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.

Pastimes : Clown-Free Zone... sorry, no clowns allowed -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Knighty Tin who wrote (266679)	11/11/2003 9:06:08 AM
From: zonder	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 436258

You could be right. Still, it takes a rare bird to actually boast he does not read books. Not to mention boasting that he doesn't really think much and just goes with his gut feelings. I was quite amazed Bush wasn't crucified after he said that. But then again, I guess a President that reflects on the pros and cons of invading a country was not in high demand at the time :-)

To: Knighty Tin who wrote (266679)	11/11/2003 9:12:45 AM
From: zonder	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 436258

Btw, this week's Belkin Report compares the actual job data with the seasonally adjusted data that the Labor Department has been happily touting around. It tells a quite different story. Especially looking forward, "the cumulative job gain/loss for the three month November/January period has been negative every year since 1960 (average 1.6 mn jobs lost" He points out that "Incidentally, the Labor Department does not even mention not-seasonally-adjusted data exists in their monthly payroll statement. We had to exert considerable effort to find it. They want you to pretend with them that job growth will be positive [this quarter] while it really will be negative - as if that is the proper way to approach statistical analysis." Party on, Wayne -g-