The American Economy is Collapsing!

[Tokenconservative]

According to most major economic indicators, the US econmy is chugging along, growing at a decent 4 or 5% every quarter, unemployment is so low that traditional (leftist) Keynesian econmic models can't work within it (Keynes claimed that an economy could only function with an about 10% unemployment level and would implode if it got much lower). Orders for industry (yes, we still have industry) are up, continental transportation is swamped, air traffic is up, housing pricing is up and down...as always, building starts (residential) are down, but...it's winter!

Retail sales this Christmas season are up. Down, slightly over predictions (but they never take into account weather and a HUGE swath of the nation was socked in on Black Friday AND the week before Christmas).

Still, the left-advocacy "news" media is, at every chance saying that the US economy is in a free fall decline bordering (as it has been for at least the last 6 years...) on collapse.

Who is telling the truth? The economic indicators or the left-advocacy media desperate to help Bill Clinton get another term, and to see the Congress handed over to socialists?

Who should we believe?

Tokie

[Ladyhawk]

I don't believe that the American economy is collapsing...but it's hardly thriving, either! Unemployment is at an overall 4.3% nationally, but, individual states are experiencing unemployment rates of 6.3 to 7.4% (Mississippi, Michigan, Alaska, etc). Remember, too, that once a worker has exhausted his/her unemployment benefits, the presumption is that he/she returned to gainful employment. That is, workers who are still unemployed are no longer figured into the unemployment rate.

There is also no denying that the recent wave of foreclosures and the tragedy of the subprime fiasco has adversely impacted many businesses ...not just the housing industry.

And, the IMF reports that the U.S. dollar's share of global-foreign exchange reserves fell to a record low in the third quarter as demand for U.S. assets waned after the subprime mortgage market collapsed. Source: bloomberg.com

I have an admittedly simplistic philosophy on who to believe when it comes to the nay-sayers or the overly optimistic. I look at my standard of living and see if it has changed dramatically for the best or the worst. I know...that sounds very self centered. But, it works for me.

[Nogbad]

According to most major economic indicators, the US econmy is chugging along, growing at a decent 4 or 5% every quarter, unemployment is so low that traditional (leftist) Keynesian econmic models can't work within it (Keynes claimed that an economy could only function with an about 10% unemployment level and would implode if it got much lower). Orders for industry (yes, we still have industry) are up, continental transportation is swamped, air traffic is up, housing pricing is up and down...as always, building starts (residential) are down, but...it's winter!

Retail sales this Christmas season are up. Down, slightly over predictions (but they never take into account weather and a HUGE swath of the nation was socked in on Black Friday AND the week before Christmas).

Still, the left-advocacy "news" media is, at every chance saying that the US economy is in a free fall decline bordering (as it has been for at least the last 6 years...) on collapse.

Who is telling the truth? The economic indicators or the left-advocacy media desperate to help Bill Clinton get another term, and to see the Congress handed over to socialists?

Who should we believe?

Tokie

I don't believe that the US economy is imploding, there are areas of weakness yes and some sectors like housing may stumble a little but I see nothing that suggests other than a normal periodic tightening of the belt.

Equally, I am not sure I believe the numbers above either. I thought US growth was 4% to 5% per annum not a quarter. Also, I studied Keynes at university and I can't recall him saying that 10% unemployment was essential for anything. I do recall the view that it would be hard to reduce unemployment much below 4 or 5% because there will always be people between jobs, needing new skills, businesses restructuring etc., Do you have a source for this interpretation of Keynes' view on unemployment?

[Loss Leader]

Who should we believe?



Why don't you cite just one single article from the news media that says what you are accusing them of saying? Then, we can look at the specific claims made in that article.

Otherwise, the imagined devils with which you haunt yourself are not nearly as interesting to us as they are to you.

[shadron]

Why don't you cite just one single article from the news media that says what you are accusing them of saying? Then, we can look at the specific claims made in that article.

Otherwise, the imagined devils with which you haunt yourself are not nearly as interesting to us as they are to you.

Tokie has already stated, for the record, that he moves from forum to forum as he is kicked off of them in rotation. I suppose it's unfair of us to expect him to come up to expectations that differ a whole lot from what he's used to. Soooo unfair.

I want to see some backup for that 4 to 5% per quarter thing. Even per year (say, this last year).

[Nogbad]

Tokie has already stated, for the record, that he moves from forum to forum as he is kicked off of them in rotation. I suppose it's unfair of us to expect him to come up to expectations that differ a whole lot from what he's used to. Soooo unfair.

I want to see some backup for that 4 to 5% per quarter thing. Even per year (say, this last year).

Bum! I just responded to random figures from a troll didn't I?

Doh!

[Garrette]

Remember, too, that once a worker has exhausted his/her unemployment benefits, the presumption is that he/she returned to gainful employment. That is, workers who are still unemployed are no longer figured into the unemployment rate. I only discovered this significant fact a year and a half ago when I took a position in which it is relevant. Too few people know this, and more should. If everyone went unemployed today and remained unemployed for a decade, the unemployment rate would be 100% for a few months but would suddenly drop to 0% when the benefits expired. It would, of course, not mean that everyone had found jobs; it would simply mean they are no longer being tracked.

Regarding the OP? I'm far from an economist, but my sense is that the American economy is in trouble but far from a basket case. My concerns are more in the long term regarding the relative value of the US dollar and its role as the currency of standard.

[mgilII]

Imo its not collapsing but is decaying, you see more people paying Burger King with credit cards, Euro keeps going up, I wont even meention the oil, SS is in trouble. Over here 7 major pharmaceutical factory closed leaving unemployed thousands of people. The Real state is not moving. This is just my opinion.

[Tokenconservative]

I don't believe that the American economy is collapsing...but it's hardly thriving, either! Unemployment is at an overall 4.3% nationally, but, individual states are experiencing unemployment rates of 6.3 to 7.4% (Mississippi, Michigan, Alaska, etc). Remember, too, that once a worker has exhausted his/her unemployment benefits, the presumption is that he/she returned to gainful employment. That is, workers who are still unemployed are no longer figured into the unemployment rate.

There is also no denying that the recent wave of foreclosures and the tragedy of the subprime fiasco has adversely impacted many businesses ...not just the housing industry.

And, the IMF reports that the U.S. dollar's share of global-foreign exchange reserves fell to a record low in the third quarter as demand for U.S. assets waned after the subprime mortgage market collapsed. Source: bloomberg.com

I have an admittedly simplistic philosophy on who to believe when it comes to the nay-sayers or the overly optimistic. I look at my standard of living and see if it has changed dramatically for the best or the worst. I know...that sounds very self centered. But, it works for me.

Hmm...how's it work out that 50 states (and Guam and Virgin Islands and PR, too?) are experiencing close to 10% unemployment, but nationally the rate is below 5%?

I'll try the math on that later. After some leftover Christmas nog. I'm guessing that sort of math tends to work better both late at night and after kicking a few empties out'en yore way.

And then there is the old saw: it's only this low because so many unemployed have exhausted their unemployment insurance and are now not even being counted!!!

Um...the selfemployed (I is one) far outnumber those and they are NEVER counted.

More funny mathy kinda stuff to work with, eh?

Hmmm....the home foreclosure RATE (key term that you simply will not hear about in your local "news") is below what it was in 1999 (about 6%). So um...have we been in a "crisis/disaster" since 1999, did it turn around at some point since then and then turn BACK into a crisis/disaster...and why was it not called "THE FORECLOSURE CRISIS!!!" in 1999 when it was about 2% higher than now, when today, it is "THE FORECLOSURE CRISIS" when it's 2% lower?

More funny math?

In actual fact, the payments on around 90% of all home mortgages are being made on time and are not in the "at risk" category that would put them um...at risk to join THE FORECLOSURE CRISIS!!! Of course, some of these may go into foreclosure anyway, as happens in ANY market (like say...in oh, 1999, when the economy was only just beginning to slow down from the boom years of 94-2001). Of the remaining 10%, fewer than 1% (around .5% of that 1%) are mortages which are LIKELY to go into foreclosure over the next year because (from the data) it appears the mortgagee will not be able to afford the bump to the higher rate (this involves ARM and HELOC loans, mostly).

That's not a lot. Nationwide, at the peak of THE FORECLOSURE CRISIS in mid-2008, we may see a maxium foreclosure RATE of around 8%, but it's more likely, all other issues considered, and if the crik don't rise (Hillary will not have been in office long enough to have utterly destroyed the economy), that it will settle in around 6% at it's high, then quickly taper back down to the normal 3-4%.

So um...where's THE FORECLOSURE CRISIS, again?

Tokie

[Tokenconservative]

Imo its not collapsing but is decaying, you see more people paying Burger King with credit cards, Euro keeps going up, I wont even meention the oil, SS is in trouble. Over here 7 major pharmaceutical factory closed leaving unemployed thousands of people. The Real state is not moving. This is just my opinion.

Please tell me you are not this economically ignornant and posting in a forum where economic issues are discussed.

More people are using DEBIT cards at Burger King (and also at Sach's 5th Avenue). Just because you don't, and don't know what this is, does not mean they are buying their Whopper (in the 'Kings that still serve them) on credit.

The dollar has dropped only about 1/3 as much this year against foreign currencies (primarily the Euro, also the Canadiad dollar and the Yen) as it did against currencies including the pound, the yen, the Candian dollar the mark and the Franc in the mid-70s to mid 80s. Gas cost about the same in 1980 as it does today.

The cost of living today, is about 1/3 what it was in the 70s and 80s, too. This won't mean anything to you in relation to these other issues, but there it is, nonetheless.

SS has been in trouble for as long as I have been alive (48 years). Real estate has been both moving and not moving for the same period.

I can't predict anything about next year, because we are about to shift from a free market economy into socialism with the election of Hillary Clinton to the presidency and putting a clear majority of socialists in the Sentate, but if we can get over that quickly enough, and get back to free markets, then real estate will probably, after 4-8 years, again move and not move.

And just because the tire recyclin' plant down t' your town closed down, it does not mean the economy is collapsing.

All OTHER indidcators durable goods, industrial orders, transportation, finance, retail, real estate (even tho down t' yer neigbhorhood the Ol' Johannssen place ain't solt yet!), construction starts (excluding residential), import/export, employment, et al., etc., etc., etc., suggest that the economy (US) is fine and chugging right along.

Tokie

[Tokenconservative]

Why don't you cite just one single article from the news media that says what you are accusing them of saying? Then, we can look at the specific claims made in that article.

Otherwise, the imagined devils with which you haunt yourself are not nearly as interesting to us as they are to you.

