From Barron's:

http://igor.chudov.com/tmp/Debt-Service.jpg

--
Due to extreme spam originating from Google Groups, and their inattention
to spammers, I and many others block all articles originating
from Google Groups. If you want your postings to be seen by
more readers you will need to find a different means of
posting on Usenet.
http://improve-usenet.org/

"Ignoramus17377" wrote in message
...
From Barron's:

http://igor.chudov.com/tmp/Debt-Service.jpg



I'd say it's the dangers of a lack of growth of disposable income Ig.

--
JC

On Mon, 09 Feb 2009 17:51:24 -0600, Ignoramus17377
wrote:

From Barron's:

http://igor.chudov.com/tmp/Debt-Service.jpg
-----------
Thanks for the link -- I missed this one.

This should give everyone a shot of colds p*** to the heart when
you consider the possibility of deflation, which to some extent
is already occurring, i.e. wage cuts.

With debt service at these levels, even a slight downturn in
employment will be serious, and if serious deflation kicks in on
top of that it will be catastrophic as wages will fall while the
debts remain as denominated.

We have never seen these types of debt service levels. as a
percentage of income since the depth of the last depression
[1935]. Unfortunately, if we have even a moderate deflation, the
ratios will be considerably higher that the depression.

No one knows what a 20-25 % of income as debt service will
produce, other than huge numbers of bankruptcies with devastating
impact on the CDOs based on credit card receivables, student
loans, vehicles, and of course residential/commercial mortgages.

Interesting that one of the "solutions" to the Detroit auto
crisis is to deflate wages. Good thinking.....
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 2009-02-10, F George McDuffee wrote:
On Mon, 09 Feb 2009 17:51:24 -0600, Ignoramus17377
wrote:

From Barron's:

http://igor.chudov.com/tmp/Debt-Service.jpg
-----------
Thanks for the link -- I missed this one.

This should give everyone a shot of colds p*** to the heart when
you consider the possibility of deflation, which to some extent
is already occurring, i.e. wage cuts.

With debt service at these levels, even a slight downturn in
employment will be serious, and if serious deflation kicks in on
top of that it will be catastrophic as wages will fall while the
debts remain as denominated.

We have never seen these types of debt service levels. as a
percentage of income since the depth of the last depression
[1935]. Unfortunately, if we have even a moderate deflation, the
ratios will be considerably higher that the depression.

No one knows what a 20-25 % of income as debt service will
produce, other than huge numbers of bankruptcies with devastating
impact on the CDOs based on credit card receivables, student
loans, vehicles, and of course residential/commercial mortgages.

I find this graph to be fascinating, and very thought provoking, but
cannot yet come to good conclusions, or perhaps I am in denial.

Note that this graph does not include a) government debt and b)
commercial debt. The commercial debts are very prone to becoming
economically unmanageable if further deleveraging occurs, even more
than household debts.

--
Due to extreme spam originating from Google Groups, and their inattention
to spammers, I and many others block all articles originating
from Google Groups. If you want your postings to be seen by
more readers you will need to find a different means of
posting on Usenet.
http://improve-usenet.org/

"John R. Carroll" wrote in message
news

"Ignoramus17377" wrote in message
...
From Barron's:

http://igor.chudov.com/tmp/Debt-Service.jpg



I'd say it's the dangers of a lack of growth of disposable income Ig.

--
JC

That graph says that debt service was at its highest three years ago, and
that all components are now on the way down.

Here's a better graph of the current situation. This probably is the source
for the graph above:

http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/TDSP?cid=97

--
Ed Huntress

"Ignoramus17377" wrote in message
...
On 2009-02-10, F George McDuffee
wrote:
On Mon, 09 Feb 2009 17:51:24 -0600, Ignoramus17377
wrote:

From Barron's:

http://igor.chudov.com/tmp/Debt-Service.jpg
-----------
Thanks for the link -- I missed this one.

This should give everyone a shot of colds p*** to the heart when
you consider the possibility of deflation, which to some extent
is already occurring, i.e. wage cuts.

With debt service at these levels, even a slight downturn in
employment will be serious, and if serious deflation kicks in on
top of that it will be catastrophic as wages will fall while the
debts remain as denominated.

We have never seen these types of debt service levels. as a
percentage of income since the depth of the last depression
[1935]. Unfortunately, if we have even a moderate deflation, the
ratios will be considerably higher that the depression.

