Bidenomics

61,363 Views | 804 Replies | Last: 3 days ago by bear2034
oski003
How long do you want to ignore this user?
DiabloWags said:

Homeownership affordability fell to its lowest level since the 1980's last year as mortgage rates surged to a 23-year high last year and home prices set new records.

Never mind surging home insurance rates over the last several years and property tax rates that always go up, not down.

My water district rates have gone up. Republic Services just raised garbage/recycling prices 20% for this year, and (national) electricity rates have increased 29.4% since January 2021. Never mind the increases here in California by PG&E over the last several years, including another 13% for 2024.

After March's CPI report, mortgage rates are back at 7%.

Its not a surprise that Consumer Confidence continues to languish far below pre-Covid levels.

Aside from lowering prescription drug prices and slashing student debt, there's not much Biden or his Administration can do. Grocery prices are mosly out of the administration's control.

Even the Fed's forecast of 3 rate cuts (from earlier this year) that sparked a massive stock market rally seem like pure fantasy after 3 months of very "sticky" inflation rates.

The only thing that I see Biden and Dems able to secure votes on this November is on the Abortion debate.

Will it be enough though?




California law Mandated municipality provided organic waste recycling has made my trash services go up 50%. You got lucky.
DiabloWags
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Unit2Sucks said:


People are freaked out because they are being told to be freaked out.

If we see inflation continue to rise for unexpected reasons, it will certainly present a problem but it's not time to ring the alarm bells yet. Remember that economists have been incorrectly predicting economic doom and gloom for the near future during Biden's entire term. I posted the other day on the several projected recessions including one that was predicted to occur with 100% certainty.

I don't know why youre talking about economists, if nothing else but to support your thesis about how well the economy has been doing during Biden's term.

I've frequently reported that the economy has shown robust employment growth and GDP gains during Biden's term.
Feel free to look my posts up.

And I've never been one of the lemmings that have done nothing other than spread gloom and doom, let alone regurgitate the oversimplistic interpretation of an inverted yield curve. That's a fact.

What I am discussing are people's perceptions regarding inflation and the fact that those expectations are rising and may be "embedding" themselves in the economy.

Your preoccupation with how the media treats Biden (or any other president for that matter) since 2016 on the economy is not my point. The media treated Trump just as poorly on the economy. They were just as skeptical and its been documented by an article that I posted earlier (I believe) on this thread.

Inflation is still very sticky, especially in the service sector which makes up most of our economy.
My claims are valid. If they weren't, you wouldn't see people's perceptions on inflation looking for higher inflation.


"Cults don't end well. They really don't."
DiabloWags
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Unit2Sucks said:

DiabloWags said:

Inflation expectations are rising.
And these numbers were well BEFORE the March CPI data.

https://www.newyorkfed.org/newsevents/news/research/2024/20240311#:~:text=Median%20inflation%20expectations%20remained%20unchanged,the%20five%2Dyear%20ahead%20horizon.



You think people without high school diplomas are meticulously evaluating CPI data?



No.

But they do wonder why food and gas prices and their rent keeps going up and up and up.
They don't have to look at the CPI. They "feel" it in their pocketbook every time they go buy groceries and gas.

These are the people that should matter to Biden heading into November.
Not sure why you are puzzled by this or what you're arguing about.

"Cults don't end well. They really don't."
Unit2Sucks
How long do you want to ignore this user?
I'm just acknowledging the connection between the media narratives and consumer perception of the economy.

You talk about food prices continuing to go up, but the WSJ article you recently shared said that the basket of food had gone down in price over the last year. So should we ignore that and just accept the negative implications? Or do we acknowledge the improvement?

The economy is doing fine whether the media wants people to know or not. I do agree that consumer perception on the economy matter and may have an impact on the election. It would be great if the media wasn't so invested in bothsidesism, false equivalency and protecting the horse race.
dajo9
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Investors loosely define the Wall Street term 'Wall of Worry" as the resilience of a climbing stock market despite a host of factors that are considered negative. My own definition for "Wall of Worry" is that it is how haters cope with rising stock markets during Democratic Presidencies. As in, "climbing the wall of worry". Some people will keep pointing to the negatives. In the meantime, the S&P 500 is up 8% YTD after its 25% increase in 2023. The stock market has been going up because the economy is strong.

Jobs are strong. Real wages are strong. Retail sales, released today, are strong - up 0.7% in March (estimate was 0.4%). February was revised up to 0.9% from the previous 0.6% reading.
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/retail-sales-topped-wall-street-estimates-in-march-124009661.html
tequila4kapp
How long do you want to ignore this user?
New York Times/Siena poll results Saturday on the economy:

"Thinking about the nation's economy, how would you rate economic conditions today?":
  • 4 percent said excellent
  • 17 percent said good
  • 27 percent said only fair
  • 52 percent said poor
Voter perception about the direction of the country:
  • Right track: 25 percent
  • Wrong direction: 64 percent
  • Don't know/Refused: 11 percent
DiabloWags
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Just paid $1.29 for this doughnut at Safeway today.

