hellava Oconomy we got going on here
Comments
-
Companies with cash to back up results are issuing bonds because interest rates are at historically low levels and as such it is giving free money to companies who can earn a greater return on it (i.e. growing revenues greater than expenses - which at low interest rates doesn't require much work to be able to do).2001400ex said:
Companies like Microsoft and apple are issuing bonds because their cash is overseas due to the tax structure.HoustonHusky said:
Ok. A few of many.2001400ex said:
Well you could start with something that's wrong in my post. You can assume a lot from the original post, however the only thing I can gather is that since growth has slowed, clearly or economy is not doing well.HoustonHusky said:
There is so much misinformation in this post not sure where to start. If you want to talk US economic growth...go look at GDP stats. The original post I'm assuming is referencing the relative increase in stock prices vs. actual earnings growth, and how there has been a growing disjuncture between the two. Turning it into a claim about the US economy is FS.2001400ex said:
It's year over year sales and earnings per share. In other words, it shows 5 straight years of growth. And yes of course growth is slowing, that's what happens after 5 years of continual growth.sarktastic said:By all means, please, tell us what you think this means. Your last entry indicates you're confused... again
It's funny, you'll say that Obama had the slowest recovery every, yet that chat indicates a smoking economy in 2010. See the hypocrisy? It's how you lie with stats.
Now.... Let's hear your interpretation. Give me about 5 minutes tho to make some popcorn.
BTW...love zerohedge. Fun blog to read, even if I don't buy all the doom and gloom.
I would not agree that there is a disconnect between earnings and stock market price. Look at EPS for the stock market as a whole, it's still at the lower end of the spectrum.
While EPS is not the only indicator of the economy, it's still a factor. If earnings are declining, then it's an indicator it a pending recession. But there is a lag, as there is with everything in a large economy. However the chart is still showing EPS growth. Clearly sarktastic can't read the chart.
- Its FS to think corporate earnings are solely correlated to only the US economy while in a global economy.
- Its FS to think the stock market, EPS, or anything like that is linearly representative of overall US economic growth (i.e. you saying "yet that chat indicates a smoking economy in 2010"). The stock market has historically grown at, what 7% rate, while the economy has grown much less. Numerous reasons, with one of many being that its partially dependent on return against the "risk free rate of return", and with interest rates rate now at historically abnormal conditions...
- Its FS to say companies borrowing money on the cheap and buying back stock isn't impacting EPS numbers (one of many links here). Why again are companies like Apple and Microsoft issuing a boatload of bonds when they have huge amounts of cash on-hand?
- Its FS to say we've had 5 years of growth when the quarterly growth rate in 1Q 2014 was -2.1%.
- Its REALLY FS to say EPS is on the lower spectrum...(link). No clue what the F you meant to say, but it wasn't that. Maybe you meant P/E ratio, but that's not and has gone up even as actual GDP growth has been rather anemic, so no luck for you there either.
- Its really FS to say the economy the last couple of years has been anything decent compared to where it should be historically:
(there are a million of these comparisons...none of them look good for the current "recovery".
I could go on but you should get the drift (or not...lets be honest here). Give Obama credit. He's grown one thing better than anybody before him. People on Food Stamps. Up 40 or 50% under him...I guess its something to be proud of...
IF the reason for these bonds was because of exposure in cash overseas, then instead of issuing bonds, they'd be investing in FX hedges to protect unwanted fluctuations in their cash balances. -
Where to start...I'll keep it shorter than I could:
1) "Nice reaching by saying I'm talking down on others.". Your previous comments: "If you are college educated with the right degree, then it's great. My field, unemployment is very low and businesses are begging for people. The part that is struggling is the people that did well in 2004-2007, the meth heads that made $15 an hour under the table framing homes."
I don't think I need to add anything other than the fact if they were making it under the table they wouldn't have been counted as employed to begin with (Brilliant thought there...)
