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

[Mentalist]

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

Nov. 25 (Bloomberg) -- U.S. consumers' confidence in the economy rose in November to the highest in more than a year, as hiring picked up and views about job prospects improved, a private research group reported.

The New York-based Conference Board's consumer confidence index rose to 91.7 this month, more than expected, from a revised 81.7 in October. The percentage of people who saw jobs as hard to get fell to 29.5 from 33.7.

After three consecutive months of job gains, economists expect prospects for continued improvement in the labor market will sustain consumer spending into the new year, good news for holiday sales at retailers from AnnTaylor Stores Corp. to Wal- Mart Stores Inc.

``What's most important is this economy has started to produce jobs,'' Ken Mayland, president of Clear View Economics LLC, a Pepper Pike, Ohio-based research and forecasting firm. said before the report. ``That has been the key concern or key worry amongst consumers.''


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

Mods: If this should be posted elsewhere please move it. I put it here to have it on the same page as the 8.2% GDP article to make 'back and forth' easier for us.

[Tandalayo_Scheisskopf]

1. I find it interesting...

That one month before Christmas and a few days before the traditional start of the Christmas buying frenzy, Black Friday, that our economy seems to have done this miraculous turn-around, especially when the underlying numbers, with the war spending stripped out, are quite uninteresting. Add to that no evidence of any substantive job creation, and I think you are seeing some pro forma accounting at work.

[boneygrey]

2. Lagging indicator

Jobs are the last to come around in a recovery. Maybe they won't improve in time for the election.

[rumguy]

8. how long have we heard this

more jobs will move out of the country if the FTAA is enacted, the rich get richer, the jobs get crappier with fewer benefits, the number of uninsured rises, and the debt will only get bigger with the new medicare plan and the multiple wars...something's gonna give here in a big way...

[mhr]

13. Not True, Actually, Jobs Are A Coincident Indicator In A Normal Economy

This economy is so perverted that none of the indicators are acurate anymore.

www.comstockfunds.com talks a lot about jobs as a coincident indicator and how Bush's economy has failed to meet even a minimum standard of job creation. See their special reports.

[boneygrey]

47. What?

Now that's an intelligent reply. I have a degree in econimics. What about you?

[Sick of Bullshit]

54. A degree in "econimics", huh?

And what mail order catalogue did you get it from?

[boneygrey]

69. Mail order

University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. Where'd you get your GED?

[Mentalist]

3. Actually

3Q had a slight decrease in military spending (fell at a 1.6% annual rate). If this were to be taken out of the equation, the GDP numbers would increase.

[mhr]

14. Post Pro Bush Statements, Provide The Links, Where Is Your Evidence?

eom

[KAZ]

30. He's right. At least according to Commerce. Link.

Struck me as strange so I had to check.

http://www.bea.gov/bea/newsrel/gdp303p.htm

"Real federal government consumption expenditures and gross investment decreased 0.4 percent in
the third quarter, in contrast to an increase of 25.5 percent in the second. National defense decreased 1.6
percent, in contrast to an increase of 45.8 percent. Nondefense increased 2.2 percent, in contrast to a
decrease of 5.4 percent. Real state and local government consumption expenditures and gross
investment increased 2.3 percent, in contrast to a decrease of 0.2 percent."

[rumguy]

33. something doesn't add up....

we all know defense spending has increased...hell the repukes are always bragging about it...something very fishy is going on in this govt...

[KAZ]

37. It's just down marginally from the big run-up last year.

It's a comparison to Q3/02. If you compared it to 01, it would be up, "big time".

"in contrast to an increase of 45.8 percent"

[rumguy]

40. so where does the 87 billion fit in...

it all seems like a shakey house of cards to me...

[KAZ]

41. Well, these are 3Q numbers.

The $87B was still just a gleam in *'s eyes. This house of cards is built on last summer's refinancing activity, which is currently running at about a 3rd of what it was at it's peak.

[okieinpain]

52. I agree, I figure most of the job hiring is like at tmy job. TEMPS.

I would like to see how many of these new jobs are perm, and what are the benefits like.

