This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.
Frontrunning: January 20
- New York Fed defends handling of AIG disclosure, cites accuracy (Bloomberg)
- FHA raises down payments, premiums amid mortgage delinquencies (Bloomberg)
- China asks some banks to limit lending as loans surge (Bloomberg, Reuters)
- Republican Brown wins Mass seat in "Tsunami" election; time for major changes in D.C. (Bloomberg)
- Housing starts drop more than forecast, 557K in December, Permits 653K; following the NAHB double-dip (Bloomberg)
- The Fed's $1.25 trillion gambit (Cumberland Advisors)
- Producer prices in U.S. rise 0.2% in December (Bloomberg)
- Fed should read its own memo on rising-rate risk (Bloomberg)
- Chinese banks already lent out 20% of targeted loan growth for 2010 within first two weeks of January (Immobilienblasen)
- Geithner's lilfelong love of bailouts (Post)
- Hussman: Inflation myth and reality (Hussman Funds)
- BofA posts wider loss, but says credit stabilizing (Reuters)
- Big banks are considering challenging Obama's proposed tax as unconstitutional. This is a bad idea (Slate)
»
- 2347 reads
- Printer-friendly version
- Send to friend
- advertisements -
For all of 2009, builders broke ground on 553,800 houses, the fewest since records began in 1959. The annual rate was down 39 percent down from 2008’s 905,500, which was the second-lowest ever.
Smoking those green shoots.....
Is'ent it amazing how the PTB can fool the public into thinking the economy is better when it just keeps getting worse?
But seriously, the only ones who believe the propaganda are the same people who helped cause this mess by speculating in real estate. A bunch of losers with low FICO scores!
So, who are the biggest losers, the folks with low FICO or those that loaned these folks their money and those that willingly speculated that both of these groups knew what they were doing? Last time I looked the largest group of current and future losers in residential real estate are and will be the so called prime borrowers. Especially those folks that were stupid enough to listen to Greenspan and entered into a negam pick-a-pay purgatory.
IMHO the ones who lost are the people who played by the rules. The ones who bought homes not investments also the people who knew it was a bubble and refused to participate, waiting for it to burst so they would finally be able to purchase a home to live in at a reasonable price.
But NO, the stupid government had to step in with the taxpayors money and try to rescue the money lenders from their stupid gambling losses.
This is making the economy worse not better. If they do not allow the bad debt to be cleared we will all suffer the consequinces of the speculators bad bets.
Gold down $20.00 as producer prices rose 0.2 percent last month, and food prices surged.
Makes perfect sense to me.
It's down on China reigning in bank lending. As is copper.
The hussman piece is great, especially the reprint of Dr King's love your enemy speech.
Why Scott Brown won
Over-played the traditional role of the Democratic Party as better representing the interests of the middle class than the Republican Party. If that is true, then why did Obama administration hire Goldman Sachs executives to rescue Wall Street and run the economy? The hypocrisy is not lost on voters.
If you are currently registered as either Republican or Democrat, re-register as an Independent. Why? This keeps the political machines on both parties guessing and forces the debate away from party lines and onto the issues that matter to you. It worked here in Massachusetts by accident. Maybe it can be made to work on purpose on a national scale.
http://tinyurl.com/y8kug2h
Why Brown Won and the Consequences Thereof:
Harry Reid's unfortunate words are a tear in the fabric of the Democratic Party and have given us an inside look at how his own party views Obama. It is not just Reid, but statements by other Democrats are speaking volumes about the status of racism in this country. But more importantly it is this attitude that is crippling Obama and his campaign promises.
Obama was elected as the first African-American President in history. I believe he is an idealist who truly thought he could bring change. What he found during his first 100 days is that the Democratic leadership has their own agenda and it has been a brick wall for Obama. Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi - and others - have stone-walled Obama's campaign agenda believing that Obama was elected not just as the first African-American but as "their African-American." They have taken over as the mouthpiece of government attempting to relegate Obama to the backseat while they secure their place in history.
For President Obama's part his own agenda was too aggressive. He tried to do what other Presidents have done; that is, take the momentum and spend his political capital on healthcare reform. He faced too many headwinds such as the economic problems we face, but the most severe is within his own party. See, Obama is not the leader of the Democratic Party and in fact, that leadership is opposing him and directing policy rather than following the President's lead.
Perhaps he can re-group, but Democrats have to decide if they will continue to try and lead or if they will follow. Do they want the President to serve them coffee or will they sit at the same table and drink from the same pot?
In a way he is a victim of the times and circumstances - as all Presidents have been. But in his second year he has an opportunity to recover as did John F. Kennedy. The ship of state has inertia and if the President wants to lead he may need to look around him and figure out who he can really trust and replace more than a few advisors. He is as smart as anyone in the room, but the real problem is that those in the room with him do not believe it themselves.
There is a Plantation mentality in Washington that is becoming all too apparent. Perhaps that is a good thing, but we need to have a dialogue - and open and honest one. Do we want to slip the bonds of prejudice? If we do we need to talk about it and not bury the issue in political correctness.
try to be a little more honest with yourself--there has been NO CHANGE--the same interests have been served---the same scumbags are still lining their pockets at the countries expense and now that they know we know they really could care less...you see this baton they call power is still in their hands...maybe its naive to think it can change but that is the only way we can correct our problems....
How is the volum on the US selloff ?
Elizabeth Warren issues warning to American people
Christopher Dodd is considering scrapping the Consumer Financial Protection Agency.. Warren thinks that leaves the taxpayers with no protection from the banks.
http://tinyurl.com/y8wp7j2
Elizabeth:
I've got a news flash for you. Enforce existing laws and we'll probably be in good shape.