Ah good to see nothing changes around here

3/23/2008 11:47:46 PM

Quote :

"Two consecutive quarters is actually a simplified rule-of-thumb used mostly by the press. The NBER defines recession as "...a significant decline in economic activity spread across the economy, lasting more than a few months, normally visible in real GDP, real income, employment, industrial production, and wholesale-retail sales.""

Hunt

Please don't presume to lecture me on the NBER. I have been fully aware of the organization and its workings for years, and it has already been discussed at length in this thread.

In any event, even if we stipulate the NBER position of an economic "slump" as a recession, NBER's president said as late as January of this year that the United States is not in a recession--how do you like those apples, smart guy?

Quote :

"But NBER president Martin Feldstein denied Merrill's claims. 'I think we're not in a recession now,' he told CNBC."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/7176255.stm

And there's a reason that the financial "press" (nice to see you found a Web site) uses the two-quarter-decline definition of recession--(1) because it's the technical definition and (2) so do a great many macroeconomists.

recession:

Quote :

"(the state of the economy declines; a widespread decline in the GDP and employment and trade lasting from six months to a year)"

http://wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=recession

Quote :

"technically defined as at least two consecutive quarters when the economy shrinks or fails to grow."

http://www.tdwaterhouse.ca/pcs/pic/glossary.jsp

Quote :

"In macroeconomics, a recession is a decline in a country's gross domestic product (GDP), or negative real economic growth, for two or more successive quarters of a year."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recession

Quote :

"A significant decline in activity spread across the economy, lasting longer than a few months. It is visible in industrial production, employment, real income, and wholesale-retail trade. The technical indicator of a recession is two consecutive quarters of negative economic growth as measured by a country's GDP [emphasis added]."

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/recession

And from Meet the Press this weekend:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/23766431#23766431

[Edited on March 24, 2008 at 5:40 AM. Reason : .]

3/24/2008 5:37:46 AM

U.S. existing home sales post surprise rise

Quote :

"The National Association of Realtors on Monday said sales of previously owned homes rose 2.9 percent in February to a 5.03 million-unit annual rate, bucking expectations on Wall Street for a decrease."

Quote :

"The data helped U.S. stocks build on earlier gains and undercut prices for government bonds. At the same time, the dollar rose against the euro and the yen as traders saw the report suggesting the economy may not be as weak as feared."

http://www.reuters.com/article/telecomm/idUSN2432326520080324

Well, we can take away at least a few things from this:

1. The experts were wrong about this indicator, among others.

2. The economy may not be as weak as some of the experts claimed (see 1).

3. It's a buyer's market--if you've planned well, you can get a great deal on an existing home right now.

We'll get a clearer picture of things this week when the numbers for new homes sales (March 26) and income and spending (March 28) come out.

3/24/2008 3:45:08 PM

pretty interesting article about who is to blame for the current housing problems and resulting economic slowdown.

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1724384,00.html

lays a lot of blame at the feet of bush, greenspan and traders...but of course it is the liberal media so what would you expect

3/25/2008 12:04:05 PM

Quote :

"U.S. existing home sales post surprise rise"

That rise also combined with the largest drop in housing prices since they started recording prices. GG

3/25/2008 12:24:38 PM

I'm sorry, I like falling home prices. While the house I live in now will fetch less money when I sell it, the one I am buying will most likely be larger than my current one. As such, my gains from cheaper big houses far outweighs the losses from my current smaller house being cheaper.

There are only two scenarios I can think of where someone would be upset house prices are falling: First, they plan to live in their current house forever but were planning to take out a second mortgage on it. Their house is worth less so they can borrow less against it. Second, they are old and plan to sell their big city house for a small cottage to live out retirement.

So, tell me again why falling house prices are bad?

3/25/2008 1:35:41 PM

If you bought a home in the last 4 years or so I don't think you'd be very happy.