No one knows what a 20-25 % of income as debt service will
produce, other than huge numbers of bankruptcies with devastating
impact on the CDOs based on credit card receivables, student
loans, vehicles, and of course residential/commercial mortgages.

I find this graph to be fascinating, and very thought provoking, but
cannot yet come to good conclusions, or perhaps I am in denial.

Note that this graph does not include a) government debt and b)
commercial debt. The commercial debts are very prone to becoming
economically unmanageable if further deleveraging occurs, even more
than household debts.

If you want to see more graphs of this kind of data than anyone could want,
go to the St. Louis Fed's research site. They're using mostly Census and BEA
data, but they have an excellent interactive system for showing it all
graphically.

http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/

For example, looking at the finer graph for the data you pointed to above...

http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/TDSP?cid=97

....you'll see a downturn in the trend, but then a small uptick over the past
couple of months. Based on the trendline, my guess is that you're seeing the
effects of declining employment in the uptick.

But it's too small to identify it as a trend. It could be a year-end
accounting phenomenon. In any case, that Fed site is an economic data
junkie's wet dream. d8-)

--
Ed Huntress

On Mon, 9 Feb 2009 22:46:11 -0500, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:


"Ignoramus17377" wrote in message
m...
On 2009-02-10, F George McDuffee
wrote:
On Mon, 09 Feb 2009 17:51:24 -0600, Ignoramus17377
wrote:

From Barron's:

http://igor.chudov.com/tmp/Debt-Service.jpg
-----------
Thanks for the link -- I missed this one.

This should give everyone a shot of colds p*** to the heart when
you consider the possibility of deflation, which to some extent
is already occurring, i.e. wage cuts.

With debt service at these levels, even a slight downturn in
employment will be serious, and if serious deflation kicks in on
top of that it will be catastrophic as wages will fall while the
debts remain as denominated.

We have never seen these types of debt service levels. as a
percentage of income since the depth of the last depression
[1935]. Unfortunately, if we have even a moderate deflation, the
ratios will be considerably higher that the depression.

No one knows what a 20-25 % of income as debt service will
produce, other than huge numbers of bankruptcies with devastating
impact on the CDOs based on credit card receivables, student
loans, vehicles, and of course residential/commercial mortgages.

I find this graph to be fascinating, and very thought provoking, but
cannot yet come to good conclusions, or perhaps I am in denial.

Note that this graph does not include a) government debt and b)
commercial debt. The commercial debts are very prone to becoming
economically unmanageable if further deleveraging occurs, even more
than household debts.

If you want to see more graphs of this kind of data than anyone could want,
go to the St. Louis Fed's research site. They're using mostly Census and BEA
data, but they have an excellent interactive system for showing it all
graphically.

http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/

For example, looking at the finer graph for the data you pointed to above...

http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/TDSP?cid=97

...you'll see a downturn in the trend, but then a small uptick over the past
couple of months. Based on the trendline, my guess is that you're seeing the
effects of declining employment in the uptick.

But it's too small to identify it as a trend. It could be a year-end
accounting phenomenon. In any case, that Fed site is an economic data
junkie's wet dream. d8-)
=========
Thanks -- I like original source data.


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).

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...

"John R. Carroll" wrote in message
news

"Ignoramus17377" wrote in message
...
From Barron's:

http://igor.chudov.com/tmp/Debt-Service.jpg



I'd say it's the dangers of a lack of growth of disposable income Ig.

--
JC

That graph says that debt service was at its highest three years ago, and
that all components are now on the way down.

Here's a better graph of the current situation. This probably is the
source for the graph above:

http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/TDSP?cid=97


Much better but it ignores the question of whether debt "exploded", DI fell
or both.
It wouldn't be hard to make the case that the problem isn't the debt but the
income side of the equation
I've been bringing this up for years - two decades in fact.
I've been an econometrix subscriber for a while now Ed. Have you seen their
service?

JC

"John R. Carroll" wrote in message
...

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...

"John R. Carroll" wrote in message
news

"Ignoramus17377" wrote in message
...
From Barron's:

http://igor.chudov.com/tmp/Debt-Service.jpg



I'd say it's the dangers of a lack of growth of disposable income Ig.

--
JC

That graph says that debt service was at its highest three years ago, and
that all components are now on the way down.

