[Ache]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/10/2 ... 75870.html

The U.S. economy is a "fiscal train wreck" waiting to happen that risks ushering in a period of stagnation featuring by minimal growth, high unemployment and deflationary pressure, U.S. economist Nouriel Roubini wrote on Friday.

In a commentary for the Financial Times, Roubini -- one of the first economists to predict the housing crash in the United States and known as 'Dr Doom' for his pessimistic forecasts -- said fiscal and monetary stimulus had prevented another depression.

But he said that further quantitative easing likely to be announced by the Federal Reserve next Wednesday will have little effect on U.S. growth in 2011, "so fiscal policy should be doing some of the lifting to prevent a double dip recession," he said.

He said the U.S. remains on an "unsustainable fiscal course" and the likely make-up of Congress after elections next Tuesday, in which the Republicans look set for strong gains, virtually takes fiscal reform off the agenda.

"The risk ... is that something on the fiscal side will snap ... The trigger could be a debt rollover crisis in a major U.S. state government," he wrote.

"The worst of the coming fiscal train wreck will be prevented by the Fed's easing. But the risk is (Obama) ... will then preside over ... a Japanese style stagnation, where growth is barely positive, and deflationary pressures and high unemployment linger."

[Ache]

Twitter Fight: Roubini Vs. Business Insider

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/10/2 ... 76201.html

A wonkish spat erupted Friday between economist Nouriel Roubini and blogger Joe Weisenthal, all in 140 characters or fewer.

It started Friday morning when Weisenthal, deputy editor of Business Insider, pointed out (with only a small dose of snark) that Roubini, co-founder and chairman of Roubini Global Economics, who predicted Friday that the U.S. economy was headed for a "fiscal train wreck", had tweeted in August that the third quarter Gross Domestic Product growth would be close to zero percent. In fact, the number released today (subject to revision) was two percent.

Roubini quickly took to the tweets, calling Weisenthal an "idiot" for not recognizing that the two percent GDP growth figure is misleading: It was boosted, Roubini tweeted, by a glut of unsold goods. A better indicator, he explained, is the "pathetic" 0.6 percent rise in prices.

"My forecast of stall speed of economy (btw 0 and 1%) on the mark," he confirmed, via Twitter.

When Roubini then decided to predict the fourth quarter's GDP growth (which David Kotok, chief investment officer of Cumberland Advisors, told Politico will matter more than the third quarter number), Weisenthal saw it as backpedaling, and he summarized the economist's tweet thusly: "Okay, It's NEXT Quarter That We'll See The Double Dip."

Then Roubini really unleashed his fury, taking pot shots not only at Weisenthal but at his publication:

[Pops]

He said the U.S. remains on an "unsustainable fiscal course" and the likely make-up of Congress after elections next Tuesday, in which the Republicans look set for strong gains, virtually takes fiscal reform off the agenda.

"The risk ... is that something on the fiscal side will snap ... The trigger could be a debt rollover crisis in a major U.S. state government," he wrote.

Yeah, I won't be a bit surprised, we are in for more of the same and maybe worse. O' failed to rein-in the robber-barons even though he had to know he only had a 2 year window. All I can assume is that he either had no intention of changing anything or he is simply a fool.

Now, of course, the pubs will work for the benefit of their constituency and deregulation, privatization and lower taxes for the wealthy are all we should expect.

[Lore]

I put quite a bit of stock in what Nouriel Roubini has to say. While most of Wall Street is filled with sugar plumb fairies with a dog in the fight of getting you to loosen up what ever money is left to be invested with them, he has steadfastly held onto a realistic view of our economic situation. Between him and Joe Battipaglia, market strategist-private client group for Stifel Nicolaus, they are about the only couple worth listening to.

[Ludi]

O' failed to rein-in the robber-barons even though he had to know he only had a 2 year window. All I can assume is that he either had no intention of changing anything or he is simply a fool.

What specific powers does he have as Prez to rein in the robber barons?

[Rod_Cloutier]

The U.S. economy is a "fiscal train wreck" waiting to happen that risks ushering in a period of stagnation featuring by minimal growth, high unemployment and deflationary pressure, U.S. economist Nouriel Roubini wrote on Friday

You mean we don't have that already???

[Pops]

O' failed to rein-in the robber-barons even though he had to know he only had a 2 year window. All I can assume is that he either had no intention of changing anything or he is simply a fool.

What specific powers does he have as Prez to rein in the robber barons?

Well, the POTUS is the head of the branch that enforces the laws, and in reality, decides which laws get enforced. He is also the head legislator, especially when his party controls the legislature, so proposing and promoting initiatives is a large part of the job.

[Fiddlerdave]

The U.S. economy is a "fiscal train wreck" waiting to happen that risks ushering in a period of stagnation featuring by minimal growth, high unemployment and deflationary pressure, U.S. economist Nouriel Roubini wrote on Friday

You mean we don't have that already???

Roubini is avoiding panic.

We now simply have a stubbed toe compared to the morass we are sinking into.

[Sixstrings]

"U.S. On Track For A 'Fiscal Train Wreck" -- you can file that under O for obvious.

