Say Anything Blog

This is critically important because for the first time in history, more than half of all American households own stocks in some fashion, be it IRA’s, 401-K’s, mutual funds, individual equity holdings, or some combination...

This is an important note. The next time you hear about someone railing against "Big Oil" or some other big industry, remember that over 50% of American families have invested in those industries.

Wow!  Break out the noisemakers if you can afford the gas to drive to the party store and get them!!!  Of course, you can charge that liquid gold on your CREDIT CARD, which is what many Americans are doing for almost everything they purchase, at high % rates which plunge them deeper and deeper into DEBT.

Not to break up your little happy fest, but here’s a reality check:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/03/04/AR2006030400238.html

Our Financial Failings
Family Savings Look Scary Across the Board

By Neil Irwin
Washington Post Staff Writer
Sunday, March 5, 2006; F01

Meet the typical American family.

It has about $3,800 in the bank. No one has a retirement account, and the neighbors who do only have about $35,000 in theirs. Mutual funds? Stocks? Bonds? Nope. The house is worth $160,000, but the family owes $95,000 on it to the bank. The breadwinners make more than $43,000 a year but can’t manage to pay off a $2,200 credit card balance.

That is the portrait of the median American household as painted by the Federal Reserve Board’s Survey of Consumer Finances. The survey, which does not distinguish between sizes of families, nevertheless offers the most detailed look available of the balance sheet of U.S. households.

The Post asked a half-dozen financial planners to review the Fed data about what different groups of Americans own and what they owe. We asked them what advice they would give someone confronting the financial situation faced by the average American, using median numbers, or the midpoint at which half of the population is above and half is below each indicator.

They don’t like what they see.

"This is awfully sobering," said Peter Speros, managing director of Sullivan, Bruyette, Speros & Blayney Inc., a wealth-management firm in McLean. "These numbers are just so much worse than I would have thought. It’s a real eye-opener."

Specifically, Speros and the other planners said, if the average family walked into their offices, they would sit them down and give them some tough talk. Time to pare back expenses, the financial advisers would say, in order to build a cash reserve big enough to get everyone through a layoff or other unforeseen adversity. And the family would get an earful about saving more aggressively for retirement, so members could have some hope of retiring at a reasonable age and maintaining the standard of living they and their family are accustomed to. Only 49.7 percent of American families even had a retirement account in 2004.

Those at the median are not the only Americans who need help. The planners had advice for the typical family headed by someone who is young, middle-aged, retired, and for the affluent and poor. The bad news: Each of these groups need to do some things differently. The good news: Their financial problems are not hopeless.

************************** 

If you’d like more reality, let me know.  There’s plenty more where this came from.

The next time you hear about someone railing against "Big Oil" or some other big industry, remember that over 50% of American families have invested in those industries.

Okay then...but over 50% of American families may get burned again.  The Wall Street guys are already licking their chops.

MAY 1, 2006

FINANCE

A High-Risk Diet For Investors Why a portfolio full of commodities may not be the best hedge against inflation

The commodities markets are booming. The Dow Jones (DJ ) AIG Commodity Index has gained 18% over the past year (chart). Oil and copper prices are at all-time highs, while gold and silver are at 20-year peaks. Investors will add roughly $30 billion to commodity index funds this year, estimates Barclays Capital, about what they put in U.S. domestic stock funds in 2005.

Wall Street firms, of course, flog trends like this for all they’re worth. They have recently launched a slew of financial products, from exchange-traded funds that track the prices of gold and oil to mini futures contracts that don’t require big sums of capital to get in.

The Street’s marketing machine is pitching the products to two kinds of investors: momentum traders, and more conservative investors looking to diversify their portfolios with alternative assets and to protect against inflation. Both groups might be in for disappointment.

The conventional wisdom holds that because commodities are physical assets, they’re the best way to hedge against rising prices, which eat into the real returns of purely financial instruments such as stocks and bonds.

Trouble is, the conventional wisdom seems to be wrong. Commodities have not kept up with inflation over the past 36 years, according to UBS Global Asset Management (UBS ). And while it seems logical to assume that inflation travels in tandem with commodity prices, the correlation is weak. Moves in the Goldman Sachs (GS ) Commodity Index over three-year periods going back to the 1970s have swung from an almost perfect mirror of the consumer price index to the opposite. (A better way to hedge: Treasury inflation-protected securities, which guarantee a real return.)

There’s more truth to the argument that diversifying a portfolio with commodities increases returns. From 1969 to 2004, the Goldman Sachs Commodity Index gained 12.2% a year, beating the 11.2% return in the Standard & Poor’s 500-stock index and walloping the 8.6% gain for bonds. A portfolio of half stocks and half commodities performed best, returning 12.5% a year with less volatility.

"FOOLED BY THE PAST" 
But commodities are also highly cyclical, and they won’t rally forever. "Don’t be fooled by the past," says Campbell Harvey, a professor at Duke University’s Fuqua School of Business and co-author of a paper examining commodity returns. "There’s no...theoretical reason why these returns will continue."

Like most investment booms, this one will likely end up a victim of its own success. Commodity index funds don’t buy gold bars or barrels of oil—they buy futures contracts traded on exchanges. Each month, as contracts expire, funds roll over their positions to new contracts. Peculiarities in the futures market have made those rollovers profitable in the past. Prices of longer-dated commodity contracts tend to be lower than shorter-dated ones, because there are usually more sellers eager to lock in future prices than buyers willing to speculate on them. As a result of this imbalance, commodities funds, buying lower and selling higher, have added about five percentage points a year to their returns over the past three decades, says Edwin Denson, an asset allocation analyst at UBS.

But now, with speculators piling in, the rollover opportunity is disappearing in many commodities. "That market inefficiency has gone away as it drew more attention," says Denson. Subtract five percentage points a year, and commodities wouldn’t have beaten stocks or bonds.

The bulls say it’s different this time. The market is being driven by fundamental forces such as demand from China and India and supply shortages stemming from decades of underinvestment. "Companies have been cutting back on exploration, development, and manpower since the 1980s," says Kevin Norrish, a director in the commodities research team at Barclays Capital. But such conditions have preceded other rallies, which have petered out when supplies caught up. This time, speculators who go all in might end up wishing they had spread their chips around the table.


