U.S. GDP Grows at 8.2 Percent Pace in 3Q

[Frodo]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A12766-2003Nov25.html

"WASHINGTON - The economy roared ahead at an astounding 8.2 percent annual rate in the third quarter, the fastest pace in nearly two decades and a much stronger performance than previously thought. It raises hope that a long spell of lackluster business activity is finally over. "

"The revised gross domestic product (GDP), released by the Commerce Department Tuesday, was a full percentage point higher than the 7.2 percent growth rate estimated a month ago. "

- clip -

"..represented the best showing since the first quarter of 1984, when the economy surged at a 9 percent pace. Economists were predicting third-quarter GDP would be revised up, with estimates ranging from a 7.3 percent pace to an 8 percent pace. "


Why the post? Two reasons.

1) Though bad news (from a political perspective - obviously we "want" the economy to do well, it's just an inconveient time) it IS news that will impact our political strategy and is woprth discussing.

2) When I posted the 7.2% growth last month I had an "economics professor" take me to task that these things are always revised downward - and that it would certainly drop siginificantly. When I called him on it he tried to use a bunch of big words that equated to "I know what I'm doing and you obviously don't - so I'm not talking to you anymore". I got silence when I posted the historic statistics that proved him wrong.... Now I'm very interested in his take on this substantial upward revision.

And, yes, I'm aware that "all those books are being cooked". I can only work with what is reported.

[onebigbadwulf]

1. Well you can also look

at bankruptcy filings
employment rates
and earnings across the board

to see if this is a result of everyone spending the last of their savings after getting fired and filing bankruptcy.

[Frodo]

6. That shouldn't be the case

Since people need to spend MORE than they did during the compared cycle in order for the figures to climb like this (consumer spending increased by 6.4% in Q3).

If you are living off of your savings and/or credit cards do you INCREASE spending - or cut it to the bone?

More likely, people are spending the home equity they gained in the last decade.

[TexasPatriot]

15. i've seen some talking heads say the same

people took a lot of money out of their houses last summer - and they're spending it (big shock, people arent very good about not spending money)

i hope the economy is moving fer chrissakes... it's been long enough, and if it doesnt after this sort of stimulus i dont know what it's going to take to actually get it started.

[54anickel]

83. More likely, people are spending the home equity they gained....

Which is DEBT.
Spending away your future to survive today. Much like this misadministration!

[ozone_man]

129. My take also.

They are spending money that is borrowed. Between refinance money and tax cut money, the GDP looks good this quarter, but not much longer. The "jobless recovery" will eventually reveal a failed economy and Bush will be swept away.

[theboss]

2. That's amazing

But our argument is still that this is all sound and fury if there is no job creation. 2 percent? 4 percent? 8 percent? It all means nothing if you are unemployed or making less than you were two years ago. Bush's economy is about consolidation of wealth.

(And pleas don't argue that the books are being cooked. That's just foolishness).

[Mentalist]

3. Lagging indicator

Just as jobs are the last to go south in a recession, they are the last to come back in a recovery.

They often start out as part time or temp and turn into full time and permanent.

[seasat]

9. Jobs have lagged more in this recovery.

While jobs are one of the last things to pick up in a recovery, jobs have lagged more in this recovery than others. That tells me that there is something fundementally wrong with the way the economy is recovering. I hope that I'm wrong about it but it could possibly be that part of the boost in the economy is due to shifting of jobs overseas. This produces a boost in productivity but stifles wage growth among workers. Real wages have not grown very well in this "recovery". Those jobs that were shifted overseas will not come back. The spending by the average person will eventually collapse without these jobs or wage growth and the economy may drop again.

[Frodo]

13. I like that. Do you think it sells well?

I'm not accusing you of "spin" (heck, we NEED some spin right now).

I'm just wondering if we can simultaneously claim that we are not really IN a recovery AND that jobs are returning much later in this recovery?

[Teaser]

28. Just don't use the word recovery period.

Use the word "jobs recession."

[Frodo]

31. I LIKE that.

How do we get the media to pick it up?


And, of course, what do we do if unemployment is at, say... 5% next October?

[seasat]

34. Jobs are the issue.

If a recovery is an increase in corporate profit and GDP then we are in a recovery. If a recovery is an increase in wages and jobs for the average citizen then we are not in a recovery. Unemployment has dropped but job growth is still dismal. The Economic Policy Institute has a good synopsis of the trend here and their jobwatch.org site lists this chart showing past recoveries and job growth.



Shrub, just like his brother Jebbie in my state, has changed the way that the stats are counted. The unemployment numbers are using a different method of seasonal adjustment than previous administration. That is one of the reasons that they typically get revised higher the next week. Announced layoffs for October, while lower than last year, are still a 125% increase over the previous month. IMHO, Bush is playing a dangerous game in his economic policies. He has produced a huge Keynsian pump to get the economy going but has not addressed fundamental weaknesses such as future deficits in both trade and the federal budget. His protectionist policies may result in countries lossing faith in US dollars and treasuries. That would kill the economy in a heartbeat if countries like China started dumping dollars or treasury notes. The result with this huge deficit would be huge jumps in interest rates. Add all this to a possible bad Christmas retail season and the Bush "recovery" does not look like great news.

[mrsteve]

85. I like this chart - too bad it's not getting more publicity

Note especially the last two bars - the recession recoveries that have produced the least jobs are Bush I (0.2%) and Bush II (-1.8%).

Verr-rr-y interesting.

[seasat]

90. It's a great rebuttal to the Repub lagging indicator BS.

I've got it bookmarked and will post it everytime they pull out that Rove programmed talking point. It amazes me how little Repubs understand about economics. They just seem to buy whatever spin their talking heads come out with.

[Media_Lies_Daily]

112. Excellent work, seasat...thanks very much.

[Yupster]

26. One reason why jobs not coming back faster

besides the obvious ones like jobs going overseas.

Another reason is the unemployment rate never got very high.

In the last two recessions before this one, unemployment got over 8 % each time. It came down quicker toward 6 %.

This recession never got much over 6 % at the worst, so it's hard to snap back to 6 % when it never left 6 %.

[Media_Lies_Daily]

36. Wrong. When the unemployed exhaust their unemployment insurance...

...they no longer appear on the records...they simply disappear and are no longer counted as unemployed.

The current estimate of unemployed that have exhausted their unemployment insurance and are still unemployed is roughly 50% of the official unemployment rate. Therefore, the actual rate of unemployment is in the 9% to 10% range.

If you wanted to count all of the owners of small businesses that have gone out of business during this recession, that number would probably stretch the unemployment rate to well over 10%. Those people are not eligible for unemployment insurance and are therefore not counted.

As a member of the recruiting/staffing industry, I can also tell you that recruiting firms are suffering through the worst recession we have EVER seen. This is my fourth recession and this is the longest and worst by far.

[Frodo]

39. That is incorrect.

When people stop looking for work they stop showing up as unemployed. My wife isn't "unemployed" thuogh she stopped worknig three years ago.

The unemployemnt rate includes lots of people who have exhausted their benefits. As long as they haven't given up job hunting they still count.

If your estimate were correct, shrub could have fixed his unemployement problem by VETOing the bills that extended unemployment insurance after 9/11. Unemployment would have dropped to 3-4% in three months.

[Media_Lies_Daily]

48. Wow. Now you're an expert in employment, too? I guess my 20 years...

...of experience in the business counts for nothing.

Whatever you say.

[Frodo]

50. In this case? Sure looks like it.

You gotten good performance reviews lately? LOL.

Maybe you just don't work in that end of the "business".


Regardless. People do not drop off of the "unemployment" figure when they stop receiving "unemployment".

[Media_Lies_Daily]

58. I'm the owner of my recruiting company...

...and have been since 1997.

I'm not sure what business you're working in, but it must have something to do with shoveling manure because you're definitely full of it.

End of conversation.

[Frodo]

61. "End of conversation" = "Don't confuse me with the fact"

This past month's unemployement figure includes:

783,000 "job leavers" - They don't GET unemployment insurance
655,000 "new entrants" - These are people who just decided to start looking for a job (recent graduates usually) and they ALSO don't qualify for unemployment assistance.
2.5 Million "re-entrants" which are people who have previously left the job pool coming back in (moms/dads coming back after their kids go to school, or people who had given up on the job market deciding to give it another try). They don't get payments either.