3/25/2008 1:42:46 PM

Quote :

"So, tell me again why falling house prices are bad?"

in and of themselves, dropping prices are not bad

but, can you say subprime meltdown and market collapse? can you say recession?













i knew you could.

3/25/2008 2:28:29 PM

what are you talking about? The economy is booming along. I got paid the other day and my bank account grew.

You are just another one of those pinko-commie-bastard-hate-america firsters.

3/25/2008 2:32:44 PM

busted

3/25/2008 3:27:28 PM

Quote :

" There are only two scenarios I can think of where someone would be upset house prices are falling: First, they plan to live in their current house forever but were planning to take out a second mortgage on it. Their house is worth less so they can borrow less against it. Second, they are old and plan to sell their big city house for a small cottage to live out retirement. So, tell me again why falling house prices are bad?"

In short the reason falling home prices are bad for home owners and for short term growth is that homes are typically highly leveraged.

Therefore, moderate increases in prices deliver huge increases in equity and vice versa. The most obvious situation is if someone puts 20% down on their home and then the price falls 25%. Their equity is wiped out and depending on the situation they may owe money if they are forced to sell.

Now a potential new home to buy is cheaper but they have no equity to put towards this purchase. This may force them out of the market entirely.

You would only be better off if you were selling one home at an equity loss, purchasing another whose price decline was enough to make up for your loss and the most likely worse terms on your loan because of lower equity.

You also potentially lose because you may lose the option to refinance if interest rates go lower. This need not be a cash out refinance. You could simply refinance for a lower payment or shorter term.

For most buyers the situation is made worse by the fact that it land that moves in value the most. This means that smaller homes often have more rapid appreciation and depreciation rates than larger homes on the same sized lot. This makes it more difficult to move upwards when home prices decline.

For short term growth the decline in housing hurts because

1) it slows consumption growth
2) it increases the risk premiums associated with loans

Indeed, I think you can look at the second factor as the major driver behind the crisis. Declining home prices make it less likely that a troubled borrower can refinance, or sell the home to satisfy the debt. This in turn makes debt riskier. This raises costs for banks who respond by restricting all types of lending.

Lending is necessary to coordinate capital and labor and so less coordination occurs and the economy slows. This can create a vicious cycle in which a slowing economy creates more troubled borrowers which leads both to more loan losses and lower home prices.

3/25/2008 3:40:36 PM

i was just getting ready to say the same thing.

3/25/2008 4:03:59 PM

Last week Paul Krugman made a good point I had not really considered. Even though the Fed Funds Target Rate is above 2%, one-month Treasury bills are close to zero.

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/03/21/weird-interest-rates/

Since the Fed's best weapon for influencing the money supply is open market operations (which take place in treasuries), this may mean we are closer to a scenerio where traditional monetary policy becomes far less effective.

Of course, that still doesn't mean we are close to a full-fledge "liquidity trap"--inflation expectations are rising not fall. But that doesn't mean this isn't some scary news.

3/26/2008 10:14:48 AM

^

Here is the thing though, I think people are way too hung up on inflation expectations.

What matters at the core is nominal interest rates. Inflation expectation are only important to the extent that they drive a wedge between nominal and real rates and most of economic theory address real rates. In the practical world short term nominal rates of zero generate a liquidity trap regardless of inflation expectations.

Now the question is, can the Fed continue to lower the Funds rate if the T-Bill rate is zero. My answer is yes, it can.

There are two reasons:

1) The spread between T-Bills and the Funds rate is to some extent endogenous and in particular depends on liquidity concerns.

2) Technically nothing stops T-Bill rates from going below zero. In practice we would not expect that to happen because people could just hold cash or the equivalent.

However, it reality thats not really possible. Hedge funds can't practically manage actual cash and because their accounts go over FDIC limit, and there is some positive risk of bank failure a cash account is not a perfect substitute for T-Bills.

So what will drive the T-Bill rate back into positive territory. It must be banks selling T-Bills to hold more cash reserves. This should force down the T-Bill rate back to zero. If it doesn't - oh well we'll just have negative T-Bill rates.

