Jan. Leading Indicators Leap 0.5 Percent

[alchemize]

Some potential good news.

Jan. Leading Indicators Leap 0.5 Percent

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A closely watched gauge of future U.S. economic activity showed its largest increase since October, a private research firm said on Thursday.

The index of leading economic indicators, which foreshadows economic activity in the next three to six months, leaped 0.5 percent in January, the Conference Board said. The January rise matched Wall Street economists' expectations.

Conference Board economist Ken Goldstein warned that while the data could point to sustained economic growth for the first half of 2004, ``the road could get bumpy.''

``Consumer confidence could falter if job and wage growth don't continue to strengthen. Business confidence could erode. The lack of pricing power could be a big problem. But while these risks are important, their probabilities are not very high,'' Goldstein said in a statement.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Well, since mine was locked - I'll bump this one.

Edit- I thought multiple threads concerning the same thing were allowed now....or was last night just my imagination?

CkG

 

[alchemize]

Clearly I am in favored status by the mods, as my post was 1 minute later than yours.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
A key economic forecasting gauge advanced a strong 0.5 percent in January, suggesting that the economy will expand further in coming months.

Anyone still trying to talk doom and gloom?

CkG

Woo Hoo, a whole whopping .5 percent in how many years???

Let's break out the Champagne

OR

Maybe NOT

2-1902004 Bush Economic Team Under Fire Over Jobs

"I think there's a combination of a little bit of tone deafness on the part of some of the economic appointees, coupled with a little economic deafness on the part of others in the administration," said David Wyss, chief economist for Standard and Poor's in New York.

"Even if it's better for the country in the long run, you've got to do something for the people who get run over by the truck on the way," Wyss said.

"What planet do they live on?" Edwards said after Mankiw told reporters that "outsourcing" U.S. jobs to India and elsewhere "is probably a plus for the economy in the long run" because it reduces costs for U.S. consumers and companies.

Bush is trying to show that the economy is rebounding and that dramatic job gains are on the way. Yet there have been no clear signs of strong job production

Remarks by Labor Secretary Elaine Chao..."The stock market is, after all, the final arbiter. And the stock market was very strong this morning in reaction to the news that we have just received," Chao told CNN.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The very same thing the AT Experts continue to say, It's all the almighty Stock Market huh

 

[alchemize]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
A key economic forecasting gauge advanced a strong 0.5 percent in January, suggesting that the economy will expand further in coming months.

Anyone still trying to talk doom and gloom?

CkG

Woo Hoo, a whole whopping .5 percent in how many years???

Let's break out the Champagne

its largest increase since October

The leading index has now increased at a 5.0 percent annual rate from its most recent low in March, and this growth has continued to be widespread. The one exception has been the real money supply, which continued declining in January.

The leading index now stands at 115.0 (1996=100

Link

 

[xxxxxJohnGaltxxxxx]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674


Let's break out the Champagne

...so long as it's "American!"

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: alchemize

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
A key economic forecasting gauge advanced a strong 0.5 percent in January, suggesting that the economy will expand further in coming months.

Anyone still trying to talk doom and gloom?

CkG

Woo Hoo, a whole whopping .5 percent in how many years???

Let's break out the Champagne

its largest increase since October

The leading index has now increased at a 5.0 percent annual rate from its most recent low in March, and this growth has continued to be widespread. The one exception has been the real money supply, which continued declining in January.

The leading index now stands at 115.0 (1996=100

Link

Those seem to be some pretty strong figures. I guess the economy really isn't as gloomy as people are trying to say - no?

CkG

 

[XZeroII]

Does anyone else realize that they just pretty much said nothing at all. Let me summarize...

"Indicators indicate that there will be BIG TIME economic growth in the near future. However, this may not acually happen"

Thanks for the heads up!

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: XZeroII
Does anyone else realize that they just pretty much said nothing at all. Let me summarize...

"Indicators indicate that there will be BIG TIME economic growth in the near future. However, this may not acually happen"

Thanks for the heads up!

