Story Comments

Jchem: Perhaps we might have saved money by just letting GM (and others) fail back then... But I am just concerned that the psychological/emotional. and even real financial impact of that happening, when we were at the verge of total economic collapse, might just have been too much for our national psyche, and the economy. We'll probably never know Dorian

Dorian -- thanks for the links; I'll need to do a bit of reading. As I mentioned above, I am optimistic; I'm just not sure what measures to use to justify it when there are so many conflicting ones out there. I'm really not sure what would have happened had we let GM go into bankruptcy in the beginning; it wouldn't have been good, that's for sure. On the other side of it though, the Feds could have saved billions of dollars that were otherwise thrown into the black hole. Regardless, I'm an ordinary American as well and keep hoping for better days ahead for us all.

jchem: Thanks for your comments. As I have made it perfectly clear, I hope, I am not an economic expert, just an ordinary American who is optimistic about America and our economy and, thus--rightly or wrongly--seeks signs to confirm such hope and optimism. But you do pose an interesting issue: the rising unemployment and whether unemployment is a lagging or leading indicator of the economy. I have to be frank, I don't know. But economists fall on both sides. Most claim that "unemployment is the most popular lagging indicator, because it shows whether companies anticipate things getting better or worse. If companies believe things are bad and getting worse, unemployment will rise. If they are more optimistic, then unemployment will fall" There are others who feel that this "ain't necessarily so." For example, in "Employment a Lagging Indicator? Not Always. Using Outdated Economic Data and Trends for Future Financial Models. Just Because Stocks Rebound doesn't Mean the Fundament...(Read more of this comment)als are Good" you'll find an interesting discussion on this, and--as a bonus and as the title implies--also about "just because stocks rebound doesn't mean the fundamentals are good." http://www.mybudget360.com/employment-a-lagging... Another piece, "Unemployment Not Lagging Indicators," starts as follows:- "It is conventional wisdom pontificated ad nauseam on business channels like CNBC and Bloomberg that employment figures are 'lagging indicators' of the state of a country's economy." and goes from there . http://laborupfront.blogspot.com/2009/04/unempl... But back to the GM bankruptcy and ensuing unemployment. Seeing the market jump to some of the highest levels in a while, on a day whent GM formally files for bankruptcy and when tens of thousands of people lose and will lose their jobs, makes me think that the markets have seen this coming for a while, had already "discounted" this and that the impact on our economy and on jobs would have been worse had we not bailed out GM, and others, initially, and had we just let GM go under a few months ago, when our economy was in a much more dire state. Just a personal opinion. But, as you say, "If people don't have jobs, the last thing they probably care about are the numbers of the stock exchange, polling data, or what anybody else has to say concerning the economy." Very sad and what a shame our country finds itself in such a state. Thanks again,(Show less of this comment)

Dorian -- All I was saying is that sure, there are some glimmers out there and reasons to be a bit more optimistic than say, 3 or 4 months ago. I never fully understood the inner workings of the stock market or how it can be an indicator of anything; perhaps that's just my lack of knowledge. I've always felt that the number one barometer to the economy is unemployment. If people don't have jobs, the last thing they probably care about are the numbers of the stock exchange, polling data, or what anybody else has to say concerning the economy. Just as "all politics is local", I get the sense the same may be true with regards to personal finance. If I don't have a job, nothing else matters. Fortunately, I do, but I cannot say the same for all the folks who just saw their livelihood crushed into bankruptcy.

You 're welcome.

Thanks for the info Don Quijote

Unemployment in U.S. Probably Surpassed 9% in May May 31 (Bloomberg) -- Unemployment in the U.S. probably surpassed 9 percent in May for the first time in more than 25 years, underscoring forecasts that the economy will be slow to pull out of the worst recession in half a century, economists said before a report this week. The jobless rate climbed to 9.2 percent, the highest level since September 1983, according to the median of 59 estimates in a Bloomberg News survey before the June 5 Labor Department report. Other data may show manufacturing and service industries shrank at a slower pace and consumer spending dropped. 'The economy is decaying at a slower rate and that is the best you can say,' said Steven Ricchiuto, chief economist at Mizuho Securities USA Inc. in New York. 'I can't tell you we are out of the woods yet.' Economists forecast the jobless rate will head to almost 10 percent by the end of the year, depriving Americans of the income needed to propel spending and stok...(Read more of this comment)e a vigorous recovery. Access to credit will likely also be limited as record defaults and foreclosures make banks reluctant to lend. Wait 'till the employment outcome of the GM bankruptcy... I am sure that the 9.2% of the labor force that is unemployed are partying tonight because the DOW went up 200 points.(Show less of this comment)

S&P closing Prices Dow Jones swaps Travelers, Cisco for Citigroup, GM The stock market's best-known barometer is adding Cisco Systems Inc. and Travelers Cos. and dropping General Motors Corp. and Citigroup Inc. The changes were announced as GM entered bankruptcy protection, a move that was widely expected. Cisco, which makes computer networking gear, is filling the role left by GM after 83 years as part of the Dow. Travelers, the property and casualty insurer and one-time division of Citicorp, will replace its former parent. The changes to the 30-stock index take effect June 8.

