Most people here know how I feel about DEBT and the economy. Here is an excellent article from By LAWRENCE MISHEL and ROSS EISENBREY getting more in depth with facts on WAGES, POVERTY, AND DEBT.
The Economy in a Nutshell
1. Profits are up, but the wages and the incomes of average Americans are down.
* Inflation-adjusted hourly and weekly wages are still below where they were at the start of the recovery in November 2001. Yet, productivity-the growth of the economic pie-is up by 13.5%.
* Wage growth has been shortchanged because 35% of the growth of total income in the corporate sector has been distributed as corporate profits, far more than the 22% in previous periods.
* Consequently, median household income (inflation-adjusted) has fallen five years in a row and was 4% lower in 2004 than in 1999, falling from $46,129 to $44,389.
2. More and more people are deeper and deeper in debt.
* The indebtedness of U.S. households, after adjusting for inflation, has risen 35.7% over the last four years.
* The level of debt as a percent of after-tax income is the highest ever measured in our history. Mortgage and consumer debt is now 115% of after-tax income, twice the level of 30 years ago.
* The debt-service ratio (the percent of after-tax income that goes to pay off debts) is at an all-time high of 13.6%.
* The personal savings rate is negative for the first time since WWII.
3. Job creation has not kept up with population growth, and the employment rate has fallen sharply.
* The United States has only 1.3% more jobs today (excluding the effects of Hurricane Katrina) than in March 2001 (the start of the recession). Private sector jobs are up only 0.8%. At this stage of previous business cycles, jobs had grown by an average of 8.8% and never less than 6.0%.
* The unemployment rate is relatively low at 5%, but still higher than the 4% in 2000. Plus, the percent of the population that has a job has never recovered since the recession and is still 1.3% lower than in March 2001. If the employment rate had returned to pre-recession levels, 3 million more people would be employed.
* More than 3 million manufacturing jobs have been lost since January 2000.
4. Poverty is on the rise.
* The poverty rate rose from 11.7% in 2001 to 12.7% in 2004.
* The number of people living in poverty has increased by 5.4 million since 2000.
* More children are living in poverty: the child poverty rate increased from 16.3% in 2001 to 17.8% in 2004.
5. Rising health care costs are eroding families' already declining income.
* Households are spending more on health care. Family health costs rose 43-45% for married couples with children, single mothers, and young singles from 2000 to 2003.
* Employers are cutting back on health insurance. Last year, the percent of people with employer-provided health insurance fell for the fourth year in a row. Nearly 3.7 million fewer people had employer-provided insurance in 2004 than in 2000. Taking population growth into account, 11 million more people would have had employer-provided health insurance in 2004 if the coverage rate had remained at the 2000 level.
Full Version: Wages & Incomes Down, Poverty & Debt Up
The Economic Policy Institute, is a Left leaning Think Tank, in which Bob Kuttner and Robert B Reich, an historian not economist, are principle leaders. Almost every one of the founders Are Democrats who served in the Clinton White House, and economists in the organization are exclusively "so called" Liberal Keynesians, ie Demand-Siders.
Now, that being stated, I could go over all the points mentioned above, but it is not worth the time, or effort. Suffice it to say, the greatest untruths are built upon some elements of truth. Almost all the points mentioned are again accurate as far as they go, but not true when taken in their totality. And, I am certain that most of the leaders of this think tank know this, but it suits their agenda.
For example, take number four on their list.
This is entirely accurate, except that which is conveniently overlooked. The designation of Poverty in this country is constantly changing, as it is identified as a certain percentage of the income of the total population. I do not remember the exact percentage, but I think that is is more than 10% of the working population. Thus, if the lower 10% made $50,000/year, then that would still be considered the level of poverty. That is how the system works.
Also, the 'think tank' also overlooks the fact that genuinely poor Mexicans are streaming across the border, and they are getting added to the job force numbers. consequently, the numbers look more dismal than they actually happen to be. If you add several million destitute Mexicans to ANY figure, what can one expect?
In other words, this report is nothing but an attempt to put down good news for two reasons: one, it does not go along with their current world view; and two, the economy is being overseen by a Republican.
Again, nice try Grizz. One of these days you are going to have to start reading something that will teach you facts instead of that which you WISH to believe. If you are unwilliing to balance your knowledge with more than one side, you will never be able to learn the truth. That is why I read the New Republic and even Slate. You should do the same from the other respect, or you will never gain any credibility. Of course, you might learn something that threatens your world view.
Now, that being stated, I could go over all the points mentioned above, but it is not worth the time, or effort. Suffice it to say, the greatest untruths are built upon some elements of truth. Almost all the points mentioned are again accurate as far as they go, but not true when taken in their totality. And, I am certain that most of the leaders of this think tank know this, but it suits their agenda.
For example, take number four on their list.