No worries.
There is no inflation at the grocery store.
That's all been trumped up by the Media to make Joe Biden look bad.

It's just FAKE NEWS by the Media.
Carry on.

"Cults don't end well. They really don't."
dajo9
How long do you want to ignore this user?
DiabloWags said:

Just paid $1.29 for this doughnut at Safeway today.

No worries.
There is no inflation at the grocery store.
That's all been trumped up by the Media to make Joe Biden look bad.

It's just FAKE NEWS by the Media.
Carry on.


What do you think the price of a Safeway doughnut would be if people refused to pay $1.29 for a Safeway doughnut?
Eastern Oregon Bear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
DiabloWags said:

Just paid $1.29 for this doughnut at Safeway today.

No worries.
There is no inflation at the grocery store.
That's all been trumped up by the Media to make Joe Biden look bad.

It's just FAKE NEWS by the Media.
Carry on.


At my local Safeway, the bakery assorted doughnuts are a dozen for $10. Cake doughnuts are $8 for a dozen. At least that's the web site price.
calbear93
How long do you want to ignore this user?
dajo9 said:

Investors loosely define the Wall Street term 'Wall of Worry" as the resilience of a climbing stock market despite a host of factors that are considered negative. My own definition for "Wall of Worry" is that it is how haters cope with rising stock markets during Democratic Presidencies. As in, "climbing the wall of worry". Some people will keep pointing to the negatives. In the meantime, the S&P 500 is up 8% YTD after its 25% increase in 2023. The stock market has been going up because the economy is strong.

Jobs are strong. Real wages are strong. Retail sales, released today, are strong - up 0.7% in March (estimate was 0.4%). February was revised up to 0.9% from the previous 0.6% reading.
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/retail-sales-topped-wall-street-estimates-in-march-124009661.html
Wall of Worry is a commonly used term for specific stocks by sell-side analysts in the company coverage or even secular trends for an industry. It refers to things that suppress multiples until more demonstrated performance. Has been used for years by analysts. Not something new or something that came up during Biden's administration.

I don't think you are an expert. Not an insult, but it would lead to less ignorance and wrong impressions if people didn't feel the need to act like an expert on things that are way beyond their scope of expertise. Because while people who actually have practical experience know you are not an expert despite you acting like one, people who are not very knowledgeable may think you are and actually believe you are spreading knowledge.
dajo9
How long do you want to ignore this user?
calbear93 said:

dajo9 said:

Investors loosely define the Wall Street term 'Wall of Worry" as the resilience of a climbing stock market despite a host of factors that are considered negative. My own definition for "Wall of Worry" is that it is how haters cope with rising stock markets during Democratic Presidencies. As in, "climbing the wall of worry". Some people will keep pointing to the negatives. In the meantime, the S&P 500 is up 8% YTD after its 25% increase in 2023. The stock market has been going up because the economy is strong.

Jobs are strong. Real wages are strong. Retail sales, released today, are strong - up 0.7% in March (estimate was 0.4%). February was revised up to 0.9% from the previous 0.6% reading.
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/retail-sales-topped-wall-street-estimates-in-march-124009661.html
Wall of Worry is a commonly used term for specific stocks by sell-side analysts in the company coverage or even secular trends for an industry. It refers to things that suppress multiples until more demonstrated performance. Has been used for years by analysts. Not something new or something that came up during Biden's administration.

I don't think you are an expert. Not an insult, but it would lead to less ignorance and wrong impressions if people didn't feel the need to act like an expert on things that are way beyond their scope of expertise. Because while people who actually have practical experience know you are not an expert despite you acting like one, people who are not very knowledgeable may think you are and actually believe you are spreading knowledge.
You should definitely send your concerns and opinions to Investopedia and the rest of the mainstream financial media.

https://www.investopedia.com/terms/w/wallofworry.asp
calbear93
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Unit2Sucks said:

I'm just acknowledging the connection between the media narratives and consumer perception of the economy.

You talk about food prices continuing to go up, but the WSJ article you recently shared said that the basket of food had gone down in price over the last year. So should we ignore that and just accept the negative implications? Or do we acknowledge the improvement?

The economy is doing fine whether the media wants people to know or not. I do agree that consumer perception on the economy matter and may have an impact on the election. It would be great if the media wasn't so invested in bothsidesism, false equivalency and protecting the horse race.

I think economy is fine, but I don't buy the "fake news" or blaming media bias by either side. There are specific news organization that are clearly biased for one side or another, but the overall media is not intentionally creating fake news.

