This is a "recovery"?
midtowng
It's an amusing recovery.
"A recent poll by the Business Council," writes the Prudent Bear's
Chad Hudson, "showed that 56% of companies plan to either cut their
workforce or hold it steady and 53% planned on reducing capital
expenditures."
A recent Challenger, Gray & Christmas "layoff report" revealed that
employers anticipate cutting 102,315 more workers...that's 133% higher
than the average monthly job-cut figure during the last recession. And
initial jobless claims rose to their highest level in 4 months,
reports Bloomberg.
Yet Fed cheeses William Poole and Alfred Broaddus, in separate
appearances, both affirmed the recovery is right on track. "When
unemployment gets down below 5.0%," says fellow Fedster, Fred McTeer,
"then...I might be more willing to go with a preemptive policy [of
rate hikes]." (Economists polled by Reuters expect the Labor
Department to report unemployment has, in fact, risen to 5.6% today.)
An amusing recovery, indeed.
Meanwhile, "Wall Street job cuts highest since 1974," says a headline
on Bloomberg. "This is not just laying off entry-level folks, the
people just out of business school," Salil Mehta, a managing director
at Second Curve Capital, is quoted as saying, "They are starting to
lay off managing directors."
The Big Weasel
wrote:
Note: The unemployment rate rose, in fact, to 5.7%
**************************************
"If Laura Bush truly wants her gown to reflect the tone of this inaugural
she ought to shoplift it."
-- San Francisco Chronicle 1/4/01
Not dead, in jail or a slave? Thank a liberal!
To subscribe to Zepp's News , email zeppnewsandcomme...@yahoogroups.com
To subscribe to Zepp's Commentaries, email zeppscommenta...@yahoogroups.com
For the finest in liberal/leftist commentary, go to http://www.zeppscommentaries.com/zeppol.htm
To purchase a CD collection of Zepp's Commentary, 125 essays, go to
http://www.zeppscommentaries.com/form_to_order_cd.htm
Scott D. Erb
First time jobless claims last week skyrocketed to
460,000, though the number was inflated by those who
filed for an extension. Oil price increases also will
dampen capital spending, and IBM's announcement today
cutting its guidance suggests that the recovery so far
can't be trusted to persist. It might, but oil prices
can't stay up over $27 a barrell and tensions in the
mideast have to be reduced.
Of course, one might say a "W-shaped" recession is
appropriate.
midtowng
> The Big Weasel wrote:
> > On 6 Apr 2002 11:15:11 -0800, gjoh...@eudoramail.com (midtowng)
> > wrote:
> > >http://www.dailyreckoning.com/home.cfm
> > >Chad Hudson, "showed that 56% of companies plan to either cut their
> > >workforce or hold it steady and 53% planned on reducing capital
> >
> > Note: The unemployment rate rose, in fact, to 5.7%
>
> First time jobless claims last week skyrocketed to
> 460,000, though the number was inflated by those who
> filed for an extension. Oil price increases also will
> dampen capital spending, and IBM's announcement today
> cutting its guidance suggests that the recovery so far
> can't be trusted to persist.
There's even more to that then meets the eye.
Wall Street has had 5 straight quarters of declining profits.
The things to note about that is a) the Enron-effect (that even
those weak profit numbers must be suspect), and b) the last quarter
had probably 4% GDP growth and near record consumer spending.
In other words, things probably aren't going to get better
than they were last quarter and Wall Street _still_ had declining
profits. How can that be? Simple. Greenspan's dramatic interest
rate cuts helped keep weak companies afloat that should have
went under. That means that unemployment rates will continue to
go up, profits will continue to remain flat (eventhough Wall Street
has already priced in a return to good profit growth), and
after the enormous amount of debt that corporations and consumers
took on the last two quarters you can't expect spending to keep
up.
> It might, but oil prices
> can't stay up over $27 a barrell and tensions in the
> mideast have to be reduced.
It seems unlikely. Bush the Younger seems determined to invade
Iraq and unwilling to put the pressure on Sharon to negotiate
in good faith.
>
> Of course, one might say a "W-shaped" recession is
> appropriate.
And once again it will take the economists by surprise.
Scott Erb
"midtowng" <gjoh...@eudoramail.com> wrote in message
news:32a880f2.0204...@posting.google.com...
Yes, the consumer was kept going by refinancing mortgages and liquifying
property equity. If rates go up, that will cease and consumer spending
might dry.
