RedScare Posted February 24, 2009 Share Posted February 24, 2009 Something about your claim seemed wrong, and so I checked. It is wrong. Look at this data. A recession never happened; we never had two consecutive quarters of negative GDP growth. Growth during the quarters immediately before and after GDP losses even completely made up for the losses. And quarters with GDP losses were about evenly divided between Democrat and Republican presidencies (if that's something that matters).Q1 2000 - 1.0% (D)Q2 2000 - 6.4% (D)Q3 2000 - -0.5% (D)Q4 2000 - 2.1% (D)Q1 2001 - -0.5% (D-->R)Q2 2001 - 1.2% Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sevfiv Posted March 2, 2009 Share Posted March 2, 2009 It will be interesting to see legislature's upcoming education budgets for public schools...Meanwhile, private schools' endowments are shrinking and faculty, operating expenses, and tuition costs are taking a major hit:Rice University: Will cut next year Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheNiche Posted March 3, 2009 Share Posted March 3, 2009 Well, then Ari lied about THAT too. He can't inherit a recession if one never occurred, can he? I find it interesting that in arguments past you would lecture us about how a recession is defined and who the arbiter is on recessions, but today the NBER is a publicity hound, but the facts remain that either Ari lied because the NBER said the recession ran from March to November 2001, OR he lied because no recession ever occurred...according to you.I think you should take this up with the NBER and Ari, personally.Claiming that Ari lied infers malicious or deceitful intent. Perhaps he was only mistaken. He is a press secretary after all, not an economist. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Subdude Posted March 3, 2009 Share Posted March 3, 2009 It will be interesting to see legislature's upcoming education budgets for public schools...Meanwhile, private schools' endowments are shrinking and faculty, operating expenses, and tuition costs are taking a major hit:http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/metrop...an/6288904.htmlI'm a little surprised to see this. I was under the impression that colleges didn't do as badly in recessions because more people were apt to delay entering the job market. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lockmat Posted March 6, 2009 Author Share Posted March 6, 2009 wsj piece... http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1236301595...icle-outset-box Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lockmat Posted March 13, 2009 Author Share Posted March 13, 2009 Today at 11:15am, Biden will be addressing the stimulus that will be given to Amtrak. It'll be on KTRH2 online and I'm sure on cspan somewhere. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
houstonmacbro Posted March 13, 2009 Share Posted March 13, 2009 Today at 11:15am, Biden will be addressing the stimulus that will be given to Amtrak. It'll be on KTRH2 online and I'm sure on cspan somewhere.So what came of it? Amtrak is really a niche product in the NE it seems. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lockmat Posted March 13, 2009 Author Share Posted March 13, 2009 So what came of it? Amtrak is really a niche product in the NE it seems.I have no idea. I'll have to search for news reports since KTRH2 was playing their normal stream so I did not get to hear it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lockmat Posted March 13, 2009 Author Share Posted March 13, 2009 Actually, here are some high/lowlights:"Every, every, every, every passenger rail service system in the world relies on subsidies. We subsidize our highways and airports more than we subsidize Amtrak," he said at Union Station this morning. "So let's get something straight here: Amtrak is not bent at the trough. Amtrak has been left out. ... I'm tired of apologizing for help for Amtrak."One of the projects in the stimulus plan is a $21 million renovation of that station, and another $105 million will be spent on renovating Amtrak facilities nationwide. Also included: $82 million to fix damaged rail cars, $63 million to upgrade the electricity pathways, and $10.5 million for a new station in Sanford, Fla. Rep. Corrine Brown (D-Fla) was among those on hand thanking the veep for his role in securing the funds."If you have any problems in the stimulus, call the po-po. That's Joe Biden!" she said, declaring the group part of "Team Amtrak."So comfortable with the group was Biden that he was heard using the f-word a little too close to the open mic as he greeted them. Of course, his predecessor was caught doing the same, but in a more negative context. http://www.realclearpolitics.com/politics_...praises_ra.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lockmat Posted March 31, 2009 Author Share Posted March 31, 2009 This can't be good...http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123846388674472223.