QUOTE
4. Poverty is on the rise.
* The poverty rate rose from 11.7% in 2001 to 12.7% in 2004.
* The number of people living in poverty has increased by 5.4 million since 2000.
* More children are living in poverty: the child poverty rate increased from 16.3% in 2001 to 17.8% in 2004.
* The poverty rate rose from 11.7% in 2001 to 12.7% in 2004.
* The number of people living in poverty has increased by 5.4 million since 2000.
* More children are living in poverty: the child poverty rate increased from 16.3% in 2001 to 17.8% in 2004.
This is entirely accurate, except that which is conveniently overlooked. The designation of Poverty in this country is constantly changing, as it is identified as a certain percentage of the income of the total population. I do not remember the exact percentage, but I think that is is more than 10% of the working population. Thus, if the lower 10% made $50,000/year, then that would still be considered the level of poverty. That is how the system works.
Also, the 'think tank' also overlooks the fact that genuinely poor Mexicans are streaming across the border, and they are getting added to the job force numbers. consequently, the numbers look more dismal than they actually happen to be. If you add several million destitute Mexicans to ANY figure, what can one expect?
In other words, this report is nothing but an attempt to put down good news for two reasons: one, it does not go along with their current world view; and two, the economy is being overseen by a Republican.
Again, nice try Grizz. One of these days you are going to have to start reading something that will teach you facts instead of that which you WISH to believe. If you are unwilliing to balance your knowledge with more than one side, you will never be able to learn the truth. That is why I read the New Republic and even Slate. You should do the same from the other respect, or you will never gain any credibility. Of course, you might learn something that threatens your world view.
Here is an interesting article from the economist Robert B. Reich on the subject of this thread. I'm starting to seriously consider this element to be a strong factor in the economy. Median Income:
Our Worrisome MDP
January 03, 2006
Robert B. Reich is the Maurice B. Hexter Professor of Social and Economic Policy at Brandeis University, and was the secretary of labor under former President Bill Clinton.
Editor's Note: This piece originally aired on the public radio program Marketplace on Dec. 28, 2005.
Listen to most economic commentators and you’d think the biggest news of 2005 was that the American economy continued to grow at a healthy clip—notwithstanding hurricanes, oil shocks, trade imbalances and a bloated federal budget deficit. Well, that’s true. The power and resilience of this economy are remarkable.
But there’s another story about the American economy that’s equally remarkable, although more sobering. Although the data aren’t all in, it seems almost certain that in 2005, median incomes continued to drop.
It’s been that way for four years now, since the end of the last recession. The economy keeps growing, but median incomes keep declining. Take inflation into account and you find that half of all American workers are earning less now than they did in 2001. Rarely before in history has there been such a long period of growth in the gross domestic product without most Americans sharing in that growth.
Forget "trickle-down" economics. Even if you believe the Bush tax cuts of 2001 and 2003 helped the economy grow—and if you do, you probably believe in Santa Claus—nothing is trickling down, not even to the middle. Most is going to the top fifth. And most of that is going to the top 5 percent.
So let me end 2005 by asking what may seem an impertinent question: What’s the point of economic growth if most people aren’t any more prosperous?
Maybe it’s time we stopped measuring the success of the American economy by how much larger the GDP is from one year to the next, and started using a new measure that reflects how most of us are doing from one year to the next. Instead of GDP, let’s look at what might be called the MDP—median domestic prosperity.
The American economy is strong when the MDP is rising, weak when it’s falling. When it declines for four years in a row, we’re in an MDP recession.
Look, I don’t want to end the year on a downer. I want to cheer as much as anyone. But let’s be honest. Unless you happen to be in the top 20 percent of income, this economy is nothing to cheer about.
Happy New Year.
Our Worrisome MDP
January 03, 2006
Robert B. Reich is the Maurice B. Hexter Professor of Social and Economic Policy at Brandeis University, and was the secretary of labor under former President Bill Clinton.
Editor's Note: This piece originally aired on the public radio program Marketplace on Dec. 28, 2005.
Listen to most economic commentators and you’d think the biggest news of 2005 was that the American economy continued to grow at a healthy clip—notwithstanding hurricanes, oil shocks, trade imbalances and a bloated federal budget deficit. Well, that’s true. The power and resilience of this economy are remarkable.
But there’s another story about the American economy that’s equally remarkable, although more sobering. Although the data aren’t all in, it seems almost certain that in 2005, median incomes continued to drop.
It’s been that way for four years now, since the end of the last recession. The economy keeps growing, but median incomes keep declining. Take inflation into account and you find that half of all American workers are earning less now than they did in 2001. Rarely before in history has there been such a long period of growth in the gross domestic product without most Americans sharing in that growth.
Forget "trickle-down" economics. Even if you believe the Bush tax cuts of 2001 and 2003 helped the economy grow—and if you do, you probably believe in Santa Claus—nothing is trickling down, not even to the middle. Most is going to the top fifth. And most of that is going to the top 5 percent.
