And now for some economic good news

charrison

Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
17,033
1
81
It is the synergistic effect of all the good news lately. The sum is much greater than the whole. The economy is on the mend, only the blind would denied it.

The numbers are looking up in almost every other regard, in fact, it is projected that the increase in GDP will be around 6.5%. Blue Chip Economic Indicators newsletter that showed economists have pushed forecasts for U.S. economic growth higher. The average forecast called for third-quarter U.S. gross domestic product to grow at a 3.7 percent annual rate, up from 3.6 percent forecast in July and from 2.4 percent in the second quarter. Company profits are up, durable goods are up, stock market up, tax rebates are in the mail, consumer confidence up, home sales up, consumer and business spending up, etc...

Businesses, which cut spending on equipment and software in the first three months of this year, boosted such investment in the second quarter at a sizable 7.5 percent rate. That marked the biggest increase in three years.

After six straight quarters of slashing spending on new plants, office buildings and other structures, businesses boosted this spending by 4.8 percent in the second quarter. Corporate profits have risen five straight quarters for Standard & Poor's 500 companies, and the U.S. government has cut taxes.

The US service sector surprised experts with a fourth consecutive month of growth in July that helped fan hopes of a recovery, according to Institute for Supply Management.

Demand for U.S. manufactured goods rose at the sharpest rate in three months in June as a solid rise in orders for long-lasting items joined with a small gain in demand for other goods, the government said Monday.

A recent survey shows that the percentage of CEOs saying they're worse off now than they were 6 months ago has dropped from 51% to 26%.

Americans applied for mortgages to buy homes in near-record numbers the first week in August. Applications for mortgages to buy homes rose 6.9 percent in the week ended Aug. 1 to their second highest level on record.

America's business productivity soared in the second quarter of 2003 and new claims for unemployment benefits dropped to a six-month low last week, a double dose of good news as the economy tries to get back to full throttle. Productivity - the amount that an employee produces per hour of work - grew at an annual rate of 5.7 percent in the April to June quarter, the best showing since the third quarter of 2002, the Labor Department reported Thursday. That marked an improvement from the 2.1 percent growth rate in productivity posted in the first three months of this year.

Companies' unit labor costs, meanwhile, fell at a rate of 2.1 percent in the second quarter, boding well for profit margins. That compared with a 2 percent rate of increase in the first quarter.

Blue Chip Economic Indicators newsletter that showed economists have pushed forecasts for U.S. economic growth higher. The average forecast called for third-quarter U.S. gross domestic product to grow at a 3.7 percent annual rate, up from 3.6 percent forecast in July and from 2.4 percent in the second quarter.

Retailers sales were above expectations for many merchants, even the struggling department store sector. As retailers reported their sales results Thursday, all industry segments appeared to benefit from an improved selling environment. Wal-Mart Stores Inc., the industry leader, boosted its profit outlook for the second quarter. J.C. Penney Co. Inc., Kohl's Corp. and Gap Inc. were among the retailers reporting sales that beat analysts' forecasts. Even May Department Stores Co., which has struggled with sales declines, eked out a solid increase in sales at stores open at least a year, surpassing analysts' forecasts.

June wholesale inventories were unchanged as the large 1.5% jump in sales stripped warehouse supply. The combination left a 1.22 month inventory to sales ratio -- just above the 1.21 record low of March. Low inventory supply will provide a boost to production as inventory rebuilding will strengthen under a stronger growth economy to provide a welcome tailwind.

World air traffic is forecast to begin a gradual recovery next year, after three years of recession, holding out hope for an end to the worst financial crisis ever suffered by the global airline industry. The International Civil Aviation Organization (Icao) forecast on Monday that world airline passenger traffic would grow by 4.4 per cent next year followed by faster growth of 6.3 per cent in 2005.