Millions of people counted who you think don't get counted. No, the unemployed who don't get counted are those who do not claim to be looking for work. And as soon as they claim to be looking again? They end up in that "re-entrants" category - whether they receive benefits or not.


If you care to cite a source for what you've been shoveling I'd be happy to look at it. Otherwise? Don't go telling the people you are tryign to find jobs for that you don't understand your business. It's embarrassing.

[mhr]

84. Frodo You Are Way Off Base, See This Article Posted Many Times At DU

Frodo, U3 is the number reported as the unemployment rate and is based on Unemployment insurance which lasts six months. Once one exhausts this benefit, one is no longer counted. One may show up in other data sets but those numbers ARE NOT WIDELY REPORTED!

------
http://www.kansascity.com/mld/kansascitystar/business/5962629.htm

May 29, 2003
Unemployment: It depends on how you define it
By DIANE STAFFORD
Columnist

You've been out of work for 18 months and know 15 others who are vainlyjob hunting. You suspect that the 5.8 percent unemployment figure forApril is government propaganda.

In your world, things are much worse off. And, guess what, in your
world, you're right.

The "real" unemployment rate for you is 9.8 percent. You can look it up. It's every bit as real as the 5.8 percent that was reported in the media. So what's the deal?

The deal is that there are six government-sanctioned definitions ofunemployment. The six measures produce a broad range of unemploymentnumbers. For April 2003, the range was a scant 2.5 percent to a scary 9.8 percent.

One of the midrange numbers, dubbed U-3 and defined as "total unemployed, as a percent of the civilian labor force," is the officialunemployment rate.

Snip ......

[Frodo]

91. It can be posted a hundred times... but if they don't "get it"???

I've seen it posted before. And it's constantly used as if the differences between U3 and CU7 & CU8 are some sort of new thing. The article is usefull, but it does not make his point. It is not the case that you drop off of U3 when you stop receiving benefits.


The figure claimed to NOT be included in the "official" number is included in ALL standard measures of unemployment (U1-U7). U1 is just people who have been unemployed greater than 13 weeks. Each succeeding measurement adds in additional groups, with U4 including those individuals who have ceased looking for work ("discouraged workers").

[mhr]

101. Wrong Again Frodo!

Once you stop recieving benefits, you are no longer tracked by the state and are no longer counted in U3. So after six months you disappear because there is no tracking mechanism to count you.

Claiming that U3 is not the official unemployment rate is like saying births are not counted by birth certificates. The media only reports U3; anything else does not exist as far as hey are concerned because that would be politically insensitive to Heir Bush.

Frodo, there are facts and then there is reality. Reality is that U3 is the defacto unemployment rate.

[Frodo]

114. You are incorrect. And appearently immune to evidence.

I did not claim that U3 is NOT the official unemployment figure. Did you read an article and think you had discovered the magical hidden agenda? U1-U7 (and SU7 and SU8) are all long-used measures of employment activity and are not mysterious. Nobody started using U3 when the regime took over, it's a standard economic figure (like M1,M2, etc for money supply) and is used in LOTS of countries. Regardless, U3 DOES includes people whose benefits have run out.



So I'll post it again. The Bureau of Labor Statistics specifically denies that their numbers are in any way based on the Unemployment Insurance receipient numbers. You DO NOT drop off of U3 when you stop receiving benefits.

http://www.bls.gov/cps/cps_htgm.htm


Some highlights:

Some people think that to get these figures on unemployment the Government uses the number of persons filing claims for unemployment insurance (UI) benefits under State or Federal Government programs. But some people are still jobless when their benefits run out, and many more are not eligible at all or delay or never apply for benefits. So, quite clearly, UI information cannot be used as a source for complete information on the number of unemployed.

- snip -

The basic concepts involved in identifying the employed and unemployed are quite simple:

People with jobs are employed.

People who are jobless, looking for jobs, and available for work are unemployed.



People who are neither employed nor unemployed are not in the labor force.

- snip -

Persons are classified as unemployed if they do not have a job, have actively looked for work in the prior 4 weeks, and are currently available for work. Actively looking for work may consist of any of the following activities:

Contacting:
An employer directly or having a job interview;
A public or private employment agency;
Friends or relatives;
A school or university employment center;

Sending out resumes or filling out applications;

Placing or answering advertisements;

Checking union or professional registers; or

Some other means of active job search.

[mhr]

125. Still Wrong Frodo

Here in Texas there is no way to track what happens to someone that has exhausted their unemployment benefits.

If you stop claiming a benefit because your six months is up then you magically disappear from the U3 reporting done by Texas to the federal government. Where do you think the Feds get their data, out of thin air?

I asked and that is how it works.

Once again, you are WRONG!

[Frodo]

127. "Blah blah blah" My opinion of TX is going down. Not that it's been...

... real high lately.

How about a link? I've given a couple. One from the people who actually come up with that U3 number. You keep asking "how, oh how could they ever GET that number if people aren't getting benefits".

Since you've obviously ignored the other posts on the subject I will summarize again. It's a POLL, not unlike a statistical census sampling. It is NOT based on figures from your Texas unemployment office.

They CALL 60,000 families every month (rotating 15,000 families out each month to freshen the sample) from hundreds of counties all around the country and they ASK "did you work last month? Did you look for work last month? Did you work part-time? From home? less hours than you used to work? What about your spouse? What about any children over 16? etc. etc. etc. etc. ad nauseam. ad infinitum.

That's where the Feds SAY they get their data. And I gave you a link. Where do YOU think they get their data? Texas DOES NOT REPORT U3 TO THE FEDS.

There is no way for the state of Texas to track MOST of what goes into U3.

How could they know when an 18 yr/old HS graduate tries to enter the labor market for the first time and can't find a job? They CAN'T (but it's included in U3 anyway).

How can the state of Texas track when someone quits 'cause he's ticked at his boss and looks for a new job? They CAN'T (but he makes it into the U3 figure anyway)... OK, TX "could" try to get those figures from the employers, but whatever.

How can the state of Texas track when a "stay-at-home" mom/dad decides to re-enter the market after five years at home? They CAN'T. Yet, again, it gets into the U3 figure magically.

Following any of this yet? It's a POLL - and they do NOT drop you when your benefits run out.

[sal]

130. telephone polls are slanted

If I am out of work long I lose my phone. Or I get a pager, or cell phone. I screen my calls and respond only to messages to avoid creditors unpleasant reminders. I might return to my country of origin if I am not from the US. I might go on disability or work part time, or retire. Technically, we are neither of the two definitions you posit but are nevertheless in significant numbers not counted in U3.

People with landlines that answer surveys from the friendly government are kind of from Beaver Cleaver land to me and do not quite fit in with my life expereinces of what it is like to be unemployed.

Texas is full of beautiful people mister, and we got our own problems, like having 240K thrown off Medicaid. Texas Workforce Commission is too corrupt to do any reliable counting or reporting. And we sure don't need snobbery like yours.

[Frodo]

131. Good point, but that isn't how it works.

These aren't some random phone calls to see who answers and who doesn't. It isn't a "CNN/Gallup" sampling of 750 registered voters. These are actually in-person visits to 60,000 families. The interviews are so detailed that they can only do a couple a day (there are better than 1500 people bringing in data on those 60,000 households).

Are the numbers 100% perfect? No, of course not. Neither is the Census. But it's statistically a heck of a lot better than a telephone poll. And, more importantly, it's pretty likely that it is consistent from year to year. The numbers could be slanted in the same way the Census is due to statistical vagaries, but there's no reason to believe that the numbers are MORE slanted one year than they last. So we could claim that a reported change from 6.0% to 6.1% was REALLY a move from 6.6% to 6.7%... but all we've done is move the baseline, not the conclusions drawn from the figures. We can glean some information about the changing labor markets by comparing the changing gap between U3 and U7 from year to year, but there wouldn't be a change in the gap between the "raw" poll results and some hypothetical "true" figure.




I was just pulling his leg about TX. My in-laws live there and I've always loved the state. It's just the political bent lately (and the people they've dumped on us nationally) that get to me.

