The Economy Keeps Rolling

red states rule

Senior Member
Joined
May 30, 2006
Messages
16,011
Reaction score
573
Points
48
Well the bad news keeps coming for the doom and gloomers and if this is what a bad economy is - I hope it is here for a long time


Stocks Zoom After Fed Announcement
Wednesday, January 31, 2007

NEW YORK — Strong growth. Moderate inflation. And the Federal Reserve's apparent acknowledgement of a stellar economic picture. It all combined to send stocks soaring on Wednesday.

U.S. stocks climbed Wednesday, driving the Dow to a record close after the Federal Reserve left rates steady and flagged no new concerns about inflation that would have merited higher borrowing costs.

Based on the latest available data, the Dow Jones industrial average unofficially ended up 98.62 points, or 0.79 percent, at 12,621.93, while the Standard & Poor's 500 Index gained 9.66 points, or 0.68 percent, to finish unofficially at 1,438.48, and the Nasdaq Composite Index advanced 15.34 points, or 0.63 percent, to close unofficially at 2,463.98.

The Dow closed higher for the seventh month in a row in January, gaining 1.3 percent. The S&P 500 rose for the eighth straight month, adding 1.4 percent in January. The Nasdaq finished January with a 2 percent gain.

The Fed, which issued its economic assessment as it decided to leave short-term interest rates unchanged at 5.25 percent, said recent indicators "suggested somewhat firmer economic growth" and tentative signs of stabilization in the housing market. Investors also appeared pleased by the central bank's comments that readings on core inflation have "improved modestly" in recent months.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,249059,00.html
 

gonegolfin

Member
Joined
Jul 8, 2005
Messages
412
Reaction score
36
Points
16
Location
Austin, TX
Well the bad news keeps coming for the doom and gloomers and if this is what a bad economy is - I hope it is here for a long time

Stocks Zoom After Fed Announcement
Wednesday, January 31, 2007

NEW YORK — Strong growth. Moderate inflation. [/url]
Do you really think we have moderate inflation? What do you consider to be moderate inflation?

Brian (Ron Paul for President)
 
Joined
Jan 26, 2007
Messages
181
Reaction score
17
Points
16
Yep, for-closures are up 40% from last year in my county: I’m Loving It!!!:clap2:
 
OP
red states rule

red states rule

Senior Member
Joined
May 30, 2006
Messages
16,011
Reaction score
573
Points
48
Yep, for-closures are up 40% from last year in my county: I’m Loving It!!!:clap2:
One of the leading reasons for forclosures is not because peole cannot make thier P&I payments. It is the ever increasing taxes and insurance.

I work in the mortgage business and I see the poor folks in high tax states have thier payments go up 300 to 600 a month. The worst states are NJ, NY, and CA (states run by Dems)

NJ has insane taxes, I have seen yearly taxes over $12,000

In Fl, homeowner, flood, and wind ins are going up

Hardly Pres Bush's fault or the fault of the tax cuts

But some libs will try
 

Greg Bernhardt

www.physics*****s.com
Joined
Dec 8, 2006
Messages
378
Reaction score
14
Points
16
One of the leading reasons for forclosures is not because peole cannot make thier P&I payments. It is the ever increasing taxes and insurance.

I work in the mortgage business and I see the poor folks in high tax states have thier payments go up 300 to 600 a month. The worst states are NJ, NY, and CA (states run by Dems)

NJ has insane taxes, I have seen yearly taxes over $12,000

In Fl, homeowner, flood, and wind ins are going up

Hardly Pres Bush's fault or the fault of the tax cuts

But some libs will try
I live in Milwaukee and our property taxes are insane (at least for the midwest). A $200,000 home will pay near $5000 a year in property taxes :(
 

Annie

Diamond Member
Joined
Nov 22, 2003
Messages
50,848
Reaction score
4,826
Points
1,790
I live in Milwaukee and our property taxes are insane (at least for the midwest). A $200,000 home will pay near $5000 a year in property taxes :(
Higher here! *Voice of experience!*
 
OP
red states rule

red states rule

Senior Member
Joined
May 30, 2006
Messages
16,011
Reaction score
573
Points
48
I live in Milwaukee and our property taxes are insane (at least for the midwest). A $200,000 home will pay near $5000 a year in property taxes :(
While I can't do it, when these people call in to bitch at me for the higher taxes, I want to ask them why they keep voting for the Dems who raised them in the first place
 

Annie

Diamond Member
Joined
Nov 22, 2003
Messages
50,848
Reaction score
4,826
Points
1,790
While I can't do it, when these people call in to bitch at me for the higher taxes, I want to ask them why they keep voting for the Dems who raised them in the first place
Really. Got to agree with you here!
 