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RedScare Posted March 31, 2009 Share Posted March 31, 2009 This can't be good...http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123846388674472223.htmlI'm not sure if it is good or not. All of those people who were outraged that GM and Chrysler received bailout money should probably be encouraged that the government is sticking to its guns by not giving more money to failing businesses. All of those people who were outraged that the banks received bailout money last fall with virtually no strings attached should be satisfied that the government is attaching strict requirements to any future money. Those who believe the automakers should be saved at any price should probably pour themselves a drink, though, because it is looking increasingly like the Obama administration has serious doubts of the viability of the 2 automakers GM and Chrysler. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RedScare Posted April 4, 2009 Share Posted April 4, 2009 New unemployment numbers came out yesterday. While many have probably heard or read about the 8.5% unemployment figure, the horrible method of tabulating the figure makes it utterly useless, except for those who like to delude themselves by saying it is lower than other industrialized nations' unemployment figures. The more telling and useful figure, the U-6, is included in the BLS table below...BLS unemployment table U-6The U-6 computes the percentage of unemployed plus the number of marginally attached workers plus the number of part-time workers who would like to be employed full-time, but cannot find full-time jobs. In March, this percentage increased to 15.6% seasonably adjusted, or 16.2% unadjusted. This means that 1 in every 6 adults who would like to be working full-time cannot find a full-time job. And, with employment being a lagging indicator, this means that even if you believe the happy faces on CNBC, this number will surely rise for most of the rest of 2009, if not the entire year. For an economy that places a huge burden on the consumer to keep it going (70%), and considering the banks are still restricting credit card useage, take the "the worst is over!" talk with a grain of salt. What they are really saying is that the rate of DECLINE is slowing, not that it is going up.EDITED for goofy BLS link. Click on U-6 squares to retrieve tables. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheNiche Posted April 5, 2009 Share Posted April 5, 2009 CNBC is geared towards investors, not Joe Schmo. For their audience, the worst probably is over.EDIT: Btw, I was watching CNBC a couple mornings ago, and they said this flat out. It was more or less: 'Corporate profits and GDP will probably improve going forward while the jobs situation continues to deteriorate for at least several more months before bottoming out.' Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BryanS Posted April 5, 2009 Share Posted April 5, 2009 CNBC is geared towards investors, not Joe Schmo. For their audience, the worst probably is over.EDIT: Btw, I was watching CNBC a couple mornings ago, and they said this flat out. It was more or less: 'Corporate profits and GDP will probably improve going forward while the jobs situation continues to deteriorate for at least several more months before bottoming out.'I would say CNBC is geared toward sensationalized, tabloid business "reporting." As an investor, I would never take information seriously from a network with a motto: "in Kramer, we trust." Or that hyperventilates, second by second, as the DJIA goes up and down....and I know its not just Kramer. But if you look at "Fast Money", "Squak Box", "Squak on the Street" ... all the same yammering. One thing I find kinda humorous about CNBC is that the hosts always refer to each other by first and last name, over and over, even though they've worked with each other for years... "What do you think about that Larry Kudlow?""I'd like some more mustard seeds... I like mustard seeds... I see a mustard seed!" Great. I'll buy that stock now, because Larry Kudlow says it is a mustard seed.I enjoy watching CNBC. Just to see how wrong they are. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gooch Posted April 5, 2009 Share Posted April 5, 2009 While many have probably heard or read about the 8.5% unemployment figure, the horrible method of tabulating the figure makes it utterly useless, except for those who like to delude themselves by saying it is lower than other industrialized nations' unemployment figures.Some more criticism of BLS methods....http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com...l-from-bls.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheNiche Posted April 5, 2009 Share Posted April 5, 2009 I would say CNBC is geared toward sensationalized, tabloid business "reporting." As an investor, I would never take information seriously from a network with a motto: "in Kramer, we trust." Or that hyperventilates, second by second, as the DJIA goes up and down. Sensationalized, tabloid business reporting doesn't watch commercials or buy products. It is not, itself, a target market. It is a method used on their target market, which is--as I said--comprised of investors. The commentators tend to be right of center because that's going to appeal the best to the target market. And as with just about all successful news media, they try to make their subject matter seem more important than it really is...even if it's just fluff. ...and I know its not just Kramer. But if you look at "Fast Money", "Squak Box", "Squak on the Street" ... all the same yammering. One thing I find kinda humorous about CNBC is that the hosts always refer to each other by first and last name, over and