Let me see if I understand you: you want me to cite an article from the left-advocacy "news" in which they say "we are the left-advocacy 'news' and we are trying to destroy the US econmy in order to get Hitlery elected and to turn the US Congress over to other socialists."

Say, I have a better idear. Why don't I find a document with Hitler's signature and the term "Final Solution" on it, instead?

It'd be much easier than getting the left-advocacy media to admit that is left-advocacy and that it's trying to influence this election by ginning up fears about the economy and blaming "teh Republicans!!@!!" for the bad econonomy they are saying exists but which actually doesn't.

Better idea: whyn't you run a poll in here and see how many of the people who post in here are doing so from a homeless shelter.

Of course, being a lefty, you will have to push your poll and won't put it like that, you'll say "how many of you 'feel' the economy is in trouble." My, very to the point!

Sheesh.

Tokie

[Wolfman]

Tokie,

You made a claim that "the left-advocacy 'news"' media is, at every chance saying that the US economy is in a free fall decline bordering...on collapse." I believe that Loss Leader's question was in relation to you actually providing proof of that claim by providing links to "left-advocacy news media" that makes such a claim.

Yet your response is even more interesting. First, you say that the "leftist media" is saying these things; then you turn around and, so far as I can make out from your rantings, claim that the leftist media is in fact hiding such information, and not making such claims...and its all linked to some sort of bizarre Hitler-esque kind of logic.

I've gotta' say, I love your style. Here is, essentially, the quintessential TokenConservative argument, all wrapped up for easy consumption.

1) Make a general claim, and state that it is an absolute fact.

2) List various figures, percentages, statistics, etc., that support your argument...but be very careful to never provide any source for such figures. Instead, simply assume that everyone should just take your word for it.

3) When people do not take your word for it, employ a strategy of A) calling them liberals, and/or B) invoking some kind of conspiracy plot. Then refuse to provide any substantiating proof for your claims, because you do not feel any responsibility to answer people who are either liberals or conspiracists.

4) If people actually have the audacity to provide proof that the claims you make are completely wrong, ignore them entirely; or dismiss it as irrelevant. A person who is as dedicated to the truuuuuuuuuuuuuuth as you are does not need to worry themselves over such tiny things as blatant lies, and claims that are proven to be patently false.

5) Return to step 1.

I will now give an example of how this process works.

Step 1 & 2 -- You make a claim that, 'The cost of living today, is about 1/3 what it was in the 70s and 80s, too." True to Tokie form, you provide no evidence of this claim whatsoever, you simply state it as a fact.

Step 3 -- I'm going to ask you to provide some sort of proof of your claim, or a source of where you got your information from. I am very confident that you will entirely fail to do so, most likely by employing one of the same tactics I've listed above.

Step 4 -- Doing just a little bit of research, I found an article (http://www.cbpp.org/8-31-06mw.htm)which quite blatantly contradicts your claim. It says, among other things, that, "While since September 1997 the minimum wage has remained at $5.15 an hour, the cost-of-living has risen by 26 percent. After adjusting for inflation, the value of the minimum wage is at its lowest level since 1955." This provides us with two pieces of information. First, in just TEN YEARS, the cost of living in the US has increased by 26 percent! And the minimum wage has NOT CHANGED AT ALL during that time. Furthermore, the comparable value of the minimum wage has not been this low since 1955!!

Step 5 -- Now, everybody can just sit back and watch as you follow your tried-and-true procedures, and not only fail entirely to back up any of your claims, but will A) dismiss me as a liberal, or other similar negative attributions that seek to make people forget the fact that you can't support a damn thing you're talking about, and B) will turn around and cite even MORE "facts and figures" that will, likewise, have no substantiation or source whatsoever. And the merry little dance starts all over again.

[Michael Redman]

The US unemployment rate is not measured by counting people getting unemployment insurance benefits. This is an age old myth, perhaps perpetuated by the fact that the government often announces the number of new UI benefit applications at the same time it announces other economic indicators, including the unemployment rate.

The US Bureau of Labor Statistics calculates the national unemployment rate via the Current Population Survey, a monthly survey of approximately 60,000 households. The interviewers ask a wide range of questions about each person in the household. People are classified as "unemployed" if they are jobless, seeking work, and available for work. UI benefit status is not considered.

[Nogbad]

Let me see if I understand you: you want me to cite an article from the left-advocacy "news" in which they say "we are the left-advocacy 'news' and we are trying to destroy the US econmy in order to get Hitlery elected and to turn the US Congress over to other socialists."

Say, I have a better idear. Why don't I find a document with Hitler's signature and the term "Final Solution" on it, instead?

It'd be much easier than getting the left-advocacy media to admit that is left-advocacy and that it's trying to influence this election by ginning up fears about the economy and blaming "teh Republicans!!@!!" for the bad econonomy they are saying exists but which actually doesn't.

Better idea: whyn't you run a poll in here and see how many of the people who post in here are doing so from a homeless shelter.

Of course, being a lefty, you will have to push your poll and won't put it like that, you'll say "how many of you 'feel' the economy is in trouble." My, very to the point!

Sheesh.

Tokie

Godwin's Law invoked and we are only on the first page

Sheesh indeed.

[PAC]

Is there any substance to the posts of Tokenconservative? They tend to be filler in order to repeatedly mention his great fear words...liberal, left, democrat. How is any of this to be considered rational thought when the basis is fear?

[Tokenconservative]

Is there any substance to the posts of Tokenconservative? They tend to be filler in order to repeatedly mention his great fear words...liberal, left, democrat. How is any of this to be considered rational thought when the basis is fear?

PAC.

As in MoveOnPAC?

How much are they up to? I mean per-post payment to guys like you?

When will you be moving out of your Mom's basement, by the way?

Tokie

[Tokenconservative]

Godwin's Law invoked and we are only on the first page

Sheesh indeed.

LOL!

What n00bery.

Tokie

[Nogbad]

LOL!

What n00bery.

Tokie

:D

What trollery

[Tokenconservative]

The US unemployment rate is not measured by counting people getting unemployment insurance benefits. This is an age old myth, perhaps perpetuated by the fact that the government often announces the number of new UI benefit applications at the same time it announces other economic indicators, including the unemployment rate.

The US Bureau of Labor Statistics calculates the national unemployment rate via the Current Population Survey, a monthly survey of approximately 60,000 households. The interviewers ask a wide range of questions about each person in the household. People are classified as "unemployed" if they are jobless, seeking work, and available for work. UI benefit status is not considered.

Cool.

So the nonsense about all them po' folk what done got demselves discouraged from all dem "Not Hiring!" signs and has gone home to watch Wheel and sulk, is just that: nonsense.

I can't say that I like the way it's actually done a whole lot, but at least it works better than relying on myths about all dem po' folk.

Tokie

[Tokenconservative]

Tokie,

You made a claim that "the left-advocacy 'news"' media is, at every chance saying that the US economy is in a free fall decline bordering...on collapse." I believe that Loss Leader's question was in relation to you actually providing proof of that claim by providing links to "left-advocacy news media" that makes such a claim.

Yet your response is even more interesting. First, you say that the "leftist media" is saying these things; then you turn around and, so far as I can make out from your rantings, claim that the leftist media is in fact hiding such information, and not making such claims...and its all linked to some sort of bizarre Hitler-esque kind of logic.

I've gotta' say, I love your style. Here is, essentially, the quintessential TokenConservative argument, all wrapped up for easy consumption.

1) Make a general claim, and state that it is an absolute fact.

2) List various figures, percentages, statistics, etc., that support your argument...but be very careful to never provide any source for such figures. Instead, simply assume that everyone should just take your word for it.

3) When people do not take your word for it, employ a strategy of A) calling them liberals, and/or B) invoking some kind of conspiracy plot. Then refuse to provide any substantiating proof for your claims, because you do not feel any responsibility to answer people who are either liberals or conspiracists.

4) If people actually have the audacity to provide proof that the claims you make are completely wrong, ignore them entirely; or dismiss it as irrelevant. A person who is as dedicated to the truuuuuuuuuuuuuuth as you are does not need to worry themselves over such tiny things as blatant lies, and claims that are proven to be patently false.

5) Return to step 1.

I will now give an example of how this process works.

Step 1 & 2 -- You make a claim that, 'The cost of living today, is about 1/3 what it was in the 70s and 80s, too." True to Tokie form, you provide no evidence of this claim whatsoever, you simply state it as a fact.

Step 3 -- I'm going to ask you to provide some sort of proof of your claim, or a source of where you got your information from. I am very confident that you will entirely fail to do so, most likely by employing one of the same tactics I've listed above.

Step 4 -- Doing just a little bit of research, I found an article (http://www.cbpp.org/8-31-06mw.htm)which quite blatantly contradicts your claim. It says, among other things, that, "While since September 1997 the minimum wage has remained at $5.15 an hour, the cost-of-living has risen by 26 percent. After adjusting for inflation, the value of the minimum wage is at its lowest level since 1955." This provides us with two pieces of information. First, in just TEN YEARS, the cost of living in the US has increased by 26 percent! And the minimum wage has NOT CHANGED AT ALL during that time. Furthermore, the comparable value of the minimum wage has not been this low since 1955!!

Step 5 -- Now, everybody can just sit back and watch as you follow your tried-and-true procedures, and not only fail entirely to back up any of your claims, but will A) dismiss me as a liberal, or other similar negative attributions that seek to make people forget the fact that you can't support a damn thing you're talking about, and B) will turn around and cite even MORE "facts and figures" that will, likewise, have no substantiation or source whatsoever. And the merry little dance starts all over again.


I have a question about this rather extraordinary effort directed at lil' ol' me:

Are you a fan?



Or are you a stalker?


Tokie

[Tokenconservative]

:D

What trollery

Do n00bs troll?

Or are trolls given to n00bery?

To-may-to, to-mah-to?

Or, mayhaps, you supply an answer in the affirmative to both?

Tokie

[Nogbad]

Do n00bs troll?

Or are trolls given to n00bery?

To-may-to, to-mah-to?

Or, mayhaps, you supply an answer in the affirmative to both?

Tokie

Anything other than "to mah to" is clearly as flawed as your understanding of Keynesian economics which you have still not sourced I see.

As to noobs and trolls I believe they mix and match but a noob can certainly identify a troll and vice versa.

Did you ever partake in the old Yahoo message boards? I recognise something of the style - although to be fair that place was awash with trolls, trolls of the right, left and just plain confused.

[Tokenconservative]

Anything other than "to mah to" is clearly as flawed as your understanding of Keynesian economics which you have still not sourced I see.

As to noobs and trolls I believe they mix and match but a noob can certainly identify a troll and vice versa.

Did you ever partake in the old Yahoo message boards? I recognise something of the style - although to be fair that place was awash with trolls, trolls of the right, left and just plain confused.