OP
red states rule

red states rule

Senior Member
Joined
May 30, 2006
Messages
16,011
Reaction score
573
Points
48
Really. Got to agree with you here!
The guy whop sits across from me at work is a big lib. Whenever I get off the phone with these people I ask him why libs vote for people they know are going to raise their taxes then bitch at me when they do

He does the liberal eye roll and turns away

It is a classic site to watch
 
Joined
Jan 26, 2007
Messages
181
Reaction score
17
Points
16
One of the leading reasons for forclosures is not because peole cannot make thier P&I payments. It is the ever increasing taxes and insurance.

I work in the mortgage business and I see the poor folks in high tax states have thier payments go up 300 to 600 a month. The worst states are NJ, NY, and CA (states run by Dems)

NJ has insane taxes, I have seen yearly taxes over $12,000

In Fl, homeowner, flood, and wind ins are going up

Hardly Pres Bush's fault or the fault of the tax cuts

But some libs will try
Interesting - but in My reality, it's because banks were stupid and put marginal folks into loans they had no business with - allowing true carnivores like myself to feed upon their carrion.

:eusa_whistle:
 

gonegolfin

Member
Joined
Jul 8, 2005
Messages
412
Reaction score
36
Points
16
Location
Austin, TX
Inflation is low
Really? Says who? And again, what do you consider to be low?

Do you actually believe the nonsense put out by the government with respect to CPI (which is actually supposed to be a measure of price inflation, not inflation itself)? Or GDP for that matter? Inflation is the measure of increase in the supply of money. This increase in the supply of money is 10.8% year-over-year in December. Thus new money is being created out of thin air at a significant clip (although not the worst in the past thirty years). This leads to price inflation. This is also a way to heat up the economy and stock markets. But this is not real growth. Price inflation is running at a clip of 10% year-over year in December and has been in the 9% -> 11% range for several years now. This is the real tax.

As for the stock markets, they have been going up nominally. Easy credit and massive worldwide liquidity does that. But at a price (to be paid later). What do you think the real value of the DJIA or the S&P 500 is? That is, how well have investors done in the past several years when you factor in the depreciation of the US Dollar as cited in the previous paragraph?

Why do you think Gold has been up significantly in the last five or so years?

And just so you liberals don't paint this as a Republican or Bush problem ... this has been a problem for decades which is getting worse. And it is rooted in our current monetary system and the existence of the Federal Reserve.

Don't be scared to look behind the curtain.

Brian (let's elect real conservatives and abolish the Federal Reserve)
 
OP
red states rule

red states rule

Senior Member
Joined
May 30, 2006
Messages
16,011
Reaction score
573
Points
48
Sorry to bust your bubble............

Jan. 31, 2007, 10:46PM
1st year ends on a solid note
Economy is growing, inflation in check on Fed chief's anniversary


By JEANNINE AVERSA

WASHINGTON — Ben Bernanke marks his first-year anniversary as Federal Reserve chief with healthy economic growth that seems to be generating less inflation.

Bernanke, who took the helm last February from longtime chairman Alan Greenspan, has had to face his share of threats. For example, ailing housing and automotive sectors risked undermining growth while energy prices stoked worries about an inflation flare-up.

Now there is encouraging news on inflation and the economy is revving up. So Bernanke and his central bank colleagues on Wednesday held a key interest rate steady at 5.25 percent and extended a half-year breather for borrowers.

Wall Street surged in response. The Dow Jones industrials gained 98.38 points to close at 12,621.69, just short of a record-high close.

Experts say Bernanke, who spent most of his professional life in academia, has navigated well.

