Economic Issues Are Mixed So Song

Disappointment is an experience that blends the hope must be crossed by a high official in the sectors of the economy of the area of trade and industry such as Edy Son Irawady.

Like his disappointment when facing the leading European car manufacturers, who chose the Philippines for its production base, but later want to return to Indonesia.

The attitude of foreign investors that it is not clear that, just saying ' Complete Edy Pestamu ', which became one of the 14 songs on the album his Unthinkable Week. The Album was officially launched here on Friday (11/12/2011). With the song ' Finish ' it, Edy Pestamu would like to express a message to foreign investors to complacency in the country of choice.

When foreign investors were intent on turning to Indonesia and asking for incentives, Edy emphatically stated, ' please just come in, but there is no incentive whatsoever to You '. This is not fiction, but real experienced Team atmosphere at one time served as Deputy Field coordination of trade and industry Ministry coordinator for the economy to this day.

Other songs that fill his third album this is phrases of praise Edy on elected people like Sri Mulyani Indrawati (now Executive Director of the World Bank) and the second term (Vice President of RI). It is spoken in the song titled ' Midshipman Nation '.

' This is the third album speak of crisis that I experienced. In 1982, when Indonesia first competing in the field of trade, and in 1997-1998 monetary crisis, and in 2008 ketikka me with Bu Ani (Sri Mulyani Indrawati) resist the pressures of the global financial crisis were sourced from the United States, '' said Edy.

Starting at 18.00 P.M. afternoon later on, the songs have been circulated in the team of the CD and Ring Back Tone (RBT).

5 Most Surprising Findings From the 2010 Census

Over the past 10 years, our population growth has slowed, we’ve found it increasingly hard to leave home to start a career, and our salaries have decreased for the first time on record. But, it’s not all bad news.

The U.S. Census always provides fascinating data about the state of our country. But the numbers that have been trickling out of the 2010 Census this year show marked shifts, triggered largely by three factors: the Great Recession, an increase in immigration, and a rapidly aging population.

The data paints a picture of Two Americas, not necessarily between the haves and have-nots, but between older and younger Americas.

(MORE: Why Europe’s Downgrades Matter)

“Within the United States, there is a segmentation between older America, which is not receiving a lot of immigrants and where Baby Boomers are the dominant force, and the other part of the country, which is getting younger and becoming more diverse,” says Dr. William Frey, demographer and senior fellow at the Brookings Institution.

It’s a period of great change for the U.S., and it comes across in the numbers Census officials have been releasing this year. Here are five of the most surprising figures.

Source: US Decennial Census / American Community Survey / Brookings

1. We’re growing more slowly.

According to the 2010 Census, the 2000s were the slowest decade of population growth in 70 years. The country’s population only grew by 9.7%, a significant dip from the 13.1% growth in the 1990s.

“A lot of that is what a demographer would call the “aging momentum,” Frey says. Fewer Americans are in their child-bearing years, immigration is down and economic growth has slowed – all factoring into a dip in growth. The South and the West were still the nation’s leading regions in population growth, accounting for 23 million new residents, as opposed to 4 million in the Midwest and Northeast. Still, even with the decrease, the U.S. added the equivalent of 80% of Canada’s population since 2000.

2. We can’t leave home.

Americans are increasingly stuck at home and less mobile than in years past. The percentage of Americans who moved in 2011 hit 11.6%, the lowest that figure has been since the 1950s.

“It’s the Avenue Q generation,” says Frey, referring to the Broadway musical about unhappy New Yorkers who aren’t able to move to other cities. “But this migration issue is very much a short-term problem. It’s mostly young people in their 20s and 30s who are staying home or moving back in with their parents.” Historically, recent grads are the ones most likely to pack up and leave home for better jobs. The problem is that the mobility issue is a vicious cycle: Americans can’t pack up and move because of the poor economy, and the economy is poor because people can’t pack up and move. But once things do get better, expect those mobility numbers to rise.

3. We’re closer to becoming a “majority minority” nation.

The rise in minority populations in the U.S. is quickening, and by 2040, Census officials project that the country will hit that majority minority mark. “In infants,” says Frey, “we’re already at a majority minority.”

(MORE: Stop Changing the Oil Every 3,000 Miles Already)

Non-whites, largely Hispanics and Asians, made up 92% of population growth in the last decade, and many of them are moving into large metro areas or the suburbs. Minorities now consist of more than half the population in 22 large U.S. cities, an increase from 14 metro areas in 2000 and only five in 1990. And according to Census figures, a majority of every major racial and ethnic group in large cities now lives in the suburbs.

4. We’re getting older.

Yes, all of us are getting older. But as Baby Boomers age, the U.S.’s 45-and-over population has grown more than 18 times faster than the group that is currently under 45. Many cities, including Buffalo and Cleveland, are aging; while others, like Raleigh and Las Vegas, are experiencing an influx of younger Americans. And older Americans are moving to the suburbs, where 40% of the population is now 45 and older. (In fact, about half of all Americans now live in the suburbs.)

And a note to those running for political office next year: Half of all voting age Americans are now over 45 years old.

5. We’re not making as much money as we were 10 years ago.

In what might be the most startling finding to come out of the 2010 census, real median household income fell for the first time on record. In 2010, the typical household earned $49,445, a decrease of 7% from 2000, while poverty climbed to 15.1% of the population, the highest since 1993.

“The 2008 recession and the period afterward were a much more severe economic downturn than we’ve seen,” says Howard Wial, a fellow and economist at the Brookings Institution, in explaining the dip in household income. “And the recovery we had from the 2001 recession was sluggish. So we had a very severe recession like nothing we’ve ever seen following a period of pretty slow growth.”

