Housing: RTC 2.0 Will Not Fix the Root Problem [View article]
To anyone who thinks that housing will protect them from inflation, just one question: Where's the rise in wages going to come from? You'll need that for housing prices to go up. Wages will have to rise. And that's not happening. Cost of imported goods may double, but wages? Nah.
So yeah, I agree completely with this article.
If you haven't called your congressman about the Paulson Bank Bailout, you don't deserve to be called a citizen. Get off your lazy butt and do it.
It's only 1.9% growth if you believe the 1.1% inflation number.
Do you beleive that that was the inflation number? Really? Seriously?
If, instead, the correct inflation number was, say, 2.5% (which is still about half the CPI number), then the growth was .5%. If, instead, the inflation number was 3% (which seems likely) then growth was ZERO.
PPI was 14%, remember, so 3% would seem to be a lower bound, wouldn't it?
Sort by:
Latest | Highest ratedHousing: RTC 2.0 Will Not Fix the Root Problem [View article]
So yeah, I agree completely with this article.
If you haven't called your congressman about the Paulson Bank Bailout, you don't deserve to be called a citizen. Get off your lazy butt and do it.
Good Chance for More Negative GDP Readings [View article]
How can you take these numbers seriously with an inflation figure of 1.1%? In this economy?
Is there any credibility left for these numbers?
1.1% inflation this quarter? With a CPI of 7% and a PPI of 14%?
Puh-leeze.
Odds Are, a Recession Is Coming [View article]
What if inflation is actually, you know, measured accurately?
What if it was actually closer to the 7% CPI? Or the 14% PPI?
What would your GDP numbers look like then?
Would real GDP be down 15% for the year? 20%?
Would we have had *any* significant growth since the Shrub came into office?
Garbage in, garbage out - and the inflation number is pretty much garbage.
Unless someone would like to defend the 1.1% inflation number.
Recession? Not This Year [View article]
Do you beleive that that was the inflation number? Really? Seriously?
If, instead, the correct inflation number was, say, 2.5% (which is still about half the CPI number), then the growth was .5%. If, instead, the inflation number was 3% (which seems likely) then growth was ZERO.
PPI was 14%, remember, so 3% would seem to be a lower bound, wouldn't it?
Sheesh.
Why the Housing Bill Won't Help the Housing Market [View article]
Also Florida, Nevada, Arizona, California (inland), North Virginia, Atlanta, Austin.
Not sure where the first commenter was posting from, but this is assuredly not a localized phenomenon.
Think Inflation in the U.S. Is Bad? Listen Up [View article]
And that's considered "inflation fighting"? It's not. Not until it's LARGER than the inflation number.
Google, IBM, Red Hat, Sun and the Digistan Connection [View article]