As far as the economy, there are certain things that sour people's opinions. Housing costs which are extremely sticky are a big factor. Looking at the mortgage rate, rent, increasing property tax, etc., the more and more unaffordability and immovability of housing sours people's views. Also, until there is overall deflation, lower inflation rate means that, for the most part, people are still dealing with high prices on groceries from the inflation spike. People are not going to associate 3% increase in their "merit" based compensation to offsetting inflation. On top of that, they are paying higher interest payment on their credit card payments. All of that will make them feel not great about the economy. You and I as asset owners can look at these issues as not material and view from a total economy viewpoint. For example, I don't mind higher interest since I don't carry any variable interest debt (or any debt) but have only benefitted from higher interest from my current overweighted cash balance in this over-exuberant equity market. People like us are not the ones who need to be won over by Biden in the battleground states.
calbear93
How long do you want to ignore this user?
dajo9 said:

calbear93 said:

dajo9 said:

Investors loosely define the Wall Street term 'Wall of Worry" as the resilience of a climbing stock market despite a host of factors that are considered negative. My own definition for "Wall of Worry" is that it is how haters cope with rising stock markets during Democratic Presidencies. As in, "climbing the wall of worry". Some people will keep pointing to the negatives. In the meantime, the S&P 500 is up 8% YTD after its 25% increase in 2023. The stock market has been going up because the economy is strong.

Jobs are strong. Real wages are strong. Retail sales, released today, are strong - up 0.7% in March (estimate was 0.4%). February was revised up to 0.9% from the previous 0.6% reading.
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/retail-sales-topped-wall-street-estimates-in-march-124009661.html
Wall of Worry is a commonly used term for specific stocks by sell-side analysts in the company coverage or even secular trends for an industry. It refers to things that suppress multiples until more demonstrated performance. Has been used for years by analysts. Not something new or something that came up during Biden's administration.

I don't think you are an expert. Not an insult, but it would lead to less ignorance and wrong impressions if people didn't feel the need to act like an expert on things that are way beyond their scope of expertise. Because while people who actually have practical experience know you are not an expert despite you acting like one, people who are not very knowledgeable may think you are and actually believe you are spreading knowledge.
You should definitely send your concerns and opinions to Investopedia and the rest of the mainstream financial media.

https://www.investopedia.com/terms/w/wallofworry.asp
You knowledge of investments and economy comes from investopedia. I take it back. You are an expert that you claim to be.

How often do you get sell-side analyst reports? Wall of Worry is a common term I have seen for years in reports from top banks on key companies I follow.
dajo9
How long do you want to ignore this user?
calbear93 said:

dajo9 said:

calbear93 said:

dajo9 said:

Investors loosely define the Wall Street term 'Wall of Worry" as the resilience of a climbing stock market despite a host of factors that are considered negative. My own definition for "Wall of Worry" is that it is how haters cope with rising stock markets during Democratic Presidencies. As in, "climbing the wall of worry". Some people will keep pointing to the negatives. In the meantime, the S&P 500 is up 8% YTD after its 25% increase in 2023. The stock market has been going up because the economy is strong.

Jobs are strong. Real wages are strong. Retail sales, released today, are strong - up 0.7% in March (estimate was 0.4%). February was revised up to 0.9% from the previous 0.6% reading.
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/retail-sales-topped-wall-street-estimates-in-march-124009661.html
Wall of Worry is a commonly used term for specific stocks by sell-side analysts in the company coverage or even secular trends for an industry. It refers to things that suppress multiples until more demonstrated performance. Has been used for years by analysts. Not something new or something that came up during Biden's administration.

I don't think you are an expert. Not an insult, but it would lead to less ignorance and wrong impressions if people didn't feel the need to act like an expert on things that are way beyond their scope of expertise. Because while people who actually have practical experience know you are not an expert despite you acting like one, people who are not very knowledgeable may think you are and actually believe you are spreading knowledge.
You should definitely send your concerns and opinions to Investopedia and the rest of the mainstream financial media.

https://www.investopedia.com/terms/w/wallofworry.asp
You knowledge of investments and economy comes from investopedia. I take it back. You are an expert that you claim to be.

How often do you get sell-side analyst reports? Wall of Worry is a common term I have seen for years in reports from top banks on key companies I follow.
You are at your most trifling when you take your own experience to be the only valid experience. I have listened to Bloomberg Radio frequently over a number of years and have heard many discussions of the Wall of Worry as it is commonly used by many in financial media and explained well by Investopedia. But your experience is different. So instead of recognizing there may be different uses of the phrase your typical response is to say the other persons experience is not valid. It's tiresome and not a productive use of anybody's time.
calbear93
How long do you want to ignore this user?
dajo9 said:

calbear93 said:

dajo9 said:

calbear93 said:

dajo9 said:

Investors loosely define the Wall Street term 'Wall of Worry" as the resilience of a climbing stock market despite a host of factors that are considered negative. My own definition for "Wall of Worry" is that it is how haters cope with rising stock markets during Democratic Presidencies. As in, "climbing the wall of worry". Some people will keep pointing to the negatives. In the meantime, the S&P 500 is up 8% YTD after its 25% increase in 2023. The stock market has been going up because the economy is strong.