2) I don't know if you know that you are lying or you actually believe the crap you say. Unemployment is not calculated the same way now as it was under Reagan...its changed, most importantly in 1994 when people looking for work for more than a year were taken out of the calculation (they weren't a big number back then...now under Obamanomics their numbers have grown dramatically). Add on top of that under Reagan very few people were removed from the employment roles due to disability...now it is, what, 20 million and growing rapidly on disability (and therefore not counted and not part of the workforce). Add to that there were far fewer under-employed people then there are now and....you end up with a sad sap lying about unemployment to carry water for Obama.
3) In your brilliance you are actually are strengthening my point. The stronger the recession, the more vibrant the bounce-back should be (i.e. look at the recovery after the double-dip in 1980/82, and look at the recovery after the recession in 1973). Keep arguing that this recession was worse...its just a bigger damning of how bad Obama has been for the economy.
4) Wow...you know a guy who could get a job, therefore the economy is grand. I don't know if I should be amused or saddened by that stroke of genius. I'll stick to the food stamp measurement, and for some crazy reason almost 50 million people are currently on food stamps. I'm sure all 46 million plus are happy you think the economy is "good". And under Obama the economy isn't changing to a tech economy, its changing to a part time fast food/service one. Joy.
-
1) show my whole quote, where I state that it's more complex than that but I'm on my phone typing this shit.HoustonHusky said:Where to start...I'll keep it shorter than I could:
1) "Nice reaching by saying I'm talking down on others.". Your previous comments: "If you are college educated with the right degree, then it's great. My field, unemployment is very low and businesses are begging for people. The part that is struggling is the people that did well in 2004-2007, the meth heads that made $15 an hour under the table framing homes."
I don't think I need to add anything other than the fact if they were making it under the table they wouldn't have been counted as employed to begin with (Brilliant thought there...)
2) I don't know if you know that you are lying or you actually believe the crap you say. Unemployment is not calculated the same way now as it was under Reagan...its changed, most importantly in 1994 when people looking for work for more than a year were taken out of the calculation (they weren't a big number back then...now under Obamanomics their numbers have grown dramatically). Add on top of that under Reagan very few people were removed from the employment roles due to disability...now it is, what, 20 million and growing rapidly on disability (and therefore not counted and not part of the workforce). Add to that there were far fewer under-employed people then there are now and....you end up with a sad sap lying about unemployment to carry water for Obama.
3) In your brilliance you are actually are strengthening my point. The stronger the recession, the more vibrant the bounce-back should be (i.e. look at the recovery after the double-dip in 1980/82, and look at the recovery after the recession in 1973). Keep arguing that this recession was worse...its just a bigger damning of how bad Obama has been for the economy.
4) Wow...you know a guy who could get a job, therefore the economy is grand. I don't know if I should be amused or saddened by that stroke of genius. I'll stick to the food stamp measurement, and for some crazy reason almost 50 million people are currently on food stamps. I'm sure all 46 million plus are happy you think the economy is "good". And under Obama the economy isn't changing to a tech economy, its changing to a part time fast food/service one. Joy.
2) 1994 the U3 was changed. I didn't quote U3. Nice try tho.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/greatspeculations/2012/10/16/why-jack-welch-has-a-point-about-unemployment-numbers/
3) look at the charts YOU posted. And look back at the great depression. When there is a financial meltdown, shit doesn't come back quickly. Consumer confidence is the primary driver is the economy. When you have politicians fighting over bullshit on both sides, it doesn't help the economy. Not to mention all the fear spread about obamacare that turned out to be false.
4) you are missing my point. The last 20 years we have slowly been changing to a tech based economy. If you can't see that, I can't help you. I didn't say he got a job, he has his own business. I said he heard Microsoft is hiring at 100k a year because they can't find employees that are qualified. Read for comprehension.
You keep blasting Obama for welfare and food stamps. Please explain one action Obama has made to increase food stamps. A link to an executive action or signing a bill passed by congress would be great. That's all public record.
