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 : The Epic American Credit and Bond Bubble Laboratory -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: mishedlo who wrote (26181)	2/10/2005 7:30:29 AM
From: russwinter	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 110194

546,605 in Dec, 631,572 in Nov, down 13.45%. 2003 is tucked in there on links on the same page.

To: mishedlo who wrote (26181)	2/10/2005 9:19:06 AM
From: russwinter	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 110194

Not sure how they construct these trade numbers, but with oil down in Dec from Nov. other goods imports looked pretty robust, at least in this in this version. The U.S. Census Bureau and the U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis, through the Department of Commerce, announced today that total December exports of $100.2 billion and imports of $156.6 billion resulted in a goods and services deficit of $56.4 billion, $2.9 billion less than the $59.3 billion in November, revised. December exports were $3.1 billion more than November exports of $97.1 billion. December imports were $0.1 billion more than November imports of $156.4 billion. Meanwhile back in the real world, from taking incoming TEU counts from the three major Calf ports we saw 613, 045 in Dec, vs 697,789. I guess what they couldn't make in volume they made up in price? <g> Or higher value goods? When I add in Oakland, Dec outgoing filled containers was 211,238, versus 228,568. Is the Bureau of Econoimc analysis putting out bogus numbers?