US Consumer Confidence Down Again - Page 2

Kidicious · July 30, 2003, 13:56

Here's a graph on interest rates. Remember Snow said that deficit spending wouldn't cause rates to increase. WRONG! Duh! Bush is toast.

Kidicious · July 30, 2003, 13:57

Here's a good pic of our financial wizard.

Lawrence of Arabia · July 30, 2003, 14:19

Gee is Snow said that, hes a dumbass.

Sava · July 30, 2003, 14:26

Snow is a dumbass... he's just another defunked supply-sider.

Odin · July 30, 2003, 14:37

All supply-siders are dumbasses.

chequita guevara · July 30, 2003, 14:37

Snow bankrupted CSX before going on to help Bush bankrupt USA.

Defiant · July 30, 2003, 14:49

You know Kid, this is what I hate about you Liberal, Commies, you never show the whole picture. What does it say in the first paragraph, let me quote for you:
"Most economists still believe they will not douse a recovery in the broader economy."
You economists are worse then the weathermen. Remeber when I said how the media can influence individuals with misleading information, congrats, you just proved my point. Nice going. Don't use that father thing you did with FEZ, I am older than you are.

Economy gets a yield sign

Higher rates will stamp out the refi boom, but most economists doubt it will crimp growth -- yet.
July 30, 2003: 12:50 PM EDT
By Mark Gongloff, CNN/Money Staff Writer

NEW YORK (CNN/Money) - Though U.S. interest rates continue to rise, throwing cold water on the red-hot housing and mortgage-refinancing markets, most economists still believe they will not douse a recovery in the broader economy.

Not yet, anyway.

Treasury bond prices sank Tuesday, and their yields, which move opposite to price, soared -- the interest rate on the 10-year note, which forms the basis of 30-year mortgage rates, shot up to 4.45 percent, a 12-month high.

Though the 10-year note rate fell back a bit Wednesday, it's still at its highest level since last August and a whopping 1.3 percentage points higher than its 45-year low touched in mid-June.

The impact of higher rates has already shown up in mortgage activity. The Mortgage Bankers Association of America said Wednesday that demand for refinancings and loans to buy new homes both dropped last week, as mortgage rates surged higher.

"Is this going to send the housing market into contraction? No. It's a very healthy market, and interest rates are still historically low," said David Lereah, chief economist at the National Association of Realtors. "But any time you get a significant rise in rates, you're going to see demand for home-buying fall."

Refis as economic salvation
Low rates in recent years have fueled a dramatic boom in demand for mortgage refinancing and new homes. Refis have helped cut consumers' monthly bills and allowed them to tap into the rising value of their homes. These factors have helped keep the sluggish U.S. economy from falling back into recession.

Related stories

Refi demand slides 33%

Consumers: the new skeptics

Are Americans too far underwater?

Housing's head of steam

So does the end of the refi boom mean the economy will sink? Not exactly -- but it does mean the economy will need to pass the baton on to another savior -- such as corporate spending and hiring -- if it's going to recover smartly from the recession of 2001.

According to research by Merrill Lynch senior economist Gerald Cohen, a big chunk of the money taken out in first-half refinancing hasn't been spent yet -- about $75 billion, according to his calculations -- and that money will likely be spent in the second half, helping support growth in gross domestic product (GDP), the broadest measure of the economy.

Together with tax cuts and child-credit tax refunds, Cohen and other economists hope this money will fuel GDP growth much stronger than the anemic 1.4 percent rate in the first quarter.

But Cohen also said that, if rates stay at their current level or move higher, then the positive refi effect will be virtually absent in 2004, adding, at best, 0.2 percentage point to GDP growth.

Already, some dampening of growth
Some economists are worried that the recent jump in rates has already had a dampening effect on economic growth. After all, as recently as June, Federal Reserve officials were crowing about their ability to talk rates down to 45-year lows, making borrowing easier and adding some booster fuel to an economy sputtering toward recovery.

"Financial conditions clearly are quite a bit tighter than they were six weeks ago," said Rory Robertson, interest rate strategist at Macquarie Equities (USA). "I'd be dumbfounded if the Fed was not anxious about this dramatic rebound in yields dampening the rebound in the pipeline."

The appropriate level of worry may depend on the basis for the run-up in rates. If rates are soaring mostly on technical factors -- to put it simply, selling usually breeds selling as interest rates soar -- then they could be damaging to an economy that still hasn't found its legs.

On the other hand, if rates are rising mostly because the economy is getting better, then the weakness in the mortgage market will be offset in other areas.

So far, this latter view is the consensus view among economists, most of whom believe the economy is on the verge of an upswing.

