Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Strategies & Market Trends : Booms, Busts, and Recoveries -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: TobagoJack who wrote (39432)	10/10/2003 10:14:43 AM
From: LPS5	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 74559

Hi Jay, I was specifically referring to the concept of "seeking truth from facts;" don't bona fide facts constitute - or at least imply - truth? LPS5

To: TobagoJack who wrote (39432)	10/10/2003 11:03:44 AM
From: AC Flyer	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 74559

>>... my, what have I done to deserve such caring attention from you?<< You are the leader of the BB&R doomsday band, an ensemble that plays one tune only, increasingly oblivious to the changing tempo of the dancers on the floor. >>truth from facts<< There are none so blind as those who will not see. Your perception of truth is filtered through those doom-colored glasses that you will not take off. Question the BLS data if you will, but on the basis of methodology only, not on the premise that they are being manipulated. I have seen oceans of bullshit on SI on this topic, which centers around the idea that the employment data are being manipulated because the final numbers are different to the preliminary numbers. The fact is that the BLS has ALWAYS released preliminary employment numbers, followed later by revised numbers. This is not manipulation. It is the inevitable result of integrating the results of two statistical sampling methods. The BLS uses two different but complementary methods to estimate employment: (1) the Household Survey, and (2) the Establishment Survey. Both methods have their quirks. The principal drawback of the Household Survey is that it samples less than 1% of all households - a large number of households, to be sure, but still a sample size that is subject to a large statistical error. The Establishment Survey, on the other hand, counts actual job losses/creation, but only at existing businesses, hence it misses completely those jobs created by new businesses. Since small business is the principal engine of job growth in the US, this is more than a minor quirk, particularly during periods of structural change in the economy, such as the one we are currently living through. I suggest the following additional homework on this topic: csfb.com This recovery reminds me greatly of the "jobless recovery" from the 1990-1991 recession. I have a very clear memory of the progress of that recovery, for reasons that I won't bore you with, and so can tell you unequivocally that back then it wasn't until 1994 that the US saw meaningful employment growth. It is uncanny how this recovery is following an identical path to that of the recovery from the 1990-1991 recession. The reason, though, is very obvious. Unlike previous recessions, the periods following the 1990-1991 and 2000-2001 recessions have been characterized by very strong productivity growth. The US has learned a new game, and so the job growth that inevitably followed previous US recessions is now offset by the job losses resulting from the post-recession high productivity. Hence there is no significant growth in employment until GDP has recovered sufficiently to offset the productivity drag. We are at that particular inflection point right now. You remember what followed 1994, right? Here is why your pet rock, TEOTWAWKI, will continue to remain just out of reach. The US stock market will surprise to the upside because the Boomers are nearing retirement and are rapidly losing their recently-acquired fear of stocks. Look around on SI. You can smell it. Yahoo up 150% this year (or whatever, I don't own Yahoo). The economy is following the same path as it did in the '90s, with broadband internet, wireless and related technologies powering another wave of economic growth. With a little less hysteria than in the '90s, though, which is good. We may still get the disaster you are endlessly predicting, Jay, at the end of this decade. So keep playing that doomsday tune. You will be right....eventually.