Lilguy's Comments RSS Syndication from SeekingAlpha.com http://seekingalpha.comuser/135117/comments http://seekingalpha.com/news/market_currents/post/36058?source=feed#comment-748730 748730

On Nov 06 03:58 PM DW Reid wrote:

> My guess is retailers and health care had to hire temps because of
> current demand. Unlikely a good sign into the spring however.]]> Fri, 06 Nov 2009 16:09:52 -0500

On Nov 06 03:58 PM DW Reid wrote:

> My guess is retailers and health care had to hire temps because of
> current demand. Unlikely a good sign into the spring however.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/news/market_currents/post/35544?source=feed#comment-739194 739194
Now, if they change the rules for mortgages that are NOT being paid on a current basis, whether or not they are underwater, then, Houston, we really do have a problem.

As long as Sheila Bair is heading the FDIC, I don't expect the latter to happen. NTL, her continuing (& absolutely correct) objections to the Obama administration's various financial initiatives may lead to her early (& unvoluntary) resignation. Then what????]]> Sun, 01 Nov 2009 11:01:34 -0500
Now, if they change the rules for mortgages that are NOT being paid on a current basis, whether or not they are underwater, then, Houston, we really do have a problem.

As long as Sheila Bair is heading the FDIC, I don't expect the latter to happen. NTL, her continuing (& absolutely correct) objections to the Obama administration's various financial initiatives may lead to her early (& unvoluntary) resignation. Then what????]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/166740-jobless-claims-down-to-514-000-two-things-to-look-for-now?source=feed#comment-717826 717826
Please note that 2 MILLION more people are now receiving unemployment compensation than were doing so a year ago, and that doesn't count those who no longer qualify for these minimal, but critical, payments.

As long as we are adding more people to the roles of unemployed--compensated or not--our economy will not improve in any meaningful way. ]]> Fri, 16 Oct 2009 14:24:11 -0400
Please note that 2 MILLION more people are now receiving unemployment compensation than were doing so a year ago, and that doesn't count those who no longer qualify for these minimal, but critical, payments.

As long as we are adding more people to the roles of unemployed--compensated or not--our economy will not improve in any meaningful way. ]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/164572-this-recession-aint-over?source=feed#comment-702469 702469
The fact that the DOL/BLS has announced that it miscounted the labor force last year by some 824,000 points out the numerous erroneous assumptions and sloppy methodologies for counting who's working and who's been laid off or can't get into the workforce.

I'll really be interested to see how the 2010 census affects these counts. I expect the results will be even more discouraging than the results we've seen so far.

Thanks for this excellent piece. ]]> Sun, 04 Oct 2009 11:40:46 -0400
The fact that the DOL/BLS has announced that it miscounted the labor force last year by some 824,000 points out the numerous erroneous assumptions and sloppy methodologies for counting who's working and who's been laid off or can't get into the workforce.

I'll really be interested to see how the 2010 census affects these counts. I expect the results will be even more discouraging than the results we've seen so far.

Thanks for this excellent piece. ]]> http://seekingalpha.com/instablog/98115-john-lounsbury/29481-reversion-to-disaster?source=feed#comment-696019 696019
I frankly expect all these to worsen after the holidays and the second down leg set in for at least a half year. Aside from all the economic and market angst that will create, the implications for the mid-term Congressional elections start becoming really massive. ...and then what?]]> Tue, 29 Sep 2009 18:14:43 -0400
I frankly expect all these to worsen after the holidays and the second down leg set in for at least a half year. Aside from all the economic and market angst that will create, the implications for the mid-term Congressional elections start becoming really massive. ...and then what?]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/160789-market-believes-in-economic-positives-we-remain-skeptical?source=feed#comment-673274 673274 Sat, 12 Sep 2009 10:13:23 -0400 http://seekingalpha.com/article/160999-the-destruction-of-the-american-dream?source=feed#comment-672587 672587
But that has not always been true. As CautiousInvestor notes above, the Gilded Age was one exception when the pie got larger, but fewer gained from it. And, of course, we have had the intermittent recessions and depressions in which the pie got smaller, usually at the greater expense of the less fortunate--but the more fortunate also suffered some.