My knowledge of Keynesian economics is minimal, at best. I know enough to know that this flawed theory, one which you on the left wholeheartedly must embrace in order for your worldview to work, regardless of the fact that it's been so thoroughly repudiated time and time again...whatever, right? Mussolini DID make the trains run on time, did he not?

Once does not need to source Keynesian economics any more than one needs to source say, Adam Smith. The identification IS the source.

Why you would assume that my knowledge, limited as it is, would come from someplace to which you might link--LIIIIINNNKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKK!!!--speaks ill of you sir, not I.

I have never been on a Yahoo forum, though I've been kicked out of countless others.

If I was on another forum you frequented, you would know it, as I've been using this monikker for about a decade now.

Tokie

[TShaitanaku]

(...) Um...the selfemployed (I is one) far outnumber those and they are NEVER counted.(...)
Tokie

Bureau of Labor Statistics, Office of Productivity and Technology
Major Sector Productivity and Costs March 31, 2006
Construction of Employment and Hours for Self-employed and other Nonfarm workers and for all Farm workers, using Current Population Survey data for primary and secondary jobs. (http://www.bls.gov/lpc/lprjobsnote.pdf)

[Ladyhawk]

Hmm...how's it work out that 50 states (and Guam and Virgin Islands and PR, too?) are experiencing close to 10% unemployment, but nationally the rate is below 5%?

I dunno. I never said each of the 50 states had a 10% unemployment rate. You did.

I'll try the math on that later. After some leftover Christmas nog. I'm guessing that sort of math tends to work better both late at night and after kicking a few empties out'en yore way.

I wouldn't know. I'll defer to your self professed experience.

And then there is the old saw: it's only this low because so many unemployed have exhausted their unemployment insurance and are now not even being counted!!!

Um...the selfemployed (I is one) far outnumber those and they are NEVER counted.

More funny mathy kinda stuff to work with, eh?

TShai already caught you on this one.

Hmmm....the home foreclosure RATE (key term that you simply will not hear about in your local "news") is below what it was in 1999 (about 6%). So um...have we been in a "crisis/disaster" since 1999, did it turn around at some point since then and then turn BACK into a crisis/disaster...and why was it not called "THE FORECLOSURE CRISIS!!!" in 1999 when it was about 2% higher than now, when today, it is "THE FORECLOSURE CRISIS" when it's 2% lower?

The number of homes entering some stage of foreclosure -- from notice of default to bank ownership -- increased 45% in January from the same period a year earlier, according to Irvine, Calif.-based RealtyTrac. That was one new foreclosure for every 1,117 U.S. households. The areas of the country with the highest foreclosure rates on a per capita basis were Georgia, Nevada and Colorado. One out of every 422 households was in some stage of foreclosure in Georgia in January -- an 88% jump from the previous year. Georgia also came in at No. 5 for the highest total number of foreclosures.
Nevada was second, with 1,795 properties entering foreclosure; 2 1/2 times the number reported the year before and one for every 483 households.
Colorado came in at No. 3, with a 36% rise to 3,747 properties, or one in every 488 households. (from Msn.realestate)

If you need more proof, I suggest you use 'google'. There are 10 states in 'foreclosure crisis' mode. That's 20% of the country, Tokie. 20%.

In actual fact, the payments on around 90% of all home mortgages are being made on time and are not in the "at risk" category that would put them um...at risk to join THE FORECLOSURE CRISIS!!! Of course, some of these may go into foreclosure anyway, as happens in ANY market (like say...in oh, 1999, when the economy was only just beginning to slow down from the boom years of 94-2001). Of the remaining 10%, fewer than 1% (around .5% of that 1%) are mortages which are LIKELY to go into foreclosure over the next year because (from the data) it appears the mortgagee will not be able to afford the bump to the higher rate (this involves ARM and HELOC loans, mostly).

Ok, first, let's agree that you should stay away from terms like "in actual fact" coz it seems you can never provide a source for these so called facts. Secondly, words like 'some...may...likely.....appears that.', don't exactly boost my confidence level. Hey, I can conjecturize, too. But, that don't make it true....do it??

[PAC]

PAC.

As in MoveOnPAC?

How much are they up to? I mean per-post payment to guys like you?

When will you be moving out of your Mom's basement, by the way?

Tokie

I appreciate your effort to confirm my thoughts!

[DavidJames]

anybody else notice when tokie returned Cicero stopped posting?

[Nogbad]

My knowledge of Keynesian economics is minimal, at best. I know enough to know that this flawed theory, one which you on the left wholeheartedly must embrace in order for your worldview to work, regardless of the fact that it's been so thoroughly repudiated time and time again...whatever, right? Mussolini DID make the trains run on time, did he not?

Once does not need to source Keynesian economics any more than one needs to source say, Adam Smith. The identification IS the source.

Why you would assume that my knowledge, limited as it is, would come from someplace to which you might link--LIIIIINNNKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKK!!!--speaks ill of you sir, not I.

I have never been on a Yahoo forum, though I've been kicked out of countless others.

If I was on another forum you frequented, you would know it, as I've been using this monikker for about a decade now.

Tokie

I would agree that in the run of things one would not need to source Keynes, Adam Smith or Friedman as their writings are widely available and understood. I was more interested in the 10% unemployment figure you quoted as it is not something I have ever seen before (whether from detractors of Keynes or supporters) and assumed that you were quoting some secondary source. I was intrigued as to how they could come to such a conclusion.

As to Mussolini and trains I am less sure - did they run on time or did he just shoot anybody who complained?

The Yahoo boards are alas no more - they were an unmoderated mud pit where anything went (which is why I think they are no more). They could be hugely entertaining though despite 99% of it being very silly (for example no coverage of a space related news item went unsullied by umpteen Uranus jokes).

[bruto]

According to most major economic indicators, the US econmy is chugging along, growing at a decent 4 or 5% every quarter, unemployment is so low that traditional (leftist) Keynesian econmic models can't work within it (Keynes claimed that an economy could only function with an about 10% unemployment level and would implode if it got much lower). Orders for industry (yes, we still have industry) are up, continental transportation is swamped, air traffic is up, housing pricing is up and down...as always, building starts (residential) are down, but...it's winter!

Retail sales this Christmas season are up. Down, slightly over predictions (but they never take into account weather and a HUGE swath of the nation was socked in on Black Friday AND the week before Christmas).

Still, the left-advocacy "news" media is, at every chance saying that the US economy is in a free fall decline bordering (as it has been for at least the last 6 years...) on collapse.

Who is telling the truth? The economic indicators or the left-advocacy media desperate to help Bill Clinton get another term, and to see the Congress handed over to socialists?

Who should we believe?

Tokie

Maybe we should believe the people who actually listen to or read those so-called left-advocacy media, something you have pointedly stated in the past that you do not do. Why should we believe what you report about things of which you are explicitly, arrogantly and proudly declaring your ignorance?

I know you're allergic to links, but why should anybody believe anything you allege. Do you really delude yourself that anybody considers you a reliable source for anything resembling accuracy or truth?

e.t.a. a minimal bit of research, something I realize you find as objectionable as citing links, would, I think, reveal that Mussolini did not actually make the trains run on time.

[mgilII]

Please tell me you are not this economically ignornant and posting in a forum where economic issues are discussed.

More people are using DEBIT cards at Burger King (and also at Sach's 5th Avenue). Just because you don't, and don't know what this is, does not mean they are buying their Whopper (in the 'Kings that still serve them) on credit.

The dollar has dropped only about 1/3 as much this year against foreign currencies (primarily the Euro, also the Canadiad dollar and the Yen) as it did against currencies including the pound, the yen, the Candian dollar the mark and the Franc in the mid-70s to mid 80s. Gas cost about the same in 1980 as it does today.

The cost of living today, is about 1/3 what it was in the 70s and 80s, too. This won't mean anything to you in relation to these other issues, but there it is, nonetheless.

SS has been in trouble for as long as I have been alive (48 years). Real estate has been both moving and not moving for the same period.

I can't predict anything about next year, because we are about to shift from a free market economy into socialism with the election of Hillary Clinton to the presidency and putting a clear majority of socialists in the Sentate, but if we can get over that quickly enough, and get back to free markets, then real estate will probably, after 4-8 years, again move and not move.

And just because the tire recyclin' plant down t' your town closed down, it does not mean the economy is collapsing.

All OTHER indidcators durable goods, industrial orders, transportation, finance, retail, real estate (even tho down t' yer neigbhorhood the Ol' Johannssen place ain't solt yet!), construction starts (excluding residential), import/export, employment, et al., etc., etc., etc., suggest that the economy (US) is fine and chugging right along.

Tokie

Where do you get all this info I would love to start reading the same good news you read. :p

The factories I mentioned are Fotune 500(GSK,Proctle&Gamble,Pfizer,etc) factories closing due to a loss of patents,they have been here for more than 30years.

The unemployement over here(PR) is a record breaking 15% and dont bother searching it on google because the media and the political power here are owned by the same family. You might be right probably Im just lookin at local indicators.

[Tokenconservative]

I dunno. I never said each of the 50 states had a 10% unemployment rate. You did.

I wouldn't know. I'll defer to your self professed experience.

TShai already caught you on this one.

The number of homes entering some stage of foreclosure -- from notice of default to bank ownership -- increased 45% in January from the same period a year earlier, according to Irvine, Calif.-based RealtyTrac. That was one new foreclosure for every 1,117 U.S. households. The areas of the country with the highest foreclosure rates on a per capita basis were Georgia, Nevada and Colorado. One out of every 422 households was in some stage of foreclosure in Georgia in January -- an 88% jump from the previous year. Georgia also came in at No. 5 for the highest total number of foreclosures.
Nevada was second, with 1,795 properties entering foreclosure; 2 1/2 times the number reported the year before and one for every 483 households.
Colorado came in at No. 3, with a 36% rise to 3,747 properties, or one in every 488 households. (from Msn.realestate)

If you need more proof, I suggest you use 'google'. There are 10 states in 'foreclosure crisis' mode. That's 20% of the country, Tokie. 20%.



Ok, first, let's agree that you should stay away from terms like "in actual fact" coz it seems you can never provide a source for these so called facts. Secondly, words like 'some...may...likely.....appears that.', don't exactly boost my confidence level. Hey, I can conjecturize, too. But, that don't make it true....do it??

Um, no...actually someone (maybe you, I am not a stalker) said the unemployment rate in the individual states was (avg.) around 10%. I just rounded and went with that number allowing...limited thinkers to get a better grasp on it.

Caught me on ...um, what "one"?

