I guess the sky must be falling over there in Stanford but everwhere else the economy looks rosy
The U.S. economy shot forward at an upwardly revised 5.3 percent annual rate in the first quarter, the fastest growth in 2-1/2 years, as companies built up inventories and exports strengthened, a Commerce Department report on Thursday showed.
Corporations are doing great but that is not the entire picture.
Yeah, you just know it’s real “rosy” when they won’t publish the M3 figures anymore…
The gov’t CPI figures look real “rosy” too! I guess the basic necessities of life on which we gauge inflation are DVD players and computers. Who needs things like food and energy to survive?
Horrible economy, yet I can’t ever find a parking space within 100 yards of the mall or Walmart. That’s my economic indicator. Didn’t check the link, but Stanford is notoriously liberal…hello, it’s in San Francisco.
The wonders of selective quoting…
"
The first-quarter surge in GDP - the largest since a 7.2 percent jump in the third quarter of 2003 - was partly fueled by rebuilding in the hurricane-battered Gulf Coast region. Growth is widely forecast to level off in coming quarters to a range of between 3 percent and 4 percent.
"
So, basically, the economy is “growing” because Governments (Federal, State, Local) continue to inject money – obtained by racking up public debt – into it.
Stroke of genius.
Hey, with some “luck” we might have a bunch of other Katrinas this year to sustain this…
[quote]PGJ wrote:
Didn’t check the link, but Stanford is notoriously liberal…hello, it’s in San Francisco. [/quote]
(sarcasm)
Yeah, it’s quite unfortunate – and a complete coincidence, of course – that the two best Universities on the Planet (Harvard and Stanford) are “notoriously liberal” and set on the two most “notoriously liberal” regions of the US.
(/sarcasm)
Reality has such a liberal bias, doesn’t it?
Britle,
You must have missed the latest d.n.c. memo (you slime).
In it, I believe the goal is to down-play the good economic news.
You MUST remember that the only chance democrats have, is to be the only other party available.
It isn’t ideas, fortitude, representation, or leadership.
It’s backing in by default.
Finally, you must NEVER give credit to the Administration for short circuiting the recession.
Replace argument with easily regurgitated slogans: Halliburton, oil, plame-gate, Bush lied, the rain forest died, the nsa wants to broadcast your subscription to “Chunky Asses,” etc…
So get it together and stop falling for the propaganda.
JeffR
spank-der wrote:
Newsflash: Universities aren’t reality. They are, in fact, an artificial environment.
But, your last quote sounded nice (in a specious way).
JeffR
[quote]hspder wrote:
PGJ wrote:
Didn’t check the link, but Stanford is notoriously liberal…hello, it’s in San Francisco.
(sarcasm)
Yeah, it’s quite unfortunate – and a complete coincidence, of course – that the two best Universities on the Planet (Harvard and Stanford) are “notoriously liberal” and set on the two most “notoriously liberal” regions of the US.
(/sarcasm)
Reality has such a liberal bias, doesn’t it?[/quote]
Stanford best university in the world…hahah…you are probably the only one in the world that would actually make that claim.
and last i checked 3 plus % growth is still pretty damn good
[quote]biltritewave wrote:
and last i checked 3 plus % growth is still pretty damn good[/quote]
The REAL indicator is growth MINUS inflation. If we go down to 3% growth with a 3.3% inflation, it is NOT good.
I wouldn’t say it’s “basically growing” from government infused spending – that’s just a factor:
http://www.bea.gov/bea/newsrelarchive/2006/gdp106p.pdf
Selective quotes:
The major contributors to GDP growth in the 1st quarter were personal consumption expenditures (which grew 5.2%), business equipment and software spending (which grew 13.8%), exports (which grew 14.7%), and federal government spending (which grew 10.5%). Imports, which are a subtraction from GDP, grew 12.8%.
Two other interesting notes:
The preliminary estimate of the 1st-quarter increase in real GDP is $13.3 billion (0.5 percentage point) more than last month’s advance estimate.
The upward revision to GDP growth primarily reflects upward revisions to private inventory investment and to exports. Those revisions were partly offset by downward revisions to personal consumer spending on services and to equipment and software spending by businesses.
I also note that unemployment currently sits at 4.7%, which is well below the average for each of the previous 3 decades (so much for the “jobless recovery” schtick – the jobs had to follow the economic growth).
On the downside, hourly wages have basically been stagnant due in a large measure to increasing inflation, but in the last few upcycles of the economy they have been lagging indicators, and I think that will be the case again.
[quote]biltritewave wrote:
Stanford best university in the world…hahah…you are probably the only one in the world that would actually make that claim.[/quote]
I said HARVARD AND Stanford.
And it’s not my claim – it is the claim of many, many publications and reviewers.
I’m a GSB (Graduate School of Business) professor, so this is an example that is related to me:
[quote]PGJ wrote:
Horrible economy, yet I can’t ever find a parking space within 100 yards of the mall or Walmart. That’s my economic indicator.[/quote]
I know what you mean – the Dollar Store is the same way.
Corporate Profits surge to 40-year high
WASHINGTON (MarketWatch) – U.S. corporate profits have increased 21.3% in the past year and now account for the largest share of national income in 40 years, the Commerce Department said Thursday.
Real Wages Fall at Fastest Rate in 14 Years
The Financial Times
Real wages in the US are falling at their fastest rate in 14 years, according to data surveyed by the Financial Times.
http://www.truthout.org/cgi-bin/artman/exec/view.cgi/37/11022
More families relying on food pantries for help, survey finds
April 29, 2006
The number of Pennsylvania households requiring emergency provisions from food pantries increased for the fourth consecutive year, according to a survey released yesterday by the Pennsylvania Hunger Action Center.
http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/06119/686072-85.stm
[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
I wouldn’t say it’s “basically growing” from government infused spending – that’s just a factor:[/quote]
“just a factor”? What happens if you remove it?
