A coming recession?

[Warren Dew]

To take just today's example: the markets have been surging all month long, and what did they do after this morning's dismal (clearly your view) jobs report came out? They all jumped upwards at the opening bell, and the Dow ended the day 149 points higher, closing above 14k for the first time since 2007. Perhaps all those traders know something you don't? Maybe?

That many fewer employees to have to pay, that many more dollars for the billionaires.

[Ian]

Well, that's one way to explain an upwards 1-month tick by 0.1%. So how does that translate to the 2.5% drop since the bottom of the recession?

[Coito ergo sum]

I'd call you a broken record, but at least a broken record keeps saying the same thing. You just find new ways to look pessimistic, even as trends keep improving.

Trends keep improving? this is the worst recovery' in American history and we just contracted in the 4th Q of 2012.

What the hell am I talking about, you ask? How could I be so blind, you ask? Easy answer: Go back to the beginning of your "here comes the other economic shoe dropping" thread and compare that data to what you're whining about these days.

The data shows a dismal, bleak recovery, at best. Generally one that was manufactured through massive manipulation of the monetary system, quantitative easing and manipulation of the bond market, plus a doubling down on what caused the housing bubble in the first place.

EDIT: Just to be clear, this is not really a liberal-conservative partisan thing for me. That's terciary at best. Mostly, it's an optimist-pessimist thing for me. I tend to be an optimist, and you're ever the pessimist about economic news. My reactions to you are also about realism. To take just today's example: the markets have been surging all month long, and what did they do after this morning's dismal (clearly your view) jobs report came out? They all jumped upwards at the opening bell, and the Dow ended the day 149 points higher, closing above 14k for the first time since 2007. Perhaps all those traders know something you don't? Maybe?

The markets surging is not really an indicator that the overall economy is doing better, and is not all that helpful to the average person. Yes, the markets are surging, because steps were taken to prop up the huge banks and financial institutions.

I didn't call the jobs report dismal. I said unemployment went up. It did. Just because you think it is fine and dandy, doesn't change the fact that it went up.

I recall when the 'Liberals" were lambasting Bush in 2004, 5 and 6 -- well before the collapse in his last year in office, the fact that the stock market was doing well was not really relevant. The unemployment being 5% was unacceptable, it was the "worst economy since the great depression" and the sky was falling. Now you're going to bitch and moan at me that I don't pretend that nearly 8% unemployment rate after 4 years in office for this Administration, with a GDP that contracted at the end of 2012, with 8.5 to 9 million people fewer in the labor market than 4 years ago (which masks the true unemployment problem which if measured by the labor force of 1/2009 would be like 10%, not 8% -- That's not something worth talking about or noting to you. That's not a problem. Only a "pessimist" will comment on that, or consider it in a negative light?

[cronus]

[Coito ergo sum]

He's just 'too important' to let the real numbers get in the way....

[Gallstones]

They be gonna take yore money.

National NZ Planning Cyprus Style Solution

Tuesday, 19 March 2013, 11:32 am
Press Release: Green Party
The National Government are pushing a Cyprus-style solution to bank failure in New Zealand which will see small depositors lose some of their savings to fund big bank bailouts, the Green Party said today.

Best get to that ATM pronto.

[JimC]

They be gonna take yore money.

National NZ Planning Cyprus Style Solution

Tuesday, 19 March 2013, 11:32 am
Press Release: Green Party
The National Government are pushing a Cyprus-style solution to bank failure in New Zealand which will see small depositors lose some of their savings to fund big bank bailouts, the Green Party said today.

Best get to that ATM pronto.

Their Greens Party are utter woo merchants, so take any press release from them, particularly outside of their core environmental areas, with a bloody big grain of salt...

[pErvinalia]

Haven't Cyprus removed the levy on deposits under 100k or thereabouts? Hence small depositors have nothing to worry about, unless the run on banks by the big depositors cause them to fail. But I think part of the package is intended to guarantee deposits.

[Coito ergo sum]

Haven't Cyprus removed the levy on deposits under 100k or thereabouts? Hence small depositors have nothing to worry about, unless the run on banks by the big depositors cause them to fail. But I think part of the package is intended to guarantee deposits.

I don't see limiting the levy on deposits over 100k to be any more comforting. It just means the gov't hasn't seen the need to force the issue below that number. A person who has 100k in the bank, and has already paid income tax on that money, and pays their sales taxes, and property taxes and other levies, ought to be sure that the government can't just arbitrarily say "you know what, we're taking it all, cuz we needs it."

[pErvinalia]

blah blah blah, same libertarian crap we hear from Seth all the time. The gov needs more money. Someone has to pay. The richest in society are the most able to pay. I agree 10% is pretty fucking full on, but I have not problem with the principle of the matter.