[rumguy]

16. link?

you spit out "facts" but never provide any links. I wonder why that is?

[Media_Lies_Daily]

17. "Decrease in military spending"??? Yeah, okay, sure.

[SOS]

57. Can you find the decrease

in these DoD figures? (see dod.mil):

DoD budgets in constant FY2004 dollars (excluding the $162 billion additional for Iraq):

1998: $300 B
2000: $317 B
2001: $329 B
2002: $ 371 B
2003: $376 B
2004: $401 B

[Frodo]

58. Can you differentiate between...

... annual budgets and quarterly outlays? (2002-2003 are close enough that any one quarter could easily be 1% lower than the previous year's comparable quarter).

Or between budgets and actual spending?

[SOS]

63. Since mentalist

did not back his assertion of decreased military spending with a link, I went to the DoD site and looked at their detailed budget reports in PDF form.
So what if Q3 was down 1% from the previous FY? Overall DoD spending in constant dollars went from $300B to $400 B in 6 years. Then add in an additional $162 B in additional outlays for Iraq. Mentalists point seems to be that the Bush administration is succeeding gloriously on the economic front since GDP was up in Q3 while DoD spending was flat. OK. Maybe refi's, credit and tax rebates (for 20% of the population) are driving the consumer economy? (which is 80% of GDP).
Overall DoD spending is through the roof. Compare Q3 2001 v. 2003.
Budgets and actual spending? Are you suggesting that the Pentagon doesn't spend every dime it gets? If so, could you provide a link where the Penatgon gives it's unused appropriations back to the Treasury?

[Frodo]

64. That's fine. I can't help Mentalist's argument

If his point is that shrub is succeeding gloriously. The economy just doesn't stay down forever. Shrub could spend all year in the bathroom and the economy would likely do even better than it is now.

But the report did indicate a 1.6% reduction in defense outlays for the third quarter.

Yes - defense outlays are up LOTS since 2001, but the number involved in GDP growth is "yaer over year", 2001 does not come into play.

And, yes, the pentagon spends it's budget in an uneven way over the course of the year and usually spends more than is originally budgeted (as you pointed out). 2002 Q3-Q4 was the buildup for war in Iraq, it's not unreasonable that it would be higher in '02 than '03. The next couple quarters could easily see declining defense spending year over year will still being very large numbers.

[ProfessorGAC]

61. That's Just So Wrong

The dollars spent were off budget, but still on military. That's the reason why the "military" spending went down. They spent special appropriations money in Q3.

In reality, the money spent on the military in Iraq and Afghanistan accounted for more than 68% of the growth. Since that amounts to 1.2% quarterly, the non-governmental portion of GDP went up by 0.5%, or 2.2% annually. That's the same as during the recession that supposedly doomed 41's re-election.

The fall you quote is due to accounting and not an actual drop in spending.
The Professor

[Frodo]

65. What's the missing factor?

I guess a large portion of increased business investment could be tied to governmental spending (if they were largely military contractors making the purchases), but the remaining portion of GDP that you peg at 2.2% should be "consumer spending" "home construction" etc. Which were all up appreciably more than 2.2% (spending up 6.6%, residential projects up 22%, etc).

What piece of the equation is missing to pull the overall non-governmental GDP growth down to 2.2%?

Now that I think of it, I thought consumer spending made up 65%-70% of the GDP? If it increased by 6.6% there would have to be a pretty big negative figure out there that isn't getting much press.

Or if there a portion of consumer spending that you tie to the "governmental portion of GDP" and consumer spending? Are you counting the tax "rebates" in that calculation, and if so aren't you making the tax-cut argument for them?

[ProfessorGAC]

66. Consumer Spending Is Flat

The percentage of GDP that is "C" has been falling every quarter this year. Where did you get the statistic that consumer spending is up?

The Commerce department is not reporting any such fact.
The Professor

[Frodo]

68. A couple links

"Consumer spending grew at a 6.6 percent annual rate in the third quarter, which ended in September, according to a separate Commerce Department report on Thursday."
http://money.cnn.com/2003/10/31/news/economy/personal_income/



www.economicindicators.gov doesn't link internaly, but the personal consumption expenditures seemed to track about on that figure.