[Frodo]

128. The "better point"

The better point (though I'm not sure how to debate it too effectively given changeing ways that people work) is to say that U3 does not include those people who have given up on this economy. And that we suspect there are LOTS more of them under Bush than in previous 6% unemployment periods.

The poor sap who says "scr@w it! I can't find a job". When they ask "have you actively looked for work in the last four weeks" and he says "no" he DOESN'T show up in the official number (though he WILL show up in a couple higher ones (U4 or U5 starts picking this up). I suspect THAT was the point of the article you linked (that I can't get without a subscription, but I remember vaguely from other threads).

[Frodo]

68. Here's another link for you.

http://www.epinet.org/content.cfm/issuebriefs_ib194
http://www.epinet.org/content.cfm?id=1531

The EPI is NOT a right-wing group. Notice how they include the people whose benefits have ended in their figures?

[Galley_Queen]

76. I Was A Headhunter

for 18+ years, and worked through the Ronnie Raygun years, Poppy Bush, and part of Clinton's years. You want to talk about recession, try getting people to physically move when they would have had to give up their 8% mortgages for 12% and up during Raygun. Basically put us out of business for a while. The only thing good I see here is the continued low interest rates. If this keeps up and THAT changes, we will be in big trouble once again.

And in answer to Frodo, can you explain to me just how in the hell they count unemployed people who no longer qualify for unemployment insurance?

[Frodo]

82. They use a calculator.

It's usually a pretty big number that's too big to use fingers and toes.

Take a look at these figures:

http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t08.htm

Can you tell me where they get most of these since they don't report in to an unemployment office either?

[Beaker]

104. "As long as they haven't given up job hunting they count"

and just how do they keep track of who's hunting and who isn't?
Did Santa loan the government some of his elves that track the "naughty & nice" numbers?

the numbers reflect on the number of people collecting unemployment checks. when the checks stop coming, you don't count as unemployed, from the government's perspective.

[Frodo]

108. They poll 60,000 people every month.

and rotate 1/4 of that sample monthly. It's a far more accurate poll than anything Gallup plays with. Is it exact? No, but it's far more statisticvally accurate than a sample size of 750 voters.

Here's a link from the BLS.


http://www.bls.gov/cps/cps_htgm.htm


Some highlights:

Some people think that to get these figures on unemployment the Government uses the number of persons filing claims for unemployment insurance (UI) benefits under State or Federal Government programs. But some people are still jobless when their benefits run out, and many more are not eligible at all or delay or never apply for benefits. So, quite clearly, UI information cannot be used as a source for complete information on the number of unemployed.

- snip -

The basic concepts involved in identifying the employed and unemployed are quite simple:

People with jobs are employed.

People who are jobless, looking for jobs, and available for work are unemployed.



People who are neither employed nor unemployed are not in the labor force.

- snip -

Persons are classified as unemployed if they do not have a job, have actively looked for work in the prior 4 weeks, and are currently available for work. Actively looking for work may consist of any of the following activities:

Contacting:
An employer directly or having a job interview;
A public or private employment agency;
Friends or relatives;
A school or university employment center;

Sending out resumes or filling out applications;

Placing or answering advertisements;

Checking union or professional registers; or

Some other means of active job search.

[Mentalist]

40. Self employed

Over 1.2 million have started their own business in the past year and those are not counted as "new jobs." Someone correct me if I am wrong on this. And if they are counted, how are they counted? I don't see how they can be when we see reports of something like 300,000 new jobs created.

A former co-worker, and soon to be my new boss (next week) is one of those 1.2 million.

[Media_Lies_Daily]

54. How many of those 1.2 million no longer have a business?...

Bankruptcies are proceeding at a record pace according to the latest reports.

Those 300,000 new jobs were almost all temporary or part-time positions for the holidays. They will go away after the first week of January. During the same time-frame, how many jobs were lost, and what is the net job-gain/loss?

How come Greenspan wants to see better numbers on unemployment from the Bushies than he has been getting so far? Even he suspects the numbers are, as he stated, "underreported".

[rumguy]

72. I need to see a link before I believe that

sounds like some crap you would hear on hannity

[seasat]

74. They may be counting service jobs as self employed.

If you've got someone going from being an account manager making 100 k a year to being a self-employed landscaper making 20 k a year, then you've got someone with a job but it hurts the overall economy. Service jobs have grown but they are considerably lower paying than other jobs. Manufacturing jobs are in the gutter.

[mhr]

81. More Mentalist Tripe, Jobs Are A Coincident Indicator!

See www.comstockfunds.com.

At this same time in previous recessions, the US economy should have created millions of new jobs.

Where are they Mentalist. Oh, lagging of course. Economic history does not support your position!

[Frodo]

94. We don't get to change the rules to suit our strategy

There are certainly cases where unemployment can change out of cycle to the overall economy. Unemployment went up about 1% during Clinton's last couple years while the economy was still going strong. This was largely because 3% is such an impossible number to maintain. You get 3% just from people leaving one job to go to another.

But that's why it's an "indicator" and not the economy itself. It isn't 100% reliable. We would have to see months of increasing employment before we could say for certain that it had turned up. And by then everyone will know one way or the other.



From "investopedia" - "Lagging indicators confirm long-term trends, but do not predict them. Some examples are unemployment, corporate profits, and labor cost per unit of output. Interest rates are another good lagging indicator, rates change after severe market changes. " "The importance of a lagging indicator is its ability to confirm that a pattern is occurring or about to occur. Unemployment is one of the most popular lagging indicators. If the unemployment rate is rising, it indicates that the economy is doing poorly or that companies are anticipating a downturn in the economy."


The Conference Board uses average duration of unemployment as a lagging indicator.

The Dept of Labor says "Ability to Affect Markets: Moderate. Unlike the payroll jobs data, which is a coincident indicator of economic activity (it changes direction at the same time as the economy), the unemployment rate is a lagging indicator. Consequently, it is less likley to move the market than the employment number. However, as the economy get close to the "natural rate of unemploment" unexpected change in the unemployment rate may become bigger market movers. "


"While the labor market may feel like the weakest link in the recovery, really it's the last link," said Bill Cheney, chief economist at John Hancock Financial Services in Boston

[Media_Lies_Daily]

111. Maybe you should talk to your friends in the Junta about that...

...they're constantly changing the rules to fit their purposes, and usually when they think nobody's watching.

[Frodo]

115. That's true enough.

First thing you've gotten right today (well, except for the "junta" jab, but "all's fair". Congratulations.

Care to step back and deal with your unemployment goof?

[Frodo]

4. True, "but"

Unemployment always comes back later than the rest of the economy. If we hang our hat on unemployment rates and they turn around next April/May? If the economy keeps going at 4-5% for the next two quarters I'd expect unemployment to dip a tad to about 5.6%-5.7% perhaps more.

[Tandalayo_Scheisskopf]

5. In a way, they are.

The preponderance of this GDP spending is government defense spending, a notoriously poor indicator of economic health, and one that leads to al sorts of problems down the road.

Question: What is the rate of growth AFTER govermental spending is stripped out of the GDP number?

Betcha it ain't much more than squat.

Ahhh...Socialized Death...

[Frodo]

8. Sorry, that was shown incorrect last month

The original report actually showed a slight DECREASE in military spending, so it isn't the sole factor in the GDP figue.

Additionally, the report shows a couple figures that refute the idea:
1) "18.4 percent growth rate in business investment in new equipment and software "
2)"Spending on residential projects grew at a whopping 22.7 percent pace "
3) Consumer spending increased 6.4%

[Shadoobie]

29. Residential Spending

From my own experience, we moved this past summer and bought a much smaller home. Our hold home took 3 months so sell and we had to drop the price about 5% before getting it sold. Our new home is smaller and very old. Our mortgage payments are much lower . This has allowed us to save more money as well as do some projects around the house. I wonder how many other people have done the same thing.

Greg

[Frodo]

35. I really varies by market (location location location)

We just sold our home two months ago. It sold the day it went on the market for slightly over what we asked. We found a place twice the size on five times the land in NC for quite a bit less than we sold for.

The real-estate market nationally has been pretty good, but if you sell a house and stay in the same market you are either spending lots more or "settling" for lots less.