-
*gurgle*
-
PressingRaceBannon said:*gurgle*
-
Irony
-
HypocrisyRaceBannon said:Irony
-
Fail
-
1) Now its your phone's fault. Anybody but your own fault of course...
2) Let's try this:
You: "Unemployment is using the exact same formula under Reagan"
The Forbes Article: "Most of the public only hears about one of them, the one the BLS refers to as U-3 (7.80% seasonally adjusted (SA) for September)." followed by:
" •In 1994, the BLS changed the way in which it counts “discouraged” workers for the U-3 index. If one is unemployed for more than 52 weeks, even if one continues to look for employment, one is dropped from the labor force. A smaller denominator with the same number employed leads to a higher employment rate and a lower unemployment rate. Ask yourself how much sense this makes in today’s world where the average unemployment duration is 40 weeks and there have been several years where unemployment benefits last for 99 weeks."
(add to that those on disability)
You: "I didn't quote U3"
In background from your link to the bls included in other comments about the data:
##CPS redesign implemented in January 1994, including questionnaire changes and updated population controls.
##Revisions to the Current Population Survey Effective January 1994, including a description of questionnaire changes (PDF)
##The CPS After the Redesign: Refocusing the Economic Lens contains the most up-to-date research on the effects of the redesign on major labor force measures
Reality: WTF 2001400ex? Are you really this slow?
3) So now its the Great Depression we are comparing against? Hate to do it against the other recessions you were previously talking about because your arguments don't hold up. Can you even breath while swallowing that much of Obama?
4) So now its that the economy has only evolved in the last 20 years, and the evolution of technology now (vs. before) makes it different. Before that everything was stagnant and all those other guys in charge had it much easier. *gurgle*
He's in charge and set economic policy. That policy has resulted in 46+ million on food stamps. Can't get much simpler than that. Glad to see you are back to the straw man argument of 'give me one bill that caused it all, and if you can't than none of it applies'.
I'll leave you alone so you can get back to *gurgling*...
-
This thread is missing the mic drop after the "I'm right ... you're wrong"
-
THIS economy is great if you don't suck at life.
-
HoustonHusky said:
1) Now its your phone's fault. Anybody but your own fault of course...
actually if you could read for comprehension, you'd maybe understand what I was saying.
2) Let's try this:
You: "Unemployment is using the exact same formula under Reagan"
The Forbes Article: "Most of the public only hears about one of them, the one the BLS refers to as U-3 (7.80% seasonally adjusted (SA) for September)." followed by:
" •In 1994, the BLS changed the way in which it counts “discouraged” workers for the U-3 index. If one is unemployed for more than 52 weeks, even if one continues to look for employment, one is dropped from the labor force. A smaller denominator with the same number employed leads to a higher employment rate and a lower unemployment rate. Ask yourself how much sense this makes in today’s world where the average unemployment duration is 40 weeks and there have been several years where unemployment benefits last for 99 weeks."
(add to that those on disability)
You: "I didn't quote U3"
In background from your link to the bls included in other comments about the data:
##CPS redesign implemented in January 1994, including questionnaire changes and updated population controls.
##Revisions to the Current Population Survey Effective January 1994, including a description of questionnaire changes (PDF)
##The CPS After the Redesign: Refocusing the Economic Lens contains the most up-to-date research on the effects of the redesign on major labor force measures
Reality: WTF 2001400ex? Are you really this slow?
http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t12.htm
Actually the average is 30 weeks, not 40. And more importantly, the median is 12 weeks.
I will give you that I was wrong on the formula that changed. However, my point still stands as it was not a material change in the formula calculation.
It doesn't matter how long unemployment benefits were extended for, the calculation has nothing to do with who is on benefits.
3) So now its the Great Depression we are comparing against? Hate to do it against the other recessions you were previously talking about because your arguments don't hold up. Can you even breath while swallowing that much of Obama?