Jobs are strong. Real wages are strong. Retail sales, released today, are strong - up 0.7% in March (estimate was 0.4%). February was revised up to 0.9% from the previous 0.6% reading.
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/retail-sales-topped-wall-street-estimates-in-march-124009661.html
Wall of Worry is a commonly used term for specific stocks by sell-side analysts in the company coverage or even secular trends for an industry. It refers to things that suppress multiples until more demonstrated performance. Has been used for years by analysts. Not something new or something that came up during Biden's administration.

I don't think you are an expert. Not an insult, but it would lead to less ignorance and wrong impressions if people didn't feel the need to act like an expert on things that are way beyond their scope of expertise. Because while people who actually have practical experience know you are not an expert despite you acting like one, people who are not very knowledgeable may think you are and actually believe you are spreading knowledge.
You should definitely send your concerns and opinions to Investopedia and the rest of the mainstream financial media.

https://www.investopedia.com/terms/w/wallofworry.asp
You knowledge of investments and economy comes from investopedia. I take it back. You are an expert that you claim to be.

How often do you get sell-side analyst reports? Wall of Worry is a common term I have seen for years in reports from top banks on key companies I follow.
You are at your most trifling when you take your own experience to be the only valid experience. I have listened to Bloomberg Radio frequently over a number of years and have heard many discussions of the Wall of Worry as it is commonly used by many in financial media and explained well by Investopedia. But your experience is different. So instead of recognizing there may be different uses of the phrase your typical response is to say the other persons experience is not valid. It's tiresome and not a productive use of anybody's time.
No, the most productive use of time is yours where you take a commonly used term and make it into some political propaganda and act as if it is something that it's not. Investors don't loosely define the term the way you do. It exists in a bull market as well as in a bear market. It is the gotta believes for the investment conviction against the wall of worries that the company needs to show that it is overcoming or addressing to remove any suppression on the multiple against peers. That is how investors actually use the term.

But no - your half-baked, investopedia term and politicizing a historic phrase is the more productive use.
Unit2Sucks
How long do you want to ignore this user?
calbear93 said:

Unit2Sucks said:

I'm just acknowledging the connection between the media narratives and consumer perception of the economy.

You talk about food prices continuing to go up, but the WSJ article you recently shared said that the basket of food had gone down in price over the last year. So should we ignore that and just accept the negative implications? Or do we acknowledge the improvement?

The economy is doing fine whether the media wants people to know or not. I do agree that consumer perception on the economy matter and may have an impact on the election. It would be great if the media wasn't so invested in bothsidesism, false equivalency and protecting the horse race.

I think economy is fine, but I don't buy the "fake news" or blaming media bias by either side. There are specific news organization that are clearly biased for one side or another, but the overall media is not intentionally creating fake news.

As far as the economy, there are certain things that sour people's opinions. Housing costs which are extremely sticky are a big factor. Looking at the mortgage rate, rent, increasing property tax, etc., the more and more unaffordability and immovability of housing sours people's views. Also, until there is overall deflation, lower inflation rate means that, for the most part, people are still dealing with high prices on groceries from the inflation spike. People are not going to associate 3% increase in their "merit" based compensation to offsetting inflation. On top of that, they are paying higher interest payment on their credit card payments. All of that will make them feel not great about the economy. You and I as asset owners can look at these issues as not material and view from a total economy viewpoint. For example, I don't mind higher interest since I don't carry any variable interest debt (or any debt) but have only benefitted from higher interest from my current overweighted cash balance in this over-exuberant equity market. People like us are not the ones who need to be won over by Biden in the battleground states.
t4k shared some interesting perception data from the NYT this morning. Do you feel like this polling reflects the actual economy?

As for grocery prices, the clickbait WSJ article acknowledged that their basket of groceries has come down in price over the last 12 months (although that was mostly lost in the excessive handwringing and ignoring of offsetting wage gains).

Only 1/5 of those polled think the economy is good or excellent even though objectively the economy is about as good as it's been in a long time. One interpretation could be that for the vast majority of Americans, the economy will never and can never actually be good. That's capitalism for you.

I guess we can all just keep going in circles on this. The economy will continue to hum along and people will continue to perceive it negatively.
tequila4kapp said:

New York Times/Siena poll results Saturday on the economy:

"Thinking about the nation's economy, how would you rate economic conditions today?":
  • 4 percent said excellent
  • 17 percent said good
  • 27 percent said only fair
  • 52 percent said poor
Voter perception about the direction of the country:
  • Right track: 25 percent
  • Wrong direction: 64 percent
  • Don't know/Refused: 11 percent


calbear93
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Unit2Sucks said:

calbear93 said:

Unit2Sucks said:

I'm just acknowledging the connection between the media narratives and consumer perception of the economy.

You talk about food prices continuing to go up, but the WSJ article you recently shared said that the basket of food had gone down in price over the last year. So should we ignore that and just accept the negative implications? Or do we acknowledge the improvement?

