View Story | 310 comments
Comments: Expand Shrink Hide (Always) | Indented Flat (Always)
U.S. Retail Sales Unexpectedly Declined in December Jan. 15 (Bloomberg) -- Sales at U.S. retailers unexpectedly fell in December, capping the weakest year since 2002. Sales dropped 0.4 percent, the first decline since June, following a revised 1 percent gain in November, the Commerce Department said today in Washington. Purchases excluding automobiles also decreased 0.4 percent. Treasury notes rose and stock-index futures dropped as the figures underscored Federal Reserve Chairman Ben S. Bernanke's concern that risks to growth are intensifying. A sustained slump in consumer spending brought on by falling property values and rising unemployment would mean the end of the six-year expansion, economists say. ``Consumer spending slowed down pretty dramatically'' in the fourth quarter, said Brian Bethune, director of financial economics at Global Insight Inc. in Lexington, Massachusetts, who correctly forecast the drop in sales. ``We are kind of flying very close to a stall speed.''
U.S. Retail Sales Unexpectedly Declined in December
Jan. 15 (Bloomberg) -- Sales at U.S. retailers unexpectedly fell in December, capping the weakest year since 2002.
Sales dropped 0.4 percent, the first decline since June, following a revised 1 percent gain in November, the Commerce Department said today in Washington. Purchases excluding automobiles also decreased 0.4 percent.
Treasury notes rose and stock-index futures dropped as the figures underscored Federal Reserve Chairman Ben S. Bernanke's concern that risks to growth are intensifying. A sustained slump in consumer spending brought on by falling property values and rising unemployment would mean the end of the six-year expansion, economists say.
``Consumer spending slowed down pretty dramatically'' in the fourth quarter, said Brian Bethune, director of financial economics at Global Insight Inc. in Lexington, Massachusetts, who correctly forecast the drop in sales. ``We are kind of flying very close to a stall speed.''
The years of living above one's stagnant means are over. Either (the Republican option) consumers will be stuffed and a deep recession will happen, or government focuses on actually supporting wages and incomes rather than profits, and things might get better.
You know, a New Deal thingy.
European Tribune / The Oil Drum / EA2020
by Jerome a Paris on Tue Jan 15, 2008 at 06:12:02 AM PDT
[ Parent ]
Jerome, it has been pretty crazy here.
Our candidates and media have been damaging the party over the last week. If the candidates can get back to discussing the economy like you have here we can win in November.
"It's the planet, stupid."
by FishOutofWater on Tue Jan 15, 2008 at 06:17:36 AM PDT
...no one cares about Hillary crying or Obama maybe-maybe-not being subjected to racism. These are the real issues here. (But the economy is complicated! It's a lot easier to report crying and racism!)
(-5.50,-6.67): Left Libertarian
by Sparhawk on Tue Jan 15, 2008 at 07:38:23 AM PDT
We're a pretty elite group here on dKos, albeit self-selected. I'll claim that we're a little smarter and a lot better informed than the electorate in general, and that we all have progressive values of empathy, tolerance, and desire for the well-being of our entire group. And yet... look at how quickly we devolve into negativity, ad hominem attacks, character assassination, and a dualistic attribution of everything good to our preferred candidate and everything bad to the others.
We're so bad. But the point of this comment is not self-flagellation or a call for mass mea culpas, it is that apparently, this is the way that the political brain works, even for excellent people such as ourselves. Individually, some of us may have achieved a degree of high-mindedness, but as a group, we exhibit most of the same rude and crude tendencies and behaviors as the electorate generally.
We can deplore this fact, and maybe work to overcome it in ourselves and our group. But most of all we should try to understand it intellectually and get a feel for it instinctively, so we can work with it in order to achieve our political goals.
(Disclosure-- in writing this comment, I am influenced by Drew Westen's book The Political Brain.)
by DBunn on Tue Jan 15, 2008 at 08:02:15 AM PDT
supposed to foment that kind of breakdown.
Sharing and Caring are for Commies! They should be illegal. Drop by and support the Human Agenda
by k9disc on Tue Jan 15, 2008 at 09:29:40 AM PDT
DKos has been compromised by some of the few articulate NeoCons in existence.
Indeed, you can bet your britches that after the November/2006 loss of Congress some Neothugs, in clandestine ways, have tried to cause problems and stir things up here on DKos...and I don't mean the stupid ones that we troll rate away.