> > It might, but oil prices
> > can't stay up over $27 a barrell and tensions in the
> > mideast have to be reduced.
>
> It seems unlikely. Bush the Younger seems determined to invade
> Iraq and unwilling to put the pressure on Sharon to negotiate
> in good faith.
He seems determined, but I'm still not sure if he'll end up not being able
to pull it off, it seems reality is stacked against him, and the heady days
right after 9-11 when Bush felt he could keep the whole world on our side in
a simplistic 'war against terror' are over -- things have *not* gone as
planned!
Martin McPhillips
>
> First time jobless claims last week skyrocketed to
> 460,000, though the number was inflated by those who
> filed for an extension. Oil price increases also will
> dampen capital spending, and IBM's announcement today
> cutting its guidance suggests that the recovery so far
> can't be trusted to persist. It might, but oil prices
> can't stay up over $27 a barrell and tensions in the
> mideast have to be reduced.
>
> Of course, one might say a "W-shaped" recession is
> appropriate.
You can only hope and pray, Scott.
Maybe capitalism will fail after all. Keep your hopes
up.
Martin McPhillips
Maybe there will be a run on banks too, Scott. Keep your hopes up.
midtowng
> Scott Erb wrote:
> > "midtowng" <gjoh...@eudoramail.com> wrote in message
> > news:32a880f2.0204...@posting.google.com...
> > > Wall Street has had 5 straight quarters of declining profits.
> > > The things to note about that is a) the Enron-effect (that even
> > > those weak profit numbers must be suspect), and b) the last quarter
> > > had probably 4% GDP growth and near record consumer spending.
> >
> > property equity. If rates go up, that will cease and consumer spending
> > might dry.
>
> Maybe there will be a run on banks too, Scott. Keep your hopes up.
Some people can recognize problems ahead of time and avoid losing
money (or even profiting from them). Other people, like yourself Martin,
don't want to pull your head out of the sand and see what is around you,
and therefore will wind up like an Enron investor.
Keep your hopes up Martin.
Martin McPhillips
>
> Martin McPhillips <jour...@nyc.rr.com> wrote in message news:<3CB249F8...@nyc.rr.com>...
> > Scott Erb wrote:
> > > "midtowng" <gjoh...@eudoramail.com> wrote in message
> > > news:32a880f2.0204...@posting.google.com...
> > > > There's even more to that then meets the eye.
> > > > Wall Street has had 5 straight quarters of declining profits.
> > > > The things to note about that is a) the Enron-effect (that even
> > > > those weak profit numbers must be suspect), and b) the last quarter
> > > > had probably 4% GDP growth and near record consumer spending.
> > >
> > > Yes, the consumer was kept going by refinancing mortgages and liquifying
> > > property equity. If rates go up, that will cease and consumer spending
> > > might dry.
> >
> > Maybe there will be a run on banks too, Scott. Keep your hopes up.
>
> Some people can recognize problems ahead of time and avoid losing
> money (or even profiting from them).
Some people *can* indeed recognize problems, and some people have
political wishes, like Scott. And some people think that they
have even the foggiest idea about things like the "Enron effect"
and base their profound speculations on them.
> Other people, like yourself Martin,
> don't want to pull your head out of the sand and see what is around you,
> and therefore will wind up like an Enron investor.
Actually, I'd probably be better off winding up like an Enron investor
than if I sat around and worried about the "Enron effect" like Chicken
Little.
> Keep your hopes up Martin.
Funny thing about hope, it springs eternal, but one should not hope for
the wrong things.
Jeffrey Davis
Somebody explain it to me. Enron shares were selling for
around 50 cents or so. Then, Forbes _still_ lists them in
their top 10 companies. Sounds like Enron was selling at a
preposterous discount.
(Obvious corollary to this post: what I know about finance
would fit on the back of my health insurance card.)
--
Jeffrey Davis <res0...@verizon.net> Does this bug you? I'm
not touching you!
midtowng
> midtowng wrote:
> > Martin McPhillips <jour...@nyc.rr.com> wrote in message news:<3CB249F8...@nyc.rr.com>...
> > > Scott Erb wrote:
> > > > "midtowng" <gjoh...@eudoramail.com> wrote in message
> > > > news:32a880f2.0204...@posting.google.com...
> > > > > There's even more to that then meets the eye.