By Aaron Pressman

http://businessweek.com/magazine/content/06_18/b3982070.htm

http://www.iii.co.uk/news/?type=afxnews&articleid=5628606&action=article

NEW YORK (AFX)—The dollar sank to an 11-month low against the euro and a three-month low against the yen on Friday, after economic data boosted speculation that the interest-rate differential between the U.S. and euro zone will narrow soon.

U.S. first-quarter growth gross-domestic-product growth, employment costs, consumer sentiment and business activity in the Chicago area all came in below forecasts. The slew of economic reports added to evidence that the Federal Reserve is nearing the end of its interest-rate-tightening cycle.

"In general, the market seems to be in a sell-dollar mode" after Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke’s testimony Thursday, said John McCarthy, director of foreign-exchange trading at ING Capital Markets. "We believe that the Fed is about to be finished raising rates for the time being, while in the rest of the world rates are going higher."

In late New York trading, the euro was changing hands at $1.2631, up 0.8%, after touching $1.2639, the highest level since May 20, 2005. The dollar weakened to 113.63 yen, the lowest level since Jan. 12. It was last down 0.3% at 113.84 yen. The dollar also weakened to seven-month lows against the British pound and Swiss francs. Sterling last traded up 1.3% to $1.825, while the dollar was down 1.7% at 1.2383 Swiss francs.

On the week, the greenback lost about 2.2% versus the euro and 2.4% versus the yen. In April, the dollar gave up 3.3% against the yen and 4.2% against the euro.

"The market was just looking for an excuse to sell dollars," said Joel Ward, manager of the Joel Nathan ForexFund. "As a trend wears down, traders are looking for a definitive reason to change their positions. Once Bernanke confirmed the end of the rate cycle in the middle of a broad dollar sell-off, the flood gates opened."

Comments from U.S. Treasury Secretary John Snow that the G-7 communique reflects fundamentals also weighed on the greenback. In television interviews, Snow said the U.S. wants to see greater flexibility in China’s currency, and Washington remains committed to a strong-dollar policy.

It was more an understanding that "a weakening of the dollar would be very possible to be part of this adjustment process" of these large global imbalances, said David Solin, a partner at Foreign Exchange Analytics. "People are starting to climb on the weak-dollar bandwagon. There’s probably going to be more weakness."

Data provide little support

"The data, on balance, just reinforced dollar negativity at this point," said T.J. Marta, senior currency strategist at RBC Capital Markets.

The U.S. economy snapped back in the first quarter, growing at an annual rate of 4.8%, the Commerce Department said Friday. The increase in the nation’s real GDP was close to market expectations of a gain of 4.9%, according to the survey of economists conducted by MarketWatch.

But inflation moderated. The core consumer price index (excluding food and energy) retreated to a 2% annual rate from 2.4%, pushing the year-over-year gain down to 1.9%, just below the top of the Federal Reserve’s target range.

Separately, a Labor Department report showed the employment-cost index, considered one of the best gauges for tracking labor-cost pressures, moderated in the first quarter to a 0.6% increase, down from a 0.8% pace in the last three months of 2005. Economists had been forecasting a 0.9% increase in employment costs in the first quarter.

The inflation reports were "benign and supportive of rates not going higher," said ING’s McCarthy.

The dollar further weakened after data showed consumer sentiment weakened slightly in late April. The University of Michigan consumer-sentiment index inched lower to 87.4 in late April from 89.2 earlier in the month, according to media reports Friday. The index was at 88.9 in March. Economists were expecting the index to inch lower to 89.

Adding to the downward pressure, business activity in the Chicago region grew at a slower pace in April. The Chicago purchasing-managers index fell to 57.2% in April from 60.4% in March. Readings over 50% indicate most firms are expanding. Economists expected the index to fall to 58.7% in April.

Further losses likely

The U.S. dollar has been under fire in April, weighed down by a combination of factors including the record U.S. deficit, foreign central banks diversifying their reserves, and a more aggressive outlook for interest rates in the euro zone.

The greenback’s downward trend accelerated this week after the Group of Seven leading industrial nations called for "vigorous action to address to address imbalances" and "greater exchange-rate flexibility" and after Bernanke said the Fed could pause in its interest rate-increase cycle even if inflation risks remain.

"April has been a horrible month" for the dollar, said Marc Chandler, currency strategist at Brown Brothers Harriman, in a note. "The overriding factor is bearish dollar sentiment. Further dollar losses are likely."

But he added that "while the weakness may carry into May, the pressures for a substantial correction are building, and the new month might not be as cruel."

Joel Nathan ForexFund’s Ward said from a technical perspective, the market is "over-extended" and "some consolidation is expected at the start of the week while the market catches its breath."

Swiss francs rallies on comments, safe-haven

The Swiss franc was sharply higher after Swiss National Bank President Jean-Pierre Roth warned that further weakness in the Swiss currency would lead to further rate increases.

News that Iran failed to meet its deadline to halt uranium enrichment also provided support for the currency, which often gains on its safe-haven reputation amid geopolitical uncertainty.

Iran has failed to cooperate with U.N. inspectors, the BBC reported, and has done little to answer questions about its nuclear intentions. Friday marked the deadline for Tehran to halt uranium enrichment, which is a step toward creating nuclear energy or nuclear weapons.

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has said his country "does not give a damn" about U.N. resolutions that seek to stop it from enriching uranium because of fears the country is planning to develop nuclear weapons, the BBC reported.

Upbeat euro-zone data

The euro advanced against the dollar after a string of upbeat economic data reinforced the case for a rate rise in June from the European Central Bank.

Consumer-price inflation rose 2.4% year over year in April from 2.2%, faster than forecast and above the ECB’s goal of CPI near to 2%.

Separately, the money supply accelerated to 8.6% in March from 7.9%, well above the ECB’s preference for 4.5% growth.

And finally, the European Commission’s measure of both consumer and industrial confidence unexpectedly rose.

Adding to the euro’s strength was a report that Finland’s central bank boosted its euro holdings in its foreign-exchange reserves.

***********

 The increase in the nation’s real GDP was close to market expectations of a gain of 4.9%, according to the survey of economists conducted by MarketWatch.

But inflation moderated. The core consumer price index (excluding food and energy) retreated to a 2% annual rate from 2.4%, pushing the year-over-year gain down to 1.9%, just below the top of the Federal Reserve’s target range.

*******

The dollar further weakened after data showed consumer sentiment weakened slightly in late April.

*******

The U.S. dollar has been under fire in April, weighed down by a combination of factors including the record U.S. deficit, foreign central banks diversifying their reserves, and a more aggressive outlook for interest rates in the euro zone.