That's why they are "indicators"

CkG

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: XZeroII
Does anyone else realize that they just pretty much said nothing at all. Let me summarize...

"Indicators indicate that there will be BIG TIME economic growth in the near future. However, this may not acually happen"

Thanks for the heads up!

That's why they are "indicators"

CkG

and how long do these "indicators" have to say the same thing before what they are supposed to indicate actually happens???

 

[alchemize]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: XZeroII
Does anyone else realize that they just pretty much said nothing at all. Let me summarize...

"Indicators indicate that there will be BIG TIME economic growth in the near future. However, this may not acually happen"

Thanks for the heads up!

That's why they are "indicators"

CkG

and how long do these "indicators" have to say the same thing before what they are supposed to indicate actually happens???

We are getting a bit too advanced for dave here. It is better to just discuss money in terms of how little he has, how much the government owes him, and if he can fit it under his mattress.

 

[Corn]

We are getting a bit too advanced for dave here. It is better to just discuss money in terms of how little he has, how much the government owes him, and if he can fit it under his mattress.

 

[XZeroII]

Originally posted by: alchemize

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: XZeroII
Does anyone else realize that they just pretty much said nothing at all. Let me summarize...

"Indicators indicate that there will be BIG TIME economic growth in the near future. However, this may not acually happen"

Thanks for the heads up!

That's why they are "indicators"

CkG

and how long do these "indicators" have to say the same thing before what they are supposed to indicate actually happens???

We are getting a bit too advanced for dave here. It is better to just discuss money in terms of how little he has, how much the government owes him, and if he can fit it under his mattress.

lol

 

[dirtboy]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Woo Hoo, a whole whopping .5 percent in how many years???

I know it's hard for you, but if you could read, you'd understand it is for 1/12 of a year or Jan.

 

[dirtboy]

Originally posted by: alchemize

We are getting a bit too advanced for dave here. It is better to just discuss money in terms of how little he has, how much the government owes him, and if he can fit it under his mattress.

Maybe if you talked about illegally installing distributed computing clients on computers that you don't own, he'd be able to follow along better.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: dirtboy

Originally posted by: alchemize

We are getting a bit too advanced for dave here. It is better to just discuss money in terms of how little he has, how much the government owes him, and if he can fit it under his mattress.

Maybe if you talked about illegally installing distributed computing clients on computers that you don't own, he'd be able to follow along better.

OK, explain how that is "illegal" when you are the one in control of the computers???

 

[Corn]

OK, explain how that is "illegal" when you are the one in control of the computers???

Hey Dave, were you found, or did you plead, guilty or not?

Fact of the matter is you were not given free reign over the systems entrusted to your care. Did you, or did you not, have permission from your employer to install software on their computers at your whim? You were never in "control" of their computers Dave, you were a peon without the authority to make those decisions.

 

[dirtboy]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: dirtboy

Originally posted by: alchemize

We are getting a bit too advanced for dave here. It is better to just discuss money in terms of how little he has, how much the government owes him, and if he can fit it under his mattress.

Maybe if you talked about illegally installing distributed computing clients on computers that you don't own, he'd be able to follow along better.

OK, explain how that is "illegal" when you are the one in control of the computers???

You owned them? Just because you are in control of something, doesn't mean you don't have boundaries. Last time I checked, very few people needed a distributed client installed on one of their computers to do their jobs. Plus with the CPU running at full bore 100% of the time, you were wasting electricity and wearing out parts like the fans, etc faster than they normally should.

While this is very off topic, I'm glad we found something to converse about that isn't your normal nonsensical propaganda.

 

[alchemize]

Normally I don't like my threads hijacked. But when it is to bash Dave, I approve. Please carry on.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: Corn

OK, explain how that is "illegal" when you are the one in control of the computers???

Hey Dave, were you found, or did you plead, guilty or not?

Fact of the matter is you were not given free reign over the systems entrusted to your care. Did you, or did you not, have permission from your employer to install software on their computers at your whim? You were never in "control" of their computers Dave, you were a peon without the authority to make those decisions.