BTW. Used to be that 3 months was a pretty good sale (national average is historically like 6 months), so don't feel bad. Sounds like you are doing the right thing for your family.

[mhr]

86. Mortgage Foreclosures Up By 34% In DFW Metroplex, Frodo!

Sell a home here forget about it! Realtors tell me that the rate is up 350% in Plano, a large North Dallas suburb!

http://www.dfw.com/mld/dfw/news/7261023.htm

Foreclosures up 34 percent in 2003
By Andrea Jares
Star-Telegram Staff Writer

Residential foreclosures rose 34 percent in the Metroplex this year, hitting the highest level since the real estate bust of the late 1980s and early 1990s, said George Roddy Sr., president of the Foreclosure Listing Service.

There were 28,164 homes posted for foreclosure in Tarrant, Dallas, Denton and Collin counties in 2003, including those listed for the Dec. 2 auction, according to figures released Thursday by the Addison-based company. In Tarrant County, 8,740 homes were posted for foreclosure this year, 30.3 percent more than the 6,710 homes posted in 2002.

The pace of foreclosures has picked up in the past few years, Roddy and others said, largely because of a sluggish economy that has left more people unemployed or underemployed.

Foreclosures increased 25 percent from 2001 to 2002 and 30 percent from 2002 to 2003, according to the listing service.

Snip ......

[Frodo]

88. I know. My inlaws are in Tarrant county.

Like I said. Location location location.

It certainly isn't a national crisis since home sales are still strong.

[Lithos]

120. The question is

Who is buying the homes and what are they being sold at? All the home sales figure indicates is churn, not whether it is a positive or negative thing.

On the plus side the low interest rates means people are now able to move into homes when they couldn't originally afford to do so. Good for the economy.

However, if someone is forced to sell their home at a loss because they are forced to move to get a job, or sell because they can not longer afford to maintain their home, or because the bank foreclosed, then it's still a sale yet indicative of a very poor economy as the net result is that more people are being forced to give up the American dream of home ownership. The best that can be hoped for in this scenario is that a first time home owner buys this distressed real estate.

From my own perspective, most homes are selling at a loss which means that the economy is not improving.

To add to this, I think that this bubble is nothing more than a bubble where people are spending what was home equity on durable items which manufacturers are being forced to extensively discount to move out of their warehouses and showroom floors. While this has a nice effect of churning stock, it does not improve the basic fundamental economic drivers of jobs and wages. It will end when the equity is spent.

L-

[Media_Lies_Daily]

30. And who prepared those figures? Common sense should tell you that...

...the military is spending money like crazy just to support the troops in the Middle East!! There has also been an increase in the amount of money spent to design and develop new weapons. Just where is the "decrease" in military spending coming from? Did the accountants who prepared this report previously work at AA or Enron??

1) There is still zero investment in new jobs, and that's where the rubber meets the road. Until we see a broad-based increase in new jobs, the numbers mean very little to those that remain unemployed, and to the way the economy is perceived by the lower and middle classes. Claiming temps and part-timers as a sign of new job development is going to backfire badly by February 2004 when all of those people are let go at the end of the holiday season;

2) This number typically lags changes in the mortgage rate by 3-6 months...real estate is also over-valued IMHO, and is a crash waiting to happen;

3) If that were really true, why is it that chains like Toys-R-Us have announced lower than expected profits and plans to close quite a few stores across the country? And did anyone bother to note that consumer spending is typically up at the beginning of the 3rd quarter EVERY YEAR because of the millions of kids that need supplies, new clothes, and cars in some cases, before heading back to school?

[Mentalist]

33. Toys R Us

is having problems because of competition from Wal-Mart and other big box stores.

[Media_Lies_Daily]

38. Does it matter why they're having problems? Wal-Mart's not doing...

...that well either, are they?

[Mentalist]

42. Yes it matters

Of course it matters why they are not doing well.

[Frodo]

37. A reply

Military spending is being compared to a year ago. We WERE spending even MORE then to get troops to the middle east AND bulk up after 9/11. "Decrease" doesn't mean "hardly spending anything" it just means things were sorse last year.

1) Is still a good point. But it's all we're hanging our hats on right now, and we know things have already gotten better in that arena.

2) Real estate doesn't work like the stock market. A "crash" would take a big spike in unemployment or interest rates. Neither is forcast.

3) Plenty of companies announced lower than expected profits - and plenty were higher. Overall, business profits were up 10% in Q3 and I read a forecast this morning that the X-Mas season was expected to be the "hottest" of the shrub reign (+6-7%).

3.5) These numbers are always seasonally adjusted. It's being compared to the same quarter last year, so arguments that it's "back-to-school" spending don't wash.

[Media_Lies_Daily]

56. What a bunch of baloney. Again, who is responsible for preparing...

...the numbers? That will tell you quite a bit about the validity of this so-called "recovery".

1) "...and we know things have already gotten better in that arena."

Who is the "we" to whom you're referring? What specific industries are actually spending money on new equipment and software?

2) "A 'crash' would take a big spike in unemployment or interest rates. Neither is forcast."

I know exactly how real estate works. Additionally, we're ALREADY in a "big spike of unemployment", and have been there for quite a while. The trend I'm seeing is people selling their homes for less than they originally bought them and then buying less expensive homes. I'm not sure who is doing your forecasting, but my bet is on mortgage rates beginning to rise at a steady pace before the end of next year. Here's a little item that speaks volumes about confidence in the real estate market:

FDIC: Survey of Real Estate Trends
<http://www.fdic.gov/bank/analytical/survey/>

"This publication has been discontinued."


3) "Seasonally adjusted"? Do you have a link that will help explain that a little better?

[Frodo]

75. Sigh. "Talk to the hand"

I already said that if you are going to argue that the figures are all rigged there is no basis for a conversation. What could we discuss other than the annecdotes you seem to live on.


1) "We" in this case is the Bureau of Labor Statistics for unemployemnt and the Commerce Dept for spending.

2)It's clear you are one of those guys who has to constantly puff himself up ("I am in the KNOW") even on subject you don't know much about. 6% unemployment is NOT a "spike" (it's politically usable since it was lower under Clinton, but let's not mix words - a spike is a spike). The housing boom has largely occured while unemployment was right around the 6% it's at today. So a "spike" would have to be a short-term jump to 7-8%.

3) I don't think a link will help you. I've already tried that.

[Media_Lies_Daily]

110. I don't think ANYTHING will help you....

...when I look at the board, I see quite a few posters are not only questioning your figures and back-up documentation, but it appears that they're also starting to question your personal credibility.

Here's my last attempt to attempt to point out where you've gone wrong in your thinking or whatever it is that you think you're doing.

The people preparing these numbers are part of the same group of people that lied about why we absolutely had to attack Iraq.

They also lied when they told us that Al Qaeda was primarily based in Afghanistan. We still have troops in the country looking for Osama and Omar, and are still mounting combat operations.

Additionally, they are the very same people that took control of the United States in a bloodless coup involving a massive amount of lying about votes in December 2000.

And those are just the major issues that they've lied about...I could be here all day to list all of the minor lies. Suffice it to say that they will lie about anything if it serves their purposes.

One need look no farther than the 2004 elections to see why the Junta is so intent on fabricating economic indicators to make it appear as if a recovery is on the way. One has only to look around and actually see the current state of the economy, and the lack of ANY signs of a recovery.

If you want to believe what the Junta is telling you, I'd say that you're the one who appears to have a problem with reality, not me.

[Frodo]

113. OK. So? What's to discuss?

All of that may be true. But unless you can sell it to the electorate it doesn't do us any good. We can't respond to NBC asking "what about these numbers" with "it's all a lie I tell you! - Don't you nkow they are in league with the devil!?!?"

And you seem to be the only one "questioning my credibility". Asking for a link is a wise thing to do when you don't understand where a "fact" is coming from. You might try it some time.

"One has only to look around and actually see the current state of the economy, and the lack of ANY signs of a recovery."

That's what this thread was TRYING to do. What "signs" would you have us look for if not employment, interest, GDP, consumer confidence, etc?

[Media_Lies_Daily]

118. Were we having a discussion? It's clear that you have no intention of...

...considering anything but the numbers you brought to the table.

