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 : Sioux Nation -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Raymond Duray who wrote (17016)	5/13/2005 1:35:51 PM
From: stockman_scott	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 361421

Some great comments on The Bolton Nomination -- from a Guardian weblog... blogs.guardian.co.uk <<...Pushing for the appointment of a hard-right extremist like Bolton shouldn't necessarily be seen as a move which comes from a position of total strength on the part of the Bush administration. Consider the military disaster of the Iraq occupation, America’s growing exclusion from much of world diplomacy and the fact that the US economy is held hostage by oceans of external debt, much of it in the hands of its rival, China. Grand gestures like the Bolton nomination may be deliberately calculated to mask a weakening US position. Opponents of US hegemony need not feel overly intimidated by the drive to appoint Bolton. But nor should we feel overly encouraged by the obstacles being placed in his way. The fact that Bolton – a man who objects to the very existence of international law, much as a mafia don might object to the very existence of domestic law - is even being considered for the role of Ambassador to the UN says something rather alarming about how far US politics has lurched to the right. Furthermore, whatever impediments they face, the fact is that the neo-conservative ultras, of which Bolton is one, still hold sway in the government of the most powerful state in all history. The fanaticism of these officials was spelled out in this chilling quote given anonymously to the New York Times: "We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you're studying that reality -- judiciously, as you will -- we'll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that's how things will sort out. We're history's actors... and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do." A picture is now emerging of a hyperpower damaged by neo-conservative over-ambition. Perhaps grasping too greedily at the opportunities of the post-Cold War era it has, far from “creating new realities”, begun to discover the cold reality of its own limitations. But whilst it may have been weakened by the last few years of extremist government, Bush's Washington still wields massive power over the rest of the globe. Its capacity to use that power malignantly still represents the gravest danger facing the world today. The ongoing struggle over the appointment of John Bolton should be seen in this context...>> democratsdiary.co.uk Comments posted by: diarist at May 13, 2005 02:09 PM

To: Raymond Duray who wrote (17016)	5/13/2005 5:36:57 PM
From: stockman_scott	Respond to of 361421

From Mish's Global Economic analysis site....comments on Bush's economic boom... globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com <<...Hmmm 90,000 of the assumed jobs were in Leisure and Hospitality. This category includes food services. Yeah, that is going to support a lot of purchasing power. How does the BLS go about guessing these numbers? Well it looks at the economy and says well historically we add such and such number of jobs in a "typical recovery" blah blah blah as if this train wreck has anything to do with a typical recovery. What is interesting about the assumed jobs this month is that the GDP for the 1st quarter of 2004 was +4.1% while the GDP for the 1st quarter of 2005 was +3.1%. Last April we added 225,000 jobs and this April in spite of a lower GDP we assumed a "mere" 257,000 jobs. Thanks to John Succo at Minyanville for pointing that out. Also interesting is that the BLS Household Survey showed an increase of 598,000 jobs. Does anyone really believe that? What did we do, add another 500,000 people selling stuff on EBAY as their job? In the Establishment Survey we see that leisure and hospitality gained 58,000 jobs in April, including 35,000 in food services and drinking places. Since June 2002, employment in leisure and hospitality has expanded by 823,000 with four-fifths of the gain occurring in food services. This trend is clear, we are outsourcing manufacturing and adding bartenders, waiters, and greeters at Walmart. Also note that according to BLS table A-12 (about the only place one has any inkling of what the employment situation might be, alternative measures of unemployment are still at 9%. That number is probably much closer to reality but with all the obvious shenanigans, who really knows for sure what the real rate is. Finally I would be remiss if I failed to point out the BLS reported that for the 31st month in a row, more than 20% unemployed had been out of work longer than six months. Is that consistent with creating 589,000 jobs?...>>