home

Demand Down: Retail Sales Slip In March

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Economy
Posted on Tue Apr 14, 2009 at 11:03:21 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

The bad economic news continues:

Two months of tentative gains in retail sales slid backward in March, the government reported on Tuesday, signaling more weakness in demand as worried consumers continue to tighten their budgets. The 1.1 percent monthly drop in retail sales displayed the fragility of some recent “glimmers of hope” in the economy cited by President Obama and other policy makers as they press the administration’s economic agenda.

Are some folks are whistling past the graveyard?

In an address at Georgetown University, Mr. Obama said the $787 billion stimulus plan and a litany of other recovery measures by the government and the Fed were “starting to generate signs of economic progress.” . . . Mr. Bernanke said there were “tentative signs that the sharp decline in economic activity may be slowing.” He pointed to data on home sales, home construction, consumer spending and auto sales, which have offered some hints of improvement — or, at least, less-severe declines — in recent weeks.

Let's hope they know what they are doing.

Speaking for me only

< What Happened In December At Goldman? | Qwest's Joe Nacchio Reports to Prison >

  • Premium Ads

  • Blog Ads

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

    donate to TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Demand Down: Retail Sales Slip In March | 83 comments (83 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    Ezra (5.00 / 1) (#2)
    by andgarden on Tue Apr 14, 2009 at 11:10:21 AM EST
    asks:

    Are Democrats better off in the next election if unemployment is lower or if the stimulus plan is judged a sterling example of effective federal administration?

    I think this is a stupid question, because clearly nobody will care that the administration has been good if the economy is still bad. Indeed, I would argue that if the economy is still bad, the administration was probably, by definition, bad.

    And yet you get the sense listening to the White House that they really are more concerned about administrative appearances (on the economy, anyway--they have no comment about Bagram).

    Don't underestimate the power (5.00 / 1) (#9)
    by inclusiveheart on Tue Apr 14, 2009 at 11:50:45 AM EST
    in many people's minds of the comparison of Obama to FDR.  FDR's economy never was great despite all of his efforts and yet he survived many elections.  I get the impression that a lot of Obama's most devoted supporters believe that he will enjoy the same kind of forgiveness that they believe was afforded to FDR during his tenure.  The thing is that I get the impression that FDR's good status was maintained largely because his administration appeared to be responding to the needs of the people.  If the Obama Administration is unsuccessful in keeping up that appearance, they'll be in trouble.

    [ Parent ]
    Well (5.00 / 1) (#53)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Apr 14, 2009 at 03:29:45 PM EST
    there was still high unemployment under FDR but it was much, much better than when he first took office. If Obama doesn't improve the economic situation then he will be voted out and unless things change pretty drastically in the next year and a half the dems will lose congress.

    [ Parent ]
    The unemployment rates (none / 0) (#73)
    by cal1942 on Tue Apr 14, 2009 at 09:58:26 PM EST
    after FDR's programs started moving were lower than the official rates.  People working on WPA projects and in the CCC were still counted as unemployed.

    Democrats incresed their margin in both houses in '34 and in '36 Roosevelt increased his margin of victory by 3.4 points.

    [ Parent ]

    FDR's turned it around (none / 0) (#11)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Apr 14, 2009 at 11:52:24 AM EST
    Unemployment fell from 25% in 1933 to 11% in 1936.

    When FDR asked "are you better off now than you were 4 years ago?" the answer was a resounding yes.


    [ Parent ]

    I didn't mean to imply that FDR (none / 0) (#15)
    by inclusiveheart on Tue Apr 14, 2009 at 12:11:35 PM EST
    was all show when I said that I get the impression that he prevailed because he appeared to care about the people.  That impression was created by a plethora of real policies that did deliver to people and the unemployment stat you cite is just one of many results that FDR delivered - directly - not largely through Wall Street bankers - to people in distress.

    [ Parent ]
    Agreed (none / 0) (#13)
    by andgarden on Tue Apr 14, 2009 at 11:58:10 AM EST


    [ Parent ]
    FDR really delivered (none / 0) (#44)
    by Cream City on Tue Apr 14, 2009 at 03:12:14 PM EST
    audacious hope.  We will see if this administration can do so.  

    So far, the speeches are good and apparently having some effect, as people at least are not marching on Washington or lining up at soup kitchens -- but that was more than a few months after the start.  

    On the other hand, it looks like the spiral is faster this time, so we can't wait out Hooverish actions.  A few years into the Depression, the voters wanted change.  The Obama administration will have to battle against that inclination of the electorate, if it cannot itself effect the needed change in the next year -- and it may have only until fall, when several significant indicators usually go up.

    By then, though, the tourism industry's devastation will resonate desperately, as this summer -- its best season -- is not going to be good.  That will worsen the situation in my state, where it is the leading industry, and in several others that also already are doing poorly.

