More good economy news

[Rob67]

Well this is certainly good news...

Bloomberg Economy Report (http://quote.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000103&sid=aY1AEKQY47Pg&refer=us)

Rob :cool:

[jwd]

Great news for America....bad, bad, bad news for Kerry. :D

[Hawkeye]

that was all freaking jiberish crap to me. All I know is people are still loosing jobs by the truckloads and gas prices are soaring. I don't give a rats ass about what Bloomigderg has to say about quarterly 4.6 increases up from 4.3 percent.

[gldstwmn]

Great news for America....bad, bad, bad news for Kerry. :D

Could you enlighten me as to what this report is saying about our economy?

[strandinthewind]

The most telling news that the economy is recovering is CNN is reporting Greenspan hinted at an interest rate hike to forstall apparently an overheated recovery. Food for Thought.

[jwd]

gldstwmn:

Could you enlighten me as to what this report is saying about our economy?

You're not serious. Surely you can read. Even if I told you what I thought it meant, you would not agree with me. It might be more interesting for you to tell me what it DOESN'T mean.

[strandinthewind]

You're not serious. Surely you can read. Even if I told you what I thought it meant, you would not agree with me. It might be more interesting for you to tell me what it DOESN'T mean.

Well, for one, I am cautious about the actual number of new jobs created. The way that number is determined is not defined. Sometimes, "they" include things that are not really new jobs like union workers returning from a strike, etc. So, I am skeptical. In the end though, the overall economy clearly has improved, but the jobs are not following as fast as one would think they would. I mean if manufacturing demand is up, where is the corresponding job increase that accompanies that? The numbers in this article are not refective of that sustained increase :shrug: That is my issue with the Bush economy. That and the fact that the number of job sent overseas grossly outnumbers these "new" jobs and the govt. now owes so much money that tax increases are a necessity. So, W gets, at best, a D from me in economic policy.

[jwd]

strandinthewind:

That and the fact that the number of job sent overseas grossly outnumbers these "new" jobs


Food for thought:

http://www.heritage.org/Press/Commentary/ed042004d.cfm



and the govt. now owes so much money that tax increases are a necessity.


Tax increases are never a necessity in my book, unless of course all wasteful spending is stopped and there is still a need for more money to run the government.

Check these out:

http://www.cagw.org/site/PageServer?pagename=reports_pigbook2004

[strandinthewind]

Food for thought:

http://www.heritage.org/Press/Commentary/ed042004d.cfm






Tax increases are never a necessity in my book, unless of course all wasteful spending is stopped and there is still a need for more money to run the government.

Check these out:

http://www.cagw.org/site/PageServer?pagename=reports_pigbook2004

Those are cool sites and thanks for the reference. The first one is incorrect in that it spins the whole outsourcing issue. I mean I get outsourcing in the long run is better from many points of view. But, if your job got outsourced and you had a family to feed, you might not see it as an advantage. I mean these same companies would just take a little from the top people, they could keep these jobs here. But, they do not and that sucks for the little people. These companies also take advantage of labor conditions that would never be allowed here in the U.S. So, there is much more to this issue that suggested in that first article. But, until the law changes, outsourcing is the way it is for the foreseeable future.

Regarding tax increases, I totally agree with you. In fact, I saw there ought to be a flat tax of no more than 20% to the Fed govt. with NO other taxes or fees (no medicare, no SS, no excise tax) NOTHING. But, that will never happen because the special interest will never allow it. Also, the Bush tax cut is not really what is says. Yes, Federal taxes have been cut, but most state and local taxes have had to be raised to compensate for the lessened dollars these entities often receive from the Fed. Govt. Also, W's govt., like ALL other administrations, has vast wastes of money as pointed out in that second article. But, the govt. is so large I am unsure how to stop all of that. I mean W has used the Treas. to put a campaign slogan on recently mailed tax day reminder docs. That cost millions in resources. Yet, W says it was warranted and the expense justified - how he reached that conclusion I am uncertain but I do know this, that is a flat out waste of my tax dollars. Then, all Pres. use AF1 to campaign and pay only a nominal fee. That is a flat out waste. But, there is no end in sight. So, here come the higher taxes as America cannot sustain her debt with the current tax structure :shrug:

[jwd]

strandinthewind:

Those are cool sites and thanks for the reference. The first one is incorrect in that it spins the whole outsourcing issue. I mean I get outsourcing in the long run is better from many points of view. But, if your job got outsourced and you had a family to feed, you might not see it as an advantage. I mean these same companies would just take a little from the top people, they could keep these jobs here. But, they do not and that sucks for the little people. These companies also take advantage of labor conditions that would never be allowed here in the U.S. So, there is much more to this issue that suggested in that first article. But, until the law changes, outsourcing is the way it is for the foreseeable future.


You're welcome for the references. Even though someone loses a job through outsourcing, and that is a tough thing to take, these losses are mininimal on the grand scale of total jobs lost. Retraining the displaced employee is essential in a situation like this. That aside, you can't deny that it is plausible that outsourcing can be a good thing by creating more jobs in the long run, amongst other things indicated in the article. I TOTALLY agree that CEOS should take a cut in pay, making those funds available for better use within the company. But I still don't think that that will encourage the company to keep higher paid employees on the payroll. It would still strive to be as profitable as it could, and outsource a job if it meant saving money.


strandinthewind:

Also, W's govt., like ALL other administrations, has vast wastes of money as pointed out in that second article. But, the govt. is so large I am unsure how to stop all of that.


Nothing works better than appplying a little pressure on your elected representatives. Stay informed and let them know, that you know, what they are doing and how they are voting. :)

[dissention]

Let's not forget that the recent number for unemployment claims were MUCH smaller than what they actually were. It was quite the spin from ChimpCo.