Foreclosure. The number of homes, while this, obviously, plays into the rate is not the rate of foreclosure. Why do lefty alarmists like you tend to toss around the biggest number you can find "45%!!! Auuuugggghhhhhhhhhh!!!!" rather than working with the numbers the industry uses?

The percentage of homes currently being impacted by the "FORECLOSURE CRISSSIIISSSSSSSSSSSS!!!" is under 5% nationwide (lower than the 6% in 1999 when...gosh, I forget...who was president?) and is not expected to peak at more than 5% at the height of the "FORECLOSURE CRISSSIIISSSSSSSSSSSS!!!" the middle of next year.

I'm sorry these numbers don't gin panic up the way you, as an anti-American, socialist fearmonger would like, but there they are, nonetheless!

But be of good cheer! With the left-advocacy "news" media, as desperate as you to see socialists destroying...er, ruining...damn, RUNNING America, you can only expect more conflation of terms, muddling of numbers and flat out lying running up to the Crowning...er, election of Hillary to the Throne...damn! White House.

Tokie

[Tokenconservative]

Where do you get all this info I would love to start reading the same good news you read. :p

The factories I mentioned are Fotune 500(GSK,Proctle&Gamble,Pfizer,etc) factories closing due to a loss of patents,they have been here for more than 30years.

The unemployement over here(PR) is a record breaking 15% and dont bother searching it on google because the media and the political power here are owned by the same family. You might be right probably Im just lookin at local indicators.

LOL!

Let me see if I follow you here: Tokie must provide links--LIIIIIIINNNKKKKKKSSSSSS!!!!--if he states, "poop stinks," but we need only rely on your assurance that in PR (?) factories are closing left and right, factories that have been there since Moses, by the way, and that the proof of this is being hidden from the public by a mighty conspiracy of "controlled" media eeeehhhiiiivvviiilll industry masters planning it all out in their Star Chamber.

I get my good news from various sources, one is by CAREFULLY reading business reports in readily available sources and understanding that (shocker!) most business reporters know nothing about economics or business and are the same sorts of anti-free market socialists as anyone writing political news.

For example, when a report says "Increase not as much as expected! Insiders leaping from their windows!" what this really means is that a predicted increase in earnings or growth or orders or whatever, is smaller than had been hoped for, but is still bigger than it was last year.

The leftist (your) media, driven by the same desperate need that drives you (destruction of America) report it this way because they know how people read such printed news. Of course in broadcast news they just say "growth down!" and leave it at that.

It's not my fault you are a credulous rube who doen't understand this stuff, and it's also not my fault you believe "they" are out to get you.

Seek help, is all I can offer.

Tokie

[Tokenconservative]

Maybe we should believe the people who actually listen to or read those so-called left-advocacy media, something you have pointedly stated in the past that you do not do. Why should we believe what you report about things of which you are explicitly, arrogantly and proudly declaring your ignorance?

I know you're allergic to links, but why should anybody believe anything you allege. Do you really delude yourself that anybody considers you a reliable source for anything resembling accuracy or truth?

e.t.a. a minimal bit of research, something I realize you find as objectionable as citing links, would, I think, reveal that Mussolini did not actually make the trains run on time.

I'm sort of forced to read--carefully-- the left-advocacy, anti-capitalist, anti-American media. I just have to know HOW to read it. You believe you do, because it tells you what you want to hear: our economy is collapsing.

I look elsewhere, to industry reports and such: transportation: up. Industria (domestic) orders: up. Consumer spending: up. Real estate (commercial) starts: up . Energy prices: down. Retail spending: up. Etc., etc.

You read things in your (leftist, anti-American) media which play into your desires (socialist America is needed) and get out of it what you want to prop up your beliefs.

I read the data and recognize what it means.

I don't care whether you believe me or not. Why would I? Who the hell are you to me?

e.t.a? Are you really this ignorant? I HATE explaining these obvious things. That's an allusion to the fact that everybody knows that he didn't, but that because he said the trains must run on time, they did, or someone got shot. How ignorant of common, everyday colloquialisms are you?

Try to use your brain for something other than a ready repository for leftist platitudes, slogans, screed and cant, won't you?

Tokie

[Miss Whiplash]

I'm sort of forced to read--carefully-- the left-advocacy, anti-capitalist, anti-American media. I just have to know HOW to read it. You believe you do, because it tells you what you want to hear: our economy is collapsing.

I look elsewhere, to industry reports and such: transportation: up. Industria (domestic) orders: up. Consumer spending: up. Real estate (commercial) starts: up . Energy prices: down. Retail spending: up. Etc., etc.

You read things in your (leftist, anti-American) media which play into your desires (socialist America is needed) and get out of it what you want to prop up your beliefs.

I read the data and recognize what it means.

I don't care whether you believe me or not. Why would I? Who the hell are you to me?

e.t.a? Are you really this ignorant? I HATE explaining these obvious things. That's an allusion to the fact that everybody knows that he didn't, but that because he said the trains must run on time, they did, or someone got shot. How ignorant of common, everyday colloquialisms are you?

Try to use your brain for something other than a ready repository for leftist platitudes, slogans, screed and cant, won't you?

Tokie


Someone has been partying with the deaf, bald pillhead and that cocaine fueled closet Lesbian again.

[Tokenconservative]

Someone has been partying with the deaf, bald pillhead and that cocaine fueled closet Lesbian again.

Garshkt!!!

I shorely been done tolded!!

[Zalbik]

Still, the left-advocacy "news" media is, at every chance saying that the US economy is in a free fall decline bordering (as it has been for at least the last 6 years...) on collapse.


I don't believe the media says that at all. Can you back up this assertion with some evidence?

[Tokenconservative]

I don't believe the media says that at all. Can you back up this assertion with some evidence?

Back up which assertion? That you don't believe the media?

Tokie

[UserGoogol]

That the media makes those assertions, obviously. Can you link to an article from a relatively mainstream news source that says that the economy is in a freefall?

[bruto]

I'm sort of forced to read--carefully-- the left-advocacy, anti-capitalist, anti-American media. I just have to know HOW to read it. You believe you do, because it tells you what you want to hear: our economy is collapsing.

I look elsewhere, to industry reports and such: transportation: up. Industria (domestic) orders: up. Consumer spending: up. Real estate (commercial) starts: up . Energy prices: down. Retail spending: up. Etc., etc.

You read things in your (leftist, anti-American) media which play into your desires (socialist America is needed) and get out of it what you want to prop up your beliefs.

I read the data and recognize what it means.

I don't care whether you believe me or not. Why would I? Who the hell are you to me?

e.t.a? Are you really this ignorant? I HATE explaining these obvious things. That's an allusion to the fact that everybody knows that he didn't, but that because he said the trains must run on time, they did, or someone got shot. How ignorant of common, everyday colloquialisms are you?

Try to use your brain for something other than a ready repository for leftist platitudes, slogans, screed and cant, won't you?

Tokie

As usual, you totally misread what I said and what I meant. I am not disputing your view of what the economy is up to. I am saying that you are lying about what the media say, because you are misinformed, misreading what you see, or depending on the lies of others instead of actually looking at what is there. You continue not only to speak nonsense and lies but to misinterpret and misattribute everything I say when I call you on it. If you say all the so-called left liberal media are saying the economy is in collapse, show me where they're saying it. I don't happen to think the economy is doing as well as you do, or as well as it should, but neither do I believe it is in a state of collapse, and I certainly don't hope it is, considering my dependence on capitalism for my continuing prosperity ; In my newspaper I am not reading or hearing messages of collapse and doom, and on the radio I'm not hearing them. If you are, show me where you're seeing this, or stop lying about it. Link it or zip it.

[Zalbik]

Back up which assertion? That you don't believe the media?

Tokie

I would like you to back up the following assertion:

"the left-advocacy "news" media is, at every chance saying that the US economy is in a free fall decline bordering (as it has been for at least the last 6 years...) on collapse."

[Abe_the_Man]

I am certainly no expert on the American economy but we hear a lot about it up here because the Canadian economy is so closely tied to it. Right now the Canadian economy is doing very well but according to the cbc evening news economists are worried about the slowing American economy causing problems for us. It has never been suggested that it is 'on the brink of collapse' but merely slowing down.

[Tokenconservative]

DOW:
2006 close: 12463.15
2007 close: 13264.62
up (+) 6.4%

Nasdaq:
2006 2415.29
2007 2652.28
up (+) 9.8%

S&P 500
2006 1418.30
2007 146.36
up (+) 3.5%

There it is folks, in black and white.

All of them are up over last year.

This can mean only one thing.....


TEOTWAWKI!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Soapy Sam]

...and that's in a year when not one single asteroid impacted the Earth...

[Tokenconservative]

...and that's in a year when not one single asteroid impacted the Earth...

Two words: Al Gore.

Tokie

[SomeGuy]

How many points did they gain if you express this in Euro's?

The extremely weak dollar gives a false impression of growth when there is none.

[Nogbad]

Two words: Al Gore.

Tokie

http://www.illwillpress.com/vault.html

First toon A Gorephobia :D

[egslim]

How many points did they gain if you express this in Euro's?

The extremely weak dollar gives a false impression of growth when there is none.
Quick and dirty readout: (http://finance.yahoo.com/currency/convert?from=USD&to=EUR&amt=1&t=2y)
January 1 2007: $1 = € 0.763
December 31 2007: $1 = € 0.695

Multiplying the points by their respective exchange rates:

DOW:
2006 close: 9509.4
2007 close: 9218.9
down (-) 3.1%

Nasdaq:
2006 1842.9
2007 1843.3
up (+) 0.0%

S&P 500
2006 1082.2
2007 1017.2 (guessed the typo)
down (-) 6.4%

Not so good.

[Nogbad]

Quick and dirty readout: (http://finance.yahoo.com/currency/convert?from=USD&to=EUR&amt=1&t=2y)
January 1 2007: $1 = € 0.763
December 31 2007: $1 = € 0.695

Multiplying the points by their respective exchange rates:

DOW:
2006 close: 9509.4
2007 close: 9218.9
down (-) 3.1%

Nasdaq:
2006 1842.9
2007 1843.3
up (+) 0.0%

S&P 500
2006 1082.2
2007 1017.2 (guessed the typo)
down (-) 6.4%

Not so good.

Those are fair points and I think it would be fair to say that trading conditions are at best volatile but they are a long way from collapse.

Fuel prices are a major problem as they are in real terms almost as high as the hikes in the 70s/80s. However, then we had major recessions each time the prices were hiked and this time we have ridden the tiger rather better (there is still an opportunity to fall off and get a good savaging but it hasn't happened yet). The markets are sensitive to sentiment and sometimes fall based on speculation and rumour rather than economic realities. This could easily happen on the basis of concern about debts, trade, oil and interest rates becoming a self-fulfilling prophecy.