> > > > > Wall Street has had 5 straight quarters of declining profits.
> > > > > The things to note about that is a) the Enron-effect (that even
> > > > > those weak profit numbers must be suspect), and b) the last quarter
> > > > > had probably 4% GDP growth and near record consumer spending.
> > > >
> > > > Yes, the consumer was kept going by refinancing mortgages and liquifying
> > > > property equity. If rates go up, that will cease and consumer spending
> > > > might dry.
> > >
> > > Maybe there will be a run on banks too, Scott. Keep your hopes up.
> >
> > Some people can recognize problems ahead of time and avoid losing
> > money (or even profiting from them).
>
> Some people *can* indeed recognize problems, and some people have
> political wishes, like Scott.
What exactly do you think Scott wishes?
> And some people think that they
> have even the foggiest idea about things like the "Enron effect"
> and base their profound speculations on them.
Well, I've got a pretty good idea and its not funny.
http://www.thestreet.com/markets/justinlahart/10007448.html
The gulf between what corporate America would like people to think it
earns and what it has actually been earning, according to the rules of
accounting, has never been so wide. Perhaps that's because if
investors started looking at actual bottom lines, rather than their
jazzed-up ones, stocks might be significantly lower.
In the past year, many companies have taken to writing off huge losses
and then asking investors to ignore them as one-time events. To take a
recent example, when optical-equipment maker JDS Uniphase (JDSU:Nasdaq
- news - commentary - research - analysis) reported results for the
calendar fourth quarter last week, it said it had lost 19 cents a
share on a pro forma, or operating, basis. But according to generally
accepted accounting principles, or GAAP, the company lost $1.60 per
share.
Here's why: The company asked that investors ignore a $1.3 billion
writedown in goodwill -- due, in part, for having paid too much for
other companies in the past -- as well as $73 million for shutting
down plants and laying off workers and $80 million for excess
inventory. These were nonrecurring items, said the company,
conveniently ignoring the fact that just six months ago it took
write-offs for the very same things.
[snip]
Current estimates suggest that S&P 500 companies will have earned
about $410 billion in 2001 on a First Call basis. On a GAAP basis,
however, they earned just 58% of that, or about $240 billion. A $170
billion difference.
Producing more than you can sell and being stuck with excess
inventory, for instance -- a mistake that business people have made
since, oh, at least the founding of Mesopotamia -- is now regularly
taken as a one-time event. Figuring out that you paid too much for
something is a one-time event. Costs associated with laying people off
are now one-time events. Bausch & Lomb (BOL:NYSE - news - commentary -
research - analysis) last week excluded $4.6 million from its pro
forma fourth-quarter numbers -- money spent in hiring a new CEO.
[...]
>
> > Other people, like yourself Martin,
> > don't want to pull your head out of the sand and see what is around you,
> > and therefore will wind up like an Enron investor.
>
> Actually, I'd probably be better off winding up like an Enron investor
> than if I sat around and worried about the "Enron effect" like Chicken
> Little.
How could you possibly wind up better off as an Enron investor
if you are broke? If you took the Chicken Little philosophy you
would have invested in gold and wouldn't have lost a penny over
the past year. Or maybe something conservative and invested in
a money market fund and got 3-5% on it.
>
> > Keep your hopes up Martin.
>
> Funny thing about hope, it springs eternal, but one should not hope for
> the wrong things.
One should also not hope for a continuation of something that is
screwed up because you will pay even more in the long run.
Martin McPhillips
>
> Martin McPhillips <jour...@nyc.rr.com> wrote in message news:<3CB31B63...@nyc.rr.com>...
> > midtowng wrote:
> > > Martin McPhillips <jour...@nyc.rr.com> wrote in message news:<3CB249F8...@nyc.rr.com>...
> > > > Scott Erb wrote:
> > > > > "midtowng" <gjoh...@eudoramail.com> wrote in message
> > > > > news:32a880f2.0204...@posting.google.com...
> > > > > > There's even more to that then meets the eye.
> > > > > > Wall Street has had 5 straight quarters of declining profits.
> > > > > > The things to note about that is a) the Enron-effect (that even
> > > > > > those weak profit numbers must be suspect), and b) the last quarter
> > > > > > had probably 4% GDP growth and near record consumer spending.
> > > > >
> > > > > Yes, the consumer was kept going by refinancing mortgages and liquifying
> > > > > property equity. If rates go up, that will cease and consumer spending
> > > > > might dry.
