On Wed, 2 Jan 2008 18:34:17 -0800 (PST), Chuck Gould
wrote:

On Jan 2, 8:39?am, John H. wrote:
On Tue, 1 Jan 2008 22:59:52 -0800 (PST), Chuck Gould





wrote:
On Jan 1, 4:31?am, "Eisboch" wrote:
Having a small company that is involved in large, capital equipment type
contracts has certain advantages. ?One of them, that I noticed years ago, is
that the level of new orders almost always reflects an accurate prediction
of which way the general economy was heading, usually about 6 months before
it became a current topic of discussion in the media.

Last year my former company (now my oldest son's) had a tough year with a
major slowdown in new order activity and, in some cases, cancellation or
postponement of planned orders by several customers. ?The situation was not
unique to the company as many others involved in similar, high cost capital
equipment businesses experienced the same slowdown.

This has all changed. ?In the past 30 days the company has received over $6M
in new contracts and the quoting activity for more has picked up
substantially. ?If this continues, and past history says it will, 2008 will
be a very busy year. ?I'll betcha that by May or June all the talk will be
about how robust the US economy is.

Eisboch

Well let's hope so.

Boat sales in the Pacific NW, measured in units, were off 17% 3Q07 vs.
3Q06. The Marine Trade association tired to put a bright spin on the
numbers, noting that the dollar volume of the sales was actually 1%
higher than last year. The dollar volume is less meaningful, as boats
that sell for more money also cost more money, and a 17% dip in volume
is going to wipe out a lot more gross profit than a 1% increase in
total sales dollars will restore.

The higher total dollar volume coupled with the 17% dip in unit sales
reflects the fact that Wally Lunchbucket is a lot more woried about
his job, his budget, the cost of fuel, and so forth than is Daddy
Warbucks.
I sense very little slowdown in the $500k and up market (not that it's
ever a beehive of activity).......but a lot of the small, trailer boat
guys selling new boats for under $100k are singing the blues.

Let's see what happens this spring. The economy is cyclical,
regardless of which political party is in power. Every so often it
slows down, and all the marginal operators who are so inefficient that
they are barely making it when things are booming get weeded out by
reality.
That's probably a good thing in the long run.

I do pity the poor FED. What a quandry. So much of the stuff we buy to
day is imported that low interest rates *really* fuel inflation. Not
only do people borrow for more consumer spending, but the low rates
depress the US dollar on the exchanges and as a result the prices for
almost everything go up. Raise the rates to shore up the dollar, and
while prices will not be driven up as quickly by a weak foreign
exchange our less-than-robust economy can hardly afford a slow down in
consumer spending due to higher monthly payments.

What do you think increasing taxes will do to our 'less than robust'
economy, Chuck?
--

? JohnH

"Opa of 6"- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

The key isn't necessarily increasing taxes, it's striking a balance
between the government income (taxation) and government spending.

This could be done by decreasing government spending. No tax increase
needed. Unfortunately, however, there is *no* political party willing
to decrease spending. Exhibit A: In all the years since Andrew Jackson
was president (the last time there was no national debt) up through
January of 2001, the US managed to run up a debt of $5.7trillion. For
the first six of the almost seven years elapsed under the current
administration, a single party controlled the white house and the
congress. There was nothing to prevent that party from instituting
some fiscal discipline if it desired. Instead, we watched a debt that
took over 150 years to go from zero to $5.7 trillion escalate to well
over $9 trillion in the last seven years. (and no, it didn't go up $3
trillion when the D's took over in congress)

Making the US a beggar nation on the international street corner,
turning our currency into toilet paper and our IOU's into "junk bonds"
will tube the economy more surely and more permanently than taking
Warren Buffet, Bill Gates, and anybody else who lives almost
exclusively on capital gains and dividends back out of the 15% tax
bracket.

But please understand, I'm *not* strictly in favor of a tax increase.
I'm in favor of fiscal sanity in the federal budget. Cut the level of
Federal expenditures to a point where they are no higher than tax
receipts, (maybe a little lower so we can pay off some of this debt),
and it would look to me like no tax increase needed.

Since the special interest groups will stop funding the current
thieves on both sides of the aisle if $lop stops pouring into the
trough; I'm not optimistic that any spending will be decreased. We
know that the R's didn't, wouldn't, couldn't, do it in the six years
they had a free hand- and I don't expect anything different if the D's
get the WH and hold onto congress next year.

Chuck, to keep a group of people, primarily undereducated, beholding to the
D's will require a *lot* of money for handouts, whatever form they take.

Let's not be coy.


--
Quote of the day: "I did get to use that condom when I was 13, and several more that
summer, thanks to a "fast" 14 year old young lady..." (Harry Krause, bragging again!)

John H