    [ Parent ]

    Tourism is the leading (none / 0) (#47)
    by MKS on Tue Apr 14, 2009 at 03:15:58 PM EST
    industry in Wisconsin....Summer fishing trips?

    [ Parent ]
    Lots more than that (5.00 / 1) (#51)
    by Cream City on Tue Apr 14, 2009 at 03:24:52 PM EST
    with camping in the rural areas, cottages -- "second homes" for Illinoisans as well as Wisconsinites, a market that was booming but now is crashing -- around every lake (and there are lots and lots of lakes), plus festivals nonstop in the cities.  Milwaukee, for example, has the biggest music festival in the world with Summerfest plus the State Fair -- and the rest of the weekends feature its immigration history with ethnic festivals from May through September.  (IrishFest alone is the largest Irish festival in the world.)

    That's just summers, when the freeways are a free-for-all, especially for Brewers games but also as a route to "Up North," as Illinoisans call our state.  As for what we call them, we natives get to diss the driving of the "FIPs," localese for -- well, let's say "foolish Illinois people."  They drive a lot faster and change lanes a lot, pulling boats and more, but without signalling.  Driving that drives us nuts.

    And in autumn, there's tourism for coming north for "fall color."  In winter, the winter sports make for a sizeable industry.  Spring s*cks, as there really isn't a spring.  So a lot of folks I know in the restaurant industry were laid off after New Year's Eve, with that always-iffy business always down until May but much worse this year.  Most were told to expect callbacks in April -- but it hasn't happened, and it won't happen.  

    [ Parent ]

    Huh? (5.00 / 1) (#29)
    by ruffian on Tue Apr 14, 2009 at 02:20:08 PM EST
    Don't the two go together? Isn't reducing unemployment the the point of the stimulus plan? Or, put it this way, the stimulus plan won't be judged a sterling example of effective federal administration if unemployment has not gone down. It is not an either/or question, unless I am really missing something.


    [ Parent ]
    You're not missing anything (5.00 / 1) (#75)
    by cal1942 on Tue Apr 14, 2009 at 10:17:02 PM EST
    I've bumped up against people with that attitude before. To them the efficacy of the project isn't the question it's the quality of the presentations, staffing, schedule, timely reports.

    They seem unruffled when in the end they've produced crap.

    [ Parent ]

    Unbelievable (none / 0) (#3)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Apr 14, 2009 at 11:25:39 AM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Sometimes I wonder though (5.00 / 1) (#5)
    by lilburro on Tue Apr 14, 2009 at 11:42:04 AM EST
    every once in a while Ezra will write something that seems so off the mark, yet it resembles a lot of the thinking that comes (officially) out of the WH.

    [ Parent ]
    Let me put it this way (none / 0) (#7)
    by Steve M on Tue Apr 14, 2009 at 11:44:57 AM EST
    How was the economy in 1936?

    [ Parent ]
    Point taken, except for the following: (none / 0) (#10)
    by andgarden on Tue Apr 14, 2009 at 11:51:41 AM EST
    the Republicans miscalculated and ran against the New Deal, instead of proposing something better. If the Republicans follow the same path, you might predict the same result. The problem is that today they are smarter about selling their BS, and it will be very helpful to them if it appears that Obama has failed (by not improving the economy).

    So, much better to actually improve the economy, instead of just trying to look "responsible."

    [ Parent ]

    Much much better (none / 0) (#12)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Apr 14, 2009 at 11:52:41 AM EST
    than in 1933.

    [ Parent ]
    That too (none / 0) (#14)
    by andgarden on Tue Apr 14, 2009 at 11:58:39 AM EST
    And of course there's the famous 1937 pullback.

    [ Parent ]
    Makes me wonder (none / 0) (#74)
    by cal1942 on Tue Apr 14, 2009 at 10:05:31 PM EST
    if Ezra or anyone still alive in his family ever faced really hard times.

    [ Parent ]
    No (5.00 / 2) (#16)
    by Jlvngstn on Tue Apr 14, 2009 at 12:33:23 PM EST
    they're banking on an abundance of supply to create marginal deflation which will create uptick in demand.

    And they are right for the next few months.  Although we will have to compete with the stimulus money passed out last year which should be offset by the lower gas prices.

    They are conceding that many who are at the bottom, those who bought high (irrespective of how much or how little they put down), those with big credit debt and those who work in sectors that cannot come back to 2003-2006 numbers are just S.O.a'L.

    They have no intention of addressing employment any further than they have and believe rightly so, that the bankruptcy law enacted in 2005 does not kill the creditors.  

