http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,343671,00.html

The 'Recession' Is a Media Myth

Tuesday , April 01, 2008
By John R. Lott, Jr.

During the 2000 election, with Bill Clinton as president, the economy
was viewed through rose-colored glasses. According to polls, voters
didn’t realize that the country was in a recession. Although the economy
started shrinking in July 2000, most Americans through the entire year
thought that the economy was fine.

But over the last half-year, the media and politicians have said we were
in a recession even while the economy was still growing.

Gas prices are going up. The economy is slowing. Talk of recession is
seemingly everywhere. While the majority of people rate their personal
finances positively, consumer confidence in the economy has plunged to a
16-year low, well below what it was during the last year of the Clinton
administration when we were in a recession.

A Nexis search on news stories during the three-month period from July
2000 through September 2000 using the keywords “economy recession US”
produces 1,388. By contrast, the same search over just the last month
finds 3,166. Or, even more telling, take the three months from July
through September last year, when the GDP was growing at a phenomenal
4.9 percent. The same type of Google search shows 2,475 news stories.

Over 78 percent more negative news stories discussed a recession when
the economy under a Republican was soaring than occurred under a
Democrat when the economy was shrinking.

A little perspective on the economy would be helpful. The average
unemployment rate during President Clinton was 5.2 percent. The average
under President George W. Bush is just slightly below 5.2. The current
unemployment rate is4.8 percent, almost half a percentage point lower
than these averages.

The average inflation rate under Clinton was 2.6 percent, under Bush it
is 2.7 percent. Indeed, one has to go back to the Kennedy administration
to find a lower average rate. True the inflation rate over the last year
has gone up to 4 percent, but that is still lower than the average
inflation rate under all the presidents from Nixon through Bush’s father.

Gas prices are indeed up 33 percent over the last year, but to get an
average of 4 percent means that lots of other prices must have stayed
the same or gone down. On other fronts, seasonally adjusted civilian
employment is 650,000 people greater than it was a year ago. Personal
income grew at a strong half of one percent in just February.

Despite all that, this last week, Barack Obama proclaimed “As most
experts know, our economy is in a recession.” Hillary Clinton made
similar staements last fall. Yet, as any economist knows, a recession is
two consecutive quarters of negative growth, and we haven’t even had one
single quarter of negative growth reported. The economy slowed down
significantly during the end of last year, but that was after a sizzling
annual GDP growth rate of 4.9 percent in the third quarter.

Housing has obviously been a big drag on the economy, but many other
sectors of the economy, such as exports, have been doing well, some
extremely well. For example, aerospace exports increased by over 13
percent last year.

The media’s focus on the negative side of everything surely helps
explain people’s pessimism. In a recent interview Fox’s Neil Cavuto
claimed this bias “is all part of the media’s plan to get a Democrat in
the White House.”

Indeed, research has indicated that media bias is real. Kevin Hassett
and I looked at 12,620 newspaper and wire service headlines from 1985
through 2004 for stories on the release of official government releasing
numbers on the unemployment rate, number of people employed, gross
domestic product (GDP), retail sales, and durable goods.

Even after accounting for how well the economy was doing (e.g., what the
unemployment rate was and whether it was going up or down), there was
still a big difference in how positive or negative the headlines were.
Democratic presidents got about 15 percent more positive headlines than
Republicans for the same economic news.

Yet, the hysteria created by this coverage can have another cost. It
creates pressure for government to “do something,” even if that rush to
do something actually ends up hurting the economy. For example, Obama's
promises last week “to amend our bankruptcy laws so families aren't
forced to stick to the terms of a home loan” will only further drive
down the value of mortgage-backed securities, making any unstable
financial institutions that hold them even more likely to fail. In the
long term, who is going to want to loan money when the contract can be
rewritten at a later date?

The news media have generated a lot of fear. Ben Stein has a point when
he says “The actual economic conditions are not that bad. I think if we
have a recession, if we have a serious recession, a great deal will lie
at the media’s feet.” Hopefully a little perspective will enter the
picture before even more harm is done.

John Lott is the author of Freedomnomics and a senior research scientist
at the University of Maryland.



--
Steve W.

"Steve W." wrote in message
...
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,343671,00.html

The 'Recession' Is a Media Myth

Tuesday , April 01, 2008
By John R. Lott, Jr.

During the 2000 election, with Bill Clinton as president, the economy was
viewed through rose-colored glasses. According to polls, voters didn’t
realize that the country was in a recession. Although the economy started
shrinking in July 2000, most Americans through the entire year thought
that the economy was fine.

Mary Rosh is at it again. Compare this with something Lott says below:

Despite all that, this last week, Barack Obama proclaimed “As most experts
know, our economy is in a recession.” Hillary Clinton made similar
staements last fall. Yet, as any economist knows, a recession is two
consecutive quarters of negative growth, and we haven’t even had one
single quarter of negative growth reported.

Mary is screwing the numbers at both ends. GDP growth actually peaked in the
first quarter of 2001. (NBER's revised date is now February 2001.) So,
according to his statement immediately above, that's when the recession
began in 2001. But now he's saying that the current recessionary period
doesn't meet the same criteria that he used for 2001 -- a pool of four sets
of data, of which GDP is one, that NBER uses to determine the peaks of
growth.

As we saw when he was here on RCM under hist pseudonym, Mr. Lott likes to
twist numbers to suit his agenda.

--
Ed Huntress

On Tue, 01 Apr 2008 13:07:13 -0400 in rec.crafts.metalworking,
"Steve W." wrote,
http://www.foxnews.com/

Please do not post OFF TOPIC articles.

The 'Recession' Is a Media Myth

Tuesday , April 01, 2008
By John R. Lott, Jr.

During the 2000 election, with Bill Clinton as president, the economy
was
viewed through rose-colored glasses. According to polls, voters didn't
realize that the country was in a recession. Although the economy
started
shrinking in July 2000, most Americans through the entire year thought
that the economy was fine.

Mary Rosh is at it again. Compare this with something Lott says below:

Despite all that, this last week, Barack Obama proclaimed "As most
experts
know, our economy is in a recession." Hillary Clinton made similar
staements last fall. Yet, as any economist knows, a recession is two
consecutive quarters of negative growth, and we haven't even had one
single quarter of negative growth reported.

Mary is screwing the numbers at both ends. GDP growth actually peaked in
the
first quarter of 2001. (NBER's revised date is now February 2001.) So,
according to his statement immediately above, that's when the recession
began in 2001. But now he's saying that the current recessionary period
doesn't meet the same criteria that he used for 2001 -- a pool of four
sets
of data, of which GDP is one, that NBER uses to determine the peaks of
growth.

As we saw when he was here on RCM under hist pseudonym, Mr. Lott likes to
twist numbers to suit his agenda.

--
Ed Huntress


Oh yeah, it's the media that has fooled everyone into believing that things
are ****ty. It has nothing to do with the $3.50 a gallon gasoline, or the
run up in prices for food, or all the stories of people losing jobs, or the
news about the huge losses in the financial sector and credit markets, or
the 12% decline in the stock market, or the continuing rise in health care
costs, not to mention all the foreclosures and the huge losses in the value
of everyone's homes. Yep, I think it's just a myth people are buying into
that things are declining. I mean look at the facts. Things are great,
right?

Hawke

On Apr 1, 9:46 am, "Ed Huntress" Yet, as any economist knows, a
recession is two
consecutive quarters of negative growth, and we haven't even had one
single quarter of negative growth reported.

--
Ed Huntress

As I understand it, GDP did not decline in the fourth quarter of
2007. I could not find any hard data for the first quarter of 2008,
but even if the GDP did decline in the first quarter, a official
recession could not be declared until after the second quarter showed
a decline. So it will be at least July before one can say we are in a
recession. And the predictions I saw on the internet are for the GDP
growth to be small but positive.


So I did not understand what you were saying.

Dan

On Apr 1, 1:03*pm, "Hawke" Oh yeah, it's the media that has fooled
everyone into believing that things
are ****ty. It has nothing to do with the $3.50 a gallon gasoline, or the
run up in prices for food, or all the stories of people losing jobs, or the
news about the huge losses in the financial sector and credit markets, or
the 12% decline in the stock market, or the continuing rise in health care
costs, not to mention all the foreclosures and the huge losses in the value
of everyone's homes. Yep, I think it's just a myth people are buying into
that things are declining. I mean look at the facts. Things are great,
right?

Hawke

Things are always bad for some of the people. They seem great for me
right now. Declines in housing and the stockmarket only count if you
are selling. I don't have a job, so can't lose that. Planning on
having a larger garden this year and selling what I can't eat.
And it looks like Hillary will not get the D. nomination. Can hardly
get better than that.

Dan

wrote in message
...
On Apr 1, 9:46 am, "Ed Huntress" Yet, as any economist knows, a
recession is two
consecutive quarters of negative growth, and we haven't even had one
single quarter of negative growth reported.

--
Ed Huntress

As I understand it, GDP did not decline in the fourth quarter of
2007. I could not find any hard data for the first quarter of 2008,
but even if the GDP did decline in the first quarter, a official
recession could not be declared until after the second quarter showed
a decline. So it will be at least July before one can say we are in a
recession. And the predictions I saw on the internet are for the GDP
growth to be small but positive.