over, even though they've worked with each other for years... "What do you think about that Larry Kudlow?" News isn't a sitcom. They're communicating to a large audience that may or may not be following along very closely. It's not humorous at all. It's just good business. "I'd like some more mustard seeds... I like mustard seeds... I see a mustard seed!" Great. I'll buy that stock now, because Larry Kudlow says it is a mustard seed. So the hypodermic needle model of communication applies to everyone watching. ...except for you. You're sooo much smarter, a superior being well-justified in your condescension. I enjoy watching CNBC. Just to see how wrong they are. You are an investor that watches CNBC...and from all the details you've provided, it seems like you watch it a whole lot more than I do. Do you watch it for purely entertainment value? Is it because you weigh the opinions of various commentators and guests against one another, examining multiple sides to an issue? Is it because you're trying to gauge macro-level market psychology? You couldn't possibly be watching it for the ticker tape and other up-to-date data. You said earlier that you don't trust them because of their rhetoric, so the ticker is probably not a reliable data source. You'd have to watch Jon Stewart to get reliable price quotes, but you know you can trust him, and you know he would never flamboyantly exaggerate anything for rhetorical effect. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Subdude Posted April 5, 2009 Share Posted April 5, 2009 I would say CNBC is geared toward sensationalized, tabloid business "reporting." As an investor, I would never take information seriously from a network with a motto: "in Kramer, we trust." Or that hyperventilates, second by second, as the DJIA goes up and down....and I know its not just Kramer. But if you look at "Fast Money", "Squak Box", "Squak on the Street" ... all the same yammering. One thing I find kinda humorous about CNBC is that the hosts always refer to each other by first and last name, over and over, even though they've worked with each other for years... "What do you think about that Larry Kudlow?""I'd like some more mustard seeds... I like mustard seeds... I see a mustard seed!" Great. I'll buy that stock now, because Larry Kudlow says it is a mustard seed.I enjoy watching CNBC. Just to see how wrong they are.Yeah, but it hardly matters - these are just television shows. Of course you can't take them seriously. They're simply meant to be entertaining. I'm sure that nobody really thinks of them as sources of serious business or financial information. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RedScare Posted April 9, 2009 Share Posted April 9, 2009 We're in deep doo-doo.Men's Underwear Sales Reveal Deep CrisisOn a modestly more serious note, there's this...http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20090409/ts_al...dFrhOgoV_KyBhIFNot sure why, but that story bummed me out. Maybe I had started believing the CNBC cheerleaders. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lockmat Posted April 15, 2009 Author Share Posted April 15, 2009 Seems like Canada's economy is relatively healthy...http://www.csmonitor.com/2009/0412/p15s01-woam.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lockmat Posted April 16, 2009 Author Share Posted April 16, 2009 new website from the gov'ment: http://www.financialstability.gov/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RedScare Posted April 19, 2009 Share Posted April 19, 2009 12 Major Brands That Will Not Survive 2009 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheNiche Posted April 19, 2009 Share Posted April 19, 2009 12 Major Brands That Will Not Survive 2009It strikes me that some of these brands probably will survive, albeit not necessarily under the same owner. It's one thing where you've got Chrysler, which does not and is unlikely to ever again generate positive net operating income. It either has to be vastly scaled back into a niche product or it is going to go away. No company would dare buy it for anything more than scrap value. This is different from business units that are able to generate operating income but that were owned by companies with bad financial agreements; these brands just get sold to a different owner, and the transition occurs seamlessly as far as consumers are concerned.Other brands, like print newspapers and magazines, will continue to exist, only in a different format. Publications like Architectural Digest happen to be going through a particularly rough business cycle, but that doesn't mean that homebuilding will never come back or that interest in the subject matter won't return to healthy pre-boom levels; for that reason, I suspect that an investor somewhere may be willing to at least purchase the well-respected brand, even if the publication has to go on hiatus for a year or so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lockmat Posted April 21, 2009 Author Share Posted April 21, 2009 pretty funny... http://features.csmonitor.com/politics/200...