So let me end 2005 by asking what may seem an impertinent question: What’s the point of economic growth if most people aren’t any more prosperous?
Maybe it’s time we stopped measuring the success of the American economy by how much larger the GDP is from one year to the next, and started using a new measure that reflects how most of us are doing from one year to the next. Instead of GDP, let’s look at what might be called the MDP—median domestic prosperity.
The American economy is strong when the MDP is rising, weak when it’s falling. When it declines for four years in a row, we’re in an MDP recession.
Look, I don’t want to end the year on a downer. I want to cheer as much as anyone. But let’s be honest. Unless you happen to be in the top 20 percent of income, this economy is nothing to cheer about.
Happy New Year.
I was concerned with the authenticity of the author's claim that US wages have been suffering heavily for an extended period of time. So I took the liberty of going to the CIA World Factbook and examining the Purchasing Power Parities per capita of the United States when compared to other western countries such as Canada, The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, France, and Germany. Here is what I found:
United States: PPP per capita: $41,800 USD (2005)
Canada: PPP per capita: 32,800 USD (2005)
The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland: PPP per capita: $30,900 USD (2005)
France: PPP per capita: 29,900 USD (2005)
Germany: PPP per capita: 29,700 USD (2005)
I also checked the real growth rates.
United States: 3.5% (2005)
Canada: 2.8% (2005)
United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland: 1.8 % (2005)
France: 1.5%(2005)
Germany: 0.8% (2005)
If our average wages have been suffering over such a long, sustained period, why do both our Purchasing Power Parities per capita and our Real Growth rate remain so much higher than those of our contemporary countries, such as Canada, The UK, France, and Germany? Should not these countries have begun to climb ahead?
My source for this info is the CIA world factbook. All info cited can be found under the economic information for the countries listed.
http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/
United States: PPP per capita: $41,800 USD (2005)
Canada: PPP per capita: 32,800 USD (2005)
The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland: PPP per capita: $30,900 USD (2005)
France: PPP per capita: 29,900 USD (2005)
Germany: PPP per capita: 29,700 USD (2005)
I also checked the real growth rates.
United States: 3.5% (2005)
Canada: 2.8% (2005)
United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland: 1.8 % (2005)
France: 1.5%(2005)
Germany: 0.8% (2005)
If our average wages have been suffering over such a long, sustained period, why do both our Purchasing Power Parities per capita and our Real Growth rate remain so much higher than those of our contemporary countries, such as Canada, The UK, France, and Germany? Should not these countries have begun to climb ahead?
My source for this info is the CIA world factbook. All info cited can be found under the economic information for the countries listed.
http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/
QUOTE
* The indebtedness of U.S. households, after adjusting for inflation, has risen 35.7% over the last four years.
To get a more accurate figure debt and assets should be looked at together. When measuring the true value of a business you look at assets and debt so you obviously should do the same for households. So the above stat is misleading.
QUOTE
The unemployment rate is relatively low at 5%, but still higher than the 4% in 2000. Plus, the percent of the population that has a job has never recovered since the recession and is still 1.3% lower than in March 2001. If the employment rate had returned to pre-recession levels, 3 million more people would be employed.
A 5% unemployment rate doesn't mean that the same 5% of the population cannot find work. This unemployment rate is very good.
Grizzly we all know too much debt is not good but I think you are overreacting to its effect on the economy as a whole. Which do you think it is better for our economy, people to having a lot of mortgage debt or people not buying new homes? Think about how much employment is generated because of the borrowing we are doing.
Grizzly is like thet Midevel sailor, who when shown that the world can't possibly be flat, when astronomy and physics are explained in living detail, will always begin in answer, "Yes, but won't we fall off the edge?" He is so steeped in Leftist jargin that, he merely parrots the same thing over and over again. Just like Robert B Reicccccccccccccccch.
It is in the self-interest of the Left to deny Classic thought. Demand-Side accomplishes one all encompassing thing: Class warfare and punishment of those who have the gaul to overlook Egalitarianism. Productive ones are punished for being too productive. Everyone Must have a job, even the "so called" 5%, even though they don't produce anything.
They are so steeped in this mindless quest for "equality of result" that they can't begin to realize that this is not only impossible, but impractical, as the costs and effort to achieve this would be too much for the economy. "Law of Diminishing Returns": What's that? And who cares? It is the thought that counts, because "feeling" good about one's self is most important: it's called self-esteem.
If they were reasoning and logical, they would naturally realize that following the Supply-Side model will get those 'downtrodden' and hopeless to the finish line faster than their own way. However, Horror of horrors, the productive will get there so much quicker, and we just can't have that, don't you know?