So I did not understand what you were saying.

What you said there is accurate; recessions can only be declared accurately
after the revised figures for GDP come in, which often is a year or more
later. The basic definition is that two sequential quarters of declining GDP
indicate a recession.

But that's an academic definition, and only one of several. In fact, there
are four criteria for a recession that are used by the US government.

That's an aside, however. What I was commenting on was that Lott used two
different explanations of recession -- one to indicate that the 2001
recession actually started earlier than claimed, and a different one to
indicate we aren't in a recession now. As we've seen from him before (and as
some of his fellow econometricians have pointed out in the past), he's using
a sleight-of-hand, switching from one definition to another, to make two
separate cases that should be measured identically if his point is valid.

Aside from that, economists use a variety of current indicators that
correspond well to the state of the GDP and they are handicapping the
question of whether we're now in a recession. Most seem to think we are, or
that we're at the tipping point and on a downward slope. I haven't seen what
the Fed has been saying about it lately so I don't know what the official
position is.

--
Ed Huntress

On Apr 2, 1:23 pm, F. George McDuffee gmcduf...@mcduffee-
associates.us wrote:
On Wed, 2 Apr 2008 13:10:00 -0400, "Ed Huntress"

wrote:
I haven't seen what
the Fed has been saying about it lately so I don't know what the official
position is.

=============
In your opinion, how much credibility does the data from the Fed,
BLS, etc. now have?

Unka' George [George McDuffee]
-------------------------------------------
He that will not apply new remedies,
must expect new evils:
for Time is the greatest innovator: and
if Time, of course, alter things to the worse,
and wisdom and counsel shall not alter them to the better,
what shall be the end?

Francis Bacon (1561-1626), English philosopher, essayist, statesman.
Essays, "Of Innovations" (1597-1625).

April 2, 2008, 12:51PM EST text size: TT
What Bernanke Didn't Say
In his first congressional appearance since intervening to prop up
Bear Stearns, the Fed chief refused to call it a bailout--nor would he
say there's a recession
by Peter Coy

Two words are hard to drag out of Ben Bernanke's mouth: recession and
bailout. The Federal Reserve chairman predicted on Apr. 2 in prepared
testimony to the congressional Joint Economic Committee that the
economy "will not grow much, if at all, over the first half of 2008
and could even contract slightly." What he didn't say is that the U.S.
was in a recession.

As for the Fed's financing to help JPMorgan Chase's takeover of Bear
Stearns, Bernanke said "Sudden failure of Bear Stearns likely would
have led to a chaotic unwinding of positions in those markets and
could have severely shaken confidence." But he didn't call it a
bailout.

Bernanke faced tough questioning from senators and representatives in
his first appearance before Congress since the Fed arranged the
emergency weekend agreement by JPMorgan Chase (JPM) to take over Bear
Stearns (BSC) on Mar. 16. The Federal Reserve supplied $29 billion to
the deal in exchange for $30 billion worth of hard-to-sell assets
owned by Bear Stearns, such as mortgage-backed securities.

In response to a question from the committee chairman, Senator Charles
Schumer (D-N.Y.), Bernanke said, "A recession is possible. But a
recession is a technical term defined by the National Bureau of
Economic Research depending on data which will be available quite a
while from now, so I'm not yet ready to say whether or not the U.S.
economy will face such a situation."

Most of the questions concerned the Bear deal, not the economy, which
many economists believe has already entered a recession. Several
committee members asked, in effect, why the Fed appeared to be bailing
out Wall Street but not Main Street.

An Extraordinary Action
Bernanke had three answers: First, he said, "A default by Bear Stearns
could have been severe and extremely difficult to contain." Second, he
said, the Fed expects to get all of its $29 billion back. Third, he
agreed that action to help homeowners is essential, but that's a job
for Congress, not the Fed.

There were a few flashes of drama. One came in response to a question
by Senator Sam Brownback (R-Kan.) about why Bernanke intervened to
stop Bear from failing. Brownback asked whether other failing firms
might get similar treatment. Bernanke said he "thought long and hard"
before intervening, and called it an extraordinary action. He said he
hoped he would never have to do it again.

Schumer peppered Bernanke with questions about the Bear bailout and
then juxtaposed that with what he believed was a lack of help to
millions of people at risk of losing their homes. "I hope that you
will use your position to jawbone this administration to get behind
the housing relief effort before Congress," Schumer said. "Addressing
the housing crisis head-on will do as much to instill confidence in
the markets as lowering interest rates or bolstering regulatory
oversight of wayward mortgage lenders and financial institutions. We
need to do all of it."

Market Reaction Mixed
Later in the hearing, Senator Edward Kennedy (D-Mass.) raised his
voice, repeatedly asking Bernanke to give his views on fiscal measures
that could be taken by Congress and the Bush Administration. Bernanke
declined to do so.

Market reaction to Bernanke's testimony was mixed. Stocks initially
dipped, then rose slightly. Economists at Bear Stearns noted Bernanke
"downplayed risks [of] inflation," which they interpreted as "leaving
the door open to a further rate cut on Apr. 30." They speculated that
it would be only a quarter-percentage-point cut, however.

Bernanke said he expects more economic growth in the second half of
this year and into 2009, helped by the government's $168 billion
stimulus package of tax rebates for people and tax breaks for
businesses as well as the Fed's aggressive rate reductions. "Much
necessary economic and financial adjustment has already taken place,"
he said, and monetary and fiscal policies are in place "that should
support a return to growth in the second half of this year and next
year."

"F. George McDuffee" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 2 Apr 2008 13:10:00 -0400, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:

I haven't seen what
the Fed has been saying about it lately so I don't know what the official
position is.
=============
In your opinion, how much credibility does the data from the Fed,
BLS, etc. now have?

Which data? As long as you understand how the data is delimited and defined,
and as long as you read the methodology, I think you can rely on all of the
major indicators. I know from experience that some of the minor data
collected from the BEA is not accurate, but you would know that if you read
the methodology for collecting it. For their purposes, using it as a minute
piece of a cumulative statistic, it was fine. For my purposes (writing about
world trade) it was not. But we fixed that. The BEA was ready to change
their data-gathering method for that piece of the pie, and we just prodded
them a bit.

A bigger issue is the meaning of common indicators, such as GDP. You have to
know what it's really telling you, and which conclusions you can and can't
draw from it. The reason for this is that the indicators are created for one
purpose, but they often get used for purposes for which they aren't suited.

--
Ed Huntress

"Too_Many_Tools" wrote in message
...
On Apr 2, 1:23 pm, F. George McDuffee gmcduf...@mcduffee-
associates.us wrote:
On Wed, 2 Apr 2008 13:10:00 -0400, "Ed Huntress"

wrote:
I haven't seen what
the Fed has been saying about it lately so I don't know what the
official
position is.

=============
In your opinion, how much credibility does the data from the Fed,
BLS, etc. now have?

Unka' George [George McDuffee]
-------------------------------------------
He that will not apply new remedies,
must expect new evils:
for Time is the greatest innovator: and
if Time, of course, alter things to the worse,
and wisdom and counsel shall not alter them to the better,
what shall be the end?

Francis Bacon (1561-1626), English philosopher, essayist, statesman.
Essays, "Of Innovations" (1597-1625).

April 2, 2008, 12:51PM EST text size: TT
What Bernanke Didn't Say
In his first congressional appearance since intervening to prop up
Bear Stearns, the Fed chief refused to call it a bailout--nor would he
say there's a recession
by Peter Coy

snip

And how is that Business Week article a response to George's question?

--
Ed Huntress

On Wed, 2 Apr 2008 09:57:26 -0700 (PDT), "
wrote:

On Apr 1, 9:46 am, "Ed Huntress" Yet, as any economist knows, a
recession is two
consecutive quarters of negative growth, and we haven't even had one
single quarter of negative growth reported.

--
Ed Huntress

As I understand it, GDP did not decline in the fourth quarter of
2007. I could not find any hard data for the first quarter of 2008,
but even if the GDP did decline in the first quarter, a official
recession could not be declared until after the second quarter showed
a decline. So it will be at least July before one can say we are in a
recession. And the predictions I saw on the internet are for the GDP
growth to be small but positive.


So I did not understand what you were saying.

Dan
================
He means the water is pouring in through the holes at the other
end of the boat from where he is setting....


Unka' George [George McDuffee]
-------------------------------------------
He that will not apply new remedies,
must expect new evils:
for Time is the greatest innovator: and
if Time, of course, alter things to the worse,
and wisdom and counsel shall not alter them to the better,
what shall be the end?

Francis Bacon (1561-1626), English philosopher, essayist, statesman.
Essays, "Of Innovations" (1597-1625).

On Wed, 2 Apr 2008 13:10:00 -0400, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:

I haven't seen what
the Fed has been saying about it lately so I don't know what the official
position is.
=============
In your opinion, how much credibility does the data from the Fed,
BLS, etc. now have?