[Francesca R]

I wouldn't call it collapse, but an economic recession (declining real GDP over a couple of quarters) is quite likely for the US. And several other places probably.

15:24 02Jan2008 RTRS-UPDATE 1-U.S. manufacturing sector contracts in December-ISM

NEW YORK, Jan 2 (Reuters) - U.S. factory activity contracted in December, ending 10 consecutive months of expansion, with activity falling to its weakest since April 2003, according to an industry report released on Wednesday.
The Institute for Supply Management said its index of national factory activity fell to 47.7 in December from 50.8 in November, below economists' median forecast for a reading of 50.4. A reading below 50 indicates contraction in the sector.
New orders, a gauge of future growth, fell sharply to 45.7 last month -- its lowest since October 2001 -- from 52.6 in November.
The December employment index rose slightly to 48.0 from 47.8 in November, while the ISM prices paid index, which measures inflationary pressures within the factory sector, rose to 68.0 in December from 67.5.
U.S. Treasury debt prices surged after the release of the report, while U.S. stocks fell sharply.

[egslim]

Those are fair points and I think it would be fair to say that trading conditions are at best volatile but they are a long way from collapse.
No argument from me there. Personally I don't attach that much value to the stock markets as economic indicators anyway. But the fact remains that if you had bought Euros and stuffed them under the bed for a year, you would have been better off than if you had played the stock market and managed to match the DOW's rate. Therefore the DOW's rate is a poor argument if you want to argue that the US economy is doing well, which was my main point.

Fuel prices are a major problem as they are in real terms almost as high as the hikes in the 70s/80s. However, then we had major recessions each time the prices were hiked and this time we have ridden the tiger rather better (there is still an opportunity to fall off and get a good savaging but it hasn't happened yet). The markets are sensitive to sentiment and sometimes fall based on speculation and rumour rather than economic realities. This could easily happen on the basis of concern about debts, trade, oil and interest rates becoming a self-fulfilling prophecy.
True. But I believe a robust economy does not have to be so vulnerable to public sentiment. For example, with a proper savingsrate a stock market crash does far less damage because people have the necessary savings to tide them over. An interest rate hike causes many more defaults if people are heavily in debt.
And I feel that the economy is too important to leave it at the mercy of something as volatile and vulnerable as public confidence.

[Mister Agenda]

Why should I have a higher savings rate when the interest on savings accounts is less than the inflation rate? We are really about due for an interest rate hike to reduce inflation and encourage savings, IMHO.

[Francesca R]

No argument from me there. Personally I don't attach that much value to the stock markets as economic indicators anyway. But the fact remains that if you had bought Euros and stuffed them under the bed for a year, you would have been better off than if you had played the stock market and managed to match the DOW's rate.
Therefore the DOW's rate is a poor argument if you want to argue that the US economy is doing well, which was my main point.

Agreed but for different reasons. The opportunity cost of investing (in anything) is relevant and was overlooked in the OP. The S&P500 index return is lower than the interest rate would have been on cash, yet a lot more risky. And it was significantly lower than the return on government bonds.

But I believe a robust economy does not have to be so vulnerable to public sentiment. [ . . . ] And I feel that the economy is too important to leave it at the mercy of something as volatile and vulnerable as public confidence.That sounds like an argument in favour of a very high government share of GDP (consumption and investment). Or do you have another recommendation?

For example, with a proper savingsrate a stock market crash does far less damage because people have the necessary savings to tide them over. An interest rate hike causes many more defaults if people are heavily in debt.
What is a proper savings rate?

[egslim]

Why should I have a higher savings rate when the interest on savings accounts is less than the inflation rate?
Because savings provide a far more reliable safety net against unforeseen difficulties than stocks.

We are really about due for an interest rate hike to reduce inflation and encourage savings, IMHO.
Raising the interest rate is painful, but not raising it weakens the dollar and will make a raise even more painful in the future.

[Zalbik]

DOW:
2006 close: 12463.15
2007 close: 13264.62
up (+) 6.4%

Nasdaq:
2006 2415.29
2007 2652.28
up (+) 9.8%

S&P 500
2006 1418.30
2007 146.36
up (+) 3.5%

There it is folks, in black and white.

All of them are up over last year.

This can mean only one thing.....


TEOTWAWKI!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Strangely, you seem to be the only one who makes the statement "Economic collapse is near!"

Can you provide an example of a mainstream media report that says this? So far, you've started at least 2 threads on (basically) the same topic, without any substantiating evidence.

[egslim]

That sounds like an argument in favour of a very high government share of GDP (consumption and investment). Or do you have another recommendation?
Some quick recommendations:
- Regulations for financial institutions to improve transparency, point out risks to potential customers and restrict loans for people with poor credit.
- Raise the interest rate to make saving worthwile.
- A balanced government budget when the economy does well, either raise taxes or cut expenses. (Balanced without taking money from the social security fund)
Neither of these necessarily raises the government's share of GDP, except to enforce those regulations.

What is a proper savings rate?
One that provides a cushion against financial difficulties because of a recession, medical expenses or other kinds of bad luck.

[Francesca R]

Some quick recommendations:
- Regulations for financial institutions to improve transparency, point out risks to potential customers and restrict loans for people with poor credit.These exist already. But what does extending their reach have to do with making an economy more robust and less vulnerable to public confidence?

- Raise the interest rate to make saving worthwile.
This will make consumption and investment less worthwhile. How will that make an economy less vulnerable to public confidence (since it will depress the growth rate)?

- A balanced government budget when the economy does well, either raise taxes or cut expenses. (Balanced without taking money from the social security fund)Do you think that public confidence is vulnerable because of fiscal deficits? If so, why are government bond yields so low?

Neither of these necessarily raises the government's share of GDP, except to enforce those regulations.I disagree since I think they will shrink the private sector's share.

One that provides a cushion against financial difficulties because of a recession, medical expenses or other kinds of bad luck.But private agents are free to inform themselves of risks and provide a cushion. Do you think that the state can make their decisions for them more effectively?

[egslim]

These exist already. But what does extending their reach have to do with making an economy more robust and less vulnerable to public confidence?
A sudden drop of public confidence can cause a market crisis, but if financial institutions are sufficiently regulated they are forbidden from too risky behaviour that would cause their collapse in such times. Hence the crisis' effects are kept limited, which makes the economy more robust. Since the collapse of a financial institution sends major shockwaves through the economy.

This will make consumption and investment less worthwhile. How will that make an economy less vulnerable to public confidence (since it will depress the growth rate)?
Size does not equal robustness. A higher interest rate leads to higher savings, making people financially less vulnerable to events like market crashes, reducing both the drop in confidence from such a crash and its consequences.

Do you think that public confidence is vulnerable because of fiscal deficits?
In times of war, a major economic crisis or a large natural disaster the government will need far more funds to meet needs, and it is easier to borrow if you're not already a large debtor.

But private agents are free to inform themselves of risks and provide a cushion. Do you think that the state can make their decisions for them more effectively?
People generally suck at estimating risks, especially for cases where the probability is very low but the potential dangers high. We over-react to immediate threats and under-react to long-term threats. Quoted from Daniel Gilbert, psychology professor at Harvard: http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2006/11/perceived_risk_2.html

By setting the interest rate the state is already "making their decisions for them" with respect to the savingsrate. The interest rate does not only affect economic growth, but also the vulnerability due to unexpected crisis. Both should be taken into account when setting the interest rate.

[Gazpacho]

I woulda thought people had learned something when the world failed to turn into a Mad Max movie 8 years ago.

[Tokenconservative]

Those are fair points and I think it would be fair to say that trading conditions are at best volatile but they are a long way from collapse.

Fuel prices are a major problem as they are in real terms almost as high as the hikes in the 70s/80s. However, then we had major recessions each time the prices were hiked and this time we have ridden the tiger rather better (there is still an opportunity to fall off and get a good savaging but it hasn't happened yet). The markets are sensitive to sentiment and sometimes fall based on speculation and rumour rather than economic realities. This could easily happen on the basis of concern about debts, trade, oil and interest rates becoming a self-fulfilling prophecy.

Sorry..you are not supposed to be rational about this.

Repeat after me:

THINGS HAVE NEVER BEEN THIS HORRIFICALLY BAD BEFOREEEEEEEEEE!!!!

THE ECONOMY IS ABOUT TO COLLAAAAPPPSSEEEEEEEEEE!!!!

I MUST VOTE FOR HILLLLARRRRYYYYYYYYYYY!!!

There.
Now, don't you feel more like one of "cool" kids?

Tokie

[Tokenconservative]

I woulda thought people had learned something when the world failed to turn into a Mad Max movie 8 years ago.

Ya woulda thought, but the media has, once again hyped them up into a state where those companies that sell "survival equipment are now making a comeback.

I wonder why the left-advocacy media would be so interested in telling everyone the economy is about to collapse a little less than a year from a national election in the USofA?

Anyone?

Anyone?


Tokie

[Tokenconservative]

How many points did they gain if you express this in Euro's?

The extremely weak dollar gives a false impression of growth when there is none.

I'm sorry, I'm a stickler for precision in this stuff.

What does "extremely weak" mean? Is that in real dollars and in comparison to what and when?

Tokie

[Tokenconservative]

Quick and dirty readout: (http://finance.yahoo.com/currency/convert?from=USD&to=EUR&amt=1&t=2y)
January 1 2007: $1 = € 0.763
December 31 2007: $1 = € 0.695

Multiplying the points by their respective exchange rates:

DOW:
2006 close: 9509.4
2007 close: 9218.9
down (-) 3.1%

Nasdaq:
2006 1842.9
2007 1843.3
up (+) 0.0%

S&P 500
2006 1082.2
2007 1017.2 (guessed the typo)
down (-) 6.4%

Not so good.

LOL!

Yeah...time to start cashing in for gold and burying it in coffee cans in the back yard.

Sheesh.

Tokie

[Tokenconservative]

I am certainly no expert on the American economy but we hear a lot about it up here because the Canadian economy is so closely tied to it. Right now the Canadian economy is doing very well but according to the cbc evening news economists are worried about the slowing American economy causing problems for us. It has never been suggested that it is 'on the brink of collapse' but merely slowing down.

The media here cannot actually come right out and scream from the headlines "ECONOMY COLLAPSING!!! RUN!! SCREAM!!! VOTE FOR HILARY!!!"

They WISH they could, but of course someone might call them on it. The reality is that our economy is chugging along, and not really even "slowing" as your perhaps more circumspect but by no means any less left-advocacy "new" media are reporting.