[gldstwmn]

The most telling news that the economy is recovering is CNN is reporting Greenspan hinted at an interest rate hike to forstall apparently an overheated recovery. Food for Thought.


He did? When? In his speech yesterday he said (I'm paraphrasing) it was still too soon as we had seen the end of deflation but we still hadn't seen strong enough signs of inflation. The FOMC meets may 4. The beige book comes out today. That should foretell a lot about what's going to happen on May 4. :)

[gldstwmn]

You're not serious. Surely you can read. Even if I told you what I thought it meant, you would not agree with me. It might be more interesting for you to tell me what it DOESN'T mean.

No, I was hoping you or Rob could break it down in your own words. I'm interested as to what this means to you as a fiscal conservative.

[gldstwmn]

[QUOTE=strandinthewind]Well, for one, I am cautious about the actual number of new jobs created. The way that number is determined is not defined. [QUOTE]

Jobless claims were up 30,000 last week. We get a fresh set of numbers tomorrow.

[gldstwmn]

Also, the Bush tax cut is not really what is says. Yes, Federal taxes have been cut, but most state and local taxes have had to be raised to compensate for the lessened dollars these entities often receive from the Fed. Govt.

OMG. You finally said it. :shocked:
By the way jwd, using a source such as The Heritage Foundation doesn't really make for a believable case. :rolleyes:

[strandinthewind]

He did? When? In his speech yesterday he said (I'm paraphrasing) it was still too soon as we had seen the end of deflation but we still hadn't seen strong enough signs of inflation. The FOMC meets may 4. The beige book comes out today. That should foretell a lot about what's going to happen on May 4. :)


http://money.cnn.com/2004/04/21/news/economy/fed_greenspan/index.htm?cnn=yes

Greenspan: Rates must rise

Fed chairman says inflation in check for now, but economy stronger, and Fed will act eventually.
April 21, 2004: 10:19 AM EDT

NEW YORK (CNN/Money) - The U.S. economy is growing with more vigor, and interest rates must eventually rise to keep inflation in check, Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan said Wednesday, another hint that a Fed rate hike is nearing.

While the threat of "disinflation," or a lack of corporate pricing power, seems to have faded, inflation is still dormant so far, since labor costs are flat, the central bank chairman said in prepared remarks delivered to the Joint Economic Committee of Congress.


"But the Federal Reserve recognizes that sustained prosperity requires the maintenance of price stability and will act, as necessary, to ensure that outcome," he added.

Fed policy makers are scheduled to meet May 4 to discuss the economy and their target for the federal funds rate, an overnight bank lending rate that influences other rates throughout the economy. Few analysts expect a rate increase at that meeting, but market participants expect a rate hike to come at the Fed's August policy meeting.

In listing signs of an economic acceleration this year, Greenspan cited a faster rate of growth in gross domestic product (GDP), strong consumer and business spending, a recovery in factory output, a bounce in exports, and a labor market that's "gradually improving."

"Looking forward, the prospects for sustaining solid economic growth in the period ahead are good," he said.

But he also warned that businesses still seemed cautious about spending on factory improvements, inventory building and hiring. He also noted that the recent boom in productivity, or output per worker hour, wasn't quite over yet, as companies continue to use technology to run more efficiently.

If demand is still strong when that process finally runs its course, Greenspan said, then hiring will need to accelerate, putting upward pressure on wages and, eventually, consumer prices.

"Should such an acceleration of costs persist ... higher price inflation would inevitably follow," Greenspan said.

Nevertheless, he indicated that such inflation wasn't exactly right around the corner.

"Still-significant productivity growth and a sizable margin of underutilized resources, to date, have checked any sustained acceleration of the general price level and should continue to do so for a time," he said.

:cool:

[gldstwmn]

I think that pretty much reinforces my statement except they are now calling it "disinflation." :shrug:

[strandinthewind]

I think that pretty much reinforces my statement except they are now calling it "disinflation." :shrug:
??????????

Greenspan is saying that a rate hike may be necessary to forestall the threat of inflation?

[gldstwmn]

??????????

Greenspan is saying that a rate hike may be necessary to forestall the threat of inflation?

Yes. :confused:

http://www.lioninc.com/dft/op/marketcommentary

In his formal statement, Mr. Greenspan acknowledged the impressive progress that the economy has made and noted that prospects of continued growth were good. But he did qualify his optimism regarding the employment situation by observing that the labor market "now appears to be gradually improving after a protracted period of weakness" and he said that worker insecurity will take some time to subside.

He also noted that inflation did not currently pose a threat: "... although the recent data suggest that the worrisome trend of disinflation presumably has come to an end, still-significant productivity growth and a sizable margin of underutilized resources, to date, have checked any sustained acceleration of the general price level and should continue to do so for a time. Moreover, the initial effect of a slowing of productivity growth is more likely to be an easing of profit margins than an acceleration of prices."

His summary paragraph contained the closest warning of rate hikes to come but it was tempered by the observation that the inflation levels remain benign: "As I have noted previously, the federal funds rate must rise at some point to prevent pressures on price inflation from eventually emerging. As yet, the protracted period of monetary accommodation has not fostered an environment in which broad-based inflation pressures appear to be building. But the Federal Reserve recognizes that sustained prosperity requires the maintenance of price stability and will act, as necessary, to ensure that outcome."

[jwd]

gldstwmn:

By the way jwd, using a source such as The Heritage Foundation doesn't really make for a believable case.

Well before you roll your eyes, I would encourage you to search the net and look for articles on outsourcing. There are many articles from various publications and organizations that would corroborate what was said in the article I posted. I'm sure you could find one that is to your liking. It was merely food for thought. Whether you buy it, or believe it, is up to you.