    The weakest and unluckiest of society once again are screwed.  So what has changed in 5000 years?  One thing for sure,

    we sell hope a lot better now than ever.

    or these gems from foxnews.com (5.00 / 1) (#23)
    by Jlvngstn on Tue Apr 14, 2009 at 01:46:03 PM EST
    "Its backers in Congress and the financial services industry insist that bankruptcy frequently is the last refuge of gamblers, impulsive shoppers, divorced or separated fathers avoiding child support, and multimillionaires -- often celebrities -- who buy mansions in states with liberal homestead exemptions to shelter assets from creditors."  

    Yep, I think that is the profile of most bankruptcy types these days.  This is an example of why not to create laws to punish the relatively few who abuse systems.  Unless of course you are a Bank and can get the taxpayer to fund you.

    This is my favorite:

    'Bush said he was eager to sign the bill to curb abuses of the bankruptcy system. "These common-sense reforms will make the system stronger and better so that more Americans -- especially lower-income Americans -- have greater access to credit," he said.'

    Wasn't it just yesterday that interest gouging was reported from the banks on credit cards?

    Well, Bush was right about that (5.00 / 1) (#25)
    by ruffian on Tue Apr 14, 2009 at 02:05:57 PM EST
    It sure did clear the way for banks to make high-risk loans in the form of credit cards at usurious interest rates to lower-income Americans.

    Little did we know that the bankruptcy law was just the banks' first line of defense against having to eat their losses.

    [ Parent ]

    poster of the day (none / 0) (#26)
    by Jlvngstn on Tue Apr 14, 2009 at 02:09:10 PM EST
    you get a red star on the chart  :)

    [ Parent ]
    ;-) thanks (none / 0) (#28)
    by ruffian on Tue Apr 14, 2009 at 02:13:01 PM EST
    Can hardly miss on that topic!

    [ Parent ]
    Yup (none / 0) (#77)
    by cal1942 on Tue Apr 14, 2009 at 10:28:44 PM EST
    You can read all about it right here.

    [ Parent ]
    Gees, do I have to do everything around here? (5.00 / 3) (#27)
    by ruffian on Tue Apr 14, 2009 at 02:09:32 PM EST
    All right, I'll go buy something this weekend. Being gainfully employed, I almost feel obligated.

    I'll probably join you. (none / 0) (#30)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Tue Apr 14, 2009 at 02:28:19 PM EST
    Going to be an icky weekend weatherwise and I have some returns to make anyway, so a trip to the mall is in order.  

    Got to keep Nordstrom's going as they are one of the few places that actually stock clothes in my size.

    [ Parent ]

    You to? (none / 0) (#31)
    by kdog on Tue Apr 14, 2009 at 02:35:52 PM EST
    It's getting damn hard to find my 30X32's, everything is 36X, 38X, 44X.  I'm really a 29 waist, but like 'em a little loose.

    As for shopping, does duty-free booze and cigarettes in St. Thomas count as patriotic consumerism?  I plan on dropping a couple hundo on that stuff next week when I hit the high seas:)

    [ Parent ]

    Ha! (none / 0) (#33)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Tue Apr 14, 2009 at 02:42:49 PM EST
    I laugh at your 30X32's!  Try 30X36 or even more fun, 29X36.  Can't find jeans and all the work pants have to altered.  

    You'd think there would be more of a market for us slim n' trim guys.  But no...

    Be careful with that Duty Free stuff--it isn't always the great deal they make it out to be.  Not to mention that it is a problem getting bottles of booze home.

    [ Parent ]

    Support your local tailor (none / 0) (#34)
    by ruffian on Tue Apr 14, 2009 at 02:55:38 PM EST
    See, you can really do your part - buy something new AND have it altered!

    [ Parent ]
    An oddball through and through you are... (none / 0) (#36)
    by kdog on Tue Apr 14, 2009 at 02:56:58 PM EST
    right down to yout trouser size...but the best kind!

    I'll keep my eye on the prices, if the smokes ain't cheaper than the Shinnecocks no dice, but I remember the booze prices were awesome the last time I was down Carribean way...I'm in a "tax you to death" state remember, so much so that people go to the malls in "tax you to a lesser death" New Jersey for a better sales tax rate.

    And I'll be sure to mind all purchasing limits to avoid a hassle in customs...I'm just glad they don't give you the business getting on the boat, that's the tricky part for a guy like me:)

    [ Parent ]

    Yep... (none / 0) (#39)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Tue Apr 14, 2009 at 03:04:13 PM EST
    ...that's me, Mr Oddball!

    As I recall, from when I could travel, the limit on booze is two fifths?  And if you're flying, you can't carry it on and its risky (breakage/theft) if you pack it in your checked bags.  

    Boats, trains, buses--anything is better than traveling by plane these days.  

    [ Parent ]

    flying (none / 0) (#41)
    by CST on Tue Apr 14, 2009 at 03:07:22 PM EST
    you can only carry booze on the plane if you have a direct flight and you buy it duty free at the airport.  The duty free shop than brings the booze/liquid to the gate and you pick it up as you are getting on the plane.  This doesn't work if you have to transfer flights afterwards.