The world's largest retailer earned $2.3 billion, or 52 cents a share, from continuing operations in the quarter ended July 31, up from $2 billion, or 45 cents a share, on the same basis a year earlier. Analysts surveyed by earnings tracker First Call raised their forecast for the quarter to 52 cents from 51 cents when the company reported better than expected July sales last week.

In a second report from the department, new applications for jobless benefits fell by a seasonally adjusted 3,000 to a six-month low of 390,000 for the work week ending Aug. 2. It marked the third week in a row that claims were below 400,000, a level associated with a weak job market. This suggest the pace of layoffs is stabilizing. Claims hit a high this year of 459,000 during the work week that ended April 19.

John Lonski, an economist with Moody's Investors Services, said the boost in productivity and drop in labor costs should set the stage for a resumption of payrolls growth in the next few months by making it more "profitable" for employers to add workers. He predicted that the government's employment report for August will show an increase of about 40,000 in nonfarm payrolls.

Total number of Americans working over 16.

Jan 2000 - 136,609,000
Jun 2003 - 137,738,000

Equals - 1,129,000 more Americans employed. I know the growth isn't fast enough, but there are over a million more Americans working now than when George Bush took office.

Unemployment typically lags the rest of the economy, since employers usually wait until a recovery is guaranteed before they hire new workers. Everything I stated above combined, will create millions upon millions of jobs like the last recovery. There are hundreds of cities in the United States with unemployment under 4.0 % (considered by many to be full employment). You take the poorly managed California out of the national equation and the recovery looks 10 times better. California has 10 of the top 25 cities with the highest unemployment.


 

charrison

Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
17,033
1
81
Originally posted by: Bowfinger
Why no link or attribution? You copied this from somewhere.

Yes it was copied from another forum that had no link, but these numbers have been in the news.
 

phillyTIM

Golden Member
Jan 12, 2001
1,942
10
81
Don't let michael see this, he'll throw a fit you posted more than just two paragraphs, and without any copyright.

come to think of it, odd that it doesn't have either or any credits.
 

charrison

Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
17,033
1
81
Originally posted by: phillyTIM
Don't let michael see this, he'll throw a fit you posted more than just two paragraphs, and without any copyright.

come to think of it, odd that it doesn't have either or any credits.

If I had a source I would post it. If I thought the things mentioned in the posting were false, I would not have posted it.
 

LunarRay

Diamond Member
Mar 2, 2003
9,993
1
76
If it matters, or if it is argued, I'd stipulate to the analysis Charrison posted as being what I've read. I won't, however, vouch for the numbers being reflective, in total, of the actual conditions when tweaked for assumptions or non sustainable growth patterns... (also assumed).. They are, a bright bit of news, if totally and completely accurate. But, unlike Accountants, Economists are rather fond of their own assumptions. Difference being, Accountants are historians and Economists are prognosticators and they hate to be wrong and HISTORICALLY they always are.. :D
 

DealMonkey

Lifer
Nov 25, 2001
13,136
1
0
Debunked:

Americans applied for mortgages to buy homes in near-record numbers the first week in August. Applications for mortgages to buy homes rose 6.9 percent in the week ended Aug. 1 to their second highest level on record.

Source: FoxNews.com - Mortgage Demand Drops Off to Lowest Level Since Mid-2002

NEW YORK ? The number of applications Americans filed for mortgage loans dropped last week to its lowest level in more than a year, even as mortgage rates (search) subsided from their recent spike, according to an industry survey.

So, we're just supposed to TRUST that your source is credible? Please.
 

BaliBabyDoc

Lifer
Jan 20, 2001
10,737
0
0
In a second report from the department, new applications for jobless benefits fell by a seasonally adjusted 3,000 to a six-month low of 390,000 for the work week ending Aug. 2. It marked the third week in a row that claims were below 400,000, a level associated with a weak job market. This suggest the pace of layoffs is stabilizing. Claims hit a high this year of 459,000 during the work week that ended April 19.
Doc: We've got to do something about your blood pressure.
Char: Why? I just had it checked at the GOP luncheon . . . 138/88 is normal.
Doc: No it's borderline . . . which means you are lot closer to bad than good.
Char: You damn doctors don't know jack!
Doc: Well . . . I do know a couple more years of borderline hypertension increases your risk of blindness, peripheral neuropathy, kidney disease, and heart disease. But by all means get your health information from political hacks . . . the system works better when people don't live long enough to collect Social Security.