...

"April has been a horrible month" for the dollar, said Marc Chandler, currency strategist at Brown Brothers Harriman, in a note. "The overriding factor is bearish dollar sentiment. Further dollar losses are likely."

*************

Interesting posts.  If you need someone to sit down and explain what all that "stuff" you cut and pasted actually means, one of the grownups will be glad to help you in the morning.

Imagine what the economy would be doing without the steady drumbeat of bad spin from the MSM.  Try as they might, they have not been able to sell us the recession they predicted after 9/11.  It has been almost five years of steady growth.  If the MSM were even neutral, things would be even better than they are now.  It’s just the typical "Get the President" rant, but that dog still won’t hunt.  The proletariat just won’t listen to the leftie "masters".  Dang!

Interesting posts.  If you need someone to sit down and explain what all that "stuff" you cut and pasted actually means, one of the grownups will be glad to help you in the morning.

Excellent, because there certainly don’t seem to be any around tonight.

Actually, I’m quite surprised you even bothered to try to get through them.  I was posting them for any adults who might happen by in the a.m.

It just goes to show that no matter what I post, the only response I can expect here is absolute juvenile nothingness.

Get on your jammies now like good little boys and run along to beddie bye, won’t you?  And no pillow fights!!!

What a combo;  monomania and megalomania, with a dash of codependency!

Getting through all that cut and paste drivel you posted was easy.  That’s part of how I make my money.  The difficult part was your in-depth analysis.

Like you said in another thread just now, the whole package!!

Getting through all that cut and paste drivel you posted was easy.  That’s part of how I make my money. 

What an odd way to make $$.  But then, what an odd man, so I guess it makes sense.

Another interesting point, Bravo1, here in west PA the price of gas is on the decline. 10 cents in 3 days in our local area. Guess that means our economy is doomed and we will all be in the soup lines by next week, according to our econ genius, Dhimi diane.

Another sign of doom&gloom, seems unemployment offices across the state have been quietly laying off office staff. Appears they don’t have enough work to keep them all on. We are doomed, I tells ya, DOOOMMMEEDDD!

TwoHotelNiner,

I love it, Sir!  I truly do.  State unemployment personnel being laid off for lack of work.  There is a certain poetic justice and even symmetry to to that which I find almost inspiring.  Thank you for sharing. 

I first heard about this when two ladies I know, who work in county unemployment offices, were complaining that they did not get laid off because they have too many years seniority. They wanted to ride their unemployment benefits through the summer. I asked what the deal was and they were happy to explain. I had a hell of a time not busting out laughing right there and then. Apparently the newer, younger people were getting the"vacation" these ladies wanted.

Why are they paying the unemployment folks to sit at home?  There’s trash to be picked up alongside the roads.  We should get something for our money.

foreclosures up in 2006 - Google Search

freedumb is on the march

freedumb is on the march

What do you expect, bob, from people who live their lives inside of a little cardboard box with REPUBLICON NEOCON written on the outside and a set of talking points glued to their glasses written by the Deciderer and Mr. Pill Popper?

Diane is absolutely right!  From her article, it’s clat that we are in big trouble:

Consumer-price inflation rose 2.4% year over year in April from 2.2%, faster than forecast and above the ECB’s goal of CPI near to 2%.

2.2% ???

How are we ever going to be able to withstand such a huge CPI??!!!

We clearly are in big trouble.

Upbeat euro-zone data

Sounds like a request.  Ok here goes, current numbers: 

Germany:  CPI 2.5% Unemployment rate 11.5%  GDP Growth 0.9%
France: CPI  1.9% Unemployment 10% GDP Growth 1.6%
United States CPI 2.2% Unemploymente rate 4.7% GDP Growth 4.8%

Ha ha ha ha ha ha!!!  WABODFs!

You’d have to be a complete retard to think that the US’s economy is tanking and the European economies are surging ahead…

The only indicator that they are compariable to us in is CPI, but that’s because their economies have clearly stagnated.

Carrick,

Your analysis is precise.  But look at the money supply growth figures cited.  At nearly twice a target growth rate of 4.5%,  that 8% monetary growth rate far too high.  Without some really accelerated GDP growth or a severe central bank tightening, the EU is looking at some serious inflation down the road.   Which explains the EU’s "call for vigorous action to address imbalances" and "greater exchange-rate flexibility,"  all of which is trader code for the US to assume the financial burden of taking the EU’s inflation out of the monetary system so that the europeans can continue to inflate away their own lack of economic growth and their inability to pay for their own social largesse.

My point in noting Diane’s tedious cut and paste with no commentary was just that.  She has no idea what all this stuff means, but if it looks bad for the US and the current administration, she cuts and pastes away. 

Carrick: Nothing like an injection of the truth.

BatOne:

My point in noting Diane’s tedious cut and paste with no commentary was just that.  

You are absolutely right.  I was just supporting that observation with some of my own analysis.

Another good example is Reality-Challenged Bob’s link to the increased rate of foreclosures.  This is a perfect example of taking a single number in isolation, without considering the factors that led to this change.

Diane and Reality-Based Bob are only continuing the stereotyping of their own side as liberal twits incapable of their own independent thinking, making it a complete hoot when they accuse us of just parroting the party talkign points...  How often is it that we’ve seen people like them appeal to outside authority, but seem incapable of bringing their own thinking to the board?  Entirely too frequently.

Then there is the over reliance on MSM sources, who present the data in either a misleading or entirely wrong perspective.  "I just read the news and the edtiorial pages" might cut it for after-church justifications for a position.  But that just doesn’t cut it with independent thinkers with the ability to perform their own analyses.

Carrick,

Amen, my Brother!!!  One more reason why I take such delight in noting that we are not only ON the Right, but IN the Right as well. 

LOL, Bat takes Carrick’s analysis of the articles I posted and then expects us to believe he got the same thing from them!!  I wouldn’t do that, Bat.  It’s bad enough Carrick is trying to explain away a faltering economy.

You want commentary?  Here goes:

Foreclosures are up

Personal/family debt is staggering

Bankruptcies abound

GM is in trouble

Airlines are in trouble

Inventories of homes on the market are growing

The value of the dollar is declining

Interest rates will continue to climb

Oil Prices are up (hits tourism, airlines, consumer good prices)

We have a record federal deficit

...I won’t go on because I’d like to know how anyone is naive enough to base their ‘insightful’ rosy analysis on something this weak:

2.2% ???