Leftists are best described as being "Brain Damaged". Any time they come up with this constant CRAP, we should automatically come up with the retort, "BRAIN DAMAGED"!, Because that is what they are.
BRAIN DAMAGED!
That is all there is to it. How else can one explain their mindlesness and failure to see the obvious? Most of them will simply have to die of old age, and be replaced with those who are not so "Brain damaged".
They were probably beaten around in the woumb by mothers, who were determined to cause a "natural" abortion, before Roe v Wade. Fortunately more of them are now being aborted and their numbers are being severly curtailed. There are not as many "brain damaged" now as before, and I think that this is the best explanation for it, since we now know that the Left has been selectively killing itself off as a result.
Perhaps we should rethink the abortion issue. Perhaps we should encourage it with these Wackos, so they will not be passing their 'damaged' genes on to the next generation.
BRAIN DAMAGED! I LOVE That. Are you reading this Grizz? Sigh,......................probably not. That too is typical. Sigh.
It is in the self-interest of the Left to deny Classic thought. Demand-Side accomplishes one all encompassing thing: Class warfare and punishment of those who have the gaul to overlook Egalitarianism. Productive ones are punished for being too productive. Everyone Must have a job, even the "so called" 5%, even though they don't produce anything.
They are so steeped in this mindless quest for "equality of result" that they can't begin to realize that this is not only impossible, but impractical, as the costs and effort to achieve this would be too much for the economy. "Law of Diminishing Returns": What's that? And who cares? It is the thought that counts, because "feeling" good about one's self is most important: it's called self-esteem.
If they were reasoning and logical, they would naturally realize that following the Supply-Side model will get those 'downtrodden' and hopeless to the finish line faster than their own way. However, Horror of horrors, the productive will get there so much quicker, and we just can't have that, don't you know?
Leftists are best described as being "Brain Damaged". Any time they come up with this constant CRAP, we should automatically come up with the retort, "BRAIN DAMAGED"!, Because that is what they are.
BRAIN DAMAGED!
That is all there is to it. How else can one explain their mindlesness and failure to see the obvious? Most of them will simply have to die of old age, and be replaced with those who are not so "Brain damaged".
They were probably beaten around in the woumb by mothers, who were determined to cause a "natural" abortion, before Roe v Wade. Fortunately more of them are now being aborted and their numbers are being severly curtailed. There are not as many "brain damaged" now as before, and I think that this is the best explanation for it, since we now know that the Left has been selectively killing itself off as a result.
Perhaps we should rethink the abortion issue. Perhaps we should encourage it with these Wackos, so they will not be passing their 'damaged' genes on to the next generation.
BRAIN DAMAGED! I LOVE That. Are you reading this Grizz? Sigh,......................probably not. That too is typical. Sigh.
QUOTE
Perhaps we should rethink the abortion issue. Perhaps we should encourage it with these Wackos, so they will not be passing their 'damaged' genes on to the next generation.
John have you read the book Freakonomics by Steven Levitt of the University of Chicago? You may not agree with a lot of what he says but the data that is analyzed and the conclusions reached are quite interesting.
QUOTE (Brooklyn @ Jan 20 2006, 03:45 PM)
John have you read the book Freakonomics by Steven Levitt of the University of Chicago? You may not agree with a lot of what he says but the data that is analyzed and the conclusions reached are quite interesting.
Haven't read it Brooklyn, but I have read a fair amount about it, and have read some reviews.
What did you think of it? BTW, you and I appear to see pretty much along the same lines, so far anyway.
QUOTE (Grizzly @ Jan 19 2006, 07:57 PM)
It’s been that way for four years now, since the end of the last recession. The economy keeps growing, but median incomes keep declining. Take inflation into account and you find that half of all American workers are earning less now than they did in 2001. Rarely before in history has there been such a long period of growth in the gross domestic product without most Americans sharing in that growth.
Seems to be duplicating 89-93
http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/income/incxrace.html
Rarely in history? MARK
No need for me to make a new thread on this one; it can go right in here; this story rehashes the story at the beginning of this thread; however, it also gives out some more elements, that I will put in bold, that I feel is important.
Earnings...more bad news coming?
NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) - Is that it for the rout? Or has it only just begun?
Negative earnings surprises last week that ranged from disappointing to disturbing put an abrupt end to the 2006 market rally...and they raised concerns about what could come this week. Key earnings reports are expected from several large companies, including American Express, Texas Instruments and Microsoft.
In addition, crude oil on Friday jumped $1.52, or over 2 percent, to $68.35 a barrel as tensions mounted over Iran's nuclear ambitions. Crude prices have jumped more than 8 percent this year, bringing them within striking distance of the record $70.85 hit Aug. 30 after Hurricane Katrina struck.
Weak results last week came from Intel, while Citigroup, General Electric, IBM and Yahoo reported fair results that were slightly below forecasts. Motorola, Apple and Yahoo! issued disappointing forecasts.