You're right. Everyone that takes care of Computers is Peons, that's why all the jobs went to India. At least they are getting paid like a Peon.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: dirtboy

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: dirtboy

Originally posted by: alchemize

We are getting a bit too advanced for dave here. It is better to just discuss money in terms of how little he has, how much the government owes him, and if he can fit it under his mattress.

Maybe if you talked about illegally installing distributed computing clients on computers that you don't own, he'd be able to follow along better.

OK, explain how that is "illegal" when you are the one in control of the computers???

You owned them? Just because you are in control of something, doesn't mean you don't have boundaries. Last time I checked, very few people needed a distributed client installed on one of their computers to do their jobs. Plus with the CPU running at full bore 100% of the time, you were wasting electricity and wearing out parts like the fans, etc faster than they normally should.

While this is very off topic, I'm glad we found something to converse about that isn't your normal nonsensical propaganda.

Actually it doesn't "wear out" parts faster as you might assume. As long as the computer is running the fans spin at the same speed(or atleast they did when dave was involved with this "issue") Electricity usage really isn't increased by a substantial factor going from "idle" to 100% usage. Dave's issue was that there was no "documented" permission to install the program and that he didn't uninstall them when he left that position(IIRC). Dave did infact have full control of what was installed on the computers(IIRC) because that was what his job was - but again never actually got WRITTEN permission to install it.

Anyway - while it's fun to pick on dave - this is a subject that I think a lot of people here are misinformed about.

Any one want to help science(cool stuff like neutrinos)- Check out DPAD over in the DC forum. If you feel like trying to help find a cure for dieseases and other medical type things there are projects for that. And for some of you tin foil hat types - there is always SETI (yes I run SETI too)

There are plenty of things to pick on dave about - I think this DC thing isn't one of them though.

CkG

 

[leeboy]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: alchemize

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
A key economic forecasting gauge advanced a strong 0.5 percent in January, suggesting that the economy will expand further in coming months.

Anyone still trying to talk doom and gloom?

CkG

Woo Hoo, a whole whopping .5 percent in how many years???

Let's break out the Champagne

its largest increase since October

The leading index has now increased at a 5.0 percent annual rate from its most recent low in March, and this growth has continued to be widespread. The one exception has been the real money supply, which continued declining in January.

The leading index now stands at 115.0 (1996=100

Link

Those seem to be some pretty strong figures. I guess the economy really isn't as gloomy as people are trying to say - no?

CkG

Ah good old CAD. As long as CAD is employed and making money and able to pay his bills, then everyone else surely is - no?

 

[dirtboy]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Actually it doesn't "wear out" parts faster as you might assume.

My assumption is based on my own data. I started going through CPU fans faster than ever, because they wore out, became noisey and appeared to be rather worn out in a quick amount of time.

When I stopped running DC clients, I stopped having to replace fans every 6 months. In fact, since then, I have yet to replace a fan. Go figure.

 

[dirtboy]

Originally posted by: leeboy
Ah good old CAD. As long as CAD is employed and making money and able to pay his bills, then everyone else surely is - no?

Yea, because that's what Cad said. Even if he lost his job, I'd bet you he wouldn't be here whining. Instead he'd be out looking and probably have one in a short period of time.

 

[leeboy]

Originally posted by: dirtboy

Originally posted by: leeboy
Ah good old CAD. As long as CAD is employed and making money and able to pay his bills, then everyone else surely is - no?

Yea, because that's what Cad said. Even if he lost his job, I'd bet you he wouldn't be here whining. Instead he'd be out looking and probably have one in a short period of time.

What does your CAD on the ropes scenerio have to do with my post? I am sure a black guy with GED who lost his job on the line at GM, who has been there for 25 years, who has no other skills other than manufacturing, can find a job just as easily as CAD could. That's the problem with most of you cons, if it ain't white and it ain't my problem, who gives a $hit. <con mantra