And In “Economic Recovery” News . . . .
Here are a few recent articles that show just how “swimmingly” the current DC clown Krewe Administration is managing our nation’s economy.
• In 1 in 5 Families in U.S., No One Works – you might want to check out the graph in this article, with particular attention to the period 2009-2014
• Homeownership rate lowest in 25 years – if you’re thinking that means it hasn’t been this low since the 1990 recession during the Bush (41) Administration . . . you’re correct.
• US economy stalls in Q1 as weather, lower energy prices bite – yeah, a 0.2% quarterly growth rate kinda qualifies as a “stall”. But someone’s gonna have to explain to me how “lower energy prices” is a reason for reduced economic activity, though. Seems to me that lower prices should be good news.
“Lassez les bontemps rouler”, eh? Yeah, right.
Not likely unless we get some adult leadership again in 2017.
Category: Economy
No big Suprise Here it’s been like this for 6 or 7 years now. Wall Street on the other-side is in its Golden age..
“lower energy prices” because it depresses an entire sector of the economy. Remember, economics is simply war waged by another means, and the Saudi’s have decided to keep pumping oil despite low prices in order to depress US investment in our own energy sector. This has resulted in oil fields being closed (putting people out of work), limiting investment into r&d, putting refinery construction on hold, etc. So while there is the benefit of lower transportation costs (although I’m not really seeing it at $2.449 a gallon), its really a net loss for the economy as a whole.
The Saudis dropped the price of oil back in November 2014. The late King Abdullah’s brother owns the biggest refinery in the world. He does not want the price of oil above $60/bbl, and in fact, would like to see it drop to lower thant $40/bbl.
The OPEC meeting in Geneva, Switzerland will be held in June. The Saudis are the head of OPEC. This entire business of lower prices was their way to undercut US and Russian oil and gas production and stay on top of the ladder.
… the Saudi’s have decided to keep pumping oil despite low prices in order to depress US investment in our own energy sector.
Partly, but also bear in mind that they are worried about the rise of Iran right there in their backyard and their economy is heavily dependent on oil revenue as well. So the Saudis are doing what they can to slow them down by undercutting the Iranian economy.
The hand that gives can also take. If the price is set by the Saudis, they can decide to set it differently. In effect, they are exercising some control on the US economy. Is that good?
Hondo – drastically reduced energy prices have caused literally tens of thousands of layoffs in the energy sector… cheap gas is a good thing but when it costs $50 a barrel to get it out of the ground (to make up an example) and you can only sell it for $40, no need to pay people to not pump it.
True, low prices for petroleum would cause issues in the oil industry. However, lower prices for petroleum would in turn lower costs in other industries that are heavy users of petroleum (transportation, manufacturing, electrical generation, etc . . . ). It would also put more $$$ in most consumers’ pockets (due to lower costs associated with transportation, manufactured goods, power, etc . . . ), which would be expected to result in larger consumer spending in other areas (and thus higher aggregate demand for products and services). That in turn would cause an increase in GDP growth in other areas.
I also don’t believe the oil industry employs all that large a share of US workers any more. So I’d have to see the numbers and detailed analysis before I’ll buy that as a reason for a 2% decline in GDP growth rate from the previous quarter.
well, a real quick internet search says oil and natural gas industries employ about 9.2 million people. I suspect that is a lot more than in agriculture or many other sectors. And nothing happens in isolation – workers in the oil patch lose their jobs, grocery stores ned fewer workers to hustle their food, realtors sell them no houses, etc. I wouldn’t buy it as a sole cause of an employment downturn but the ripple effect is larger than ‘just’ oilfield workers.
Would love to know how that 9.2 million number is being calculated. According to the BLS, petroleum extraction only employs approx 198k; petroleum and coal manufacturing (which includes refinining) only employs approx 105k; and pipeline transportation only employs about 48k.
Even if you add gasoline stations, that only adds about 897k employees – and I highly doubt lower gas prices at the pump will lower demand, which is what would have to happen to reduce employment in that field.
Adding truck and rail transportation would be bogus, as petroleum products is only a small fraction of the freight hauled by either.
http://www.bls.gov/iag/tgs/iag324.htm
http://www.bls.gov/iag/tgs/iag324.htm
http://www.bls.gov/iag/tgs/iag486.htm
http://www.bls.gov/iag/tgs/iag447.htm
Was an energy industry web site… for all I know it included the NAPA sales guys selling Pennzoil. But people tend to think of ONLY the guys at the rigs, and forget there is a huge infrastructure of ships, pipeline operators, trains, trucks, wholesalers, retailers, etc. who are also affected by oil process. Then you have the influence on things like the auto industry – small car sales are down and larger vehicles like trucks are up due to cheaper fuel – the fella working on an F150 assembly line is probably feeling a lot more secure than the guy building mini-Toyotas. And on and on…
True. But the ships are generally neither US owned nor operated; the trains and trucks are generally not owned by the oil companies (and only carry oil as a small part of their freight); and lower prices for oil would tend to spur retail sales of products made from same due to lower prices. Further, pipeline operators are explicitly included in the BLS numbers above. And auto parts and manufacturing would be rather neutral – you need parts and new vehicles regardless, though the mix might change. Hell, cheaper gas might well mean more driving and thus more demand for parts and cars.