John Lonski, an economist with Moody's Investors Services, said the boost in productivity and drop in labor costs should set the stage for a resumption of payrolls growth in the next few months by making it more "profitable" for employers to add workers. He predicted that the government's employment report for August will show an increase of about 40,000 in nonfarm payrolls.
Hmm, with the explosive year over year cost increases in benefits (particularly healthcare) . . . doesn't it make sense to outsource more work abroad and continue the contraction of US payrolls. If Labor enacts its white collar rules to exclude certain professions from OT what idiot would hire more employees when they could just give their current plebe a token raise and more work?

Total number of Americans working over 16.

Jan 2000 - 136,609,000
Jun 2003 - 137,738,000

Equals - 1,129,000 more Americans employed. I know the growth isn't fast enough, but there are over a million more Americans working now than when George Bush took office.
Are you the only person in America claiming a net gain in employment? One more question . . . why compare Jan 2000 to Jun 2003? I thought Clinton was President during 2000. Why don't you post the change in American employment from Jan 2001 to Jun 2003?
 

charrison

Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
17,033
1
81
Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Debunked:

Americans applied for mortgages to buy homes in near-record numbers the first week in August. Applications for mortgages to buy homes rose 6.9 percent in the week ended Aug. 1 to their second highest level on record.

Source: FoxNews.com - Mortgage Demand Drops Off to Lowest Level Since Mid-2002

NEW YORK ? The number of applications Americans filed for mortgage loans dropped last week to its lowest level in more than a year, even as mortgage rates (search) subsided from their recent spike, according to an industry survey.

So, we're just supposed to TRUST that your source is credible? Please.


You are comparing 2 different weeks. But yes rising rates have slowed them.
 

Corn

Diamond Member
Nov 12, 1999
6,389
29
91

charrison

Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
17,033
1
81
Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc
In a second report from the department, new applications for jobless benefits fell by a seasonally adjusted 3,000 to a six-month low of 390,000 for the work week ending Aug. 2. It marked the third week in a row that claims were below 400,000, a level associated with a weak job market. This suggest the pace of layoffs is stabilizing. Claims hit a high this year of 459,000 during the work week that ended April 19.
Doc: We've got to do something about your blood pressure.
Char: Why? I just had it checked at the GOP luncheon . . . 138/88 is normal.
Doc: No it's borderline . . . which means you are lot closer to bad than good.
Char: You damn doctors don't know jack!
Doc: Well . . . I do know a couple more years of borderline hypertension increases your risk of blindness, peripheral neuropathy, kidney disease, and heart disease. But by all means get your health information from political hacks . . . the system works better when people don't live long enough to collect Social Security.

John Lonski, an economist with Moody's Investors Services, said the boost in productivity and drop in labor costs should set the stage for a resumption of payrolls growth in the next few months by making it more "profitable" for employers to add workers. He predicted that the government's employment report for August will show an increase of about 40,000 in nonfarm payrolls.
Hmm, with the explosive year over year cost increases in benefits (particularly healthcare) . . . doesn't it make sense to outsource more work abroad and continue the contraction of US payrolls. If Labor enacts its white collar rules to exclude certain professions from OT what idiot would hire more employees when they could just give their current plebe a token raise and more work?

Total number of Americans working over 16.

Jan 2000 - 136,609,000
Jun 2003 - 137,738,000

Equals - 1,129,000 more Americans employed. I know the growth isn't fast enough, but there are over a million more Americans working now than when George Bush took office.
Are you the only person in America claiming a net gain in employment? One more question . . . why compare Jan 2000 to Jun 2003? I thought Clinton was President during 2000. Why don't you post the change in American employment from Jan 2001 to Jun 2003?