So far, the response from investors has been swift and severe. Following intense selling Friday afternoon, the Dow and the Nasdaq finished the week down nearly 3 percent. The losses put the Dow into negative territory for the first time in 2006.
Jim Melcher, who runs a hedge fund from his investment firm Balestra Capital in New York, thinks the weak reports are an early sign that earnings growth is due for a decline. "Earnings have been really quite good for three years, but that's pretty much over," he said.
Melcher thinks the weak earnings results are the effect of a slowdown in consumer spending that started in earnest a couple of months ago and is just now starting to play out in the economy. Melcher cites a number of factors that point to continued weakness.
"Short-term rates have moved up to highest level since they started, energy prices have moved up, and the American consumer has done all the borrowing he can do -- the house is no longer the cash machine it once was," said Melcher, who has been long energy for three years and is currently shorting home builders and mortgage lenders.
---------------------------
(Note from Griz: Well you read that, right? The house is exhausted! It has given all that it can! It can't give no more! Debt! Debt! Debt! It is shouting! Can you hear it? Its like in the Verizon commercial: "Can you hear me now?"
Back to the story.)
----------------------------
Melcher added that actual wages, adjusted for inflation, have risen only very modestly in the past five years, adding to a consumer-spending slowdown.
-----------------------------
(Another note from the Griz: The power of the consumer has finally been noticed! They can borrow no more - with energy prices, and cost of living, mixed in with actual wages, it is killing their purchasing power!
Back to the story.)
-------------------------------
Kevin Landis, president and CEO of San Jose, Calif.-based Firsthand Capital Management, said he thinks that the negative reaction obscures the fact that some of the earnings reports were actually quite good.
"It's not as bad as one might infer, it's just not as good as people's hopes were," Landis said. "Even the companies who are doing the worst haven't blown up too badly, and others came out and said 'Let's not get too carried away,'" he said of the companies who issued lower-than-anticipated forecasts.
Alec Young, equity-market strategist in the equity research division of Standard & Poor's, said it is too early to call the entire earnings season a bust. Nonetheless, Young said S&P's forecast for 13 percent earnings growth for the fourth quarter may have to come down once more data become available.
In addition, Young thinks this week's earnings news has put a lid on the market. "We can forget about [the market] going up -- the question is will (next week's) news send the market down," he said. "It's too early to write off the quarter and extrapolate that broad based earnings are going to be weak. But it is a concern, and we do feel it's thrown enough of a curve ball at investors that the recent gains we'd seen are over."
Michael Church, portfolio manager at Yardley, Penn.-based Church Capital Management, said that while Friday's losses were "not pretty," he doesn't think this week's results will necessarily translate into poor showings next week. Church said he'll be paying particularly close attention to Texas Instruments and Microsoft, both of which he owns shares in.
"Obviously, those are going to be crucial," he said. "If both of them were to slip up, I'd certainly hope (the markets won't react) as badly as they did today. But I think TI will see some strength." He also expects strong results from Corning, which reports on Tuesday.
Key earnings in the week ahead.
Hmm... wonder what that will be?
Earnings...more bad news coming?
NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) - Is that it for the rout? Or has it only just begun?
Negative earnings surprises last week that ranged from disappointing to disturbing put an abrupt end to the 2006 market rally...and they raised concerns about what could come this week. Key earnings reports are expected from several large companies, including American Express, Texas Instruments and Microsoft.
In addition, crude oil on Friday jumped $1.52, or over 2 percent, to $68.35 a barrel as tensions mounted over Iran's nuclear ambitions. Crude prices have jumped more than 8 percent this year, bringing them within striking distance of the record $70.85 hit Aug. 30 after Hurricane Katrina struck.
Weak results last week came from Intel, while Citigroup, General Electric, IBM and Yahoo reported fair results that were slightly below forecasts. Motorola, Apple and Yahoo! issued disappointing forecasts.
So far, the response from investors has been swift and severe. Following intense selling Friday afternoon, the Dow and the Nasdaq finished the week down nearly 3 percent. The losses put the Dow into negative territory for the first time in 2006.
Jim Melcher, who runs a hedge fund from his investment firm Balestra Capital in New York, thinks the weak reports are an early sign that earnings growth is due for a decline. "Earnings have been really quite good for three years, but that's pretty much over," he said.
Melcher thinks the weak earnings results are the effect of a slowdown in consumer spending that started in earnest a couple of months ago and is just now starting to play out in the economy. Melcher cites a number of factors that point to continued weakness.
"Short-term rates have moved up to highest level since they started, energy prices have moved up, and the American consumer has done all the borrowing he can do -- the house is no longer the cash machine it once was," said Melcher, who has been long energy for three years and is currently shorting home builders and mortgage lenders.