Today is different. Over the last decade--as reported in the Census report Mr. Zielenski notes above--through two recessions and a historic "boom" period, the highest 10% income households retained its its real income levels unchanged, while the median national household income has declined by 4.3% and the bottom 10% of households saw their family incomes shrink by 9%.

With the growing divergence in income (flows), one can only expect the growing concentration of wealth (stock) in the top group to continue. If the US government doesn't do something to reverse that income and wealth centralization, our economy will lose any remnants of vigor and growth it may have and, ultimately, create the conditions for total distrust of government and civil unrest.

It is not a trend that want might children and grandchildren to experience. I thought Mr. Obama might be part of the answer to that problem, but he sold out so fast to the interests of the wealthy in propping up Wall Street and the wealthy, I am not at all optimistic for our country's economic and political future.
]]> Fri, 11 Sep 2009 14:56:55 -0400
But that has not always been true. As CautiousInvestor notes above, the Gilded Age was one exception when the pie got larger, but fewer gained from it. And, of course, we have had the intermittent recessions and depressions in which the pie got smaller, usually at the greater expense of the less fortunate--but the more fortunate also suffered some.

Today is different. Over the last decade--as reported in the Census report Mr. Zielenski notes above--through two recessions and a historic "boom" period, the highest 10% income households retained its its real income levels unchanged, while the median national household income has declined by 4.3% and the bottom 10% of households saw their family incomes shrink by 9%.

With the growing divergence in income (flows), one can only expect the growing concentration of wealth (stock) in the top group to continue. If the US government doesn't do something to reverse that income and wealth centralization, our economy will lose any remnants of vigor and growth it may have and, ultimately, create the conditions for total distrust of government and civil unrest.

It is not a trend that want might children and grandchildren to experience. I thought Mr. Obama might be part of the answer to that problem, but he sold out so fast to the interests of the wealthy in propping up Wall Street and the wealthy, I am not at all optimistic for our country's economic and political future.
]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/160619-the-coming-consequences-of-banking-fraud?source=feed#comment-670202 670202
I'm a lot less conspiratorial, a little more analytical (& balanced), and maybe a little more optimistic (tho not by much) than Mr. Kim. ]]> Thu, 10 Sep 2009 10:22:05 -0400
I'm a lot less conspiratorial, a little more analytical (& balanced), and maybe a little more optimistic (tho not by much) than Mr. Kim. ]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/160360-why-u-s-government-should-cut-federal-workers-lavish-compensation?source=feed#comment-668465 668465
As a retired federal employee who subsequently held positions in the private sector, I can personally tell you that the salaries and benefits of the private national defense sector are HUGELY superior to those offered federal employees--civilian and military.

More broadly, the issue of federal vs. private sector wages has been argued for decades and, with few exceptions (such as those from radically right-wing organizations), no matter how you cut it, federal employees receive much lower salaries and more-or-less comparable benefits than their private sector counterparts. The private sector offers huge advantages in salaries and bonuses especially (25-50%--higher on bonuses). The feds have some advantage in health care (continues after retirement), and pensions among the depleting ranks of Civil Service Retirement System "defined benefit" retirees (but not employees hired since 1986 under "defined contribution" Thrift Savings Plan program--a massive 401k program).

To lay our national budget deficit on the back of federal employees is inaccurate analytically and wrong morally. ]]> Wed, 09 Sep 2009 10:21:15 -0400
As a retired federal employee who subsequently held positions in the private sector, I can personally tell you that the salaries and benefits of the private national defense sector are HUGELY superior to those offered federal employees--civilian and military.

More broadly, the issue of federal vs. private sector wages has been argued for decades and, with few exceptions (such as those from radically right-wing organizations), no matter how you cut it, federal employees receive much lower salaries and more-or-less comparable benefits than their private sector counterparts. The private sector offers huge advantages in salaries and bonuses especially (25-50%--higher on bonuses). The feds have some advantage in health care (continues after retirement), and pensions among the depleting ranks of Civil Service Retirement System "defined benefit" retirees (but not employees hired since 1986 under "defined contribution" Thrift Savings Plan program--a massive 401k program).