> > > >
> > > > Maybe there will be a run on banks too, Scott. Keep your hopes up.
> > >
> > > Some people can recognize problems ahead of time and avoid losing
> > > money (or even profiting from them).
> >
> > Some people *can* indeed recognize problems, and some people have
> > political wishes, like Scott.
>
> What exactly do you think Scott wishes?
Scott has been wishing for a recession -- no, a true "crisis of
capitalism" since Bush took office. Lightly disguised, he's
repeatedly made statements that show he prefers economic downturn
as just one means for getting more Democrats elected. That way
the United States can more rapidly be transformed into a true
social democracy, like his favorite Euroland, Germany.
I'm terrified.
> > > Other people, like yourself Martin,
> > > don't want to pull your head out of the sand and see what is around you,
> > > and therefore will wind up like an Enron investor.
> >
> > Actually, I'd probably be better off winding up like an Enron investor
> > than if I sat around and worried about the "Enron effect" like Chicken
> > Little.
>
> How could you possibly wind up better off as an Enron investor
> if you are broke? If you took the Chicken Little philosophy you
> would have invested in gold and wouldn't have lost a penny over
> the past year. Or maybe something conservative and invested in
> a money market fund and got 3-5% on it.
Well, my advice to you is: please, put it all in gold and keep it there.
It's the investment of a lifetime.
> > > Keep your hopes up Martin.
> >
> > Funny thing about hope, it springs eternal, but one should not hope for
> > the wrong things.
>
> One should also not hope for a continuation of something that is
> screwed up because you will pay even more in the long run.
I have no idea what you think you're talking about.
Scott Erb
> > Some people *can* indeed recognize problems, and some people have
> > political wishes, like Scott.
>
> What exactly do you think Scott wishes?
Some people can make an argument, others just fantasize that people are
wishing for bad things.
I wish for a spurt of intense economic growth, that will make my retirement
account prosper, that will bring money to the state coffers so we can get
larger raises, and that poverty will be wiped out via global prosperity.
Alas, when one analyzes the economy, one has to go by the facts and
evidence, not by what one wishes. I think a lot of people fantasize that
those critical of Bush somehow "wish" for a bad economy so Bush will do
poorly (or the GOP will do poorly). But I -- like you, I believe -- have
been talking on and off about economic problems for quite some time, well
before Bush came to office (indeed, I was pleasantly surprised by the
resiliency of the economy back in the late nineties, I really thought
problems would start earlier). I'd love to be wrong on my thoughts that
there may be some difficult times coming up. But reality doesn't bend to
our wishes, and everyone who has a pessimistic prediction doesn't want it to
come true.
> > And some people think that they
> > have even the foggiest idea about things like the "Enron effect"
> > and base their profound speculations on them.
>
> Well, I've got a pretty good idea and its not funny.
> http://www.thestreet.com/markets/justinlahart/10007448.html
>
> The gulf between what corporate America would like people to think it
> earns and what it has actually been earning, according to the rules of
> accounting, has never been so wide.
Having an accountant in the family I've been quizzing here on those things.
Her basic view is that the kind of companies her firm audits (small to
medium size) tend to be pretty honest and straight forward. It's the big
conglomerates and wealthy firms that can more easily create a maze that one
should watch. There are ways to read their statements to look for danger
signs, but something like enron would be really hard to see without inside
information -- so investors are at risk. In general, though, she's more
bullish than I am and that's one reason I still have a good chunk of my
portfolio in equities.
>Perhaps that's because if
> investors started looking at actual bottom lines, rather than their
> jazzed-up ones, stocks might be significantly lower.
> In the past year, many companies have taken to writing off huge losses
> and then asking investors to ignore them as one-time events. To take a
> recent example, when optical-equipment maker JDS Uniphase (JDSU:Nasdaq
> - news - commentary - research - analysis) reported results for the
> calendar fourth quarter last week, it said it had lost 19 cents a
> share on a pro forma, or operating, basis. But according to generally
> accepted accounting principles, or GAAP, the company lost $1.60 per
> share.
This is a danger to the accounting industry because an economy really
requires trust in their auditors -- and America's accounting standards have
been respected world wide. If they are found wanting, this could have
serious ramifications. Those things are easy to hide during a boom when
the money is rolling in, but harder to hide when the money dries up. If we
do get a "W" recession, I suspect this will get much worse.
midtowng
> midtowng wrote:
> > Martin McPhillips <jour...@nyc.rr.com> wrote in message news:<3CB31B63...@nyc.rr.com>...