"We are a Plutocracy, we ought to face it. We need, desperately, to find new ways to hear independent voices & points of view" Ramsey Clark, US AG
by Mr SeeMore on Tue Jan 15, 2008 at 09:41:00 AM PDT
and pretending to work for their candidate.
I notice that about 200 answer the polls like a republican would. That is probably how many have invaded here.
They are probably paid to cause discord in the party.
by relentless on Tue Jan 15, 2008 at 11:27:19 AM PDT
aground, as the bubble machine has finally stopped working. While I'm glad that Alan Greenspan, the machine's primary inventor, is finally gone, part of me wishes that he was still around to deal w/ the consequences of his actions.
Something really weird happened in core political economic theory in the 1970's. When Nixon imposed wage/price controls ca. 1971, he stated: "We're all Keynesians now." By the end of that decade, Friedmanism pretty well reigned supreme.
Even in WJC's first 2 years, when the Dems held both houses of Congress, he had a Faustian pact w/ Greenspan. I still recall Greenspan sitting prominently next to HRC at WJC's first SOTU. Deficit reduction reigned supreme, NAFTA was pushed through over labor/environmental opposition, and no major public works or other domestic investment initiatives were ever even proposed.
This change is better late than never, I guess.
Some men see things as they are and ask why. I see things that never were and ask why not?
by RFK Lives on Tue Jan 15, 2008 at 06:41:13 AM PDT
has been dismantled. Unless there is some serious regulation, the next giant Ponzi scheme is just around the corner. Remember, we had the dot com bubble burst in 2000. It only took 3 years for the housing bubble to emerge. An awful lot of folks cling to the idea that you can get rich by outwitting the system.
Subtlety is the art of saying what you think and getting out of the way before it is understood.
by Granny Doc on Tue Jan 15, 2008 at 07:07:11 AM PDT
The bubble machine now runs on soap supplied by Japan, China, South Korea and the Arabs (if I may stretch the analogy through three comments). It will be interesting to see if the consumers take a powder, which it looks like they are doing, if our dealers will continue to supply the crack. Or, they may decide that they don't want our worthless greenbacks anymore.
When Bush visits Europe, they burn American flags and spit insults for America. When Obama visits Europe, they wave American flags and sing America's praises.
by RichM on Tue Jan 15, 2008 at 08:10:25 AM PDT
They let Greenspan get all the credit while the Clinton team did the heavy lifting. It was very strategic care and feeding of the Fed Chairman so he wouldn't interfere too much, so his calls for balanced budgets and complaints about irrational exuberance would not have much impact. Eight years of peace and prosperity was ultimately too much for Greenspan to suffer as he immediately changed course when bush* was selected.
Greenspan is, was, and always will be a hack. A random selection of almost any banker would have done as well or better.
Greenspan will go down in history as just another corrupt bush* enabler.
I am here to represent the democratic wing of the Democratic Party.
by Josiah Bartlett on Tue Jan 15, 2008 at 07:07:53 AM PDT
created the bubble and then left some other schmuck to deal with the mess while he takes a lucrative job at a Hedge Fund which deals in subprime markets from what I heard on CNBC.
Gotta wonder if he knows something we don't or if he's really a fucking idiot.
I'm going with the former.
-8.75, -8.00
by DisNoir36 on Tue Jan 15, 2008 at 11:22:28 AM PDT
Huge military spending that runs up the deficit more and doesn't create any useful economic activity. This is what we will actually get.
Ortiz/Ramírez '08
by theran on Tue Jan 15, 2008 at 06:47:47 AM PDT
And we certainly don't need more of it!
by gardenkitty on Tue Jan 15, 2008 at 07:02:32 AM PDT
There's always room for more death machines in American politics. It is the one thing that nearly everybody agrees on.
by theran on Tue Jan 15, 2008 at 07:12:11 AM PDT
Will China finance our 'War on Terra'?
by RichM on Tue Jan 15, 2008 at 08:12:04 AM PDT
They are outsourcing the old fashioned imperialism to us, so they can go buy up stuff cheap in the 3rd world.
by theran on Tue Jan 15, 2008 at 08:18:36 AM PDT
And it kinda adds a piece to the puzzle. Because of our mis-adventures in Afghanistan and the M.E., China is in a brilliant position to make deals with Iran, Venezuela, and any other third-world country. Because we have chosen the roll as the world bully, they can look like the world's reasonable alternative. Just like the cold war, only we are no longer playing the roll of ourselves.