[Media_Lies_Daily]

20. Former Enron accountants.

[boneygrey]

48. Enron

Like Krugman?

[buycitgo]

53. enjoy dropping turds like that in the punch, do ya?

Krugman admits that he consulted with Enron, unlike shills such as Bill Kristol and others, who made MUCH more than Krugman.

that was BEFORE he worked at the NYT.

but you knew that, didn't you? what's your point,

other than trying to get a rise?

He also worked for the Reagan admin, IIRC. so what does that make him?


more important, what does it make you, other than an irritating, creepy little drosophilis melanogastribus?

enjoy your fly-like lifespan here

[Media_Lies_Daily]

55. Are you referring to 1999 when Krugman served very briefly as a...

...member of a panel that offered Enron executives briefings on economic and political issues?

I guess I must be missing your punch line...maybe I should look for it on Free Republic.

Here's what Krugman says on the following website:
The Unofficial Paul Krugman Archives
<http://www.pkarchive.org/>

Go to the left-hand menu and click on "Personal";

Then scroll down within the main frame and click on:

"MY CONNECTION WITH ENRON, ONE MORE TIME- 2.8.02
Paul Krugman's explanation of his short relationship with Enron in FAQ format


"To make it easier for anyone who is still interested in this story to get the facts right, here are some frequently asked questions about my role on the Enron advisory board, with answers.

1. What did I do? In early 1999 I was asked to serve on a panel that offered Enron executives briefings on economic and political issues. As far as I knew at the time, they genuinely wanted to learn something. I resigned from that board in the fall of 1999, when I accepted an offer to write for the New York Times.

2. What was I paid? It turns out that I was actually paid $37,500 - the last quarterly payment did not take place, because of my early resignation from the board.

3. Was this exorbitant? It didn't seem so at the time. In 1998-1999 my normal fee for a one-hour business speech in Boston or New York was $20,000 - more if the speech involved long-distance travel. The Enron board required that I spend 4 days in Houston. So the sum they offered didn't seem out of line - if anything it seemed rather low compared with my usual rates.

4. Was I being paid off because I was a journalist? That Enron board, when I was on it, did not strike me as a board of pundits. It included Larry Lindsey and Bob Zoellick - future Bush administration officials, though I had no way of knowing that, but certainly not journalists. It also included Pankaj Ghemawat, a strategy professor at Harvard, and Irwin Stelzer, an economist at the American Enterprise Institute. (Stelzer had a column in the London Times, but I didn't know that) The only person there I thought of as a journalist was William Kristol - I thought he was there to regale us with Washington gossip. And I regarded myself as being in the same category as Ghemawat - an academic expert, who was there because of his expertise.

An amazing number of people seem to think that I was paid by Enron while working for the Times. I wasn't - when Enron approached me there was no hint that a Times connection lay in my future. As soon as I shook hands with the Times, I resigned from that board.

I did write monthly columns for two magazines in 1999, but I would not have described myself as a journalist - no more so than, say, Laura Tyson, Robert Barro, or or Gary Becker, respected economists who write monthly columns for Business Week. I wrote a monthly column for Fortune; that column was neither a major commitment of time nor a major source of income. I also wrote a monthly column, for very little money, for Slate. My main sources of income were teaching, consulting, and business speaking.

5. Did I disclose my connection? Yes. I reported it the one time I mentioned Enron in Fortune, almost three years ago. I reported it again the first time I mentioned Enron in the New York Times, in a highly critical article more than a year ago. I didn't say that I was paid to serve on the board, but I thought that was obvious: who volunteers his services to for-profit corporations?

One point that seems to have been missed in all the mud-slinging: I was the only member of the board to declare my connection voluntarily. Lindsey and Zoellick, as government officials, were required to disclose their consulting; none of the other members uttered a peep before the January 2002 New York Times article about the board.

