US Federal Reserve raises interest rates for second time in a decade

[Credo]

9 minutes ago, midas said:

 

 

 

Do you honestly believe so?

I don't know I'm not American but did live and work there in the 1980s and I can't recall that they lived on such a thin margin back then ? I mean I wouldn't be able to sleep at night if I knew I had such paltry savings?

 

More Than Half of Americans Reportedly Have Less Than $1,000 to Their Name

 

http://www.esquire.com/news-politics/news/a41147/half-of-americans-less-than-1000/

 

There is no doubt that many people are squeezed, but Americans have a long history of having a fair amount of money tied up in assets.   I know quite a few who are cash-poor, but they have houses, property, land, cars and other assets.   

 

People don't like to part with assets, but it's not the same as not having a pot to pee in or a window to throw it out of.   

[ilostmypassword]

52 minutes ago, Credo said:

There is no doubt that many people are squeezed, but Americans have a long history of having a fair amount of money tied up in assets.   I know quite a few who are cash-poor, but they have houses, property, land, cars and other assets.   

 

People don't like to part with assets, but it's not the same as not having a pot to pee in or a window to throw it out of.   

The trouble with assets like houses, property, land, cars etc is that in a big economic downturn like the one in 2008, all those assets suddenly become a lot less valuable.

[Credo]

5 minutes ago, ilostmypassword said:

The trouble with assets like houses, property, land, cars etc is that in a big economic downturn like the one in 2008, all those assets suddenly become a lot less valuable.

As can stocks, bonds, and even currencies.   

[ilostmypassword]

8 minutes ago, ilostmypassword said:

The trouble with assets like houses, property, land, cars etc is that in a big economic downturn like the one in 2008, all those assets suddenly become a lot less valuable.

 

Just now, Credo said:

As can stocks, bonds, and even currencies.   

I was just citing the examples you originally invoked. You raised the point that these people's finances were better than if one had just based an evaluation on cash on hand.  In addition to which, these people may possess lots of assets, but unless they're fully paid for, in the bad times, they can go underwater thus creating more debt.

[midas]

3 hours ago, craigt3365 said:

Be careful with what you read on the internet.  It's true some don't save much, but overall, the economy is doing OK.  And the unemployment rate is down.  Life's pretty good unless you read misleading articles like that.

 

http://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2016/01/14/its-simply-not-true-that-most-americans-dont-have-1000-in-emergency-savings/#747816882db4

 

Sorry but you tell me to be careful what I read on the Internet and then you quote a guy who says"  Credit availability allows us to save after the emergency, rather than before it. " which I consider a load of codswallop because America cannot go on living on credit and borrowing indefinitely 

America is now $20 trillion in debt and not a single shred of light as to how this is going to be paid off if ever or any hint about how the emergency can be dealt with because robotics and technology are going to cause even more massive job losses.

And when Bloomberg says that one seventh of the population is still on food stamps 9 years after the financial crisis started (and by now are probably totally unemployable) that doesn’t sound like the rosy economy that you are trying to portray.

Because these people (46 million not a small number) can cause enormous social unrest if they suddenly got hungry as we saw on our televisions during the Katrina and Sandy aftermath.

 You also have to take into account how easily people with nothing can be pushed too far so as to disrupt the entire society or as Gerald Celente infamously says  “'When The People Lose Everything & Have Nothing Left ToLose.. They Lose It ...”

 

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-02-03/food-stamps-still-feed-one-in-seven-americans-despite-recovery

 

Edited December 18, 2016 by midas

[ilostmypassword]

8 hours ago, williamgeorgeallen said:

if many americans can no longer buy houses the household debt has to be far less. that whole situation is disgusting. watch the big short, great movie but made me angry. not one banker went to jail.

 

7 hours ago, craigt3365 said:

Right, only 64% can afford to buy houses.  Down from an all time high of 69%.  So yes, Americans can afford to buy houses.

 

Right on about that movie.  But to say nobody got in trouble is not right.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subprime_mortgage_crisis#Bank_fines_and_penalties

 

https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/residential-mortgage-backed-securities-working-group-members-announce-first-legal-action

 

williamgeorgeallen didn't assert that "nobody got into trouble."What he said was "not one banker went to jail" That isn't quite true. There were a very few instances of this happening. But even then, not the highest officers in the banks.

And really, unless you take literally the legal fiction that a corporation is a person, then as far as fines and such go, nobody did get into trouble.

[craigt3365]

16 hours ago, midas said:

 

Sorry but you tell me to be careful what I read on the Internet and then you quote a guy who says"  Credit availability allows us to save after the emergency, rather than before it. " which I consider a load of codswallop because America cannot go on living on credit and borrowing indefinitely 

America is now $20 trillion in debt and not a single shred of light as to how this is going to be paid off if ever or any hint about how the emergency can be dealt with because robotics and technology are going to cause even more massive job losses.

And when Bloomberg says that one seventh of the population is still on food stamps 9 years after the financial crisis started (and by now are probably totally unemployable) that doesn’t sound like the rosy economy that you are trying to portray.

Because these people (46 million not a small number) can cause enormous social unrest if they suddenly got hungry as we saw on our televisions during the Katrina and Sandy aftermath.

 You also have to take into account how easily people with nothing can be pushed too far so as to disrupt the entire society or as Gerald Celente infamously says  “'When The People Lose Everything & Have Nothing Left ToLose.. They Lose It ...”

 

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-02-03/food-stamps-still-feed-one-in-seven-americans-despite-recovery

 

As with all statistics, there are many ways to spin it.  With regards to food stamps.

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2013/09/23/why-are-47-million-americans-on-food-stamps-its-the-recession-mostly/?utm_term=.51cdc723f4ac

Quote

 

Some conservatives, meanwhile, have emphasized that a big chunk of the increase is due to policy changes by Washington. In 2008, Congress allowed states to relax their standards for who could join the program. (Jobless adults could stay in the program if they lived in high-unemployment areas, for instance.) Then, as part of the 2009 stimulus bill, Congress temporarily boosted food-stamp benefits — the average benefit was $133 per month last year, although that increase expires this November.

 

So which explanation is right? Most evidence suggests that food-stamp enrollment has mainly risen due to the recession — although policy changes have played a smaller role:

 

 

Look at the projects costs of the program.  It will be dropping drastically over the coming years as more and more come off the program.  Ths US may not be doing fantastic, but it's not falling apart either.