James,
And I see your point. Isn't wonderful to be able to see the points of others?

I see where you have a point David.
But I also worry because sins commited after the Redemption have more severity. Plus, this country should have been an example because of its influence.
Mother Angelica said many times she saw this country paying big time pennance.

The clarity and profundity (not to mention the spelling and punctuation) of the above are awe-inspiring!

If France was the firstborn daughter of the Church.
Than this country is the firstborn daughter of...
You take a guess.

er, "despairing"

Sodom is heaven by comparison to the US.
In Sodom, only Lot and his family were right with God (and even that changed).
In America, There are many sinners, but there are also many people striving toward sainthood.
You are quoting something from 90 years ago. It must be remembered that America is a nation of 300,000,000. I don't know that Sodom had as many sinners, so it makes sense that America is worse in that it has had more sins committed within its boarders than Sodom did.
However, God didn't destroy Sodom until there were none there that were righteous. I don't think that we Americans are all unrighteous. There are many people living and dead, like Mother Angelica and Saint Elizabeth Ann Seton who are praying for the nation. I'm tired of folks desparing of God's mercy for the U.S. We need prayers, not prophets.

BobCatholic,
if the person is unfortunate enough to be in an adjustable rate that is going to be adjusting upwards
Unfortunate? You think an overextended mortgage and an adjustable rate is some sort of accident? I have great sympathy for people who made bad judgements about the mortgages they signed, and lacked the wisdom to have a 2 to 3 month cushion against unemployment, and I think there is certainly some need to provide charitable help to them, and to encourage lenders to try and help them restructure. Unfortunately governmental action will only serve to undermine the very foundation of mortgage system which allows those average income earners to buy a home.
Be charitable but don't try to play games suggesting personal greed on the part of the home buyer is not a direct cause of such things as interest only and adjustable rate mortgages. It seems to me ridiculous for someone to buy any home that they can not afford to pay off in 15 years with a fixed rate mortgage and a 3 month cushion. I doubt there's many markets that this is not feasible for the average family.
God Bless,
Natt

Evidence?

Than I'll quote Fatima.
Sodom is heaven by comparison to the US.

God also doesn't like being "quoted" on the plight of America.

God punishes in more than one way...

> Then the typical American family has lost 10% times 26% of its assets - about 2.6% of its financial assets.
A house is not a financial asset.
My analysis is a MACROECONOMIC one, not a microeconomic one. The Macroeconomic view looks very good due to all the 4 million millionaires who have plenty of money to bide their time, and the large amount of assets they own.
Taking a look at the microeconomic issues:
For most people,the house is the largest asset they have. Take a 10% drop in value of the asset's value and then realize that their mortgage hasn't dropped 10%, and that doesn't exactly look good for them, economic wise.
http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/cats/banking_finance_insurance/household_financial_assets_and_liabilities.html
Depending on range, your typical household has between $5K to $78K of financial assets.
So, one's $300K home dropped by 10% which is $30,000, which for most Americans is their entire nest egg. 75% of households have $47K or less in net worth.
On top of that, one is upside down in the mortgage (a LOT of mortgages have been taken out in the last 3 years, which means zero or less equity), which still requires payment. And if the person is unfortunate enough to be in an adjustable rate that is going to be adjusting upwards....ohoh. And then when the layoff comes, more fun! And then the medical bills....owch.
>And to the extent that families regard these losses as temporary, a
>reasonable family will just wait it out rather than make radical >adjustments in their day-to-day lifestyle.
And for those who don't have the funds to wait it out, say due to layoff, or that their interest rates have adjusted upward to the point where their monthly payment is more than they can afford now....more problems. The only people who can wait it out are those with the huge financial cushion - with 75% of households not having sufficient cushion.
My original analysis was very optimistic. The Microeconomics don't always line up with the macroeconomics, which usually are more optimistic.

I'm inclined to agree, Charles. That said, business cycles are inevitable. They are the result of imperfectly rational consumers and producers making decisions based on imperfect information. Therefore, it is quite possible that a recession is in the works, but if so we will survive it just as we have the others. The media-driven hysteria to which you properly refer would have folks believe that we are on the brink of the Great Depression II, which is utter nonsense.