6. Should I have disclosed the sum of money I received? I have always understood that when writing about someone you disclose the fact of a potential conflict of interest, not the financial details. If I had disclosed the sum back in January 2001, when I first wrote about Enron for the New York Times, it would have sounded strange - I'm sure people would have accused me of bragging.

7. Did the payment from Enron cause me to write anything I would not have written otherwise? No. Some people seem to think that because I had nice things to say about Enron's energy trading in a Fortune article - in which I disclosed my connection - I was being out of character. But I have always been a free-market Keynesian: I like free markets, but I want some government supervision to correct market failures and ensure stability. Some of my pro-market Slate pieces enraged people on the left - check out The accidental theorist , or In praise of cheap labor . My Fortune piece about the rise of markets, illustrated by Enron's energy trading, was an attempt to take a sunshine break from the dark pieces I had been writing about the Asian crisis; it was also a favor to my editors, who devoted that issue to e-business. It wasn't at all out of character. In fact, the next column I wrote for Fortune was also a pro-market piece, with kind words for Milton Friedman and Margaret Thatcher.

8. Was Enron trying to buy my soul? That's for them to answer. But I wasn't selling."

[DemNoir]

4. Excuse me

"as hiring picked up and views about job prospects improved" This is the United States they are refering to?

I have just one question. What would this "recovery" be based on? In what segment is job growth expected?

[Karenina]

5. Propaganda

or UNADULTERATED BULLSHIT. Take your pick.

[NewGuy]

7. Manufacturing and transport are both picking up

This looks like a fairly standard but slow recovery. As retailers and wholesalers saw sales increase they went through their inventories and then began ordering. This starts to be felt in all sectors of the economy as materials are processed into finished goods and transported to sales and distribution centers.

Additionally, if this one follows the entire pattern, jobs will continue to pick up as suppliers see continued orders and retailers and wholesalers see continued increased sales. Last to come is the market move as consumer confidence and last quarter company financial reports both move up generating an interest in re-entering the market.

[DemNoir]

10. Manufacturing jobs are picking up?

Once again I must ask, is the the USA your talking about?

[NewGuy]

23. Here are the numbers on manufacturing, shipping and inventory

"New orders for manufactured goods in September increased $1.7 billion or 0.5 percent to $331.1 billion, the Department of Commerce, Census Bureau reported today. This is the fourth increase in the last five months and follows a 0.3 percent August decrease.

Shipments increased $4.5 billion or 1.4 percent to $336.2 billion. This is the fourth increase in the last five months and follows a 1.7 percent August decrease. Shipments increased $4.5 billion or 1.4 percent to $336.2 billion. This is the fourth increase in the last five months and follows a 1.7 percent August decrease.

Inventories, down five consecutive months, decreased $1.9 billion or 0.4 percent to $437.8 billion, following a 0.3 percent August decrease. This was the lowest level since July 1997."

[smirkymonkey]

36. In what sector? Defense?

I have a feeling that defense spending is what is really driving these numbers (think vertically, meaning the defense industry is dependent upon other industries to operate).

Something doesn't seem right with these numbers...

[NewGuy]

39. Supposed to be across the board numbers

I'm not sure how much defense contributes to these.

[mhr]

15. Where IS The Evidence? The Truckers I Know Are Waiting For Loads!

And recent graduates of driving schools can't find jobs so they say.

Seems my anecdotal evidence is at odds with your pro Bush statements.

[NewGuy]

24. Pro Bush statements?

I do not believe the economy is driven by the white house. Do you? If so give me some evidence of where that belief comes from.

[rumguy]

26. The Repukes control the white house and the congress

They've driven us into debt again...that is why the ecomonmy is tanking...

[mhr]

28. Surely You Are Not This Naive, Bush Is Fighting For Reelection

He and Rove are pulling in all their favors.

For what it is worth, there was a post on DU a week ago about inventories rising. Further, Wal-Mart and Target have both stated that they expect a lackluster Christmas per press reports. Put that in your peace pipe dude.

To all other DUers, I see the Republican and Free Republic shills are out in force today.