Unka' George [George McDuffee]
-------------------------------------------
He that will not apply new remedies,
must expect new evils:
for Time is the greatest innovator: and
if Time, of course, alter things to the worse,
and wisdom and counsel shall not alter them to the better,
what shall be the end?

Francis Bacon (1561-1626), English philosopher, essayist, statesman.
Essays, "Of Innovations" (1597-1625).

"F. George McDuffee" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 2 Apr 2008 11:50:49 -0700 (PDT), Too_Many_Tools
wrote:

April 2, 2008, 12:51PM EST text size: TT
What Bernanke Didn't Say
In his first congressional appearance since intervening to prop up
Bear Stearns, the Fed chief refused to call it a bailout--nor would he
say there's a recession
by Peter Coy

Two words are hard to drag out of Ben Bernanke's mouth: recession and
bailout.
snip
In response to a question from the committee chairman, Senator Charles
Schumer (D-N.Y.), Bernanke said, "A recession is possible. But a
recession is a technical term defined by the National Bureau of
Economic Research depending on data which will be available quite a
while from now, so I'm not yet ready to say whether or not the U.S.
economy will face such a situation."

Most of the questions concerned the Bear deal, not the economy, which
many economists believe has already entered a recession. Several
committee members asked, in effect, why the Fed appeared to be bailing
out Wall Street but not Main Street.
snip
==============
IMNSHO, it is the "too big to fail" rationale in action, which in
this instance may well have been correct. [B/S had written 10
Trillion dollars of CDSs...]

What is not answered, either in Bernanke's response nor Paulson's
proposed "overhaul" of the securities regulations [which appears
to weaken, not strengthen many of the oversights/controls] is why
firms, financial or otherwise, that are "too big to fail" are
allowed to exist, or if charterered/domiciled outside US control
[e.g. Long Term Capital Management, most other hedge funds, and
the "trustees for the CDO/MBOs] are allowed to solicit customers
or own assets within the US.

The risk "too big to fail" represents (and the gun this hold to
the head of the Fed and US government) has been known from at
least 1984.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contine...rust_Compa ny

Note that this not need be a single entity, but an aggregated
economic sector such as the S&Ls, which went "belly up" in the
late 80s, showing that nothing had been learned (and acted on)
from the Continental Illinois debacle.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resolut...st_Corporation

I think the answer you would get from most close observers is that the
globalized finance industry doesn't give brownie points for well-regulated
participants. You're either in the game, internationally, or you're not. You
either lead the way, or you follow. The US, including many liberal members
of Congress back in the '80s and '90s, decided that they would give the US
industry a chance to play at the top tier, and hopefully to dominate, at a
time when London, Paris, and (in the '80s) Tokyo were threatening to take
that position.

That they largely did.

--
Ed Huntress

On Wed, 2 Apr 2008 11:50:49 -0700 (PDT), Too_Many_Tools
wrote:

April 2, 2008, 12:51PM EST text size: TT
What Bernanke Didn't Say
In his first congressional appearance since intervening to prop up
Bear Stearns, the Fed chief refused to call it a bailout--nor would he
say there's a recession
by Peter Coy

Two words are hard to drag out of Ben Bernanke's mouth: recession and
bailout.
snip
In response to a question from the committee chairman, Senator Charles
Schumer (D-N.Y.), Bernanke said, "A recession is possible. But a
recession is a technical term defined by the National Bureau of
Economic Research depending on data which will be available quite a
while from now, so I'm not yet ready to say whether or not the U.S.
economy will face such a situation."

Most of the questions concerned the Bear deal, not the economy, which
many economists believe has already entered a recession. Several
committee members asked, in effect, why the Fed appeared to be bailing
out Wall Street but not Main Street.
snip
==============
IMNSHO, it is the "too big to fail" rationale in action, which in
this instance may well have been correct. [B/S had written 10
Trillion dollars of CDSs...]

What is not answered, either in Bernanke's response nor Paulson's
proposed "overhaul" of the securities regulations [which appears
to weaken, not strengthen many of the oversights/controls] is why
firms, financial or otherwise, that are "too big to fail" are
allowed to exist, or if charterered/domiciled outside US control
[e.g. Long Term Capital Management, most other hedge funds, and
the "trustees for the CDO/MBOs] are allowed to solicit customers
or own assets within the US.

The risk "too big to fail" represents (and the gun this hold to
the head of the Fed and US government) has been known from at
least 1984.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contine...rust_Compa ny

Note that this not need be a single entity, but an aggregated
economic sector such as the S&Ls, which went "belly up" in the
late 80s, showing that nothing had been learned (and acted on)
from the Continental Illinois debacle.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resolut...st_Corporation

The Congressional intermural "grab-ass" matches and ongoing
Congress/Administration punch-n-judy show to divert the great
unwashed [and generate campaign contributions] continue, even as
the Titanic's list increases...


Unka' George [George McDuffee]
-------------------------------------------
He that will not apply new remedies,
must expect new evils:
for Time is the greatest innovator: and
if Time, of course, alter things to the worse,
and wisdom and counsel shall not alter them to the better,
what shall be the end?

Francis Bacon (1561-1626), English philosopher, essayist, statesman.
Essays, "Of Innovations" (1597-1625).

"F. George McDuffee" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 2 Apr 2008 15:56:30 -0400, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:

I think the answer you would get from most close observers is that the
globalized finance industry doesn't give brownie points for well-regulated
participants. You're either in the game, internationally, or you're not.
You
either lead the way, or you follow. The US, including many liberal members
of Congress back in the '80s and '90s, decided that they would give the US
industry a chance to play at the top tier, and hopefully to dominate, at a
time when London, Paris, and (in the '80s) Tokyo were threatening to take
that position.

That they largely did.

--
Ed Huntress
===============
This may indeed be the case, but it fails to address the WIIFM
[what's in it for me] question from the citizen's/taxpayer's
point of view. Why should I as a taxpayer give a rap if CSFB,
Merril Lynch, Bear Stearns, BlackRock, Carlyle, etc. makes a
dime, or gets to play with the big boys?

There are lengthy answers to that, and short ones. The short ones aren't
worth spit and I'm not writing any long ones. d8-)


This segues into yet more questions/observations:

You can review SecTreas Paulson's executive summary and proposed
changes to the Federal oversight of the financial sector here
http://media.npr.org/documents/2008/..._factsheet.pdf
http://media.npr.org/documents/2008/..._blueprint.pdf

While I have not yet completely read his entire proposal, it
appears to have been written by several individuals (or even
several working groups), and combined in a word processor for
consistent formatting and spell check, as the proposed actions
are not consistent, except for the themes of "deregulation," and
yet more "free market."

[The phrase "if you can't impress them with your brilliance,
baffle them with your bulls**t" comes to mind here.]

The lead editorial in the Tuesday April 1 WSJ notes:
"... the mortgage mania and panic weren't caused by a failure of
the regulatory "structure" or a dearth of rules. {however I note
that a lack of *ENFORCEMENT* of those rules may well have been a
proximent cause} ==They were caused by a failure of the men and
women who ran those financial and regulatory institutions."==
(emphasis added)
{I also note that the "results" as measured by the personal gains
to these individuals may have been highly satisfactory, although
a failure and catastrophe to the stockholders and taxpayers.}

SecTres Paulson's proposed "overhaul" does not appear to address
the vital question of corporate governance or individual
responsibility/accountability in any way.

It's catching a lot of flak outside of the business/financial community. It
does appear to be more of the same, with some self-regulation by the
financial industries that are at fault. Ha. A lot of good that will do.


Given the tendency of long serving officers and directors to
regard the corporation as "theirs," (rather than the
stockholders') I suggest the immediate imposition of term limits
on individual tenure for the positions of CEO, CFO and directors
of all major publicly traded corporations. Both for particular
positions, and in combination, for example no person allowed to
serve as CEO or CFO for more than 8 years or as CEO and CFO for
more than a total of 12 years, with directors limited to a total
of 10 years, including any service as CEO and/or CFO.

Oh, I'm sure that will be a favorite everywhere. They'll call you an
outright Marxist. g


"More of the same only better," is not going to hack it this
time.

Maybe that's all we're going to get. Nobody seems to know what else to do.

--
Ed Huntress

On Wed, 2 Apr 2008 15:56:30 -0400, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:

I think the answer you would get from most close observers is that the
globalized finance industry doesn't give brownie points for well-regulated
participants. You're either in the game, internationally, or you're not. You
either lead the way, or you follow. The US, including many liberal members
of Congress back in the '80s and '90s, decided that they would give the US
industry a chance to play at the top tier, and hopefully to dominate, at a
time when London, Paris, and (in the '80s) Tokyo were threatening to take
that position.

That they largely did.

--
Ed Huntress
===============
This may indeed be the case, but it fails to address the WIIFM
[what's in it for me] question from the citizen's/taxpayer's
point of view. Why should I as a taxpayer give a rap if CSFB,
Merril Lynch, Bear Stearns, BlackRock, Carlyle, etc. makes a
dime, or gets to play with the big boys?