"The housing market is likely to do less well, but that happens as resources are shifting back to areas where there's more remuneration -- such as manufacturing and services," said Kevin Logan, chief economist at Dresdner Kleinwort Wasserstein. "That's how the system works -- rising rates are a reflection of how the economy is going to do."

And there's no guarantee interest rates will only climb higher from here. If stock prices suffer their usual September/October swoon, or if the herd dynamic breeding the current bond selloff dissipates, or if the Fed finds a way to talk long-term rates down again, bonds could become attractive again.

"When the 10-year yield got to 4.4 percent Tuesday, I said this was probably a short-term buying opportunity and that we would see some correction," said Sherry Cooper, chief economist at BMO Nesbitt Burns.

And she was certainly right Wednesday -- but the bond market has been extremely volatile lately, and there's no guarantee bond prices won't go lower, and interest rates higher, on Thursday.

"Just as the market overshot on the downside in yield in May/June, the risk is that it now overshoots on the upside," said Robertson of Macquarie Equities.

http://money.cnn.com/2003/07/30/news...pact/index.htm

Defiant · July 30, 2003, 14:53

BTW, Sava, this came from CNN.

chequita guevara · July 30, 2003, 15:01

Quote:

Originally posted by Defiant
You know Kid, this is what I hate about you Liberal, Commies, you never show the whole picture.

Wait, what part of your article has to do with consumer confidence again? Oh, right, none of it.

You know what I "hate" about people like you, Defiant. You always spout crap from off the cuff. This thread isn't titled, American economy will continue to suck (though I think it will). It's US Consumer Confidence Down Again.

So stop setting up strawmen to try and knock them down.

Defiant · July 30, 2003, 15:03

Ahhh Genius Che,
What did KID attach at the beginning of this page???? Take a look, then you might understand, "Bush is toast" part.

Giancarlo · July 30, 2003, 15:28

Quote:

Originally posted by Odin
All supply-siders are dumbasses.

All communists are dumbasses. 'Nuf said. Supply sided economics works, communism doesn't.

Kidicious · July 30, 2003, 16:15

I didn't claim that the article said that the US economy would tank, only that interest rates are rising. The economy will surely tank in the next five years though, and it will not improve enough to create jobs before the next election. That's certain. I've yet to see any economist besides the Bush admin that claims that.

Kidicious · July 30, 2003, 16:21

btw, I saw a piece on The News Hour last night that claimed that the real unemployment rate should be stated as 17.8% They count all working age adults that aren't working including people who retire early and such. That is the highest post-WWII level. It surpasses that unemployment rate measured the same way in 1983, the next worse.

Velociryx · July 30, 2003, 16:24

Oh yes! Let's count all the people who retire early, by all means!

If they are RETIRED, it means that they are no longer in the work force.

But....if it makes the argument look good, yes! Let's count them!

Maybe we can use that unemployment rate you guys quoted some months ago that counts all the folks who have started independent consulting businesses from home as "unemployed" too....and all those who are employed but are looking for better paying work. We might break 50% if we keep going!

-=Vel=-

Defiant · July 30, 2003, 16:29

Kid,
I don't think you can predict what will happen in the next five months much less the next five years, no offense meant, but there are way too many unpredictable variables you can not adjust all of them accordingly.
This is what I am really afraid of: This winter gas and electric charges are expected to rise 40% due to a shortfall on natural gas from a greater proportion of power companies using natural gas instead of oil, coal or water due to its cleanliness. That could put an extreme damper on our economy. Now the gov't knows this and they are desperately trying to bring in natural gas (frozen) on ships because to build pipelines from the north is too expensive and time consuming.
This cost come right out of our pockets and would stop essential retail spending.
I got this information from the WSJ last week.

Defiant · July 30, 2003, 16:31

About the retirement, the baby boomers are beginning to retire, so make sure you take that in accounting for your numbers, it really is weighted.

Kidicious · July 30, 2003, 16:31

Quote:

Originally posted by Velociryx
Oh yes! Let's count all the people who retire early, by all means!

If they are RETIRED, it means that they are no longer in the work force.

But....if it makes the argument look good, yes! Let's count them!

Maybe we can use that unemployment rate you guys quoted some months ago that counts all the folks who have started independent consulting businesses from home as "unemployed" too....and all those who are employed but are looking for better paying work. We might break 50% if we keep going!

-=Vel=-

It's just another way of measuring it. There are more people who aren't counted the traditional way that are counted this way then there ever has been. Only an idiot would simply ignore these numbers. They say something very important about the economy. It says that 17.8% of people capable of work don't work. I think that's significant to say the least, and it's more than it's been since WWII.