---------------------------
(Note from Griz: Well you read that, right? The house is exhausted! It has given all that it can! It can't give no more! Debt! Debt! Debt! It is shouting! Can you hear it? Its like in the Verizon commercial: "Can you hear me now?"
Back to the story.)
----------------------------
Melcher added that actual wages, adjusted for inflation, have risen only very modestly in the past five years, adding to a consumer-spending slowdown.
-----------------------------
(Another note from the Griz: The power of the consumer has finally been noticed! They can borrow no more - with energy prices, and cost of living, mixed in with actual wages, it is killing their purchasing power!
Back to the story.)
-------------------------------
Kevin Landis, president and CEO of San Jose, Calif.-based Firsthand Capital Management, said he thinks that the negative reaction obscures the fact that some of the earnings reports were actually quite good.
"It's not as bad as one might infer, it's just not as good as people's hopes were," Landis said. "Even the companies who are doing the worst haven't blown up too badly, and others came out and said 'Let's not get too carried away,'" he said of the companies who issued lower-than-anticipated forecasts.
Alec Young, equity-market strategist in the equity research division of Standard & Poor's, said it is too early to call the entire earnings season a bust. Nonetheless, Young said S&P's forecast for 13 percent earnings growth for the fourth quarter may have to come down once more data become available.
In addition, Young thinks this week's earnings news has put a lid on the market. "We can forget about [the market] going up -- the question is will (next week's) news send the market down," he said. "It's too early to write off the quarter and extrapolate that broad based earnings are going to be weak. But it is a concern, and we do feel it's thrown enough of a curve ball at investors that the recent gains we'd seen are over."
Michael Church, portfolio manager at Yardley, Penn.-based Church Capital Management, said that while Friday's losses were "not pretty," he doesn't think this week's results will necessarily translate into poor showings next week. Church said he'll be paying particularly close attention to Texas Instruments and Microsoft, both of which he owns shares in.
"Obviously, those are going to be crucial," he said. "If both of them were to slip up, I'd certainly hope (the markets won't react) as badly as they did today. But I think TI will see some strength." He also expects strong results from Corning, which reports on Tuesday.
Key earnings in the week ahead.
Hmm... wonder what that will be?
The sky is falling! The sky is falling! The sky is falling!
One of my instructors at Fort Bragg once made the comment that the secret to getting throught the day was the ability to "jump through your arse and not get hurt".
Jackasses are slowly learning that having to do this on a daily basis can be detrimental to their political health. Only problem is that it is reinforced just once every two years.
One of my instructors at Fort Bragg once made the comment that the secret to getting throught the day was the ability to "jump through your arse and not get hurt".
Jackasses are slowly learning that having to do this on a daily basis can be detrimental to their political health. Only problem is that it is reinforced just once every two years.
The misery index celebrates its 30th birthday. Time for a revamp?
IS THE economy in a better or worse state than ten years ago? The “misery index” (the sum of unemployment and inflation rates) is a back-of-the-envelope gauge of economic health. The higher the score, the greater the economic misery. It was invented by Arthur Okun, an American economist, just after the first oil crisis of the 1970s caused a sharp rise in both unemployment and inflation. Jimmy Carter popularised the misery index during his successful presidential campaign in 1976.
The classic misery index makes America's economy look pretty good, compared both with the past few decades and with much of Europe, burdened by higher jobless rates. But like many people when they hit 30, the index may be due for a spruce-up.
Merrill Lynch's economists have come up with a broader, international index. In addition to unemployment and inflation, it also adds interest rates and the budget and current-account balances, but then subtracts GDP growth (a good thing). In other words, the index not only reflects how cheery an economy feels today, but, by including budget and external balances, it also captures the ability of a country to sustain its merriment. For example, a large budget deficit probably implies higher taxes in future.
This new index could wipe the smile off the faces of exuberant Americans. The United States has the highest score (see chart), ie, it has the most wretched economy among the big G7 countries, thanks to its huge deficits. In the 1990s, by contrast, before its imbalances exploded, its index was one of the lowest. The United States is the only country to have seen a large increase in its misery index over the past decade. Virtually all the other G7 countries—including Europe—have seen sizeable improvements.
Japan, after a decade of woe, is now back to where it was in 1994. However, Japan's misery index is somewhat misleading, since, in effect, it treats deflation as good, not bad.
The superstar that deserves to smile is Canada. Over the past decade it has seen the biggest reduction in its misery index of any G7 economy. It is the only country running both current-account and budget surpluses—in happy contrast to its southern neighbour.
From The Economist source
IS THE economy in a better or worse state than ten years ago? The “misery index” (the sum of unemployment and inflation rates) is a back-of-the-envelope gauge of economic health. The higher the score, the greater the economic misery. It was invented by Arthur Okun, an American economist, just after the first oil crisis of the 1970s caused a sharp rise in both unemployment and inflation. Jimmy Carter popularised the misery index during his successful presidential campaign in 1976.