    [ Parent ]
    Amen... (none / 0) (#43)
    by kdog on Tue Apr 14, 2009 at 03:10:16 PM EST
    That's what sealed the deal on a cruise vacation...sail right out of NY, no planes to deal with.

    Sorry airlines...no stimulus for you until the TSA stops confiscating my shaving cream.


    [ Parent ]

    That works out well. (none / 0) (#50)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Tue Apr 14, 2009 at 03:22:24 PM EST
    No muss, no fuss!  

    How many days at sea to reach your destination? And is there a casino onboard to keep you entertained?

    [ Parent ]

    You know it man... (none / 0) (#54)
    by kdog on Tue Apr 14, 2009 at 03:30:30 PM EST
    I'll be on a first name basis with the croupiers before we hit San Juan after 2 and a half days at sea...no doubt:)  Been stashing my pennies for weeks awaiting the thrill of doubling them or losing them all.

    [ Parent ]
    I don't think they make... (none / 0) (#65)
    by desertswine on Tue Apr 14, 2009 at 05:26:30 PM EST
    "fifths" anymore. It's 750ml's now. Damn kids probly don't even know what a fifth is.

    [ Parent ]
    I always knew... (none / 0) (#67)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Tue Apr 14, 2009 at 06:27:22 PM EST
    ...that darn metric system would be the end of us.  Just another reason to weep for the future.

    /shakes fist at clouds

    [ Parent ]

    Yeah (none / 0) (#70)
    by squeaky on Tue Apr 14, 2009 at 06:49:43 PM EST
    We lose .002 liters. That adds up.

    [ Parent ]
    Fifth (none / 0) (#69)
    by squeaky on Tue Apr 14, 2009 at 06:44:35 PM EST
    In the UK, whiskey (or whisky) used to be sold in standard measures of 1/4 gill, 1/5 gill, or 1/6 gill - the popular 1/5 gill is equal to 1 fl. oz. A "gill" is a quarter of a pint in the UK (20 fl. oz.). So in Scotland you would ask for and drink "a fifth of whisky" in a bar - that might kill you in the US.


    [ Parent ]
    I see we're in the same club (none / 0) (#40)
    by nycstray on Tue Apr 14, 2009 at 03:06:04 PM EST
    by the time I find them small enough around, too short. It helps a bit that we can now get pants that ride lower so I can work on fitting what I have in the way of hips and not worry with the waist being too big. It's the oddest thing, waist fits, hips too big, or hips fit, waist too big. Never figured that one out, lol!~ I wore men's pants for many years as they fit better and did ride lower. Still had the length problem though. Shirts were always easier as I have enough shoulders to carry a basic med, which makes the length right.

    [ Parent ]
    women's pants (none / 0) (#46)
    by CST on Tue Apr 14, 2009 at 03:15:47 PM EST
    are always a can of worms.

    Between the waist, hips, butt, thighs, leg length, etc... it is a nightmare.

    We vary so much and the clothes do not.  Not to mention that the sizes do not correlate in any way to real dimensions and vary by brand.

    Gah!

    [ Parent ]

    If I can find stuff designed for younger women (none / 0) (#52)
    by nycstray on Tue Apr 14, 2009 at 03:25:27 PM EST
    and in the smaller sizes I tend to have a bit more luck. I can wear Gap or Old navy in the small sizes, especially if they carry them in long. There may be others now that many are carrying more size variety, but I gave up long ago, lol!~ Luckily, I work at home so my jeans that really fit and stash of Army/Navy cargo pants are doing me just fine :)

    I always wondered about exactly what body they were sizing some of these pants to! All I can say is I'm extremely glad my waist doesn't play into it anymore!

    [ Parent ]

    Try getting (none / 0) (#58)
    by jbindc on Tue Apr 14, 2009 at 03:51:14 PM EST
    Plus size and petite pants.  Apparently all designers feel that if you have some extra weight in the waist, you also must be 5'10".

    And don't get me started on horizontal stripes on shirts for women who don't (ahem) need to emphasize their chest or middle.

    [ Parent ]

    Shirts are just as bad... (none / 0) (#48)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Tue Apr 14, 2009 at 03:20:21 PM EST
    ...as pants for me.  As a rule I can't buy small because the sleeves aren't long enough, can't buy mediums because they're too big and sloppy on me.  

    So, I have to hunt down 15.5/35 trim cut dress shirts or find those brands that are a little more generous in their sleeve length so that a small might fit.  Even then I have to go through each and every one to find which one has a longer sleeve, if any.  