-cup-of-coffee/ “One hundred million dollars represents .003 percent of $3.5 trillion. To put those numbers in perspective, imagine that the head of a household with annual spending of $100,000 called everyone in the family together to deal with a $34,000 budget shortfall. How much would he or she announce that spending had to be cut? By $3 over the course of the year — approximately the cost of one latte at Starbucks. The other $33,997? We can put that on the family credit card and worry about it next year.” The Associated Press breaks it down this way — without resorting to coffee.“The bottom line: Not much. The president gave his Cabinet 90 days to find $100 million in savings to achieve over time. For all the trumpeting, the effort raised questions about why Obama set the bar so low, considering that $100 million amounts to: –Less than one-quarter of the budget increase that Congress awarded to itself. –4 percent of the military aid the United States sends to Israel. –Less than half the cost of one F-22 fighter plane. –7 percent of the federal subsidy for the money-losing Amtrak passenger rail system. –1/10,000th of the government’s operating budgets for Cabinet agencies, excluding the Iraq and Afghan wars and the stimulus bill.” Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
musicman Posted April 22, 2009 Share Posted April 22, 2009 Global economy is expected to shrink this yearThe world economy is likely to shrink this year for the first time in six decades. The International Monetary Fund projected the 1.3 percent drop in a dour forecast released today. That could leave at least 10 million more people around the world jobless, some private economists said. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lockmat Posted April 22, 2009 Author Share Posted April 22, 2009 In Atlanta, Irrational Building Exuberance ATLANTA -- A one-mile stretch of Atlanta's upscale Buckhead neighborhood shows why commercial real estate is emerging as an obstacle to pulling the U.S. economy out of recession.Separate developers in Buckhead are building four speculative office buildings at the same time with virtually no leasing activity. The 35 recent condominium projects will help give Atlanta a 40-year supply at the current sales pace. A $600 million outdoor shopping mall under way has suspended construction to save money.The glut threatens to worsen the clobbering that many U.S. banks already are getting from nonperforming loans made to owners and developers ...edit, link fixed: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1240358545...ial_real_estate<a href="http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1240358545...ial_real_estate"'>http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1240358545...ial_real_estate" target="_blank">http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1240358545...ial_real_estate</a>Why are developers dumber in one city and not in another? Certainly they don't have THAT much confidence in Atlanta's market post-recession, do they? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheNiche Posted April 22, 2009 Share Posted April 22, 2009 Why are developers dumber in one city and not in another? Certainly they don't have THAT much confidence in Atlanta's market post-recession, do they?When it comes right down to it, developers could care less what the state of the economy is. If someone will give them money to develop, then they will develop. It's not a well-known fact, but many of them make more from fees charged to their equity partner(s) than they ever would hope to make on the operation and eventual sale of the property. Whoever gave them the money, that's really their fault.The link to your story is broken, but I would suspect that the developments discussed had been in the works for quite a while now. It can be over two years between when construction financing for a new development is arranged and when that product is completed. Atlanta was a hot market two years ago and few were predicting a recession of this severity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rsb320 Posted May 13, 2009 Share Posted May 13, 2009 I guess this is as good a place as any to post this.What is up with all the reduced portions at the grocery store? For example, tuna has gone from 6oz to 5oz. Who do they thing they're fooling? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
musicman Posted May 13, 2009 Share Posted May 13, 2009 I guess this is as good a place as any to post this.What is up with all the reduced portions at the grocery store? For example, tuna has gone from 6oz to 5oz. Who do they thing they're fooling?just tryin to increase their profits. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EMME Posted May 13, 2009 Share Posted May 13, 2009 I guess this is as good a place as any to post this.What is up with all the reduced portions at the grocery store? For example, tuna has gone from 6oz to 5oz. Who do they thing they're fooling?The company line is that they are trying not to raise prices, so instead they are decreasing product size. They didn't get past you though. The funny thing is that once things turn around, they don't go back. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rsb320 Posted May 13, 2009 Share Posted May 13, 2009 The company line is that they are trying not to raise prices, so instead they are decreasing product size. They didn't get past you though. The funny thing is that once things turn around, they don't go back.I'm not fat. They don't need to put me on a forced diet. Also, this can really screw with recipes and such. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.