The classic misery index makes America's economy look pretty good, compared both with the past few decades and with much of Europe, burdened by higher jobless rates. But like many people when they hit 30, the index may be due for a spruce-up.
Merrill Lynch's economists have come up with a broader, international index. In addition to unemployment and inflation, it also adds interest rates and the budget and current-account balances, but then subtracts GDP growth (a good thing). In other words, the index not only reflects how cheery an economy feels today, but, by including budget and external balances, it also captures the ability of a country to sustain its merriment. For example, a large budget deficit probably implies higher taxes in future.
This new index could wipe the smile off the faces of exuberant Americans. The United States has the highest score (see chart), ie, it has the most wretched economy among the big G7 countries, thanks to its huge deficits. In the 1990s, by contrast, before its imbalances exploded, its index was one of the lowest. The United States is the only country to have seen a large increase in its misery index over the past decade. Virtually all the other G7 countries—including Europe—have seen sizeable improvements.
Japan, after a decade of woe, is now back to where it was in 1994. However, Japan's misery index is somewhat misleading, since, in effect, it treats deflation as good, not bad.
The superstar that deserves to smile is Canada. Over the past decade it has seen the biggest reduction in its misery index of any G7 economy. It is the only country running both current-account and budget surpluses—in happy contrast to its southern neighbour.
From The Economist source
QUOTE
Haven't read it Brooklyn, but I have read a fair amount about it, and have read some reviews.
What did you think of it? BTW, you and I appear to see pretty much along the same lines, so far anyway
What did you think of it? BTW, you and I appear to see pretty much along the same lines, so far anyway
It was pretty interesting. Some of the topics were teacher cheating, drug dealers, and the massive decrease in crime we saw during the mid to late 90s. Mr. Levitt claims Roe v. Wade was one of the reasons crime dropped so rapidly during the 90s. Anyway all the topics are discussed from an economists point of view. It is a good read whether you agree with the conclusions or not.
And yes I do believe we think on the same lines on many issues especially economics. I am a Libertarian which, if I am not mistaken, you are as well.
QUOTE (Brooklyn @ Jan 24 2006, 10:55 AM)
It was pretty interesting. Some of the topics were teacher cheating, drug dealers, and the massive decrease in crime we saw during the mid to late 90s. Mr. Levitt claims Roe v. Wade was one of the reasons crime dropped so rapidly during the 90s. Anyway all the topics are discussed from an economists point of view. It is a good read whether you agree with the conclusions or not.
And yes I do believe we think on the same lines on many issues especially economics. I am a Libertarian which, if I am not mistaken, you are as well.
And yes I do believe we think on the same lines on many issues especially economics. I am a Libertarian which, if I am not mistaken, you are as well.
Yeah, I'm part of the Libertarian Movement, but I am really a Classic Liberal, and perhaps you might want to identify yourself as such. Within the LP, those who are economically inclined are looked on as CLs. Personally, I like it far better than just Libertarian.
As for the crime issue, there may be some truth there. Aborting all those unwanted offspring May add to a few. However, the change in law enforcement, where criminals were purposfully taken off the streets, must have had a large part. And as Ruddy Guillini showed, if you enforce and punish the smallest crimes, the larger ones will eventually tend to take care of themselves.
QUOTE
As for the crime issue, there may be some truth there. Aborting all those unwanted offspring May add to a few. However, the change in law enforcement, where criminals were purposfully taken off the streets, must have had a large part. And as Ruddy Guillini showed, if you enforce and punish the smallest crimes, the larger ones will eventually tend to take care of themselves.
The book actually states that there is no conclusive evidence to support the Guilliani "broken windows" crime fighting technique actually worked. However, according to Levitt, the increase in the number of police officers hired, credited to Mayor Denkins, was actually more beneficial to decreasing crime than any crime fighting method Guilliani or his new police chief applied.
He states crime fell for these 4 reasons:
"Increases in the Number of Police"
"Rising Prison Population"
"Receding Crack Epidemic"
"Legalization of Abortion"
Below is a direct link to a more detailed analysis by Steven Levitt.
http://pricetheory.uchicago.edu/levitt/Pap...hyCrime2004.pdf
QUOTE
Within the LP, those who are economically inclined are looked on as CLs. Personally, I like it far better than just Libertarian.
I will take that into consideration. Thanks.
Nothing has changed in this great country of ours........................ If you work hard you win. If you would rather b!tch and moan you lose. .......................
QUOTE (Nomad @ Jan 25 2006, 05:25 AM)
Nothing has changed in this great country of ours........................ If you work hard you win. If you would rather b!tch and moan you lose. .......................
So the millions of homeless people who work two jobs and can't afford an apartment and health insurance are winners then?