Hey, if you trust the Government, you just go ahead and run with it, okay? Those of us that don't live in Oz will deal with the real world.

[Frodo]

121. The "real world"???

Is that where people drop off the unemployment report when they stop receiving benefits?

The "real world" is what you see when you stop taking the meds. You haven't GIVEN me anything to consider but "lies! I tell you! They're all lies!"

[Frodo]

23. "In further news"

I found the citation re: military spending:

"Government outlays for national defense fell at a 1.6 percent annual rate."

So "stripping out" that figure from the GDP number would increase it - not sent it to "squat".

[SodoffBush]

7. Why is my stock portfolio still in the shitter, then?

?

[Beaker]

11. you don't have enough defense industry stocks.

HAL, BA, GD, etc.- these are the kind of stocks you want to be holding.

[Frodo]

12. Poor investment decisions on your part?

Just kidding.

I suspect I know what you mean. Nobody has gotten back to where they were prior to 2000. I'm still looking at a big net loss.

But the S&P is up about 25% since the end of the first quarter. It's going to be tough to spin that as a continuing weak stock market.

[Mentalist]

16. bad picks

Mine is doing very well and far exceeding my expectations for the year.

[Turley]

44. Fire your broker

One of you is doing something wrong

[theboss]

59. Beats me

Mine has done exceptionally well this year.

[QC]

10. In other economic news, the Ministry of Plenty has announced

a five-gram increase in the choco ration!

All praise to Big Brother and the Party!

[leftyandproud]

14. good god!

time to be honest...If this keeps up, we're screwed next year. The Bush "policy" will get the credit...ugh
:(

[durutti]

17. It won't.

The Economic Policy Institute (www.epinet.org) has argued that point convincingly.

And besides, the tax cuts only had a little to do with the recovery. There was also increased productivity, rock-bottom interest rates, and a mortgage refinancing boom.

[Frodo]

19. That is NOT the spirit.

We need to expand our message to include more than the economy and Iraq. The economy IS starting to look pretty good (and ten more months of this will be difficult to discount) and Iraq is not under our control. The misadministration has too much ability to bring out "good news" whenever it fits their timing.

We ARE screwed if we just play a two note fiddle, we should be warming up an orchestra.

[corporalclegg9]

25. DEFICIT DEFICIT DEFICIT

My personal opinion is that Democrats CAN'T state that the economic recovery has nothing to do with Bush. In my view, Bush DID help the current economic recovery because it is a well understood principle (I think it is, anyway) that injecting money into the economy stimulates it. This doesn't necessarily mean tax cuts; it could also mean FDR style spending increases.

The point is, running a short-term deficit DOES help a struggling economy.

Thus, the biggest point to bash Bush with is pointing out that this deficit is NOT short-term.

Stimulus IS good for the economy, but how much of Bush's $600 billion (or whatever it was) tax cut has actually gone into the economy thus far? Not much. Bush pulled a slick move. He mixed 10% sound economic theory with 90% tax giveaways. Yes, the tax cuts DID help the economy up to this point (along with VERY low interest rates, which I think actually helped more than the tax cuts), but are his tax cuts over the next 10 years going to continue to help the economy?

No, they won't!

If Democrats say that Bush has handled the economy poorly, it could backfire because the economy, in my opinion, IS turning around.

The MASSIVE budget deficit which is occurring in an era where Republicans (the, *GASP*, FISCAL CONSERVATIVES) control the White House and BOTH Houses of Congress, I think is a much stronger sounding point for Democrats.

[Media_Lies_Daily]

67. What economic recovery?

[corporalclegg9]

78. Lots of things

1) The improved stock market, which is actually quite in line with its long term performance. The late 90's saw a huge run up in stock prices, and the market became overvalued. Then, the market crashed and became undervalued. Over the past year, it's gotten back in line. If you look at the yearly return from, say, 1993 until now, it's quite historically balanced.

2) GDP growth. I won't rehash what's already been argued earlier in this thread (back to school spending, defense spending, etc...), but I'll just state the facts. GDP is up from 2001 and 2002.

3) The improvING job market. Note that I didn't say improvED. The last 4-6 weeks has seen the best job market in several years. Is it ideal? Not at all!

I am NOT saying that the economy is sparkling clean and in a wonderful condition. We are in a recoverY. We are not recoverED.

I've read a number of your posts from earlier in this thread, and I'm aware that you don't subscribe to the same economic indicators that I do. So be it, we have different opinions. My personal one is that we are in an economic recovery partially due to the fact that Bush injected short term stimulus into the economy.

My concern is that Bush also passed long-term tax cuts and has overseeen huge spending increases. These huge tax cuts don't help our short term recovery, and they only serve to create a dismal long term budget outlook.

[Name removed]

80. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[corporalclegg9]

95. Is there a need to be rude?

Did I say ONE thing to provoke anyone to be rude to me, other than simply giving you my opinion? You certainly have the right to your opinion, and I have an equal right to mine.

I was not condescending to anyone here, and I do not appreciate one bit your condescending tone. In actuality, I am fairly intelligent, although as it happens I quite obviously see things differently than you do.

If you'd like to engage in a polite conversation, I'd be more than happy, but I really don't understand why you are treating me as some sort of crazed individual. If you don't like what I have to say, can't you ignore me? If you'd like to refute what I say, can't you do so politely?

I apologize if anyone interpreted my tone as sarcastic. That was most certainly unintended. I meant my post to be an expression of my opinion, not to offend.

[Media_Lies_Daily]

116. Responses...

1) "The improved stock market".

Quite a few experts are warning that the market is still overvalued. Some would say that stock values are actually disconnected from underlying business fundamentals. Essentially, we are on a plateau of sorts, and the markets will take a downward correction at some point in the near future. Indicators include: overvaluation, overtrading, overconfidence, lack of quality new stock market leadership, and and as much as some of you hate to hear this, an unsustainable economic recovery.

2) "GDP growth."

And I won't tell you why I believe the books are cooked.

3) "The improvING job market. Note that I didn't say improvED. The last 4-6 weeks has seen the best job market in several years. Is it ideal? Not at all!"

The job market is not even close to improving. Take a look at the information on the following site and then come back and tell me if you still believe the job market is improving:

Economic Policy Institute JobWatch
<http://jobwatch.org/>

I am NOT saying that the economy is sparkling clean and in a wonderful condition. We are in a recoverY. We are not recoverED.

I've read a number of your posts from earlier in this thread, and I'm aware that you don't subscribe to the same economic indicators that I do. So be it, we have different opinions. My personal one is that we are in an economic recovery partially due to the fact that Bush injected short term stimulus into the economy.

You can only believe that we're in an economic recovery if you believe what the Junta is telling you. And to what "short term stimulus" are you referring? I'm at a loss to understand what that term really means. If you're discussing the so-called "tax rebates" you need to check the small print on your rebate warranty. Those were advances on next year's tax returns. If you received a $300 check this year, and you're due $700 from the IRS for 2003, you'll only get $400 back. Ouch. Sucks, doesn't it?

My concern is that Bush also passed long-term tax cuts and has overseeen huge spending increases. These huge tax cuts don't help our short term recovery, and they only serve to create a dismal long term budget outlook.

We certainly agree on this one. The added strain of the ongoing wars in the Middle East will do nothing but dump more fuel on a growing fire.

[corporalclegg9]

132. Let me clarify a few things:

I want to stress my point about the job market. I made a specific point to say improvING, not improved. Look at the last two or three months of new unemployment claims and look at overall job creation. I am NOT saying that it's GOOD, I'm saying that it is improving. It is my personal belief that we are in a recovery, and I believe that it is mostly due to a normal business cycle that is on the mend. This, I think, was helped out by lower interest rates and short term stimulus (which I'll get to in a minute). I expect that the economy will improve, and I also expect that it would have improved similarly if someone other than Bush were in office. However, I think that Gore would not have created the long term problems that Bush has created for us.

As for as short term stimulus, I am well aware of how the tax rebates work:

Step 1: Taxes were cut. This includes a capital gains tax cut, cuts in the income bracket percentages, a reduction of the marriage penalty, and an increase in the child tax rebate.

