Nice interactive graphic from Russell Investments looking at the state of the economy. Russell uses 4 market and 4 economic data points:
>
click for interactive chart
Please use the comments to demonstrate your own ignorance, unfamiliarity with empirical data, ability to repeat discredited memes, and lack of respect for scientific knowledge. Also, be sure to create straw men and argue against things I have neither said nor even implied. Any irrelevancies you can mention will also be appreciated. Lastly, kindly forgo all civility in your discourse . . . you are, after all, anonymous.
Faced with the choice between changing one's mind and proving that there is no need to do so, almost everyone gets busy on the proof. —John Kenneth Galbraith
Retail Sales in Jan rose .4% headline m/o/m, .7% ex auto's, .6% ex auto's and gasoline and .7% at the core. The headline figure was less than expected while the rest were slightly better. But, with respect to non headline sales, because Dec figures were revised lower, taking the two months together were about in line with forecasts overall. Sales rose in electronics, building materials, food/beverages, clothing, sporting goods, dept stores and restaurant/bars and fell interestingly for online retailers, health/personal care, furniture and motor vehicle/parts. Bottom line, headline sales were below expectations due to the greater than expected fall m/o/m...
read more »
Tweet
Facebook
Reddit
Digg this!
November 24th, 2009 at 3:00 pm
GDB number incorrect no?
November 24th, 2009 at 3:02 pm
Fed thinks the odds of the US recovery being durable are up.
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/dollar-steady-vs-euro-yen-after-fed-minutes-2009-11-24
November 24th, 2009 at 3:17 pm
and who care what the Fed says-
they have lost all credibility- this alone says volumes- from Bloomberg-
“Members noted the possibility that some negative side effects might result from the maintenance of very low short-term interest rates for an extended period . . .including the possibility that such a policy stance could lead to excessive risk-taking in financial markets . . .”
gee- you think?
“could lead” as in- it’s not happening now-
what fucking buffoons-
they are causing the problems- you now- their previous policy actions that allowed long durations of easy money and asset bubble creation-
the Fed- what a joke- who needs them- no-0ne except bankers who want to ensure they are protected to make billions- whether or not they lose billions
November 24th, 2009 at 3:37 pm
@ahab: The Fed does a fabulous job of telling us what has already happened. Great at looking into the rearview mirror. I was in the car when I hear them make that statement on Bloomie about “excessive risk-taking” and laughed out loud. Like that’s NOT happening now? “May lead to”? How about “has led to”?
November 24th, 2009 at 3:43 pm
“Share the Sacrifice” Act: Make the War in Afghanistan Deficit Neutral
http://www.prospect.org/csnc/blogs/tapped_archive?month=11&year=2009&base_name=share_the_sacrifice_act_make_t
Pay for those making the sacrifice. Deficit Neutral. This is what America is all about. I salute our troops. Write the White House to show your support for our troops.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/contact
November 24th, 2009 at 3:53 pm
and manny-
and the next question then is – assuming excessive risk taking- what is the Fed going to do about it?
nothing- and there’s a proven track record we can fall back on to support that answer
November 24th, 2009 at 3:53 pm
VD:
We would do more by pulling out and cutting defense spending by 50%.
November 24th, 2009 at 4:10 pm
Based on the charts it looks as though it is still all about the housing market. If housing continues to recover then we have a really bad L shaped recession. If housing takes another downturn, then hello W.
November 24th, 2009 at 4:14 pm
marcus-
from ZH today-
“top British officials say that the U.S. discussed Iraq regime change long before 9/11. In fact, they say that regime change was advocated one month after Bush took office”
“Former CIA director George Tenet said that the White House wanted to invade Iraq long before 9/11″
“Former Treasury Secretary Paul O’Neill also says that Bush planned the Iraq war before 9/11.”