To lay our national budget deficit on the back of federal employees is inaccurate analytically and wrong morally. ]]> http://seekingalpha.com/news/market_currents/post/31945?source=feed#comment-663012 663012
I'm still at 4 years on my laptop, and plan to get 6 from it. Based on my experience in managing enterprise computing, six years may be about the physical limit of most hardware (it's seems to be a full life cycle), but I may test that. In the meantime, upgrades like those Larrysyr mentioned above, are a way to stay current technologically and remain cost-effective.

And, despite your enthusiasm for new versions of MS OS as an IT manager, few real users--even the more tech friendly ones--see much value (other than stability & security) in the newer versions of OS. None worse than VISTA. I'm hopeful that OS7 has it right, but I'm willing to wait a couple of years for people like yourself to find out if it's really better than XP.


On Sep 04 03:09 PM TA wrote:

> We have a huge glut of 5 and 6 year old machines that I am going
> to replace whether people like it or not. Either that or close the
> doors. ........
> ]]> Sat, 05 Sep 2009 09:48:15 -0400
I'm still at 4 years on my laptop, and plan to get 6 from it. Based on my experience in managing enterprise computing, six years may be about the physical limit of most hardware (it's seems to be a full life cycle), but I may test that. In the meantime, upgrades like those Larrysyr mentioned above, are a way to stay current technologically and remain cost-effective.

And, despite your enthusiasm for new versions of MS OS as an IT manager, few real users--even the more tech friendly ones--see much value (other than stability & security) in the newer versions of OS. None worse than VISTA. I'm hopeful that OS7 has it right, but I'm willing to wait a couple of years for people like yourself to find out if it's really better than XP.


On Sep 04 03:09 PM TA wrote:

> We have a huge glut of 5 and 6 year old machines that I am going
> to replace whether people like it or not. Either that or close the
> doors. ........
> ]]> http://seekingalpha.com/news/market_currents/post/31945?source=feed#comment-662279 662279
I see absolutely no value in "refreshing" IT because MS has let out another dog OS--or even (miraculously!) a good OS. (VISTA was horrible--and I've never changed to it; still using XP and will until I'm confident OS7 (or 8, 9, or 10) is stable, friendly, and priced right.)

Will the systems themselves die & need replacement? Yes, eventually, but I think the corporate and consumer world are a long ways from that in a major way. In fact, this recession could be a genuine test of just how rugged our old laptops and desktops and even dumb terminals really are. I'll stick with mine until I'm certain (a) it's dead or (b) I can substantially increase my productivity with a new machine (& that's not likely to happen any time soon).]]> Fri, 04 Sep 2009 14:46:58 -0400
I see absolutely no value in "refreshing" IT because MS has let out another dog OS--or even (miraculously!) a good OS. (VISTA was horrible--and I've never changed to it; still using XP and will until I'm confident OS7 (or 8, 9, or 10) is stable, friendly, and priced right.)

Will the systems themselves die & need replacement? Yes, eventually, but I think the corporate and consumer world are a long ways from that in a major way. In fact, this recession could be a genuine test of just how rugged our old laptops and desktops and even dumb terminals really are. I'll stick with mine until I'm certain (a) it's dead or (b) I can substantially increase my productivity with a new machine (& that's not likely to happen any time soon).]]> http://seekingalpha.com/news/market_currents/post/31835?source=feed#comment-660232 660232
That's apples an oranges.

Last week's advanced number was 570K, exactly the same as this week's advanced number--570K. That's apples to apples.

Having tracked these perturbations weekly this year, I can say that the average increase in the newly unemployed SA number has increased more than 3,400 per week from the "advanced" to the "revised" figure. This week's 4,000 person revision is right on track with that average.

The media effect of comparing the advanced number with last week's revised number is to show a lower increase (or greater decrease) in newly unemployed than actually occurred. The effect on markets is to be expected.