This segues into yet more questions/observations:

You can review SecTreas Paulson's executive summary and proposed
changes to the Federal oversight of the financial sector here
http://media.npr.org/documents/2008/..._factsheet.pdf
http://media.npr.org/documents/2008/..._blueprint.pdf

While I have not yet completely read his entire proposal, it
appears to have been written by several individuals (or even
several working groups), and combined in a word processor for
consistent formatting and spell check, as the proposed actions
are not consistent, except for the themes of "deregulation," and
yet more "free market."

[The phrase "if you can't impress them with your brilliance,
baffle them with your bulls**t" comes to mind here.]

The lead editorial in the Tuesday April 1 WSJ notes:
"... the mortgage mania and panic weren't caused by a failure of
the regulatory "structure" or a dearth of rules. {however I note
that a lack of *ENFORCEMENT* of those rules may well have been a
proximent cause} ==They were caused by a failure of the men and
women who ran those financial and regulatory institutions."==
(emphasis added)
{I also note that the "results" as measured by the personal gains
to these individuals may have been highly satisfactory, although
a failure and catastrophe to the stockholders and taxpayers.}

SecTres Paulson's proposed "overhaul" does not appear to address
the vital question of corporate governance or individual
responsibility/accountability in any way.

Given the tendency of long serving officers and directors to
regard the corporation as "theirs," (rather than the
stockholders') I suggest the immediate imposition of term limits
on individual tenure for the positions of CEO, CFO and directors
of all major publicly traded corporations. Both for particular
positions, and in combination, for example no person allowed to
serve as CEO or CFO for more than 8 years or as CEO and CFO for
more than a total of 12 years, with directors limited to a total
of 10 years, including any service as CEO and/or CFO.

"More of the same only better," is not going to hack it this
time.


Unka' George [George McDuffee]
-------------------------------------------
He that will not apply new remedies,
must expect new evils:
for Time is the greatest innovator: and
if Time, of course, alter things to the worse,
and wisdom and counsel shall not alter them to the better,
what shall be the end?

Francis Bacon (1561-1626), English philosopher, essayist, statesman.
Essays, "Of Innovations" (1597-1625).

On Apr 2, 9:10*am, "Ed Huntress"

That's an aside, however. What I was commenting on was that Lott used
two
different explanations of recession -- one to indicate that the 2001
recession actually started earlier than claimed, and a different one to
indicate we aren't in a recession now. --
Ed Huntress

Looking at the data, we did not have a recession in 2000 or 2001.
Three quarters of negative growth out of five quarters, but no two
negative growth quarters in a row. So maybe more jitter than trend.

But he does have a point in that there is a lot of discussion about
recession now in the media, and we may not have even one quarter of
negative growth this year or next. I suspect it is not so much caused
by a liberal trend by the media. More likely just the media acting as
a herd. The economy in Washington State is still doing pretty well.
House prices have quit rising, but have not dropped much.
Unemployment is low and the jobs are more tech than McDonalds.

Dan

On Apr 2, 11:21*am, F. George McDuffee

He means the water is pouring in through the holes at the other
end of the boat from where he is setting....

Unka' George [George McDuffee]

I see a awful lot of status buying going on, so the economy can't be
doing too badly. Bottled water, hybrid cars, wine, granite counter
tops, stainless kitchen appliances, organic foods , starbucks coffee
etc.

Dan

F. George McDuffee wrote:
On Wed, 2 Apr 2008 15:56:30 -0400, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:

I think the answer you would get from most close observers is that
the globalized finance industry doesn't give brownie points for
well-regulated participants. You're either in the game,
internationally, or you're not. You either lead the way, or you
follow. The US, including many liberal members of Congress back in
the '80s and '90s, decided that they would give the US industry a
chance to play at the top tier, and hopefully to dominate, at a time
when London, Paris, and (in the '80s) Tokyo were threatening to take
that position.

That they largely did.

--
Ed Huntress
===============
This may indeed be the case, but it fails to address the WIIFM
[what's in it for me] question from the citizen's/taxpayer's
point of view. Why should I as a taxpayer give a rap if CSFB,
Merril Lynch, Bear Stearns, BlackRock, Carlyle, etc. makes a
dime, or gets to play with the big boys?

This segues into yet more questions/observations:

You can review SecTreas Paulson's executive summary and proposed
changes to the Federal oversight of the financial sector here
http://media.npr.org/documents/2008/..._factsheet.pdf
http://media.npr.org/documents/2008/..._blueprint.pdf

While I have not yet completely read his entire proposal,

"His" entire proposal has as much chance of being effective as your cat and
dog do of having offspring.
This cluster **** looks a lot like the Department of Homeland Security, an
ineffective and costly combination of Boondogle and Fiasco that has been so
incompetently staffed that instead of a joke, it's a nightmare and a costly
one at that.

Given the purpose of the Federal Reserve, why would you want to remove their
day to day oversight of financial institutions and put this in the hands of
a political operative?

Nothing, not one single thing, in the proposed reforms adresses any of the
underlying problems and in fact, exacerbates them.

Sheesh.

--

John R. Carroll
www.machiningsolution.com

wrote in message
...
On Apr 2, 9:10 am, "Ed Huntress"

That's an aside, however. What I was commenting on was that Lott used
two
different explanations of recession -- one to indicate that the 2001
recession actually started earlier than claimed, and a different one to
indicate we aren't in a recession now. --
Ed Huntress

Looking at the data, we did not have a recession in 2000 or 2001.
Three quarters of negative growth out of five quarters, but no two
negative growth quarters in a row. So maybe more jitter than trend.

What you're running into here is two different definitions of "recession,"
once again. Lott says "as every economist knows" it's two sequential
quarters of declining GDP. I called that the "basic" definition, pointing
out that NBER uses additional criteria -- employment, real income,
industrial production and wholesale-retail sales.

So here Lott is caught in a contradiction. He says "as every economist
knows," but, as you point out, there weren't two sequential quarters of GDP
decline in 2001: http://www.bea.gov/national/nipaweb/TableView.asp# (set the
years to show 2000 and 2001). The recession of 2001 was a recession
according to the *official* definition, which is the NBER's, and which shows
the recession began in March 2001 (apparently revised now to February) and
ended in November 2001. Here's a brief USA today story on the NBER report,
before the revision. They call the two quarters of negative GDP a "thumbnail
definition":

http://www.usatoday.com/money/econom...ecession_x.htm

And here's a FAQ from the NBER that describes the whole thing succinctly:

http://www.nber.org/cycles/jan08bcdc_memo.html


But he does have a point in that there is a lot of discussion about
recession now in the media, and we may not have even one quarter of
negative growth this year or next. I suspect it is not so much caused
by a liberal trend by the media.

Where it's coming from is a statement by Martin Feldstein, who heads the
NBER, that we are now in a recession:

http://www.boston.com/business/artic...mist_declares/

When Feldstein speaks, people listen. It isn't "official" until the NBER
declares it so, but Feldstein is one of the oracles of the US economy, and
his word is enough to start a run of newspaper articles and TV reports.


More likely just the media acting as
a herd.

Well, yeah, but they're all reporting what's coming from the NBER and
Feldstein, along with some other authorities.

The economy in Washington State is still doing pretty well.
House prices have quit rising, but have not dropped much.
Unemployment is low and the jobs are more tech than McDonalds.

That's true in a lot of places. The way the economy works now, recessions
are going to vary a lot by region. GDP is becoming a less reliable indicator
of how much people are feeling in general.

--
Ed Huntress

"F. George McDuffee" wrote in message
news
On Wed, 2 Apr 2008 23:00:12 -0400, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:
snip
GDP is becoming a less reliable indicator
of how much people are feeling in general.
snip
===============
Indeed, as it is becoming increasingly evident that much of the
reported "profits" either never existed (as anyone in their right
mind would define a profit) or are were not (and never will be)
"repatriated" into the US economy, where they would be taxed.

Many of the "reported" profits seem to have been paper or book
only, i.e. trading a 5 billion dollar cat for 10 billion dollar
dog, and posting a 5 billion dollar "profit" on the transaction.
This goes a long way to "explaining" how the financial services
sector was able to generate 40% of all corporate profits.

That's all true, and it's alarming to see how much of reported corporate
profit comes from the financial sector, but I'm not sure that has a lot to
do with GDP. Actual transactions are what they measure. I'd have to look
into it to see how much of that is funny-money financial transactions (but
I'm busy reading _The Nine_ right now, so someone else will have to do it).


The increasingly skewed distribution of the GDP is another
factor. The metric for this is called the GINI coefficient or
index. I know its hard to understand, but no matter how much
money the CEO pays himself, the ungrateful employees still insist
on feeling poor....

Someone is going to have to clarify this for the general press, and soon. We
don't get clear explanations of how income distribution is measured and
compared in the economics world. All we get is this smoke and mirrors game
from the current administration, based on playing shell games with income
quintiles. It really covers up the facts very effectively, and the press has
been compliant in reporting their nonsense.

--
Ed Huntress

On Wed, 2 Apr 2008 23:00:12 -0400, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:
snip
GDP is becoming a less reliable indicator
of how much people are feeling in general.
snip
===============
Indeed, as it is becoming increasingly evident that much of the
reported "profits" either never existed (as anyone in their right
mind would define a profit) or are were not (and never will be)
"repatriated" into the US economy, where they would be taxed.

