US birth-rate mirrors recession
Newly-released US census figures show a strong slowdown in the birth-rate that began before the economic crisis hit.
Main Street saw it coming before the banking system, Wall Street, and government.
The first real sign of the financial meltdown was in August 2007 when credit markets froze up, but unemployment was still low and consumer confidence high.
How did Main Street figure it out then?
There were absolute declines in the number of births in 13 of the 50 US states, including some of the poorest, such as Louisiana and Mississippi, while North Dakota, which showed strong economic growth due to an oil boom, had the biggest increase in births.
I can't quite put my finger on what might have caused people to have concerns about the long-term future of our country even before the economic crisis officially hit. Nope. Completely stumped. Not a clue.
Cushing, OK WTI Spot Price FOB (Dollars per Barrel)
Good one, Mark!!! I laughed.
ReplyDeletePS: I think Blogger agrees - my code word is "be merrhi".
MOM,
ReplyDeleteHahaha! I'm never too proud to reach for the lowest hanging heckleberries. Strong economic growth thanks to the oil boom? What could have gone wrong? ;)
I'm thinking you will eventually be right about oil prices falling further. I was watching a bull speak of the stock market the other day. His biggest concern was that oil prices might rise and derail his prediction. That being said, what was he telling us to invest in? Commodities! How does THAT reasoning make any sense?
Invest in commodities. Why? Oil might rise!
What could possibly go wrong? Hmm... I know! Oil might rise!!!
The generals so much love fighting the last war, even when that war ended in a "crashing" defeat.
Perhaps commodity bubbles require a double-dip recession in America in order to fully pop them? We can be rather stubborn. It took a double-dip at the end of the 1970s. Further, it isn't like we gave up stocks after the first stock market bubble of the century. It took two and we've still got 90+ years to go.
Buy one bubble at full price, get the second bubble at half off? We do love a good bargain.
Stag,
ReplyDeleteHow does THAT reasoning make any sense?
That idiocy reminds me of so many of the stock "experts" on the financial propaganda networks over the past decade. They all use the same old saw ("you can't time the market") as a reason to buy stocks. What they fail to mention is that if you buy at historically inflated prices, you are very likely to lose money in the short term and will most certainly experience poor long term returns as well.
Knowing that you can't pick the bottom, I would argue that you should never buy unless stocks are below historical/trend averages. That is unless you believe things are different this time.
One more thing. Given our historic debt and other seemingly intractable problems, I would need a five alarm fire sale to buy stocks.
I thought a "crisis" caused more babies? And in an economic downturn people may not go out so much, so they have more time too..well you know. Maybe in the additional time spent together many couples are finding that their partners are not all that interesting one on one and having less children making activity! Who knows?
ReplyDeleteGYSC,
ReplyDelete"I thought a "crisis" caused more babies..."
(dramatic pause)
...to get thrown out with the bath water!
Badum-Ching! ;)
mab,
ReplyDelete"Knowing that you can't pick the bottom, I would argue that you should never buy unless stocks are below historical/trend averages. That is unless you believe things are different this time."
Should You Bother With Government Bonds? - Jeremy Siegel
http://finance.yahoo.com/expert/article/futureinvest/162715
"Looking at today's markets, the forward-looking prospects for government bonds are very poor."
From 1980 to 2000 both stocks AND bonds performed very well together.
Bonds did very well because interest rates were falling.
Stocks did very well because interest rates were falling.
Now we're told that the prospect for bonds is very poor. Assuming that is true, then it implies...
Bonds will do very poorly because interest rates are rising.
So how would stocks do if interest rates are rising? Why am I told they will do very well? Somehow I don't believe it. Maybe it is because I've got stagflationary in my name and I can actually remember the 1970s.
"Stocks, on the contrary, can easily repeat their returns over the past four decades, since those returns were near their historical average."
The historical average speed was roughly 2-10 mph on our nations highways. Then something changed. Covered wagons became obsolete. Up until that point though, I'm sure covered wagon investors were doing pretty well for themselves.
In the distant future, perhaps we'll revert to the historical average though. Covered wagons don't use much oil.
Stag,
ReplyDeletehttp://finance.yahoo.com/news/Hormel-2Q-profit-edges-up-apf-15314829.html?sec=topStories&pos=6&asset=&ccode=
Hormel Foods Corp. said Thursday that its fiscal second-quarter profit edged up 4 percent as the maker of Spam and Dinty Moore stews sold more canned meats and Mexican products to budget-conscious consumers.
It looks as though the "scam" eCONomy has morphed into the "spam" economy. I prefer scapple myself.
mab,
ReplyDeleteHow about hoarding-conscious consumers?
For what it is worth, I started hoarding SPAM about the time oil hit $100. I'm not even that crazy about it. Keeps a LONG time though.
Mark,
ReplyDeletehave you tried the SPAM made with bacon flavor? Sadly I chop it up and include it in my 3 days a week salad, a small guilty pleasure! I must be Hawaiin!
GYSC,
ReplyDeleteI haven't tried that. Add bacon flavor to a pork/ham canned meat product? It's a Mad World!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YyyESHqT9a4
I find it kind of funny
I find it kind of sad
Yeah, I watched American Idol and rooted for Adam. It seems I have a guilty pleasure of my own, lol. ;)