Also, how is consumer DEBT growing, i.e., how much of consumer spending is coming from credit cards?
Remember that salaries (and productivity!) are not increasing as fast as consumer spending – the money has to be coming from somewhere… That “somewhere” is their credit cards.
Seriously, take debt-fueled growth out of the numbers (i.e., increase in spending MINUS increase in debt – both consumer debt and public debt), and then take inflation out too and see what happens.
[quote]hspder wrote:
BostonBarrister wrote:
I wouldn’t say it’s “basically growing” from government infused spending – that’s just a factor:
“just a factor”? What happens if you remove it?
Also, how is consumer DEBT growing, i.e., how much of consumer spending is coming from credit cards?
Remember that salaries (and productivity!) are not increasing as fast as consumer spending – the money has to be coming from somewhere… That “somewhere” is their credit cards.
Seriously, take debt-fueled growth out of the numbers (i.e., increase in spending MINUS increase in debt – both consumer debt and public debt), and then take inflation out too and see what happens.
[/quote]
Yeah - let’s just take everything out of the equation that we don’t like so we can skew the numbers to say whatever we want.
While I agree that consumer debt is a very bad thing, You can’t take that out of the equation. Money is being exchanged for goods and services. The source of that money may be objeectionable to you, but it’s affect on the economy is real.
Do you have to pay Social Security on your salary at Stanford? Since it is really unearned income?
[quote]hspder wrote:
biltritewave wrote:
Stanford best university in the world…hahah…you are probably the only one in the world that would actually make that claim.
I said HARVARD AND Stanford.
And it’s not my claim – it is the claim of many, many publications and reviewers.
I’m a GSB (Graduate School of Business) professor, so this is an example that is related to me:
[/quote]
last i checked they only looked at US universities and i bet yale, Upenn, Dartmouth, MIT, Berkeley,Columbia, Princeton and a slew of other overseas schools would stake claim to that. in terms of name ID harvard kicks everyone’s ass and the fact that you would put stanford in the same category is laughable. There are a group of 10 -15 colleges/unis that are all essentially the same bar the experience you get outside of the classroom…to claim that stanford is the best in the world along with harvard is laughable. I will bet 9 out to 10 people when someone says best university in the world, names Harvard, or Oxford…
FACT: Unemployed Americans ‘drop off’ the unemployement rolls once they can not collect unemployment which is after 6 months.
Our unemployment is actually closer to 8% than 4%.
Rich-Poor Gap Gaining Attention
Washington - The income gap between the rich and the rest of the US population has become so wide, and is growing so fast, that it might eventually threaten the stability of democratic capitalism itself.
Is that a liberal’s talking point? Sure. But it’s also a line from the recent public testimony of a champion of the free market: Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan.
http://www.truthout.org/cgi-bin/artman/exec/view.cgi/37/11852
The ‘Upside-Down’ Economy
http://www.americanprogress.org/site/pp.asp?c=biJRJ8OVF&b=139507
Lagging Investment: The Cost of the Upside-Down Economy
The current economic recovery has been unique in many respects. It was the first “job loss” recovery since World War II. For most of the first two years of the recovery, total employment was below the levels at the start of the recovery. Total compensation growth was the lowest in any post-war recovery. After eight quarters of recovery, total compensation was less than 3 percent higher than at either the start of the recovery or the recession. Simultaneously, after-tax profit rates rose to record highs, marking this as an ‘upside-down’ economy, whereby corporate gains soared and labor’s gains reached new lows.
http://www.americanprogress.org/site/pp.asp?c=biJRJ8OVF&b=106589
Wall Street Bonuses to Hit Record $21.5 Billion in 2005
NEW YORK (Reuters) - Wall Street bonuses are expected to have hit a record $21.5 billion in 2005 from $18.6 billion in 2004 as investment banks reaped record earnings, New York State Comptroller Alan Hevesi said Wednesday.
No holiday bonus at 60% of companies
November 14, 2005
NEW YORK (CNN/Money) - Fifty-nine percent of companies say they won’t be giving out holiday bonuses in any form this year. And of those that will, only 13 percent said they will be giving out bonuses in cash.
http://money.cnn.com/2005/11/14/pf/holiday_bonuses/index.htm?cnn=yes
$13,700 an Hour
The New York Times recently reported that–for the first time–a full-time worker earning minimum wage cannot afford a one-bedroom apartment anywhere in America at market rates.
http://www.thenation.com/docprint.mhtml?i=20060501&s=kvh
Markets ‘are like 1987 crash’
May 21, 2006
CONDITIONS in the financial markets are eerily similar to those that precipitated the “Black Monday” stock market crash of October 1987, according to leading City analysts.
A report by Barclays Capital says the run-up to the 1987 crash was characterised by a widening US current-account deficit, weak dollar, fears of rising inflation, a fading boom in American house prices, and the appointment of a new chairman of the Federal Reserve Board.
“We are very uncomfortable about predicting financial crises, but we cannot help but see a certain similarity between the current economic and market conditions and the environment that led to the stock-market crash of October 1987,” said David Woo, head of global foreign-exchange strategy at Barclays Capital.
[quote]Marmadogg wrote:
FACT: Unemployed Americans ‘drop off’ the unemployement rolls once they can not collect unemployment which is after 6 months.
Our unemployment is actually closer to 8% than 4%.[/quote]
Self-employed Americans do not show up on the list at all. Who do I file with if I fire myself, or I downsize?
You gotta do better than just pullingoff an 8% unemployment figure out of your ass.
Picking and choosing what you want to be true is just idiotic.