"I think he has made the right call so far in terms of interest rates. I think he has done a pretty good job. He had pretty big shoes to fill taking over from Alan Greenspan and having to deal with very uncertain economic times," said Victor Li, associate professor of economics at Villanova School of Business.

Commercial banks' prime interest rate — for certain credit cards, home equity lines of credit and other loans — will stay at 8.25 percent as a result of the Fed's action. It was one more break for borrowers who, until last summer, had endured the pain of two-plus years of rate increases.

Fed policymakers delivered a more positive assessment of the economy than they did in December.

They recognized improvements in economic growth, inflation and even the troubled housing sector.

"Overall, the economy seems likely to expand at a moderate pace over coming quarters," they said. The Fed said core inflation, which excludes energy and food prices, has "improved modestly in recent months."

That was an upgrade from December when policymakers fretted about "elevated" readings on underlying inflation.

They noted anew that inflation risks remain and kept open the possibility of a rate increase. Still, with the Fed's fairly upbeat assessment, many economists believe rates probably will remain where they are for much of this year.

The Fed's announcement came hours after the government reported the economy had snapped out of a sluggish spell and grown at a 3.5 percent pace from October through December as consumer spending surged.

The report also showed that underlying inflation ebbed during that period.

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/business/4516707.html
 

gonegolfin

Member
Joined
Jul 8, 2005
Messages
412
Reaction score
36
Points
16
Location
Austin, TX
Really? Says who? And again, what do you consider to be low?

Do you actually believe the nonsense put out by the government with respect to CPI (which is actually supposed to be a measure of price inflation, not inflation itself)? Or GDP for that matter? Inflation is the measure of increase in the supply of money. This increase in the supply of money is 10.8% year-over-year in December. Thus new money is being created out of thin air at a significant clip (although not the worst in the past thirty years). This leads to price inflation. This is also a way to heat up the economy and stock markets. But this is not real growth. Price inflation is running at a clip of 10% year-over year in December and has been in the 9% -> 11% range for several years now. This is the real tax.

As for the stock markets, they have been going up nominally. Easy credit and massive worldwide liquidity does that. But at a price (to be paid later). What do you think the real value of the DJIA or the S&P 500 is? That is, how well have investors done in the past several years when you factor in the depreciation of the US Dollar as cited in the previous paragraph?

Why do you think Gold has been up significantly in the last five or so years?

And just so you liberals don't paint this as a Republican or Bush problem ... this has been a problem for decades which is getting worse. And it is rooted in our current monetary system and the existence of the Federal Reserve.

Don't be scared to look behind the curtain.

Brian (let's elect real conservatives and abolish the Federal Reserve)
red states rule,

Once again, I did not think you would engage in debate. You sidestep more debate discussions than LaDainian Tomlinson does linebackers.

Hopefully one day you will actually learn how the economy, financial markets, and monetary policy function in this country. And that pure politics is secondary to these over-arching issues (yet is a cause). You still only see things as Republican or Democrat. Until that time comes, you are only capable of posting article links (from predominently Wall Street friendly sources) and repeating something that you have heard. If you are interested in broadening your understanding, email me and I can start you with a good conservative reading list (I won't start you with Ludwig von Mises just yet).

Brian (a conservative wondering if there are any left in Washington)
 
OP
red states rule

red states rule

Senior Member
Joined
May 30, 2006
Messages
16,011
Reaction score
573
Points
48
red states rule,

Once again, I did not think you would engage in debate. You sidestep more debate discussions than LaDainian Tomlinson does linebackers.

Hopefully one day you will actually learn how the economy, financial markets, and monetary policy function in this country. And that pure politics is secondary to these over-arching issues (yet is a cause). You still only see things as Republican or Democrat. Until that time comes, you are only capable of posting article links (from predominently Wall Street friendly sources) and repeating something that you have heard. If you are interested in broadening your understanding, email me and I can start you with a good conservative reading list (I won't start you with Ludwig von Mises just yet).