[NewGuy]

35. When I get to a thousand plus posts maybe...

I too will simply attack people and ignore both questions and evidence. I was asked where I got my figures and I responded. I then asked you a question: Do you think the white house drives the economy? Another question prompted by your atack would be; Do you think the white house can drive the numbers independently of the actual economy?

I don't personnaly believe either of those things are possible. That means my belief is that the economy probably is trending upward. However, since I do not believe it is the work of the white house or its occupants I am not overly concerned with it as a political question. I don't know if the upward trend will continue or not.

[underpants]

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

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.

[catmandu57]

9. This will be revised............downward

like all the other economic numbers are, just not right away. Probably in Febuary.

[Mentalist]

11. Just like the 3Q

numbers were going to be revised downward from 7.2% but were revised upward to 8.2%.

[rumguy]

12. nice deficit huh?

gotta love that...and the bankruptcies...and the increasing number of uninsured...gotta love those figures

[Media_Lies_Daily]

21. And people aren't really unemployed...they're just resting.

[Name removed]

19. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

22. Deleted message

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

[Frodo]

42. Actually, Frodo has been embarrasing you all morning

I noticed you dropped away when your insults and incorrect posts were brought to light. Not big enough to say "whoops, I guess I was wrong about that one, sorry" eh?

I don't know what's going on on this thread (just saw my "name"), and I don't know what mentalist's spin on it is, but posting major economic news, good or bad, is not doing the work of the opposition. Pretending the numbers don't exist is a sure ticket to failure.

[Name removed]

43. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

50. Deleted message

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

[devinsgram]

29. You better believe it.

I for one do not believe a single bit of this bull. Seems like they are spinning again.

[qanda]

25. Thank God for people who love statistics and hate reality...

Please give those wonderful numbers to the school employees who will be losing their jobs in Baltimore today http://wjz.com/localstories/local_story_329072846.html and then GIVE ME A BREAK!!!!!!!

[sandnsea]

18. Tumbled 7 pts to 112.9 in March 2000

Posted it elsewhere, but it's worth a repeat to remind us what a booming economy really is. This is when Bush was running on the recession. We had this same kind of crap go on in the 80's. Reports on the GDP, stock market and the booming economy while the people looked around and said "Where?"

http://oldwww.roymorgan.com/polls/2000/cc03/

[rumguy]

27. excellent reminder

of what a real economy was

[tritsofme]

51. I dont know about you,

but I came away with more real money in the stock markets during the 80's than I did in the 90's.

[mhr]

31. Guess You Missed This Report Mentalist, Better Talk To Rove Again Pardner

From DU Post
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=102&topic_id=239888

Shoppers in US 'plan to spend less at Christmas'
By Christopher Swann in Washington
Published: November 25 2003 4:00 | Last Updated: November 25 2003 4:00

US retailers should brace themselves for a lean holiday season as shoppers plan to cut back on Christmas spending, according to a report published yesterday by the Conference Board research organisation.


The report suggests the average household is expecting to spend just $455 (£267, €383) on gifts this year, compared with $483 last year.

Such belt-tightening, the Conference Board said, could trigger a 5 per cent dip in sales compared with 2002.

The last few months of the year are vital for retailers in the US, with many making more than half of their year's profits in the run-up to Christmas.

snip

http://news.ft.com/servlet/ContentServer?pagename=FT.com/StoryFT/FullStory&c=StoryFT&cid=1069493468826&p=1012571727162

[rumguy]

32. mentalist

gets the smack-down...

[54anickel]

34. Hey, Look over there! Happy Days - NOT

These numbers are really of little significance in a debt based economy. Doesn't matter to me whether this numbers are true (have my doubts) or not. They have us focusing on the wrong numbers, redirecting everyones attention. Consumer confidence - what is that and how is it measured? That's yet another emotion, physcological measure, pretty much what the stock market is based on.

Keep your eyes on the prize!

