Guest Posted July 23, 2004 Report Share Posted July 23, 2004 Fed's economic view too rosy for some anal cysts Thu Jul 22, 2004 03:38 PM ET By Victoria Thieberger NEW YORK, July 22 (Reuters) - The Federal Reserve's latest economic forecasts assume a perfect blend of growth and inflation, but anal cysts suspect the central bank is heading for disappointment on both counts. "They are Goldilocks forecasts," said Lehman Brothers' chief economist and former Fed staffer Ethan Harris. If, instead, growth proves too cool and inflation too hot, the Fed might have to raise interest rates more quickly, even at the risk of slowing the economy. http://www.reuters.com/financeNewsArticle....storyID=5748712 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brown Suguaro Posted July 23, 2004 Report Share Posted July 23, 2004 Hi Icky! Good to see you back! I suppose you've been without power? Welcome home. B.S. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted July 23, 2004 Report Share Posted July 23, 2004 Bank of Canada Signals That It's Ready to Raise Rates (Update3) Listen July 22 (Bloomberg) -- The Bank of Canada signaled it's ready to raise interest rates as the quickening pace of economic growth, a rebound in exports and higher oil prices set the stage for faster inflation. ``As economies approach their production capacity, monetary stimulus must be removed to avoid a buildup of inflation pressures,'' Governor David Dodge said in Ottawa after releasing the central bank's Monetary Policy Report. http://quote.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=e...id=amxN4NujZTKQ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drano Posted July 23, 2004 Report Share Posted July 23, 2004 It's also possible that AG is more political than he would like to admit and wouldn't mind the market dropping during the Democratic convention. Today's action to withdraw a significant amount of repo money supports that theory - but a few days actions do not make a definite trend by the Fed. I don't see why the market dropping during the Dem convention would in any way be a plus for the Repubs. If the market is dropping, the Dems can make a big deal of it and point fingers at Repub policies. After all, who's in charge right now? If the market is going up when they're making their speeches, it's awfully hard to convince people that their accounts aren't going to recover and it's time for regime change. Or that they need Social Security to be stable. What am I missing here? (not being sarcastic, wondering about your rationale) Thanks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted July 23, 2004 Report Share Posted July 23, 2004 It's also possible that AG is more political than he would like to admit and wouldn't mind the market dropping during the Democratic convention.? Today's action to withdraw a significant amount of repo money supports that theory - but a few days actions do not make a definite trend by the Fed. I don't see why the market dropping during the Dem convention would in any way be a plus for the Repubs. If the market is dropping, the Dems can make a big deal of it and point fingers at Repub policies. After all, who's in charge right now? If the market is going up when they're making their speeches, it's awfully hard to convince people that their accounts aren't going to recover and it's time for regime change. Or that they need Social Security to be stable. What am I missing here? (not being sarcastic, wondering about your rationale) Thanks. I would think that Greenspan wants to engineer a big boner blast off a bottom of the Republican convention. Turn off the applause sign (booo) for the Dems and then turn it on (cheer) for the war guys. It sends a message. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted July 23, 2004 Report Share Posted July 23, 2004 Changing the rules........ Excerted: Meanwhile, the S&P is treading perilously close to what some anal cysts consider its technical support level of about 1,080. This has lately been the point at which traders have seen buying opportunities and jumped back in. If they've lost their appetite for stocks even at that low level, prices could be headed much lower. With these technical factors partially in mind, the Standard & Poor's investment policy committee on Wednesday voted to cut its recommended exposure to stocks, to 45 percent of a portfolio from 50 percent, and raise cash levels to 35 percent from 30 percent. http://money.cnn.com/2004/07/23/markets/technical/index.htm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drano Posted July 23, 2004 Report Share Posted July 23, 2004 Col.: I see your point. If it were me running the show (don't you just wish) though, I'd never give the opponents the opportunity to badmouth my policies when they have a national forum -- I'd keep things stable, ease them down toward the end of the convention (like you say, boo to the bad guys), and THEN as you say do the rocket blast for the Pub convention. That's why I'm puzzled that they wouldn't move heaven and earth to avoid having people stew in their own juices about their accounts over the weekend. Hold things together with baling wire for one more week, then blame