US Economy: Cut the crap

[Stunt]

I have decided to start a thread where forum members can submit un-biased Economic data affecting americans. There's a lot of political spin out there, and I want to see solid numbers to support statements.

For example. Unemployment rate indicates nothing if our best jobs are going overseas. Health coverage doesn't matter if people aren't getting sick and need care.

I want to see information like: median income increases vs. inflation over time, number of people going bankrupt on healthcare, number of people homeless from high housing costs, number of students who can get into university but cannot afford it.

Everyday I see people claim the economy is better/worse than it was at some other point in time. Put up the numbers, explain why they are relevant and make conclusions. This is obviously something we all care about, so lets cut the crap (spin) and find out what is really going on.

 

[glenn1]

Sorry, but real economists don't get paid to study bullsh!t premises like the ones you're asking about. If you want to sit around and mope about how much everything sucks out there economically be my guest, but stay the hell out of the way of the rest of us who are out there doing work and making better lives for ourselves. It's hard to believe that in the United States (of all places) there's people sitting around like Eeyore complaining about how hard life is.

 

[miketheidiot]

Originally posted by: glenn1
Sorry, but real economists don't get paid to study bullsh!t premises like the ones you're asking about. If you want to sit around and mope about how much everything sucks out there economically be my guest, but stay the hell out of the way of the rest of us who are out there doing work and making better lives for ourselves. It's hard to believe that in the United States (of all places) there's people sitting around like Eeyore complaining about how hard life is.

what kind of premises do economist get paid to study then. Stunts ideas seem like thing worth study to me.

 

[imported_tss4]

Originally posted by: glenn1
Sorry, but real economists don't get paid to study bullsh!t premises like the ones you're asking about. If you want to sit around and mope about how much everything sucks out there economically be my guest, but stay the hell out of the way of the rest of us who are out there doing work and making better lives for ourselves. It's hard to believe that in the United States (of all places) there's people sitting around like Eeyore complaining about how hard life is.

He said cut the crap. If you believe you have pertinent economic indicators that he did not think of then share. You seem to be implying that he was asking for data only to support the idea of a negative outlook of the economy, but he clearly stated he wanted either position supported so we can get some real, honest debate that addresses the facts.

 

[glenn1]

He said cut the crap. If you believe you have pertinent economic indicators that he did not think of then share. You seem to be implying that he was asking for data only to support the idea of a poor economy, but he clearly stated he wanted either data so we can get some real, honest debate that addresses the facts (minus the doom and gloom and minus the "you're not a patriot if you think the economy is bad"). Just the cold hard facts.

Well, some of the examples the OP used certainly could lead me to that conclusion. There weren't a whole lot of positive scenarios listed. I can probably post some "red meat" economic data here now, with some more to come tomorrow when I can get on the company intraweb.



? Second Quarter Real GDP Growth Should Be Moderately Lower Than First Quarter?s 3.8 Percent Pace.
? Employment Cost Index Expected to be Right in Line With its Recent Trend.
? Consumer Confidence Should Remain Elevated in July.
This Week?s Reports
Monday Existing Home Sales
Tuesday Consumer Confidence
Wednesday Durable Goods Orders, New Home Sales,
Fed?s Beige Book
Thursday Initial Claims, Help Wanted Index
Friday Real GDP, Employment Cost Index,
Consumer Sentiment, Chicago PMI

Supported by low mortgage rates and aggressive financing products (like interest only mortgages), existing home sales should remain elevated in June. Existing Home Sales: May @ 6.2 MM

Chinese Reminbi Revaulation
Last week the Chinese government announced that it was revaluing its currency from 8.28 yuan per dollar to 8.11 yuan per dollar, a 2% immediate appreciation of the currency versus the dollar. Going forward, the renminbi will trade versus a basket
of currencies, which will allow it to either strengthen or weaken against the dollar. However, the other currencies that comprise the basket are currently unknown as are the weight on those currencies. Although the government said that the renminbi could
move 0.3% versus the dollar on a day-by-day basis, it did not disclose how much it will allow the renminbi to strengthen or weaken against the basket on a longer-term basis. Could the renminbi strengthen, say, 10% versus the dollar over the course of
the next year? Yes, 10% or so appreciation seems very reasonable to us. Could the renminbi strengthen, say, 30% over that period? We seriously doubt it. To see our full report, please go to www.wachovia.com/economics and look under the ?Special
Reports? section.