Brian (a conservative wondering if there are any left in Washington)
Oh my God, someone posts articles from Wall Street sources on the economy! T guess I should search for articles on the economy from listings of German eateries

Oh the inhumnanity

I know the economy is in ggod shape - I work and see it everyday. The libs are the ones who are upset since they talked down the economy and blathered how the tax cuts wopuld destroy the economy
 
OP
red states rule

red states rule

Senior Member
Joined
May 30, 2006
Messages
16,011
Reaction score
573
Points
48
Comprehensive 'Annual Revision' to the Employment Numbers Goes Largely Underreported
Posted by Tom Blumer on February 3, 2007 - 09:47.
Yesterday's Employment Situation Summary from the Bureaus of Labor Statistics told us that reports 111,000 net new jobs were added in January. Additionally, significant upward revisions were made to the previously reported job-increase figures from November (up 42,000 to 196,000 from last month’s revised 154,000) and December (up 39,000 to 206,000 from last month’s originally reported 167,000). So with revisions, there were 192,000 more people working (111+42+39) at the end of January than were thought to be working as of the end of December, and 513,000 more (111+196+206) than three months ago.

It gets better.

In that same Employment Situation Summary released yesterday, the BLS reported on its "Annual Revisions to Establishment Survey Data." Doesn't sound like much, but read the fine print:

In accordance with annual practice, the establishment survey data have been revised to reflect comprehensive universe counts of payroll jobs, or benchmarks. These counts are derived principally from unemployment insurance tax records for March 2006. As a result of the benchmark process, all not seasonally adjusted data series were subject to revision from April 2005 forward, the time period since the last benchmark was established.

The total nonfarm employment level for March 2006 was revised upward by 752,000 (754,000 on a seasonally adjusted basis). The previously published level for December 2006 was revised upward by 981,000 (933,000 on a seasonally adjusted basis).

In other words, BLS "found" well over 900,000 more jobs, most of which (averaging about 63,000 per month) were added between April 2005 and March 2006. This was a time during which the "weak job growth" meme still had life in it. BLS's Annual Revision shows that the meme had no validity during that time.

So how does job growth during the Bush years look after incorporating the Annual Revision? Well, even more "Clintonian" than when I last looked at it a month ago:



As you might expect, the coverage of BLS's retroactively added 900,000-plus jobs has been relatively muted. Finding it requires knowing what you're looking for and getting past misleading headlines.

The LA Times (may require free registration) didn't not have the employment news in its home-page business headlines. Times reporter Molly Hennessy-Fiske got the Annual Revision news into her second paragraph but only after this off-putting headline and sub-headline -- "Employment still strong despite disappointing month; Unemployment rises slightly to 4.6% from 4.5%. Sluggishness in the housing market could keep a lid on economic growth." If I didn't know better, I wouldn't want to read any further.

The New York Times also gave the employment news no home-page visibility. Jeremy Peters' and Eduardo Porter's headline (may require free registration) -- "Slower Job Growth, At Least for Now." The Times did cover the the Annual Revision and asked a question on a lot of minds, including yours truly's, beginning in the article's fifth paragraph (bold is mine):

But employers may be hiring at a faster clip than is immediately apparent. The Labor Department also acknowledged that employers added nearly one million more jobs from March 2005 through last December than it had previously estimated.

Last year, employment growth exceeded earlier estimates by more than 400,000 jobs. The magnitude of the change suggested that the Labor Department might be seriously underestimating the growth in employment.

“The size of the upward revisions was enormous,” said Joshua Shapiro, chief United States economist with MFR. “You put the pieces of the puzzle together, and it sort of tells you that the 111,000 number is not something to focus on.” January’s number will be revised in February and March, and will be subject to an annual adjustment next year.

But if the Times' "expert" said that the January number wasn't something to focus on, why did the article's headline do just that?

Also -- The reporters' stat that 400,000 jobs were retroactively added to 2006 ("last year") is probably technically correct, but I see it as a "clever" way to avoid mentioning the hundreds of thousands of additional jobs retroactively added to 2005, AND to avoid mentioning the 900,000-plus grand total of jobs retroactively added.

The Washington Post's Neil Henderson (may require registration) did not mention the Annual Revision or the 900,000-plus jobs retroactively added at all.

Once again, the Bush jobs machine isn't getting the credit it is due. The BLS needs to take a serious look at why it is taking so long to discover hundreds of thousands of workers.

http://newsbusters.org/node/10589
__________________
 

New Topics

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top