by RichM on Tue Jan 15, 2008 at 08:34:44 AM PDT
the Soviet Union was the place that forced large numbers of people into the army. Now the US effectively is, since supposedly that is a good way to get money for college. Organizing yourself around the military seems like a generally bad idea.
by theran on Tue Jan 15, 2008 at 10:33:58 AM PDT
Is not designed for defense - it's designed for offense. It is only fulfilling its design.
by RichM on Tue Jan 15, 2008 at 11:33:42 AM PDT
No offense to the patriotic people who serve, but for the money, getting chased out of Iraq is pretty lame. A much cheaper military could have done that.
The military is primarily designed to give money to defense contractors.
by theran on Tue Jan 15, 2008 at 11:35:58 AM PDT
According to the terrifying report in the current Mother Jones, the ecological devastation in China is eating all of the GDP growth. According to recent estimates, and the land won't take too much more of the abuse. Already, 3/4 of China's forests have been converted to desert, 4/5ths of the lengths of all rivers are too polluted for fish (not for fishing, but for fish). It is believed that the Yellow river, the longest river in Asia will be completely dead in a few years. This river, which had been renowned for its flooding, now barely flows to to its mouth.
Animal populations are crashing, and China's lumber industry - which feeds our construction industry - has deforested (and continues to deforest) lands all over the world. Massive forest arson in Russia (read the article for how it relates) leads to huge increases in greenhouse gases.
[photo essay]
China may be "healthy" economically if you're only looking at the cash. It is poised on the edge of catastrophic collapse - a collapse which will bring much of the rest of the world with it - if you look at its environment.
Dump Steny Hoyer
by mataliandy on Tue Jan 15, 2008 at 11:05:24 AM PDT
Make sure to go see Shanghai while it's still there.
by theran on Tue Jan 15, 2008 at 11:36:35 AM PDT
China is where we were in our wild wild west 100% free-for-all unregulated 'free market' industrial days, only with a population that dwarfs ours. They, like we did, will find their way only after their air, land, and water are so catastrophically polluted that their very existence is on the verge of collapse.
Most of the products we obtain from them are so cheap because they have no qualms about putting lead smelters next to their grade schools and pouring their industrial wastes onto the ground out their back doors. I always comment on the low cost of tools when I visit Home Depot is because they're made by 10 year olds standing in front of drop forges for 12 hours a day during a Shanghai summer.
by JohnnySacks on Tue Jan 15, 2008 at 07:32:07 PM PDT
I had heard that the numbers were up in November so I was very curious to see the numbers for the black month, December when all retailers are supposed to make their money.
Consumer spending is slowing down fast, things are going to change quickly I think.
"We need an energy bill that encourages consumption." --Trenton, N.J., Sept. 23, 2002-GWB
by meatwad420 on Tue Jan 15, 2008 at 07:50:40 AM PDT
numbers in Nov were only up because thanksgiving came early this year.
Our economy is in collapse before our eyes. Isnt it ironic its these same "aye rabs" we consider terrorist that are bailing our asses out as we speak.
by dark daze on Tue Jan 15, 2008 at 11:00:12 AM PDT
are the worst in years according to a report that just came out.
by DisNoir36 on Tue Jan 15, 2008 at 11:23:27 AM PDT
DEC number suck, no surprise there. This economy is in freefall. House of cards.
by dark daze on Tue Jan 15, 2008 at 01:22:06 PM PDT
Inflation is back too. So we have a stagnate economy and the worst wholesale inflation in 26 years. The Fed sure is a pickle now...
by RichM on Tue Jan 15, 2008 at 08:04:55 AM PDT
Handing over social security to the criminals who brought us Enron, Worldcom, and the sub prime meltdown. With the advent of the 401K plan, the hard earned money of a generation flooded the financial market, every dollar skimmed as it passed through their hands. We all became enthralled with the ups and downs of Wall Street and, in many ways, supported what went on (NAFTA, globalization, the destruction of the environment) as long as our precious 401Ks rose onward and upward with the power to scrutinize every dollar invested in real time.
The money, power, and influence that would be handed over to the financial markets on a platinum platter if social security were ever privatized would make the transfer of wealth of the previous two decades look like chump change.
by JohnnySacks on Tue Jan 15, 2008 at 10:01:30 AM PDT
wide narrow
View Story | 310 comments