Here's a better graph of the current situation. This probably is the
source for the graph above:

http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/TDSP?cid=97


Much better but it ignores the question of whether debt "exploded", DI
fell or both.

Well, you can fish around in the St. Louis Fed stats to find almost
anything. Here's CMDEBT (household debt):

http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2...rt_type=line&s[1][id]=CMDEBT&s[1][range]=10yrs

It looks dead flat, but it lags by a few months. You'd probably have to go
to BEA for an update.

It wouldn't be hard to make the case that the problem isn't the debt but
the income side of the equation

Yeah, that's it. The recent income graph shows the inverse of the
debt-service-as-a-percentage-of-income graph:

http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2...rt_type=line&s[1][id]=DSPI&s[1][range]=10yrs

(Keep in mind that the first graph relates total debt to total income, while
the second is just total income. In other words, much of the income increase
over the years is due to increases in the size of the working population.
But it shows what we're looking for here, very clearly.)

I've been bringing this up for years - two decades in fact.
I've been an econometrix subscriber for a while now Ed. Have you seen
their service?

No. I waste enough time with this stuff already. g

--
Ed Huntress

On Mon, 9 Feb 2009 20:25:31 -0800, "John R. Carroll"
wrote:

http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/TDSP?cid=97


Much better but it ignores the question of whether debt "exploded", DI fell
or both.
It wouldn't be hard to make the case that the problem isn't the debt but the
income side of the equation
I've been bringing this up for years - two decades in fact.
snip

JC
============
Indeed.

One of the major problems is that much of the current
deflationary wage cuts are increasingly taking the form of the
elimination of benefits and 401k matches, sort of a stealth
deflation in that this does immediatly impact employee disposible
cash income printed on the check stub.

For a good discussion of the effects and a listing of some of the
major corporations that have just cut the employee wages by 20%
or more see
http://www.cnbc.com/id/29098943

============
Chadwick: 401(k) Alert - Employees, Beware!
Posted By: Patricia Chadwick
Companies:Starbucks Corp | General Motors Corp | Eastman Kodak Co
| Motorola Inc | FedEx Corporation | Sears Holdings Corp | United
States Steel Corporation

While the headlines in the media are all about the stimulus bill
coming out of Congress and the Treasury’s bailout plan, there has
been little media attention being drawn to a disturbing and
growing phenomenon that is seriously impacting the potential
retirement savings for employees, namely, the cutback in the
corporate match for employee 401(k) plans.

In an effort to cut costs, a number of companies are suspending –
temporarily they say – the matching funds for retirement plans.
This means that employers are relieving themselves of the costs
associated with employees’ retirement benefits. Included among
those companies that have made such announcements this year are
US Steel, Sears Holding, Federal Express, Motorola, Kodak and
General Motors. Starbucks is also considering such a move.
snip
---------------

Note that in many cases these stealth wage cuts are retroactive,
going back many years with the elimination/reduction of retiree
benefits. These are in fact defferred wages earned for labor
years ago. In the case of medical coverage -- tough darts, but
for actual pension income, these will be shifted to the taxpayer
via the PBGC, up to a significently lower cap. (Medical costs are
also shifted to the taxpayers via Medicare.)


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).

In article ,
"Ed Huntress" wrote:

"John R. Carroll" wrote in message
news

"Ignoramus17377" wrote in message
...
From Barron's:

http://igor.chudov.com/tmp/Debt-Service.jpg



I'd say it's the dangers of a lack of growth of disposable income Ig.

--
JC

That graph says that debt service was at its highest three years ago, and
that all components are now on the way down.

Here's a better graph of the current situation. This probably is the source
for the graph above:

http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/TDSP?cid=97

The Barrons graph went back to the 1930s, and showed debt et al at
levels equal to toady, just before WW2. The FRED plot only goes back to
1985, depriving us of the context. One assumes that the Fed has the
data somewhere.

Joe Gwinn

"Joseph Gwinn" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"Ed Huntress" wrote:

"John R. Carroll" wrote in message
news

"Ignoramus17377" wrote in message
...
From Barron's:

http://igor.chudov.com/tmp/Debt-Service.jpg



I'd say it's the dangers of a lack of growth of disposable income Ig.

--
JC

That graph says that debt service was at its highest three years ago, and
that all components are now on the way down.

