Leading economic indicators points to growth in 2010
Harry Hope
From The Associated Press, 12/17/09:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/34461873/ns/business-stocks_and_economy/
Economic survey points to growth in 2010
Conference Board says six of the 10 indicators in index rose last
NEW YORK -
A forecast of U.S. economic activity rose for the eighth straight
month in November, signaling the economic rebound will continue next
year, a private research group said Thursday.
The Conference Board said its index of leading economic indicators
rose 0.9 percent last month, up from 0.3 percent in October.
The latest reading beat the 0.7 percent rise that economists surveyed
by Thomson Reuters had expected.
The Conference Board said six of the 10 indicators it uses for the
index increased last month.
______________________________________________________
Harry
edi...@netpath.net
year. One month from now, they'll be spent out anyhow from Christmas
shopping this year - which is why retail is always nil in the first
quarter anyhow; if people aren't buying stuff at retailers, the stuff
won't be manufactured. That's aside from how many now already are
jobless - and aren't even normally likely to shop much.
Bet the economy hits the wall between Jan. 1 and Jan. 15 - when,
realizing they didn't sell enough this Christmas selling season to
last out until the next Christmas shopping season, a lot of retailers
announce they're closing and drag down a lot more distributors and
manufacturers.
http://www.Internet-Gun-Show.com - your source for hard-to-find stuff!
lab~rat >:-)
puked:
Odd that they don't mention the six indicators...
--
lab~rat >:-)
Do you want polite or do you want sincere?
Man_of_Mind
>
> Harry Hope quoted from:
>>
>> From The Associated Press, 12/17/09:
>> http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/34461873/ns/business-stocks_and_economy/
>>
>> Economic survey points to growth in 2010
>>
>> Conference Board says six of the 10 indicators in index rose last
>>
>> NEW YORK -
>>
>> A forecast of U.S. economic activity rose for the eighth straight
>> month in November, signaling the economic rebound will continue next
>> year, a private research group said Thursday.
>>
>> The Conference Board said its index of leading economic indicators
>> rose 0.9 percent last month, up from 0.3 percent in October.
>>
>> The latest reading beat the 0.7 percent rise that economists surveyed
>> by Thomson Reuters had expected.
>>
>> The Conference Board said six of the 10 indicators it uses for the
>> index increased last month.
>
> Odd that they don't mention the six indicators...
Well, I've never seen Associated press present a serious
statistical analysis, more commonly reserved for studies
and work-groups, particularly when their web-sites say..
"THESE DATA ARE FOR ANALYSIS PURPOSES ONLY. NOT FOR REDISTRIBUTION,
PUBLISHING, DATABASING, OR PUBLIC POSTING WITHOUT EXPRESS WRITTEN
PERMISSION."
Which, of course, you would have known had you perused the
links to the Conference Board Leading Economic Index..
http://www.conference-board.org/economics/bci/pressRelease_output.cfm?cid=1
But, instead of using your time effectively and actually
learning something, you preferred to cast an aspersion
as if you actually had fscking clue..
--http://www.conference-board.org/pdf_free/economics/bci/BCI-Handbook.pdf
Harry, Hopelessly Jerking Off Over Sex Scandals While The US Suffers From The Worst Unemployment In 26 Years
Bad Economic News For America Is Bad News For 'RATS (""New jobless
benefit claims rise unexpectedly")
"New claims for jobless benefits unexpectedly rise to 480,000,
signaling labor market weakness"
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/New-jobless-benefit-claims-apf-2962567162.html?x=0&sec=topStories&pos=1&asset=&ccode=
WASHINGTON (AP) -- The number of newly laid off workers filing claims
for unemployment benefits unexpectedly rose last week as the recovery
of the nation's battered labor market proceeds in fits and starts.
The Labor Department said Thursday that the number of new jobless
claims rose to 480,000 last week, up 7,000 from the previous week.
That was a worse performance than the decline to 465,000 that
economists had expected.
-----
Getting worse every day.
Harry
lab~rat >:-)
<baron.v...@gmail.com> puked:
Wow, all that in response to my comment? And such a benign comment at
that. Why do I elicit such a reaction from you?
Man_of_Mind
>
> Man_of_Mind replied to the nonsense espoused by:
Ambitious ignorance, such as yours, should not go unchallenged..
--How's that job holding up as Sessoms Construction?
lil abner
Americans as economic activity or more swapping of money, in the service
economy.
Production and export of goods from America is what is required to make
the economies of Americans grow.
Printing more money and swapping money of a service economy is not logical.
Our economy was not and cannot be based on credit. Americans would end
up in a Feudal society with Global Bankers running the County for their
power and profits.
liberal
I once read that US GDP numbers include off-shored manufacturing if
done by a US company. Thus hopelessly inflating the numbers.
Beam Me Up Scotty
NOT to mention that it includes Government printing and spending.....
That tends to cause more problems than it solves, but it's counted as a
positive in the GDP numbers.
When you Borrow money it is a plus to your income or a Negative when you
spend it?
The existing equation: GDP = C + I + G + (X - M)
C = Consumer
I = Investment
G = Government
(X-M) = (Export - Imports)
Lamont Cranston
liberal
Well, it's not a plus. But a rational person would note that your Eco
101 "equation" does not include debt. The equation is a quick and
dirty description of an economy, meant to help introduce the subject
matter to real students of the discipline or be a crutch for the
mentally challenged. (I'll leave it to the reader to decide where you
fit there.) Real economic equations (ie, ones with true explanatory
power) do include the issue of debt and, therefore, multiple time
periods.
Beam Me Up Scotty
The numbers they toss out to you are from where?
> matter to real students of the discipline or be a crutch for the
> mentally challenged. (I'll leave it to the reader to decide where you
> fit there.) Real economic equations (ie, ones with true explanatory
> power) do include the issue of debt and, therefore, multiple time
> periods.
Do they account for the inflation that printing money creates?
Do they include the interest that must be paid by the government to
borrow money?
They lack the Government COST in the equation.
Lastly is why do they give us numbers that clearly don't include the
debt you speak of. If they were using the cost of Government their
positive numbers wouldn't be so positive. Since consumers and
investors and exports are NOT growing, how did GDP grow... Government
borrowing and spending?