Step 2: Cuts in the income tax took effect immediately, but the child tax rebate increase would NOT take effect until people filed their tax returns and actually GOT the rebate. Thus, the rebate checks were mailed out earlier.

If Step 1 had not taken place, then yes, Step 2 (the mailing of the rebate checks) would have simply been an advance in money that people would have gotten anyway. But Step 1 DID take place. So taxes were cut, and the cut taxes were delivered to people earlier rather than having people get them when they filed their taxes.

My point about short term stimulus is this. Whether it comes in the form of tax cuts OR government spending, running a deficit pumps money into the economy in the short term. Of course, we still have to pay this off, which is what Republicans would have us not think about despite a decade of preaching Balanced Budgets.

However, if we ignore the long term effects of deficits, Bush has only done GOOD things for the economy. Now, I know that that statement sounds sacreligious on this board, but hear me out. I am NOT supporting Bush's policies. What I'm saying is that Bush has simply traded off our long term fiscal stability for a short term boost in the economy. And this is exactly what we are getting.

What if I borrow $100 from you and forget that I ever have to pay you back? Well, ignoring long term consequences, I've MADE $100. This is what is happening. Ignoring long term consequences, this country has (a) lower taxes, and (b) increased government spending. This is HEAVEN for the SHORT-TERM economy.

This is exactly what Bush wants because people don't think about the long term. However, if we don't fix this situation soon, the long term effects of a neverending budget deficit WILL hurt us with large tax increases, federal program cuts, and increased interest rates that will drive us into a LONGER recession and possibly a depression.

Everytime I make this point, people seem to think I'm a closet Bush supporter or something. Please, reread what I wrote. I certainly don't intend on saying complimentary things about Bush's economic policies. I'm simply calling it how I see it.

[Yavin4]

133. You're Exact;ly Right

What you've posted is exactly what Enron did. They ran up debt, masked it as equity, and sold shares like crazy. Enron always believed that their high stock price would bail them out of danger.

It didn't.

[CMT]

18. it was a great third quarter

due to tax rebates but while the economy will expand in the next year the real issue will be jobs and yesterday I read an article which said economist believe that the unemployment rate will average 5.8% next year, still significantly higher than the 4.2% Bush inherited.

[July]

46. I thought unemployment under Clinton was even lower

Hadn't it reached close to 3%? I don't know anything about unemployment, but I have a vague recollection of reading that 3% was about as low as unemployment could go, and that it was 3-point-something under Clinton (maybe it went up from there?). Please, someone who knows something about this, fill us in?

[Media_Lies_Daily]

117. Here you go...the answer was 3.9%...lowest in over three decades...

UNEMPLOYMENT RATE BREAKS 4 PERCENT BARRIER FOR THE FIRST TIME IN
OVER THREE DECADES
<http://clinton4.nara.gov/WH/New/html/20000505_1.html>

"Today, the Bureau of Labor Statistics Released a New Employment Report Showing that the Unemployment Rate Has Fallen to 3.9 Percent -- the Lowest In Over Three Decades. The American Economy Has Created Over 21 Million Jobs Since January 1993. In 1992, when Bill Clinton was elected President, the American economy was barely creating jobs, wages were stagnant, and the unemployment rate was 7.5 percent. President Clinton’s bold, three-part economic strategy has focused on three objectives: fiscal discipline, investing in education, health care, science and technology, and opening foreign markets. This strategy has contributed to the longest economic expansion in U.S. history."

Those were the good old days under the last legally elected president when we still had a working democracy.

[Cocoa]

20. absolute garbage

the number is garbage and so is the Post article.

"as long as consumers keep doing their part."

[Lorien]

49. I agree. I do contract work for several divisions

of a giant American corporation-and ALL divisions are in trouble. The corporation is bleeding jobs everywhere-and I never see this reported in the business pages. Hell, nearly everyone I know is cutting back or not doing gifts this Christmas. This whole article is nothing more than the same kind of bullsh*t propagada that we heard in 2000 that resulted in bringing DOWN the economy in the first place!

[slackmaster]

21. Dead-cat bounce, perhaps?

Even a dead cat will bounce if you drop it from high enough.

I don't know about the rest of you, but I'll getting laid off of MY job the first week of February.

:shrug:

[Frodo]

22. "Dead cat bounce"

Is usually used for a stock that is plummeting to zero (usually after a bankruptcy filing) yet will often double in price as it gets down to pennies per share when tons of "investers" think "wow! That's cheap... if it ever come back I'll be rich".

It doesn't fit this situation.


Sorry to hear about your job. How did you get so much notice? What do you do and where are you looking now?

[slackmaster]

24. Everyone got at least 60 days - WARN Act requirement

Major plant closing. Google "WARN Act" for more information.

I am a systems integrator for a software development company. I work with Web, application, and database servers to deliver educational content over the Internet. Lots of other experience as well. I'm pretty confident of finding something in a timely manner. I have about 6 months from now including severence - I'll get 8 weeks of it plus unused vacation on my last day, in addition to my regular paycheck.

Thanks for the clarification on DCB.

[Frodo]

45. THAT's the SPIRIT.

We went through something similar when my company was bought out earlier this year. That's a VERY attrractive severence package (accepting that there is a "severence" involved).

Plan on a cople week "mental health" break (while the resume's go out) and find that new job that you love in the next few weeks. Then enjoy double salary for the next four months or so. AND you get three months to plan for it?

Unless you LOVED the company you worked for (and I did), you come our ahead.


Good luck!

[slackmaster]

53. Thanks, most of my nearly 8 years there has been positive

We produced software that helps kids learn, and were bought by a competitor. No bombs, missiles, banditry (I worked for Andersen Consulting), or banking involved as in most of my other jobs.

The last several months have been tedious because the writing has been on the wall about the takeover, but the experience overall has been great. It's the longest I've ever held a job during 23 years in the work force.

On layoff day I'll have the equivalent of about 14 weeks of take-home pay in my pocket plus unemployment coming in.

[Frodo]

55. You design CBT?

What environment do you author in?

[slackmaster]

62. Mostly Macromedia Director

We also wrote for Sony Playstation 1 using a homegrown tool. Our Internet products are Mod Perl on Linux and Visual Basic on Windows, with MySQL and Microsoft SQL Server 2000 respectively.

I personally did no instructional design or development work at this job, though I have worked in mostly print media in the past. Just systems at this gig.

[Frodo]

65. Any supervisory experience?

And have you any experience using Flash and/or an LMS?

And where do you live?


P.S. Don't consider this a job interview (yet?). Just an inquiry.

[slackmaster]

69. None, I mostly build and run the machines

Haven't done any serious authoring for Flash and have zero exposure to LMS.

I live in San Diego, California. For the last few years my work has involved mostly server configurations (HW and SW), networking, and DB admin. I am valued as a troubleshooter with broad experience and an ability to pick up new skills quickly.

[Frodo]

73. Oh well. Looks like we won't be working together. :-(

But it was worth a shot.

I grew up in San Diego (to the extent I grew up). I think my house burned down a couple weeks ago (at least I heard a few dozen houses in the neighborhood were gone). It's a wonderful town. Not sure I would want to move from there to NC anyway.

[Teaser]

27. Won't last into 4th Quarter

It's already slowing down significantly. 4th Quarter is going to disappoint a lot of economists. Promise.

[Frodo]

47. Are you psychic?

What numbers are you working with? Or is this just wishful thinking (not that, in a non-political sense, you would WANT the economy to come down).

They predicted 4% growth for Q4 last month when the 7.2% figure was released. It now looks like that may have been low. Are you saying that people will see 5% growth as a "slowdown", or are you saying that the X-Mas season will not look as good as they now predict?

[underpants]

51. Target and Wal-Mart already downgraded their Q4 expectatioins

I don't know if you consider them to be relevant in the retail markets though.

Not trying topick a fight but that is a fact. I'm just saying.

[Frodo]

52. Sure they are relevant

The question is "what were the expectations?"

If they revised from "profits increase by 10%" to "profits increase by 8%" their individual stock will plumet, but it's still good news for the economy.

I'm not familiar with either of their estimates, so I don't know.

[teryang]

32. All of this alleged growth

...is already factored in to the high market valuations reflected in current stock prices. When it doesn't pan out, the situation is going to deteriorate rapidly.