Just more spin from the BLS. ]]> Thu, 03 Sep 2009 10:30:15 -0400
That's apples an oranges.

Last week's advanced number was 570K, exactly the same as this week's advanced number--570K. That's apples to apples.

Having tracked these perturbations weekly this year, I can say that the average increase in the newly unemployed SA number has increased more than 3,400 per week from the "advanced" to the "revised" figure. This week's 4,000 person revision is right on track with that average.

The media effect of comparing the advanced number with last week's revised number is to show a lower increase (or greater decrease) in newly unemployed than actually occurred. The effect on markets is to be expected.

Just more spin from the BLS. ]]> http://seekingalpha.com/news/market_currents/post/31466?source=feed#comment-652206 652206
Instead of paying an increased insurance fee, give the banks the option of dropping out of the FDIC and see how many depositors stick around. And, since they would no longer be serving the primary banking function--taking deposits & making loans--kick them out of the ranks of banks that are so thoroughly protected by the USG.

If I had my druthers, the FDIC insurance premiums would be progressive--and progressive in two dimensions: the size of overall assets (official over-inflated book value) and inversely to the ratio of deposits to assets (low ratio, high premium). So a bank with $10B in assets & $1B in deposits would pay a higher premium than a similarly sized bank with $3B in deposits or a smaller bank with a similar deposit/asset ratio.

While this would not "force" banks to move more to banking--vice securitization--activity, it would put the premium cost where the risk is. ]]> Sat, 29 Aug 2009 09:50:29 -0400
Instead of paying an increased insurance fee, give the banks the option of dropping out of the FDIC and see how many depositors stick around. And, since they would no longer be serving the primary banking function--taking deposits & making loans--kick them out of the ranks of banks that are so thoroughly protected by the USG.

If I had my druthers, the FDIC insurance premiums would be progressive--and progressive in two dimensions: the size of overall assets (official over-inflated book value) and inversely to the ratio of deposits to assets (low ratio, high premium). So a bank with $10B in assets & $1B in deposits would pay a higher premium than a similarly sized bank with $3B in deposits or a smaller bank with a similar deposit/asset ratio.

While this would not "force" banks to move more to banking--vice securitization--activity, it would put the premium cost where the risk is. ]]> http://seekingalpha.com/news/market_currents/post/31371?source=feed#comment-648760 648760
In fact, I have been tracking these numbers weekly since the beginning of 2008, and the revised SA initial unemployment number for each week has averaged more than 3,400 higher than the headline making initial number. (That says something about the methodology as well as the fact we're only 2/3 of the way through the year.)

My expectation is that this week's revised number, reported next week, will raise that initial unemployment number by 10,000--right back where we were last week.

Please also note that the declining continuing unemployment number does not reflect that a growing number of people are falling off the back end of unemployment compensation and, therefore, are no longer considered "unemployed." Go figure!]]> Thu, 27 Aug 2009 10:13:01 -0400
In fact, I have been tracking these numbers weekly since the beginning of 2008, and the revised SA initial unemployment number for each week has averaged more than 3,400 higher than the headline making initial number. (That says something about the methodology as well as the fact we're only 2/3 of the way through the year.)

My expectation is that this week's revised number, reported next week, will raise that initial unemployment number by 10,000--right back where we were last week.

Please also note that the declining continuing unemployment number does not reflect that a growing number of people are falling off the back end of unemployment compensation and, therefore, are no longer considered "unemployed." Go figure!]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/158128-the-good-news-about-bernanke?source=feed#comment-645048 645048
It cudda been better; think "Volcker."

The key risk is Big Ben selling out (further) to the Big Banks. Certainly we need a consumer protection agency to offset the the Fed's bias to the financial industry. ]]> Tue, 25 Aug 2009 09:35:40 -0400
It cudda been better; think "Volcker."