Here's a better graph of the current situation. This probably is the
source
for the graph above:

http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/TDSP?cid=97

The Barrons graph went back to the 1930s, and showed debt et al at
levels equal to toady, just before WW2. The FRED plot only goes back to
1985, depriving us of the context. One assumes that the Fed has the
data somewhere.

Joe Gwinn

Well, take a look, Joe. Those are interactive graphs -- you can set them
back to the beginning of the data series. Set the time range to something
other than "Max" and it will open a new graph with additional tools to set
the time range.

And, in addition to FRED, there's an archival dataset called ALFRED...

http://research.stlouisfed.org/tips/alfred/

...., another set of the St. Louis Fed's research data, with which you can go
back to the beginnings of when the data was kept and see additional data.
The Barrons graph certainly used the same data, but it's too coarse to tell
you what's happening now. Some of the FRED data goes back to 1929.

The historical contexts are always interesting but you have to be aware of
the history of events and financial structures to recognize what they're
telling you. Another thing to watch for: Some of that data is just total
numbers for the country, not per-capita, so population increases have to be
taken into account.

Most of the data is adjusted for inflation, but, again, look at the title of
the graph. And if you want to go beyond the FRED data, the Bureau of
Economic Analysis (BEA) has much more. It's just not as slick in the
graphing department as the FRED data is.

--
Ed Huntress

In article ,
"Ed Huntress" wrote:

"Joseph Gwinn" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"Ed Huntress" wrote:

"John R. Carroll" wrote in message
news
"Ignoramus17377" wrote in message
...
From Barron's:

http://igor.chudov.com/tmp/Debt-Service.jpg



I'd say it's the dangers of a lack of growth of disposable income Ig.

--
JC

That graph says that debt service was at its highest three years ago, and
that all components are now on the way down.

Here's a better graph of the current situation. This probably is the
source
for the graph above:

http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/TDSP?cid=97

The Barrons graph went back to the 1930s, and showed debt et al at
levels equal to toady, just before WW2. The FRED plot only goes back to
1985, depriving us of the context. One assumes that the Fed has the
data somewhere.

Joe Gwinn

Well, take a look, Joe. Those are interactive graphs -- you can set them
back to the beginning of the data series. Set the time range to something
other than "Max" and it will open a new graph with additional tools to set
the time range.

And, in addition to FRED, there's an archival dataset called ALFRED...

http://research.stlouisfed.org/tips/alfred/

..., another set of the St. Louis Fed's research data, with which you can go
back to the beginnings of when the data was kept and see additional data.
The Barrons graph certainly used the same data, but it's too coarse to tell
you what's happening now. Some of the FRED data goes back to 1929.

Most stop short. But some do go back a goodly bit, such as to 1919. It
will take some digging to find the few long-term data series.


The historical contexts are always interesting but you have to be aware of
the history of events and financial structures to recognize what they're
telling you. Another thing to watch for: Some of that data is just total
numbers for the country, not per-capita, so population increases have to be
taken into account.

Most of the data is adjusted for inflation, but, again, look at the title of
the graph. And if you want to go beyond the FRED data, the Bureau of
Economic Analysis (BEA) has much more. It's just not as slick in the
graphing department as the FRED data is.

Takes lots of research to be sure. But we do have to widen our view if
we are to have any idea what is usual versus unusual.

Joe Gwinn

"Joseph Gwinn" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"Ed Huntress" wrote:

"Joseph Gwinn" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"Ed Huntress" wrote:

"John R. Carroll" wrote in
message
news
"Ignoramus17377" wrote in
message
...
From Barron's:

http://igor.chudov.com/tmp/Debt-Service.jpg



I'd say it's the dangers of a lack of growth of disposable income
Ig.

--
JC

That graph says that debt service was at its highest three years ago,
and
that all components are now on the way down.

Here's a better graph of the current situation. This probably is the
source
for the graph above:

http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/TDSP?cid=97

The Barrons graph went back to the 1930s, and showed debt et al at
levels equal to toady, just before WW2. The FRED plot only goes back
to
1985, depriving us of the context. One assumes that the Fed has the
data somewhere.

Joe Gwinn

Well, take a look, Joe. Those are interactive graphs -- you can set them
back to the beginning of the data series. Set the time range to something
other than "Max" and it will open a new graph with additional tools to
set
the time range.