People are still going bankrupt in record numbers. With all of the social responsibility that this regime allows corporations to escape, one would expect them to be more profitable. When I look at individual companies I don't see sales increases or signficant increases in profits. Valuations are ridiculously high and based upon unrealistic expectations.

The attacks on labor and the removal of the social safety net from the aging population to favor pharmaceutical firms and HMOs is going to have a very destabilizing effect on the economy.

I think this is an "apres moi, le deluge" strategy. The repukes are going for broke to get through the next election cycle. They have already made their money, in the greatest crescendo of corruption the world has ever seen. If the economy collapses after Nov. 2004, which it probably will for the bottom four fifths of the population, they simply don't care.

[BuckeFushe]

41. Why have the markets not reacted to these numbers?

What do they know that we don't.

[teryang]

43. They did, yesterday n/t

[underpants]

57. Commerce Secretary Don Evan's press release today

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Tuesday, November 25, 2003

SECRETARY EVANS STATEMENT
ON GDP REVISION
“This Thanksgiving, we are thankful but not complacent about our growing economy. As the holiday season begins, families are shopping with confidence because the economy is gathering added steam and creating more jobs. The President’s tax relief is growing our economy even faster than was originally thought. The President will not rest until every American seeking work can find a job.”

http://www.commerce.gov/opa/press/2003_Releases/November/25_evans_gdp_stmt.htm

[indypaul]

60. And when I too a $50K

second on my home, our economy grew 150% but
it won't, for sure, grow any for the next 30 years
and I can pass that on to my kids. It's now being
called the "birth tax" no longer a deficit.

[Frodo]

63. "Birth Tax" LOL!

I LOVE IT. We've all got to start using that!

[TacticalPeek]

71. "Birth tax" is great language!

And it should be applied to fiscal and trade deficits as well as debt interest and currency devaluation.

http://www.theangryliberal.com/06-23-03.htm

[underpants]

64. Suspicious- I think W&Co. are tryng to hit one out of the park today

U.S. November Consumer Confidence Rises to 91.7 From 81.7

http://quote.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000006&sid=aWyRfSMDuw7w&refer=home

U.S. GDP Grows at 8.2 Percent Pace in 3Q
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A12766-2003Nov25.html

The supposed “Big WIN” for the Republicans in the Medicare bill passed today. Oh the energy plan was shelved until the next session but that does not support my point so let’s forget it (as NBC did this morning by just mentioning it in passing).

The timing of this seems a bit suspicious to me. The “good news good news” is hitting the airwaves and newspapers TWO days before the holiday as opposed to releasing bad news or news they don’t want anyone to see on Fridays or just before major holidays.

I don’t usually buy into theories such as this but it strikes me as odd.

[Frodo]

66. Yes, I think it is intentional timing. I've predicted it before.

Almost every president has seen a dip in his numbers in the Oct-Nov timeframe preceeding his re-election campaign. Get all the bad news out of the way while the opposition is sniping at each other and stock up the good news for the "turn-around".

That's what has gotten me concerned with all the people hyping shrub's falling numbers. They are still quite a bit better than Clinton's were, and BOTH Clinton and Reagan were BEHIND their anticipated opponents at this point and sailed to ease victories. Shrub still leads any named opponent.

[underpants]

70. Eeeee yeah and no

I know that we are still a year out and anything can happen but the numbers for the last three presidencies at this point (3 years in) may not be in the same context. Poppa's were actually in the 60's and....

Reagan, Bush I , and Clinton didn't have two fronts wars (actually frontless) and an unseen enemy facing them. Nor did they have two major bad guys still running "free" (OBL was a bad guy but not seen as bad as he is now). I think W's numbers are right were they should be in the best case scenario that he and Rove could possibly imagine. We all know why but he is basically running neck and neck with Dem candidateS not one candidate drilling his (of her) message daily.

On another note. I think the timing of this is to frame the talk over the Thanksgiving table and amongst the smoking crowd outside. Yeah it could be just rah-rah cheerleading so people have good things to be thankful for but I think you are right in that they are revving up the turn around.

[Name removed]

96. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Frodo]

98. Aren't you a sweet little poster.

If you're interested in coming up with strategy for responding to the other side feel free.

I haven't had to "spin" anything. I'm trying to come UP with spin for dealing with these numbers. Pretending they are not there is not acceptable.


The deficit, uninsured, and, to a lesser extent bankruptcies (they've been going up for years, it's a structural thing) are all excellent rebutals. But don't make them to ME.

[Name removed]

99. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Frodo]

102. What the heck is "people like you"?

"Structural" meaning it isn't the direct result of short-term economic policies. Backruptcies hit all-time highs under Clinton too. Was it his fault? No. Lots of the current problem can be laid directly a shrub's feet. All I'm saying is that if we try to hit this one too hard it could boomerang.

What have I said about the rich getting richer? And why pile me in with Rove? Do you think this kind of number can come out and people NOT report it? The question for DUers is how we deal with it. I've spent the last few months trying to get people to concentrate on additional topics OTHER than the economy and Iraq. Iraq because it is too controllable (from a political-news angle) by the administration and the economy because nothing stays down forever and presidents always take credit when things go up - and it's BOUND to go up even if shrub does nothing (presidents have far LESS impact on these things than people assume).

Plant your head in the sand and keep whispering to yourself "the economy sucks the economy sucks". "regular people" are going to walk right by you and snicker at you. I'm trying to post what is happening and ask "how do we deal with this" and you're acting like I'm the enemy.

Come next October-November, if things continue going the way they are, "the economy really DOES suck" will equal "pay no attention to the man behind the curtain". If the economy goes back down? This thread is worthless, but we won't NEED and alternate strategy (we can go with the last one "it's the economy, stupid")

[rumguy]

106. I just don't buy this thesis that the economy isn't THE issue

I see it all as being interwoven - the economy, health care, the environment - the war in Iraq. People are still worried out there...no doubt about it. Some flashing numbers on the news about some big growth spurt may impress people momentarily but until they see REAL improvement in their lives that positive impression won't last. That's why we have to keep this issue out there and tie it to other issues which tangentially impact the economy = like health care, and trade, etc....and even the environment.

If we can't run on the economy and Iraq, like you seem to suggest, what the h*ll are we supposed to run on? Kucinich's peace department?

[Frodo]

109. You are corect

If the election was held today and we had spent the last six months running up to it I think Bush could be beaten on the topics you picked. But for good or bad, things will look different a eyar from now. These numbers are an indication of which way they are moving. Perhaps they are wrong (or cooked), but it's all we can work with today.

Also out today is a BIG jump in consumer confidence (a number I look at LOTS more than GDP growth), so people are expecting some of the "real" improvement you are talking about.

We should say it isn't enough. That we should have gotten lots more out of spending the size of what shrub has hit us with. The deficit is a big gun (not that it took Reagan down) as well. Health care is also good - I just don't know how to handle the whole prescription thing - they "traiangulated" us masterfully and our candidates don't seem to have a coherent message yet (it would help if our Seantors had actually stood their ground). Trade is also good since shrub can't seem to make up his mind (I know it sells well here in NC).

I didn't say we had no other message. Just that we haven't refined them into major campaign issues, and we need to do that NOW, so it doesn't look like we're dumping the economy issue when it turns against us.

[Frodo]

105. Bankruptcies

March 1, 1999, Alexandria, Va.--The total number of bankruptcies filed during 1998 rose to 1,442,549, breaking the record set the previous year, according to data released today by the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts. The number of new bankruptcies has set a record each of the last three calendar years.

Bankruptcies are up 84.2 percent since 1990, when bankruptcies totaled 782,960. Total filings in 1998 increased by 2.7 percent from 1997, when bankruptcies totaled 1,404,145.

Personal filings continue to drive the increase, climbing in 1998 to 1,398,182 filings, a 3.6 percent increase from 1997, when personal filings totaled 1,350,118. In all, personal bankruptcies are up 94.7 percent since 1990, when they totaled 718,107.