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

Some highlights of this article (there is much more):

The dollar is plunging, stock indexes are falling, and interest rates look like they are ready to rise. As the value of paper declines, the value of gold and silver is soaring. Commodity prices from copper to cattle are climbing as the CRB breaks out into record territory. On the economic front the economy is improving, but most of the benefit is going to foreign producers with the U.S. trade deficit at record levels. In addition to record trade deficits, the government is running record budget deficits. On Monday the government reported that the federal budget deficit widened to $69.5 billion in October, an annualized rate of over $800 billion. It is only the first month of the 2004 fiscal year. The deficit was much larger than anticipated. Fiscal 2004 now looks like it will become another year of record budget deficits.

The only thing that holds the dollar up is the strength of the U.S. military and faith in the U.S. economy. Currently there is a lot banking on the U.S. economic recovery. It is faith in that recovery that is keeping the dollar from collapsing. Everything rests on the strength of the U.S. economy and its financial markets. If problems surface in either area, the confidence game is over and the dollar is toast. The Fed now has its hands full with holes in the dike everywhere it looks.

The stock market is extremely overvalued and back in bubble territory. The bubble in housing and in mortgages is tied to cheap and abundant credit. The strength in the economy, in particular consumer spending, is also dependent on the strength of the housing market and the ability of consumers to extract equity out of their homes......
What keeps the housing markets propped up is the bond market. What keeps the bond markets propped up? It is a game of confidence. The Fed is playing a high wire act of trying to talk down and manipulate interest rates. Its old nemesis is the bond market.....

The Fed’s job is to keep investors in paper, in particular the dollar. It must keep investors corralled so that only paper options are considered. What the Fed does not want to see happen is the price of gold and silver soar. When precious metals start flying, as they are doing now, it is telegraphing in advance that the confidence game is coming down to its end game. Greenspan must continue at all costs keeping investors corralled and preventing them from escaping and getting out of paper.....
Once confidence is lost, it is gone and not easily regained. The lessons of history tell us that once confidence is lost in paper, a central bank can no longer control the supply of money. As to where we are headed and when, keep your eyes on the money supply and velocity, the dollar, the bond markets and gold.

[jiacinto]

38. Wait until after the holidays

Wait for the numbers to come in around Januaray, February, and March. Then we'll have a better idea of where things are going.

But they do look good and I am fortunate for that.

[classics]

44. What an sudden orgy of evidence!

Why it must be a recovery!

(/sarcasm)

[san antonio]

45. Regardless...

I've been listening to an old friend of mine who predicted this time four years ago that it didn't matter who won the last election (2000), whoever did it would get blamed for the sinking economy. It was starting to slide in the spring of that year and it was a healthy result of a long BOOMING economy.

He's predicting now that whoever wins next year is going to get saddled with the blame for all the upcoming foreclosures on homes. Evidently everybody and their dogs in the mortgage industy sees it coming within a few years.

[san antonio]

46. BTW,

There's really no use is continuing to argue that the economy is still sliding down. Most of the key indicators point elsewhere.

We need to focus our efforts on how to use that for the Dem party.

[janx]

59. Um...it's already happening in large numbers

Or didn't you know that?

I have heard now FOR YEARS that the economy was just about to turn the proverbial corner.

There are so many people who are unemployed now that the government has lost track of them all.

[salin]

72. several quarters in the past 1.5 years have

shown record numbers of forclosures. I believe that for two different quarters the referent point was 'the highest number since the Hoover years.' Since that was reported in two different quarters, I imagine that the latter surpassed the former.

Indebtedness - personal (creditcard and mortgage), corporate (esp. in the largest corporations - to pay off the buyout / merger fever - btw no one ponders much about the degree the level of debt and debt service required by these mega corps are playing in the outsourcing craq), and federal... all very serious... all with serious reprecussions if not resolved... none with a serious solution on the horizon.

[young_at_heart]

49. "Started to produce jobs".........are they decent wage jobs?

Ken Mayland doesn't give us much info about all these jobs. I wonder how many of them are long-term or have health insurance?

[LeftHander]

56. Hogs at the trough

Bah Humbug....

Fat consumer pigs eating up the slop.

Why it's CHRISTMAS TIME!

Have a holly jolly christmas
crammed right down your throat....

They lined up and were fighting in the dark at the doors of Wal-Mart when the doors opened on Friday.