The economy is doing fine whether the media wants people to know or not. I do agree that consumer perception on the economy matter and may have an impact on the election. It would be great if the media wasn't so invested in bothsidesism, false equivalency and protecting the horse race.

I think economy is fine, but I don't buy the "fake news" or blaming media bias by either side. There are specific news organization that are clearly biased for one side or another, but the overall media is not intentionally creating fake news.

As far as the economy, there are certain things that sour people's opinions. Housing costs which are extremely sticky are a big factor. Looking at the mortgage rate, rent, increasing property tax, etc., the more and more unaffordability and immovability of housing sours people's views. Also, until there is overall deflation, lower inflation rate means that, for the most part, people are still dealing with high prices on groceries from the inflation spike. People are not going to associate 3% increase in their "merit" based compensation to offsetting inflation. On top of that, they are paying higher interest payment on their credit card payments. All of that will make them feel not great about the economy. You and I as asset owners can look at these issues as not material and view from a total economy viewpoint. For example, I don't mind higher interest since I don't carry any variable interest debt (or any debt) but have only benefitted from higher interest from my current overweighted cash balance in this over-exuberant equity market. People like us are not the ones who need to be won over by Biden in the battleground states.
t4k shared some interesting perception data from the NYT this morning. Do you feel like this polling reflects the actual economy?

As for grocery prices, the clickbait WSJ article acknowledged that their basket of groceries has come down in price over the last 12 months (although that was mostly lost in the excessive handwringing and ignoring of offsetting wage gains).

Only 1/5 of those polled think the economy is good or excellent even though objectively the economy is about as good as it's been in a long time. One interpretation could be that for the vast majority of Americans, the economy will never and can never actually be good. That's capitalism for you.

I guess we can all just keep going in circles on this. The economy will continue to hum along and people will continue to perceive it negatively.
tequila4kapp said:

New York Times/Siena poll results Saturday on the economy:

"Thinking about the nation's economy, how would you rate economic conditions today?":
  • 4 percent said excellent
  • 17 percent said good
  • 27 percent said only fair
  • 52 percent said poor
Voter perception about the direction of the country:
  • Right track: 25 percent
  • Wrong direction: 64 percent
  • Don't know/Refused: 11 percent



If I had to boil down the point where you and I are maybe missing the mark in our discussion, it is that irrespective of the overall economic health, there are certain aspects that linger that create bigger impact for most Americans.

Where you and I agree is that the economy is doing extremely well in light of the actions taken to reduce inflation.

Where you and I disagree is that, irrespective of the overall healthy economy, the higher interest rate and the overregulation in home development are creating an unaffordable or more expensive housing market for many people and much higher debt service payment at a time when household debt level is at an extremely high level. The wage increase will not be viewed as countering the higher expenses since most people view the wage increase as merit based that they earned while the higher expenses are created by bad policies. I think that is generally reflected in the polling data. Whether they are wrong or not does not matter. It's perspective, and it's a perspective that has always existed.

As long as there is overregulation in the housing market (CA is a great example) and there is higher interest rate, people are not going to want to move out (especially if they already have locked in low interest rate) and there will be lack of housing. What happens when supply is less than demand? Prices increase. Just like rent. With rent control and with people unable to purchase homes, there is more competition for more limited supply. Housing makes up a big chuck of expenses. And the frustration with inability to afford to buy a house will sour people's views irrespective of how good the overall economy is. And when the economy is doing well and inflation remains higher than 2-3% (I don't want to discuss whether historical inflation was higher because historical interest rate was also higher - we are not going back to much lower interest rate which is below historical rate unless inflation is also lower), there will be resistance by the Fed to lower rates.

Like any entitlement (government gives something for free to people, they will never be able to take it back), people remember how much lower mortgage rate, food prices, etc. were and that they are still struggling now despite working hard and "earning through merit" those wage increases. I don't know if you view your compensation increase as just better economy independent of you instead of you having earned that raise. But that's their view on wage increase. When you are looking to buy something, and you see it be a lot more expensive, you don't most likely think - hmmm, i got that pay raise - therefore, things are also more expensive.
dajo9
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Household debt to GDP is at 75% which is the lowest level since 2001. Down from a high of 99% in 2008.
calbear93
How long do you want to ignore this user?
dajo9 said:

Household debt to GDP is at 75% which is the lowest level since 2001. Down from a high of 99% in 2008.
Why you think that is a reflection of the middle class debt service experience is beyond me.

Maybe the spike in interest payments by consumers may be a more accurate data on consumer experience?

https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/B069RC1

https://www.newyorkfed.org/newsevents/news/research/2024/20240206

"Credit card and auto loan transitions into delinquency are still rising above pre-pandemic levels," said Wilbert van der Klaauw, economic research advisor at the New York Fed. "This signals increased financial stress, especially among younger and lower-income households."
dajo9
How long do you want to ignore this user?
I just like facts as presented to be correct. And also with context.