Again, I'm just pointing to your original post. Look it up again.
4) So now its that the economy has only evolved in the last 20 years, and the evolution of technology now (vs. before) makes it different. Before that everything was stagnant and all those other guys in charge had it much easier. *gurgle*
Now you are putting words in my mouth, and misinterpreting what I'm saying. Just makes you look foolish. Actually it's embarrassing.
He's in charge and set economic policy. That policy has resulted in 46+ million on food stamps. Can't get much simpler than that. Glad to see you are back to the straw man argument of 'give me one bill that caused it all, and if you can't than none of it applies'.
Ok, then tell me what economic policy he set that resulted in 46 million people on food stamps.
So in the previous administration, the number of people went from 17 to 33 million (after taking over a decline in the number of people from Clinton). Then it increases 33 to 46 million, with a decline in the last 12 months. Benefits went from $15 billion to $50 million under Bush, then to $75 billion in 2012 and down to $70 billion in 2014, with benefits continuing to decrease in 2015. Why don't you call Bush the welfare president too? He took over a declining for stamp program, turned it into an expanding one. Which increased under Obama then has been decreasing the last couple years.
I'll leave you alone so you can get back to *gurgling*... -
Wow...it took you research to come up with that? I'm assuming there was lots of *gurgling* involved.
1) Your words, copied again so you can explain how you don't look arrogantly down on most Americans:
"If you are college educated with the right degree, then it's great. My field, unemployment is very low and businesses are begging for people. The part that is struggling is the people that did well in 2004-2007, the meth heads that made $15 an hour under the table framing homes."
(note, only 32% of 18+ year olds have college degrees, and I'm sure much less have what 2001400ex would consider the "right" degrees)
2) It was not material? Its one of several changes. You are the moron that linked to a website that publishes the following on the data in reports:
NOTE: Revisions to population controls and other changes can affect the comparability of labor force levels over time. In recent years, updated population controls have
been introduced annually with the release of January data. Additional information is online at www.bls.gov/cps/documentation.htm#pop.
And then were dumb enough to then compare data over different time periods. You can look at labor participation rate for 25-54 year olds if you prefer...its down at Carter-era levels (something for you to be proud of I'm sure).
Either way, your point that Obama's unemployment record can hold a candle to Reagan's is fraudulent, pure and simple, and you seem pretty butt-hurt with the 'yeah, your right but not really' response. Feel free to keep arguing it...as you have found so far its pretty hard when reality is against you. In your fantasy Obama can only dream while you are servicing him of creating the 20+million jobs Reagan created (and note that under Reagan the US population was only 2/3rds of today's and the US GDP was less than half of what it is today, making his numbers that much more impressive).
3) Huh? Its the first time the Great Depression has been brought up...not by me but by you (after your comparisons to other recessions fell apart). In the Depression there was a serious run on banks, something like 9,000 bank failures, and a bunch of other things that aren't in any way, shape, or form related to the last recession or Obama's shitty recovery afterwards. Keep throwing shite in hopes of something sticking.
4) Your words...I'm not typing them for you. You are the one whining that somehow this latest tech revolution is different than all the other historical ones, and that's why Obama's recovery has been so bad.
As for food stamps...as the Foo Fighters might say...one of these humps is not like the other...
And finally, its amazing how much crap you unsuccessfully throw to avoid the original point of the thread, which is that most of the S&P500 growth has been with companies investing both their earned money and issuing debt at historically low interest rates to buy back shares, with a majority (60% per the later link) of the EPS growth due to buyback and not organic growth. That's absolutely horrible, and is one of a huge number of damning facts about the current economy that point to Obama being pretty shitty at his job. Median income is down, and life isn't getting better for the majority of folks.