How are we ever going to be able to withstand such a huge CPI??!!!

We clearly are in big trouble.

And then for the leader of the ladies’ who lunch knitting circle to want to take credit for having thought the same thoughts?

 LOL...you guys are certainly financial whizzes.

"staggering"?  a subjective term

"abound"? again, not precise, but emotion-based

GM is in trouble because of socialism in the form of unions.

"Airlines are in trouble"  What else is new?

 "Inventories of homes...are growing."  What’s the bad part?

The Euro is on its last legs.

Interest rates are not climbing;  they are inching up.

Oil prices are down.  Check the market lately?

Our "deficit"(the amount the political class owes the rest of the country) is a smaller percentage of GDP.

Try the truth. 

"staggering"?  a subjective term

What term/adjective isn’t subjective, BobbyBoy?  Shall we all quit using them here?  Okay, I’ll play along.

"abound"? again, not precise, but emotion-based

A more precise term you might prefer?

GM is in trouble because of socialism in the form of unions.

LOL.  Talk about emotional blather.  It’s in trouble because:

1) They’re not building a product people are buying

2) People aren’t buying because the cars don’t measure up to Japanese product

3) Cost is too high

4) People are in trouble financially (see my other comments)

Shall I go on or is this logical enough for even you folks?

"Airlines are in trouble"  What else is new?

Just another one of a host of factors that combine to spell trouble for the economy at this point in history

 "Inventories of homes...are growing."  What’s the bad part?

Shall I attempt this? When homes don’t sell,  it affects a number of other industries.  Shall I name them? 

The Euro is on its last legs.

And?

Interest rates are not climbing;  they are inching up.

Subjective term.

Oil prices are down.  Check the market lately?

You mean a day ago, two days ago, or shall we wait a week?  What did it cost you to fill your Hummer yesterday?  Want to make a prediction on gasoline prices this summer?  Come on, I’m game for a bet.

Our "deficit"(the amount the political class owes the rest of the country) is a smaller percentage of GDP.

It sucks money from the private sector to finance Bush’s war debt.  How do you lower taxes when you have to pay off ‘staggering’ (subjective of course) debt?  Where does the money to finance it come from?  But you are believing the government.  It’s called ‘social engineering’ and it works perfectly for herd mentality subscribers. 

Try the truth. 

Here?

Robert108,

For someone… anyone… who actually knows something about this stuff, as you clearly do, this isn’t merely shooting fish in a barrel.  It’s like having the fish drain the water first.  Have fun! 

Stick around, Bat.  Maybe Carrick will return and attempt to rebut my facts and wisdom/logic, and then you can take credit for having had all those thoughts and just not putting them down yourself again.  LOL

Wanna bet on the price gas will go to this summer, Batty?

diane: As usual, you lie.

Instead of "staggering", how about the real numbers.  We can then decide for ourselves what is "staggering".

Same with "abound".  Numbers, if you have them.

GM is paying out more money on healthcare for retired workers than they are for making cars.  This is about union demands for excessive compensation under the threat of strikes.

The airlines have been in trouble since the sixties. No matter how much you hope for it, that’s not even making a dent in the economy.

Fair enough.  How do you define "climbing"?  I define "inching up" as a quarter of a percent every few months.

"Up" is not "down". You lied.

The deficit is not due to our war on terrorism.  Two thirds of the Budget is for social engineering programs. In your continuing monomania to blame everything on the President, you lie again and again. 

Since using numbers here doesn’t work, I’ll just keep throwing around adjectives like ‘staggering’ and let it go at that.

Bobby, I’m sorry that somewhere along the way in your education, you were never taught about the cause and effect, supply and demand principles of economics. 

Right now the part of the economy doing well are tied into the war machine/war economy.  That’s as the President and his men planned it.  When they are ready, they will say/do things that will shift things around again.

People like you and I are victims of these movers of markets and global economies.  The best we can do is cover our you know what’s personally and use as many of their bags of tricks, the write-offs, etc., they provide for themselves to try to keep our own economic health intact.

This economy and the numbers can be interpreted to make them look bad or good, depending on one’s agenda.  When I drive by a local new car dealership here in So. Calif., and see "DO YOU NEED A CAR??? 1/2 PRICE!!"....in an upper middle class area where the economy is not nearly as bad as in, say, Detroit, then I don’t need to try to play with numbers to know that that’s not something I really want to be seeing in a healthy economy.  I could give numerous examples, but they would go right over the top of your baseball cap, so why bother?

When/if GM goes Chapter 11, it’s not just ‘GM’ that goes down; it’s owners of their dealerships, it’s the salesmen they employ, and a ripple effect begins. 

So live in your dream world.  The economy is gangbusters, SS will be there for your children, we’re winning the war, and all the other talking points and be happy.

You continue to lie, having no facts at your disposal.  Social Insecurity has been a pyramid social engineering scheme since its inception.  Anyone who knows elementary econ knows that.  Your anecdotal "evidence" is nonsense.  You did say one thing revealing, though.  I quote:  "This economy and the numbers can be interpreted to make them look bad or good, depending on one’s agenda."  You are almost right.  The truth is that the economy is good, but you are trying very hard to make it look bad, according to your agenda.  Unfortunately for you, the truth is not on your side.

  You did say one thing revealing, though.  I quote:  "This economy and the numbers can be interpreted to make them look bad or good, depending on one’s agenda."  You are almost right.  The truth is that the economy is good, but you are trying very hard to make it look bad, according to your agenda.  Unfortunately for you, the truth is not on your side.

No, the truth is, you want to believe the economy is ‘good’...whatever that may mean to you.  But we shall see, Bobby...we shall see.  There are always cycles and smart people understand and interpret and time their actions to benefit from cycles and politics and the innocence of the masses.

More nonsense from you.  You have no facts, only hatred for the President and the country.  You have the Marxist hatred of profits and business, which tells me you lack economic knowledge.  So sad.

It is just another troll.

The Dollar is doing real good, thats why Gold the other day was selling at $656.50.

 Diane, I love you!!  You are the voice of the majority of people in the country.  The hard working middle class!  We are hurting. The only people that don’t know it or don’t care are the ones who believe the economy is fine.  Well, it is for them and that’s all they care about. The stats don’t lie but the neo-cons are so drunk from Bush’s favoritism they would not know reality if it crashed into the back of their BMW.  Bat1 loves to spew forth numbers that make him and his associates bank account grow. But then he extrapolates that to represent everybody.  Sorry bud that’s some crazy s*** your smokin in that pipe dream of yours.