“The CIA warned the White House that claims about Iraq’s nuclear ambitions (using forged documents) were false”
probably old news to many- but worth repeating-
ol’ W must have had a biblical revelation about the “evil-doers”- lol
November 24th, 2009 at 4:19 pm
@ahab: The neo-cons were on Clinton to do it in later years of his second term. I believe he was giving it some thought at the time, so the Iraq adventure was in the works for a long time. We just needed a “reason” to do it. That reason was 9/11. If it wasn’t 9/11, it would have been something else that caused us to go in there.
November 24th, 2009 at 4:26 pm
manny-
there is no way on this planet Clinton would have blundered into Iraq-
a young girls skirt maybe :D- but Iraq- no way-
if they had plans- which they probably did- they needed someone on board like Bush-
i still can’t figure out why anyone was interested in invading Iraq- a secular country no less- i bet many of those folks on board wish they could back in time and change their decision on that-
but Bush- dude’s sleeping like a baby
November 24th, 2009 at 5:16 pm
@ahab: Bush was trying to make up for what he (and the ne0-cons) thought was Daddy’s blunder in not “finishing the job there”. The neo-cons chicken hawks who didn’t serve in Vietnam were trying to re-fight that war. Human beings, especially men, aren’t that complicated.
November 24th, 2009 at 5:28 pm
mannwich,
your analysis is correct, but you left out the real reason the bankers let them invade. OIL.
the way daddy bush left saddam in power as a foil against iran was brilliant. over the heads of most nitwits, and actually cost ghwb.
but the invasion and occupation was for nat resources like most wars. and of course Ike’s farewell speech warning about profiteers in war industries. ain’t nothing like the free money when the bombs drop.
November 24th, 2009 at 5:41 pm
@tt: Whoops. Forgot the biggest REAL reason. Thanks for the addition. A BIG and most important reason.
November 24th, 2009 at 5:43 pm
@tt: I think I omitted the OIL reason (the BIGGEST one) because it’s so obvious (at least to any thinking, non-delusional, non-Disney-ified person).
November 24th, 2009 at 6:03 pm
call me stupid- but if its about oil- which on the face of it makes sense- but how did the invasion help us in that respect?
it isn’t as if we are shipping oil to the States free of charge
November 24th, 2009 at 6:15 pm
@ahab: It wasn’t intended to help the masses but the oil companies have done quite well, no?
November 24th, 2009 at 6:17 pm
ahab,
in case you did not get the memo, you and your fellow middlebrows like me and 99% of people were not meant to get help. wars are about the ruling class. i only dream about being a member. you should wake up or maybe it is better to believe the rulers care. the oil contracts have nothing to do with me or mine or you and yours. please no offense sir. you sound intelligent.
November 24th, 2009 at 6:38 pm
so tt-
so . . .to secure oil contracts? hmm . . .couldn’t we have bid on them w/o a war?
my guess is it was a bit more complicated than that and includes the supposed need for a military presence in the region-
but then again- i’m not sure it was necessary or even adviseable to invade Iraq for those reasons- so maybe i will never understand
November 24th, 2009 at 9:20 pm
So what if people/institutions are taking excessive risks – if they make money, great, more to spend on consumer goods, and if not, and they lose a lot, fuck ‘em – they were obviously warned that taking a lot of risk might not turn out well.
Anyone who doesn’t realize there won’t be any more bailouts deserves to go down.
And Call me Ahab: it was about “he tried to kill my daddy”. End of story.
I do wish people/institutions used the market to “invest” in the companies listed there rather than just using it as a giant profiteering machine. Perhaps the concept of owning stock has become a ruined, sullied and shat on paradigm and we need a new one…
November 24th, 2009 at 11:42 pm
ahab, just like wall street (the money changers) you can make money on oil by handling oil. i think we wrote something in the Iraqi constitution about oil contracts … cheney was the CEO of halliburton, an oil services company, a simple forgotten, obvious fact.
Rumsfeld understood the need of Saddam as a foil to Iran, then he didn’t. http://bit.ly/4Qhd73