3/26/2008 1:00:03 PM

^

I think my post was a bit unclear (typing from work). What I meant was that rising inflation expectations are a sign that reaching the zero bound wont be a problem in the same sense they were in Japan.

Here's what I mean. Folks like Paul Krugman argued that reaching the "zero bound" for nominal interest rates was a problem in Japan because real interest rates were negative. As a result, even though intertest rates were as low as they could go, the amount people wanted to save exceeded the amount people wanted to invest. As a result, consumer and investment spending slowed and prices began to fall.

However, since prices are not falling and no one is even expecting them to fall, I think this is an indication that the real interest rate is not negative. And therefore that reaching the zero bound is not a problem at all.

Now, you're right that reaching the zero bound would mean that monetary policy will become unaffective (the opportunity cost of holding money has been eliminated). In that sense we would be in a "liquidity trap". But we would not be facing a deflationary spiral like Japan.

Personally, I am starting to wonder how much of the recent slump in economic activity can be explained by fluctuations in aggregate demand. Isn't the rising price of oil delivering a significant supply shock?

[Edited on March 26, 2008 at 3:38 PM. Reason : ``]

3/26/2008 3:35:13 PM

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080327/ap_on_bi_go_ec_fi/economy

this should shut up all the haters...we are still growing

3/27/2008 9:36:26 AM

^

I think a lot of economists focus on deflation because they tend to believe that real interest rates will not be negative for an extended period of time.

If prices are falling by 2% per year then even if the nominal interest rate is 0% the real interest rate is still a positive 2%.

Therefore, if the real interest needs to be a real 1% to clear the market you cannot get there - you are trapped.


If instead prices were increasing by 3% then a nominal interest rate of 0% would imply a real interest rate of -3%. From most economists perspective that should be more than enough to encourage growth and so the liquidity trap is not a problem.

The issue though has turned negative already

http://bp2.blogger.com/_djgssszshgM/R855Kt9ALEI/AAAAAAAAAR0/hkZWxLG6hsM/s1600-h/negative+real+interest+rates.png


And thats for notes due in 2010! - though I think it has undergone a recent upswing.


The nominal T-Bills rate of 0.5% has a deeply negative real return using the CPI, which is running somewhere around 2.5 now.

So currently we do have negative real interest rates and the question is "how low can they go?"


My personal feeling is that we will likely see nominal T-Bill rates at zero and I would not be surprised to see the occasional dip into negative territory, though it is likely to be short lived. The concern is what happens when the Funds rate starts to close in on zero. I am not convinced that economic deterioration will not justify significantly more easing that what we have today.

In short the liquidity trap remains a real possibility for the US economy.

3/27/2008 2:27:31 PM

^
1. I want to see Friday's income and spending numbers.

2. So your position is that Q3-Q4 '08 will not see GDP growth?

3. Economic recession yet [to] affect college job market

Quote :

"Concern of a current U.S. economic recession has yet to create a downturn in the college job market, according to Carol Schroeder, University Career Center director. Schroeder said according to the National Association of Colleges and Employers, overall hiring expectations are still positive for the class of 2008. The Job Outlook 2008 Spring Update also conducted a survey that showed employers expect to hire eight percent more graduates from this year's class compared to the number of hires from the class of 2007. 'This is the end of the recruiting cycle and employers are still coming here [to recruit],' Schroeder said. 'In fact, we have employers coming in April, which is quite unusual [emphasis added].' According to the Career Center Web site, representatives from 365 companies came to interview potential employees on campus from 2006 to 2007, and Schroeder said those numbers have not changed for this year."

http://tinyurl.com/ypws9x

3/27/2008 2:36:11 PM

kwsmith2,

That's exactly my point! Since prices are going up and expectations indicate they will continue to go up, the liquidity trap is not a problem.

Japan had a problem because their prices were falling and people expected them to keep falling. They were in a deflationary sprial and the liquidity trap made it impossible for the central bank to raise people's inflationary expectations using traditional monetary policy.

And I would point out that the CPI may be increasing 2.5% PER YEAR, but since we're talking ONE-MONTH T-bills being around 0.5%, that probably isn't the right metric. From what I can see, between January and February, the CPI increased for all Urban Consumers for All Items only increased by only 0.3%. So still not quite negative.

http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/CPIAUCNS?cid=9

But, like I was saying, even if we do run into negative interest rate ground the fact that prices are rising and expected to continue to rise is good news. It's an indication that we are not headed for a Japanese style depression. Like I said in an earlier discussion, I will start worrying when prices start moving in the other direction.

3/27/2008 3:09:46 PM

^^

What happens in the second half of 08 is really up in the air right now. If this last cycle was the end of the credit crisis then we could return to sluggish growth probably in the 1 - 2% range.

If the crisis forms a fourth and a fifth wave then we could see flat growth possibly even a decline.

If we have true financial meltdown then it is anybody's guess by less -1% would not be out of the question.


The college hiring stuff is good news - I had not heard that.


^
The T-Bill rate is an annual yield. There is really no question that real T-Bill yields are negative at this point.

3/28/2008 10:18:41 AM

the very advice i give to youngus:

Quote :

""Being an engineer, there are so many broad opportunities… it's actually made me more selective [of my future job]," Polk said. According to Schroeder, fields such as engineering are currently easier to find jobs in because employers hire in greater numbers. "If you're in a non-technical field, it can be more difficult if you don't have the relevant experience," Schroeder said. "It could also take you longer [to find a job] because there aren't going to be employers who are coming to hire 20 students with a non-technical degree.""

3/28/2008 10:30:04 AM

^^ Um. . .yeah, predictions usually are "up in the air," professor. My question to you was very clear:

Quote :

"So your position is that Q3-Q4 '08 will not see GDP growth?"

Yes or no?

3/28/2008 10:43:33 AM

kwsmith2,

Incorrect.

As Paul Krugman noted in the link above, 1-month treasury rates are close to zero (or at least they were at the time he was writing, they have since risen).
http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/DGS1MO?cid=115

But 1-year rates are closer to 1.3%.
http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/WGS1YR?cid=115

Don't you think 1-YEAR rates being near 0% would make headlines? The closest I could fine is that a couple of weeks ago, 3-month t-bills hit a 4-year low...at 1.42%.
http://money.cnn.com/2008/03/10/markets/bondcenter/t-bill_rates.ap/index.htm?section=money_markets_bondcenter

[Edited on March 28, 2008 at 11:14 AM. Reason : good grief]

3/28/2008 11:05:52 AM

^
It is the 28 day bill but the rate is an annual return. All the rates you see quoted are annual rates of return.

^^

My point is this is a particularly difficult to read time. If I HAVE to pick one way or anotherthen I would guess growth at this point, but I have little confidence in that.

3/28/2008 12:51:13 PM

Damn. I dug into the press release and it seems you're correct. Learn something new every day I guess.


[Edited on March 28, 2008 at 12:56 PM. Reason : ``]

3/28/2008 12:56:07 PM

However, I would bring this back around to the original discussion, the fact that prices are rising (and expected to continue to rise) mean that even if we reach zero interest rates it probably won't be a problem.

As you point out, once nominal interest rates hit zero, the real interest rate will essentially be determined by the rate of inflation. r = i - inflation. So if the interest rate associated with full employment were -3% and inflation were also 3%, there won't be a problem at all.

The reason negative real interest rates were a problem for japan was because they were also experiencing a rapid deflation. So I would again note that you can probably notch down your original fears about a japenese style recession.

[Edited on March 28, 2008 at 1:06 PM. Reason : ``]

3/28/2008 1:05:39 PM

WARNING: Very long:

Treasury’s Summary of Regulatory Proposal

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/29/business/29regulate-text.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

3/28/2008 7:50:42 PM

Income rises, spending weak
Personal income tops forecasts, but consumers still holding on to their dollars; inflation in check.

Quote :

"NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- Personal income rose and a key measure of inflation held steady in February, but consumer spending remained weak, according to a government report released Friday. The Commerce Department said personal income increased 0.5% in February, exceeding the 0.3% increase expected by economists surveyed by Briefing.com. January's gain was 0.3%."

Quote :

"'This is a fairly decent report,' said Wachovia economist Adam York. 'Inflation is back at the top of the Fed's comfort zone' [emphasis added]."

http://money.cnn.com/2008/03/28/news/economy/personal_income/?postversion=2008032811

(1) Well, the experts were wrong--again--about an important economic measure: personal income. And (2) personal incomes are actually up--consumers just need a little more confidence to spend that money.

Summary: If some flap-jawed alarmists would stop running around screaming, "The sky is falling! The sky is falling!" maybe we could go ahead and pull this fucker out of the ditch.

3/31/2008 3:05:14 AM

Some would argue that, in a market based economy, the individual is the expert and how he or she choses to spend money is a fairly good indicator of the economy's strength. Households aren't concerned with what talking heads on TV say so much as they look at their own budgets and with falling housing prices, falling stock prices, rising food and fuel costs, their overall purchasing power is down.

Americans have been outspending their incomes for some time now, but they did so on the confidence that their assets would cover them in the future. Until they rebound, small gains in personal income, if they're even real gains when compared to rising costs, aren't going to have much effect on spending.

3/31/2008 6:54:39 AM

That would be a very small 'some' as the vast majority of economists recognize that the system is populated with human beings that are just doing the best they can. That we do better in a free system does not make us perfect. There is no doubt that we fall victim to herd mentalities.

3/31/2008 1:19:34 PM

how is that any different from what I said?

economists, bankers, and financial advisors, being human beings, are as likely to fall into a herd mentality trap amongst themselves.

3/31/2008 3:34:57 PM

Wow. You can't even make this shit up:

Clinton aide was on board of sub-prime lender

Quote :

"News reports detailing the years that Clinton campaign chief Maggie Williams spent as a director on the board of a sub-prime mortgage lender underscore 'that sub-prime lenders had friends and defenders in both parties,' The Los Angeles Times' Peter Viles writes at his L.A. Land blog. He adds that: 'There is a bit of revisionist history running around right now that claims Democrats tried to rein in sub-prime lenders. Yes, a few state attorneys general did try. But the Democratic Party in Washington was deep into this mess, cheering just as loudly as Republicans were for the "rise in homeownership levels [emphasis added]."' Newsday reported yesterday that Williams 'earned about $200,000 on the board of a Long Island subprime lender (Delta Financial) that charged prepayment penalties -- a practice that Clinton, a critic of the subprime industry, now seeks to eliminate.' The newspaper said that 'in a statement released through Clinton's campaign, Delta senior vice president Marc Miller said Williams "did not have a role in the day-to-day operations and management."' Williams, Newsday says, 'turned down repeated requests to be interviewed.'"

http://blogs.usatoday.com/onpolitics/2008/03/clinton-aide-wa.html

AND THIS:

Why Some Companies Are Warning Others About Doing Business With the Hillary Clinton Campaign

Quote :

"There is further evidence that the Hillary Clinton campaign has hit hard times. According to the Federal Elections Commission, Clinton owes $8.7 million in unpaid bills — some dating back months. A pair of Ohio companies are owed more than $25,000 each for staging Clinton campaign events and are warning other event producers to get cash up front when doing business with her. An employee of one of the companies told the Politico, 'Senator Clinton talks about helping working families... but when it comes down to actually doing something that shows that she can back up her words with action, she fails.' The campaign says it is in the process of paying nearly $300,000 in overdue heath insurance premiums for its staff."

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,344148,00.html



[Edited on April 1, 2008 at 5:48 AM. Reason : .]

4/1/2008 5:40:32 AM

aha

4/1/2008 7:10:53 AM

^ WTF is that? Dude, seriously, go back to Chit Chat.

4/1/2008 7:15:21 AM

lol

4/1/2008 7:16:49 AM

http://news.yahoo.com/i/749;_ylt=AoP3QjQQFh9dmGFZy4mKVwOs0NUE

a myriad of good news here...words such as "recession" or "gas hits record high" or "IMF warns of recession" or "stocks fall"

4/10/2008 1:48:37 AM

Oh shit, son.


Y'all's in recession.

4/10/2008 2:46:52 AM

^

Quote :

"PS: And if that's the case, I helped cause it, y'all. Truf!"

4/10/2008 5:04:06 AM

The article I read (CNBC) had him saying [paraphrase] "I was given credit for things I didn't do, and now I'm being blamed for things I didn't do."

:shrug:

It's still bad news with the old Fed chair is calling the game.

4/10/2008 11:56:19 AM

I think it's funny how people are quick to blame Greenspan. The Fed started tightening monetary policy [b]back in 2004[/i], but long-term interest rates remained relatively low. At the time it was called the "paradox of the flat yield curve" and people openly wondered whether monetary policy lost its ability to influence long-term rates.

NOW it's like everyone has forgotten that experience. They pretend that the Fed really does have control of long-term rates and that if the Fed wasn't so evil or dumb that they could have prevented the housing bubble all together.

Bah!

Bubbles happen. They're simply a part of having a dynamic free-market comprised of imperfect people. It isn't the Fed's job to second guess the investment decisions of millions of people.

[Edited on April 10, 2008 at 12:19 PM. Reason : ``]

4/10/2008 12:15:27 PM

^

Thank you on that. The amnesia about 2005-2006 is only getting worse. Not to mention if the housing "bubble" had been generated completely by declines in long rates then it would have really been a bubble so much as an appropriate asset repricing.

This is a product of the securitization boom, not monetary policy.


Also, I posted last week I believe that I had begun to think that we might be seeing the light at the end of the tunnel. That fears of a US financial meltdown had been averted. Ironically, those comments were erased and now we seem to be watching a return of the credit crunch.

It is my feeling, however, that this time problems are coming out of Europe, the UK in particular. While the BOE seems like they have gotten memo the ECB is still living in a fantasy land that the crunch requires little monetary policy action. If all hell breaks out the Epicenter is likely to be Western Europe.

[Edited on April 10, 2008 at 1:04 PM. Reason : crunch back on]

4/10/2008 12:59:26 PM

Leading Economic Indicators in U.S. Rose in March

Quote :

"April 17 (Bloomberg) -- The index of leading U.S. economic indicators rose in March for the first time in six months as cash poured into the banking system and the Federal Reserve lowered the benchmark interest rate. The Conference Board's gauge increased 0.1 percent, as forecast, after falling 0.3 percent in February, the New York- based private research group said today. The measure points to the direction of the economy over the next three to six months. The improvement is a tentative signal that the economy, after deteriorating in the first six months of 2008, may not weaken further in the second half of the year. The report indicates the Fed's rate reductions and efforts to ease the credit crisis may help mitigate the damage from the slump in subprime lending. 'We are flat to negative in the first half and we expect some of these elements of policy to kick in the second half and start to see some improvement,' said Peter Kretzmer, a senior economist at Bank of America Corp. in New York. 'But the uncertainties surrounding that forecast are certainly increasing.'"

Quote :

"Economists forecast the leading index would rise 0.1 percent, after a previously reported 0.3 percent decline in February, according to the median of 55 projections in a Bloomberg News survey. Estimates ranged from a decline of 0.3 percent to a 0.4 percent gain."