Here's the list again: wages up, employment up, industrial orders and production up, energy prices down, retail spending up, consumer confidence flagging (no wonder), etc., etc.

The reality is, regardless of those on the left in here who wish to deny it, the media in America is, by an large, an arm of the leftist movement and an advocate for "change." Meaning: get a socialist majority in both houses of Congress and a socialist in the White House. They have been beating Americans over the head with "economy in trouble!!!" reports for 2 years now in the build-up to the election and frankly, you can see that it is having some impact...this is called a self-fullfilling prophesy, and is not the "see!?? SEEEEEE!!!!!!????" moment libs like to believe it is. You beat a dog long and hard enough for piddling on your shoes, eventually it gets the point.

That's what our "objective" media have been doing for a solid 2 years, telling us the economy is a mess and getting worse, and extracting a pound of lies from an ounce of truth. Yes, there are a lot of foreclosures...the foreclosure RATE is still lower an unlikely to go any higher in the next year than it was in 1999. Yes, the dollar is down against other currencies, but much less than it was down against other currencies in the 80s. Yes, gas prices are...not up, but not exactly down, either. They are about where they were in the 1970s, and this has to do more with refining capacity in the US than anything else. Look at reporting on oil pricing: when prices at the pump creep up a couple of pennies, it's front page news. When they drop a dime overnight..mum's the word. They hammer home "OIL AT $100/bbl!!!" today. Prices at the pump continue to fall...this is scaremongering. The headline should be Oil Prices Up, Prices at Pump Continue to Fall (or hold steady).

It does not take a conspiratorial nutcase to see this.

You just have to unscrew the blinders lagbolted to your head.

Tokie

[Tokenconservative]

That the media makes those assertions, obviously. Can you link to an article from a relatively mainstream news source that says that the economy is in a freefall?

No.

I don't access or provide links.

Just read any major newspaper...watch the major newscasts, tonight...they will lead with $OIL HIT $100 a bbl!!!!!!!!" They will not mention that this will probably not impact prices at the pump..nor have the been reporting the steady decline of p-gal prices at the pump as they shrieked about every cent or two increase over the past year.

This means nothing to you, because you are a leftist and cannot see that they are doing this.

So be it. None are so blind as who will not see...

Tokie

[Tokenconservative]

As usual, you totally misread what I said and what I meant. I am not disputing your view of what the economy is up to. I am saying that you are lying about what the media say, because you are misinformed, misreading what you see, or depending on the lies of others instead of actually looking at what is there. You continue not only to speak nonsense and lies but to misinterpret and misattribute everything I say when I call you on it. If you say all the so-called left liberal media are saying the economy is in collapse, show me where they're saying it. I don't happen to think the economy is doing as well as you do, or as well as it should, but neither do I believe it is in a state of collapse, and I certainly don't hope it is, considering my dependence on capitalism for my continuing prosperity ; In my newspaper I am not reading or hearing messages of collapse and doom, and on the radio I'm not hearing them. If you are, show me where you're seeing this, or stop lying about it. Link it or zip it.

Hmmm...my newspaper this morning tells me the Dow, Nasdaq and S&P 500 all closed up , 6.4%, 9.8% and 3.5% on average for the year.

Yet all year, evertime there was a daily dip in the market of a point or two, the broadcasts shrieked "MARKET TANKING!!!!!"

Because this sort of doom and gloom news makes you nod in your sagacity and mumble into your beer, "once we get our'n people in office, all this is gonna change...." you cannot see the left-advocacy (even the NYTimes own ombudsman admitted they slant news to the left...) trees for the leftist scaremongering forest. You are so inculcated in this stuff that you have lost any ability to recognize that when a news story says something like "Economic growth failed to meet expectations this quarter..." followed 13 paragraphs later by a a few words admitting that in actual fact, growth is still up, even though some analyst the leftist news reporter chose as his "expert" said it didn't do as well as it "should" have, that this is left-advocacy bias.

How is your ignorance my fault?

Tokie

[bruto]

Hmmm...my newspaper this morning tells me the Dow, Nasdaq and S&P 500 all closed up , 6.4%, 9.8% and 3.5% on average for the year.

Yet all year, evertime there was a daily dip in the market of a point or two, the broadcasts shrieked "MARKET TANKING!!!!!"Not the ones I heard. You must be listening to the wrong broadcasts.

Because this sort of doom and gloom news makes you nod in your sagacity and mumble into your beer, "once we get our'n people in office, all this is gonna change...." you cannot see the left-advocacy (even the NYTimes own ombudsman admitted they slant news to the left...) trees for the leftist scaremongering forest. You are so inculcated in this stuff that you have lost any ability to recognize that when a news story says something like "Economic growth failed to meet expectations this quarter..." followed 13 paragraphs later by a a few words admitting that in actual fact, growth is still up, even though some analyst the leftist news reporter chose as his "expert" said it didn't do as well as it "should" have, that this is left-advocacy bias.That may well be; it all depends, of course, on whose expectations are being discussed. But it is not the shrieking doom and gloom tanking message that you keep attributing to the press. That remains an unsubstantiated charge, which I think will remain unsubstantiated, because it is a fiction.

How is your ignorance my fault?

TokieMine is not. Yours, however, is.

[bruto]

No.

I don't access or provide links.

Just read any major newspaper...watch the major newscasts, tonight...they will lead with $OIL HIT $100 a bbl!!!!!!!!" They will not mention that this will probably not impact prices at the pump..nor have the been reporting the steady decline of p-gal prices at the pump as they shrieked about every cent or two increase over the past year.

This means nothing to you, because you are a leftist and cannot see that they are doing this.

So be it. None are so blind as who will not see...

TokieThe snippet of NPR Nightly business report that I heard played it down as more or less expected as cold weather hits, no surprise and not to be taken too seriously because trading was light after new year and actions disproportionate as a result. I didn't hear the shrieking. Who shrieked?

[Gord_in_Toronto]

The snippet of NPR Nightly business report that I heard played it down as more or less expected as cold weather hits, no surprise and not to be taken too seriously because trading was light after new year and actions disproportionate as a result. I didn't hear the shrieking. Who shrieked?

The Liberal Socialist Demonic Voices in Tokie's head? :rolleyes:

[Gazpacho]

Token, I know you think you're cutting-edge with this "librul/consurvative" gimmick, but you're not. Try talking about the topic at hand (even in your own threads) rather than ideology, you might get a little more respect.

[coalesce]

Ya woulda thought, but the media has, once again hyped them up into a state where those companies that sell "survival equipment are now making a comeback.

I wonder why the left-advocacy media would be so interested in telling everyone the economy is about to collapse a little less than a year from a national election in the USofA?

Anyone?

Anyone?


Tokie

I'm curious. Which companies that sell survival equipment are making a comeback? And where have you seen/read the left-advocacy media telling everyone the economy is about to collapse?

Michael

[Corsair 115]

I offer the following from today's (Wed. Jan. 2nd) business news:

Dow Jones Industrial Average lost 220.86 points (1.67%), closing at 13,043.96

U.S. manufacturing index fell to 47.7 in December, down from 50.8 in November, according to the Institute for Supply Management (values above 50 indicate growth, values below 50 indicate contraction). Financial analysts were expecting an index number of about 50.5 for the month.

U.S. residential construction spending was down 2.5% in November, and down 17.5% compared to November of 2006, as reported by the Deparment of Commerce and the U.S. Census Bureau.

From Dec. 28th:

New home sales were down 9.0% in November, and were down 34.4% compared to November of 2006, according to the Census Bureau and the Department of Housing and Urban Development.

[UserGoogol]

No.

I don't access or provide links.

Just read any major newspaper...watch the major newscasts, tonight...they will lead with $OIL HIT $100 a bbl!!!!!!!!" They will not mention that this will probably not impact prices at the pump..nor have the been reporting the steady decline of p-gal prices at the pump as they shrieked about every cent or two increase over the past year.

I haven't been hearing too much about that recently, but yeah, newspapers have been reporting on that. But that's not even remotely claiming that the economy is going to go into freefall. Oil hitting $100/bbl IS news. Adjusted for inflation, this is more expensive than oil has been since oil has been in a very long time.

As a general rule of thumb, good things are not news, but bad things are. This is partly because life (and the economy) is generally pretty good, so when things remain good that's not really a big development. Now, I admit that the media may have a tendency to focus on doom and gloom slightly more than is necessary (although I think you're exaggerating like hell) but I think this is simply because news companies want to watch their shows. "WE'RE DOOMED, MORE AT ELEVEN" gets better ratings then "Everything is super, yay!" In my opinion, bad things that do not promote a "leftist agenda" are just as sensationalized as the economy is.

[Tokenconservative]

I haven't been hearing too much about that recently, but yeah, newspapers have been reporting on that. But that's not even remotely claiming that the economy is going to go into freefall. Oil hitting $100/bbl IS news. Adjusted for inflation, this is more expensive than oil has been since oil has been in a very long time.

As a general rule of thumb, good things are not news, but bad things are. This is partly because life (and the economy) is generally pretty good, so when things remain good that's not really a big development. Now, I admit that the media may have a tendency to focus on doom and gloom slightly more than is necessary (although I think you're exaggerating like hell) but I think this is simply because news companies want to watch their shows. "WE'RE DOOMED, MORE AT ELEVEN" gets better ratings then "Everything is super, yay!" In my opinion, bad things that do not promote a "leftist agenda" are just as sensationalized as the economy is.

Thanks for the lessons on how the media works...

Sigh...not sure if you are just ignorant of how this is done, or being purposely obtuse. I will assume the former for now.

There are things called "slant" and "bias." They are with us, no matter what. In the "news" media (please do not make the shrieking leftist claim that pundits and commentators are the same as journalists...they just simply are not), professional journalists are supposed to at least attempt to keep their own views, perspectives and "slant" and "bias" out of their reporting.

Lets take a hypothetical (but happens exactly this way, like clockwork) "news" report on econmic growth (US)--and this includes the "business" sections of most newspapers and other news organs where the "business" reporter is such primarily because the organ needs no other crime beat reporters.

If growth is up say, 1/8th this (hypothetical) quarter it is what it is..UP 1/8 this quarter.

The "news" organ can simply say: US economic growth is up, 1/8th this quarter,and then go on with the details.

Keep in mind that people (generally, sigh) read papers like this: they scan the headline, if it catches their interest they pay a bit of attention to paras 1-3. At that point (sigh..generally) they make a choice:
1. move on, this does not interest me, I already know this, etc.,
2. read more, and closely, I want to know about this,
3. skim this; it intrests me mildly, I want to see what this paper says, vs. another, etc.