 

[Stunt]

I agree glenn1, a lot of economics is dependent on a positive outlook and confidence as a nation. Unfortunately one can get ahead of themselves, for example during the tech bust. I want to take an un-biased look at the economy and lay some of the criticisms/credit to rest; i fail to see how this is a bullsh!t premise...

Here's the median income vs. inflation for the last 20 years.
Income Source
Inflation Source

Year:Median Income:More than Previous:Inflation

2006: $65,093 : 3.76:
2005: $62,732 : -0.86: 2.99
2004: $63,278 : 1.69: 2.68
2003: $62,228 : 3.75: 2.27
2002: $59,981 : 6.99: 1.59
2001: $56,061 : 5.08: 2.83
2000: $53,350 : 3.56: 3.38
1999: $51,518 : 3.69: 2.19
1998: $49,687 : 5.69: 1.55
1997: $47,012 : 4.10: 2.34
1996: $45,161 : 1.22: 2.93
1995: $44,615 : 3.62: 2.81
1994: $43,056 : 3.87: 2.61
1993: $41,451 : 1.69: 2.96
1992: $40,763 : 4.38: 3.03
1991: $39,051 : 6.08: 4.25
1990: $36,812 : 6.04: 5.39
1989: $34,716 : 5.92: 4.83
1988: $32,777 : 5.40: 4.08
1987: $31,097 : 6.55: 3.66
1986: $29,184 : 5.67: 1.91
1985: $27,619 :

Therefore over the last 20 years, income has increased in every year with the exception of the year 2004-2005. Median income has increased faster than inflation has in all but four years but two of those are in the most recent years. If one was working since 1986, their income would have gone up 84%, meanwhile your inflation costs would have gone up by 60%.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: Stunt

Median income has increased faster than inflation has in all but four years but two of those are in the most recent years.

Takes a Canuck to tell the truth about the U.S.

Sad but thanks Mr Stunt. :thumbsup:

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: Stunt

Median income has increased faster than inflation has in all but four years but two of those are in the most recent years.

Takes a Canuck to tell the truth about the U.S.

Sad but thanks Mr Stunt. :thumbsup:

But he also realizes that one year only appears to be a blip....

 

[glenn1]

Anyone have a site where I can upload some .pdf files to? Have some interesting econ reports and commentary from one of the big brokerage firms out there.


BTW, I think in this environment the best thing you can do is rely less on data, and more on your gut instinct. And if you're going under the same assumptions as everyone else, most of the time you're dead wrong. For that reason (and the fact that I'm a bit of an investing contrarian by nature), IMHO the focus on China is misplaced and they are due for a severe correction within the next five years. The artificial remnimbi peg has distorted capital flows, actually increasing the capital inflows into China. And it seems like the country has been severely lacking in imagination, if not actual economically productive places to put all that cash to work. All the signs are there.... a non-tranparent banking system, a government pushing for growth for growth's sake, massive trade inbalances, single-minded pursuit of a certain economic subsector, and finally massive overspending on foreign assets (such as the proposed CNOOC takeover of Unocal). To be honest I'm seeing China as winding up more like Japan in the 90s than Korea, Ireland, and the other tiger economies. Basically the United States is using their competitors financial preconceptions against them (for Japan the weakness was real estate, for China it's energy), selling them "marquee" assets at the top of the bubble, and will be there to buy them out at pennies on the dollar after their crash.

 

[rahvin]

Your timeframe is too low glenn, China will have extended growth for at least a decade. All the foreign cash inflows to China are being spent on a handfull to things. The first and foremost is the purchase of US debt to keep the dollar higher than it should be. The second biggest exenditure is on infastructure. They are building: A strategic petroleum reserve that is many times larger than the US's, they are constructing highways and an interstate system that will match the US's when complete, enough nuclear power plants to meet energy demands equivalent to the US's per captia and flood control and other measures that will propel farming and agriculture in the country into the 21st century. The infastructure spending alone is going to provide mobility and stimulate growth equivalent to what it did for america in the 50-60's. Do not underestimate China, they have a real understanding of what made america successful and they are pursuing all the avenues to become a global economic superpower. Unlike Japan they aren't restricting their market like Japan has (Japan's undoing). I agree with you that banking impropriety and property rights are a serious stumbling block but they appear ready to fix the first, I haven't heard anything about the second and that could be their achielies heel.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: Stunt

Median income has increased faster than inflation has in all but four years but two of those are in the most recent years.

Takes a Canuck to tell the truth about the U.S.

Sad but thanks Mr Stunt. :thumbsup:

But he also realizes that one year only appears to be a blip....