More people are employed today, however there are more people. I made no claim to employment rate.

 

BarneyFife

Diamond Member
Aug 12, 2001
3,875
0
76
Originally posted by: charrison
Originally posted by: Bowfinger
Why no link or attribution? You copied this from somewhere.

Yes it was copied from another forum that had no link, but these numbers have been in the news.

Come on now. Rushlimbaugh doesn't count as a legitimate source:D
 

charrison

Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
17,033
1
81
Originally posted by: BarneyFife
Originally posted by: charrison
Originally posted by: Bowfinger
Why no link or attribution? You copied this from somewhere.

Yes it was copied from another forum that had no link, but these numbers have been in the news.

Come on now. Rushlimbaugh doesn't count as a legitimate source:D

Funny I dont listen to him or read his website.....
 

Corn

Diamond Member
Nov 12, 1999
6,389
29
91
Funny I dont listen to him or read his website.....

I call BS on this. Did you post something that is not critical of President Bush? Obviously you are a lobotomized cattle humping brainwashed dittohead. Now go find a sand box to play in or something.
 

BaliBabyDoc

Lifer
Jan 20, 2001
10,737
0
0
More people are employed today, however there are more people. I made no claim to employment rate.
OK . . . but aren't you implying President Bush has been a decent steward of the economy b/c more people are employed now compared to when he was inaugurated?

Equals - 1,129,000 more Americans employed. I know the growth isn't fast enough, but there are over a million more Americans working now than when George Bush took office.
But my question still stands . . . how many more people have jobs today compared to when Bush took office? You can quote rate or total employment.
 

charrison

Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
17,033
1
81
Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc
More people are employed today, however there are more people. I made no claim to employment rate.
OK . . . but aren't you implying President Bush has been a decent steward of the economy b/c more people are employed now compared to when he was inaugurated?

Equals - 1,129,000 more Americans employed. I know the growth isn't fast enough, but there are over a million more Americans working now than when George Bush took office.
But my question still stands . . . how many more people have jobs today compared to when Bush took office? You can quote rate or total employment.

I did not write this, So I have not made any claims. The unemployment rate is up from several years ago. There was unavoidable recession and unemployment still remains historically low. The economy is improving.
 

flavio

Diamond Member
Oct 9, 1999
6,823
1
76
Total number of Americans working over 16.

Jan 2000 - 136,609,000
Jun 2003 - 137,738,000

Equals - 1,129,000 more Americans employed. I know the growth isn't fast enough, but there are over a million more Americans working now than when George Bush took office.
Are you the only person in America claiming a net gain in employment? One more question . . . why compare Jan 2000 to Jun 2003? I thought Clinton was President during 2000. Why don't you post the change in American employment from Jan 2001 to Jun 2003?



Article from a month ago

July 03, 2003

For George W. Bush, the race has begun to escape comparisons to Herbert Hoover.
.
With more than 2 million jobs having disappeared since Bush took office in January 2001, he finds himself in danger of becoming the first president since Hoover to oversee a decline in the country's employment.
 

charrison

Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
17,033
1
81
Originally posted by: flavio
Total number of Americans working over 16.

Jan 2000 - 136,609,000
Jun 2003 - 137,738,000

Equals - 1,129,000 more Americans employed. I know the growth isn't fast enough, but there are over a million more Americans working now than when George Bush took office.
Are you the only person in America claiming a net gain in employment? One more question . . . why compare Jan 2000 to Jun 2003? I thought Clinton was President during 2000. Why don't you post the change in American employment from Jan 2001 to Jun 2003?



Article from a month ago

July 03, 2003

For George W. Bush, the race has begun to escape comparisons to Herbert Hoover.
.
With more than 2 million jobs having disappeared since Bush took office in January 2001, he finds himself in danger of becoming the first president since Hoover to oversee a decline in the country's employment.


