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: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (695885)	8/9/2005 1:55:46 PM
From: tonto	Respond to of 769667

Wrong. What a crazy idea. We need a substantial increase in the gas tax so we would use less.

To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (695885)	8/9/2005 2:35:45 PM
From: PROLIFE	Respond to of 769667

Remember a few years back when you libbers were saying that an increase in gas prices would destroy the economy? Well, economy is still rolling and according to the reports I have heard, consumption is UP, even after the increases.

To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (695885)	8/10/2005 1:14:47 AM
From: Hope Praytochange	Respond to of 769667

kennyselfproclaimedeconomist: are these numbers made kenny dizzy : Q2:05 Productivity Analysis -- Another Nice Surprise! by Joe Liro, PhD 9 August 2005 smra.com -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- --Stone & McCarthy (Princeton)-- Second quarter nonfarm labor productivity posted a stronger-than-expected seasonally adjusted 2.2% annual growth rate compared to 2.9% in the first quarter. When the second quarter's 2.2% growth replaces last year's second quarter rate of 4.5% growth, productivity growth over the four quarters ending in June slowed to 2.3% from 2.9% in the year through March. The recent peak of 5.0% annual productivity growth was seen during the 12 months ending in December 2003. The slowing of productivity growth during the first half of 2005 was largely expected as the economy has settled onto a strong but not an explosive growth path. While productivity growth rates in 2005 will fall well short of those registered in 2003 and 2004, they will hold up quite well for this stage of the business cycle. The 2.2% increase in second quarter productivity, combined with the reported 3.5% increase in Q2 labor compensation, yielded a 1.3% rise in second quarter nonfarm unit labor costs. Unit labor costs are now rising at a 4.3 rate over the four quarters through June; they have accelerated from a cycle low -0.4% seen over the four quarters ending in Q2:04. Today's release incorporates the three-year revision of the national income and product accounts. We expect economic growth over the second half of 2005 to hold more or less steady in a range of 3.5% to 4% rate which should be strong enough to sustain the gains in output per hour of about 2% or so; thus, we may annual growth of productivity in 2005 to slow a bit further from the 5.0% rate at the end of 2003 and the 2.6% rate of 2004 to about 2% in 2005. The 2.2% increase in Q2 nonfarm productivity was the result of a 4.4% rise in Q2 nonfarm business output produced by a 2.1% increase in private nonfarm sector hours worked. The continued strength in productivity growth reflected in the second quarter data is further proof that the U.S. economy is built on a solid foundation and it supports the notion that trend productivity growth has improved greatly over the past decade. While the very best of the productivity story is behind us for the rest of this business cycle, there remains a clear improvement in productivity growth which is very good news for the economy, and, in turn, the financial markets. Given the sensitivity of policy-makers and investors to the threat of inflation, today's data should assuage some of those inflation fears and as such should be mildly positive for the financial markets. The 2.2% gain in Q2 output per hour was above the Bloomberg consensus median forecast of a 2.0% median increase and our SMR forecast of a 1.5% gain. Q2 estimates range from a low 1.4% to a high 2.8%. The 1.3% rise in Q2 unit labor costs was well below the Bloomberg consensus median forecast of a 2.9% change and our forecast of a 2.8% rise. Q2 unit labor costs estimates ranged from a low 0.6% to a high 3.9%. UNIT LABOR COSTS Federal Reserve Chariman Greenspan in his recent testimony before Congress on monetary policy observed "with regard to the outlook for inflation, future price performance will be influenced importantly by the trend in unit labor costs, or its equivalent, the ratio of hourly labor compensation to output per hour. Over most of the past several years, the behavior of unit labor costs has been quite subdued. But those costs have turned up of late, and whether the favorable trends of the past few years will be maintained is unclear." The 2.2% second quarter productivity increase, combined with the reported 3.5% rise in Q2 labor compensation, resulted in a 1.3% rise in nonfarm unit labor costs during the second quarter. The 1.3% rise in Q2 unit labor costs follows a 3.6% rise in first quarter unit labor costs. On an annual basis, unit labor costs have risen 4.3% over the four quarters ending with Q2:2005. We see unit labor costs rising throughout 2005, but the increases are likely to be moderate enough to pose only a minimal risk of sparking rampant inflation. Non-manufacturing Sector Productivity Growth Factory sector output per hour in the second quarter rose at a solid 4.1% rate. Thus, we estimate that productivity growth in the non-factory sector of the economy expanded at a far less impressive 1.9% rate compared to an estimated 3.0% gain in non-factory sector output per hour during the first quarter. We estimate that productivity growth in the loosely-defined service sector increased by about 1.9% during the four quarters ending in Q2:05 2004, down from a recent peak of 5.2% seen in the four quarters ending in Q1:02. Productivity and Unit Labor Cost Trends As noted above, slowing productivity growth has the potential to create downward pressure on profit margins as unit labor costs trend higher. Such is particularly true during periods on uncertainty about long-term inflation trends generated by historically high energy prices. Fortunately, the productivity growth story remains bright. The Federal Reserve is in the midst of ratching-up restrain on monetary policy to assure that inflation pressures remain contained. Labor markets are tightening thus putting increased pressure on labor compensation and squeezing profit margins. Still-strong productivity growth allow firms to give workers higher wages without a knock-on effect on prices. Such behavior suggest that workers and businesses recognize the competitive conditions of global markets. The economy is in a position to post the strong growth needed to sustain solid productivity gains. It is necessary for the economy to grow at a 3% to 4% rates to generate solid quarterly productivity gains of 2% to 3%. It looks as if the economy is positioned to generate such growth over the coming quarters; thus productivity growth (as measured on a four quarter basis) should end 2005 at about 2% or so; below the 2.6% growth seen in 2004 and even further below the 5.0% growth rate of 2003. With productivity likely to slow, unit labor costs are seen rising moderately throughout 2005. Nevertheless, despite the anticipated deceleration in annual productivity growth and the concomitant acceleration of unit labor cost increases, to us, there is enough evidence to believe that the economy's long run potential non-inflationary growth rate is at least 3% and perhaps it is higher.