I have some rebuttal with some of the figures you spewed forth.....

"Since the summer of 2003, the economy has grown at an average rate 4%, while creating over 5 million new jobs"

Between the outsourcing of high paying jobs and the minimum wage being stagnant for 10 years, I’m not sure how great those 5 million jobs are paying.  I’d rather have the high tech job that was shipped to India vs. working at McDonalds for $5.75/hr. any day. I bet if the Treasury Dept. broke that 5 million down, things would not sound so rosy. Did someone say service industry??

 “The average rate on a 30-year conventional mortgage was 6.3 percent last month, lower than at any point in the 1970’s, 1980’s or 1990’s, according to the Fed.”

Dude, I don’t know where you live but in my neck of the woods home prices have tripled with the average home in Ft. Lauderdale selling for for close to 400,000.  Now that’s great for those who already own a home but what about the other half?  The only people buying are the wealthy for investment. No-brainer there.  The party is over for any middle class person who is not in the housing market aleady. Rent for life.  Sounds like a prison sentence.  When your making $40,000/yr. how can you afford a $400,000 mortgage?  Answer: YOU CAN"T even at 6.3% interest rate.

"Look for a two-year extension for dividends and capital gains at the current 15 percent marginal rate."

Come on.. most people in my neighborhood don’t even know what a dividend or a capital gain is.  Why? Because they don’t have money for investment when the rent just went up, gas prices are going thru the roof, college tuition up, insurance up(my health insurance is $600/mth and rising) and real wages...stagnant.  The answer to that equation is a negative number.

"Extending those tax cuts(on investment income) will increase the wealth of more than half of US households."

Now what half are we talkin about? This is like a broken record. Your wearing those blinders again.

 Diane, I love you!!  You are the voice of the majority of people in the country.  The hard working middle class!  We are hurting. The only people that don’t know it or don’t care are the ones who believe the economy is fine.  Well, it is for them and that’s all they care about. The stats don’t lie but the neo-cons are so drunk from Bush’s favoritism they would not know reality if it crashed into the back of their BMW.  Bat1 loves to spew forth numbers that make him and his associates bank account grow. But then he extrapolates that to represent everybody.  Sorry bud that’s some crazy s*** your smokin in that pipe dream of yours.

I have some rebuttal with some of the figures you spewed forth.....

"Since the summer of 2003, the economy has grown at an average rate 4%, while creating over 5 million new jobs"

Between the outsourcing of high paying jobs and the minimum wage being stagnant for 10 years, I’m not sure how great those 5 million jobs are paying.  I’d rather have the high tech job that was shipped to India vs. working at McDonalds for $5.75/hr. any day. I bet if the Treasury Dept. broke that 5 million down, things would not sound so rosy. Did someone say service industry??

 “The average rate on a 30-year conventional mortgage was 6.3 percent last month, lower than at any point in the 1970’s, 1980’s or 1990’s, according to the Fed.”

Dude, I don’t know where you live but in my neck of the woods home prices have tripled with the average home in Ft. Lauderdale selling for for close to 400,000.  Now that’s great for those who already own a home but what about the other half?  The only people buying are the wealthy for investment. No-brainer there.  The party is over for any middle class person who is not in the housing market aleady. Rent for life.  Sounds like a prison sentence.  When your making $40,000/yr. how can you afford a $400,000 mortgage?  Answer: YOU CAN"T even at 6.3% interest rate.

"Look for a two-year extension for dividends and capital gains at the current 15 percent marginal rate."

Come on.. most people in my neighborhood don’t even know what a dividend or a capital gain is.  Why? Because they don’t have money for investment when the rent just went up, gas prices are going thru the roof, college tuition up, insurance up(my health insurance is $600/mth and rising) and real wages...stagnant.  The answer to that equation is a negative number.

"Extending those tax cuts(on investment income) will increase the wealth of more than half of US households."

Now what half are we talkin about? This is like a broken record. Your wearing those blinders again.

Dear Average Netram,

First, stop bitching and complaining!  At least long enough to learn something.

Next, get over the ridiculous idea that everyone else owes you something.  We don’t.  Aside from that childish chip on your shoulder, your problem seems to be that you aren’t making enough money.  Why not?  Other people are.  Why not you?  If what you are doing isn’t worth any more than $40,000 per year, whose fault is that?  Not mine, certainly.  And not those people who CAN afford that $400,000 house.  They didn’t take anything away from you.  So the problem isn’t them.  It’s you.

How come they have money for investments and you don’t?  How is it that they can afford the house that you can’t?  Why are they not worried about $3.00 gas and you are?  It’s because what they do is worth more than what you do.  That’s why.  And once you do something about that… instead of expecting someone else to do it for you… then you too will have a $400,000 house, investments, a nice car or two, and no real concern if gas goes to even $4.00 per gallon. 

If you don’t like where you are in life, then get off your ass and do something about it yourself.  Stop pestering everyone else about it.  It’s not our problem.  It’s yours.! 

Bat: You go, boyyy!

Oh wow...excitement on the blog!  Where to begin:

Let’s start with Bobby:

You have the Marxist hatred of profits and business, which tells me you lack economic knowledge.  So sad.

That’s why I’ve been self-employed since I dropped out of college after one year (Bible college by the way but with all the usual fluffy activities like football games, dating, and sundry other timewasters).   Yeah, Bobby, I just hate profits and business.   LOL

 You have no facts, only hatred for the President and the country. 

They are not one and the same, Bobby.  And, actually, I don’t even hate Bush; I hate what he has done to our country and to Iraq.

It is just another troll.

If you don’t like where you are in life, then get off your ass and do something about it yourself.  Stop pestering everyone else about it.  It’s not our problem.  It’s yours.! 

When it comes to economic insecurity, you’ve got to go for the Carter Administration.  Double digit inflation, double digit interest rates.  Leftie economics!

When it comes to economic insecurity, you’ve got to go for the Carter Administration.  Double digit inflation, double digit interest rates.  Leftie economics!

LOL...and you accuse me of cilnging to the past.  Couldn’t find anything bad about Clinton economics, Bobby..had to dig this deep?     LOLOLOL

I had to do business through it, and the Clinton retroactive tax increases. I never accused you of clinging to the past.  You made that up.  Guess those voices in your head are getting louder.