As far as the economy, there are hundreds of policies to point at, from the stupidity of implementing heavy business regulations (Obamacare) in the middle of a recession (pretty effin stupid whether you like the policy or not) to his regulations on coal, pipelines, etc. to not addressing/fixing Dodd-Frank, stacking the Board of Labor Relations with a bunch of Liberal morons that seem to like causing problems, etc., to walking away from a tax agreement that would have set broad reforms in the overall tax policy and provided a level of certainty to companies and investors. Not to mention his frankly illegal bailout of GM (changing the debt priority order to pay off the unions), etc. Its not one policy, its that businesses hate uncertainty, and that's all they've gotten out of Obama's administration for the last 6 years (except for the green energy folks who have been certain about getting their payouts...), which is why they aren't spending money and the economy isn't growing. If it wasn't for shale gas (something that started before him and which he's been trying unsuccessfully to tap down and it may get kicked to the curb if oil prices stay down) he really would have been Jimmy Carter II.
Its frankly completely stupid to think any one single policy could be pointed to as being the sole reason for 6 years of economic failure or 46+ million on food stamps...and it says something about a person that keeps asking for/thinking that there is one magical thing to point at to either affix all the blame to or to explain away. Look at the results...they have been horrible...and keep gargling away in your attempt to explain those away.
-
You're clearly not a classy conservative.TierbsHsotBoobs said:THIS economy is great if you don't suck at life.
-
Thread OVA.TierbsHsotBoobs said:THIS economy is great if you don't suck at life.
-
Romney was an elitist
-
All you really need to do to assess the economy is look at job growth. The month Obama took over we lost 800k jobs, it's been how many years since we had negative job growth? 5? Is the economy perfect? No. But it's definitely better than it was.HoustonHusky said:Wow...it took you research to come up with that? I'm assuming there was lots of *gurgling* involved.
1) Your words, copied again so you can explain how you don't look arrogantly down on most Americans:
"If you are college educated with the right degree, then it's great. My field, unemployment is very low and businesses are begging for people. The part that is struggling is the people that did well in 2004-2007, the meth heads that made $15 an hour under the table framing homes."
(note, only 32% of 18+ year olds have college degrees, and I'm sure much less have what 2001400ex would consider the "right" degrees)
Again, read my whole quote. And yes, if you come out of college with a liberal arts, communications, journalism, or history degree, good luck getting a job. That's been true regardless of the economy.
2) It was not material? Its one of several changes. You are the moron that linked to a website that publishes the following on the data in reports:
NOTE: Revisions to population controls and other changes can affect the comparability of labor force levels over time. In recent years, updated population controls have
been introduced annually with the release of January data. Additional information is online at www.bls.gov/cps/documentation.htm#pop.
And then were dumb enough to then compare data over different time periods. You can look at labor participation rate for 25-54 year olds if you prefer...its down at Carter-era levels (something for you to be proud of I'm sure).
Labor participation is low, what's your point? That means people are choosing not to work.
Either way, your point that Obama's unemployment record can hold a candle to Reagan's is fraudulent, pure and simple, and you seem pretty butt-hurt with the 'yeah, your right but not really' response. Feel free to keep arguing it...as you have found so far its pretty hard when reality is against you. In your fantasy Obama can only dream while you are servicing him of creating the 20+million jobs Reagan created (and note that under Reagan the US population was only 2/3rds of today's and the US GDP was less than half of what it is today, making his numbers that much more impressive).
Except for the fact that Reagan's unemployment was worse than Obama's. That's really gotta chap the ass of a Reagan lover like you. I'm not sure where you get 20 million jobs, but whatever.
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jobs_created_during_U.S._presidential_terms
3) Huh? Its the first time the Great Depression has been brought up...not by me but by you (after your comparisons to other recessions fell apart). In the Depression there was a serious run on banks, something like 9,000 bank failures, and a bunch of other things that aren't in any way, shape, or form related to the last recession or Obama's shitty recovery afterwards. Keep throwing shite in hopes of something sticking.