Gotta rack up that new credit card.

We are making gifts this year and celbrating solstice rather than Chri$tma$.

Christmas is a scam.

You can bet the fundie Christians won't be saying "Peace on Earth" much this year.

I'm done celebrating the birth of Jesus that did'nt really occur on December 25th. But it was convinent to declare that day so the church could highjack solstice.

Christmas lights waste electricity. Toys for tots when it should be Food and cots for tots...nothing like a kid playing with a new Commander in chief doll while standing in line at a homeless shelter hungry and cold.

The real spirit is human beings caring and helping each other all year round not just a token effort of gorging onesself on trite retail garbage in an orgy of shopping.

[arlib]

60. I think the main problem is....

...that we basically have an administration that cannot be trusted in any way shape or form, and is easily the most craven in terms of blatant lying, distortion, and disinformation in order to make the public perceive reality as this administration dictates it to be.
Also, there seems to be virtually no outward sign of the economy improving anywhere other than in these statistics, brought to you from the same people that brought us (s)election 2000, WMD's, no-bid contracts, phony rationales for war, all-terror all the time, an economy that been in the crapper from day one, buck passing beyond compare, etc.
During Clinton's presidency, there were visible, tangible signs of a strong economy, such as...

-virtually all of my friends and family were doing better financially than at any other time in their lives. Many of these people have been out of work, "downsized", or working in lesser paying jobs since Chimp's tenure.

-during the Clinton administration, I saw many neighborhoods in the DC area improve in terms of quality of life that had been decaying for many years under Republican administrations. Real results, not cooked book claims.

I don't know of anyone who is doing as well financially under this administration as they were during the Clinton years, sorry.
Also, even if the numbers quoted in the article were valid (which I seriously doubt), I'd hardly find it wise to use a couple of months of stats to nullify 3 years of abject failure.

[Frodo]

70. Well, I'M better off than I was three years ago.... BUT

Bush had nothing to do with it!

[arlib]

71. congrats

Nonetheless, no one that I know can claim the same, while many have experienced the opposite.

[ProfessorGAC]

62. After Reading The Article Let Me Say: Utter Nonsense

This is one analyst's view of the numbers. I know at least 30 economists and analysts (and of course, myself) who would dispute 80% of this report, and completely rooted in data.

There is no indication in any of the historical data that:
a) Consumer confidence does not always rise by 7.5 to 13.6% the month before Christmas. (40 year historical trend analysis).
b) Changes in consumer confidence less than 20% relative are a valid indicator of actual macroeconomic performance.
c) That the actual GDP growth is 8.2% annualized. (The SAUS data from the Commerce Dept. and from Treasury do not support this result. It's only >8% when leaving out the negative net export value, and this is mathematically and intellectually dishonest. It's also indicative of nothing.)
d) That the opinion of people who think jobs are hard to find is indicative of anything.

So, the report is nonsense. The article is amplification of nonsense, and no economist or analyst who's more interested in understanding true causative modeling of the macroeconomy (rather than finding nuggets of data that support existing preconceptions) would accept this ridiculous notion.
The Professor

[Frodo]

67. A reply

Actually, it isn't "one analyst's view of the numbers"

Bloomberg surveyed 66 economists and came up with a consensus estimate of 85. So despite what historical confidence changes indicate... taking that into account they expected it to go up minimally (3-4 pts).

a) see above. They expected to see the lower end of that range and got the upper end.
b) Absolutely true, though I thought it was "anything less than five points is 'noise'". But the increase from September to November was almost 54% relative. 59.7 to 91.7 is a pretty big jump.
c) Can't challenge you here. But one can ask: Has changing export value been included in official GDP calculations in the recent past? If not, the changing figures are still valid for comparison.
d) You got that one right.


On your final point. The consumer confidence figure is widely used as a presumed leading indicator. The article may fluff it up beyond what is reasonable, but I'm not ready to agree that the figures are "nonsense". I don't think the Conference Board is in bed with the misAdministration.

[arlib]

73. Some more phony stats for us

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=1514&e=8&u=/afp/iraq_unrest_samarra