While it’s difficult to project with accuracy what might happen by the time the next Census rolls around, Wial sees a long climb ahead for the U.S. economy.

“It’s hard to make predictions 10 years ahead,” he says. “But so far it’s been a very tepid recovery, and I think it’s going to continue that way for another couple of years.”

SEC Charges Ex-Fannie, Freddie CEOs with Fraud

The Securities and Exchange Commission has brought civil fraud charges against six former top executives at Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, saying they misled the government and taxpayers about risky subprime mortgages the mortgage giants held during the housing bust.

Those charged include the agencies’ two former CEOs, Fannie’s Daniel Mudd and Freddie’s Richard Syron. They are the highest-profile individuals to be charged in connection with the 2008 financial crisis.

(MORE: Electricity Costs Rise $300 in 5 Years)

Mudd, 53, and Syron, 68, led the mortgage giants when the housing bubble burst in late 2006 and 2007. The four other top executives also worked for the companies during that time.

The case was filed in federal court in New York City.

In a statement released through his attorney, Mudd said the lawsuit “should never have been brought” and said the government reviewed and approved all of the company’s financial disclosures.

“Every piece of material data about loans held by Fannie Mae was known to the United States government to the investing public,” Mudd said. “The SEC is wrong, and I look forward to a court where fairness and reason — not politics — is the standard for justice.”

Syron’s lawyer couldn’t be immediately reached for comment.

According to the lawsuit, Fannie told investors in 2007 that it had roughly $4.8 billion worth of subprime loans on its books, or just 0.2 percent of its portfolio. The SEC says that Fannie actually had about $43 billion worth of products targeted to borrowers with weak credit, or 11 percent of its holdings.

Mudd told a congressional panel in March 2007 that Fannie’s subprime business represented less than “2 percent of our book.” He also said the company held subprime mortgages “very carefully.”

(MORE: Financial Scams Target Boomers)

Freddie told investors in 2006 that it held between $2 billion and $6 billion of subprime mortgages on its books. The SEC says its holdings were actually closer to $141 billion, or 10 percent of its portfolio in 2006, and $244 billion, or 14 percent, by 2008.

In a May 2007 speech in New York, he said Freddie had “basically no subprime exposure,” according to the suit.

“Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac executives told the world that their subprime exposure was substantially smaller than it really was,” said Robert Khuzami, SEC’s enforcement director. “These material misstatements occurred during a time of acute investor interest in financial institutions’ exposure to subprime loans, and misled the market about the amount of risk.”

Fannie and Freddie own or guarantee about half of U.S. mortgages, or nearly 31 million loans. The Bush administration seized control of the mortgage giants in September 2008.

So far, the companies have cost taxpayers almost $150 billion — the largest bailout of the financial crisis. They could cost up to $259 billion, according to its government regulator, the Federal Housing Finance Administration.

The other executives charged were Fannie’s Enrico Dallavecchia, 50, a former chief risk officer, and Thomas Lund, 53, a former executive vice president; and Freddie’s Patricia Cook, 58, a former executive vice president and chief business officer, and Donald Bisenius, 53, a former senior vice president.

Lund’s lawyer, Thomas Levy, said in a statement that Lund “did not mislead anyone.” Lawyers for the other defendants declined to comment Friday morning.

Real Estate Crash Hit Lower-Priced Homes The Hardest

When the housing bubble popped — in 2006, 2007, or 2008, depending on where you were — chances are that the value of your home took a nose dive. But who got hit worse, the top of the market or the bottom?

In an effort to answer this question, Clear Capital, a valuation and analytics firm in Truckee, Calif., (near Lake Tahoe) analyzed the market in terms of “tiers.” Take as a starting point the national peak of the market, that glorious, golden-haze summer of 2006.

At that point, any home that sold for less than $150,000 was in the bottom quarter of properties — what Clear Capital calls a “low-tier” house. Any home that sold for more than $395,000 was in the top quarter of properties — a “top-tier” house. The remaining two in the middle were — of course — “mid-tier.”

(MORE: Boomer Kids Out-Saving Their Parents)

What Clear Capital has found is that not all those layers fell by the same amount. The average mid-tier house fell in value by 41%, while homes in the low tier fell 46.3%. Homes in the top tier, though, have lost only 26.8% of their value since the crash. If you picture a wedding cake with three even layers, what happened is that the bottom layer pancaked more than the other two.

So is this another tale of the rich getting off relatively easy? Maybe not, according to Alex Villacorta, director of research and analytics for Clear Capital.

“You may argue that by percentage, what happened in the top tier is an easier hit to take,” Villacorta notes. “But for people who are a little bit overextended, that’s an absolute hit of $106,000.” The low tier, by contrast, saw valuation suffer by an average of $69,500. The average mid-tier house, for its part, dropped $100,900.

That’s the bad news. The good news is that, according to Villacorta, it looks like all tiers of the market have adjusted to the large numbers of foreclosures and the subsequent resale of those properties by banks. In other words, while your local market may not be great, it’s probably fairly stable. And even if there’s an onrush of more foreclosures — which some analysts predict will happen in 2012 — prices are unlikely to tank.

(MORE: 5 Most Surprising Findings from the 2010 Census)

That relative stability is due in large part to the rental market. Former homeowners still need to live somewhere, of course, and their demand for rentals has led to the recovery of those low tier homes. Villacorta says investors have been buying empty properties from banks and improving them for renters. The result: The decline in home prices slowed during 2011.

“In terms of our Home Data Index, we see stabilization on a national level,” Villacorta says. “We’ve seen only a 1% drop in prices since January — and no change at all in the past six months.”