Funny there have been several times when unemployment has been higher between current times and Hoover. But dont let the facts get in the way of your bias.
 

LunarRay

Diamond Member
Mar 2, 2003
9,993
1
76
What the Bush Administration has not done is create an attitude that notwithstanding the facts economic life is great today. Facts get in the way, of course but the charisma quality of the leader somehow makes bad look good because we believe the leader.. Reagan did this and Clinton where as Carter, Bush, Bush did not... Nixon, Ford, Johnson break even... I guess.. Kennedy had everyone thinking to pay any price go any length and ask how can I help was great..
 

sandorski

No Lifer
Oct 10, 1999
70,783
6,340
126
6.5% GDP growth seems highly questionable. That's higher thn any years during the '90's(IIRC). That said, the whole post seems to be based on the most optomistic estimations and old data.
 

flavio

Diamond Member
Oct 9, 1999
6,823
1
76
Originally posted by: charrison
Originally posted by: flavio
Total number of Americans working over 16.

Jan 2000 - 136,609,000
Jun 2003 - 137,738,000

Equals - 1,129,000 more Americans employed. I know the growth isn't fast enough, but there are over a million more Americans working now than when George Bush took office.
Are you the only person in America claiming a net gain in employment? One more question . . . why compare Jan 2000 to Jun 2003? I thought Clinton was President during 2000. Why don't you post the change in American employment from Jan 2001 to Jun 2003?



Article from a month ago

July 03, 2003

For George W. Bush, the race has begun to escape comparisons to Herbert Hoover.
.
With more than 2 million jobs having disappeared since Bush took office in January 2001, he finds himself in danger of becoming the first president since Hoover to oversee a decline in the country's employment.


Funny there have been several times when unemployment has been higher between current times and Hoover. But dont let the facts get in the way of your bias.

Were you under the impression that I wrote that article for some reason? I don't believe that you are comprehending the article that I linked (no, I didn't write it).

Here try this other article that I also didn't write.

They pointed to the net loss of 3.1 million jobs since Bush took office in January 2001 and a budget deficit expected to soar to $455 billion this year....

..."Right now, this nation is on track for the worst job creation record since the Great Depression. No president since Herbert Hoover 70 years ago has actually lost jobs over the course of his term," Warner said.


 

charrison

Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
17,033
1
81
Originally posted by: flavio
Originally posted by: charrison
Originally posted by: flavio
Total number of Americans working over 16.

Jan 2000 - 136,609,000
Jun 2003 - 137,738,000

Equals - 1,129,000 more Americans employed. I know the growth isn't fast enough, but there are over a million more Americans working now than when George Bush took office.
Are you the only person in America claiming a net gain in employment? One more question . . . why compare Jan 2000 to Jun 2003? I thought Clinton was President during 2000. Why don't you post the change in American employment from Jan 2001 to Jun 2003?



Article from a month ago

July 03, 2003

For George W. Bush, the race has begun to escape comparisons to Herbert Hoover.
.
With more than 2 million jobs having disappeared since Bush took office in January 2001, he finds himself in danger of becoming the first president since Hoover to oversee a decline in the country's employment.


Funny there have been several times when unemployment has been higher between current times and Hoover. But dont let the facts get in the way of your bias.

Were you under the impression that I wrote that article for some reason? I don't believe that you are comprehending the article that I linked (no, I didn't write it).

Here try this other article that I also didn't write.

They pointed to the net loss of 3.1 million jobs since Bush took office in January 2001 and a budget deficit expected to soar to $455 billion this year....

..."Right now, this nation is on track for the worst job creation record since the Great Depression. No president since Herbert Hoover 70 years ago has actually lost jobs over the course of his term," Warner said.

That maybe the case, but it is really bad to compare unemployment during Hoovers time to the 6.2% of today.