Forced to look at Retirement Savings (puking)

evince said:
http://seekingalpha.com/article/154424-is-employment-a-lagging-indicator


Employment is NOT a lagging indicator, although duration of unemployment IS. The Conference Board, a not-for-profit economic study organization, publishes three popular indexes: 1) the Leading Economic Index (LEI), which foretells turning points in the economy before we move into or out of recessions, 2) the Coincident Economic Index, which measures current economic conditions, and 3) the Lagging Economic Index, which changes direction following the others.

There are two employment indicators that are incorporated into the LEI, namely Initial Claims for Unemployment Insurance (inverted), and Average Weekly Manufacturing Hours. Like other leading indicators, we do not normally recognize these things as obvious improvements in the economy. After all, if over 500,000 workers file claims for unemployment insurance, as was the case this week, this is still a relatively large number and the fact that it is much lower than was the case a few weeks and months ago does not mean that the economy is improving. But it DOES mean (with history as our guide), along with improvement in the other leading indicators, that the economy is going to improve soon.
Click to expand...

http://seekingalpha.com/author/arnold-landy


Arnold Landy



ABOUT

Arnold Landy is a registered investment advisor, managing clients' funds since January, 2006.

His previous careers include: small business owner, analyst for "The Value line Investment Survey," urban planner/analyst for State of New Jersey, school teacher in Jersey City, carny at state and county fairs (good training for being a skeptic on Wall Street).


SNAPSHOT

Description: Financial advisor. Trading frequency: Infrequent
Interests: ETFs, Stocks - long
 
Superfreak said:
tell you what desh... show us who was questioning Obama in regards to what we have been discussing.
Click to expand...

please clairify your question and first answer the one I have been asking you for years which you refuse to answer.

Why did the Bush SEC fight so hard for nearly a decade to keep the Gramm leach bliely acts rules on brokers from the equation?


what was their reasoning?
 
evince said:
please clairify your question and first answer the one I have been asking you for years which you refuse to answer.

Why did the Bush SEC fight so hard for nearly a decade to keep the Gramm leach bliely acts rules on brokers from the equation?


what was their reasoning?
Click to expand...

Again you fucking retard... I have answered that question a hundred fucking times.

1) CLINTON held it up for over a year... WHY? Same reason as why it was held up under Bush. BECAUSE THE TWO PARTIES COULDN'T FUCKING AGREE.

2) you stated people were questioning Obama for his job growth... where on this thread did anyone do that?
 
can you go get the proof of your claim and why they couldn't agree?

you seem to think those rules were not very important and didn't effect much
 
evince said:
can you go get the proof of your claim and why they couldn't agree?

you seem to think those rules were not very important and didn't effect much
Click to expand...

Are you fucking kidding? If they had agreed prior to when they did, they would have passed the fucking agreement you retard.

I have asked you a hundred times to show me which rule would have stopped what happened. YOU claim they are so important, yet you refuse to show us which rule would have stopped the downturn. Why is that desh? Why do you keep running away?
 
http://www.sec.gov/news/press/2004-73.htm



Regulation B Proposals

The Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act (GLBA) replaced banks' complete exception from the definition of "broker" with eleven "functional exceptions." The Commission today voted to propose new rules to implement the GLBA definition by defining some of the statutory terms used in the eleven exceptions. It also proposed a number of new exemptions for some particular bank activities, under conditions that are consistent with investor protections. All of these provisions build off of rules the Commission adopted in 2001 (Interim Rules).
 
evince said:
http://www.sec.gov/news/press/2004-73.htm



Regulation B Proposals

The Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act (GLBA) replaced banks' complete exception from the definition of "broker" with eleven "functional exceptions." The Commission today voted to propose new rules to implement the GLBA definition by defining some of the statutory terms used in the eleven exceptions. It also proposed a number of new exemptions for some particular bank activities, under conditions that are consistent with investor protections. All of these provisions build off of rules the Commission adopted in 2001 (Interim Rules).
Click to expand...