Jchem: Re-reading your comment, I now realize that you may have been commenting from a different perspective. If you are saying that, regardless of any "glimmers of econonmic hope," this wasn't a good day for GM workers and perhaps not a good day to be procaliming good economic news, you are correct. While I did not consciously connect the two events, I should have been more sensitive to the timing of my post, and I apologize for any perceived insensitivity on my part. Dorian

jchem: Of course, the GM bankruptcy, with the resulting job losses and other heartbreaking ripple effects, is a tragedy---a national tragedy, I would say. It is a consequence and sadly part of the economic crisis our country is presently going through. Ditto for Chrysler, etc.. I just hope that some of these glimmers of economic hope we are seeing, including on a day with such other sad news, are real, lasting and will hasten our recovery and prevent any more similar catastrophes. I realize, these glimmers, if lasting, have come too late for all those thousands of harworking GM and affiliates people.

Dorian -- While I share in some form of optimism that we may be on the uptick of this mess, I'm not so sure anyone affiliated with GM shares in that optimism with today's bankruptcy. This from the NYT: The company will also have to shed 21,000 union workers and close 12 to 20 factories, steps that most analysts thought could never be pushed through by a Democratic president allied with organized labor. Forty percent of the company's 6,000 dealers will close, the workers' union will be forced to finance half of its $20 billion health care fund with stock of uncertain value in the restructured G.M. and bondholders, including many retirees, will get 10 percent of the equity, with warrants that could allow them to get another 15 percent. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/02/business/02au... That's a lot of people who most certainly are not all that optimistic, especially when the President says they are making a "sacrifice for the next generation". This doesn't even account for all the pa...(Read more of this comment)rts manufacturers, or any other business that is even remotely related to GM. This most certainly is not very positive.(Show less of this comment)

Luskin has been foolish e.g. here, but I'm flabbergasted that he has such a nuanced point in this piece...a nuance that the Fed doesn't seem able to comprehend. "The Fed is trying to achieve aims that are not internally consistent, namely, prop up asset prices by directing credit to preferred sectors, and create positive inflation expectations."

I read $25,000, but I also heard $100K.

Just getting to the coffee and off to a brunch soon, but OK!

The above is from wikipedia on Elizabeth II http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elizabeth_II_of_the_United_Kingdom#World_War_II

There was some suggestion that the two princesses be evacuated to Canada, where they, along with their parents, would have lived at Hatley Castle in British Columbia. This plan never came to fruition; to the proposal, Elizabeth’s mother made the famous reply: “The children won’t go without me. I won’t leave without the King. And the King will never leave.”[20] The children remained at Windsor, where they staged pantomimes at Christmas, to which family and friends were invited, along with the children of Royal Household staff. It was from Windsor that Elizabeth, in 1940, made her first radio broadcast during the BBC’s Children’s Hour, addressing other children who had been evacuated from the cities. She stated: We are trying to do all we can to help our gallant sailors, soldiers and airmen, and we are trying, too, to bear our share of the danger and sadness of war. We know, every one of us, that in the end all will be well.[17] During Eliz...(Read more of this comment)abeth’s years at Windsor, plans were drawn up by the constitutional expert Edward Iwi to have a member of the Royal Family present in Wales, in order to quell the growing nationalist influence of Plaid Cymru.[21] In a report to the Home Secretary Herbert Morrison, Iwi proposed appointing Elizabeth as Constable of Caernarfon Castle (the post then held by David Lloyd George) and patron of Urdd Gobaith Cymru, and to tour Wales as such.[21] The ideas were rejected by the Home Secretary, on the grounds that it might cause conflict between north and south Wales; by the King, who refused to subject his young daughter to the pressures of conducting official tours;[21] and by the government, as two leading members of Urdd Gobaith Cymru were discovered to be conscientious objectors.[21] In 1945, Elizabeth accompanied her parents on visits to Commonwealth service personnel, and began to carry out solo duties, such as reviewing a parade of Canadian airwomen.[17] She joined the Women’s Auxiliary Territorial Service, as No. 230873 Second Subaltern Elizabeth Windsor. She trained as a driver and mechanic, drove a military truck, and rose to the rank of Junior Commander.[22] She is, at present, “the only living head of state who served in uniform during World War II”.[23] You are spot on, on her being there and being the only head of state to serve in uniform during World War II. It couldn’t be cause she is a woman?(Show less of this comment)

p.s. if she does challenge her, either way, there will be one less woman in the Dem Party, because one of them will lose their position of considerable influence.

