Fuck, yeah!


http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Economy-likely-grew-faster-in-apf-3028347842.html?x=0&.v=9

Yes, there are lots of caveats. But that's pretty fucking encouraging.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://bible.cc/1_corinthians/13-11.htm

If you are a trader, your bullshit meter should be going off big time, and watch out when those numbers get revised. Thankfully the market doesn't look like it is buying into that, the fact that the markets aren't up two or three hundred points and are instead almost flat (as of this post) on that news should tell you something.

Jumping from 2.2% to 5.7% in one quarter would not be good news in many respects... if the Fed thought that number was a new trend they'd be holding emergency meetings for extreme and rapid rate tightening.

10,116
Last 4.24-0.04%
Today’s Change 10,122.04
Today’s Open $10,239.34
Day High $10,109.35
Day Low 0
Volume

Losing ground....Hah.

"Replenishing inventory" isn't quite as exciting as "selling more stuff", but it sure isn't BAD news. The BAD news is we have an economy that's been resisting job creation for the better part of a decade now.

And "the market" usually has a pretty good idea of what this kind of "news" is before it gets published.

______________________________________________
I have had to change the addresses to my retaliatory blogs over half a dozen times.

Growth itself obviously isn't bad. Growth that is happening too fast can be bad.

It's good news regardless of the qualifiers involved. If we have positive GDP in the first quarter of 2010, then we are on a roll.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://bible.cc/1_corinthians/13-11.htm

Of course all of us are waiting breathlessly for Vince(r)'s Glenn Beckish take on the matter, or has he died?

______________________________________________
I have had to change the addresses to my retaliatory blogs over half a dozen times.

fairfaxdude Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Of course all of us are waiting breathlessly for
> Vince(r)'s Glenn Beckish take on the matter, or
> has he died?


I think he is taking his new name pretty hard. He was imploring me in PMs to stop it. He must have some serious issues being associated with the Liberal Vince.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://bible.cc/1_corinthians/13-11.htm

Dow 10,064.61 -55.85 (-0.55%)
Nasdaq 2,147.35 -31.65 (-1.45%)
S&P 500 1,073.89 -10.64 (-0.98%)

WashingTone-Locian Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> It's good news regardless of the qualifiers
> involved. If we have positive GDP in the first
> quarter of 2010, then we are on a roll.

We had positive GDP last quarter, and when you remove the statistical BS portion of the 5.7% gain you find the rate of growth didn't change from last quarter, 2.2%.


from http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/35149367/ns/business-answer_desk/

"But when you look a little more closely at the numbers, it quickly becomes apparent that it’s hardly time to start breaking out the champagne. A big part of the latest GDP gain comes from a statistical adjustment for changes in inventory levels that don’t reflect real growth. Over the past year, businesses cut deeply into those inventories — not wanting to get stuck with unsold goods. Now that they’ve cut them to the bone, the rate of inventory-cutting has slowed. The way the GDP is calculated, that slowdown adds to “growth” — even though it doesn’t reflect increased production or sales. If you back out that inventory adjustment, GDP grew only 2.2 percent."

Boy, I can't wait for Wall Street to bounce back to their former glory so we can experience all the fun and joy of having the rug pulled out from under us again.

--------------------------------------------------------------
13 4826 0948 82695 25847. Yes.

pgens Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> WashingTone-Locian Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > It's good news regardless of the qualifiers
> > involved. If we have positive GDP in the first
> > quarter of 2010, then we are on a roll.
>
> We had positive GDP last quarter, and when you
> remove the statistical BS portion of the 5.7% gain
> you find the rate of growth didn't change from
> last quarter, 2.2%.
>
>
> from
> http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/35149367/ns/business-a
> nswer_desk/
>
> "But when you look a little more closely at the
> numbers, it quickly becomes apparent that it’s
> hardly time to start breaking out the champagne. A
> big part of the latest GDP gain comes from a
> statistical adjustment for changes in inventory
> levels that don’t reflect real growth. Over the
> past year, businesses cut deeply into those
> inventories — not wanting to get stuck with unsold
> goods. Now that they’ve cut them to the bone, the
> rate of inventory-cutting has slowed. The way the
> GDP is calculated, that slowdown adds to “growth”
> — even though it doesn’t reflect increased
> production or sales. If you back out that
> inventory adjustment, GDP grew only 2.2 percent."

Stop pissing in WTL's Wheaties! Let him have his moment. It may a long while before he gets another.

fairfaxdude Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Of course all of us are waiting breathlessly for
> Vince(r)'s Glenn Beckish take on the matter, or
> has he died?


GDP numbers are good..but until the job losses stop..they dont matter. Hopefully the lag between these indicators and employment will catch up soon.

In the face of Obama's failure to pass a health care bill...his mediocre foreign policy results...his flip flops on how/where to bring terrorists to trial...he appears weak...weak presidents are never good for the country.