Many of the "reported" profits seem to have been paper or book
only, i.e. trading a 5 billion dollar cat for 10 billion dollar
dog, and posting a 5 billion dollar "profit" on the transaction.
This goes a long way to "explaining" how the financial services
sector was able to generate 40% of all corporate profits.

The increasingly skewed distribution of the GDP is another
factor. The metric for this is called the GINI coefficient or
index. I know its hard to understand, but no matter how much
money the CEO pays himself, the ungrateful employees still insist
on feeling poor....


Unka' George [George McDuffee]
-------------------------------------------
He that will not apply new remedies,
must expect new evils:
for Time is the greatest innovator: and
if Time, of course, alter things to the worse,
and wisdom and counsel shall not alter them to the better,
what shall be the end?

Francis Bacon (1561-1626), English philosopher, essayist, statesman.
Essays, "Of Innovations" (1597-1625).

On Thu, 03 Apr 2008 01:14:52 GMT, "John R. Carroll"
wrote:

You can review SecTreas Paulson's executive summary and proposed
changes to the Federal oversight of the financial sector here
http://media.npr.org/documents/2008/..._factsheet.pdf
http://media.npr.org/documents/2008/..._blueprint.pdf

While I have not yet completely read his entire proposal,

"His" entire proposal has as much chance of being effective as your cat and
dog do of having offspring.
This cluster **** looks a lot like the Department of Homeland Security, an
ineffective and costly combination of Boondogle and Fiasco that has been so
incompetently staffed that instead of a joke, it's a nightmare and a costly
one at that.
=============
John:

If you read and understood all that "you done good!"

I got through the summary (7 pages, several 1/2 filled) and only
about the first 75 pages of the actual document [out of 212, most
pretty dense with foot notes]

What seems to be clear is that the regulatory agencies have been
largely captured by the regulated, and the Treasury Department
and the Fed have almost no knowledge of what's actually
occurring, nor what sort of liabilities exist. Case in point is
the huge [but largely unknown] amount of CDS [credit debt swaps]
overhanging the market. Bear Stearns by itself had created 10
trillion $US notational/face value of these.

I may have missed it, but I never saw the words felony, fine,
prison term, disgorgement, or conspiracy, in this document.

More of the same only better, smaller, lighter, cheaper, quicker,
yada-yada-yada...


Unka' George [George McDuffee]
-------------------------------------------
He that will not apply new remedies,
must expect new evils:
for Time is the greatest innovator: and
if Time, of course, alter things to the worse,
and wisdom and counsel shall not alter them to the better,
what shall be the end?

Francis Bacon (1561-1626), English philosopher, essayist, statesman.
Essays, "Of Innovations" (1597-1625).

On Wed, 2 Apr 2008 10:07:57 -0700 (PDT), "
wrote:

On Apr 1, 1:03*pm, "Hawke" Oh yeah, it's the media that has fooled
everyone into believing that things
are ****ty. It has nothing to do with the $3.50 a gallon gasoline, or the
run up in prices for food, or all the stories of people losing jobs, or the
news about the huge losses in the financial sector and credit markets, or
the 12% decline in the stock market, or the continuing rise in health care
costs, not to mention all the foreclosures and the huge losses in the value
of everyone's homes. Yep, I think it's just a myth people are buying into
that things are declining. I mean look at the facts. Things are great,
right?

Hawke

Things are always bad for some of the people. They seem great for me
right now. Declines in housing and the stockmarket only count if you
are selling. I don't have a job, so can't lose that. Planning on
having a larger garden this year and selling what I can't eat.
And it looks like Hillary will not get the D. nomination. Can hardly
get better than that.

Dan

I was at Westec yesterday

http://www.sme.org/cgi-bin/get-event...7-020727--SME-

and watched sales of somewhere in the order of $14 million..million
dollars worth of machine tools, most to small machine shops

They are claiming they are so busy right now, that they need more
capacity.

If the economy is in the ****ter, who is buying all the parts?

Most of the guys I talked to are NOT doing military stuff

Gunner

Our sales were up 15% in '07 over the previous year and the first
quarter of this year was just as good.
We're selling stuff all over the world, and actually getting paid for a
change, because the dollar is weak and people can afford to buy our stuff.
The imported junk that would normally "compete" only on price... is getting
relatively more expensive, and all the bad publicity surrounding Chinese
toys, food, and drugs is giving "Buy American" a boost (even if it's not for
patriotic reasons).
The foundries and machine shops that we buy from all have long lead
times and all of the hourly people that I know are complaining about too
much "mandatory" overtime.
I'm working on buying my first house... one that's newer and bigger than
I could afford a year ago; because some D.I.N.K.s bought more than they
could afford during the "boom".
Food is as cheap as it's ever been in the history of man. An hour of
work feeds the four of us for a day or two; which is ridiculous when you
stop and think about it.
The share value of my IRA is down a little since it's November peak; but
it's still up 23% since January '07 and 37% since January '06; so somebody
there obviously knows which stocks to avoid. LOL
Every day I read about this supposed "recession" the media has been
hyping and say, "God, please let it last!"
The liberal news media would like nothing better than to convince
everyone that we're in a Republican created recession, going into the
elections. Hopefully the economy will take off again and that plan will
backfire on them!


"Gunner" wrote in message
...

I was at Westec yesterday

http://www.sme.org/cgi-bin/get-event...7-020727--SME-

and watched sales of somewhere in the order of $14 million..million
dollars worth of machine tools, most to small machine shops

They are claiming they are so busy right now, that they need more
capacity.

If the economy is in the ****ter, who is buying all the parts?

Most of the guys I talked to are NOT doing military stuff

Gunner

On Thu, 03 Apr 2008 01:57:00 -0700, with neither quill nor qualm,
Gunner quickly quoth:

I was at Westec yesterday

DAMN, I missed it again. Whoa, it all fit into Kentia Hall and the
two connected buildings? It was literally stuffed into 6 or 7
buildings when Terry and I went in 2000 or 2001. It shrunk by 70%?


http://www.sme.org/cgi-bin/get-event...7-020727--SME-

and watched sales of somewhere in the order of $14 million..million
dollars worth of machine tools, most to small machine shops

They are claiming they are so busy right now, that they need more
capacity.

If the economy is in the ****ter, who is buying all the parts?

With some larger corporate machine shops going out of business or
shifting their mfg centers overseas, much of the fallout is to the
little guys, ah reckon. There are lots of companies, myself included,
who won't outsource offshore, ever. When those large corporations
moved, not all their customers were happy.


Most of the guys I talked to are NOT doing military stuff

Speaking of military, I just finished John Ringo's _Hell's Faire_ and
am sure glad you pointed out the Sluggy Freelance cartoon to me when
you did. The references in that were absolutely hilarious. GREAT
book! BunBun did, indeed, ROCK!

--
That man is the richest whose pleasures are the cheapest.
-- Henry David Thoreau

On Thu, 03 Apr 2008 06:36:56 -0700, Larry Jaques
wrote:

On Thu, 03 Apr 2008 01:57:00 -0700, with neither quill nor qualm,
Gunner quickly quoth:

I was at Westec yesterday

DAMN, I missed it again. Whoa, it all fit into Kentia Hall and the
two connected buildings? It was literally stuffed into 6 or 7
buildings when Terry and I went in 2000 or 2001. It shrunk by 70%?


http://www.sme.org/cgi-bin/get-event...7-020727--SME-

and watched sales of somewhere in the order of $14 million..million
dollars worth of machine tools, most to small machine shops

They are claiming they are so busy right now, that they need more
capacity.

If the economy is in the ****ter, who is buying all the parts?

With some larger corporate machine shops going out of business or
shifting their mfg centers overseas, much of the fallout is to the
little guys, ah reckon. There are lots of companies, myself included,
who won't outsource offshore, ever. When those large corporations
moved, not all their customers were happy.


Most of the guys I talked to are NOT doing military stuff

Speaking of military, I just finished John Ringo's _Hell's Faire_ and
am sure glad you pointed out the Sluggy Freelance cartoon to me when
you did. The references in that were absolutely hilarious. GREAT
book! BunBun did, indeed, ROCK!


Btw...there will occasionally show up in military scifi, reference to
March of Cambreath.

Its a mp3. If you dont have it...Id be happy to send it to you..for
reference purposes only of course.

Gunner

"David Courtney" wrote in message
. ..
Our sales were up 15% in '07 over the previous year and the first
quarter of this year was just as good.
We're selling stuff all over the world, and actually getting paid for
a
change, because the dollar is weak and people can afford to buy our stuff.
The imported junk that would normally "compete" only on price... is
getting
relatively more expensive, and all the bad publicity surrounding Chinese
toys, food, and drugs is giving "Buy American" a boost (even if it's not
for
patriotic reasons).
The foundries and machine shops that we buy from all have long lead
times and all of the hourly people that I know are complaining about too
much "mandatory" overtime.
I'm working on buying my first house... one that's newer and bigger
than
I could afford a year ago; because some D.I.N.K.s bought more than they
could afford during the "boom".
Food is as cheap as it's ever been in the history of man. An hour of
work feeds the four of us for a day or two; which is ridiculous when you
stop and think about it.
The share value of my IRA is down a little since it's November peak;
but
it's still up 23% since January '07 and 37% since January '06; so somebody
there obviously knows which stocks to avoid. LOL
Every day I read about this supposed "recession" the media has been
hyping and say, "God, please let it last!"
The liberal news media would like nothing better than to convince
everyone that we're in a Republican created recession, going into the
elections. Hopefully the economy will take off again and that plan will
backfire on them!


