Again, you offer claims but absolutely no evidence. You can't just say "yields are the lowest ever!," you have to show that low yields indicate market crashes and that the same will happen here. You haven't.
:rofl When were the last time yields were at ZERO? The market has already crashed...
Again, the fact that some numbers are worse than before doesn't indicate anything about the overall health of the economy.
Some numbers??? 500,000 jobs a month being lost does. Yet i am not focusing on that aspect, as i said, the banking and financial sectors are in worse shape.
You keep on focusing on how low the treasury yield was a month ago, while ignoring far more important things like the fact that we don't have 25% unemployment.
There is a significant difference in the economy we have now, which is service based, and the manufacturing economy of 1929. Women in the work force, robotic manufacturing, specialized service sector, and the Feds balance sheet illustrate the differences. There was not social security, there was not unemployment, there was not welfare, etc... All have dramatically reduced the possibility of 25% unemployment. And yet...
What was unemployment in 1929, and the first few months of 1930??? What was unemployment by the end of 1930?:2wave: 25% took over two years.
But you do prove you have really no idea what you are getting yourself into, when bringing up unemployment. Reason be, unemployment statistics are no longer compiled the way they were in 1930. Ill post an article at the end to shore up any of your doubts. And if you still find the source unsatisfactory, well then, show where it is wrong.
Oh man! You got me bro. And as I pointed out very clearly when I made that suggestion, I'm not investing (were I investing) for 4 months from now, but rather for 40 years from now.
So why should i take your opinion on the matter, with anything but a grain of salt?
Sorry that I'm not up to date on day-trading gold or investing in "high stakes repo's" or whatever the **** you were talking about.
Shorting Chinese ETF's last year (2008) has been the most profitable move i have ever made. I only bring it up because you were incredibly condescending towards the strategy at the time. No hard feelings, im up over 70 % since February of 2008:2razz:
And now you see how I feel. :lol:
But i never said the overall economy was worse off, only the financial sector. And in my opinion, it is only going to get worse. I showed you some numbers that would give you that impression. If you fail to find it significant, what can i say? But i do have to wonder, is this like the S&P sentiment?:mrgreen:
For what? Here, ill tell ya what to do. Go look up the Federal Funds rate, and read about how it is compiled. Then, check out the bank reserve link i gave you, which should illustrate the reserves in the banking system. And then,
use your brain!
I'm saying that your failed attempts to prove that this is worse than the great depression don't mean anything, not that the recession doesn't mean anything.
Failed attempts? I never intended to prove "this is worse than the great depression". I said we are worse off, and that the banking and financial's are even much worse. It is quite fallacious to tell me i fail. You have backed yourself to the edge of a slippery slope stating unemployment rates are not at 1932 levels. NEWSFLASH: It took over 2 and a half years, not the unemployment levels 6 months after the market crash you seem so quick to site.
NOT THE GREAT DEPRESSION.
Circular logic always brings you back to square one. We had an attack on the financial heart of our country. Something quite different occurred this past October.
As many as 25% of Americans were unemployed during the days of bread lines that symbolized the Depression. That figure is more than three times the current 6.7% unemployment rate, the economists say. Even the most pessimistic estimates only foresee the rate rising barely above 10%.
“We are in a very, very different place than the U.S. economy was in the 1930s,” James Poterba, president of the National Bureau of Economic Research told a recent Reuters Summit.
Or are we? Figures collected for Reuters by John Williams, from the electronic newsletter Shadowstats.com, suggest that, while we are not there yet, the comparison is not as outlandish as it might initially seem.
By his count, if unemployment were still tallied the way it was in the 1930s, today’s jobless rate would be closer to 16.5%—more than double the stated rate.
“I expect that unemployment in the current downturn, which will be particularly deep and protracted, eventually will rival, if not top, the 25% seen in the Great Depression,” Mr. Williams said.
He and other critics have one particular sticking point with the current way of measuring unemployment: the treatment of discouraged workers.
Under President Lyndon Johnson, the government decided individuals who had stopped looking for work for more than a year were no longer part of the labor force. This dramatically decreased the jobless rate reported by the government.
The remaining article can be found here:
click
