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
econ state RI

Category: Economy

Please use the comments to demonstrate your own ignorance, unfamiliarity with empirical data and lack of respect for scientific knowledge. Be sure to create straw men and argue against things I have neither said nor implied. If you could repeat previously discredited memes or steer the conversation into irrelevant, off topic discussions, it would be appreciated. Lastly, kindly forgo all civility in your discourse . . . you are, after all, anonymous.

21 Responses to “State of the Economy (Update)”

  1. Robespierre says:

    GDB number incorrect no?

  2. VennData says:

    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

  3. call me ahab says:

    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

  4. Mannwich says:

    @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”?

  5. VennData says:

    “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

  6. call me ahab says:

    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

  7. Marcus Aurelius says:

    VD:

    We would do more by pulling out and cutting defense spending by 50%.

  8. bsneath says:

    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.

  9. call me ahab says:

    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

  10. Mannwich says:

    @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.

  11. call me ahab says:

    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

  12. Mannwich says:

    @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.

  13. tt says:

    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.

  14. Mannwich says:

    @tt: Whoops. Forgot the biggest REAL reason. Thanks for the addition. A BIG and most important reason.

  15. Mannwich says:

    @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).

  16. call me ahab says:

    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

  17. Mannwich says:

    @ahab: It wasn’t intended to help the masses but the oil companies have done quite well, no?

  18. tt says:

    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.

  19. call me ahab says:

    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

  20. lalaland says:

    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…

  21. hue says:

    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