What do you mean take off? You just made it sound like the economy is doing
great. If you are not a complete fool you know that the economy stinks. Last
quarter of '07 it grew .06%. That sucks. The first quarter of '08 is also
going to be a stinker. But you think things are going well. Are you just
stupid or are you pretending things are going good because you don't want to
blame republicans? Or both?

Hawke

" wrote:

I see a awful lot of status buying going on, so the economy can't be
doing too badly. Bottled water, hybrid cars, wine, granite counter
tops, stainless kitchen appliances, organic foods , starbucks coffee
etc.

Most people have a land line and cell phones, can afford satelite TV or
cable instead of OTA, drive optioned out auto's, buy prepared foods, have
dsl, ect.

That is just the blue collar working stiffs complaining about how hard it
getting to just get by.

The one's that have it tough are those eating ramen noodles to save money to
pay for tooling and machines for the garage shop.


Wes
--
"Additionally as a security officer, I carry a gun to protect
government officials but my life isn't worth protecting at home
in their eyes." Dick Anthony Heller

On Apr 3, 8:30 am, "David Courtney" wrote:
Our sales were up 15% in '07 over the previous year and the first
quarter of this year was just as good.
We're selling stuff all over the world, and actually getting paid for a
change, because the dollar is weak and people can afford to buy our stuff.
The imported junk that would normally "compete" only on price... is getting
relatively more expensive, and all the bad publicity surrounding Chinese
toys, food, and drugs is giving "Buy American" a boost (even if it's not for
patriotic reasons).
The foundries and machine shops that we buy from all have long lead
times and all of the hourly people that I know are complaining about too
much "mandatory" overtime.
I'm working on buying my first house... one that's newer and bigger than
I could afford a year ago; because some D.I.N.K.s bought more than they
could afford during the "boom".
Food is as cheap as it's ever been in the history of man. An hour of
work feeds the four of us for a day or two; which is ridiculous when you
stop and think about it.
The share value of my IRA is down a little since it's November peak; but
it's still up 23% since January '07 and 37% since January '06; so somebody
there obviously knows which stocks to avoid. LOL
Every day I read about this supposed "recession" the media has been
hyping and say, "God, please let it last!"
The liberal news media would like nothing better than to convince
everyone that we're in a Republican created recession, going into the
elections. Hopefully the economy will take off again and that plan will
backfire on them!

"Gunner" wrote in message

...



I was at Westec yesterday

http://www.sme.org/cgi-bin/get-event...7-020727--SME-

and watched sales of somewhere in the order of $14 million..million
dollars worth of machine tools, most to small machine shops

They are claiming they are so busy right now, that they need more
capacity.

If the economy is in the ****ter, who is buying all the parts?

Most of the guys I talked to are NOT doing military stuff

Gunner

David:
May I have the name and phone number of your financial adviser? I'd
like to get in on some of that 23% action. Certainly well
outperformed the S&P.
-Mike

I missed the Staff meeting, but the Memos showed that Gunner
wrote on Thu, 03 Apr 2008 01:57:00
-0700 in rec.crafts.metalworking :
On Wed, 2 Apr 2008 10:07:57 -0700 (PDT), "
wrote:

On Apr 1, 1:03*pm, "Hawke" Oh yeah, it's the media that has fooled
everyone into believing that things
are ****ty. It has nothing to do with the $3.50 a gallon gasoline, or the
run up in prices for food, or all the stories of people losing jobs, or the
news about the huge losses in the financial sector and credit markets, or
the 12% decline in the stock market, or the continuing rise in health care
costs, not to mention all the foreclosures and the huge losses in the value
of everyone's homes. Yep, I think it's just a myth people are buying into
that things are declining. I mean look at the facts. Things are great,
right?

Hawke

Things are always bad for some of the people. They seem great for me
right now. Declines in housing and the stockmarket only count if you
are selling. I don't have a job, so can't lose that. Planning on
having a larger garden this year and selling what I can't eat.
And it looks like Hillary will not get the D. nomination. Can hardly
get better than that.

Dan

I was at Westec yesterday

http://www.sme.org/cgi-bin/get-event...7-020727--SME-

and watched sales of somewhere in the order of $14 million..million
dollars worth of machine tools, most to small machine shops

They are claiming they are so busy right now, that they need more
capacity.

All I know is that at the company meeting, they announced that
they were not going to ramp up production until our buyer got his act
together. We'll stick to the 5 kits a month, and not go to the 7 as
was guesstimated last fall. But in the mean time, the overtime would
continue, as we have this huge pile of orders to fill, and not enough
people to spread out the work. My heart bleeds chunky peanut butter.

If the economy is in the ****ter, who is buying all the parts?

The secret GOP subsidy stockpile?

Most of the guys I talked to are NOT doing military stuff

Gunner
--
pyotr filipivich
"I had just been through hell and must have looked like death warmed
over walking into the saloon, because when I asked the bartender
whether they served zombies he said, ‘Sure, what'll you have?'"
from I Hear America Swinging by Peter DeVries

F. George McDuffee wrote:
On Thu, 03 Apr 2008 01:14:52 GMT, "John R. Carroll"
wrote:

You can review SecTreas Paulson's executive summary and proposed
changes to the Federal oversight of the financial sector here
http://media.npr.org/documents/2008/..._factsheet.pdf
http://media.npr.org/documents/2008/..._blueprint.pdf

While I have not yet completely read his entire proposal,

"His" entire proposal has as much chance of being effective as your
cat and dog do of having offspring.
This cluster **** looks a lot like the Department of Homeland
Security, an ineffective and costly combination of Boondogle and
Fiasco that has been so incompetently staffed that instead of a
joke, it's a nightmare and a costly one at that.
=============
John:

If you read and understood all that "you done good!"

I'd read the rider too the omnibus appropriation that passed the house
before the Chrismass break in 2000.
Its a couple hundred pages that Brother Phil Graham stuck in to deregulate
the derivitave bussiness.

I also have a copy around somewhere of the study that Paulson and his tards
massaged into a/"His" proposal.
That was why I originally said "His". I recognized the material.

You don't suppose he and Pat Paulsom have traded places or something do you?
LOL
We'd be better off!

--

John R. Carroll
www.machiningsolution.com

On Apr 2, 1:17*pm, "Ed Huntress" wrote:
"Too_Many_Tools" wrote in message

...





On Apr 2, 1:23 pm, F. George McDuffee gmcduf...@mcduffee-
associates.us wrote:
On Wed, 2 Apr 2008 13:10:00 -0400, "Ed Huntress"

wrote:
I haven't seen what
the Fed has been saying about it lately so I don't know what the
official
position is.

=============
In your opinion, how much credibility does the data from the Fed,
BLS, etc. now have?

Unka' George [George McDuffee]
-------------------------------------------
He that will not apply new remedies,
must expect new evils:
for Time is the greatest innovator: and
if Time, of course, alter things to the worse,
and wisdom and counsel shall not alter them to the better,
what shall be the end?

Francis Bacon (1561-1626), English philosopher, essayist, statesman.
Essays, "Of Innovations" (1597-1625).

April 2, 2008, 12:51PM EST text size: TT
What Bernanke Didn't Say
In his first congressional appearance since intervening to prop up
Bear Stearns, the Fed chief refused to call it a bailout--nor would he
say there's a recession
by Peter Coy

snip

And how is that Business Week article a response to George's question?

--
Ed Huntress- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Did you read the article?

TMT

On Apr 2, 2:45*pm, F. George McDuffee gmcduf...@mcduffee-
associates.us wrote:
On Wed, 2 Apr 2008 11:50:49 -0700 (PDT), Too_Many_Tools





wrote:
April 2, 2008, 12:51PM EST text size: TT
What Bernanke Didn't Say
In his first congressional appearance since intervening to prop up
Bear Stearns, the Fed chief refused to call it a bailout--nor would he
say there's a recession
by Peter Coy

Two words are hard to drag out of Ben Bernanke's mouth: recession and
bailout.
snip
In response to a question from the committee chairman, Senator Charles
Schumer (D-N.Y.), Bernanke said, "A recession is possible. But a
recession is a technical term defined by the National Bureau of
Economic Research depending on data which will be available quite a
while from now, so I'm not yet ready to say whether or not the U.S.
economy will face such a situation."

Most of the questions concerned the Bear deal, not the economy, which
many economists believe has already entered a recession. Several
committee members asked, in effect, why the Fed appeared to be bailing
out Wall Street but not Main Street.

snip
==============
IMNSHO, it is the "too big to fail" rationale in action, which in
this instance may well have been correct. [B/S had written 10
Trillion dollars of CDSs...]