That's all the administration has admitted to so far.

They will soon be forced to admit it's been a whole lot worse for longer than led to believe.

 

[Helenihi]

Why is it that the left was going on about the unemployment rate for the first 3 years of the Bush administration, didnt say much about it the 4th, and then suddenly now the employment rate doesnt tell us anything?

 

[glenn1]

But he also realizes that one year only appears to be a blip....
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

That's all the administration has admitted to so far.

There's not a whole lot more to admit. For whatever reason anyone can come up with (and there's tons of hypotheses out there), the cost increases in the core crude goods PPI has not shown up in the intermediate or finished goods PPI numbers. In fact the figures show that core crude goods peaked in 2004 at about a 9.4% rate, and the rate of increase has slowed to about 5.2% per the June #s, while the core PPI fell to 2.2% in June. While inflation was definitely in the pipeline a year ago, it's calmed down. Now you can draw your own conclusions from this, but those are the #s.

They will soon be forced to admit it's been a whole lot worse for longer than led to believe.

For whom? Or is it just all those darn rich folks who are causing the housing bubble and all the other economic hot button issues du jour?

 

[glenn1]

Why is it that the left was going on about the unemployment rate for the first 3 years of the Bush administration, didnt say much about it the 4th, and then suddenly now the employment rate doesnt tell us anything?

Well, it's good that someone talks about it. Even though quite a few on the left do seem mightily predisposed to take extraordinarily counterproductive measures when it comes to employment. Still though, while I've never been unemployed, I would definitely not care for the little sneers those on the right side always give those unfortunates who lose their jobs, like it was somehow their fault that the assembly plant shut down. Yes, I know in macro terms that the plant was inefficient, the American workers overpaid compared to Chinese slave labor, and all the rest, but it would still be nice if the conservatives showed a bit of empathy and human compassion for those who find themselves unemployed.

 

[dannybin1742]

median income increases vs. inflation over time,

good to see somone that understands the difference between mean and median, and why median is substantially more important

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: Helenihi
Why is it that the left was going on about the unemployment rate for the first 3 years of the Bush administration, didnt say much about it the 4th, and then suddenly now the employment rate doesnt tell us anything?

Because the administration has made the numbers completely useless on purpose.

History will show the Lies and Deception clearly.

 

[Buz2b]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: Helenihi
Why is it that the left was going on about the unemployment rate for the first 3 years of the Bush administration, didnt say much about it the 4th, and then suddenly now the employment rate doesnt tell us anything?

Because the administration has made the numbers completely useless on purpose.

History will show the Lies and Deception clearly.

Huh? Oh pardon me! I thought this was clearly a discussion about Clinton, seeing as how we were talking about "Lies and Deception". Or was that perjury he mentioned? Gee, it's so hard to remember when there are so many.

History will show the Lies and Deception clearly

Oh, no doubt about that here! It's just a matter of how much he (Clinton) will ever admit to in his memoirs.

 

[Engineer]

Originally posted by: glenn1

Why is it that the left was going on about the unemployment rate for the first 3 years of the Bush administration, didnt say much about it the 4th, and then suddenly now the employment rate doesnt tell us anything?

Well, it's good that someone talks about it. Even though quite a few on the left do seem mightily predisposed to take extraordinarily counterproductive measures when it comes to employment. Still though, while I've never been unemployed, I would definitely not care for the little sneers those on the right side always give those unfortunates who lose their jobs, like it was somehow their fault that the assembly plant shut down. Yes, I know in macro terms that the plant was inefficient, the American workers overpaid compared to Chinese slave labor, and all the rest, but it would still be nice if the conservatives showed a bit of empathy and human compassion for those who find themselves unemployed.

:beer:

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: Buz2b

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: Helenihi
Why is it that the left was going on about the unemployment rate for the first 3 years of the Bush administration, didnt say much about it the 4th, and then suddenly now the employment rate doesnt tell us anything?

Because the administration has made the numbers completely useless on purpose.

History will show the Lies and Deception clearly.

Huh? Oh pardon me! I thought this was clearly a discussion about Clinton, seeing as how we were talking about "Lies and Deception". Or was that perjury he mentioned? Gee, it's so hard to remember when there are so many.

History will show the Lies and Deception clearly

Oh, no doubt about that here! It's just a matter of how much he (Clinton) will ever admit to in his memoirs.

Oh whoppie doo doo, I'd take a President getting a little lagniappe under the desk over a fake war anytime.