The economy was going along just fine in 1999. Were the high rate of bankruptcies a sign that Clinton was doing something wrong? That's what I meant by "structural". It isn't directly tied to the state of the economy so much as the regulatory environment. Remember it's the Republicans who are fighting to make it harder to declare bankruptcy. Shall I tie YOU to Rove & Co. ??

[Frodo]

135. More of the same on your theory.

http://www.smartmoney.com/bn/index.cfm?story=20031126082128

Orders for durable goods, which seldom rise three months in a row under normal circumstances, rose for the fifth time in six chances in October as the economic revival took hold. Strong demand for aircraft and computers keyed the 3.3% gain, which topped expectations.



The Chicago purchasing managers' index, a key regional manufacturing barometer, blew the doors off economists' estimates with a November reading of 64.1, the best in nine years.



Personal income also advanced, rising 0.4% with the aid of improved job prospects.

Initial jobless claims fell 11,000 to 351,000 last week, the lowest crop of pink slips since January 2001,



A steady drumbeat timed for the Thanksgiving supper table?

[Yavin4]

77. A Simple Explanation: This Is The "Cheap Debt Era"

People keep in mind that this economic "growth" is based on historically cheap interest rates which has fed the re-financing boom and flushed the economy with cash. Fundamentally, this economy has not grown in three years. There's been no new job creation and no new industries created.

Politically, this is GDP growth rate will put Bush over the top next year, but economically, it's completely meaningless. Our economy is headed for a series of major defaults in the next five years because the cheap debt era will be coming to a close. As the interest rates on debts begin to rise, people will not have the means to pay off their debts because there won't be enough decent paying jobs for people to pay off their debts.

[54anickel]

87. Yep, that would be my take on it. I posted an interesting link in another

thread. It is a bit scary to read, but I think it's a very good article regarding monetary policy and today's market.

http://www.financialsense.com/Market/daily/tuesday.htm

[blindpig]

79. depends on where you are

both regionally and in the economic foodchain. around here things are pretty sucky, particularly if you're in the -50k income bracket. It's gonna be a lame xmas for the working class.

[reprobate]

89. Will some economic guru please explain something to me?

OK, low interest rates encourage homeowners to pull equity from their homes thru refinancing. They then spend that money in the economy. I can understand that a simple view of this is that the economy grows because of that increased debt and spending.

But to my simple mind something is very wrong with this scenario. Sure people spent money, but it was really savings (in the form of equity in their home) that was spent, and debt taken on in exchange. In fact I think it's worse than that, cause interest increases the debt.

Now will someone please tell me how this is economic growth? There has been no wealth created here, with the exception of the wealth the financing companies gain thru interest payments.

I readily admit that my knowledge of economic theory is somewhere on the beginners level, but this just sounds crazy to me.

[54anickel]

93. Repugs don't consider deficit a bad thing! Debt is immaterial!

And that can be true, if you're a rich repug and daily living expenses are still being met.

You borrow at these extremely low rates, invest that into the market or something that will give you a better return than the cost of borrowing and you've made a profit and contributed to the economy at the same time.

You invest your future into today versus investing in your future.
Sure there's some risk, but you can afford to take it.

To a Repug, those daily living expenses are usually social programs, you know, SS, Medicare, Education all those burdens. You can afford to let those die on the vine when your RICH!

[KayLaw]

97. I wonder that too

Also, if easy and cheap credit tends to encourage people to invest in risky ventures, does that mean many of the contractors are building too many homes? What if they do and there are so many homes on the market, they all lose value? What about the people who took money out when they refinanced thinking their homes are worth X amount of dollars, when suddenly they aren't? Won't some people end up owing more on their homes than they're actually worth?

[54anickel]

100. House bust of the 80s, anyone remember that?

Lots of homes 1/2 completed, people loosing their butts. Adjustable rates, construction loans vs mortgates with rising interest rates.

If you were building a new home on the hopes of selling the old, and suddenly the seller's market dried up.

Anyone remember that? What was that word of the 80s, recession? Sounded much better than depression.

Inflation, no today that is a "bull market" and "robust economy".

[KayLaw]

103. I remember

And what about all those empty strip malls?

[reprobate]

122. Yes, and it wasn't only residential building that was hurt.

For a decade after that you could drive around the area and still see commercial, condo, and office buildings sitting half finished. If the same happens now, I shudder to think the effect on the economy when this is added to everything else that's sinking it.

[54anickel]

124. Yes, it is scary. We could be headed to a similar circumstance

If you haven't already, check out the link in post 87.

The GDP, UE and Confidience numbers at the surface, while important, are just that - at the surface.
I do not love Greenspan, but I pray for his success and wisdom each and everynight.
I don't think those who look at our economic situation as political, in the sense of what's good or bad for Bush, have fully come to grips as to how dire the situation is.

[Yavin4]

126. Your Instincts Are Correct

Without real long term growth, we're headed for major defaults. What's been happening is that the middle class is being swindled out of their savings and putting it into the economy. The problem is that for every dollar they take out of their homes, they won't be able to put it back because they'll be making less and less money.

Outsourcing is fundamentally changing our economy. It's killing our high wage jobs, and that's not going to stop in the near future.

[sungkathak]

92. Same disinformation

like what they did in WMD and "heroic story" of Pvt. Jassica Lynch? Intelligence always spread fake poll to manipulate public's sentiment. And the lie became bigger and bigger.

Bush was so obvious an unwelcome guest to visit Britain. But they had a poll that 60% Britons welcome him.

This news is of this month, and not from government's:

Quote, " 10:00am 11/04/03

U.S. October layoffs surge 125%, Challenger says
By Rex Nutting

WASHINGTON (CBS.MW) -- Layoff announcements from U.S. companies more than doubled in October to 171,874, the highest in a year, according to the monthly tally released Tuesday by outplacement firm Challenger Gray & Christmas. October is typically the largest month for layoff notices, as companies slash costs at the end of the fiscal year. The Challenger survey is not adjusted for seasonal factors. Layoff announcements had fallen for three months in a row before October's 125 percent increase. In October, the auto industry sacked 28,363 workers, followed by 21,169 in the retail sector. Telecommunications companies cut 21,030. So far in 2003, 1.04 million job reductions have been announced.

http://cbs.marketwatch.com/news/newsfinder/pulseone.asp?dateid=37929.4167939815-809414361&siteID=mktw&scid=0&doctype=806&

[54anickel]

107. Uh, according to this, 5.4 percent is "on-budget deficit"

This does not look good. Don't mean to be chicken-little here but....

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/11/23/business/yourmoney/23view.html?ex=1070168400&en=8228fdc9e605712a&ei=5062&partner=GOOGLE

"As a percentage of gross domestic product, the deficits are below the historical peaks that we've seen in the past," says J. T. Young, a spokesman for the Office of Management and Budget. In 1983, for example, the deficit was 6 percent of gross domestic product; in 1992, it was 4.7 percent.

Congratulating the administration for such an achievement, however, would be like raising the allowance of a high school student who brought home a D-minus in math instead of an F.

If we factor out the so-called Social Security surplus - payroll taxes collected by the government but not paid out in benefits - the deficit in fiscal 2003 was actually far larger: $531 billion, or 4.9 percent of gross domestic product. For the current fiscal year, the administration expects that this figure, also called the on-budget deficit, will be even higher: $639 billion, or a whopping 5.4 percent of gross domestic product.

<cut>

There is much more in this article. Here's is one last snip that is just priceless:

To ensure the proper use of the Social Security surplus, Vice President Al Gore in 2000 proposed segregating the funds into a sort of lockbox. George W. Bush, then the Texas governor, also supported this concept, although his understanding of Social Security was revealed to be something less than complete. (In November 2000, during a campaign speech, he famously accused opponents of wanting "the federal government controlling the Social Security like it's some kind of federal program.")

[Media_Lies_Daily]

119. Yes indeed...I remember that remark. LOL!!!

[jbm]

123. less then 8.3 meant it's not sustainable...

at least that's what I heard an economist saying this morning when asked why the Dow futures dropped when these new numbers were released. I don't know why it had to be 8.3 or better to be considered good news,but the futures did swiftly decline within seconds of this revision being released.

[davhill]

134. It's going to sound really stupid this time

To just cry "It's the economy, stupid." Bush must be defeated on his corporate corruption and foreign policy blunders or not at all.