> > > midtowng wrote:
> > > > Martin McPhillips <jour...@nyc.rr.com> wrote in message news:<3CB249F8...@nyc.rr.com>...
> > > political wishes, like Scott.
> >
> > What exactly do you think Scott wishes?
>
> Scott has been wishing for a recession -- no, a true "crisis of
> capitalism" since Bush took office. Lightly disguised, he's
> repeatedly made statements that show he prefers economic downturn
> as just one means for getting more Democrats elected. That way
> the United States can more rapidly be transformed into a true
> social democracy, like his favorite Euroland, Germany.
The Democrats are bought by most of the same corporations that
the Republicans are bought by. The only way that we are going to
become anything like Western Europe is if we an economic crises
similar to the Great Depression. And I can state for a fact that
no one, including Scott, wants that. Because everyone will get
hurt, both rich and poor.
>
> > http://www.thestreet.com/markets/justinlahart/10007448.html
[big snip]
> > Current estimates suggest that S&P 500 companies will have earned
> > about $410 billion in 2001 on a First Call basis. On a GAAP basis,
> > however, they earned just 58% of that, or about $240 billion. A $170
> > billion difference.
> > [...]
>
> I'm terrified.
That, in and of itself, is no reason to be terrified unless you
have all your money in the stock market.
I consider it nothing more than a trigger for a bigger problem
of the ongoing current account deficit. The Fed recently did a study
of recent current account corrections in industrialized countries.
The average level of CA deficit where a correction happens is 5% of
GDP. Well guess what? Our CA deficit is supposed to hit 5% either late
this year or early next year and the most common first symptom of
the CA correction is a big drop in the stock market.
Now that, in of itself, is no reason to be terrified either because
generally the pain of a CA correction is mild inflation, a medium
recession, and a 20% drop in currency value. All of it taking about
3 years to play out.
What scares ME is the enormous levels of debt that consumers and
corporations are carrying and the fact that our currency is the
default currency of the world. When our currency drops and we go
into a recession while being at war in the middle east things could
ugly unless we get some real leadership in Washington.
And I just don't have faith of that.
>
> > How could you possibly wind up better off as an Enron investor
> > if you are broke? If you took the Chicken Little philosophy you
> > would have invested in gold and wouldn't have lost a penny over
> > the past year. Or maybe something conservative and invested in
> > a money market fund and got 3-5% on it.
>
> Well, my advice to you is: please, put it all in gold and keep it there.
>
> It's the investment of a lifetime.
>
Actually I just cashed out my S&P index fund last month and bought
a bunch of gold. Gold is historically undervalued right now. I wish
I had bought gold on September 10th of last year.
But all commodities, including oil, are good investments right
now because they are so undervalued.
>
> > > Funny thing about hope, it springs eternal, but one should not hope for
> > > the wrong things.
> >
> > One should also not hope for a continuation of something that is
> > screwed up because you will pay even more in the long run.
>
> I have no idea what you think you're talking about.
I was talking about the Fed's monetary policy of the last 3
years or so. We should have had a nasty but short recession in
2001 in order to clean out the economy. Instead he flooded the economy
with money to keep it going and got a lot of people to borrow
cheap money. Cheap money and too much borrowing was already the
big problem of the economy. Greenspan just made the problem worse
and we are going to pay for it harder in the coming few years.
Martin McPhillips
>
> "midtowng" <gjoh...@eudoramail.com> wrote in message
> news:32a880f2.02040...@posting.google.com...> >
> > > Some people *can* indeed recognize problems, and some people have
> > > political wishes, like Scott.
> >
> > What exactly do you think Scott wishes?
>
> Some people can make an argument, others just fantasize that people are
> wishing for bad things.
You're an odd one to talk about "fantasy," Scott, given your
prolonged fantasy about "anti-statist socialism" of a few years
ago.
But as for this...
> I wish for a spurt of intense economic growth, that will make my retirement
> account prosper, that will bring money to the state coffers so we can get
> larger raises, and that poverty will be wiped out via global prosperity.
You often wish for contradictory things, which is part of your habit of
liking to hold as many positions as you can simultaneously, just in case
one of them turns out to be either the "latest thing" or even right.