market softness on the possibility that the Dems might win. But, who knows. Fortunately for the world, I'm not running things. Another thought: if you worry about your accounts now, and the market starts improving toward the end of the week, perhaps you won't be SO worried when you see your July statements. After all, the market always outperforms bonds, right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NWD Posted July 23, 2004 Report Share Posted July 23, 2004 Ernstime- Yes i do a long term core holding. Gold if it stays down is telling us deflation is around the corner if so it rocket at some point conversely if we get inflation (which I doubt) it will rocket sooner, if it was up to me I'd stay the course. Maybe deflation is just around the corner. But maybe, knowing that, they will try to fight it by causing a terrific inflation. We're being stampeded into a big war and, I could guess, that might be part of the reason for it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted July 23, 2004 Report Share Posted July 23, 2004 Oh, poo, poo, pitiful me. The rules change and I need...... Corporate Reforms Reassessed By Carrie Johnson and Jeffrey H. Birnbaum Washington Post Staff Writers Friday, July 23, 2004; Page E01 Nearly two years after Congress passed corporate reform legislation, the law still gets enthusiastic public reviews from chief executives. But behind the scenes, there is growing pressure to scale back some of its provisions. At a hearing yesterday to mark the July 30 anniversary of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, lawmakers and corporate officials raised the prospect of reopening debate as soon as next year on the part of the law that requires companies to assess how well their internal financial controls work, a provision that a study by Financial Executives International said cost some large companies more than $5 million each this year. Also under attack is a provision that prohibits companies from making loans to top executives -- an idea that picked up momentum after disclosures that WorldCom Inc. chief executive Bernard J. Ebbers accepted $408 million in loans when the company's earnings were being misrepresented. Business executives now complain that the law went too far by prohibiting relocation loans and insurance payments that are common in business. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/artic...-2004Jul22.html :grin: Must be working if execs are complaining. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drano Posted July 23, 2004 Report Share Posted July 23, 2004 Changing the rules........ Excerted: Meanwhile, the S&P is treading perilously close to what some anal cysts consider its technical support level of about 1,080. This has lately been the point at which traders have seen buying opportunities and jumped back in. If they've lost their appetite for stocks even at that low level, prices could be headed much lower. With these technical factors partially in mind, the Standard & Poor's investment policy committee on Wednesday voted to cut its recommended exposure to stocks, to 45 percent of a portfolio from 50 percent, and raise cash levels to 35 percent from 30 percent. http://money.cnn.com/2004/07/23/markets/technical/index.htm Bull in Bear's clothing. Another excerpt: In any event, if sentiment does later deteriorate and stocks do continue to sell off -- some anal cysts believe the market could still be in for a correction of 10 percent or more -- that may be a good time to jump back in. On the other hand, if stocks aren't going to sell off, now may be as good a time as any to get back in. "We continue to think the economy is expanding pretty nicely, and we still see earnings growth is healthy as well, said Andy Engel, senior research anal cyst at the Leuthold Group. "As a whole, when we take all of the indicators we're looking at, we would come down on the side that this is a pretty good buying opportunity." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hiding Bear Posted July 23, 2004 Author Report Share Posted July 23, 2004 It's also possible that AG is more political than he would like to admit and wouldn't mind the market dropping during the Democratic convention.? Today's action to withdraw a significant amount of repo money supports that theory - but a few days actions do not make a definite trend by the Fed. I don't see why the market dropping during the Dem convention would in any way be a plus for the Repubs. If the market is dropping, the Dems can make a big deal of it and point fingers at Repub policies. After all, who's in charge right now? If the market is going up when they're making their speeches, it's awfully hard to convince people that their accounts aren't going to recover and it's time for regime change. Or that they need Social Security to be stable. What am I missing here? (not being sarcastic, wondering about your rationale) Thanks. I would think that Greenspan wants to engineer a big boner blast off a bottom of the Republican convention. Turn off the applause sign (booo) for the Dems and then turn it on (cheer) for the war guys. It sends a message. Some conspiracy theories can be spun either way. I don't think the Dems can say much about the market unless it is way down - say 5% in one week. The Dems are also stronger supporters of the GSEs, which don't look too good right now. So they do have their fingers on some buttons. They probably don't want to dwell on short term developments that people will probably forget about anyway. Letting the market gently fall back and then blasting off into the Repub convention speeches would be more plausible. Whether the market can stand being played like a cat with a ball of yarn is another matter. Edit: Didn't see your post earlier. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drano Posted July 24, 2004 Report Share Posted July 24, 2004 "Whether the market can stand being played like a cat with a ball of yarn is another matter." BearHide, that is a statement I would think everyone could agree with. Especially Robbie the Bruce -- "The best laid plans of mice and men oft gang agley." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted July 24, 2004 Report Share Posted July 24, 2004 All of this administration BULLSHIT about american workers not being skilled enough for the jobs available really pisses me off. It's a total lie. Blame the citizenship for the failures of the Fed. It's so criminal. Talk to the MBAs, Engineers, Computer Programmers, E-Marketing experts etc. about that. Some of the best and brightest people in America are no longer able to work at the jobs that they ALREADY TRAINED FOR AND EXCEL AT LIKE NO OTHER PEOPLE ON EARTH. The bubble that Greenspan allowed to blow up out of all proportion led to an absence of qualified workers to fill the white collar jobs that were created by the deluge of Venture Capital that flooded the market. As a direct result of that, many people found themselves fully employable for very high wages. Some of these people were already highly skilled, but many had their skill sets improved immensely through on the job training in the heat of the mania. If I needed to launch the hottest new DotCom venture in the world today, I could find the most highly skilled people in America right here in Fort Lauderdale who are presently unemployed. Blaming the victims for the sins of the leaders is as low as it could possibly get. This issue of a (purportedly) underskilled U.S. workforce - insufficient to handle tasks of the (purported) millions of high-skill jobs available in the United States is a total lie. These high skill / high pay jobs do not exist. They are gone because the trend has reversed, and the bubble that Greenspan enabled is still deflating. I'm certain that there is a special place in hell reserved for these assholes that blame the American worker for the policies and the greed and the corruption that have resulted in the mess we have today. Architects, Electricians, Plumbers, Engineers, Brick Layers...all will face the unemployment lines in the near future when the housing boom busts. Even CUSTOMER SERVICE, which used to be a hallmark of American Corporations has been diminished to a level lower than pond scum. Ask Americans what irks them the most and they will tell you it is the inability to get a live human on the phone when things go wrong. Now if you can get a live human, it is a live human in India earning 1/3 less than the American who likely was forced to train them on their way out the door. So how do you explain to that 55 year old widow who won all of those customer service excellence awards over the last 30 years of service that her phone skills are of insignificant value today? She was the cornerstone of your company, and now she's worthless, because Greenspan, Snow and Bush say so. Assholes! Exactly what skill sets do you recommend for this future economy of yours Mr. Greenspan? Mr. Snow? Mr. Bush? Be specific. Wake up people. It's all a lie. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drano Posted July 24, 2004 Report Share Posted July 24, 2004 "If you have noticed that the household budget has gotten a bit tighter lately, you're not alone..... Suppose you took all households and divided them according to their annual income. The middle fifth of all households ? the middle middle class ? accounted for 15.8% of the nation's income in 1992. That had fallen to 14.8% by 2002. During the same period, the wealthiest fifth of all households saw their share of the nation's income rise to 49.7% from 46.9%" http://www.usatoday.com/money/perfi/column...or_x.htm?csp=14 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brian4 Posted July 24, 2004 Report Share Posted July 24, 2004 You couldn't make this stuff up from todays "National Post"-RicK Mercer and Justin Trudeau (son of former Prime Minister Pierre Elliott Trudeau) will host The Worlds Dumbest People Awards in Montreal On CBC TV tonite. People from all over the world were allowed to E-Mail their nominations and raison de etre. George W. Bush was nominated in all 30 categories but in the interest of fairness the Producers allowed his nomination in only the 3 categories where he received the most nominations..... I'm telling you I am gonna watch cuz you can't fool all the people more than some of the time-EH! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.