And, in addition to FRED, there's an archival dataset called ALFRED...

http://research.stlouisfed.org/tips/alfred/

..., another set of the St. Louis Fed's research data, with which you can
go
back to the beginnings of when the data was kept and see additional data.
The Barrons graph certainly used the same data, but it's too coarse to
tell
you what's happening now. Some of the FRED data goes back to 1929.

Most stop short. But some do go back a goodly bit, such as to 1919. It
will take some digging to find the few long-term data series.


The historical contexts are always interesting but you have to be aware
of
the history of events and financial structures to recognize what they're
telling you. Another thing to watch for: Some of that data is just total
numbers for the country, not per-capita, so population increases have to
be
taken into account.

Most of the data is adjusted for inflation, but, again, look at the title
of
the graph. And if you want to go beyond the FRED data, the Bureau of
Economic Analysis (BEA) has much more. It's just not as slick in the
graphing department as the FRED data is.

Takes lots of research to be sure. But we do have to widen our view if
we are to have any idea what is usual versus unusual.

Joe Gwinn

I have to provide the black-box warning: For some personality types, it's
addictive. d8-)

There is another entire layer of this data, which is for the real hard-core.
It's the various Census reports, which break things down into fine particles
and that go back as long as data was kept. As it is now, and as it's been
for decades, the data is presented in spreadsheets that don't even have
plain-language labels. It's all coded numbers and letter combinations.
Sorting through it, with the aid of a spreadsheet program, is deadly. But
it's what I used to have to do to produce reports on manufacturing
industries, for years.

There's a heap of data available, though, if you have the need or interest
to get into it. The FRED graphs are a vast improvement and the government
has made great progress in making all of this stuff more accessible and
manageable. It's an ongoing project.

It's reached the level of practicality that I don't hesitate to suggest that
people with a strong interest in what's happening with our economy take some
time to look into it. The things you're looking at, FRED and ALFRED, are
really worthwhile. It dispels a lot of myths and it shows how superficial,
and often misleading, press reports can be.

You seem to be interested in gaining some historical perspective and for
that, the data is great.

--
Ed Huntress

In article ,
"Ed Huntress" wrote:

"Joseph Gwinn" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"Ed Huntress" wrote:

"Joseph Gwinn" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"Ed Huntress" wrote:

"John R. Carroll" wrote in
message
news
"Ignoramus17377" wrote in
message
...
From Barron's:

http://igor.chudov.com/tmp/Debt-Service.jpg



I'd say it's the dangers of a lack of growth of disposable income
Ig.

--
JC

That graph says that debt service was at its highest three years ago,
and
that all components are now on the way down.

Here's a better graph of the current situation. This probably is the
source
for the graph above:

http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/TDSP?cid=97

The Barrons graph went back to the 1930s, and showed debt et al at
levels equal to toady, just before WW2. The FRED plot only goes back
to
1985, depriving us of the context. One assumes that the Fed has the
data somewhere.

Joe Gwinn

Well, take a look, Joe. Those are interactive graphs -- you can set them
back to the beginning of the data series. Set the time range to something
other than "Max" and it will open a new graph with additional tools to
set the time range.

And, in addition to FRED, there's an archival dataset called ALFRED...

http://research.stlouisfed.org/tips/alfred/

..., another set of the St. Louis Fed's research data, with which you can
go back to the beginnings of when the data was kept and see additional data.
The Barrons graph certainly used the same data, but it's too coarse to
tell you what's happening now. Some of the FRED data goes back to 1929.

Most stop short. But some do go back a goodly bit, such as to 1919. It
will take some digging to find the few long-term data series.


The historical contexts are always interesting but you have to be aware of
the history of events and financial structures to recognize what they're
telling you. Another thing to watch for: Some of that data is just total
numbers for the country, not per-capita, so population increases have to
be taken into account.

Most of the data is adjusted for inflation, but, again, look at the title
of the graph. And if you want to go beyond the FRED data, the Bureau of
Economic Analysis (BEA) has much more. It's just not as slick in the
graphing department as the FRED data is.

Takes lots of research to be sure. But we do have to widen our view if
we are to have any idea what is usual versus unusual.

Joe Gwinn

I have to provide the black-box warning: For some personality types, it's
addictive. d8-)

There is another entire layer of this data, which is for the real hard-core.
It's the various Census reports, which break things down into fine particles
and that go back as long as data was kept. As it is now, and as it's been
for decades, the data is presented in spreadsheets that don't even have
plain-language labels. It's all coded numbers and letter combinations.
Sorting through it, with the aid of a spreadsheet program, is deadly. But
it's what I used to have to do to produce reports on manufacturing
industries, for years.