The key risk is Big Ben selling out (further) to the Big Banks. Certainly we need a consumer protection agency to offset the the Fed's bias to the financial industry. ]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/157620-federal-reserve-exit-watch?source=feed#comment-640943 640943

On Aug 22 10:54 AM Lilguy wrote:

> Mr. Mason--This is an excellent article and an ambitious and important course of action.....]]> Sat, 22 Aug 2009 10:58:11 -0400

On Aug 22 10:54 AM Lilguy wrote:

> Mr. Mason--This is an excellent article and an ambitious and important course of action.....]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/157620-federal-reserve-exit-watch?source=feed#comment-640941 640941
So, too, however, are the actions actions of the USG in fiscal policy. Just last night we heard that the US deficit will grow by more than $2 trillion more over the next 10 years than previously forecast by the Administration ("oops! excuse me!")...and stay tuned for more of those kinds of announcements in the months ahead. Meantime, the health care plan and fresh calls for additional stimulus spending (to get the 10 million unemployed back to work) are likely to drive budget deficits higher.

So the core economic question becomes how does the US finance its growing national debt? What should we look for in the volume and mix of Treasuries sold that points us to future debt levels and perceived economic prospects? How will potential buyers of Treasuries react to the increased volume, and will they buy long (confidence) or short (lack thereof)--foreign and domestic, including the Fed? How much will the dollar react in forex markets to the increasing volume of Treasuries--and will US growth offset the negative effects of greater volume?

All unanswerable questions I suspect. But I hope someone out there--and you may be as good as anyone--will track these developments and provide insights into their economic implications for our far over-stretched economy. ]]> Sat, 22 Aug 2009 10:54:56 -0400
So, too, however, are the actions actions of the USG in fiscal policy. Just last night we heard that the US deficit will grow by more than $2 trillion more over the next 10 years than previously forecast by the Administration ("oops! excuse me!")...and stay tuned for more of those kinds of announcements in the months ahead. Meantime, the health care plan and fresh calls for additional stimulus spending (to get the 10 million unemployed back to work) are likely to drive budget deficits higher.

So the core economic question becomes how does the US finance its growing national debt? What should we look for in the volume and mix of Treasuries sold that points us to future debt levels and perceived economic prospects? How will potential buyers of Treasuries react to the increased volume, and will they buy long (confidence) or short (lack thereof)--foreign and domestic, including the Fed? How much will the dollar react in forex markets to the increasing volume of Treasuries--and will US growth offset the negative effects of greater volume?

All unanswerable questions I suspect. But I hope someone out there--and you may be as good as anyone--will track these developments and provide insights into their economic implications for our far over-stretched economy. ]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/157481-bank-asset-values-a-lingering-problem?source=feed#comment-639564 639564
While I'm not one generally for conspiracy theories, the fact of the matter is the results of all the industry, regulator, Congressional, and Administration (Bush & Obama) initiatives has been to make it more difficult to understand the health of the American financial industry. Until we acknowledge their problems, we will not be able to cure them.]]> Fri, 21 Aug 2009 09:32:10 -0400
While I'm not one generally for conspiracy theories, the fact of the matter is the results of all the industry, regulator, Congressional, and Administration (Bush & Obama) initiatives has been to make it more difficult to understand the health of the American financial industry. Until we acknowledge their problems, we will not be able to cure them.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/157023-will-the-s-p-500-move-towards-960-or-1060?source=feed#comment-636380 636380
Count me as a pessimistic realist on the near-term future of the market and the economy. ]]> Wed, 19 Aug 2009 10:23:35 -0400
Count me as a pessimistic realist on the near-term future of the market and the economy. ]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/156330-the-consensus-shouldn-t-write-off-the-u-s-economy?source=feed#comment-631615 631615
I find the commentaries of economists and even many market analysts in the blogosphere provide a much richer understanding of our current economic situation and prospects. Some of these bloggers have been so consistently right that they have earned mainstream status (e.g.--Roubini, Ritholtz, Simon Johnson). And, for the most part, these true experts are less than sanguine about the near- to mid-term prospects for the US and global economy. As for the market, with the screaming "BUY" commentaries from salesmen/pundits, it will go up until overcome by the tsunami of reality.

