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.

Politics : PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Lizzie Tudor who wrote (498783)	11/26/2003 1:36:17 PM
From: Lazarus_Long	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 769667

And if it were less than average, you would call it a weak recovery. And if it were higher than average it would be a disastrous bubble in the making. Did I get that right? To put it bluntly, you and the Socialist Worker's Party are going to piss, moan, and whine regardless of what happens. Speaking of "spin". Untrue- the figures moving from 4.2 -> 2.x represent a REDUCTION in real earnings. WRONG! See table below. Then why, dear girl, do the FRB numbers show a steadily rising parabola? You think they are lying? Cooking the books? You HONESTLY think income is no higher now than in 1992? Are you serious? I chose those figures because they were discussed on capital report Because they show up on some TV windbag show, that means something? How about I'll pull some off Fox News? Will that do? Maybe those are the ones the treasury dept used to come up with the 8% GDP party we are experiencing! Those numbers were gathered and calculated the same way the ones for the Cinton Bubble were. Sorry if you think bubblenomics is normal life, but it ain't. NOW let's get down to FACTS. These are those FRB numbers with deltas computed from the date 3 months earlier- -in other words, quarterly. 1992-01-01 98.7 4.1 1992-04-01 99.3 3.7 1992-07-01 100.6 3.8 1992-10-01 101.4 2.7 1993-01-01 101.7 2.4 1993-04-01 102.3 1.7 1993-07-01 102.7 1.3 1993-10-01 103.0 1.3 1994-01-01 104.3 2.0 1994-04-01 104.1 1.4 1994-07-01 104.2 1.2 1994-10-01 104.9 0.6 1995-01-01 105.4 1.3 1995-04-01 106.2 2.0 1995-07-01 106.9 2.0 1995-10-01 107.7 2.3 1996-01-01 108.3 2.1 1996-04-01 109.5 2.6 1996-07-01 110.4 2.7 1996-10-01 111.3 3.0 1997-01-01 111.9 2.4 1997-04-01 112.2 1.8 1997-07-01 113.5 2.2 1997-10-01 115.2 3.3 1998-01-01 117.3 5.1 1998-04-01 118.8 5.3 1998-07-01 120.2 5.0 1998-10-01 121.4 4.1 1999-01-01 123.9 5.1 1999-04-01 123.9 3.7 1999-07-01 125.0 3.6 1999-10-01 126.5 2.6 2000-01-01 131.1 7.2 2000-04-01 131.9 6.9 2000-07-01 134.6 8.1 2000-10-01 135.9 4.8 2001-01-01 137.4 5.5 2001-04-01 138.2 3.6 2001-07-01 139.1 3.2 2001-10-01 139.8 2.4 2002-01-01 141.0 2.8 2002-04-01 142.4 3.3 2002-07-01 143.1 3.3 2002-10-01 143.7 2.7 2003-01-01 144.8 2.4 2003-04-01 146.3 3.2 2003-07-01 147.2 3.5 Do you notice that there are NO negative numbers in the quarterly series? Just like the numbers you produced? IN OTHER WORDS, THERE WERE NO INCOME DROPS ON A QUARTERLY BASIS FROM 1992 TILL NOW AND THOSE ARE DELTAS YOU CITED! NOT ABSOLUTE FIGURES! Sorry if you are disappointed that reality will not conform to your preconceptions, but facts are stubborn things.