Registered Voter...a Big talking coward..big man on FFXU...little man in life.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/29/2010 08:33PM by Vince(1).

oil is down to $73 dollar range. Which means gas show slowly lower ahead of the summer driving season. That and the employment rate are the two indicators Im mainly focusing on.

WashingTone-Locian Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> fairfaxdude Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Of course all of us are waiting breathlessly
> for
> > Vince(r)'s Glenn Beckish take on the matter, or
> > has he died?
>
>
> I think he is taking his new name pretty hard. He
> was imploring me in PMs to stop it. He must have
> some serious issues being associated with the
> Liberal Vince.

Oh please, get over yourself WTL. I sent you one PM in an attempt to defuse your Vince(the original)(TM)/eesh-BB moment. If you got more then one PM from me on the issue then you must have been sending mine to yourself over and over again for thrills or something.

If GDP numbers had to be revised that high, it is bad - it will spur the Fed to take aggressive moves on interest rates if it is true. Honestly, we really don't want interest rates to start moving up yet in any significant way. This sounds like a BS move to try and instill some consumer confidence, but I doubt we will see much of anything else. Besides - the 1st quarter isn't over yet, and all those folks that were Holiday hires were all let go, plus quite a few more for stores that closed. I know I won't be holding my breath to see if the numbers are moving higher at the end of the quarter. But you all keep deluding yourself that somehow there is "magic" going on behind the scenes. We already saw unemployment numbers higher then expected, and the Obama moves to increase fees on financial institutions probably won't help much either. Not sure if you all are aware of how banks lend money, but increasing fees and taxes on them is a pretty good way to make sure they don't. That certainly won't bode well for future growth either.

I think that is why the libs have been all cranky around here lately and grasping for straws. Obama is backpeddling on everything he started doing, including this recent move to NOT hold the trials for 9/11 folks in NY City. But gee, I thought everyone believed that was such a great idea....

U.S. Drops Plan for a 9/11 Trial in New York City
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/30/nyregion/30trial.html?partner=rss&emc=rss

After the Whine of the Union speech the other night, this should not surprise anyone.

If you can’t model the past, where you know the answer pretty well, how can you model the future? - William Happer Cyrus Fogg Brackett Professor of Physics Princeton University

fairfaxdude Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Of course all of us are waiting breathlessly for
> Vince(r)'s Glenn Beckish take on the matter, or
> has he died?


RV...

It looks like a certain dude missed you.... he was hyperventilating.

You know seeing the two biggest pussies on here slander my name pisses me off. They "hate" me so much that they filter out my comments...yet they use my name as a substitute for substantive comment.

I would consider their behavior almost a compliment if both of them werent absolute pussies.

Registered Voter...a Big talking coward..big man on FFXU...little man in life.

its not over yet by a long ways. In fact we may never recover again!

The difference between this 'recession' and previous ones is that our lost jobs aren't coming back. Back in the '80's, companies like GE would shut down a production line and when the economy got better, they'd reopen it. Now, those factories are gone. Moved to Mexico or more likely, China. We've hemorrhaged jobs for the last 20 years. Now we suddenly expect them to come back....not going to happen.

Take a look at this graph: http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_aGvk7g9hxtg/S0zdPk5a6xI/AAAAAAAAB6M/aZ3cKgPAuUc/s1600-h/EmploymentRecessionsDec.jpg

More than likely, our unemployment rate is going to level out somewhere between 8-10% and stay there for years.

And BTW, the stock market has zero to do with our economy anymore. Most of the companies are multi-national now...they're are very few "American" companies anymore.

Also, look for new 'bubbles' starting soon. All this cheap money is bound to produce some more. My guess is the first one we'll see is a Green Energy bubble. Companies are going to start popping up with new and innovative ways to produce clean energy. It will be just like the Dot Com bubble. Caveat emptor

I happen to come across Jim Cramer last night..he had the CEO of a company whose stock abbreviation is CY.... he was saying that his company's personnel numbers were down 20% from some recent point in time. He basically said doing more with less with the name of the game for the industry and that he had no plans to hire.

He and Cramer were pretty much ridiculing the Obama administration for doing anything to help bring back employment numbers...specifically sayingthings like "passenger rail projects we dont need werent the ansswer".

Of course as an assumed memebers of the "Party of no!"...neither one offered any ideas on what a corporation based in the U.S., making most their money here in the U.S. owes to society. Nothing was said about the social unrest that long term unemployment will generate. Their only solution was....let me make more money, and fire more people.

What great Americans! Oh..wait, they are both republican Corporatists...not Americans!

Registered Voter...a Big talking coward..big man on FFXU...little man in life.

Its ok because there are trillions and trillions of Indians and Chinese who can now afford to buy their products. So all the wealth will go there over the next century.

Our government let our service sector go there, why not?