I think the market is beginning to see the crest of reality coming toward them on the horizon. Time to run!]]> Sun, 16 Aug 2009 10:01:37 -0400
I find the commentaries of economists and even many market analysts in the blogosphere provide a much richer understanding of our current economic situation and prospects. Some of these bloggers have been so consistently right that they have earned mainstream status (e.g.--Roubini, Ritholtz, Simon Johnson). And, for the most part, these true experts are less than sanguine about the near- to mid-term prospects for the US and global economy. As for the market, with the screaming "BUY" commentaries from salesmen/pundits, it will go up until overcome by the tsunami of reality.

I think the market is beginning to see the crest of reality coming toward them on the horizon. Time to run!]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/155875-why-the-electric-car-mileage-debate-is-meaningless?source=feed#comment-628125 628125
I can buy a compact Volt that costs me $40,000 upfront and operates at 3 cents per mile (not counting the occasional few gallons of gas) if you believe GM.

I can buy a compact Prius that costs me $22,000 upfront and operates at 50 MPG or somewhere between 5 and 10 cents per mile (gasoline at either $2.50/gal or $5/gal) not counting the occasional plug-in electrical costs.

I can buy a conventional compact car comparable to the Prius for $18,000 upfront that garners 25 MPG or 10-20 cents per mile in gas costs.

I can buy a nice $35,000 mid-sized conventional US auto averaging 20 MPG and pay 13-25 cents per mile for gas & no electrical costs.

Over five years of operation, my initial and gas costs are as follows, assuming 10,000 miles of driving per year (mostly urban--50 mi per workday @ 200 WD/yr):

--Volt: $41,500
--Prius: $24,500-$27,000
--Conventional compact: $20,500-$23,000 (Note: Gas would have to cost about +/-$20/gal for 5yr/50K mi costs to equal a Volt.)
--Conventional mid-sized: $41,500-$47,500

The Volt doesn't seem to add up: It is either too expensive or--if you want to spend the money--much less of a car than one can buy for the price.

....but your mileage may vary.

It will have a tough road to hoe in this down economy except among the greenest of auto buyers. ]]> Thu, 13 Aug 2009 10:23:28 -0400
I can buy a compact Volt that costs me $40,000 upfront and operates at 3 cents per mile (not counting the occasional few gallons of gas) if you believe GM.

I can buy a compact Prius that costs me $22,000 upfront and operates at 50 MPG or somewhere between 5 and 10 cents per mile (gasoline at either $2.50/gal or $5/gal) not counting the occasional plug-in electrical costs.

I can buy a conventional compact car comparable to the Prius for $18,000 upfront that garners 25 MPG or 10-20 cents per mile in gas costs.

I can buy a nice $35,000 mid-sized conventional US auto averaging 20 MPG and pay 13-25 cents per mile for gas & no electrical costs.

Over five years of operation, my initial and gas costs are as follows, assuming 10,000 miles of driving per year (mostly urban--50 mi per workday @ 200 WD/yr):

--Volt: $41,500
--Prius: $24,500-$27,000
--Conventional compact: $20,500-$23,000 (Note: Gas would have to cost about +/-$20/gal for 5yr/50K mi costs to equal a Volt.)
--Conventional mid-sized: $41,500-$47,500

The Volt doesn't seem to add up: It is either too expensive or--if you want to spend the money--much less of a car than one can buy for the price.

....but your mileage may vary.

It will have a tough road to hoe in this down economy except among the greenest of auto buyers. ]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/155163-it-s-looking-more-like-a-v-shaped-recovery?source=feed#comment-624189 624189
I won't take the time CautiousInvestor did above (he's always thorough and thoughtful) to refute the arguments in Mr. Lieberman's article. It's too ludicrous for further comment.....]]> Mon, 10 Aug 2009 20:42:03 -0400
I won't take the time CautiousInvestor did above (he's always thorough and thoughtful) to refute the arguments in Mr. Lieberman's article. It's too ludicrous for further comment.....]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/154922-treasury-market-rigging-john-jansen-vs-tyler-durden?source=feed#comment-621845 621845
Bad analysis accompanied by over-the-top verbiage. It's too bad, because Tyler DOES hit on some important points periodically, such as flash trading. He could do so much better if he tried. ]]> Sun, 09 Aug 2009 10:55:23 -0400
Bad analysis accompanied by over-the-top verbiage. It's too bad, because Tyler DOES hit on some important points periodically, such as flash trading. He could do so much better if he tried. ]]> http://seekingalpha.com/instablog/239719-james-quinn/21547-unemployment-rate-is-a-fraud?source=feed#comment-620249 620249
Yet experts then and now dissect these these absurd public statements through a variety of techniques. Certainly one of the most effective is to expose the inconsistencies in overlapping data sets to show the reality of the economic situation. This is what Mr. Quinn has done so well here, but it raises a troubling question:

DO WE HAVE TO BEGIN TO ACT LIKE SPIES TO UNDERSTAND THE HEALTH OF OUR OWN ECONOMY? I'm increasingly of the mind that we do.

Thanks for the good work, Mr. Quinn. ]]> Fri, 07 Aug 2009 15:09:04 -0400
Yet experts then and now dissect these these absurd public statements through a variety of techniques. Certainly one of the most effective is to expose the inconsistencies in overlapping data sets to show the reality of the economic situation. This is what Mr. Quinn has done so well here, but it raises a troubling question:

DO WE HAVE TO BEGIN TO ACT LIKE SPIES TO UNDERSTAND THE HEALTH OF OUR OWN ECONOMY? I'm increasingly of the mind that we do.

Thanks for the good work, Mr. Quinn. ]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/154281-market-cycles-a-look-at-the-historical-evidence?source=feed#comment-618619 618619 LOL), you're unlikely to see gains in the market.

I think most of those involved in the stock market are just trying to figure out whether the market (or individual stocks more likely) will be up or down in their particular investment timeframe. For HFT computers, that's micro-seconds; for most day-traders, that may be a few seconds to a few hours; for longer-term investors, that may be a year or more (time to take advantage of LT tax gains); and, of course, some just buy & hold on the assumption that, over time, the stock(s) will do better than alternative investments.

So, like beauty, what the cycle is and where we are in it is all in the eye of the beholder. ]]> Thu, 06 Aug 2009 16:29:20 -0400 LOL), you're unlikely to see gains in the market.

I think most of those involved in the stock market are just trying to figure out whether the market (or individual stocks more likely) will be up or down in their particular investment timeframe. For HFT computers, that's micro-seconds; for most day-traders, that may be a few seconds to a few hours; for longer-term investors, that may be a year or more (time to take advantage of LT tax gains); and, of course, some just buy & hold on the assumption that, over time, the stock(s) will do better than alternative investments.

So, like beauty, what the cycle is and where we are in it is all in the eye of the beholder. ]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/153549-geithner-loses-it-after-bair-refuses-to-yield-power-to-the-fed?source=feed#comment-617107 617107
Bair should be Secy. of Treasury at least; maybe even better as the White House economic policy person, dumping Summers into his own swill.

Unfortunately, rather than let Bair take on both Tim Tim and Lord Larry in either a cerebral or physical fight--and I think Bair could beat them both simultaneously--the White House is more likely to fire her for not playing well with others. If that happens, it will be a major loss for the administration and our country. ]]> Wed, 05 Aug 2009 18:39:27 -0400
Bair should be Secy. of Treasury at least; maybe even better as the White House economic policy person, dumping Summers into his own swill.

Unfortunately, rather than let Bair take on both Tim Tim and Lord Larry in either a cerebral or physical fight--and I think Bair could beat them both simultaneously--the White House is more likely to fire her for not playing well with others. If that happens, it will be a major loss for the administration and our country. ]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/153322-commerce-department-s-revised-gdp-shows-a-delineated-story-for-the-recession?source=feed#comment-613333 613333 econompicdata.blogspot...

But I'm going to take Mr. Galt's and Jake's point at the top of the conversation and expand it: Every change in methodology in official US Government statistics in at least the last quarter century has ended up making the current situation (i.e.--at the time of the change) look better than the previous methodology. So, to add to the GDP argument:

---How about a CPI index change euphemistically called "hedonics" (sort like "preferences") that tries to account for changes in taste--such that, for common example, people are just as satisfied with ground beef as with beefsteak? Result: Lower inflation.