I never accused you of clinging to the past.  You made that up.  Guess those voices in your head are getting louder.

robert108 on April 30, 2006 at 2:01 AM 

*************

Eighteenth and Nineteenth Century stuff. You still clinging to that old stuff?

robert108 on April 29, 2006 at 3:42 PM

PLEASE make it harder for me to make you look stupid.  This is boring.

Clinging to old stuff(specifically an old immigration policy) is not the same as a generalized accusation of "clinging to the past".  Why do I have to tell you that?

Diane:

Maybe Carrick will return and attempt to rebut my facts and wisdom/logic,

You keep using that word "facts".  I do not think that word means what you think it means.

So far all you’ve done is post poorly-thought out opinions, such as this. Which is nothing but a list of your opinions and is completely devoid of any supportive facts or meaningful analysis.  For example this:

Bankruptcies abound

What the f**k is that?  A high-school creative writing exercise in alliteration?  How do bankruptcies compare now to historical trends?  

Then take this one:

We have a record federal deficit

Not when measured in percentage of GDP, which is the only meaningful way to analyze the significance of that deficit:

The largest deficit since such numbers have been tracked  occurred in 1943 and was around 30%.  We are in a war, but have a 1.8% deficit in terms of GDP.  The largest  deficit post  WWII was in 1983 at 6%.  Our peak deficit was 2.8% in 2003, which was a consequence of the tax cuts that have spirred our current economic growth.  It’s been getting better since then, not worse.

Pay attention, Diane.  These are facts. 

The value of the dollar is declining

A true statement, but what is it’s significance, Ms. Chicken Little?

Interest rates will continue to climb

After being at near historic lows for a number of years.  DEFINITELY TIME TO
PANIC!!!!!!!

And then for the leader of the ladies’ who lunch knitting circle to want to take credit for having thought the same thoughts?

I make the point that 2.2% CPI is nothing to panic about.  You respond with… gibbering nonsense.  Nice.

Diane projects her poor life choices onto us:

these people are probably up to their eyeballs in debt like so many other Americans.

Speak for yourself.  I don’t even use a credit card, except for my American Express (which requires that I pay it off at the end of the month), and have a net positive worth.

It is possible to live intelligently and make wise choices, just as Bat One pointed out.

Clinging to old stuff(specifically an old immigration policy) is not the same as a generalized accusation of "clinging to the past".  Why do I have to tell you that?

When it comes to economic insecurity, you’ve got to go for the Carter Administration.  Double digit inflation, double digit interest rates.  Leftie economics!

LOL...and you accuse me of cilnging to the past.  Couldn’t find anything bad about Clinton economics, Bobby..had to dig this deep?     LOLOLOL

You have to know the past to understand the present.  That’s very different than dwelling in the past.

And am I correct in assuming that "LOLOLOL" sounds like an insane cackle? 

I was speaking about Batty, trying to take credit for your ‘insights’, Carrick.  Please keep up.

Let me get this straight:

‘Massive’ debt and almost no savings by Americans is a good thing.

A record federal deficit (it’s tied to this and it’s during a war analysis) is a good thing.

Rising interest rates AT THE SAME TIME housing is experiencing huge standing inventories is a good thing.

The dollar declining against foreign currencies is a good thing.

GM and US automakers in trouble is a good thing.

A high rate of bankruptcies and foreclosures is a good thing.

I may be Chicken Little but you’re Alice in Wonderland.

diane: I guess I have to tell you that because you don’t know the difference between a specific statement and a general statement.  I made a specific one, and you morphed it into a general one.  You "refuted" a statement I never made.  Get it now? Those voices must be getting really loud.

Carrick: Nothing like the facts, eh?

And am I correct in assuming that "LOLOLOL" sounds like an insane cackle? 

Clinton "economics" was discredited Keynesianism, with plenty of smoke and mirrors.  He brought us Enron and the dot com bubble, plus the retroactive tax increases that were records for peacetime.  He also gutted the military to make his voodoo accounting look good.  George Bush rescued us from the Clinton debacle.

diane: I guess I have to tell you that because you don’t know the difference between a specific statement and a general statement.  I made a specific one, and you morphed it into a general one.  You "refuted" a statement I never made.  Get it now? Those voices must be getting really loud.

By the way, Carrick, going on % of the GDP is a lousy way to talk about the deficit.  The question is, how will it be paid? 

Got any ideas?  Tax people out of their minds?  Bush wants tax cuts so where is the money coming from?

Robert, you should stick to subjects you know and understand . . . if there are any.

You obviously haven’t the slightest grasp on Macroeconomic theory.  Keynesian economics is more closely associated with Reagan’s trickle down, Nixon’s deficit spending, and Bush’s tax cuts and deficit increases during economic downturns than by Clinton’s more classical economic approach.  You’d know that if you ever bothered to read a book. 

 Bat1, Oh you hurt me so bad!!  I didn’t expect much from your retort.  Your response did not exceed my low expectations. I’m not looking for sympathy, maybe a little understanding about what’s really going on in this country. But your Neocon Republican brain is thick and hard. Just like our selected leader.  Same old same old from a Bushy lover who sees nothing more then what makes his own bank account grow.  In this blog your the director and your preachen to your own choir in a glass bubble.  The real world is out there somewhere but you haven’t found it yet. (Not that your even looking) Keep driving your Hummer and paying those illegal aliens to clean your toilet. Just stay on your side of the wall you built to keep out the "peasants." Your a perfect example of why a class war is inevitable.  Hey Diane where are you from?  These guys are in a parallel universe!

Keynesian economics posits that the govt can be a player in economic growth.  Clinton’s Keynesianism was evidenced by his continuing reference to tax increases as "investments".  Keynesians actually think "tax and spend" produces prosperity.  It is just another form of socialism, where the economic system is made used as a vehicle for social engineering.

Netram: No, you are in a Marxist universe. 

Robert,

I’m not getting paid to give you a lesson in economic theory.  Please read the General Theory of Unemployment, Interest and Money.  It’ll enlighten you on the errors of your characterizations.  The writings of Stiglitz would also be beneficial.  

In understanding Keynesian Macroeconomic Theory, you’re no better than a toddler explaining algebra. 

You’re getting paid by stroking your own ego.  Otherwise you wouldn’t be snarking on this blog.