I am not making this up and no, I don't have a link--LIIIINNKKKKKK@!!!-- to prove--PROOOOOVEEEEEEEE!!!--it. I studied journalism in school decades ago...it was that way, then, and if anything the skimming has become more pronounced now. Take it or leave, IDGAFF.

Here is how virtually every newspaper (and broadcasters do this EXACTLY the same way, only with fewer words) will report this news:
HL: Growth Lower Than Expected
SH: Economy grows slower than predicted.
"The US economy this quarter, grew at a slower pace than many analysts had predicted. Slow starts in housing, a weak dollar, lower than anticipated retail sales, and faltering consumer confidence are all cited as reasons for this."

Second para will, essentially repeat this in a different order, perhaps offer an "expert" who says the same thing.

Third para will cite another expert saying essentially the same thing, and by the last sentence MAY say "growth overall is up, from last quarter and up from the same time last year, but lower than anticipated."

If the reader gets this far (something on the order of 75% go no further than paragraph 1) he/she learns that wait a minute...the HL, the SH and the first 2-2-5/8ths paras are a bit misleading...now, the reader ONLY comes to this conclusion if he/she does not already have a left-leaning predilection for "all news about the US economy under an R admin. MUST BE BAD!"

If he/she is more objective, he/she MAY (remember, we are thoroughly inculcated against this) be able to discern the slant and bias in the piece, and it's inherently dishonest approach.

Please...tell me you have never read a news article like this. If you do, it means you are among the 90+% of Americans (I am assuming) who don't read news at all, and the 98% who never read the business sections.

Tokie

[Tokenconservative]

I offer the following from today's (Wed. Jan. 2nd) business news:

Dow Jones Industrial Average lost 220.86 points (1.67%), closing at 13,043.96

U.S. manufacturing index fell to 47.7 in December, down from 50.8 in November, according to the Institute for Supply Management (values above 50 indicate growth, values below 50 indicate contraction). Financial analysts were expecting an index number of about 50.5 for the month.

U.S. residential construction spending was down 2.5% in November, and down 17.5% compared to November of 2006, as reported by the Deparment of Commerce and the U.S. Census Bureau.

From Dec. 28th:

New home sales were down 9.0% in November, and were down 34.4% compared to November of 2006, according to the Census Bureau and the Department of Housing and Urban Development.

I offer this: DOW is down on panic-news of OIL AT $100BBL!!!!

If a walrus farts, the Dow drops...or rises. Depends on the stars. And that's...well, let's count..ONE day.

US manufacturing ALWAYS falls in the middle of winter because it includes things that are manufactured for outdoor use, and things that are manufactured outdoors and because um...people take lots of time off in December.

US commercial and multi-unit (apt) construction is up...hmm....

Gee...new home sales down. Meanwhile, resales are up...I wonder what that could mean?

Oh, yeah:

THE US ECONOMY IS COLLAPSIIIINGGGGGG!!!!!

[Tokenconservative]

Token, I know you think you're cutting-edge with this "librul/consurvative" gimmick, but you're not. Try talking about the topic at hand (even in your own threads) rather than ideology, you might get a little more respect.

LOL!

Yep...I come in here to get R-E-S-P-E-C-T from leftist fearmongers and monstershouters.

Yep...

Sheesh.

Look, the left is working desperately to convince Americans that the US economy is in the toilet and "about to get far, far worse!!!" You belive that and probably 80% of the economic morons in here do as well (please note when you rush to file your complaint, that I did not call YOU a moron) because it has been pounded into our heads by a left-advocacy media for at least the last 4 years and that has only heated up the closer we come to the election.

Lay some money on it? In the 2-3 weeks before the election, you will see NO even slightly encouraging news reported about the economy, no matter what. You up for $5k on that?

Tokie

[Tokenconservative]

The snippet of NPR Nightly business report that I heard played it down as more or less expected as cold weather hits, no surprise and not to be taken too seriously because trading was light after new year and actions disproportionate as a result. I didn't hear the shrieking. Who shrieked?

My local twin dailes were shrieking from huge headlines, that's who.

You've said this about Socialiast Public Radio in the past...I may have to give them a listen, then come back in here and hand you your head on a plate if it turns out you are wrong or simply lying.

Tokie

[Tokenconservative]

I'm curious. Which companies that sell survival equipment are making a comeback? And where have you seen/read the left-advocacy media telling everyone the economy is about to collapse?

Michael

Beats me. I just know from other forums that morons are buying this stuff again.

Every left-advocacy "news" organ is reporting the imminent meltdown and inevitable collapse of the US economy...why do you ask?

Tokie

[Francesca R]

US manufacturing ALWAYS falls in the middle of winter because it includes things that are manufactured for outdoor use, and things that are manufactured outdoors and because um...people take lots of time off in December.The ISM is seasonally adjusted (http://www.ism.ws/about/mediaroom/newsreleasedetail.cfm?ItemNumber=15838&navItemNumber=12946). Thus is it not explainable by "winter"

[Jaggy Bunnet]

Quick and dirty readout: (http://finance.yahoo.com/currency/convert?from=USD&to=EUR&amt=1&t=2y)
January 1 2007: $1 = € 0.763
December 31 2007: $1 = € 0.695

Multiplying the points by their respective exchange rates:

DOW:
2006 close: 9509.4
2007 close: 9218.9
down (-) 3.1%

Nasdaq:
2006 1842.9
2007 1843.3
up (+) 0.0%

S&P 500
2006 1082.2
2007 1017.2 (guessed the typo)
down (-) 6.4%

Not so good.

Not sure what the justification is for translating indices by currency rates. Does this not simply double count currency effects? After all if there is a reduction in the value of a company due to changed exchange rates this will already be reflected in the index and does not require conversion?

[Jaggy Bunnet]

My local twin dailes were shrieking from huge headlines, that's who.

Then it should be no problem for you to provide evidence of this.

[Francesca R]

Not sure what the justification is for translating indices by currency rates. Does this not simply double count currency effects? After all if there is a reduction in the value of a company due to changed exchange rates this will already be reflected in the index and does not require conversion?I think the (flimsy IMO) justification is: The US stock market went up, but this might simply be the result of US companies benefiting from a fall in the USD.

But no, it doesn't double-count currency effects. It shows what return a EUR-based investor would have made in EUR assuming she/he did not hedge the FX risk.

[coalesce]

Beats me. I just know from other forums that morons are buying this stuff again.

Every left-advocacy "news" organ is reporting the imminent meltdown and inevitable collapse of the US economy...why do you ask?

Tokie

I agree that people who buy survival gear fearing either the collapse of the economy or the New World Order taking over are a few sandwiches short of a picnic.

I ask which left-advocacy news organization reported the imminent collapse of the US economy because I listen to NPR fairly regularly, and I have yet to hear them report that the US economy collapsing as a statement of fact as opposed to an opinion. They've reported about the sub-prime mortgage situation, but haven't made the leap that this--or anything else--is going to lead to the US economy collapsing. I am curious about where you heard this from.

Michael

[Jaggy Bunnet]

I think the (flimsy IMO) justification is: The US stock market went up, but this might simply be the result of US companies benefiting from a fall in the USD.

But no, it doesn't double-count currency effects. It shows what return a EUR-based investor would have made in EUR assuming she/he did not hedge the FX risk.

But if, for example, the value of US companies has fallen because they have a cost base denominated in Euros but sell in Dollars, then this would already be reflected in the index.

And of course it is worth asking what percentage of the US market is held by Euro investors.

[Francesca R]

And what proportion of companies have what extent of foreign sales, or foreign costs, and what their extent of corporate FX hedging is.

Whatever, if one is looking for evidence that the US economy is fine OR collapsing, single-digit returns from mega-cap equities over the preceding 12 months is not it.

[Tokenconservative]

From Wofgang Munchau, Economic Times (emphasis Tokie's to poke fun at the fearmongers and monstershouters):

I would expect the credit crisis to get worse before it gets better, that persistently high inflationary expectations will place constraints on central banks and that there will be no dollar crisis.

From John M. Berry, Bloomberg News

Given the turmoil n financial marketsts, the risk of recession is hardly zero. Nevertheless, the current state of the economy simply doesn't show the signs usually associated with one...

Many of the forecasts calling for a recession are based on an assumption that large losses associated with subprime mortgages and the securities backing up by them will force banks to reduce lending big time...(t)here are scant signs of that happening.

Tokie

[The Atheist]

Methinks you're confusing reality - the US economy may be headed for recession - with a disaster fantasy.

[UserGoogol]

Thanks for the lessons on how the media works...

Sigh...not sure if you are just ignorant of how this is done, or being purposely obtuse. I will assume the former for now.

[snip]

I'm fully aware of how bias works, I'm fully aware of how people skim. In fact, I fully agree that there is a bias towards reporting bad news and to a point, that this is a bad thing. But this is not the same as claiming that the economy is DOOOOOMED, and this is also not something that need be explained by an evil liberal conspiracy.

Part of it, again, is that bad news is inherently more newsworthy. The weather reports spend more time talking about blizzards than sunny days because it's blizzards that people are worried about, even though most days are not storms. Similarly, people care more about economic recessions than economic booms, even though most of the time the economy is growing. That said, I agree that things probably go too far in focusing on bad things.

However, to assume that whenever something bad happens it must be the fault of evil people is conspiracy theorist thinking, and generally illogical. Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity, because stupidity is far more common than malice and therefore satisfies Occam's Razor. When I look at the media, I see sensationalism, not leftist advocacy. As I said in the previous post, the media sensationalizes problems which do not particularly encourage liberalism.

For instance, if you look at the news (local news in particular) you will see TONS of stories about violent crime. Historically speaking, violent crime is at fairly low levels, but if you let your opinions be guided by skimming (or even carefully watching) the news, you would think that things were going to hell, but that is not the case. But (if you generalize somewhat) it is Republicans who generally focus more on being "tough on crime." Why would a leftist advocacy media focus on something like that?

For those who skimmed this post: The media focuses on bad news because bad news is more important and because it puts people in a mood which encourages them to not change the channel, not because of some liberal conspiracy.

[Tokenconservative]

I'm fully aware of how bias works, I'm fully aware of how people skim. In fact, I fully agree that there is a bias towards reporting bad news and to a point, that this is a bad thing. But this is not the same as claiming that the economy is DOOOOOMED, and this is also not something that need be explained by an evil liberal conspiracy.

Part of it, again, is that bad news is inherently more newsworthy. The weather reports spend more time talking about blizzards than sunny days because it's blizzards that people are worried about, even though most days are not storms. Similarly, people care more about economic recessions than economic booms, even though most of the time the economy is growing. That said, I agree that things probably go too far in focusing on bad things.