Umm. This explains a lot... starting with but not limited to the
glasses .......


There's a heap of data available, though, if you have the need or interest
to get into it. The FRED graphs are a vast improvement and the government
has made great progress in making all of this stuff more accessible and
manageable. It's an ongoing project.

It's reached the level of practicality that I don't hesitate to suggest that
people with a strong interest in what's happening with our economy take some
time to look into it. The things you're looking at, FRED and ALFRED, are
really worthwhile. It dispels a lot of myths and it shows how superficial,
and often misleading, press reports can be.

You seem to be interested in gaining some historical perspective and for
that, the data is great.

I certainly do not have the energy to be mining those old spreadsheets,
so FRED is going to be useful.

My more general complaint about many statistical arguments one sees is
precisely that they don't go back far enough to see how things really
work. Like those financial models that failed to include market
crashes, thus leading some companies into failure.

Joe Gwinn

"Joseph Gwinn" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"Ed Huntress" wrote:

"Joseph Gwinn" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"Ed Huntress" wrote:

"Joseph Gwinn" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"Ed Huntress" wrote:

"John R. Carroll" wrote in
message
news
"Ignoramus17377" wrote in
message
...
From Barron's:

http://igor.chudov.com/tmp/Debt-Service.jpg



I'd say it's the dangers of a lack of growth of disposable income
Ig.

--
JC

That graph says that debt service was at its highest three years
ago,
and
that all components are now on the way down.

Here's a better graph of the current situation. This probably is
the
source
for the graph above:

http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/TDSP?cid=97

The Barrons graph went back to the 1930s, and showed debt et al at
levels equal to toady, just before WW2. The FRED plot only goes
back
to
1985, depriving us of the context. One assumes that the Fed has the
data somewhere.

Joe Gwinn

Well, take a look, Joe. Those are interactive graphs -- you can set
them
back to the beginning of the data series. Set the time range to
something
other than "Max" and it will open a new graph with additional tools to
set the time range.

And, in addition to FRED, there's an archival dataset called ALFRED...

http://research.stlouisfed.org/tips/alfred/

..., another set of the St. Louis Fed's research data, with which you
can
go back to the beginnings of when the data was kept and see additional
data.
The Barrons graph certainly used the same data, but it's too coarse to
tell you what's happening now. Some of the FRED data goes back to
1929.

Most stop short. But some do go back a goodly bit, such as to 1919.
It
will take some digging to find the few long-term data series.


The historical contexts are always interesting but you have to be
aware of
the history of events and financial structures to recognize what
they're
telling you. Another thing to watch for: Some of that data is just
total
numbers for the country, not per-capita, so population increases have
to
be taken into account.

Most of the data is adjusted for inflation, but, again, look at the
title
of the graph. And if you want to go beyond the FRED data, the Bureau
of
Economic Analysis (BEA) has much more. It's just not as slick in the
graphing department as the FRED data is.

Takes lots of research to be sure. But we do have to widen our view if
we are to have any idea what is usual versus unusual.

Joe Gwinn

I have to provide the black-box warning: For some personality types, it's
addictive. d8-)

There is another entire layer of this data, which is for the real
hard-core.
It's the various Census reports, which break things down into fine
particles
and that go back as long as data was kept. As it is now, and as it's been
for decades, the data is presented in spreadsheets that don't even have
plain-language labels. It's all coded numbers and letter combinations.
Sorting through it, with the aid of a spreadsheet program, is deadly. But
it's what I used to have to do to produce reports on manufacturing
industries, for years.

Umm. This explains a lot... starting with but not limited to the
glasses .......


There's a heap of data available, though, if you have the need or
interest
to get into it. The FRED graphs are a vast improvement and the government
has made great progress in making all of this stuff more accessible and
manageable. It's an ongoing project.

It's reached the level of practicality that I don't hesitate to suggest
that
people with a strong interest in what's happening with our economy take
some
time to look into it. The things you're looking at, FRED and ALFRED, are
really worthwhile. It dispels a lot of myths and it shows how
superficial,
and often misleading, press reports can be.

You seem to be interested in gaining some historical perspective and for
that, the data is great.