"Total residential assets are 16,245.3 billion.
Divide 16,245.3 into 62500 and what do you get? 26%"
So perhaps residential housing has lost 10% of its value. Then the typical American family has lost 10% times 26% of its assets - about 2.6% of its financial assets. This reduction in wealth will reduce consumer spending but not a great deal. Perhaps, enough to slow GDP growth for a quarter or two. And to the extent that families regard these losses as temporary, a reasonable family will just wait it out rather than make radical adjustments in their day-to-day lifestyle.
There is no recession. There is media-driven hysteria.

Mish sez,
"Table A-12 is where the rubber meets the road when it comes to unemployment. In order to keep the "official" unemployment rates low, the folks at the BLS dreamed up new categories of workers such as "marginally attached".
'Marginally attached workers are persons who currently are neither working nor looking for work but indicate that they want and are available for a job and have looked for work sometime in the recent past. Discouraged workers, a subset of the marginally attached, have given a job-market related reason for not looking currently for a job. Persons employed part time for economic reasons are those who want and are available for full-time work but have had to settle for a part-time schedule.'
Classification U-6 is how unemployment actually feels to the average Joe on the street. On a seasonally unadjusted basis, that figure is close to 10%."
http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com/2008/02/jobs-contract-as-2007-job-growth.html
Not taking sides here, but just in case there was any confusion...

So John should earn his living at something that doesn't "match his unique skills".
John has tried that many times. But it has yet to work out either for him or his past employers. Or his resume.

There!

of.

rid...

get...

to...

sites...

porn...

More...

So John should earn his living at something that doesn't "match his unique skills". As Barry Fitzgerald said in "Going My Way": "And you're willin' to starve rather than push a broom!"
Which is what we should do to the troll.

Whether it "should" or it shouldn't is a statement of opinion. What is fact is the unemployment rate figure does not give full light to the state of unemployment. It may well be good reason not to count babies and nursing home residents, but such people are not the only people not counted. For example, there's someone, let's call him John, who hasn't worked in a few years. John is well in need of a job and checks the job listings from time to time and talks to people he knows but hasn't yet found anything to match his unique skills.

"The much used unemployment rate figure is not based on the full population of 300 million, but only on a subset of people of about half that size."
As it should. It also doesn't include babies or nursing home residents. In what way could these people be meaningfully called "unemployed" in the same sense as a healthy adult that is truly out of work?

what do you get for 5% of 300 million people? I got 15 million, you equate my math to being high on recreational pharmeceuticals.
The much used unemployment rate figure is not based on the full population of 300 million, but only on a subset of people of about half that size. For example, it does not include spouses who sit at home watching TV, or the people who sleep in alleys, or people in prison, etc. who have not recently been looking for work. In total, they count about 80 million people as "not in labor force".