    I tell ya', its not easy being me.  :)

    [ Parent ]

    My mom makes my sweaters (none / 0) (#55)
    by nycstray on Tue Apr 14, 2009 at 03:33:19 PM EST
    she knows exactly how long I want my sleeves! Some stuff is too generous in the body for me, but having the shoulders helps. I also did things like tie the too blousy shirt up at the waist, wear something under it and treat it more as an over shirt etc. I had a bit of room to play around because I never had to do tradition business dress for much. And I worked in fashion for awhile so I was supposed to be a bit "off", lol!~ What's weird is I could always get jackets and blazers that fit nicely! I had to pay a bit more, but if I was wearing one, I needed the "look" any way.

    And yes, I have been through many a rack comparing sleeve lengths! On short sleeved casual tops, I can by a youth size since I'm just fitting the body. Makes buying Mets and Yankee shirts cheaper!

    [ Parent ]

    Is it even legal... (none / 0) (#68)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Tue Apr 14, 2009 at 06:30:51 PM EST
    ...to be both a Met and a Yankee fan at the same time?  Do you wear a Mets hat with a Yankees shirt just to confuse the crap out of people?  

    [ Parent ]
    Haven't been arrested yet! (none / 0) (#76)
    by nycstray on Tue Apr 14, 2009 at 10:21:12 PM EST
    and yes, I do sometimes end up in a hat/shirt combo. Wouldn't want to be all matchy-matchy {grin}
     :)

    [ Parent ]
    You New Yorkers... (none / 0) (#78)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Tue Apr 14, 2009 at 10:43:02 PM EST
    ...and your big city ways!  So confusing to those of us with only one (alleged) MLB team...

    [ Parent ]
    I wouldn't know what to do with only one team! (none / 0) (#82)
    by nycstray on Tue Apr 14, 2009 at 11:34:35 PM EST
    except for a short stint in LA, I've always lived in a 2 team area. Double football and baseball. When I move back to CA, I'll be following both double teams. It takes me a few years to wean off teams I've been rooting for for years . . . hmm need to start stocking back up on my northern CA team gear, lol!~ I still have a couple shirts from over 20yrs ago, OY.

    [ Parent ]
    It would seem that would be (none / 0) (#79)
    by cal1942 on Tue Apr 14, 2009 at 10:54:50 PM EST
    a natural.  An American and National League team in the same town.  How could anyone dislike either team. Is any conflict a burough thing?

    Now the Dodgers and Giants I can understand given the whole burough dynamic.  That must have been something special.

    [ Parent ]

    A lot favor one team over the other (none / 0) (#81)
    by nycstray on Tue Apr 14, 2009 at 11:24:42 PM EST
    but mostly it stays pretty friendly. The inter league games are fun, especially now that the Mets have gotten better. I'm more Yankees (as are most of my friends) but my closest friend is more Mets. She takes me to Yankee games for my B-day and I take her to Mets games. Any time we see one team we plan a game for the other team also. Yankees have the Bleacher Creatures, which we both think gives them the edge in bleacher seating. Well it did until they stopped the alcohol to make it more family friendly (grrrrr!)

    [ Parent ]
    Some borough conflict... (none / 0) (#83)
    by kdog on Wed Apr 15, 2009 at 09:12:05 AM EST
    Bronx/Manhattan/Staten Island tend to go Yankees, Brooklyn/Queens tend to go Mets...with exceptions of course.  

    Most people I know love one team and hate the other with a passion...there's a saying, "I have 2 favorite teams, the Mets and whoever is playing the Yankees".

    I think a lot of it stems from childhood..."my team is better than your team" schoolyard taunting that we never grow out of.  I hate the f*ckin' Yankees and everything they stand for...always will.

    [ Parent ]

    Unemployment numbers for all (none / 0) (#1)
    by caseyOR on Tue Apr 14, 2009 at 11:08:22 AM EST
    50 states will be out Friday. I don't think it will be good. Oregon released unemployment figures yesterday. We now stand at 12.1 %. The state economists are predicting it could go as high as 15 % here before this mess is over.

    And given what we now know about the curious ways both Wells Fargo and Goldman Sachs used to arrive at their unexpected profits, I'm just not seeing it.

    Yep (none / 0) (#4)
    by jbindc on Tue Apr 14, 2009 at 11:38:54 AM EST
    And of course, those won't be the "true" numbers, as we all know. Michigan, for example

    The state's official jobless rate, 12 percent, is the highest in a generation, but behind that grim number is an even more depressing statistic: Nearly one out of every five working-age Michiganians is unable to find full-time work, according to unpublished data by the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics.

    This is also creating a larger class of people "working off the books" to make ends meet.

    The high underemployment rate likely means that more people are working under the table and not paying taxes, said Bartik, of the Upjohn Foundation.

    That would be people like Keith, a mechanical engineer who three years ago earned $100,000 a year as a military contractor.