Vince(1) Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> You know seeing the two biggest pussies on here
> slander my name pisses me off. They "hate" me so
> much that they filter out my comments...yet they
> use my name as a substitute for substantive
> comment.
>
> I would consider their behavior almost a
> compliment if both of them werent absolute
> pussies.


You can't slander somebody on a message board. Dumbass.

ITRADE Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Vince(1) Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > You know seeing the two biggest pussies on here
> > slander my name pisses me off. They "hate" me
> so
> > much that they filter out my comments...yet
> they
> > use my name as a substitute for substantive
> > comment.
> >
> > I would consider their behavior almost a
> > compliment if both of them werent absolute
> > pussies.
>
>
> You can't slander somebody on a message board.
> Dumbass.


Ohhh..geeezze..that was the point I was making! Divert...confuse...lie...the republican strategy.

Registered Voter...a Big talking coward..big man on FFXU...little man in life.

AP Sobs: It’s Really Hard To Create Jobs

The Associated Press explains it all:

Formula shows why it’s so hard to cut jobless rate

By Jeannine Aversa, AP Economics Writer
January 21, 2010

WASHINGTON — The economy’s 5.7 percent growth last quarter — the fastest pace since 2003 — was a step toward shrinking the nation’s 10 percent unemployment rate.

There’s just one problem: Growth would have to equal 5 percent for all of 2010 just to lower the average jobless rate for the year by 1 percentage point.

And economists don’t think that’s possible.

Most analysts say economic activity will slow to 2.5 percent or 3 percent growth for the current quarter as the benefits fade from government stimulus efforts and from companies drawing down less of their stockpiles.

And, lest we forget, 3.3% GDP growth was called a recession under President Bush by our watchdog media.

But now they want to make sure that we all realize it is spectacular growth in the era of Obama.

That’s why the Federal Reserve and outside economists think it will take until around the middle of the decade to lower the double-digit jobless rate to a more normal 5 or 6 percent.

Meanwhile, as the Associated Press has already helpfully explained, 10% unemployment is the ‘new normal.’

Even though the selfsame Jeannine Aversa of the AP cried bloody murder when the jobless rate was 5% under President Bush.

Another way of looking at it: A net total of about 3 million jobs would have to be created this year to lower the average unemployment rate by 1 percentage point for 2010, economists estimate. Yet even optimists think the creation of 1 million net jobs is probably out of reach this year.

Why is that? We were told a couple of weeks ago by our media masters that Mr. Obama created or saved 2 million jobs in the last year, when the country is in recession.

So why can’t he create or save even more now when we are enjoying this spectacular recovery?

High unemployment poses a risk to the unfolding recovery because it leads consumers to spend less, keeping economic growth weak. A sharp pullback in spending might even push the economy back into recession. Joblessness also represents a danger for President Barack Obama’s Democratic Party in this fall’s congressional elections…

Which is why the Associated Press is going to begin this propaganda campaign to explain why it is next to impossible to change the unemployment numbers.

To get a sense of just how deep a dent the worst recession since the 1930s has made in the economy, consider this: The economy shrank 2.4 percent for all of 2009 — the sharpest drop since 1946. It was also the first annual decline since 1991…

Which is to say, it’s all Bush’s fault.

Mark Zandi, chief economist at Economy.com, and Bill Cheney, chief economist at John Hancock, agree that the economy would have to grow roughly 5 percent for all of 2010 just to ratchet down the average unemployment rate for the year by 1 percentage point — to a still-high 9 percent.

Their math is based on Okun’s law, named for economist Arthur Okun. In 1962, Okun produced a formula for the connection he saw between unemployment and economic activity.

Exactly how much GDP growth is needed to lower the unemployment rate for a given period varies. That’s because the formula involves several factors besides GDP growth. It also considers, for example, businesses’ productivity growth…

Economists say the formula hasn’t always held up perfectly in recent decades. Rather, it’s relied upon as a rough rule of thumb for determining how much growth will be needed to lower unemployment…

So the AP has to trot out an obscure (and highly imperfect) ‘law’ that nobody has ever heard of before — from their always surprised (and wrong) economists – to try to explain away Mr. Obama’s high unemployment numbers.

Instead of facing the painfully obvious fact that you cannot grow out of a recession by simply creating slush funds and handing out more government jobs.

Vince(1) Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> What great Americans! Oh..wait, they are both
> republican Corporatists...not Americans!

Actually, Jim Cramer used to work for Governor Jerry Brown and gives EXCLUSIVELY to Democratic candidates and organizations:

http://www.newsmeat.com/media_political_donations/Jim_Cramer.php


That's YOUR party.

Newsmeat,

Were you neglected as a child? Did your mother tell you that she loved you regularly?

She told me all about it over a couple of 22 oz. cans of Budweiser. Please call me if you want to talk or we can just meet up at the I-95 rest stop in Ashland as usual.

Concerned,
Scat Brown(R)