Again, just like the lagging indicator, you post links without knowing what they mean. Again Desh... explain what they mean by broker in the above.
 
Superfreak said:
Again you fucking retard... I have answered that question a hundred fucking times.

1) CLINTON held it up for over a year... WHY? Same reason as why it was held up under Bush. BECAUSE THE TWO PARTIES COULDN'T FUCKING AGREE.
Click to expand...

Jumping in late here, but GLB gave regulators 18 months to implement regulations. The bill was signed in November of 1999. The regulations were proposed in May 2001, consistent with the Congressionally mandated timeline.

I hope this helps.
 
LOL. Desh... that's like congratulating somebody for telling you that the sun is on the other side of the earth when it is dark outside. Of course the markets will "recover" before jobs, it has almost every time in the past so it will be in the future. Jobs are a lagging indicator of a recovery. In this case, people are still leaving the job market in record numbers as they give up on the job search, that is a sign that this "recovery" hasn't really started yet and that the markets were artificially propped up by something called "Quantitative Easing".

Now go look at the sky, see it is blue, and then tell me what a genius I am for telling you that it would be. Or better yet, self congratulate after repeating that the sky will be blue then looking outside to find you were almost psychically "right" about the color of the sky. I don't need affirmation, but you apparently do.
 
Damocles said:
LOL. Desh... that's like congratulating somebody for telling you that the sun is on the other side of the earth when it is dark outside. Of course the markets will "recover" before jobs, it has every time in the past so it will be in the future. Jobs are a lagging indicator of a recovery. In this case, people are still leaving the job market in record numbers as they give up on the job search, that is a sign that this "recovery" hasn't really started yet and that the markets were artificially propped up by something called "Quantitative Easing".

Now go look at the sky, see it is blue, and then tell me what a genius I am for telling you that it would be.
Click to expand...

LOL @ "the recovery hasn't really started yet" and "markets artificially propped up." I love how you casually assert these as though they are fact.
 
Bonestorm said:
Jumping in late here, but GLB gave regulators 18 months to implement regulations. The bill was signed in November of 1999. The regulations were proposed in May 2001, consistent with the Congressionally mandated timeline.

I hope this helps.
Click to expand...

Well, if a bill says that is the timeline then obviously Congress had to stick with that timeline. Just like the implementation of ACA can't be delayed. Right Dung? The ACA also set times that portions of the law would be implemented and every single one has been implemented just like the bill said... Right Dung?
 
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/the-last-mystery-of-the-financial-crisis-20130619



between 2000 and 2007, the agency gave nearly 45,000 mortgage-backed securities AAA ratings. One year Moody's doled out AAA ratings to 30 mortgage-backed securities every day, 83 percent of which were ultimately downgraded. "This crisis could not have happened without the rating agencies," the commission concluded.

Read more: http://www.rollingstone.com/politic...f-the-financial-crisis-20130619#ixzz2wWJAqfYm
Follow us: @rollingstone on Twitter | RollingStone on Facebook



who then sold those tainted triple AAA securities to people?
 
Last edited:
Superfreak said:
Well, if a bill says that is the timeline then obviously Congress had to stick with that timeline. Just like the implementation of ACA can't be delayed. Right Dung? The ACA also set times that portions of the law would be implemented and every single one has been implemented just like the bill said... Right Dung?
Click to expand...

Your claim that the Clinton Administation held up the regulations for a year is not true. The Clinton Administration complied with the statutory deadline. There was no delay. Then the Bush Administration pushed off the effective date of the regs over and over and over again.
 
Bonestorm said:
LOL @ "the recovery hasn't really started yet" and "markets artificially propped up." I love how you casually assert these as though they are fact.
Click to expand...


That's Damo.

As a board Rightie, he's allowed to make spectacularly outlandish assertions like that because he hates the President.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top