--How about the end of the Fed's tracking "M3"--because it was "not useful"--unless, of course, you wanted to take a measure of the full size of the US money supply.

--How about the re-defining unemployment (U3) to ignore all those who had to settle for part-time work or were so discouraged they quit looking? (Keeps those pesky unemployment numbers down; don't want the riffraff to become informed & unruly)

I would like someone to show me ANYWHERE the USG has made methodological changes that have shown the then-current situation was worse than previously reported. In the immortal words of Clint Eastwood, "Go ahead, make my day."]]> Mon, 03 Aug 2009 15:41:52 -0400 econompicdata.blogspot...

But I'm going to take Mr. Galt's and Jake's point at the top of the conversation and expand it: Every change in methodology in official US Government statistics in at least the last quarter century has ended up making the current situation (i.e.--at the time of the change) look better than the previous methodology. So, to add to the GDP argument:

---How about a CPI index change euphemistically called "hedonics" (sort like "preferences") that tries to account for changes in taste--such that, for common example, people are just as satisfied with ground beef as with beefsteak? Result: Lower inflation.

--How about the end of the Fed's tracking "M3"--because it was "not useful"--unless, of course, you wanted to take a measure of the full size of the US money supply.

--How about the re-defining unemployment (U3) to ignore all those who had to settle for part-time work or were so discouraged they quit looking? (Keeps those pesky unemployment numbers down; don't want the riffraff to become informed & unruly)

I would like someone to show me ANYWHERE the USG has made methodological changes that have shown the then-current situation was worse than previously reported. In the immortal words of Clint Eastwood, "Go ahead, make my day."]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/152851-consider-yourselves-warned-this-bull-market-can-t-last?source=feed#comment-609591 609591 Fri, 31 Jul 2009 10:15:41 -0400 http://seekingalpha.com/news/market_currents/post/29030?source=feed#comment-604904 604904
Unfortunately, the latter released Seasonally Adjusted numbers show MOM prices declined incrementally.

I have to wonder if the order of the releases would have been reversed if the results had been reversed. Talk about manipulating the message!]]> Tue, 28 Jul 2009 10:09:36 -0400
Unfortunately, the latter released Seasonally Adjusted numbers show MOM prices declined incrementally.

I have to wonder if the order of the releases would have been reversed if the results had been reversed. Talk about manipulating the message!]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/151409-when-year-over-year-growth-doesn-t-apply?source=feed#comment-603663 603663
Quarter EPS(Q) EPS(trailing yr)
4Q07 $7.82 $66.18
1Q08 $15.54 $60.39
2Q08 $12.86 $51.37
3Q08 $9.73 $45.95
4Q08 -$23.25 (MINUS!) $14.88
1Q09 $7.52 $6.86
2Q09E $7.27 $1.27
3Q09E $7.45 -$1.01 (MINUS!)
4Q09E $7.73 $29.97
1Q10E $9.68 $32.13
2Q10E $9.34 $34.20

Please note that the sudden jump in annual EPS beginning in 4Q is based on a notion that "green shoots" will rescue us. I fear a possible repeat of 4Q08 when producers were far too optimistic about holiday sales.

4Q07]]> Mon, 27 Jul 2009 11:39:41 -0400
Quarter EPS(Q) EPS(trailing yr)
4Q07 $7.82 $66.18
1Q08 $15.54 $60.39
2Q08 $12.86 $51.37
3Q08 $9.73 $45.95
4Q08 -$23.25 (MINUS!) $14.88
1Q09 $7.52 $6.86
2Q09E $7.27 $1.27
3Q09E $7.45 -$1.01 (MINUS!)
4Q09E $7.73 $29.97
1Q10E $9.68 $32.13
2Q10E $9.34 $34.20

Please note that the sudden jump in annual EPS beginning in 4Q is based on a notion that "green shoots" will rescue us. I fear a possible repeat of 4Q08 when producers were far too optimistic about holiday sales.

4Q07]]>