"Macroeconomic theory" says it all.  In the free enterprise system, since it isn’t controlled by a central authority, the real macroeconomics is the aggregation of all the microeconomic decisions made by individuals.  In socialism, the individual decisions are controlled by a central authority, and thus macroeconomics is the prime mover, which is why it doesn’t work as well as the free enterprise system.  All govt can do in a free enterprise system is to limit the possibilities, either through regulation or taxation.  The premise that the govt can stimulate economic growth through confiscation and redistribution of wealth has been discredited, and for very good reason:  It doesn’t work. 

Don’t lecture me, you amateur.

From Wikipedia:

"John Maynard Keynes, 1st Baron Keynes, CB (pronounced kānz / kAnze) (June 5, 1883 – April 21, 1946) was a British economist whose ideas had a major impact on modern economic and political theory as well as on many governments’ fiscal policies. See Keynesian economics for an outline of his theories. He is particularly remembered for advocating interventionist government policy, by which the government would use fiscal and monetary measures to aim to mitigate the adverse effects of economic recessions, depressions and booms. Economists consider him one of the main founders of modern theoretical macroeconomics. His popular expression "In the long run we are all dead" is still quoted."(Emphasis mine)

So now Wikipedia is the source of all knowledge, Robert?  Amateur Robert. Playing at expertise you don’t possess.

I have to get going - busy evening and long work week ahead.  You go lick your wounds and try and forget about this little beating - just when you’re back on your imaginary high horse, I’ll be back to bitch-slap some sense into you again.

 Later.

Diane:

I may be Chicken Little but you’re Alice in Wonderland.

No.  I’m a realist.  I don’t dismiss numbers because they don’t conform to my preconceptions.  But the numbers are meaningless if they are either taken out of context, or are not put in a meaningful reference frame.

For example, take your example of rising interest rates:

The interest rate was driven down below historical averages by the federal reserve to stimulate the economy and bring it out of an economic slump.  If interest rates are kept low, the fear is that this will generate inflation.

The fact that interest rates are returning to their historical averages is an indication that the federal reserve believes that the economy has recovered and is in an economic boom.

It would be a problem if interest rates were sky-rocketing, because that would only happen to control inflation. The current very mild adjustments to interest rates are intended to control inflation while not throttling the economy.

This is an example of putting a number or fact in context.  Simply stating the fact neither demonstrates or proves anything.

By the way, Carrick, going on % of the GDP is a lousy way to talk about the deficit.  The question is, how will it be paid?

You need some lessons in finance if you think this assertion is true.  It’s the only meaningful way to discuss it.

When you have a personal debt,  there is never a good thing.  However, the fraction of debt to your current earning capacity is a measure of whether that debt is serious or not.

You have painted it (using current dollars, a completely meaningless metric when comparing against historical data) as  very grave thing.  It is not.  Indeed, measured against GDP ("earning capacity" of the economy), it is a relatively minor debt.

As to how do we pay the debt: That is a bit tricky. 

The reason for the debt is the rapid growth in entitlement programs in the last 20 years, rather than "Bush’s war debt" as you insinuated. As a percentage of our federal budget, entitlement spending has gone from under 50% of the budget to more than two thirds of the total budget in just the last 20 years, while the percentage spent on military as diminished as has non-defense discretionary spending.  In 2001, the last Clinton budget, non-defense discretionary spending (aka "pork" grew by 17%.  Under Bush, by year, it was 6%, 5%, 4%, 1%, and this year -1%.  That clearly is not the problem.

If we don’t fix entitlement spending (driven primarily by rising health care costs and care for the aged population), then we have a real problem on our hands, unless the economy can grow more rapidly than the increase in entitlement spending.

Got any ideas?  Tax people out of their minds?  Bush wants tax cuts so where is the money coming from?

The last round of tax cuts stimulated our economy and created more long-term revenue than was lost.  That was just sensible economic policy.  The leftie solution of increasing taxes will likely have the opposite long-term effect of slowing economic growth and reducing total receipts.

The answer is obvious: fiscal restraint combined with a growing GDP and commensurate federal receipts will in time reduce the current federal deficit to zero  You just have to keep the increase in outlays below the increase in receipts.   Then it will fix itself.

If you’re not aware of the problem with many people in this country having bad credit, you are just living in some kind of parallel universe.

Another example of a rootless statement.  It is rootless because it is tied to emotional word choices while being totally devoid of any supporting facts or documentation.  Just how big of a problem is "bad credit", Diane?  You talk the talk, now walk the walk. 

Show us in your own words, and not in those of some pandering leftie economist.  How big is this problem, and how does it compare to historical numbers?  In real numbers, not in hand gestures or the trading of gone-flat insults.

CV Rick:

I’m not getting paid to give you a lesson in economic theory.  Please read the General Theory of Unemployment, Interest and Money.  It’ll enlighten you on the errors of your characterizations.  The writings of Stiglitz would also be beneficial.  

In understanding Keynesian Macroeconomic Theory, you’re no better than a toddler explaining algebra.

I would say it’s a good thing that you aren’t getting paid to give people lessons on economic theory.  You simply have no  idea what you are talking about, and would have to eventually refund them their money.

So now Wikipedia is the source of all knowledge, Robert? 

If a thing is true, it is true regardless of its source.  If you think the Wikipedia entry is nonfactual, debunk it.

Of course it’s not, which is why cowards like yourself have to resort to insults. 

Rick: You continue to be immune to the truth.  Continue with your auto-didactic fantasies;  they are all you have.

Carrick: Great analysis.  I suspect that we are dealing with one person who uses multiple names here.  There is way too much similarity in the ravings of diane, CV Rick, Epicurus, Michael and some others for it to be mere coincidence, or even leftie parroting.  There are some consistent threads here.  The ignorance of basic economic truth is one of them.  I suspect that Michael’s admission to being an auto didact is a key premise for all of the multiple identities.  I have my own personal method of "data mining", and it reveals number of common threads tying these "people" together, thematically.  For instance, they commonly tell us they "have to be going" instead of just not replying when it’s appropriate.  There are others, as well. 

Robert108, I’m pretty sure that CV Rick is a separate identity.

I’m thinking that he read this analysis by that embarrasment of the left, Paul Krugman, as his basis of authority, which basically claims that the successful policies of Reagan are in fact Keynsian in origin, a nice leftie-styled twisting of "white is black" and "black is white".

I particularly enjoyed this response to Krugman’s twistings of the truth.  It is what I so love about Krugman: He’s just so easy to beat up on:

[Krugman claims that the Reagan recovery] “all played out just as ‘left-wing Keynesian economics’ predicted.”