    His last official work was a holiday temp job, bagging groceries. Keith didn't want his last name used because he's collecting unemployment, yet he's worked a host of jobs under the table -- including yard work and home and auto repairs -- so he can pay the monthly mortgage on his Macomb County house.

    He wants to work, like so many underemployed. But because he also wants to get federal aid toward tuition on a master's degree in engineering, he has to officially say he has no job at all.



    [ Parent ]
    Rest easy....there's finally a "glimmer of (none / 0) (#32)
    by Inspector Gadget on Tue Apr 14, 2009 at 02:42:10 PM EST
    hope" according to today's speech by Obama.

    "There is no doubt that times are still tough," Obama said. "But from where we stand, for the very first time, we are beginning to see glimmers of hope. And beyond that, way off in the distance, we can see a vision of an America's future that is far different than our troubled economic past."


    [ Parent ]
    Oh, could he be any more in love with (5.00 / 2) (#38)
    by Anne on Tue Apr 14, 2009 at 03:01:18 PM EST
    his own rhetoric, for cryin' out loud?  It's gotten so that when Obama starts trying to make us all think we hear angels singing in the background, it probably means we're in more trouble than we realize, and that the truth behind the "glimmers of hope" is probably that it's going to turn out to be a massive freight train of misery heading straight for us.

    I'm sorry I can't get with the program, but I'm over the speechifying, and tired of the say-one-thing-do-another pattern.  

    Enough already!

    [ Parent ]

    I wonder if his "glimmer of hope" (none / 0) (#42)
    by nycstray on Tue Apr 14, 2009 at 03:08:09 PM EST
    is like those rainy days where light peeks out for a split second before it starts pouring again?

    [ Parent ]
    "I'm over the speechifying" (none / 0) (#45)
    by MO Blue on Tue Apr 14, 2009 at 03:15:14 PM EST
    While I agree, I think we are definitely in the minority. We seem to be in a period where words are king and supersede actions.

    I constantly hear "That was then. Didn't you hear the speech he (politician) gave yesterday?" when pointing out votes or actions that are completely opposite of what people say they want. These are well educated people who normally react intelligently in other areas. How POLITICAL speeches became gospel (especially when actions are completely the reverse of the words) is beyond me.

     

    [ Parent ]

    Naw (5.00 / 1) (#56)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Apr 14, 2009 at 03:37:06 PM EST
    it only works for a short period of time. The smartest thing George W. Bush ever said (of course Rove probably told him to say it) was that a President only has his first six months to use the honeymoon attitude that the public has given him. If things don't get better by fall people will probably want to throw rotten tomatoes and Obama's teleprompters.

    [ Parent ]
    Don't think I agree (5.00 / 1) (#59)
    by MO Blue on Tue Apr 14, 2009 at 03:53:00 PM EST
    Their belief in Obama is not based on reality anymore than those who believed in Bush was reality based. They have committed to him emotionally and don't want to have their hero tarnished. People tend to believe what they want to believe. Playing 12 dimensional chess comes to mind. Always easy to blame failure on something else if you are so inclined.

    [ Parent ]
    Well (none / 0) (#66)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Apr 14, 2009 at 05:52:56 PM EST
    you're right when it comes to the total bots. I'm talking about the rest of the country. The 30% that's giving Obama a honeymoon. They're the ones that will be throwing the rotten tomatoes if things don't get better. The other 30% will never admit that anything Obama does is ever wrong just like the Bush 30%er's.

    [ Parent ]
    I wonder where he is standing? (none / 0) (#35)
    by ruffian on Tue Apr 14, 2009 at 02:56:12 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Not in the oval office.... (none / 0) (#37)
    by Inspector Gadget on Tue Apr 14, 2009 at 02:59:55 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    The trouble is; (none / 0) (#80)
    by cal1942 on Tue Apr 14, 2009 at 10:58:46 PM EST
    "But from where we stand

    Already a cocoon has been woven.

    [ Parent ]

    The bright side might be.... (none / 0) (#6)
    by kdog on Tue Apr 14, 2009 at 11:44:33 AM EST
    that the people are no longer living it up on the charge card...that's gotta be a good thing, no?

    If our previous "on the arm" prosperity helped create the mess, I have a hard time believing that more fiscal irresponsibility is the solution.  

    Secure prosperity is based on savings, not debt (5.00 / 1) (#18)
    by reslez on Tue Apr 14, 2009 at 01:07:10 PM EST
    This is my view. The fact is consumers are up to their necks in debt. They need to pull back and the job market has painted that in big red letters. We're in a new psychological environment in which thrift and savings possess renewed importance. Debt means tolerance for risk. It's much safer to build savings rather than bet on a job you might not have in six months. Consumers can no longer finance an ever-expanding GDP with revolving credit and mortgage equity withdrawals.