 

[PatboyX]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: Buz2b

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: Helenihi
Why is it that the left was going on about the unemployment rate for the first 3 years of the Bush administration, didnt say much about it the 4th, and then suddenly now the employment rate doesnt tell us anything?

Because the administration has made the numbers completely useless on purpose.

History will show the Lies and Deception clearly.

Huh? Oh pardon me! I thought this was clearly a discussion about Clinton, seeing as how we were talking about "Lies and Deception". Or was that perjury he mentioned? Gee, it's so hard to remember when there are so many.

History will show the Lies and Deception clearly

Oh, no doubt about that here! It's just a matter of how much he (Clinton) will ever admit to in his memoirs.

Oh whoppie doo doo, I'd take a President getting a little lagniappe under the desk over a fake war anytime.

gee, economics is rough. can someone translate for me?!??!?!?

back on topic, jackasses.

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: Stunt

Median income has increased faster than inflation has in all but four years but two of those are in the most recent years.

Takes a Canuck to tell the truth about the U.S.

Sad but thanks Mr Stunt. :thumbsup:

But he also realizes that one year only appears to be a blip....

That's all the administration has admitted to so far.

They will soon be forced to admit it's been a whole lot worse for longer than led to believe.

Yeah right, you liberals can just keep hoping for the worst while the rest of us continue to generate wealth.

 

[Helenihi]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: Helenihi
Why is it that the left was going on about the unemployment rate for the first 3 years of the Bush administration, didnt say much about it the 4th, and then suddenly now the employment rate doesnt tell us anything?

Because the administration has made the numbers completely useless on purpose.

History will show the Lies and Deception clearly.

But you won't, because you dont have any evidence.

"The administration" doesnt create the numbers, are you accusing the BLS of falsifying them? Do you have the slightest evidence for this accusation?

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: Stunt
I agree glenn1, a lot of economics is dependent on a positive outlook and confidence as a nation. Unfortunately one can get ahead of themselves, for example during the tech bust. I want to take an un-biased look at the economy and lay some of the criticisms/credit to rest; i fail to see how this is a bullsh!t premise...

Here's the median income vs. inflation for the last 20 years.
Income Source
Inflation Source

Year:Median Income:More than Previous:Inflation

2006: $65,093 : 3.76:
2005: $62,732 : -0.86: 2.99
2004: $63,278 : 1.69: 2.68
2003: $62,228 : 3.75: 2.27
2002: $59,981 : 6.99: 1.59
2001: $56,061 : 5.08: 2.83
2000: $53,350 : 3.56: 3.38
1999: $51,518 : 3.69: 2.19
1998: $49,687 : 5.69: 1.55
1997: $47,012 : 4.10: 2.34
1996: $45,161 : 1.22: 2.93
1995: $44,615 : 3.62: 2.81
1994: $43,056 : 3.87: 2.61
1993: $41,451 : 1.69: 2.96
1992: $40,763 : 4.38: 3.03
1991: $39,051 : 6.08: 4.25
1990: $36,812 : 6.04: 5.39
1989: $34,716 : 5.92: 4.83
1988: $32,777 : 5.40: 4.08
1987: $31,097 : 6.55: 3.66
1986: $29,184 : 5.67: 1.91
1985: $27,619 :

Therefore over the last 20 years, income has increased in every year with the exception of the year 2004-2005. Median income has increased faster than inflation has in all but four years but two of those are in the most recent years. If one was working since 1986, their income would have gone up 84%, meanwhile your inflation costs would have gone up by 60%.

That's median income for a four-person family. You're cherry-picking data. That's most likely dual-income households.

Look at this to see more detail behind the numbers (poverty rate increasing, more people w/o healthcare coverage, etc.)
http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/income/income03/prs04asc.html

That also shows the median income isn't moving.

Based on a comparison of two-year moving averages for states (Chart 11), real median household income rose for four states and decreased for ten. Also using a comparison of two-year moving averages, the poverty rate rose in seven states and fell in two. One state had an increase in income and a decline in poverty ? North Dakota ? while three states had both a decrease in income and an increase in poverty ? Illinois, North Carolina, and Texas.

How about finding some charts of single-parent households which is a growing aspect of our society?

Here, pore over this:
http://pubdb3.census.gov/macro/032004/hhinc/new01_001.htm

And note the numbers of married-couple households vs. others.

 

[Stunt]

Originally posted by: conjur
How about finding some charts of single-parent households which is a growing aspect of our society?

Go ahead, you are making a point, back it up with information.

 

[conjur]

I just did. See my edited post.