I'm not out of my mind, but I do my own grocery shopping. Perhaps you do not.
Food items have roughly doubled in price over the past three years. I've been painfully aware of that, living on student loans with no other income. Gas has gone from 1.43/gallon to 3.01/gallon in that same three years. Again, pretty close to a doubling of price. Get out and see for yourself rather than relying upon whatever the government or Wall Street tells you.
The jobs are taken by the 30 million or so illegals. Or sent over seas.
Devaluing the dollar is a form of theft, or stealth taxation. The Romans tried that, and it more than the barbarians, destroyed the western half of the Empire.
cjmr, they have more oil wells in Texas than we do in Minnesota.
Coughlin, and of course, devaluing the dollar is a form of usuary. I quite agree with you, the Church, and the Bible on that.
Pipe, what do you get for 5% of 300 million people? I got 15 million, you equate my math to being high on recreational pharmeceuticals.
As I pointed out, but you missed, was that they only count those people who are within six months of having lost a job, and who have had a job for more than two years in a row previously. That leaves out a lot of people. Humans. Made in the Image of God. Maybe 5% unemployment is good because it forces wages down and thus profits up at the cost of the suffering of the poor, but is it good in the transcendant sense of the word?
Yes, Tim, I did get upset at the redefinition of unemployment, but then I was never a supporter of She-Who-Must-Not-Be-Named or her figurehead husband.
Juli, you are right about socialism being bad. That is why I favor microcapitalism (distributism) over either the plutocratic, stock-market speculating form of capitalism and socialism, both.
At any rate, the Dar al'Islam and Mainland China along with Mr. Soros own the American economy at this point, and can crash it when they so desire, if and when it should suit their purposes.
Zeno, indeed, the historical pattern for the last few decades has been for the Democrats to spend the country's stored capital, the Republicans to enact austerity measures to get it back - losing favor with the populace as they do so, and then the Democrats, getting elected, spend it again. This time around GW Bush didn't rebuild the capital, due to the costs of the War on Method (which could have paid for nuclear power for the country two or three times over, or solar power sats if you prefer them)
This part of the country has yet to truly recover from the recession of the early 1980s.
I'm one of those people who can't afford to go to the doctor, and who doesn't have medical insurance. I have internet because I have to for my on-line classes. 10% of the population of this large town is supposedly homeless (though they must have shelter, or they'd be dead, this week has seen -66 wind chill on the old charts.
Mike, saving makes no sense when inflation devalues your savings faster than you earn interest.
Is it in keeping with the Church's social teaching that a transient workforce with high stress due to uncertain employment futures is a good thing, even if it is 'normal' for a 'healthy, vibrant, international economy'? Did the one who wrote that understand that that means that American workers have to receive, in time, the same pay as people living in grass huts? While those who have the excess to invest can make a bundle on the goods transfer? Is an international economy necessarily a good thing? Is not a degree of safety and mutual loyalty in ones' employment of some value? Is not being able to care for ones' children a good thing?
David, I'm not a social Darwinist. Neither is Rerum Novarum or Centissimus Annus.

From the article:
>But housing is now a small share of GDP (4.5%).
Wrong.
Housing is an asset. GDP is income. This is comparing a flow with a static thing. In other words, you're trying to compare apples to oranges.
The correct thing to do is compare total housing with total household assets.
According to Wikipedia: By comparison, total U.S. household assets, including real estate, equipment, and financial instruments such as mutual funds, was $62,500 billion in 2005
http://www.bea.gov/national/FA2004/TableView.asp?SelectedTable=16&FirstYear=2001&LastYear=2006&Freq=Year
Total residential assets are 16,245.3 billion.
Divide 16,245.3 into 62500 and what do you get? 26%
This is TWENTY SIX PERCENT of American household assets.
So this article minimizes the impact of the Residential housing stock decline in price on the economy.
I mean, when the 26% of your assets are dropping like a rock in price, you're not exactly going to go out and spend money, are you? Now imagine when the entire country is behaving this way. Result: Recession.
We saw what happened when financial assets imploded between 2000-2002. We had a recession because people saw their assets drop in value and cut back in spending.

And no, I ain't saying you said that. I'm answering stupidity in general. Stupidity that believes God is a slot machine.

"Whatever you ask for in prayer, believe that you have received it, and it will be yours."
Eco,
Jesus doesn't expect us to sit on our butts and wait for him to give us material goods . He expects us to use our talents. Remember the "talents" parable?

Predicting a complex market economy is almost as perilous as timing the stock market. Because investors and consumers have imperfect information and do not always behave rationally, the business cycle will almost certainly be forever with us. The best we can hope for is skilled management of the money supply by the Fed, and avoidance of confiscatory taxes and unnecessaary regulation by Congress.
I think the more interesting question is why the heightened state of financial anxiety among Americans? Properly and fairly understood, standards of living continue to climb. People live in larger houses, with better apppliances, greater access to entertainment and superior quality health care than ever before. And yes, that is true at every level, including the working class and poor. I do believe there is an answer, and it is the flip side of the cause of this increased standard of living. Our living standards are a direct result of an economy that is unprecidently robust, dynamic and international. Constant change is the order of the day. When workers are getting nice checks they worry, and with good reason, that those checks could stop tomorrow for reasons that they cannot understand. This is an inevitable part of a modern vibrant international economy. And change is stressful, especially when accompanied by a large dose of uncertainty. Households would find this phenomenon more manageable if they saved and invested prudently, but they don't -- not in this country. People will say they cannot afford to save but for the most part they are engaging in self-deception. Americans are living beyond their means and they do not have to -- they choose to. Their lives as consumers are out of sync with their lives as producers. As producers they are aware that the marketplace can throw them a curve ball at any time, but they consume as though that risk was not there. Hence, instead of relieving the unavoidable anxiety associated with the change and uncertainty of a robust modern economy by prudently saving 10-20 % of household income, most households instead aggravate the anxiety by saving little if anything -- or even engage in negative saving via imprudent borrowing.
My 2 cents for what their worth.