What is not answered, either in Bernanke's response nor Paulson's
proposed "overhaul" of the securities regulations [which appears
to weaken, not strengthen many of the oversights/controls] is why
firms, financial or otherwise, that are "too big to fail" are
allowed to exist, or if charterered/domiciled outside US control
[e.g. Long Term Capital Management, most other hedge funds, and
the "trustees for the CDO/MBOs] are allowed to solicit customers
or own assets within the US.

The risk "too big to fail" represents (and the gun this hold to
the head of the Fed and US government) has been known from at
least 1984.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contine...nal_Bank_and_T...

Note that this not need be a single entity, but an aggregated
economic sector such as the S&Ls, which went "belly up" in the
late 80s, showing that nothing had been learned (and acted on)
from the Continental Illinois debacle.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resolut...st_Corporation

The Congressional intermural "grab-ass" matches and ongoing
Congress/Administration punch-n-judy show to divert the great
unwashed [and generate campaign contributions] continue, even as
the Titanic's list increases...

Unka' George [George McDuffee]
-------------------------------------------
He that will not apply new remedies,
must expect new evils:
for Time is the greatest innovator: and
if Time, of course, alter things to the worse,
and wisdom and counsel shall not alter them to the better,
what shall be the end?

Francis Bacon (1561-1626), English philosopher, essayist, statesman.
Essays, "Of Innovations" (1597-1625).- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Very good points George.

TMT

On Apr 2, 7:14*pm, "John R. Carroll"
wrote:
F. George McDuffee wrote:
On Wed, 2 Apr 2008 15:56:30 -0400, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:

I think the answer you would get from most close observers is that
the globalized finance industry doesn't give brownie points for
well-regulated participants. You're either in the game,
internationally, or you're not. You either lead the way, or you
follow. The US, including many liberal members of Congress back in
the '80s and '90s, decided that they would give the US industry a
chance to play at the top tier, and hopefully to dominate, at a time
when London, Paris, and (in the '80s) Tokyo were threatening to take
that position.

That they largely did.

--
Ed Huntress
===============
This may indeed be the case, but it fails to address the WIIFM
[what's in it for me] question from the citizen's/taxpayer's
point of view. *Why should I as a taxpayer give a rap if CSFB,
Merril Lynch, Bear Stearns, BlackRock, Carlyle, etc. makes a
dime, or gets to play with the big boys?

This segues into yet more questions/observations:

You can review *SecTreas Paulson's executive summary and proposed
changes to the Federal oversight of the financial sector here
http://media.npr.org/documents/2008/..._factsheet.pdf
http://media.npr.org/documents/2008/..._blueprint.pdf

While I have not yet completely read his entire proposal,

"His" entire proposal has as much chance of being effective as your cat and
dog do of having offspring.
This cluster **** looks a lot like the Department of Homeland Security, an
ineffective and costly combination of Boondogle and Fiasco that has been so
incompetently staffed that instead of a joke, it's a nightmare and a costly
one at that.

Given the purpose of the Federal Reserve, why would you want to remove their
day to day oversight of financial institutions and put this in the hands of
a political operative?

Nothing, not one single thing, in the proposed reforms adresses any of the
underlying problems and in fact, exacerbates them.

Sheesh.

--

* * * * * *John R. Carroll
*www.machiningsolution.com- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I agree with your comments John.

TMT

On Apr 3, 12:34*am, F. George McDuffee gmcduf...@mcduffee-
associates.us wrote:
On Thu, 03 Apr 2008 01:14:52 GMT, "John R. Carroll"

wrote:
You can review *SecTreas Paulson's executive summary and proposed
changes to the Federal oversight of the financial sector here
http://media.npr.org/documents/2008/..._factsheet.pdf
http://media.npr.org/documents/2008/..._blueprint.pdf

While I have not yet completely read his entire proposal,

"His" entire proposal has as much chance of being effective as your cat and
dog do of having offspring.
This cluster **** looks a lot like the Department of Homeland Security, an
ineffective and costly combination of Boondogle and Fiasco that has been so
incompetently staffed that instead of a joke, it's a nightmare and a costly
one at that.

=============
John:

If you read and understood all that "you done good!"

I got through the summary (7 pages, several 1/2 filled) and only
about the first 75 pages of the actual document [out of 212, most
pretty dense with foot notes]

What seems to be clear is that the regulatory agencies have been
largely captured by the regulated, and the Treasury Department
and the Fed have almost no knowledge of what's actually
occurring, nor what sort of liabilities exist. *Case in point is
the huge [but largely unknown] amount of CDS [credit debt swaps]
overhanging the market. Bear Stearns by itself had created 10
trillion $US notational/face value of these.

I may have missed it, but I never saw the words felony, fine,
prison term, disgorgement, or conspiracy, in this document.

More of the same only better, smaller, lighter, cheaper, quicker,
yada-yada-yada...

Unka' George [George McDuffee]
-------------------------------------------
He that will not apply new remedies,
must expect new evils:
for Time is the greatest innovator: and
if Time, of course, alter things to the worse,
and wisdom and counsel shall not alter them to the better,
what shall be the end?

Francis Bacon (1561-1626), English philosopher, essayist, statesman.
Essays, "Of Innovations" (1597-1625).

We have had an Administration who believes that no regulation is best.

Food safety, airline safety, drug safety, finance ...all have
suffered..there are many more.



I may have missed it, but I never saw the words felony, fine,
prison term, disgorgement, or conspiracy, in this document.


Yeah...I have noticed that those words seem to be missing from the
media too.

But I hear them frequently from taxpayers on the street.

TMT

On Apr 3, 7:36*am, Larry Jaques wrote:
On Thu, 03 Apr 2008 01:57:00 -0700, with neither quill nor qualm,
Gunner quickly quoth:

I was at Westec yesterday

DAMN, I missed it again. *Whoa, it all fit into Kentia Hall and the
two connected buildings? *It was literally stuffed into 6 or 7
buildings when Terry and I went in 2000 or 2001. It shrunk by 70%?

http://www.sme.org/cgi-bin/get-event...7-020727--SME-

and watched sales of somewhere in the order of $14 million..million
dollars worth of machine tools, most to small machine shops

They are claiming they are so busy right now, that they need more
capacity.

If the economy is in the ****ter, who is buying all the parts?

With some larger corporate machine shops going out of business or
shifting their mfg centers overseas, much of the fallout is to the
little guys, ah reckon. There are lots of companies, myself included,
who won't outsource offshore, ever. When those large corporations
moved, not all their customers were happy.

Most of the guys I talked to are NOT doing military stuff

Speaking of military, I just finished John Ringo's _Hell's Faire_ and
am sure glad you pointed out the Sluggy Freelance cartoon to me when
you did. The references in that were absolutely hilarious. *GREAT
book! *BunBun did, indeed, ROCK!

--
That man is the richest whose pleasures are the cheapest.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *-- Henry David Thoreau

If business is so good, why is Westec so small?

TMT

On Apr 3, 3:56*pm, "Hawke" wrote:
"David Courtney" wrote in message

. ..





* * Our sales were up 15% in '07 over the previous year and the first
quarter of this year was just as good.
* * We're selling stuff all over the world, and actually getting paid for
a
change, because the dollar is weak and people can afford to buy our stuff.
The imported junk that would normally "compete" only on price... is
getting
relatively more expensive, and all the bad publicity surrounding Chinese
toys, food, and drugs is giving "Buy American" a boost (even if it's not
for
patriotic reasons).
* * The foundries and machine shops that we buy from all have long lead
times and all of the hourly people that I know are complaining about too
much "mandatory" overtime.
* * I'm working on buying my first house... one that's newer and bigger
than
I could afford a year ago; because some D.I.N.K.s bought more than they
could afford during the "boom".
* * Food is as cheap as it's ever been in the history of man. An hour of
work feeds the four of us for a day or two; which is ridiculous when you
stop and think about it.
* * The share value of my IRA is down a little since it's November peak;
but
it's still up 23% since January '07 and 37% since January '06; so somebody
there obviously knows which stocks to avoid. *LOL
* * Every day I read about this supposed "recession" the media has been
hyping and say, "God, please let it last!"
* * The liberal news media would like nothing better than to convince
everyone that we're in a Republican created recession, going into the
elections. *Hopefully the economy will take off again and that plan will
backfire on them!

What do you mean take off? You just made it sound like the economy is doing
great. If you are not a complete fool you know that the economy stinks. Last
quarter of '07 it grew .06%. That sucks. The first quarter of '08 is also
going to be a stinker. But you think things are going well. Are you just
stupid or are you pretending things are going good because you don't want to
blame republicans? Or both?

Hawke- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Hawke is correct.

Denial is a powerful force.

TMT

On Thu, 3 Apr 2008 08:30:08 -0500, "David Courtney"
wrote:
snip
Food is as cheap as it's ever been in the history of man. An hour of
work feeds the four of us for a day or two; which is ridiculous when you
stop and think about it.
snip
=========
I have already posted several links about the big upsurge in food
stamp usage and increases in demand on the "community pantries"
within the US.