I total the above direct oil industry workforce numbers, and I get about 1.25M. Even adding another 1.0M for oil company overhead and middlemen, I get well under 2.5M. Add another 500k for misc/other (tanker trailer maintenance/rental, etc . . . ) and I STILL only get well under 3.0M.
So the “9.2M” claim seems quite specious to me. I’d love to see the detailed numbers, because it seems that they’re counting anyone with at most a peripheral connection (e.g., gas station workers). And lower petroleum costs would be expected to help rather than hurt most with only such peripheral connections.
BINGO!!
Try keeping your grocery receipts. There should be a drop in price for almost everything. A year ago, before the price of oil dropped, the cost of a gallon of milk where I live was $2.79, minimum and as high as $3.29. It dropped to $2.05 in December, and is now at $2.15.
This means that shipping costs are lower and your grocery bill should also be lower, allowing you to purchase more.
But prices for beef are up compared to a year ago… and with the bird flu affecting some poultry farms in the Midwest and Canada, those prices may be going up.
Da Preezy of the 57 steezy has been clueless about what makes the economy run for his entire life…
If prices for beef, pork and poultry are up where you live, it might have to do with something else.
They are definitely down where I live by $.50 to $1.00 from a year ago. The price of everything, including veggies like potatoes and grain products like bread, is down by a noticeable amount from a year ago, but that’s around here where I live.
I have not seen my beef prices drop. Chicken has, but egg prices, dairy, are still up. Not to mention that they keep lowering the quantity in boxes and charging more…
Just want to share – At the hospital right now. Wife is in labor with our third child 🙂
Congratulations!
Congratulations!!!
Mozel Tov!
Congrats. May God grant you both an uneventful, easy delivery and a healthy child.
Amen!
Good! Keep us posted.
Well, Samantha Marie White was born at 11:39 on 4-29-2015. 6lbs 9oz and 19.5″ long she is healthy, happy and beautiful, just like her mother!
That’s good news indeed – on all counts. Congrats.
Thanks!
Can I send you a photo to post? Would rather not link it to Facebook considering some of the lurkers.
Congrats. Here, you guys, have a cigar! At #3, you know what’s coming.
Yep – prom and wedding dresses!
It’s Jonn’s site, so that would be his call.
10-4. Thanks 😀
Ahhhh … baby girls. Sugar and spice, and everything nice …
:):):) Happy Day!
It’s curious that CNBC would point to a decline in home ownership without giving any apparent causes for the rise in housing costs.
People now looking at this at a policy level are currently split between an urbanista “smart growth” faction, and those who argue that land use should be determined at a local level based on market forces and demand. Because the most influential media tends to be centered in urban areas, there’s a tendency for them to side with the urbanistas resulting in a disdain for both suburban sprawl, and the current trend of 2500 square-foot single-family McMansions.
At least part of what’s driving smart growth are environmental issues and social engineering. What smart growth wants, without putting too fine a point on it, are “rack-and-stack” densities of 40 units per acre, mixed-use commercial-residential, and “walkability” in the urban core. The fact that somebody might want to live outside an urban core so that their kids have the benefit of fresh air and a green grass yard is considered irrelevant. This despite the fact that around 80 percent of housing in the U.S. is suburban, ex-urban, or rural.
Which means there’s also a tendency to ignore what the market wants and drive up prices via scarcity.
Anybody on TAH interested in a deep dive into some of this stuff might want to check out the New Geography (http://www.newgeography.com/) website. It’s one of the better ones around for taking the conversation to a higher level with what’s a complicated topic.
“• In 1 in 5 Families in U.S., No One Works”
Sounds like we’re going (if not already there) the way of Formerly-But-Now-Not-So-Great Britain and Ireland.
Yep.
Virtually 20% of US families have nobody who work …
Every year since 2009, my families taxes have gone up, while we have grossed less and less.
From what I’ve seen, many of those 20% have big screen tvs, Obama phones, and ten grand in 24″rims and tires on their late model Escalade. I’m walking around in 4-5 year old Saucony running shoes that look like they came off of that wino down on the corner.
What is wrong with that picture?
Are you referring to that old Welfare Cadillac?
Courtesy of Porter Wagoner and Guy Drake:
LOL!! Yep, that be the one! 🙂
OS54, i wonder just how many of those characters you refer to have “Unreported Income” that comes via activities like drug dealing and pimping?
I suspect that would 100%, or very nearly.
Nothing. It’s the new normal, which used to be abnormal. Even the Charm City/Mobtown/Nickel Town/Rat Town/Baltimore riots are said to be the result of joblessness. Yeah, my ass.
I was at Walmart about a month or so back and a couple in front of me were buying groceries. Both of them were covered in tattoos. which I know cost at least $100-200 a shot from the quality, and paid for their groceries with an EBT card.
Then, he pulls $750 from a roll of money in his pocket to pay for a flat screen TV. I would guess that he had at least $1500 cash on him.
THAT is why I want the welfare system shut down and started over from scratch at the local, not federal, level.
From your lips to the ears of God.