Here is another interesting web page which discusses how CPI obviously underreports real inflation that people experience.
http://www.straightstocks.com/current-market-news/real-inflation-showing-in-reports-not-called-cpippi/

Real inflation versus the government reported CPI.
http://isil.org/towards-liberty/inflation-gov-lies.html

We ask for an apology for a cut-and-paste post of someone else's words without a link. We ask you, henceforth, to provide the link and the attribution.
"Whatever you ask for in prayer, believe that you have received it, and it will be yours."

This is one of things where we are expected to believe what the government tells us and not our own experiences. Seriously, go to the grocery store some time if you don't think the annual inflation is in the double digits. Try to run a small business and watch how fast your overhead is going up. Check how much extra you have in your own account at the end of the year assuming you have any extra. Inflation is burning through the economy right now. The CPI, it was modified under Clinton to hide the real inflation rate. The basket of goods is no longer static to reflect the lowered standard of living that people are expected to accept. The highly volatile goods like energy are excluded. It does not reflect what people really experience and it certainly does not overestimate the real inflation rate.
The CPI does take into effect energy. In fact, without energy factored in it drops all the way down to 2.6%. Energy is a HUGE factor of the CPI. And the basket of goods is changed every ten years. That sounds pretty static to me.
And why is static a good thing? A static basket of goods fails to take into account substitution bias: if the price level of butter goes up, the demand for margarine accompanies it. But the CPI doesn't reflect that. Static is bad if taken too far.
Now, I don't know what data you're using when you say the CPI doesn't overestimate, but I do know that the Boskin Commission, appointed by the Senate, found a tendency of the CPI to overestimate by .8-1.6%.
Of course, inflation is definitely going to get worse. Two interest rate cuts was a bad move by the Federal Reserve, and in 6-9 months we'll be dealing with rampant inflation.

Ask and you shall receive. Have you tried that rule?
Cool.
We ask for an apology for a cut-and-paste post of someone else's words without a link.
We ask you, henceforth, to provide the link and the attribution.

Just starve it, folks.

Ask and you shall receive. Have you tried that rule?

Well, you know what Chesterton said about the rules... if you can't obey the big ones, you get the small ones.

Anytime Inocencio. If you need anything else, just ask. Ask and you shall receive.

Economics Writer,
Thank you for clearing that up for me. It has been a pleasure. Have a great day.
Take care and God bless,
Inocencio
J+M+J

Where did I not cite and/or provide a link to my source?
I never said you didn't.
And I am very glad to hear you will now cite and/or provide a link to your source.
But you don't hear. I said it's not too much for me to ask you to cite and/or provide a link to whatever source you are quoting. Is it too much for you to ask me to cite and/or provide a link to whatever source you are quoting?

Economics Writer,
Where did I not cite and/or provide a link to my source?
And I am very glad to hear you will now cite and/or provide a link to your source.
Take care and God bless,
Inocencio
J+M+J

People -- remember that you may have to draw Jimmy's attention to those who violate DA RULZ.

Is it too much to ask you to cite and/or provide a link to whatever source you are quoting?
It's not too much for me. How about for you?

Economics Writer,
Is it too much to ask you to cite and/or provide a link to whatever source you are quoting?
Take care and God bless,
Inocencio
J+M+J

Tim, whenever you're finished making up your own DA RULZ, I'll be happy to check them out.

Probably no one commented because Inocencio A)credited the actual author B)gave the source, and C)commented briefly himself - by way of introduction - on how these excerpts addressed the current topic.
Anonymous cut-and-paste jobs that are given no set up and no explanation are a different matter, or is that too complex and nuanced to grasp?