To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (695885)	8/10/2005 1:16:08 AM
From: Hope Praytochange	Respond to of 769667

kennymarkettimer: another head fake or fake head kenny ??

To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (695885)	8/10/2005 2:21:05 AM
From: Sully-	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 769667

The New York Slimes is at it again. "if a news outlet is going to report her current statements — even in an editorial — they have an ethical duty to report her earlier ones that directly contradict what she is saying now. Completely failing to mention those comments at all, anywhere in the paper, is rank distortion." NYT Distortion on Cindy Sheehan By Patterico on War Patterico's Pontifications The New York Times runs an editorial today on Cindy Sheehan: <<< Summertime often produces unexpected media figures, and this is Cindy Sheehan’s season. Ms. Sheehan, the mother of a soldier killed in Iraq last year, is camping out near President Bush’s ranch in Crawford, Tex., and says she won’t leave until Mr. Bush agrees to meet with her to discuss the war. There are many reasons for the flood of media attention she is attracting: she has a poignant personal story and she is articulate - and, let’s face it, August is a slow news month. But most of all, she is tapping into a growing popular feeling that the Bush administration is out of touch with the realities, and the costs, of the Iraq war. Ms. Sheehan’s 24-year-old son, Casey, was killed in Baghdad. She says she and her family met privately with Mr. Bush two months later, and she is sharply critical of how the president acted. He did not know her son’s name, she says, acted as if the meeting was a party and called her “Mom” throughout, which she considered disrespectful. Ms. Sheehan has traveled from her California home to Crawford, where Mr. Bush will be spending much of the month, in the hope of having a more substantive discussion. On Saturday, Mr. Bush’s national security adviser and the White House deputy chief of staff met with her beside a road a few miles from the ranch, but she is still insisting on a meeting with the president. >>> Nowhere does the editorial disclose that Ms. Sheehan once had a different account. In a June 24 article in the Vacaville Reporter, Ms. Sheehan described the meeting quite differently: “‘I now know he’s sincere about wanting freedom for the Iraqis,’ Cindy said after their meeting. ‘I know he’s sorry and feels some pain for our loss. And I know he’s a man of faith.’ “The meeting didn’t last long, but in their time with Bush, Cindy spoke about Casey and asked the president to make her son’s sacrifice count for something. They also spoke of their faith.. . . . “The trip had one benefit that none of the Sheehans expected. “For a moment, life returned to the way it was before Casey died. They laughed, joked and bickered playfully as they briefly toured Seattle. For the first time in 11 weeks, they felt whole again. “‘That was the gift the president gave us, the gift of happiness, of being together,’ Cindy said.” This story surfaced yesterday on Drudge — after the New York Times had run a news article [UPDATE: make that two!] that similarly failed to mention Ms. Sheehan’s previous praise for the President during the meeting. The story is now widely known — surely editors were aware of it when they wrote their editorial. I’m not interested in criticizing Ms. Sheehan. I can’t imagine what it would be like to lose my son, and neither can anyone else who hasn’t experienced it. But if a news outlet is going to report her current statements — even in an editorial — they have an ethical duty to report her earlier ones that directly contradict what she is saying now. Completely failing to mention those comments at all, anywhere in the paper, is rank distortion. patterico.com nytimes.com thereporter.com nytimes.com nytimes.com

To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (695885)	8/10/2005 10:59:02 AM
From: Hope Praytochange	Respond to of 769667

kennymarketexpert: another market head fake day OR your dizzy fake head ???

To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (695885)	8/10/2005 7:13:25 PM
From: Hope Praytochange	Respond to of 769667

Rich Liberals Pledge Millions to Fight Young America’s Foundation by Jason Mattera, Spokesman According to the Washington Post and the Los Angeles Times, the Left has summoned their deep pockets, big guns, and media stars to combat Young America’s Foundation’s successful college outreach program. The Washington Post ran a front-page story on Sunday, August 7 reporting that at least 80 rich liberals have pledged $1 million each to compete with conservative activism on college campuses and with activities in the Conservative Movement. Their end goal is $200 million; yaf.org The Los Angeles Times and The Washington Post both reported that billionaire George Soros started Campus Progress, a leftist initiative designed to instigate liberal activism in higher education. The Budget of Campus Progress was around $700,000 its very first year! The Washington Post also reported that Campus Progress has called on leftist heavy-hitters such as Bill Clinton, former Clinton Chief of Staff John Podesta, former “Crossfire” co-host Paul Begala and other players such as MoveOn.org’s Tom Matzzie to indoctrinate youth with leftist ideas, and Campus Progress has created a speakers bureau, which will allow college students to hear from the leading leftists. If you contrast the high-rollers that leftists have put forward to the small contributions Young America’s Foundation receives from thousands of middle-class Americans, it becomes strikingly clear that the Left is a bunch of ‘limousine liberals’. It’s not the lack of funding that plagues the Left, but their shopworn ideology and ties to intolerant professors and administrators. These folk religiously deny students the right to join ROTC, organize conservative lectures, or promote conservative values on campus. Despite the money and support from academia, the Left’s paucity of ideas will enable conservative activism to trump liberal activism anytime, anyplace, anywhere.