Wait, what? You don't recall how many banks failed in 2008-2011? The difference is the liberal policies created the FDIC and the FDIC negotiated bank sales to take over the deposits. Imagine what would have happened if we just let all the banks fail and everyone lost their money like in 1929-1933. There's a reason Bush pushed TARP.
4) Your words...I'm not typing them for you. You are the one whining that somehow this latest tech revolution is different than all the other historical ones, and that's why Obama'
you don't read well
As for food stamps...as the Foo Fighters might say...one of these humps is not like the other...
Yes, look at 2008 and how food stamps started to sky rocket. You think the shitty economy and people losing 800k jobs a month might have something to do with that hump? Lol wow. Just ignore facts will ya?
And finally, its amazing how much crap you unsuccessfully throw to avoid the original point of the thread, which is that most of the S&P500 growth has been with companies investing both their earned money and issuing debt at historically low interest rates to buy back shares, with a majority (60% per the later link) of the EPS growth due to buyback and not organic growth. That's absolutely horrible, and is one of a huge number of damning facts about the current economy that point to Obama being pretty shitty at his job. Median income is down, and life isn't getting better for the majority of folks.
Except companies still have record profits and record cash on hand. You are spending too much time looking for negative shit you are clearly missing the positives.
...f Labor Relations with a bunch of Liberal morons that seem to like causing problems, etc., to walking away from a tax agreement that would have set broad reforms in the overall tax policy and provided a level of certainty to companies and investors. Not to mention his frankly illegal bailout of GM (changing the debt priority order to pay off the unions), etc. Its not one policy, its that businesses hate uncertainty, and that's all they've gotten out of Obama's administration for the last 6 years (except for the green energy folks who have been certain about getting their payouts...), which is why they aren't spending money and the economy isn't growing. If it wasn't for shale gas (something that started before him and which he's been trying unsuccessfully to tap down and it may get kicked to the curb if oil prices stay down) he really would have been Jimmy Carter II.
Good attempt to actually answer the question,, I applaud you for trying. Do you really think it's Obama's policy that's creating more consumer confidence? Or do you think the discord in the media and politicians that's really creating the low consumer confidence? What do you think one of the driving factors to the economy of the 90s was? Don't you think Clinton and Newt agreeing on shit to pass bills with both conservative and liberal principals might have helped?
Its frankly completely stupid to think any one single policy could be pointed to as being the sole reason for 6 years of economic failure or 46+ million on food stamps...and it says something about a person that keeps asking for/thinking that there is one magical thing to point at to either affix all the blame to or to explain away. Look at the results...they have been horrible...and keep gargling away in your attempt to explain those away.
What I really want to know is this. Why are you so desperately looking for ways to prove the economy is shitty?
-
We have in this thread...looks like it's gone over your head. Companies aren't investing in growing like they should (the start of the thread), which leads to crappy job growth compared to what it should be (the middle of this thread), to you gurgling away trying to ignore, distract, apologize, and explain it away throughout the entire thread.
We should all just pretend everything is grand now...how dare anyone question otherwise. Why are you so desperate to find excuses for everything related to Obama? They should at least put you on the payroll for your efforts against reality. The thread was started on a point of fact you want to ignore, so why again are you trying to defend the indefensible? -
You should review the thread again. It started with the OP saying or economy was shitty cause EPS was growing at a slower rate, which is refuted. Race chimed in and stroked Reagan's ballsack, which I refuted. Then you started in.HoustonHusky said:We have in this thread...looks like it's gone over your head. Companies aren't investing in growing like they should (the start of the thread), which leads to crappy job growth compared to what it should be (the middle of this thread), to you gurgling away trying to ignore, distract, apologize, and explain it away throughout the entire thread.
We should all just pretend everything is grand now...how dare anyone question otherwise. Why are you so desperate to find excuses for everything related to Obama? They should at least put you on the payroll for your efforts against reality. The thread was started on a point of fact you want to ignore, so why again are you trying to defend the indefensible?