You may wish to review
http://www.archive.org/download/link...02_1_5Mbps.mp4
which details the problems the speculation in food commodities is
causing outside the US. We are stepping on our lolly big time in
the geo-political/economic sense as these rapidly increasing food
prices are destabilizing not only much of the Mid-East and Africa
but also significant parts of Latin America, e.g. Chile. These
areas either supply or abut areas that supply the US with not
only petroleum, but also other strategic materials such as
chrome, nickel, and platinum. While the elite in the actual
petroleum producing countries such as Saudi or Dubai may not be
affected, the less affluent most definitely are, and telling them
to eat cake will not be any better received this time around.

If you need a mp4 viewer you can download one for free he
http://www.getmiro.com/

With a nod to John Carroll -- we just added a few more inches to
the snowpack...


Unka' George [George McDuffee]
-------------------------------------------
He that will not apply new remedies,
must expect new evils:
for Time is the greatest innovator: and
if Time, of course, alter things to the worse,
and wisdom and counsel shall not alter them to the better,
what shall be the end?

Francis Bacon (1561-1626), English philosopher, essayist, statesman.
Essays, "Of Innovations" (1597-1625).

On Apr 4, 12:27*am, F. George McDuffee gmcduf...@mcduffee-
associates.us wrote:
On Thu, 3 Apr 2008 08:30:08 -0500, "David wrote:

snip * *Food is as cheap as it's ever been in the history of man. An hour of
work feeds the four of us for a day or two; which is ridiculous when you
stop and think about it.

snip
=========
I have already posted several links about the big upsurge in food
stamp usage and increases in demand on the "community pantries"
within the US.

You may wish to reviewhttp://www.archive.org/download/linktv_globalpulse20080402/globalpuls...
which details the problems the speculation in food commodities is
causing outside the US. *We are stepping on our lolly big time in
the geo-political/economic sense as these rapidly increasing food
prices are destabilizing not only much of the Mid-East and Africa
but also significant parts of Latin America, e.g. Chile. *These
areas either supply or abut areas that supply the US with not
only petroleum, but also other strategic materials such as
chrome, nickel, and platinum. *While the elite in the actual
petroleum producing countries such as Saudi or Dubai may not be
affected, the less affluent most definitely are, and telling them
to eat cake will not be any better received this time around.

If you need a mp4 viewer you can download one for free hehttp://www.getmiro.com/

With a nod to John Carroll -- we just added a few more inches to
the snowpack...

Unka' George [George McDuffee]
-------------------------------------------
He that will not apply new remedies,
must expect new evils:
for Time is the greatest innovator: and
if Time, of course, alter things to the worse,
and wisdom and counsel shall not alter them to the better,
what shall be the end?

Francis Bacon (1561-1626), English philosopher, essayist, statesman.
Essays, "Of Innovations" (1597-1625).

I too have seen it personally that the locals are struggling with food
prices...and if you ask the employees at Walmart and Target (two
national chains) you will find that they will confirm this.

I believe the comments of the cashier who has direct interaction with
the man on the street over any that a damn politician makes.

Here is an article you might want to try reading....

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080404/...m_TpTV9tms0NUE

Please note the recommended status of this story located at the bottom
of the page....this value is determined by those who read the
story...note how high it is.

That is strong evidence that life is not good on Main Street.


TMT

Shoppers scrimp as food prices rise Thu Apr 3, 8:20 PM ET



Reuters sent reporters to three Wal-Mart stores this week to discover
how badly American consumers are being squeezed by the housing crisis,
job losses and rising food prices. They went on March 31 and April 1
to compare traffic before and after payday. Wal-Mart says many of its
customers are financially strapped toward the end of a pay period.
This is what we discovered:

By Nicole Maestri

SECAUCUS, New Jersey (Reuters) - Patricia Norris' family is feeling
the one-two punch of higher fuel and food prices.

Her husband works as messenger, driving around to deliver packages.
But the job is not as profitable as it once was because rising fuel
prices are eating into his earnings.

With money tight and food prices rising, Norris can no longer afford
to buy beef and chicken on a regular basis.

"We buy meat only for special occasions. Like for Easter, we had a
ham," she said after a shopping trip at her local Wal-Mart in
Romeoville, a mixed blue- and white-collar suburb of Chicago.

Norris must purchase only what is on her shopping list, to avoid
spending more than she can afford.

"Sometimes I cry," she said, when she passes items on store shelves
she can no longer buy.

Across the United States, consumers like Norris are finding that
grocery shopping has become a sobering experience as their budgets
fail to keep pace with food costs.

Reuters reporters visited Wal-Mart stores in Romeoville, Illinois,
Secaucus, New Jersey and Santa Clarita, California, on the last day of
March and the first day of April to find out how shoppers are
navigating the food aisles when they have payday cash in their
pockets.

Already squeezed by high gasoline prices, slumping home values, a
weakening job market and the possibility that the U.S. economy is in a
recession, consumers have adopted a no-nonsense approach to shopping,
passing over a trip to Target (TGT.N) or a local grocery store if they
can find lower prices at Wal-Mart

(WMT.N).

They are buying cheaper store-brand products, avoiding costly cuts of
meat, consolidating trips, clipping coupons, constructing well-
researched shopping lists and avoiding splurges to spend only the bare
minimum.

"I don't buy anything I don't have to," Norris said.

FOOD PRICES JUMP MOST IN 17 YEARS

U.S. consumer food prices normally rise by about 2.5 percent annually,
but they increased by 4 percent in 2007 -- the biggest increase in 17
years, according to U.S. Agriculture Department data.

Prices continue to rise. A survey conducted by the American Farm
Bureau Federation in February showed that in the beginning months of
this year, the cost of 16 grocery items, including flour and cheddar
cheese, was $45.03, up $3.42, or 8 percent, from the fourth quarter.

That has consumers like Laura Miller taking a calculated approach to
shopping, much of which she does at Wal-Mart in Santa Clarita,
California, a planned community on the outskirts of Los Angeles.

Married with three little girls, Miller said her food costs have
almost doubled to $300 every two weeks.

She plans meals two weeks in advance and shops with the daughter who
doesn't ask her to buy snacks. Miller's printed shopping list,
organized by item and place of purchase, shows that she does the bulk
of her buying at Wal-Mart.

"I won't pay $6 for a box of cereal when I can get it for $3" at Wal-
Mart, she said.

Karen Wikholm, a library worker from Romeoville, is another who does
her homework before heading to the store, sorting through newspaper
ads, hashing out which stores offer the best deals and figuring out
where her coupons can go farthest.

She then gets in her car and, in one day, goes to her local Wal-Mart,
Dominick's and Jewel grocery stores, buying only what is cheapest in
each store.

The three stores are located about a mile from each other on a stretch
of road that includes several strip malls interspersed with vacant
plots for planned housing developments.

"We're shopping as the paycheck comes," she said.

PAYDAY MEANS GROCERY DAY

Increasingly, shoppers like Wikholm must wait until payday to load up
on groceries and then hunker down until the next paycheck.

At all three Wal-Mart stores, that trend was visible.

The Wal-Mart in Secaucus, a few miles outside New York, operated at a
leisurely pace on the afternoon of Monday, March 31. Shoppers slowly
browsed store aisles or stopped at the in-store McDonald's (MCD.N) for
a snack.

But the store was bustling with activity at the same time the next
day, as shoppers pushed overflowing carts loaded with cereal, soda,
juice, frozen food and bread.

"There's no question that people are shopping when they have money in
their pocket," said Tracy Ferschweiler, the manager of the Secaucus
store.

Leslie Dach, executive vice president of corporate affairs and
government relations at Wal-Mart, said the cycle of shoppers running
out of money in between paychecks and then flocking to its stores on
payday is "more pronounced, more visible."

While many U.S. retailers are facing waning sales as shoppers cut back
on purchases of clothes, jewelry or home furnishings, Wal-Mart's vast
grocery business and its emphasis on low prices is spurring a
resurgence at its U.S. stores and in its stock price.

Its stock is up 15 percent this year, while Target, a more upmarket
discounter, is up 7 percent, and the Dow Jones industrial average
(.DJI) is down 5 percent. Wal-Mart's February sales at U.S. stores
open at least a year rose 2.6 percent, helped by strength in its
grocery business, while Target reported a 0.5 percent gain in its
February sales.

Annette Reilly was at the Wal-Mart in Secaucus on April 1 to buy
cereal for her 2-year-old grandson, who was sitting in her shopping
cart. She said she is now buying cereal at the discount retailer
because it charges $1 less per box than her local Stop & Shop.

"Why not?" she said of making the trip to Wal-Mart. "I can come here
and save $5."

Saving those extra dollars is becoming more crucial.

Mary Ann Doyle, a 75-year-old retired teacher browsing in the dairy
aisle at the Wal-Mart in Santa Clarita, said she is now buying food in
smaller quantities, like half a dozen eggs instead of a dozen, and
using more coupons.

"It needs to get better," she said of the economic situation. "I hope
we've hit rock bottom."

(Writing by Nicole Maestri; Reporting by Nicole Maestri and Fred
Katayama in Secaucus, Lisa Baertlein in Santa Clarita, California, and
Bradley Dorfman in Romeoville, Illinois; Editing by Martin Howell and
Eddie Evans)