QUOTE (Thaiquila @ Jan 25 2006, 01:31 AM)
So the millions of homeless people who work two jobs and can't afford an apartment and health insurance are winners then?
Those millions of homeless are proportionately 'loonies' that the liberals let go from the hospitals in their misguided notion that institution care is cruel and unusual...
QUOTE (Boon Mee @ Jan 25 2006, 04:26 AM)
Those millions of homeless are proportionately 'loonies' that the liberals let go from the hospitals in their misguided notion that institution care is cruel and unusual...
I think that this is the actual problem with this issue.
QUOTE
Economically Motivated Transfers — "Patient Dumping"
As states continue to downsize their institutions for the mentally ill and reduce their capacity for inpatient psychiatric treatment, private hospitals end up seeing the patients at their door. Many private hospitals, in turn, become increasingly inclined to dump their unprofitable patients onto the community mental health care system. These economically motivated transfers are often bad for the patients and can have substantial repercussions for community mental health centers.
A study entitled, The Determinants of Dumping: A National Study of Economically Motivated Transfers Involving Mental Health Care, by Mark Schlesinger et. al., concluded that, "Economically motivated transfers of patients with mental illness were widespread in 1988 and likely have increased since that time, affecting the viability of the community mental health care system." Specifically, the study targets the transfer of psychiatric patients from private facilities into publicly-run community mental health centers once their benefits have been exhausted. It goes on to report that two-thirds of psychiatric hospitals have "dumped" patients without insurance coverage into public hospitals and community mental health centers, potentially disrupting patients’ continuity of care and threatening the viability of community mental health systems. Also fueling the problem are the growth of for-profit facilities, the spread of utilization review (HMOs often require primary care physicians to obtain approval for some or all referrals) and a reduction in capacity of state-run psychiatric hospitals.
Patient dumping has the potential to "disrupt the continuity of care for patients" when they are most vulnerable. It also increases the financial burdens on providers of last resort (typically public hospitals or community health centers) because the initial provider often depletes a patient’s limited economic resources or insurance coverage before the transfer, so that the second provider must bear the full cost for subsequent treatment.
Federal legislation prohibiting dumping has offered little protection for public hospitals and other providers of last resort. The regulations did not clearly delineate the difference between appropriate and inappropriate transfers. Also, there was a lack of adequate management information systems in the hospitals receiving the transfers, and there were limited resources available to enforce the laws. Anti-dumping legislation generally focused only on those transfers involving medically unstable patients, which represented no more than 24 to 31 percent of all economically motivated transfers among hospital emergency departments.1 "In an era of privatization, the continued transfer of high-cost patients to public hospitals added to their average cost per patient, reinforcing stereotypes of these facilities as less efficient than their for-profit and private nonprofit counterparts."2
As states continue to downsize their institutions for the mentally ill and reduce their capacity for inpatient psychiatric treatment, private hospitals end up seeing the patients at their door. Many private hospitals, in turn, become increasingly inclined to dump their unprofitable patients onto the community mental health care system. These economically motivated transfers are often bad for the patients and can have substantial repercussions for community mental health centers.
A study entitled, The Determinants of Dumping: A National Study of Economically Motivated Transfers Involving Mental Health Care, by Mark Schlesinger et. al., concluded that, "Economically motivated transfers of patients with mental illness were widespread in 1988 and likely have increased since that time, affecting the viability of the community mental health care system." Specifically, the study targets the transfer of psychiatric patients from private facilities into publicly-run community mental health centers once their benefits have been exhausted. It goes on to report that two-thirds of psychiatric hospitals have "dumped" patients without insurance coverage into public hospitals and community mental health centers, potentially disrupting patients’ continuity of care and threatening the viability of community mental health systems. Also fueling the problem are the growth of for-profit facilities, the spread of utilization review (HMOs often require primary care physicians to obtain approval for some or all referrals) and a reduction in capacity of state-run psychiatric hospitals.
Patient dumping has the potential to "disrupt the continuity of care for patients" when they are most vulnerable. It also increases the financial burdens on providers of last resort (typically public hospitals or community health centers) because the initial provider often depletes a patient’s limited economic resources or insurance coverage before the transfer, so that the second provider must bear the full cost for subsequent treatment.
Federal legislation prohibiting dumping has offered little protection for public hospitals and other providers of last resort. The regulations did not clearly delineate the difference between appropriate and inappropriate transfers. Also, there was a lack of adequate management information systems in the hospitals receiving the transfers, and there were limited resources available to enforce the laws. Anti-dumping legislation generally focused only on those transfers involving medically unstable patients, which represented no more than 24 to 31 percent of all economically motivated transfers among hospital emergency departments.1 "In an era of privatization, the continued transfer of high-cost patients to public hospitals added to their average cost per patient, reinforcing stereotypes of these facilities as less efficient than their for-profit and private nonprofit counterparts."2
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.