If you want to talk about companies not investing much, that's another matter. That part is true, demand is low, consumer confidence is low, so some companies are not making investments. Others are, depending on the industry. Others have the cash so they are investing with actual cash. Look at Boeing, can you say they aren't investing?
I didn't say "everything was grand." There are some negative aspects of this economy. Which I have started multiple times. There are some very positive aspects of the economy too.
You still didn't answer my question. Why are you trying hard to make the economy look like a disaster when it's not remotely a disaster? -
You didn't refute anything. You got your ass kicked all over the bored
Again
*gurgle* -
You are just pissed cause Obama is stomping your hero on unemployment.RaceBannon said:You didn't refute anything. You got your ass kicked all over the bored
Again
*gurgle* -
Of course the thread was about growth but still2001400ex said:
You are just pissed cause Obama is stomping your hero on unemployment.RaceBannon said:You didn't refute anything. You got your ass kicked all over the bored
Again
*gurgle*
And Houston did show that unemployment reporting has changed since Reagan but still
I never voted for Reagan
We know who has the hero worship here -
You brought Reagan into this and said to compare it to him. Which I did and you didn't like. I also showed you how the recession was worse during Reagan's term than in the 70s.RaceBannon said:Slow growth has slowed. Compare it to Reagan who you love to mock. That's right wikipedia didn't tell you about the late 70's major recession
Never mind
So you were really 0 for 2 in that comment. -
I said growth
You lose -
Yeah, you compared with data calculated differently (as the owners of the data itself warned which you ignored) to say something false. And are too dumb to accept it.
Just like you still can't understand or comprehend that EPS hasn't been great to start (hence the changing P/E ratio and discussion which went over your head), and EPS growth doesn't mean economic growth. Companies are investing, its just in buying their own shares because the macro-economy kinda blows (insert your continued *gurgling* here)
You want to know why it bugs me? Its because we should be in the middle of a big growth cycle, and instead we are barely growing and still running $500+ billion yearly deficits which is going to come back and bite us all...well, most of us. Now why don't you explain why you are *gurgling* so much for the status quo?
And you are still batting 0 for 100+ in this thread...sad thing is your either to stubborn or dumb to realize it.
-
-
OK then, how do you propose that we accomplish both, growing the economy and balancing the budget?HoustonHusky said:Yeah, you compared with data calculated differently (as the owners of the data itself warned which you ignored) to say something false. And are too dumb to accept it.
Just like you still can't understand or comprehend that EPS hasn't been great to start (hence the changing P/E ratio and discussion which went over your head), and EPS growth doesn't mean economic growth. Companies are investing, its just in buying their own shares because the macro-economy kinda blows (insert your continued *gurgling* here)
You want to know why it bugs me? Its because we should be in the middle of a big growth cycle, and instead we are barely growing and still running $500+ billion yearly deficits which is going to come back and bite us all...well, most of us. Now why don't you explain why you are *gurgling* so much for the status quo?
And you are still batting 0 for 100+ in this thread...sad thing is your either to stubborn or dumb to realize it.
For me, if you read my comments, I haven't said it's sunshine and roses. I did say however, that overall the economy is growing, deficit is reducing, all facts. Of course I want more growth, of course I want a balanced budget. But reality is, we will go through another recession before the country is back on track financially. That's just how the system works. -
Solid thread - but let it be said
ZIRP - fed funds rate @ 0% is not good for a country which was taken over in 1913
Forget fiscal policy for a second and focus on the monetary side -
We are not on the gold standard anymore.unfrozencaveman said:Solid thread - but let it be said
ZIRP - fed funds rate @ 0% is not good for a country which was taken over in 1913
Forget fiscal policy for a second and focus on the monetary side -
So having a federal funds rate of 0% is a good thing?
And why do you make it sound like growing the economy and balancing the budget are opposing concepts? That's pretty FS....