Kidicious · July 30, 2003, 16:34

Quote:

Originally posted by Defiant
Kid,
I don't think you can predict what will happen in the next five months much less the next five years, no offense meant, but there are way too many unpredictable variables you can not adjust all of them accordingly.
This is what I am really afraid of: This winter gas and electric charges are expected to rise 40% due to a shortfall on natural gas from a greater proportion of power companies using natural gas instead of oil, coal or water due to its cleanliness. That could put an extreme damper on our economy. Now the gov't knows this and they are desperately trying to bring in natural gas (frozen) on ships because to build pipelines from the north is too expensive and time consuming.
This cost come right out of our pockets and would stop essential retail spending.
I got this information from the WSJ last week.

I don't see this as a problem. There is plenty of money to be spent. The problem is people don't want to spend it. I doubt if natural gas prices will make much difference at all.

Velociryx · July 30, 2003, 16:35

**double post hunted down and eaten**

Velociryx · July 30, 2003, 16:36

Yes, it's significant, but it is false to call that number the "unemployment" number. Doing so implies that these people are looking for work and can't find it (given the fact that THAT is the definition we have historically applied to the term).

They're not working.

That does not mean that they are part of the group that is "unemployed and looking." It means that (at least in the case of those folks working from home-based businesses or who have taken an early retirement), that they don't have to report to somewhere else to work. The home-based biz owners and consultants work for themselves, and the early retirees don't have to work at all, cos they're now living off of their pension plans and investments.

Is that bad? Lumping those folks in to ratchet up the "unemployment rate" would sure make people think so.

-=Vel=-

Kidicious · July 30, 2003, 16:36

Quote:

Originally posted by Defiant
About the retirement, the baby boomers are beginning to retire, so make sure you take that in accounting for your numbers, it really is weighted.

The 17.8% number accounts for them. When people who are close to retirement lose their jobs they are likely to just retire when the job market sucks, but the 6.4% number doesn't count these people.

Kidicious · July 30, 2003, 16:39

Quote:

Originally posted by Velociryx
Yes, it's significant, but it is false to call that number the "unemployment" number. Doing so implies that these people are looking for work and can't find it (given the fact that THAT is the definition we have historically applied to the term).

They're not working.

That does not mean that they are part of the group that is "unemployed and looking." It means that (at least in the case of those folks working from home-based businesses or who have taken an early retirement), that they don't have to report to somewhere else to work. The home-based biz owners and consultants work for themselves, and the early retirees don't have to work at all, cos they're now living off of their pension plans and investments.

Is that bad? Lumping those folks in to ratchet up the "unemployment rate" would sure make people think so.

-=Vel=-

There is no real unemployment rate that we can say is exact, but this is a measure of the people who are able and willing to work at the right job.

Defiant · July 30, 2003, 16:39

There's plenty of money going around, you can't be serious, I just read on USA today the individual job raises are lowest since the mid-70's but costs continue to rise, understating the effect of increase in heating a home or electric could be disasterous for our economy.

Kidicious · July 30, 2003, 16:41

Quote:

Originally posted by Defiant
There's plenty of money going around, you can't be serious, I just read on USA today the individual job raises are lowest since the mid-70's but costs continue to rise, understating the effect of increase in heating a home or electric could be disasterous for our economy.

There is money, but the wrong people have it. You're right though. It will have some effect.

Defiant · July 30, 2003, 16:42

Explain the wrong people?

Velociryx · July 30, 2003, 16:43

There is money, but the wrong people have it....

Couldn't stay away from it, could you?

And here we go again.

Who are the right people, Kid? You? Your buddies? And lemme guess, everybody who disagrees that you are the right person to have the money must be....elitist?

I love this guy!

-=Vel=-

Kidicious · July 30, 2003, 18:37

Quote:

Originally posted by Defiant
Explain the wrong people?

The people who will not spend more (or less) because of small changes to their income. Generally people with large incomes and wealth.

Kidicious · July 30, 2003, 18:41

Quote:

Originally posted by Velociryx
There is money, but the wrong people have it....

Couldn't stay away from it, could you?

And here we go again.

Who are the right people, Kid? You? Your buddies? And lemme guess, everybody who disagrees that you are the right person to have the money must be....elitist?

I love this guy!

-=Vel=-

Yeah, because as you say, we are all losers who don't save our money.

chequita guevara · July 30, 2003, 18:55

Quote:

Originally posted by Defiant
Take a look, then you might understand, "Bush is toast" part.

So you don't think that consumer confidence would have more to do with whether or not tha man is re-elected than whether or not factory orders are up? If consumers (who are also the voters) do not have confidence in the economy, they will not have confidence in the current government.

chequita guevara · July 30, 2003, 19:00

I fear for you people where there is winter. I still have an huge gas bill from my last winter in the North, thanks to the spike in heating costs. This wil probably bugger us here though, since it may raise the cost of electricty.
If it does, that's gonna put a kabash on this jobless recovery.