New Discoveries?
 

Jonathan Ganz wrote:
In article ,
katy wrote:

Dave wrote:

On Mon, 26 Mar 2007 14:55:06 -0400, katy said:


From memory didn't it say unemployment was less than 5% and that

although sloppy, the housing market was pretty much stable? And that
durable goods were doing fine?


Jon's hilarious. He's been claiming the economy is in the crapper constantly
since at least 2002.

He obviously interpreted the article the same way some people interpret
the Bible...


So, you refuse to read it again.... ok.


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...

New Discoveries?
 

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

New Discoveries?
 

Good grief Jon...it was revised down but they had overpredicted in the
first place and still made a gain! Brack brack...the sky is falling in
California everyone...run for cover!

New Discoveries?
 

"Jonathan Ganz" wrote in message
...
In article .net,
Maxprop wrote:

It's the only response you're willing to address, because it's the
only one that's not totally obvious.

"Capt. JG" wrote in message
...

You really don't know much about the economy do you. It's lagging, the
housing market is failing... many more poor and malnourished in the
country.

This is the only response you've made that I have any interest to take
issue
with. Fact: the housing market in the Bay Area has tanked, but it was
artificially high to begin with. Here new home starts are up over last
year
by double digits. Existing home sales are slighly off, but no moreso than

Firstly, I never said anything about the SF bayarea. Secondly, just
about every economist and/or realtor (if they're being honest, which I
know can be a stretch for some) recognizes that the housing market is
depressed and will continue to be so until 2009.

Is this comment similar to your remark of something like "every scientist
worth his salt agrees that global warming is an immediate threat."?


the normal fluctuation from quarter to quarter. Home prices have stayed
the
same or increased slightly, while your Bay Area prices have fallen by 15%
to
30%, depending upon whose reference you read. As for the poor and
malnourished, that's Dem spin. Unemployment is around 5% nationally,
which

According to you, but not according to all the statistics
available. We have many more people at or below the poverty line, and
the situation is getting worse. Feel free to blame the Dems, but the
Republicans have been in charge for 7 years.

There will always be lots of people at or below the poverty level. And
there will always be little or nothing that can be done about it. Some
people choose not to work. Others choose to follow a lifestyle that leads
to poverty and ruin, rather than one that leads to prosperity. And still
others are simply victims of circumstance. Saying that "we have many more
people at or below the poverty line" is essentially moot. We have far more
people who are living decent lives than we did just two years ago.

is essentially full employment. I know more about the economy than you,
primarily because I listen to economists, not Democrat doomsayers who will
say anything to make Bush look bad. I really don't know why they try so
hard--he makes himself look bad without their spin. They should sit back
and relax.

They don't really have to say or do much to make him look bad. He's
quite capable of doing that himself. Maybe he should use McGovern's
famous line about being 1000 percent behind the AG. He lied about
being behind Rumsfeld even though he knew the resignation was in the
works.

So, you don't read the newspaper or watch TV. Get all your news from the
Drudge report?

Nope. I just don't listen to the left-leaning Big Three, CBS, NBS, and
ABS.

Oops. They're all huge US corps, controlled by right-wing
loyalists. They must be just unpatriotic!

LOL. They all admit to a left-leaning bias. If they are really owned by
right-wingers, the employees should be fired. :-)

Max

New Discoveries?
 

"Jonathan Ganz" wrote in message
...
In article ,
katy wrote:
From memory didn't it say unemployment was less than 5% and that
although sloppy, the housing market was pretty much stable? And that
durable goods were doing fine? A less than 5% unemployment rate means
the employable are employed...people buying durable goods means they
have the money to do so or the credit, and the hosuing market has been
so overinflated nationwide that it was due to take a decline just to
even itself out..speculation building has been going on for quite some
time and now new real estate isn't the commodity it was...

No, it didn't say that. You should probably read it again. That's why
I found it interesting.

Actually she gave a reasonable synopsis of the report, Jon. You'd better
read it again, because her numbers are basically on. But don't let facts
dissuade you from your Democrat spin.

Max

New Discoveries?
 

"Dave" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 26 Mar 2007 14:55:06 -0400, katy said:

From memory didn't it say unemployment was less than 5% and that
although sloppy, the housing market was pretty much stable? And that
durable goods were doing fine?

Jon's hilarious. He's been claiming the economy is in the crapper
constantly
since at least 2002.

I can't wait until we have a (by the Democrat definition) 'recovery.' My
business is immensely prosperous now--it should be off the charts then.

Max

New Discoveries?
 

In article ,
katy wrote:
Good grief Jon...it was revised down but they had overpredicted in the
first place and still made a gain! Brack brack...the sky is falling in
California everyone...run for cover!

Bzzzt... hate to tell you, but the Cal economy is one of the better
ones.

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

New Discoveries?
 

In article . net,
Maxprop wrote:
Is this comment similar to your remark of something like "every scientist
worth his salt agrees that global warming is an immediate threat."?

I never said anything close to this. Feel free to show me the post
where I said it was an immediate threat.

There will always be lots of people at or below the poverty level. And
there will always be little or nothing that can be done about it. Some

Sounds sort of defeatist to me. Are you cutting and running from your
responsibility? Actually, it just sounds like you don't care.

people choose not to work. Others choose to follow a lifestyle that leads
to poverty and ruin, rather than one that leads to prosperity. And still
others are simply victims of circumstance. Saying that "we have many more
people at or below the poverty line" is essentially moot. We have far more
people who are living decent lives than we did just two years ago.

There you go. Blame the poor for being poor.

Oops. They're all huge US corps, controlled by right-wing
loyalists. They must be just unpatriotic!

LOL. They all admit to a left-leaning bias. If they are really owned by
right-wingers, the employees should be fired. :-)

Disney is a left-leaning corporation? Don't they have shareholders?

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

New Discoveries?
 

In article . net,
Maxprop wrote:
Actually she gave a reasonable synopsis of the report, Jon. You'd better
read it again, because her numbers are basically on. But don't let facts
dissuade you from your Democrat spin.

No she didn't. Read it again. A couple of times more and you'll get
it.
--
Capt. JG @@
www.sailnow.com

New Discoveries?
 

In article . net,
Maxprop wrote:

"Dave" wrote in message
.. .
On Mon, 26 Mar 2007 14:55:06 -0400, katy said:

From memory didn't it say unemployment was less than 5% and that
although sloppy, the housing market was pretty much stable? And that
durable goods were doing fine?

Jon's hilarious. He's been claiming the economy is in the crapper
constantly
since at least 2002.

I can't wait until we have a (by the Democrat definition) 'recovery.' My
business is immensely prosperous now--it should be off the charts then.

Your business somehow means the rest of the world. Well, ok. How many
years did you go to school? Would have thought you'd learn something.
--
Capt. JG @@
www.sailnow.com