Personal interest payments as percent of GDP is the highest since 2008.
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/graph/?g=MFmN

Household debt service payments as a percent of disposable income is the lowest level recorded except for peak Covid.
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/TDSP
calbear93
How long do you want to ignore this user?
dajo9 said:

I just like facts as presented to be correct. And also with context.

Personal interest payments as percent of GDP is the highest since 2008.
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/graph/?g=MFmN

Household debt service payments as a percent of disposable income is the lowest level recorded except for peak Covid.
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/graph/?g=MFmN
AS to be expected from a google-based expert, your second link failed you.

If you knew what you were talking about, you would know that personal interest expense, like credit card and car payments, as well as default rate, are more reflective of middle class experience than mortgage payments when new mortgage underwriting is plummeting.

I think this is what you intended to link but you conveniently ignore the rising personal interest expense relative to disposable income.

Your focus on irrelevant statistics instead of the relevant ones for middle class experience, sensitivity to inflation, and consumer sentiments reveal that your knowledge on this is limited to your google searches.

https://fred.stlouisfed.org/graph/?g=1clCL
dajo9
How long do you want to ignore this user?
calbear93 said:

dajo9 said:

I just like facts as presented to be correct. And also with context.

Personal interest payments as percent of GDP is the highest since 2008.
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/graph/?g=MFmN

Household debt service payments as a percent of disposable income is the lowest level recorded except for peak Covid.
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/graph/?g=MFmN
AS to be expected from a google-based expert, your second link failed you.

If you knew what you were talking about, you would know that personal interest expense, like credit card and car payments, as well as default rate, are more reflective of middle class experience than mortgage payments when new mortgage underwriting is plummeting.

I think this is what you intended to link but you conveniently ignore the rising personal interest expense relative to disposable income.

Your focus on irrelevant statistics instead of the relevant ones for middle class experience, sensitivity to inflation, and consumer sentiments reveal that your knowledge on this is limited to your google searches.

https://fred.stlouisfed.org/graph/?g=1clCL



The way you point out a bad link shows us all how mature you are. I have fixed my link.

I haven't made commentary here despite your arguments with nobody. I have posted a series of facts. You said household debt levels were at extremely high levels. I added relevant context. You got angry.
DiabloWags
How long do you want to ignore this user?
dajo9 said:

DiabloWags said:

Just paid $1.29 for this doughnut at Safeway today.

No worries.
There is no inflation at the grocery store.
That's all been trumped up by the Media to make Joe Biden look bad.

It's just FAKE NEWS by the Media.
Carry on.


What do you think the price of a Safeway doughnut would be if people refused to pay $1.29 for a Safeway doughnut?


Here's a better question that you have refused to answer.

Where do you think interest rates would be right now had the FED listened to the likes of your 2 favorite liberal economists, Paul Krugman and Robert Reich?
"Cults don't end well. They really don't."
dajo9
How long do you want to ignore this user?
DiabloWags said:

dajo9 said:

DiabloWags said:

Just paid $1.29 for this doughnut at Safeway today.

No worries.
There is no inflation at the grocery store.
That's all been trumped up by the Media to make Joe Biden look bad.

It's just FAKE NEWS by the Media.
Carry on.


What do you think the price of a Safeway doughnut would be if people refused to pay $1.29 for a Safeway doughnut?


Here's a better question that you have refused to answer.

Where do you think interest rates would be right now had the FED listened to the likes of your 2 favorite liberal economists, Paul Krugman and Robert Reich?



Right where they are right now. The Fed basically did agree with Krugman, despite whatever minor difference you are about to post.

Why did you buy a doughnut you think is too expensive?

Answer - because you can afford it
tequila4kapp
How long do you want to ignore this user?
My opinion: the disconnect between people's perception and statistics saying the economy is great isn't the result of some media narrative, it's that traditional measures for determining health of the economy are incomplete or invalid.

I have been commenting for some time that my own financial experience just doesn't make sense. Now I am seeing a young adult family member enter the workforce. FTE is very hard to find. You can get 2 PTE gigs at $18 per hour, 24 hours a week each. That equates to @44k annually. No benefits. 48 hour work weeks. 1 bedroom apartment can be had for @$1300. Car insurance, car payment, gas, phone, food, etc…it can be done but barely, with no future, no career track. Again, it just doesn't add up, something isn't right.
Eastern Oregon Bear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
tequila4kapp said:

My opinion: the disconnect between people's perception and statistics saying the economy is great isn't the result of some media narrative, it's that traditional measures for determining health of the economy are incomplete or invalid.