    Unfortunately, admitting this publicly is tantamount to forecasting a long term recession.

    More analysis:
    Since 1982 we've lived above our means, consumed 4 percent more per year than we produced, and borrowed the money from foreigners to live this way. In 2008, this ratio topped out at close to 71 percent, or $10 trillion of our $14 trillion economy. Since this was an unsustainable trend it will revert to the mean over the next decade. The reversion to 62 percent of GDP will reduce consumer spending by $1.3 trillion annually going forward.

    When you accumulate debt over three decades, you don't get rid of it in two years. Multi-decade expansions of debt are followed by a multi-decade deleveraging. The consumer is in the process of collapsing. There will be false starts in a positive direction, but the overhang of consumer debt, relentless decrease in housing and stock values, and looming retirement funding will force Americans to dramatically cut their spending for decades.

    [ Parent ]

    Not easy to face the truth sometimes... (none / 0) (#19)
    by kdog on Tue Apr 14, 2009 at 01:29:07 PM EST
    no doubt...seems like we have two choices really, deal with the pain of a recession now, or have the whole thing blow up in the not so distant future and really feel the hurt.

    Maybe we just need a new doublespeak word for recession that isn't so scary...like "Consumer Priority Realignment" or something....to get people on board with the new reality.

    [ Parent ]

    Well put (none / 0) (#20)
    by Slado on Tue Apr 14, 2009 at 01:31:06 PM EST
    We are in the natural process of deleveraging the amount of debt that consumers, buisness and gov't have aquired in the last 3 decades.

    This process is painful but natural.   Gov't should be tightening the belt and managing the fall but not attempting to prop up this broken economy through the same bad practices of the last few administrations which are printing money, borrowing from foriegn creditors and defict spending.   All of these tactics created this mess and cannot, repeat cannot fix it.

    [ Parent ]

    For government (5.00 / 3) (#22)
    by Steve M on Tue Apr 14, 2009 at 01:42:56 PM EST
    to "tighten the belt" and reduce its deficit spending at the same moment households and businesses are also cutting back on their spending is a recipe for economic disaster.  You could not devise a more self-destructive economic policy for this particular moment.

    [ Parent ]
    There's some danger (none / 0) (#24)
    by reslez on Tue Apr 14, 2009 at 01:58:50 PM EST
    in fetishizing savings vs debt. That's not my intention, but that's where the wingnuts come in with ludicrous demands to balance the federal budget as the economy tailspins. We need economic stimulus to provide support while we work through this. State and local government do much of the heavy lifting and they are in a world of pain.

    Supporting failed financial tyrannosaurs is not a wise use of money.

    [ Parent ]

    Agreed (none / 0) (#49)
    by Slado on Tue Apr 14, 2009 at 03:21:24 PM EST
    But you miss my point.  Tightening the belt means many different things to many people.

    Too me it means refocusing gov't spending on infastructure etc... as you suggest.   It does not mean what Obama is doing.   Massive gov't spending in all directions much of which has nothing to do with jobs and the economy.  He is growing gov't at a time it should be shrinking.  

    just like any buisness the gov't should be focusing on the essentials and trimming the rest but that's exactly what isn't happening.  It's all grwoing exponentially at the same time with no money to pay for it.

    Nobody is saying just let it go.  I'm saying do some gov't spending, smartly, to make the fall easier but a fall it must be.

    How much more into debt must we go before we decide this is not working.

    This link is staggering.

    [ Parent ]

    No, government does not need to be shrinking (5.00 / 1) (#57)
    by cenobite on Tue Apr 14, 2009 at 03:43:21 PM EST
    Government needs to be growing, it's the only sector we have that we can command to grow.

    Government spending is the only way of replacing some of the lost economic activity until the private economy starts growing again.

    What you're suggesting leads to:

    Step-Three-and-a-Half: The IMF Riot

    [ Parent ]

    Good Palast piece... (none / 0) (#71)
    by kdog on Tue Apr 14, 2009 at 07:42:39 PM EST
    but I think what you're proposing will lead to the riots ceno...growing the US govt., the US Treasury?  What's the difference if the stock trades as Citi or US Citi if the same "bloodsuckers" run it?  

    [ Parent ]
    Scary stuff man... (none / 0) (#72)
    by kdog on Tue Apr 14, 2009 at 07:57:16 PM EST
    read that link and you wanna check your drawers...jeez.

    [ Parent ]
    I sure hope (none / 0) (#8)
    by phat on Tue Apr 14, 2009 at 11:47:12 AM EST
    That the phrase "deflationary spiral" doesn't really come into common parlance.

    I always remember the guideline that (none / 0) (#17)
    by steviez314 on Tue Apr 14, 2009 at 01:03:43 PM EST
    you need to average March and April retail sales to get a true picture, since there is a lot of variation from year to year depending on when in the calendar Easter falls.