So there's no problem with you on one hand rooting for you retirement
account, while on the other hand rooting for a prolonged economic
downturn that would help your socialist politics -- after all, what
that retirement account will do for you tomorrow, a nice German-type
social democracy can do for you today, or so you might thing.
I'll remind you of your most egregious contradictory position -- which
I've noticed you attempting to rationalize in recent months -- where your
longtime position of fretting and warning about the terrible dangers of
centralized power (a central theme of your longing for "anti-statist
socialism") is so roundly contradicted by your rhapsodic cheerleading
for the European superstate.
You're a funny guy, Scott, but don't read: humorous. Though you are
good for a laugh.
Scott D. Erb
midtowng wrote:
> The Democrats are bought by most of the same corporations that
> the Republicans are bought by. The only way that we are going to
> become anything like Western Europe is if we an economic crises
> similar to the Great Depression. And I can state for a fact that
> no one, including Scott, wants that. Because everyone will get
> hurt, both rich and poor.
Actually, western European states have an even stronger
big business presence than the US, since they have
fewer medium and small size businesses. Business
corruption there is also quite profound and potentially
very damaging. I think the US system needs reform, but
so does the European system, neither are doing it
right.
-snip-
> I consider it nothing more than a trigger for a bigger problem
> of the ongoing current account deficit. The Fed recently did a study
> of recent current account corrections in industrialized countries.
> The average level of CA deficit where a correction happens is 5% of
> GDP. Well guess what? Our CA deficit is supposed to hit 5% either late
> this year or early next year and the most common first symptom of
> the CA correction is a big drop in the stock market.
> Now that, in of itself, is no reason to be terrified either because
> generally the pain of a CA correction is mild inflation, a medium
> recession, and a 20% drop in currency value. All of it taking about
> 3 years to play out.
> What scares ME is the enormous levels of debt that consumers and
> corporations are carrying and the fact that our currency is the
> default currency of the world. When our currency drops and we go
> into a recession while being at war in the middle east things could
> ugly unless we get some real leadership in Washington.
> And I just don't have faith of that.
The debt issue is the really big question, and as far
as I know unique. Our private and corporate debt
levels are extremely high (though as a percentage of
GDP, government total debt is modest -- at least
compared to much of the rest of the world, which is of
course and problem in and of itself). This massive
debt has grown, keeping consumption and production
going, but setting up a kind of addiction to credit
that requires real growth to continue. If that snaps,
I don't think economists know what will happen.
Economies are complex and resilient, but that
complexity can also cause a crisis to snowball.
-snip-
midtowng
> midtowng wrote:
> > What scares ME is the enormous levels of debt that consumers and
> > corporations are carrying and the fact that our currency is the
> > default currency of the world. When our currency drops and we go
> > into a recession while being at war in the middle east things could
> > ugly unless we get some real leadership in Washington.
> > And I just don't have faith of that.
>
> The debt issue is the really big question, and as far
> as I know unique. Our private and corporate debt
> levels are extremely high (though as a percentage of
> GDP, government total debt is modest -- at least
> compared to much of the rest of the world, which is of
> course and problem in and of itself). This massive
> debt has grown, keeping consumption and production
> going, but setting up a kind of addiction to credit
> that requires real growth to continue. If that snaps,
> I don't think economists know what will happen.
> Economies are complex and resilient, but that
> complexity can also cause a crisis to snowball.
Now might be a good time to pull out some numbers.
Outstanding Consumer Credit 1992: about $700 Billion
Outstanding Consumer credit 2001: about $1,700 Billion
Total Credit Market Debt Outstanding 1995: $18 Trillion
Total Credit Market Debt Outstanding 2001: $30 Trillion
Financial Assets held by GSE's 1992: $500 Billion
Financial Assets held by GSE's 2001: $2,300 Billion
Financial Sector Debt Outstanding 1992: $3 Trillion
Financial Sector Debt Outstanding 2001: $10 Trillion
Current Account Deficit Jan. 1992: $5 Billion
Current Account Deficit Oct. 2000: $118 Billion
The market is remarkable for its ability to adapt.
However, that doesn't mean that millions of people won't
lose their life savings in the meantime.
Scott Erb
Thanks for those numbers, VERY interesting.
The Big Weasel
wrote:
GDP is what? $12 trillion, there abouts?
Equivilent 2 1/2 years national productivity in debt.
That's pretty scary.