I have been commenting for some time that my own financial experience just doesn't make sense. Now I am seeing a young adult family member enter the workforce. FTE is very hard to find. You can get 2 PTE gigs at $18 per hour, 24 hours a week each. That equates to @44k annually. No benefits. 48 hour work weeks. 1 bedroom apartment can be had for @$1300. Car insurance, car payment, gas, phone, food, etc…it can be done but barely, with no future, no career track. Again, it just doesn't add up, something isn't right.
This is why I've argued several times in the past that the minimum wage needs to be raised. The economy needs people to work these minimum wage type jobs but those filling those jobs have a meager life style and no ability to cover things like medical bills and car repairs, etc. I generally get hooted down by the people around here that have few financial worries.
dajo9
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Eastern Oregon Bear said:

tequila4kapp said:

My opinion: the disconnect between people's perception and statistics saying the economy is great isn't the result of some media narrative, it's that traditional measures for determining health of the economy are incomplete or invalid.

I have been commenting for some time that my own financial experience just doesn't make sense. Now I am seeing a young adult family member enter the workforce. FTE is very hard to find. You can get 2 PTE gigs at $18 per hour, 24 hours a week each. That equates to @44k annually. No benefits. 48 hour work weeks. 1 bedroom apartment can be had for @$1300. Car insurance, car payment, gas, phone, food, etc…it can be done but barely, with no future, no career track. Again, it just doesn't add up, something isn't right.
This is why I've argued several times in the past that the minimum wage needs to be raised. The economy needs people to work these minimum wage type jobs but those filling those jobs have a meager life style and no ability to cover things like medical bills and car repairs, etc. I generally get hooted down by the people around here that have few financial worries.
I've no doubt the continued strong national economy is due in part to blue states raising minimum wages. California minimum wage is currently $16.00 / hour - $20.00 / hour. I'm pretty sure tequila4kapp has opposed the Democrats who raised the minimum wage to those levels every step of the way. In addition to helping to boost retail sales and GDP and tequila4kapp's young family member's life, these higher minimum wages will also boost inflation somewhat as companies take some of those increases for themselves. That's what happens when people have some scratch in their pocket - they buy overpriced donuts. .
tequila4kapp
How long do you want to ignore this user?
dajo9 said:

Eastern Oregon Bear said:

tequila4kapp said:

My opinion: the disconnect between people's perception and statistics saying the economy is great isn't the result of some media narrative, it's that traditional measures for determining health of the economy are incomplete or invalid.

I have been commenting for some time that my own financial experience just doesn't make sense. Now I am seeing a young adult family member enter the workforce. FTE is very hard to find. You can get 2 PTE gigs at $18 per hour, 24 hours a week each. That equates to @44k annually. No benefits. 48 hour work weeks. 1 bedroom apartment can be had for @$1300. Car insurance, car payment, gas, phone, food, etc…it can be done but barely, with no future, no career track. Again, it just doesn't add up, something isn't right.
This is why I've argued several times in the past that the minimum wage needs to be raised. The economy needs people to work these minimum wage type jobs but those filling those jobs have a meager life style and no ability to cover things like medical bills and car repairs, etc. I generally get hooted down by the people around here that have few financial worries.
I've no doubt the continued strong national economy is due in part to blue states raising minimum wages. California minimum wage is currently $16.00 / hour - $20.00 / hour. I'm pretty sure tequila4kapp has opposed the Democrats who raised the minimum wage to those levels every step of the way. In addition to helping to boost retail sales and GDP and tequila4kapp's young family member's life, these higher minimum wages will also boost inflation somewhat as companies take some of those increases for themselves. That's what happens when people have some scratch in their pocket - they buy overpriced donuts. .
Of course you have "no doubt"…all the pieces of your narrative fit with your world view, as it does for all of us.

You completely overlook the parts where housing is too expensive. If this was a simple as allowing people to afford things there would be more housing built to normalize housing expenses. Interest rates may explain some of that - cost to build, cost to buy. But still, we might expect more inventory to enter the market as more businesses try to get their piece of this overpriced market, ultimately reducing pricing pressure. That hasn't happened.

You also overlook the part where employers are less willing to hire FTEs and provide them benefits, presumably because of expenses related to total compensation.

Our minimum wage has been tied to inflation for several years. Every January the price of everything goes up, as does the minimum wage. What's the value of increased wages when purchasing power remains relatively the same?
dajo9
How long do you want to ignore this user?
I always enjoy when people get mad at me for things I don't say. As if I owe anybody any particular commentary on any topic.

Housing is tough. I'm not sure I think more housing in California is a good thing considering how overcrowded it is becoming and the lack of water, etc. That's not something I'd suggest as a political viewpoint or as something that is fair to the average Californian. Its not Biden's fault or Trump's fault or Newsom's fault or anybody's fault. I have sympathy for varying opinions on California housing. People moving out of the state of California is a good thing. Of course, somebody needs to be present to work the jobs so there are limits in every direction. I don't have answers on that topic and I rarely speak on it. I think most people here express good viewpoints on it and the frustration is high for good reason. Demand to live in California is too high. What do you do about that?

Nationally, more housing needs to be built to lower prices. Higher interest rates are not going to solve that problem.
DiabloWags
How long do you want to ignore this user?
dajo9 said:

DiabloWags said:



Here's a better question that you have refused to answer.

Where do you think interest rates would be right now had the FED listened to the likes of your 2 favorite liberal economists, Paul Krugman and Robert Reich?