However, to assume that whenever something bad happens it must be the fault of evil people is conspiracy theorist thinking, and generally illogical. Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity, because stupidity is far more common than malice and therefore satisfies Occam's Razor. When I look at the media, I see sensationalism, not leftist advocacy. As I said in the previous post, the media sensationalizes problems which do not particularly encourage liberalism.

For instance, if you look at the news (local news in particular) you will see TONS of stories about violent crime. Historically speaking, violent crime is at fairly low levels, but if you let your opinions be guided by skimming (or even carefully watching) the news, you would think that things were going to hell, but that is not the case. But (if you generalize somewhat) it is Republicans who generally focus more on being "tough on crime." Why would a leftist advocacy media focus on something like that?

For those who skimmed this post: The media focuses on bad news because bad news is more important and because it puts people in a mood which encourages them to not change the channel, not because of some liberal conspiracy.

Hmm...I guess I was not being clear or you really are being obtuse.

The news I was mentioning was good. Inherently. The rate of economic growth is up...but by clever use of language (I believe you are the one who said "conspiracy" not me..)--these are people who craft words for their meager livings--they make it appear as if the good news they are reporting on is actually bad.

They do this on purpose, though you believe one must believe in some Great Conspiracy Theory to believe that that goes on. Is there just the slightest possibility that the overwhelming majority of "news" reporters, as they regularly self-report, are, as they call themelves, "liberals" and therefore have, to go along with their self-reported "liberal" leanings, liberal perspectives?

Any chance at all?

Even the NYTimes own ombudsman admonished the paper for it's left-bias in NEWS reporting....I guess you missed it when I said that before?

It's not neccesary for the headline to scream "DOOOOMED!" As libs learned so well first from Lenin and then from Herr Doktor Goebbels, the lie told often enough becomes the truth...as the Nazis (Godwin!!! GODWIIINNNNNNNNN!!!!) perfected it, the lie told quietly at first, whispered in an ear here, and ear there, soon becomes a fact that can easily be repeated even in more moderate press.

I am sorry you don't understand how this works and are ignorant of the history and lack, apparently, any familiarity with communication theory. Understanding language, history and communcation are useful things in our modern society.

And yet, the leftist insistence that GW Bush is the cause of the DOOOOM!!! facing the economy is somehow...NOT CT thinking?

How does that calculus work in your world? If a conservative says "evil people use melon ballers to remove the eyes of children in front of their parents" (Saddam's torturers did this) that is CT thinking. When someon shrieks "Bush has destroyed the US economy in order to enrich a select, secret cabal of his rich Oil Buddies!!!" that's entirely rational?

You live in an...interesting world.

Tokie

[UserGoogol]

Hmm...I guess I was not being clear or you really are being obtuse.

The news I was mentioning was good. Inherently. The rate of economic growth is up...but by clever use of language (I believe you are the one who said "conspiracy" not me..)--these are people who craft words for their meager livings--they make it appear as if the good news they are reporting on is actually bad.

No it isn't. The economy growing less than was expected is bad news. Hell, there is no such thing as purely good news. A good news media will look at news and carefully analyze it to find every facet of it and see the upsides and downsides of the story and report accordingly, with perhaps a slight skew towards the downsides for the reason I said. A sensationalist news media will take those shortcomings and hype them like hell to make people watch their shows. Neither is liberal advocacy.

[rjh01]

May I suggest the sky is falling rather than the economy? That would make more sense. The evidence for what I am suggesting is all in this thread.

Yes, the sky is falling.

[Corsair 115]

It's a shame Tokenconservative only enjoys playing the role of über-conservative provocateur rather than someone actually interested in having a meaningful and rational discussion on a given topic.

[Cuddles]

Three threads on the same subject have been merged. The posts will be mixed up, so sorry if this causes any confusion.

Token, do not spam multiple threads on the same subject.

[Jaggy Bunnet]

It's a shame Tokenconservative only enjoys playing the role of über-conservative provocateur rather than someone actually interested in having a meaningful and rational discussion on a given topic.

Well he has the necessary "skills" to play an uber-conservative....

[egslim]

Not sure what the justification is for translating indices by currency rates.
Mainly I was responding to SomeGuy's question what would happen if you expressed Tokie's numbers in Euros.

Does this not simply double count currency effects? After all if there is a reduction in the value of a company due to changed exchange rates this will already be reflected in the index and does not require conversion?
No, because the two mechanisms define a company's value in different ways. One depends on the bookkeeping effects of differences in exchange rate, the other on shareholder's sentiments about future returns. The two are not equivalent.

[egslim]

Whatever, if one is looking for evidence that the US economy is fine OR collapsing, single-digit returns from mega-cap equities over the preceding 12 months is not it.
I agree, and for the record, I never intended to use the post as an argument for one of those positions.

[Jaggy Bunnet]

Mainly I was responding to SomeGuy's question what would happen if you expressed Tokie's numbers in Euros.


No, because the two mechanisms define a company's value in different ways. One depends on the bookkeeping effects of differences in exchange rate, the other on shareholder's sentiments about future returns. The two are not equivalent.

But would the shareholders sentiments about future returns not include an assessment of the potential impact of changed exchange rates? If not, why not?

[Francesca R]

Just for the heck of it . . .
WASHINGTON, Jan 4 (Reuters) - U.S. employers added a scant 18,000 jobs in December and the national unemployment rate kicked up to five percent, its highest in more than two years, according to a government report on Friday that underlined the economy's rapidly slowing momentum. The Labor Department said December's pace of job creation was the weakest since August 2003 when 42,000 jobs were cut. It was far below the median estimate of analysts surveyed by Reuters who had forecast that 70,000 non-farm jobs would be added last month. The unemployment rate jumped to 5 percent, its highest since it matched that rate in November 2005, from 4.7 percent in November. The department said that for all of 2007, payroll employment growth averaged 111,000 a month, down from 189,000 a month in 2006.

[egslim]

But would the shareholders sentiments about future returns not include an assessment of the potential impact of changed exchange rates? If not, why not?
Only partially, because most US shareholders use the dollar as a baseline. A weaker dollar boosts exporters and hurts importers, and that is taken into account by shareholders. But a weakening dollar also decreases the relative value of everything valued in dollars compared to rising currencies, and that is not taken into account except by currency speculators.

[Corsair 115]

For the trading week ending today:

Dow Jones down 4.2%
S&P500 down 4.5%
NASDAQ down 6.6%

And that's in a holiday-shortened trading week. Not exactly an encouraging start to the year.

[bruto]

Just for the heck of it . . .Reuters=lefty liberal shriekers. Tokie knows better, I'm sure.

[edteach]

Watch the news now, the economy is slipping bad. even the schrub is looking at it. He looks like a deer cought in the head lights but looking non the less. The neocons keep saying there is no problem and all the time the news keeps getting worse. I guess they would deny it if you could show them any thing they did not want to beleive.
Things are going to be bad this winter.

[Tokenconservative]

For the trading week ending today:

Dow Jones down 4.2%
S&P500 down 4.5%
NASDAQ down 6.6%

And that's in a holiday-shortened trading week. Not exactly an encouraging start to the year.

OMG!!!!!!!

PANIC!!!!

TEOTWAWKI!!!!!!

FIND ME A WINDOW TO JUMP OUT OF!!!!!!!!

Sheesh.

Now, when they all shoot back up, 7-8% next Tuesday, or whenever, will you be sure to update us?





Yeah....din't think so.

Tokie

[Tokenconservative]

I agree that people who buy survival gear fearing either the collapse of the economy or the New World Order taking over are a few sandwiches short of a picnic.

I ask which left-advocacy news organization reported the imminent collapse of the US economy because I listen to NPR fairly regularly, and I have yet to hear them report that the US economy collapsing as a statement of fact as opposed to an opinion. They've reported about the sub-prime mortgage situation, but haven't made the leap that this--or anything else--is going to lead to the US economy collapsing. I am curious about where you heard this from.

Michael

AP, NYTimes wire service, Scripps wire and my local "news"papers all report it.

Oh, wait..you meant "where are the screaming headlines!?"

Look up these terms: "bias" and "slant."

Tokie

[Tokenconservative]

And what proportion of companies have what extent of foreign sales, or foreign costs, and what their extent of corporate FX hedging is.

Whatever, if one is looking for evidence that the US economy is fine OR collapsing, single-digit returns from mega-cap equities over the preceding 12 months is not it.

And yet...the "business" reporters in most US "news" organs will come on or write very somberly that this is EXACTLY the sort of snapshot "news" that tells us the economy is nearing collapse, and throught that, implying that if you don't vote socialist this November, expect to be on a breadline by 01/22/09.

Tokie

[Tokenconservative]

Methinks you're confusing reality - the US economy may be headed for recession - with a disaster fantasy.

There have always been those out there hoping for TEOTWAWKI (look at the Y2k nonsense). Now, add to that the 24-hour news cycle, run mostly by socialists intent on destroying the US economy as a means of destroying the US, and you encounter a real perception problem, one that the Nazis (Gowin!!! GODWIN!!!!) exploiteds expertly in their time: the lie told often and loudly enough becomes the truth.

This is why so many Americans (see: JREF forums) believe that at minimum, "we" are headed to "tough times" (gee...when has it NOT been the case that SOME people are experiencing tough times? The foreclosure rate in booming 1999 was higher than it is today....) and many believe these tough times will rival the Great Depression and a lot of them believe they will make the Great Depression pale in comparison.

Where are they getting this idea? Is it just something they pluck, fully-fledged from their own backsides? I doubt it. Most of them are not bright enough.

No, they get it from the "news" media who, at every downward nudge of the Dow, Nasdac and/or S&P, scream "MARKETS ARE FALLING!!!" At every upward jot of a penny or two at the pump they shriek "GAS PRICES ROCKET TOWARD NEW HIGHS!!!"

Meanwhile, when the markets actually do rocket up 1000 pnts in a day....mum's the word. It's reported in the back pages of the business section. When gas DROPS 10-12 cents in a week....no mention at all.

And of course, n00bs who are buying white, food-grade plastic buckets don't read the back pages of the biz section and even if they did, would not understand what they are reading (besides, it's ALWAYS couched in biased terms...the "news" will always say..."markets edged up"..BUT NOT AS FAR AS EXPECTED!!!! and it's the slanted "news" that registers wth them, because they so desperately WANT to see a real collapse that will permit them to live off that garage-full of expensive dehydrated foods and laugh at their "rich" brother-in-law who is now living in his Mercedes sedan.

In short, they are ignorant, credulous fools.

Tokie

[bruto]

AP, NYTimes wire service, Scripps wire and my local "news"papers all report it.

Oh, wait..you meant "where are the screaming headlines!?"

Look up these terms: "bias" and "slant."

T