In article ,
katy wrote:
I read it again...and it refuted what you said was happening...you have
an unemployment rate lower than 5% and although January was a bit
sketchy, you made up for it in February...the real estate market is soft
but not terribly...gonna start calling you Chicken Little...

Call me whatever you want. Here's what it says:

As expected, real GDP growth for the fourth quarter of 2006 was
revised down substantially from the advance release. GDP grew 2.2
percent in the fourth quarter of last year, well off the 3.5 percent
pace reported in the advance estimate. GDP growth was restrained by
declines in motor vehicle production and residential construction.

Turning to data for January, the news has been mixed but generally
consistent with weaker momentum in the short term.

On the negative side, orders for durable goods posted large and
broad-based declines in January. Manufacturing and industrial
production also weakened and manufacturing capacity utilization fell.

Sure, there are always positive things to say, but you can't claim the
above is good news.

Numbers revised downward.
Mixed but consistent with weaker momentum.
Orders down big time.

On the positive side, consumer spending outside of autos and homes
remains quite strong; real personal consumption expenditures rose a
healthy 0.3 percent in January. Real disposable income growth also
increased, suggesting that the consumer sector remains very healthy.

Spend, spend, spend, probably mostly on credit cards that they can't
afford and can't ever pay back what is owed.

Recent readings on the housing market data have been mixed but, on
balance, provide some tentative signs of a prospective stabilization.
Sales of existing homes were up sharply in January. On the other
hand, sales of new homes were weak. Housing starts were down and the
value of overall construction put in place declined in January
relative to December, but data on housing permits appear to have
leveled off in recent months.

Mixed bag, but not exactly good news no matter how you slice it.

Although the measured unemployment rate is quite low, some would argue
that it does not fully capture the population available for work.
Relative to the late 1990s, the labor force participation rate (LFP)
and the employment-to-population ratio remain low, suggesting that
there is some room for the total workforce to expand. On the other
hand, the aging of the baby boom makes the return to past peaks in LFP
or the employment-to-population ratio less than certain.

And, on and on.


--
Capt. JG @@
www.sailnow.com