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 : CNBC -- critique. -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Yogizuna who wrote (12563)	11/11/2003 5:26:09 PM
From: Lazarus_Long	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 17683

Exactly what did GWB do to make AG lower the rate? Funny. The way I remember this is the the fed stood on the brake too long and the economy went into a tailspin, then it hit the gas. But if you have evidence that GWB pressured Alan, I'll listen to it. economagic.com economagic.com From the peak discount rate of 6% in June 2000, the Fed lowered to its current 2%. It was raised to 6% to restrain the bubble- -too late. The federal funds rate peaked at 6.01% and is now 1%. This is GNP across this period of time: 2000-01-01 9670.5 2000-04-01 9846.4 2000-07-01 9892.5 2000-10-01 9982.8 2001-01-01 10038.0 2001-04-01 10081.0 2001-07-01 10109.3 2001-10-01 10188.1 2002-01-01 10314.9 2002-04-01 10356.8 2002-07-01 10495.3 2002-10-01 10579.7 2003-01-01 10678.2 2003-04-01 10799.1 research.stlouisfed.org Here's total employmet: 2000-01-01 280976 2000-02-01 281190 2000-03-01 281409 2000-04-01 281647 2000-05-01 281898 2000-06-01 282172 2000-07-01 282434 2000-08-01 282724 2000-09-01 283022 2000-10-01 283310 2000-11-01 283577 2000-12-01 283830 2001-01-01 284069 2001-02-01 284289 2001-03-01 284504 2001-04-01 284758 2001-05-01 285002 2001-06-01 285271 2001-07-01 285545 2001-08-01 285825 2001-09-01 286114 2001-10-01 286398 2001-11-01 286659 2001-12-01 286909 2002-01-01 287150 2002-02-01 287348 2002-03-01 287569 2002-04-01 287826 2002-05-01 288064 2002-06-01 288330 2002-07-01 288600 2002-08-01 288875 2002-09-01 289163 2002-10-01 289437 2002-11-01 289699 2002-12-01 289947 2003-01-01 290179 2003-02-01 290371 2003-03-01 290591 2003-04-01 290846 2003-05-01 291082 2003-06-01 291347 2003-07-01 291615 2003-08-01 291888 research.stlouisfed.org Non-far employment, which shows the problem much better: research.stlouisfed.org 2000-01-01 130760 2000-02-01 130885 2000-03-01 131380 2000-04-01 131674 2000-05-01 131905 2000-06-01 131871 2000-07-01 131953 2000-08-01 132001 2000-09-01 132129 2000-10-01 132137 2000-11-01 132345 2000-12-01 132445 2001-01-01 132436 2001-02-01 132560 2001-03-01 132527 2001-04-01 132247 2001-05-01 132230 2001-06-01 132064 2001-07-01 131867 2001-08-01 131719 2001-09-01 131550 2001-10-01 131198 2001-11-01 130900 2001-12-01 130661 2002-01-01 130578 2002-02-01 130510 2002-03-01 130481 2002-04-01 130415 2002-05-01 130411 2002-06-01 130383 2002-07-01 130204 2002-08-01 130224 2002-09-01 130289 2002-10-01 130408 2002-11-01 130409 2002-12-01 130198 2003-01-01 130356 2003-02-01 130235 2003-03-01 130084 2003-04-01 130062 2003-05-01 129986 2003-06-01 129903 2003-07-01 129846 2003-08-01 129881 2003-09-01 130006 2003-10-01 130132 Now you can join Lizzie in fighting the gov't numbers if you want but your going to have to come up with something better, and prove it is better. AG is a Republican? Sure had me fooled.