[JimC]

Haven't Cyprus removed the levy on deposits under 100k or thereabouts? Hence small depositors have nothing to worry about, unless the run on banks by the big depositors cause them to fail. But I think part of the package is intended to guarantee deposits.

I don't see limiting the levy on deposits over 100k to be any more comforting. It just means the gov't hasn't seen the need to force the issue below that number. A person who has 100k in the bank, and has already paid income tax on that money, and pays their sales taxes, and property taxes and other levies, ought to be sure that the government can't just arbitrarily say "you know what, we're taking it all, cuz we needs it."

blah blah blah, same libertarian crap we hear from Seth all the time. The gov needs more money. Someone has to pay. The richest in society are the most able to pay. I agree 10% is pretty fucking full on, but I have not problem with the principle of the matter.

In this, I agree with CES. It's not an argument about the degree of progressive taxation, but the concept of an arbitrary removal of funds without warning, which isn't (or shouldn't be) the hallmark of a responsible government.

If a government wants extra money from the wealthy, let them make it a clear and well-announced policy, preferably before an election, go to the polls on that basis, and if the voters buy the argument, all well and good.

Otherwise, such bank deposit raiding is an actual example of Seth's take on all taxation, but this time with a valid reason to oppose it strongly.

[pErvinalia]

I assume they need the money quickly, hence why they couldn't wait till an election. Also, warning people it was going to happen just allows people to withdraw their funds (and possibly cause a banking failure in itself). The only concern I have with this is the level of the levy and the concern that pensioners might get caught up in this.

[JimC]

I assume they need the money quickly, hence why they couldn't wait till an election. Also, warning people it was going to happen just allows people to withdraw their funds (and possibly cause a banking failure in itself). The only concern I have with this is the level of the levy and the concern that pensioners might get caught up in this.

Not a good enough excuse. When governments put themselves above the law, they no longer deserve to govern. Acting earlier, by a lawful process of increasing the tax rates could achieve the same result.

Actions like this hasten the possibility of the an absolute and complete distrust of governments by people, and potentially a chaotic period of breakdown of law and society.

This is not about whether governments should extract more money from the wealthy - you and I both (but probably not CES... ) would most likely agree on this.

It is about whether a process like the Cypriot bank raid becomes a dangerous precedent.

[pErvinalia]

Yeah, fair point. I guess this is a uniquely critical situation, and in that sense, I don't have a problem with it (other than the qualifiers I mentioned above). But thinking about this more, increasing tax rates, while not producing the money instantly, would still provide a more or less guaranteed increase in revenue that they could depend on. To be honest, I haven't read much detail or commentary on this raid. I've been looking at it from a (perhaps too) simplistic ideological point of view - that being, the country is in trouble and the rich are more able to afford to bail it out. But the authoritarian aspect of this is a bit troubling as you point out. But then, who is going to vote to willingly give up a chunk of their income/savings? Sometimes governments need to do the tough but right thing. It's a tricky one.

[Coito ergo sum]

Haven't Cyprus removed the levy on deposits under 100k or thereabouts? Hence small depositors have nothing to worry about, unless the run on banks by the big depositors cause them to fail. But I think part of the package is intended to guarantee deposits.

I don't see limiting the levy on deposits over 100k to be any more comforting. It just means the gov't hasn't seen the need to force the issue below that number. A person who has 100k in the bank, and has already paid income tax on that money, and pays their sales taxes, and property taxes and other levies, ought to be sure that the government can't just arbitrarily say "you know what, we're taking it all, cuz we needs it."

blah blah blah, same libertarian crap we hear from Seth all the time. The gov needs more money. Someone has to pay. The richest in society are the most able to pay. I agree 10% is pretty fucking full on, but I have not problem with the principle of the matter.

In this, I agree with CES. It's not an argument about the degree of progressive taxation, but the concept of an arbitrary removal of funds without warning, which isn't (or shouldn't be) the hallmark of a responsible government.

If a government wants extra money from the wealthy, let them make it a clear and well-announced policy, preferably before an election, go to the polls on that basis, and if the voters buy the argument, all well and good.

Otherwise, such bank deposit raiding is an actual example of Seth's take on all taxation, but this time with a valid reason to oppose it strongly.

Yes, very much so. People ought to be secure in their lawfully paid for property. I mean, the income was taxed. The interest is taxed. Then they want to arbitrarily take the money because they decide later it hasn't been taxed enough?

that's not some "blah blah blah libertarian crap." That's just normal respect for individual rights and the fact that we are not owned by the State. Just because the government says they need more money doesn't mean they ought to have the right to seize funds. Perhaps some incentive to save or be frugal with money would be one way to go.