But to anyone who knows even the slightest thing about the history of economics, this statement is a laughable lie. The truth is that the “stagflation” of the 1970s — the combination of high inflation and low economic growth — utterly confounded the Keynesian orthodoxy, which would have predicted that such a combination was utterly impossible. Then in the 1980s the Keynesian model predicted that the combination of falling interest rates and Reagan’s tax cuts should have created a massive stimulus to aggregate demand that would send inflation even higher. Yet inflation fell dramatically over the 1990s.

Read the whole article, my quote just doesn’t do it full justice.

I’m now waiting for CV Rick to explain to us that he can resolve this for us, but "isn’t being paid to teach lessons in economics".   (No doubt this is because of a high school economics class he took, making him the expert.)  But this appeal to your own superior intellect, while leaving nothing but turd-droppings-styled insults on the board, is just the intellectual coward’s way out.

Robert, not only are you an economist wannabe moron, you are also one of those who, when they are beating beaten by logic and facts, resorts to the ‘multiple personality poster’ argument.
What a woos you are, Robert.

Carrick says:
“Show us in your own words, and not in those of some pandering leftie economist.  How big is this problem, and how does it compare to historical numbers”

Which would you like Carrick, my own words or numbers by some pandering ‘rightie’ economist.

Once you decide, I’ll give you an economics lesson you won’t soon forget, from the real world, not from people who push pencils and make numbers move at will.

I’m glad that you at least admitted that paying off this deficit is a problem.  Maybe that’s a starting point for some semi-intelligent discussion on this blog of right-wing sheep who only think as the Right tells them to think, even though most are probably in debt to their eyeballs. 

By the way, to Bullwinkle, who accuses me of taking advantage of or sucking off or whatever..this country..I’m probably the only one here who bought a home for cash in my 30’s, not to mention assuming a nice, low interest loan on a rental property and turning that in two years for a nice profit and continuing to reinvest.

You see, I take whatever the morons in power, whichever party, throw me and study the trends and benefit from the imbecile’s greed and perks to their friends.  And I’d strongly advise the rest of you to as well.

How many of you can match an 800+ Fair Isaak.  Never mind, I don’t trust a word you say anyway.

Carrick: Great analysis.  I still see a lot of fundamental similarities in the various hate posters here.  I also include Wetback.  I think it is a sophisticated attempt to divert conservateive energy by continually focusing attention on the personality of the poster rather than on the ideas.  SA, through his(their) efforts, has become more like the WWF than a forum of ideas. 

As far as Rick’s take on economics goes, it’s laughable, of course, as is the leftie contention that inflation is produced by demand, rather than govt interference in the market.  Only the govt can increase the price without increasing the value.  Ignorance dies hard.

The other thing common to all of them is the morphing of a specific point into a baseless generalization.  My submission of a piece from Wikipedia becomes "So now Wikipedia is the source of all knowledge, Robert?"  His persistence with this ignorance bespeaks some deep emotional problems, IMO.  The rest of them practice this one all the time.  At the least, we are dealing with a point source origin in some way.

Actually, Carrick and Bullwinkle, I began to invest in real estate in my 20’s, while I was building a business at the same time.  And, BullFoulMouth, I never asked this government or anyone for anything; I simply used the basic rules of investing and hard work and earned my own way. 

When people disagree with Bush and you, it doesn’t mean they are speaking against their country.  It means they are speaking against AN ADMINISTRATION.   DO YOU UNDERSTAND THE DIFFERENCE?

Obviously you don’t.

We don’t trust anything you say either, diane.  It’s all about you, isn’t it?  Your worldview and your claims to be a savvy businessperson just don’t match.  Your juvenile namecalling in place of factual information continues, as it has from the beginning.

Your worldview and your claims to be a savvy businessperson just don’t match. 

In what way, BobbyBoy, using quotes from me on this forum, not from the little imaginary world that you play in?

Here’s a clue for you, BobbyBoy: 

If the attacks and accusations weren’t so personal, perhaps the responses wouldn’t be.

But, on this ‘blog’, people prefer personal attacks to intelligent debate and they’ve set the rules, not me.

Any time you’d like to change them, I’m ready.

Diane:

When people disagree with Bush and you, it doesn’t mean they are speaking against their country.

Give that canard a rest: It is totally irrelevant to anything that I’ve said.  And give the "personal attacks" thing a rest, you are clearly looking for a fight, so it shouldn’t be surprising that you occasionally get one.

 I don’t think you are speaking against your country.   You are clearly anti-Bush and view everything that is happening in this country through that prism.

We all have our personal biases that shades our worldviews, but I fix belief based on what I can establish of a factual nature, and not anecdote or appeals to emotion. 

Diane:

Carrick says:
"Show us in your own words, and not in those of some pandering leftie economist. How big is this problem, and how does it compare to historical numbers"

Which would you like Carrick, my own words or numbers by some pandering ‘rightie’ economist.

I didn’t post the words of any pandering rightie economist.  My comments were derived from my own research.

I take your failure to respond with an objective analysis of the relevance of the "problem of poor credit" as evidence of your incapacity to provide such an analysis.   In English, you simply have no idea whether it’s a problem or not, and are too intellectually dishonest to admit that publically.

At some point, you need to put up or shut up.  Stop the slinging of insults or quasi-witticisms, and demonstrate for us that "the problem of poor credit" is anything other than a invention of the anti-Bush crowd.

Carrick: Some more facts:

Among the news items that the MSM ignored last week in favor of $2.82 gas (source: Barron’s):

• Retail store sales were up 4.1% year-over-year
• Same-store sales were up 5.1% year-over-year
• Consumer Confidence rose to 109.6, well above the consensus estimate range
• The housing bust continues to track the elusive Afghan Winter, as existing home sales rose slightly, when they were expected to decline
• This was offset somewhat by a decline in mortgage applications
• Durable goods orders were up 6.1%
• New home sales soared 13.8% in March, even as prices moderated and supply dropped
• Jobless claims sat pretty much where they have been for the last 2 years
• Employment cost index was up 2.8% y/y, but we’ll need to evaluate that in terms of the productivity index, due out this week
• The GDP boomed, oncusmer sentiment (a different survey from consumer confidence) held, and the Purchasing Managers’ index showed continued strong growth.

Despite the strong housing market, MSNBC still found time to quote USA Today as saying that the "strong housing market is slipping."

I didn’t post the words of any pandering rightie economist.  My comments were derived from my own research.

Whose numbers were YOU using?  We can all use numbers, but they come from someone els