ATTENTION NY VOTERS & other interested parties (warning: rant ahead): I’ve mentioned this before, but I want to address it again, because it might become a big issue in the near future if Maloney challenges Gillibrand for the Senate. I am incredibly disappointed and disgusted by Carolyn Maloney’s behavior since Paterson appointed Gillibrand. I live in Kirsten’s district, and she is extremely popular here, because she is like a mini-Hillary: strong, dedicated, wonky, incredibly hard-working and accessible. It’s a traditionally conservative district, so she had to walk a fine line on some issues as a centrist/blue dog to have a chance in hell of getting elected and winning. She beat four-term incumbent Sweeney in 2006, and Treadwell this year by a 2:1 margin. Her voting record is solidly progressive. She opposed the war in Iraq, is a staunch advocate of women’s rights, pay equity and choice; gay rights; stem cell research; increasing the minimum wage; a...(Read more of this comment)nd expanding affordable housing, Head Start and SCHIP. She is also greatly respected for her experience in financial services and banking. She has been endorsed by numerous progressive democratic issue-groups, including the ACLU, the League of Conservation Voters, EMILY’S List, NARAL, the Sierra Club, and the AFL- CIO. Since becoming Senator, she is actively meeting with all constituent groups, traveling the entire state, and adjusting her positions on gun control and immigration to reflect her new constituency. Many Dem leaders have started declaring their support for her–except downstate pols who are still furious that they were not chosen. Maloney leads the pack. My beef is that she is the woman who wrote “Rumors of Our Progress Have Been Greatly Exaggerated,” regarding the dearth of women in government, and the need to increase our numbers and support for women representatives. Instead, she has been undermining Gillibrand from the start in a childish, vindictive manner. She is not challenging her policies per se, but attacking her personally, leaking distortions of her record to the press, and bad-mouthing her at Dem events. I know people in the NY Dem Party and on Gillibrand’s staff. Recently, they both attended an event for Eleanor Roosevelt’s Legacy group to honor Hillary, and even with Gillibrand there, Maloney circulated around the room, trash-talking her. Gillibrand has reached out to her, and McCarthy, offering to co-sponsor legislation, and she has been repeatedly rebuffed. Today, this appeared in the Daily News: Rep. Carolyn Maloney left little doubt she's coming after Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand next year. Appearing at a Thursday night fund-raiser at the Manhattan home of folk legend Peter Yarrow, Maloney riffed on Yarrow's classic 'If I Had a Hammer,' saying that when she heard Gov. Paterson's 'doozie' appointment of Gillibrand to Hillary Clinton's seat, 'I wished I had a hammer.' Maloney, who handed out campaign buttons, promised 'an important announcement very soon.' How are women supposed to progress if our mentors treat younger, talented and earnest colleagues like this? It’s repellent. End of rant.(Show less of this comment)

Since Queen Elizabeth is the only head of state who actually served in WWII, as a truck driver and mechanic, this is a pretty bad mistake. Leaving her out shows a disdain for both history and actual service.

About the Oprah linky: I’m not a Suzanne Somers fan (at all), but the Newsweek article is bogus too. I’m surgically menopausal, and trust me, menopause is hell and hormones help. I don’t care what a 30-something doctor tell you. My brain gets foggy without them, I feel so tired, I can’t hardly stand up. The fact that our bodies lose them at 50, is more about a disease, and aging process than it is about the fact that “we don’t need them anymore”. Yes, they increase our cancer risk (albeit the risk is small in the great grand scheme of things, overplayed like everything else), but when your quality of life suffers, you take the freaking hormones. But yeah, Oprah is a beotch in her staunch support of all things insane. And her followers tend to believe whatever she says which is simpleee ridicoolus (as Billy Crystal would say).

Don’t ask me. I once got “discount” tickets to a Broadway show and the cost scared me to death. I couldn’t even begin to think of the cost of last night’s “date”

How much did this “dinner and a show” cost us taxpayers? 3 Gulfstream jets, a chopper, limos, cops, Secret Service, tickets, tax and tip?

If you had been awake all night like me you would have already read everything in the entire blogosphere.

Oh, yes. I’m sure everyone loved the Saturday Night street closings. And the extra (unannounced?) security at the Theater.

Steve Benen doesn’t get it. Re: the Obama’s “Date Night in New York” he says:Good for them; I’m sure it’s nice for the Obamas to get out once in a while. Their date led to some street closings in NYC, but folks in the city nevertheless seemed pleased to see the First Couple: “As the motorcade left the West Village and drove up Sixth Avenue to the theater, crowds of people, at times about eight deep, gathered on the sidewalks of the blockaded streets to wave as the Obamas passed. Some cheered…. The Obamas left the theater after the play and were greeted by more cheers from enthusiastic bystanders along New York streets as they headed back for the flight to Washington.”This is one of those “Let them eat cake” kinda things. Politically tone deaf.