    Special Circumstances (none / 0) (#21)
    by Jlvngstn on Tue Apr 14, 2009 at 01:37:10 PM EST
    from cnn in 2005.  I am curious, does losing your job in what can be described as the greatest employment downturn since the great depression constitute 'special circumstances'?  What is more special than a natural disaster, a man-made one?

    Being that Obama said today, "many people have lost their jobs through no fault of their own" I would argue that this is a special circumstance.  5 million jobs in less than a year has got to be special......And let's include a 20-30 and even up to 50% loss in home value.  When you have to pay someone 100k to buy your house that you put 100k down on two years ago, ain't that special?

    "The new law lets debtors try to make the case that theirs are "special circumstances" in which a crisis beyond their control forced the bankruptcy filing. If the court agrees, they are more likely to be allowed to file for Chapter 7, even if they don't technically qualify for it as a result of the means test."  (reference to new bankruptcy law)

    reich has a great posting today on demand (none / 0) (#60)
    by Jlvngstn on Tue Apr 14, 2009 at 04:10:12 PM EST
    and nails it.  Banks creating more lending is NOT the answer.  Government creating jobs will induce businesses to borrow and people moving back to payrolls with pay down debt thus giving banks capital.  Unworking americans do not pay down their debt, which hurts the banks, which in turn hurts the taxpayer.  

    Why is this so friggin complicated?  Unemployment always trails the recovery, but we have never had such a precipitous number save for the great depression, yet we are responding like this was 2001.  It took 46 months to return to peak employment in that recession and we lost half the amount of jobs.  Even 30 months to return to peak at the level we have lost is untenable.  

    Remember on the campaign trail when Obama said "It's about jobs, jobs, jobs" yet here we are one year later adn we are still saying the same thing.  I know the argument is that "they are coming" but the jobs plan is half of what we have already lost taking into consideration contingency workforce.....

    not entirely (none / 0) (#61)
    by CST on Tue Apr 14, 2009 at 04:21:06 PM EST
    Banks don't just lend to people to buy homes and such.  They also lend to businesses so that they can operate (think Developers).  Businesses can't be induced to borrow money that isn't there.  Business lending completely froze and that put a ton of people out of work early on.  So yes - jobs are a huge issue and unworking Americans hurt banks.  But unworking banks also hurt Americans.  We need a dual-pronged approach.

    However - you are right in that the longer this goes on, the more it becomes a demand issue than a supply issue.  But it did start initially as a supply issue.

    [ Parent ]

    lending (none / 0) (#62)
    by Jlvngstn on Tue Apr 14, 2009 at 04:34:35 PM EST
    for development?  We have a gros oversupply of housing and cre.  Lending moving forward will be highly collateralized only, and will be quite restrictive, obviously so.  Lending is absolutely not going to drive the market to any semblance of recovery in the next 18 months.  Stability would go a long way but really, let's not kid ourselves that a nation with 2 trillion in personal debt, and massive credit sheets with companies large and small has any appetite for credit driven industrial growth.

    [ Parent ]
    development (none / 0) (#63)
    by CST on Tue Apr 14, 2009 at 04:53:00 PM EST
    is not just housing.  Also - there is an abundance of McMansions right now, but not necessarily an abundance of the right kind of housing (think high-density, low-income).  Someplace for all the tent city people to live.

    But there is also development for office, retail, and industrial uses.  Yes, I realize the demand for these things has gone down due to high levels of unemployment.  But a lot of that unemployment was cause by a freeze in development.

    Not to mention all the other types of businesses who haven't been able to get loans to keep up inventory etc...  so they cut business, lay people off, and now those people can't spend at their business.  It's a full circle of pain,  but it started on the supply side - although I grant you that's not where we are headed.

    [ Parent ]

    those businesses (none / 0) (#64)
    by Jlvngstn on Tue Apr 14, 2009 at 04:58:39 PM EST
    will still not be able to get loans until they can collateralize them.  Subsets in the CRE market including apartments as long as we are lumping together are rapidly crashing.  Apartment rents are falling as well.  

    As a collateralized business who can get a loan right now, there is now way in gods creation I would take one.  I would just as soon layoff before I use my collateral to sustain employment.  I cannot imagine a small business such as myself, looking at the broader economy and deciding this is a good time to take out a loan.  I am telling my employees after carrying them on several years profits, that compensation will change or they will be separated if the economy doesn't turn by July.  I have been paying them for several months out of profits but will not take a loan even though my bank has called and offered several times to carry employees beyond what I already have.  Perhaps there are owners who will but I am not in that camp.

    There is credit available but the price is steep if the economy continues to sputter along and every indication is that it will.

    [ Parent ]

    Demand Down: Retail Sales Slip In March | 83 comments (83 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment