No it wasn't and I would argue that another global depression is highly unlikely without catastrophic financial decisions by several global economies that aren't even aligned in scope or priorities.

I just quoted that because it was a funny comment in what's amounting to be one of the most entertaining threads in TSB.

5/10/2008 3:25:44 PM

Here, I'll post some links for ya oldsaw

http://money.cnn.com/2008/05/12/real_estate/Q12008_home_prices/index.htm

Quote :

"NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- Single-family home prices dropped 7.7% in the first quarter in the largest year-over-year decline since the National Association of Realtors began reporting prices in 1982."

5/13/2008 11:12:48 AM

That is good news. With lower home prices I can afford to sell my home and buy a larger one. Or, the army of people that do not own houses can now afford to buy one. Bravo, I say. Falling prices are always a good thing. It only starts to suck if wages fall just as much.

5/13/2008 4:17:24 PM

^ PWN

^^ You do realize that home prices go up and down, right? BTW, how's the Weight Watchers going, Ms. Piggy?

[Edited on May 14, 2008 at 4:41 AM. Reason : ]

5/14/2008 4:41:11 AM

Quote :

"Falling prices are always a good thing."

Falling real estate values are not a good thing in terms of macro-economic performance. There are always winners and losers but the overall economy underperforms in an environment of falling real estate prices.

The basic reason is that real estate is highly leveraged. Small changes in value produce big changes in equity. Credit quality in turn is a function of equity.

While the details of this mechanism are still under debate the analysis that I prefer goes like this -

Negative shocks come at random

If a shock is greater than current income then the household or firm must borrow to remain solvent

If the household is liquidity constrained and cannot borrow then insolvency occurs, the firm must be liquidated or the household must sell its collateralized assets.

Decreases in home value increase the probability that a homeowners will become liquidity constrained.

This has the direct effect of increasing the probabilty of foreclosures, which may be a welfare losing event because the homeowner is the homeowner because he or she had the maximum willingness to pay.

This has the indirect effect of increasing the credit premium the homeowner faces in borrowing. This second effect is key because it acts like a tax in the market. It drives a wedge between the minimum real return a lender would accept and the maximum return a borrower is willing to provide.

This push borrowers out of the market a creates loss. If the credit wedge is large enough it can cause financial meltdown, which what we were skating near previously.



The basic reason why collateral prices are so important, however, is that they affect liquidity constraints. Liquidity constraints exist primarily because there is a missing market. A contract between individuals to force payment of debt or to extract labor en lieu of payment is not legally enforceable.

Receivership is possible for corporations but has massive transactions costs associated with it.

5/15/2008 2:20:40 PM

All the problems you mention have nothing to do with falling home prices per-se and everything to do with incorrect predictions about the future. If since 2001 everyone from home buyers to bank lenders knew and acted on the assumption that housing prices were going to start falling them we would not have any of these problems because banks would not have loaned money to those that were not going to repay.

However, this not being the case (everyone honestly believed home prices would go up forever), what do we do now? You point out that falling home prices right now cause economic problems. But this is only temporary; eventually they will find a floor and the system will stabilize. The difference being, of course, that American's at that point would be substantially richer than they are today because on the same income we all could afford larger houses. As such, if I had a button to halt the price slide I would not do it, even if it means a few banks go belly up.

5/15/2008 4:21:35 PM

Survey: U.S. economy tops competitive ranking

Quote :

"GENEVA, Switzerland (AP) -- The United States topped world competitiveness rankings for the 15th straight year. . . ."

Quote :

"The study lists 55 economies according to 331 criteria that measure how the nations create and maintain conditions favorable to businesses. The U.S. position was cemented by its domestic economy, which is the world's strongest, topping all others in its amount of investments, stock purchases and commercial service exports. The U.S. also ranks as the easiest place to secure venture capital for business development and dominates all other economies in key technology criteria such as computers in use, according to the report."

Quote :

"'The U.S always seems to find the means to reinvent itself in ways that Japan -- and much of Europe -- often lacks,' [project director Stephane Garelli] said. Rounding out the top 10 most competitive nations were Denmark, Australia, Canada, Sweden and the Netherlands. Slovenia rose eight places to 32nd -- a jump matched by Poland, which is now 44th. Greece slipped the furthest, six places down to 42nd. China and India both dropped two places in the report, to 17th and 29th, respectively. Russia fell four spots to 49th. Venezuela was ranked last for the third year in a row, immediately preceded by Ukraine, South Africa, Argentina and Indonesia."

http://edition.cnn.com/2008/BUSINESS/05/14/world.competitiveness.ap/index.html

--Switzerland-based, IMD business school, publisher of the World Competitiveness Yearbook

This report was based on data through 2007--and, yes, there is some hedging in it. But it doesn't matter--the performance of the U.S. economy is impressive by any standard.

5/16/2008 3:32:05 AM

till the socialists fuck it up by over taxing and regulating it to death

5/16/2008 3:51:26 AM

^ Yep.

Quote :

"Venezuela was ranked last for the third year in a row. . . ."

[Edited on May 16, 2008 at 4:17 AM. Reason : .]

5/16/2008 4:15:15 AM

by the way...just an example of how strong our economy is

food prices went up by like 10 percent...in some countries its going up by like 70 percent...i hope those people starve...the world needs like 5 billion people

5/16/2008 5:41:18 AM

I love how I can never tell if dnl is being sarcastic or not.

5/16/2008 5:55:05 AM

Quote :

""'The U.S always seems to find the means to reinvent itself in ways that Japan -- and much of Europe -- often lacks,' [project director Stephane Garelli] said."

Not saying this is necessarily a bad thing, but does anyone else think this is evidence of how integrated corporate America is in our government? Im all for a strong economy, but sometimes I think these powerful corporations can manipulate our government to ensure they can stay lucrative. Obviously this also helps out americans whose wages are paid by these companies; I guess id rather just see a more free market decide the outcome instead of the company with the most clout.

5/16/2008 9:55:38 AM

That's why we should have continued Reagan's legacy of devolving power back to the states. With the federal government's influence growing, it becomes that much easier for third parties to be politically influential given the shear concentration of political power. That's why many of the policies coming from the left have the ill side-effect of exacerbating the problem by expanding the influence of the federal government and further concentrating political power. Expanding the federal government's influence makes it that much easier for corporations to be influential and for politicians to be corrupt.

I think it was a telling sign when Google finally broke down and hired a lobbyist. Given the ideology of Google's founders, I think it's easy to conclude they were not looking to influence policy as much as they were hedging against the likelihood of their competitors influencing policies not in their favor.

Devolution, in addition to deregulation, is the only sure way to decrease corporate political influence.

[Edited on May 16, 2008 at 4:50 PM. Reason : .]

5/16/2008 4:49:15 PM

The economy is looking increasingly impressive afterall.

So, far there doesn't seem to be a serious fallout in spending and we are already into June. If the credit crunch was going to wack the real economy, now would be the time. It looks like we will have to deal with a weak housing market for sometime to come, but we may have avoided outright contraction.

I am still concerned that financial stock prices seem to be slightly exuberant given what are likely to be significant challenges moving forward, but if credit markets are not seizing up that is a universally good thing.

6/5/2008 1:16:38 PM

While the 50 bps jump in the headline unemployment rate is sure to create a lot of bearish news, the underlying stats show much of the move was due to unemployment among 16-19 yr olds, which could have resulted from imperfect seasonal adjustments. Given this magnitude of rate change is somewhat inconsistent with the trend in unemployment insurance weekly claims as well as with the modest -49k in payrolls, I would not be surprised to see a downward revision.

http://bespokeinvest.typepad.com/bespoke/2008/06/unemplyment-rat.html

6/6/2008 11:50:00 AM

http://www.newsweek.com/id/140553

pretty long article.....doesnt look good for the US

6/9/2008 3:02:29 AM

Commentary - Kristen Lopez Eastlick: Dude, where’s my summer job?

Quote :

"Finals week is over; summer is here. And thanks to misguided politicians, your teenager is more likely to be sitting in front of the television than waiting tables or scooping ice cream. This year, it's harder than ever for teens to find a summer job. Researchers at Northeastern University described summer 2007 as 'the worst in post-World War II history' for teen summer employment, and those same researchers say that 2008 is poised to be 'even worse.' According to their data, only about one-third of Americans 16 to 19 years old will have a job this summer, and vulnerable low-income and minority teens are going to fare even worse. The percentage of teens classified as 'unemployed' — those who are actively seeking a job but can't get one — is more than three times higher than the national unemployment rate, according to the most recent Department of Labor statistics. One of the prime reasons for this drastic employment drought is the mandated wage hikes that policymakers have forced down the throats of local businesses. Economic research has shown time and again that increasing the minimum wage destroys jobs for low-skilled workers while doing little to address poverty. According to economist David Neumark of the University of California at Irvine, for every 10 percent increase in the minimum wage, employment for high school dropouts and young black adults and teenagers falls by 8.5 percent. In the past 11 months alone, the United States' minimum wage has increased by more than twice that amount.[/b] So it should be no surprise to see teen jobs disappearing or to hear bleak testimony from employers across the country that make these hiring decisions. In Massachusetts, the Boston Youth Fund will put 3,600 teenagers between 15 and 17 years old to work this summer, but the ratio of applicants to jobs is more than 2-to-1. The state has seen a 33 percent decline in teen employment over the past eight years. It's no coincidence, then, that in the same time period the state's minimum wage has soared. In Arizona, Pledge-a-Job is a government-funded organization dedicated to increasing the number of job opportunities available to youth. But this summer, its task is a tall one. According to the group's coordinator: 'There's no doubt about it. Summer jobs will be tough to find this year.' And the owner of Santa Barbara Ice Creamery — what was once a go-to summer job spot for Tucson, Ariz., teens — said that because of increased wages and dairy prices, she's only relying on a few longtime employees. You don't need a business degree to understand why employers are making these cuts. The classic summer jobs — cashier, waiter, grocery clerk — can help an employer with increased service or make up for full-time employees who take vacations. When the minimum wage gets boosted, however, employers cut down on hiring teens who typically fill lower-priority slots. Most of the work still gets done, but customers may get stuck standing in longer lines, and teens suffer because they've been priced out of work. There's no end to the economic data that confirm these common-sense observations. Research from the University of Georgia, the University of Connecticut and Cornell University indicates that increasing the minimum wage causes four times more job loss for employees without a high school diploma than it does for the general population. Furthermore, minimum wage hikes don't effectively target the people who are typically portrayed as the key beneficiaries — low-income adults raising kids. According to U.S. Census Bureau data, just 14 percent of those who benefited from the most recent federal minimum wage hike are sole earners in families with children. A summer job for a teen is much more than a paycheck: It's a chance to gain important skills, increase one's value to future employers and — just as importantly — learn what it's like to have a job! But ill-advised policymakers are blinded by the basement salary figure instead of looking at the big picture. Mandated wage hikes have negative consequences that too many politicians are ignoring. Hopefully some of them will discover the truth when they return home this summer to find their teenage children stuck languishing on the couch. Kristen Lopez Eastlick is the senior economic analyst at the Employment Policies Institute, a nonprofit research organization dedicated to studying public policy issues surrounding entry-level employment."

http://tinyurl.com/585lsh

[Edited on June 9, 2008 at 6:06 PM. Reason : .]

6/9/2008 6:05:28 PM

i thought they bumped up minimum wage cause the cost of food and energy went way high and people needed a way to meet the cost of living???

6/10/2008 2:05:21 AM

No, they bumped up the minimum wage because unions resented competition from low-wage workers (immigrants and the handicaped).

Yep, it honestly is a conspiracy to keep the poorest among us unemployed.

6/10/2008 9:03:59 AM

^

6/10/2008 9:23:41 AM

Quote :

"No, they bumped up the minimum wage because unions resented competition from low-wage workers (immigrants and the handicaped). "

The unions haven't had any power in this country since the 1980s.

So, what does everyone think? Will the Fed raise rates or continue to hold steady?

[Edited on June 13, 2008 at 10:46 AM. Reason : /]

6/13/2008 10:44:41 AM

It's an extremely precarious situation for the Fed. Given the tone of recent speeches from members of the Fed, it sounds like they are now erring on the side of tighter policy. The healthy narrowing of credit spreads in the past several months gives them some leeway to do so, assuming their priorities are in the order of a functioning credit market, anchored inflation expectations and lastly, full employment. If this is indeed the order, I would expect them to raise rates if inflation expectations continue to rise.

6/14/2008 12:11:33 AM

^ Eh...I don't. I think that what they're doing now is that they're hoping their talking about raising interest rates will lessen inflation expectations instead of actually raising the interest rates, which I'm skeptical to be honest, as are several others who follow this as their job. It's a very short-term play, cause eventually the market will tell them "put up or shut up". If they raise rates, they make all those ARMs adjusting pay more money, not to mention that all the security collateral the Fed lent money against to banks and investment banks would be more likely to be worth less.

[Edited on June 17, 2008 at 12:57 PM. Reason : .]

6/17/2008 12:49:51 PM

From the Financial Times:

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/8bc71892-3bce-11dd-9cb2-0000779fd2ac.html

Quote :

"When the US economic downturn began, the country’s fiscal position was already weak. The administration nonetheless proposed an emergency stimulus – mostly criticised as too miserly. Farther ahead, demographic pressures and the failure to curb rising healthcare costs (which drive up public spending on Medicare and Medicaid) make matters worse. Both presidential candidates are big on avowals of fiscal rectitude, but not on remedies. Their proposals on taxes and spending are quite different but have this much in common: if enacted, they would add mightily to the fiscal problem. Before the economy slowed, earlier budget forecasts – admittedly unreliable at the best of times – had turned out to be too pessimistic. Revenues had proved more buoyant than expected, and the deficit had shrunk. Thus voters and politicians have come to regard all fiscal gloom as exaggerated. Congress and the administration are expected to voice concern but do nothing, and indeed to spring boldly to the economy’s support with emergency tax cuts when demand slumps. Sooner or later, this complacency will have to confront a painful fiscal reality. In the first eight months of the current fiscal year, the deficit was more than $300bn, roughly $170bn bigger than in the same period last year. Only about $50bn of that deterioration was due to the stimulus tax rebates that began to be paid out this spring (another $50bn or so of those rebates is still in the pipeline). Most of the rest was due not to slowing revenues but to sharply increased spending, with rises across the board. On the spending side, the future pattern will be the same, only more so. The Congressional Budget Office expects the cost of Medicare to rise from 2.7 per cent of GDP in 2007 to nearly 6 per cent by 2030. Together, Social Security and Medicaid will add another three percentage points. This puts the deficit on track to exceed 10 per cent of GDP by 2030, and 20 per cent by 2050, taking no account of the further increases in spending and new cuts in taxes that both candidates appear to be proposing. This path implies explosive growth in public debt: it is literally unsustainable. Fiscal consolidation, unappealing though it may be as a platform, ought to be the organising principle for current political debate in the US. The country must start to get a grip on spending, or steel itself to pay very much more in taxes. The electorate and its leaders continue to flinch at facing, let alone making, this choice. It can be evaded between now and November, one supposes – but not indefinitely."

6/17/2008 2:17:38 PM

so they are raising rates by the end of the year right?

6/18/2008 1:37:33 AM

Quote :

"The Royal Bank of Scotland has advised clients to brace for a full-fledged crash in global stock and credit markets over the next three months as inflation paralyses the major central banks. "A very nasty period is soon to be upon us - be prepared," said Bob Janjuah, the bank's credit strategist. A report by the bank's research team warns that the S&P 500 index of Wall Street equities is likely to fall by more than 300 points to around 1050 by September as "all the chickens come home to roost" from the excesses of the global boom, with contagion spreading across Europe and emerging markets. Such a slide on world bourses would amount to one of the worst bear markets over the last century. "

6/18/2008 9:04:54 AM

b/c that same research team has done such a good job predicting things previously...

6/19/2008 1:05:28 PM

http://news.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=08/06/25/0017213&from=rss

Quote :

"penguin_dance notes a report up at ABC News that high oil and gas prices in the US may be moving jobs back home in a trend that some economists are calling "reverse globalization." It's becoming more and more expensive to ship finished product from other countries, so some companies are moving the manufacturing back to the US. The article hints that this trend may spill over soon to raw materials such as steel. One economist is quoted: "It's not just about labor costs anymore. Distance costs money, and when you have to shift iron ore from Brazil to China and then ship it back to Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh is looking pretty good at 40 bucks an hour.""

Some good news to show that I'm not all doom and gloom.

6/25/2008 1:11:36 AM

^ I saw that on the news, too. Good for you.

6/25/2008 6:06:36 AM

And there's this:

Approval Is Near for Bill to Help U.S. Homeowners

Some will see it as good:

Quote :

"Final passage of the bill was snagged temporarily in the Senate Tuesday evening because of a fight over renewable energy tax credits. Still, major supporters of the bill said they hoped it would be completed before for the holiday. 'There's a great desire to act,' said Representative Barney Frank, Democrat of Massachusetts, the bill's main author in the House. 'We're just not there yet.' The bill would provide $150 million to expand counseling for borrowers to prevent foreclosure and would establish stricter disclosure rules to require lenders to make plain the maximum monthly payment for a borrower with an adjustable rate loan. The bill also establishes an Affordable Housing Trust Fund, to be financed by $500 million to $900 million in fees from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. The fund will cover any expenses related to the foreclosure rescue plan for three years, and will be used to create affordable rental housing. Under the refinancing plan, only borrowers seeking to remain in their primary home would be eligible. Lenders would first have to agree to cut the principal balance of loans to roughly 85 percent of each property’s current value."

Some will see it as bad:

Quote :

"At the White House, the press secretary, Dana Perino, softened some of the Bush administration's criticism. 'We do think that there are some really good aspects of that Senate bill,' she said. Still, Ms. Perino reiterated the veto threat citing concern over a provision that would allocate nearly $4 billion in grants to communities with high foreclosure rates to buy and rehabilitate vacant properties. Senator Christopher J. Dodd, Democrat of Connecticut, the chairman of the banking committee, said that he was willing to negotiate with the White House over the proposed grant money. And Mr. Dodd said he believed lawmakers wanted to finish the bill before heading home for Independence Day: 'People I don't think want to leave here, hanging bunting around and eating hot dogs and hamburgers knowing that every day thousands of Americans are falling into an abyss, losing their housing.' Skeptics say the plan is a handout for irresponsible borrowers and lenders, who would be able to get rid of their worst-performing mortgages, putting taxpayers on the hook for billions of dollars in risky loans. But in a contested election year, with Americans losing billions of dollars in home equity, officials in both parties seem reluctant to be seen as sitting on their hands."

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/25/washington/25housing.html?_r=1&th&emc=th&oref=slogin

6/25/2008 6:51:34 AM

For a little humor on this crappy day, check the embedded video in the below

http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2008/06/26/youtube-provides-outlet-for-economic-anxiety/

6/26/2008 8:32:15 PM

DJIA was 13307 at the start of this thread. Now its 11457.

6/26/2008 10:25:49 PM

The good news just keeps rolling in

6/26/2008 10:48:14 PM

^^ and ^ When the Dow goes way up, I can post that as an example of how good things are, right? NEWSFLASH: Markets fluctuate.

So, why hasn't the U.S. economy completely tanked? And if we weren't in Iraq, that would have stopped the mortgage mess? Global demand for oil wouldn't have increased? You get the picture.

6/26/2008 11:46:36 PM

do you see it as good or bad(the homeowners bill)? (if you dont mind me asking...hope i dont inspire the wrath of hooksaw, just wondering[if you are wondering why i am wondering, its because the Bush is against it{or atleast not all for it}])

6/27/2008 12:18:10 AM

^ LOL--GOT DAMN HIS POST GOT PARENTHESES, BRACKETS, AND BRACES!!!1

What part of "adjustable rate mortgage" didn't the mortgage holders understand? Who ever said it was advisable to buy more house than you could actually afford? Who ever said it was good judgment to continually use your home like a piggy bank?

When it came time to pay the piper, many Americans have asked Uncle Sugar, which means you and me and every other taxpayer, to pay him. I don't happen to think that's right.

6/27/2008 12:55:24 AM

^

So far I haven't seen tax payer money being used to fund a bailout of either homeowners or lenders. The government has helped arrange orderly liquidations and seems to be poised to give money for purchasing distressed property but this is different than bailing out risk takers.

As a side note, to give hooksaw his due, the economy remains remarkably strong in the face of all the shocks so far. It looks like we are gearing up for a fourth round of the credit crisis but the first three were taken in relative stride.

6/27/2008 6:23:03 PM

^^first time i ever tried that too

6/29/2008 10:01:16 PM

Oil will go up to $150 tomorrow and stocks will be down sharply again.

6/29/2008 10:12:04 PM

Quote :

"As a side note, to give hooksaw his due, the economy remains remarkably strong in the face of all the shocks so far."

What exactly is "remarkably strong" - anything but recession or stagflation or worse?

6/30/2008 1:00:35 PM

Quote :

"What exactly is "remarkably strong" - anything but recession or stagflation or worse?"

holy crap i agree with chance

6/30/2008 4:19:15 PM

^^ You have to read the second half of his sentence, "...in the face of all the shocks."
I would agree. Considering the economy has faced an historical housing downturn, oil shock and credit crises and has held up as well as it has is quite impressive.

6/30/2008 9:12:34 PM

^^, ^^^ consider the source. kwsmith2 posted this back on page 3:

Quote :

"As for the overall economy, while of course the US economy is impressive, I think we are looking at a likely recession. In the absence of Fed action I think we would be looking at a rather large recession, perhaps, the largest since the Great Depression. I know that sounds rather strong, but the history of debt deflation is not pretty."

So in his mind, anything short of the worst recession in the last 70 years demonstrates a resilient market.

That said, we'll probably see an official bear market this week.

6/30/2008 9:22:02 PM

Quote :

"You have to read the second half of his sentence, "...in the face of all the shocks." I would agree. Considering the economy has faced an historical housing downturn, oil shock and credit crises and has held up as well as it has is quite impressive."

Really? Have you bought into the hooksaw redefinition of what he originally meant with the thread title? I don't consider it impressive that were near or in a recession. What I mean is, that is what I expect out of the US economy. Is that impressive? I suppose, but to say that means we are basically comparing ourselves to our former selves when the economy wasn't so resilient. And that to me, isn't all that impressive, it's just progress in the direction I'd expect us to be going.

[Edited on June 30, 2008 at 9:51 PM. Reason : a]

6/30/2008 9:47:08 PM

I don't think anyone has asserted the economy is in an "impressive" status right now. The term impressive has been used in a relative sense. What is impressive is the fact that the economy is not worse off than it currently is given the magnitude and multitude of shocks it faced and still faces.

7/1/2008 6:53:43 AM

7/2/2008 8:07:40 PM

Quote :

"I don't think anyone has asserted the economy is in an 'impressive' status right now. The term impressive has been used in a relative sense. What is impressive is the fact that the economy is not worse off than it currently is given the magnitude and multitude of shocks it faced and still faces."

Hunt

Nailed it.

Quote :

"How bad are things now? Not all that bad, at least not yet. The average bear market (based on the last 19) lasts an average of a year and a half and marks a 37% decline at its low point. We're nowhere near those benchmarks and those are averages, meaning some bear markets have been significantly worse. For those of you following the Common Sense system for buying and selling (which last called for buying in January), this isn't yet cause for action. The next buying threshold will be 2060 on the Nasdaq, a further 10% drop."

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121496126752321653.html

^


[Edited on July 2, 2008 at 9:40 PM. Reason : .]

7/2/2008 9:29:26 PM

Ok, stop talking about the stock market, alright? The economic health of the entire country does not depend solely on whether stocks go up or down. Right now, we're experiencing massive inflation in food and energy. Don't say that shit doesn't matter either because it does. Last time I checked, those were pretty much the two things people can't do without (beer is a close 3rd). Right now, we're doing shitty as a whole because most Americans are hurting. Bottom line.

7/2/2008 9:33:36 PM

^

Quote :

"I don't think anyone has asserted the economy is in an 'impressive' status right now. The term impressive has been used in a relative sense. What is impressive is the fact that the economy is not worse off than it currently is given the magnitude and multitude of shocks it faced and still faces."

----------------------------------------------

Quote :

"Nondurable goods factory orders climbed in May by 1.2%, after increasing 3.5% in the prior month and 3.1% in March. The big increases likely reflect rising prices for oil and food, which both fall under the broad non-durables category. The Institute for Supply Management on Tuesday reported its June manufacturing index rose to 50.2 from 49.6. The reading, while undescoring weakness, was nonetheless the first positive one since January. Numbers above 50 indicate expansion in the sector."

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121500148124822731.html

7/2/2008 9:40:30 PM

Pretty sure you asserted that the economy is impressive in the title of the thread.

7/2/2008 10:07:48 PM