread, Oh wait, no change here:

White House Delays Report on Budget Update, as Unemployment Rises
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/200...elays-report-budget-update-unemployment-rises

The only change is the time and place they WANT to tell us bad news......:suspicious:

 

[Birchtree]

The change we really need to stimulate business and the economic recovery should come in a reduction of taxes in capital gains and dividends. That's what JFK did and Reagan too. It's the best way to free up money for the expansion. But the Rhode Island red chicken sh*t guy is so anti business he only wants to increase taxes on folks that are terribly slippery. I think by September he'll be so constipated that he'll see the light. The bull would really rock then.

 

[Frixxxx]

OK, I don't make this up, but here's another CHANGE.....the way we calculate GDP....For 6 years, it's been the same.....we showed some serious loss last year...but let us CHANGE the way we calculate it.

GDP: Don't believe the hype

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/GDP-D...87.html?x=0&sec=topStories&pos=6&asset=&ccode=

Near the middle, the CHANGE comes about and they are going to attempt to show that we are saving more than before.....Hopefully to CHANGE the bad outlook again.
Excerpt:
Finally, both Pandl and Probyn noted that the second quarter report may need to be looked at a lot more closely than most. That's because the Commerce Department will be including so-called benchmark revisions to much of the data used to calculate GDP, particularly to the savings rate and personal income.

Have a great investment day!

 

[Silverbird]

Hrmm...I'll look into this...but the decision to change the Benchmark couldn't have been done in the last 7 months, NOTHING moves that fast in Commerce on the GDP calculation. It may even have been two Administrations ago at the rate we move.

 

[Silverbird]

OMG...I can't stand reading anything from BEA (Bureau of Economic Analysis), yes they are part of Commerce too. The GPA recalcualtion is part of their review of the basic National Income and Product Accounts (NIPA) that they do every 5 years - which is used in the calculation of GDP. I went to a lecture on what they were going to do on this last year and had NO idea what they were talking about. The last benchmark was done in 2002.

Suffice it to say this has been in the making for a couple years and the process takes place every 5 years. The makeup of the economy DOES change over time. If we kept it the same we would not acknowledge things like buying over the internet or the invention of computers. So..whether we like it or not, the categories do change.

If you want the details, have at it here
http://www.bea.gov/national/an1.htm

But don't ask me what it means, I'm a trade wonk...

However, this is not some Change someone made up in the last 7 months.