Right where they are right now. The Fed basically did agree with Krugman, despite whatever minor difference you are about to post.



Cool story.

"Right now the Fed seems set to pursue further big rate hikes in the coming months.
I would urge it to look hard at what's happening and think twice."

Paul Krugman, September 29, 2022

Opinion | Is the Fed Braking Too Hard? - The New York Times (nytimes.com)


"Cults don't end well. They really don't."
DiabloWags
How long do you want to ignore this user?
dajo9 said:

I always enjoy when people get mad at me for things I don't say. As if I owe anybody any particular commentary on any topic.


I've noticed that you have a strong tendency to "spin" things towards your inherent political bias.
It's been well documented here over the last several years.

Your repeated posts of articles by Bob Reich and Paul Krugman critical of the Fed raising rates and increasing unemployment were well documented here. - - - Why not just admit that you were terribly wrong and move on?


"Cults don't end well. They really don't."
dajo9
How long do you want to ignore this user?
DiabloWags said:

dajo9 said:

I always enjoy when people get mad at me for things I don't say. As if I owe anybody any particular commentary on any topic.


I've noticed that you have a strong tendency to "spin" things towards your inherent political bias.
It's been well documented here over the last several years.

Your repeated posts of articles by Bob Reich and Paul Krugman critical of the Fed raising rates and increasing unemployment were well documented here. - - - Why not just admit that you were terribly wrong and move on?





I've said I was wrong about the increase in inflation. On a board in which many people are wrong frequently I'm practically the only one to admit to having been wrong. You should have a look around.

You bring up the past on me because you don't like my politics and economic viewpoints, even though what I said was a fairly mainstream economics opinion. Show me an economist who has never been wrong and I'll show you an economist who has never said anything meaningful.

Are you willing to admit you were wrong about your weird conjecture about my profession? Or your commitment to leave this board? Should I bring it up every time you say something I don't like?

btw, I think you overstate my usage of Robert Reich. He's pretty active on social media so I've probably posted some of his posts but I'm far more likely to read Krugman who has a great track record of being correct despite the mistakes he's made. I don't follow Reich that much.
DiabloWags
How long do you want to ignore this user?
10-year yield is at 4.65% and the avalanche of Treasury Debt Issuance is relentless.
It's now on pace to surpass the $23 Trillion issued in 2023.

Does anyone really think this is sustainable?




The $27 Trillion Treasury Market Is Only Getting Bigger - WSJ
"Cults don't end well. They really don't."
dajo9
How long do you want to ignore this user?
DiabloWags said:

10-year yield is at 4.65% and the avalanche of Treasury Debt Issuance is relentless.
It's now on pace to surpass the $23 Trillion issued in 2023.

Does anyone really think this is sustainable?




The $27 Trillion Treasury Market Is Only Getting Bigger - WSJ



What is your solution to the debt problem? Please be specific.
calbear93
How long do you want to ignore this user?
dajo9 said:

DiabloWags said:

dajo9 said:

I always enjoy when people get mad at me for things I don't say. As if I owe anybody any particular commentary on any topic.


I've noticed that you have a strong tendency to "spin" things towards your inherent political bias.
It's been well documented here over the last several years.

Your repeated posts of articles by Bob Reich and Paul Krugman critical of the Fed raising rates and increasing unemployment were well documented here. - - - Why not just admit that you were terribly wrong and move on?





I've said I was wrong about the increase in inflation. On a board in which many people are wrong frequently I'm practically the only one to admit to having been wrong. You should have a look around.

You bring up the past on me because you don't like my politics and economic viewpoints, even though what I said was a fairly mainstream economics opinion. Show me an economist who has never been wrong and I'll show you an economist who has never said anything meaningful.

Who is wrong as often as you? And this may be the first time you have admitted being wrong. I personally have admitted being wrong many times, but you just spin, move goal posts, gaslight, etc.

It is not your politics or economic viewpoints. It's your shallow thinking while presenting yourself as an expert. I may have disagreements with people left of you, including Sycasey, U2, and even Yogi, but they don't try to pass of their stupid google searches and posting in a shotgun method articles as some expertise. It's not your views. It's you.

For example, you are against more housing because of traffic and resources but want more liberal policies for illegal immigrants, worry about affordability, wealth disparity, etc. That reveals such shallow thinking. You think the NIMBY attitude of the self proclaimed liberals and excess regulation on new development are not creating a lack of affordable housing? But you think everyone else should sacrifice to address but homeowners (maybe because you are a homeowner and you may actually have to sacrifice).

Or saying raising minimum wage is making our economy strong. Then why not make minimum wage $100 or $200? The higher the better, right? What could go wrong? Can business afford it? In your mind, it's just additional money that will circulate so why not increase it? Of course you are going to say that there is a limit. Well, then isn't that the whole debate? What should be the limit. It isn't that higher minimum wage is always better. Shallow thinking.
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.