<p>"The unemployment numbers came out today and they were ugly. October showed a loss of 240,000 jobs. But the really bad part was the negative revision to August and September, by a further loss of 179,000. As I have written in the letter numerous times, downward revisions in a slowing economy are the rule. Unemployment estimates are largely based on recent past performance. There is no way the models can catch a change in the overall trend. All the statisticians can do is go back and modify the data as hard information becomes available.</p>
<p>What the data shows is that the economy has lost 1.2 million jobs since December, with over half of those losses in the last three months as the problems from the recession accelerate. While two-thirds of the losses are in manufacturing and goods production, the service economy is also starting to show signs of
strain. One in five lost jobs are from the retail sector.</p>
<p>Philippa Dunne of The Liscio Report writes: A stunning fact: yearly job losses in private services, 0.4%, now match the worst of the 1982 recession and exceed the worst of 1975; once upon a time, the service sector wasnt very cyclical. Now it is.</p>
<p>Just as disturbing is the jump in the unemployment rate. It leaped to 6.5%, far above even the most dismal of expectations. For reasons we will go into below, it is likely we will see another 1 million jobs lost over the next year, with the unemployment rate headed up as high as 8%. There are now ten million unemployed Americans. You have to go back to 1982 and a double-dip recession to find an 8% unemployment rate. Very few people under 50 remember what that is like."</p>
<p>"And on the causes of the credit crisis, Warsh argues it is not just housing and definitely not contained:
Many observers maintain that the boom and bust in the housing market are the root cause of the current turmoil. No doubt housing-related losses are negatively affecting household wealth and spending. Moreover, the weakness in housing markets and uncertainty about its path have caused financial institution balance sheets to deteriorate. This situation has further accelerated the deleveraging process and tightened credit conditions for businesses and households.</p>
<p>When liquidity pulled back dramatically in August 2007, housing suffered mightily. …</p>
<p>While housing may well have been the trigger for the onset of the broader financial turmoil, I have long believed it is not the fundamental cause. Indeed, recent financial market developments strongly indicate that housing, as an asset class, does not stand alone. Indeed, the problems associated with housing finance reveal broader failings, including inadequate market discipline, excessive reliance on credit ratings, and poor credit and liquidity risk-management practices by many financial firms.</p>
<p>During the past several months, this domestic housing-centric diagnosis has also been subjected to a natural experiment. Among U.S. financial institutions, asset quality concerns are no longer confined to the mortgage sector. At the same time, non-U.S. financial institutions–including some with relatively modest exposures to the United States or their own domestic housing markets–appear to be suffering substantial losses. Equity prices of European banks declined more on average during 2008 year-to-date than their U.S. counterparts. Moreover, economic weakness among our advanced foreign trading partners is increasingly evident, even among economies with more modest exposures to the housing sector.</p>
<p>… I would advance the following: We are witnessing a fundamental reassessment of the value of virtually every asset everywhere in the world."</p>