[Ludi]

Well, the POTUS is the head of the branch that enforces the laws, and in reality, decides which laws get enforced.

So maybe you're expecting him to enforce anti-trust laws....or....?

Sorry, just hoping for some specifics here.....

[Pops]

I kinda think they went the opposite direction of anti-trust when they were encouraging and backing the too big to fail banks to buy up the failing banks.

As far as what he could have changed, this guy made a few points:

Yes, I can actually point to a particular legal or regulatory barriers that were removed that allowed subprime lending to come into existence, although I have to go back three decades, not two. Prior to the Deregulation and Monetary Control Act of 1980 it was not possible to charge high rates and fees to borrowers. Then the Alternative Mortgage Transaction Parity Act of 1982 permitted variable interest rates and balloon payments. Also important in the crisis was the Tax Reform Act of 1986. The Tax Reform Act eliminated the tax deduction of interest on consumer loans, but then allowed interest deductions for mortgages. Thus, even very expensive mortgage debt was now actually cheaper than consumer debt for a great deal of households. This helped create large amounts of cash-out financing and encouraged the market to grow.

The reform bill fails to address the role of accounting in providing the "sure thing" means for senior officers to exploit and profit personally from these perverse incentives. The financial industry used its lobbying power to induce Congress to extort FASB to change the accounting rules to hide mortgage losses. This is the (early) S&L and the Japanese strategy of the cover up. It leads to disaster (S&Ls) or lost decades (Japan).

Presidents George W. Bush and Barack Obama had adequate authority to close the major insolvent banks, a statutory duty to do so (under the Prompt Corrective Action Law of 1991), and the factual basis (insolvency) for appointing receivers.

http://money.cnn.com/2010/07/18/news/economy/finreg_law_incentives_bill-black.fortune/index.htm


As far as I can tell he didn't do like Emanuel said and put the crisis to good use. He is going to lose big on Tuesday just as if he had nationalized health care (instead of enacting a giveaway to Insurance co's) and really gone big on the stimulus with, off the top of my head, a massive rapid transit project instead of pissing into potholes.

Nope, no change.

[Ludi]

I kinda think they went the opposite direction of anti-trust when they were encouraging and backing the too big to fail banks to buy up the failing banks...
Nope, no change.

I agree. But conservatives seem to think folks are disappointed because he tried to change stuff....uh huh.

[The_Toecutter]

The so-called 'conservatives' never complained when Bush was recklessly spending our tax money, but now they seem to talk about it that a 'Democrat' is in office...

What they don't seem to realize is that Obama basically amounts to Bush III. They should be HAPPY with him. He's continued two wars(one of them without a doubt illegal), he's continued illegal wiretapping, he's continued outsourcing of jobs to China, he's continued a reckless fiscal policy, he's largely kept the tax structure we've had for decades intact(where the rich don't pay nearly as much as they did in the 1960s), he's been consistently pro-Wall Street.... Richard Nixon was more of a 'liberal' or a 'socialist' than Obama ever will be, and I wouldn't dare define Nixon under those terms.

How are Americans, who have a very wide array of views, supposed to be represented by "two parties" that are both right-wing economically and authoritarian, "two parties" that consistently vote against the wishes of the American people(Medical Marijuana, TARP bailouts, and many other issues congress has consistently voted opposite to what the majority of Americans wanted)?

I wonder how Americans are going to react when they are jobless, homeless, without property, can't get food at the grocery store, can't get fuel to even operate a vehicle(if they still have one), can't get medicine or basic medical care, won't be getting the social security or 401K that they paid into their entire lives, and have no prospects for future advancement for either themselves or their offspring... while their 'leaders' continue living with a resource footprint that is enough to be unsustainable all by itself.

[Keith_McClary]

Some will panic, some will sit down and cry, and others will follow any self-appointed "leader" who offers them unwarranted comfort. Many will act with compassion, enlightened self interest, fortitude and wisdom.

Some will be gloating over their gold speculation profits.

[patience]

pstarr,

The tiller has real practical use. The money doesn't without spending it. Lately, I am more interested in practical, useful things than I am in money. The national fiscal train wreck doesn't affect me as much if I have those things.

[Ludi]

Oh shame on you for getting a tiller, pstarr! I should think you'd be all permaculturally no-tillagy!

[Mesuge]

Some will be gloating over their gold speculation profits.

I'm very doubtfull about these golbug bonanza scenarios. Yep, the price of commodities/PMs could go a bit higher, but the idea it's going to appreciate by another factor of 10-60x is just ridiculous. That would shut down large part of the productive economy, i.e. massive return to bare mining even inside OECD countries.

So, this would be certainly prevented/regulated even by countries like Russia, China, Brazil, which will have a say in the future global currency system order, most likely another rehash of fiat, partly backed by PMs.

Well, he who invested in gold 10yrs ago for ~300bucks, won't be sorry, that's for sure. But there are not that many people, most of them are late commers at much higher price. Gold/PM as sort of wealth preserving safe harbor during the system reset, ok, but don't count on anything more. Even that's sheer speculation and in many countries, you will be "separated" from such obnoxious profits in due time, especially in case of large war or system shutdown is in the cards.