Quote :

"'While latest data do not support the assertion that we are in a recession, growth remains weak, a situation that may continue,' Ken Goldstein, a Conference Board economist, said in a statement [emphasis added]. Five of the 10 indicators in today's report contributed to the gain in the index, led by a jump in the money supply. Slower supplier deliveries, which indicate an increase in orders, and a steeper yield curve were also positive."

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601068&sid=a6cZcei8.bpA&refer=home

Not time to jump for joy yet, but it's still some good news.

[Edited on April 17, 2008 at 1:14 PM. Reason : .]

4/17/2008 1:10:54 PM

Where is the thread where we post that exact same link and talk about all the bad news in it? Is that this thread?

4/17/2008 1:47:22 PM

^ You may, of course, post your glass-half-empty findings and musings anytime you like, Ms. Piggy.

4/17/2008 2:08:09 PM

Why do you attempt to reduce everything to some black and white good news bad news thing? That's a terrible waste of time and intellectual energy on your part and the rest of us for having to wade through the information feces you are pooping on us.

Lets just discuss the economy, good and bad, and leave the cheerleading for people that look better than you and do it better than you, old man.

4/17/2008 2:48:56 PM

^

Quote :

"Where is the thread where we post that exact same link and talk about all the bad news in it? Is that this thread?"

My woman is so much better looking than you, Ms. Piggy. BTW, I call you that in retaliation for all the shit you've talked now and in the past.

And you don't know how I look--but it's good enough to get a woman that puts you to shame. So, basically, feel free to suck eggs.

In summary, this is my thread and I'll post what I like. I prefer optimism--you can keep fumbling around in the dark and cursing it if you like.

4/17/2008 2:56:42 PM

Stop trying to cling to the idea that the thread content has to be what the thread creator deems it to be. Your own the wrong system for that.

All that other ad hominem stuff you said is cute. You're so confident in your looks, that you don't need to post a picture to prove us otherwise. You probably model on the side, right?

Anyway, back on topic about the Economy. In the other thread, Lonesnark talked about rising exports. How does that jive with this data point

Quote :

"A report from the Philadelphia Fed, issued at the same time, showed manufacturing unexpectedly contracted at a faster pace in that region as measures of new orders and shipments dropped."

You also failed to mention this little nugget in your analysis

Quote :

"But the uncertainties surrounding that forecast are certainly increasing."

So the confidence in even the forecast alone is starting to drop as the uncertainty increases, so why are you cheerleading about this again? I mean, good lord man, you posted a link that is overwhelmingly negative, and you want to champion some of the most benign positives in it and call it a day?

Well, on the bright side, I have been looking for some good 'meds' lately, you seem like the guy I should talk to.

4/17/2008 3:10:18 PM

^

Quote :

"Anyway, back on topic about the Economy."

Finally.

You're either a troll, an idiot, or you can't read. This was my actual "analysis":

Quote :

"Not time to jump for joy yet, but it's still some good news."

hooksaw

This ^ seems to be a balanced position to me, not unreasonable at all. In addition, I posted the link; other users are free--as always--to offer their interpretations.

If you actually knew anything about economics, you would know that interpreting where the U.S. economy is at any given point and where it's headed in terms of performance is an extremely difficult and inexact process. Why don't you just run on back to Shit Shat now, okay?

[Edited on April 17, 2008 at 3:25 PM. Reason : ]

4/17/2008 3:23:04 PM

The point is, it isn't even 'good' good news when the data behind it is now suspect because of uncertainty.

Hey everyone, the sky might not be falling, but we aren't sure, so that must mean we are safe for now!

And your analysis wasn't even analysis. It was a scan of a web page for anything you could put in this thread and stir up more trouble like you always do. Are you really this childish?

4/17/2008 3:35:03 PM

^ You called it analysis. Are you really this stupid?

PS: Stir up trouble? Why, because I don't agree with you? Why don't you cry about it.


[Edited on April 17, 2008 at 3:38 PM. Reason : ]

4/17/2008 3:37:14 PM