I certainly do not have the energy to be mining those old spreadsheets,
so FRED is going to be useful.

My more general complaint about many statistical arguments one sees is
precisely that they don't go back far enough to see how things really
work. Like those financial models that failed to include market
crashes, thus leading some companies into failure.

Joe Gwinn

You can learn a lot by looking at those graphs, even if you don't have a
background in the field. But be cautious in drawing conclusions.
Particularly with the historical data, the history *itself* needs context --
a historical view of events and trends in policy, changes in the state of
technology, and so on -- to make sense of it.

For example, it's a common misconception that manufacturing has been in
decline in the US for a long time, which people conclude after seeing how
the percentage of GDP represented by manufacturing has dropped, and after
looking at employment figures. But manufacturing has in fact steadily
climbed in dollar output. The rest of the economy has just grown faster, and
productivity improvements keep reducing the need for workers.

There are many stories like that.

--
Ed Huntress

On Wed, 11 Feb 2009 09:18:00 -0500, Joseph Gwinn
wrote:

My more general complaint about many statistical arguments one sees is
precisely that they don't go back far enough to see how things really
work. Like those financial models that failed to include market
crashes, thus leading some companies into failure.

Joe Gwinn
---------------
But - but -but If we included that data the model wouldn't work,
and the boss has his heart set on that model working so he can
get his bonus... Its only a few data points...




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).

In article ,
"Ed Huntress" wrote:

"Joseph Gwinn" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"Ed Huntress" wrote:

[snip]

My more general complaint about many statistical arguments one sees is
precisely that they don't go back far enough to see how things really
work. Like those financial models that failed to include market
crashes, thus leading some companies into failure.

Joe Gwinn

You can learn a lot by looking at those graphs, even if you don't have a
background in the field. But be cautious in drawing conclusions.
Particularly with the historical data, the history *itself* needs context --
a historical view of events and trends in policy, changes in the state of
technology, and so on -- to make sense of it.

For example, it's a common misconception that manufacturing has been in
decline in the US for a long time, which people conclude after seeing how
the percentage of GDP represented by manufacturing has dropped, and after
looking at employment figures. But manufacturing has in fact steadily
climbed in dollar output. The rest of the economy has just grown faster, and
productivity improvements keep reducing the need for workers.

There are many stories like that.

How far back have you chased constant-dollar volume of manufacturing?
It would be interesting to see it past WW2.

Joe Gwinn

"Joseph Gwinn" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"Ed Huntress" wrote:

"Joseph Gwinn" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"Ed Huntress" wrote:

[snip]

My more general complaint about many statistical arguments one sees is
precisely that they don't go back far enough to see how things really
work. Like those financial models that failed to include market
crashes, thus leading some companies into failure.

Joe Gwinn

You can learn a lot by looking at those graphs, even if you don't have a
background in the field. But be cautious in drawing conclusions.
Particularly with the historical data, the history *itself* needs
context --
a historical view of events and trends in policy, changes in the state of
technology, and so on -- to make sense of it.

For example, it's a common misconception that manufacturing has been in
decline in the US for a long time, which people conclude after seeing how
the percentage of GDP represented by manufacturing has dropped, and after
looking at employment figures. But manufacturing has in fact steadily
climbed in dollar output. The rest of the economy has just grown faster,
and
productivity improvements keep reducing the need for workers.

There are many stories like that.

How far back have you chased constant-dollar volume of manufacturing?
It would be interesting to see it past WW2.

You can easily go back beyond the Civil War Joe.

JC

"Joseph Gwinn" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"Ed Huntress" wrote:

"Joseph Gwinn" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"Ed Huntress" wrote:

[snip]

My more general complaint about many statistical arguments one sees is
precisely that they don't go back far enough to see how things really
work. Like those financial models that failed to include market
crashes, thus leading some companies into failure.

Joe Gwinn

You can learn a lot by looking at those graphs, even if you don't have a
background in the field. But be cautious in drawing conclusions.
Particularly with the historical data, the history *itself* needs
context --
a historical view of events and trends in policy, changes in the state of
technology, and so on -- to make sense of it.

For example, it's a common misconception that manufacturing has been in
decline in the US for a long time, which people conclude after seeing how
the percentage of GDP represented by manufacturing has dropped, and after
looking at employment figures. But manufacturing has in fact steadily
climbed in dollar output. The rest of the economy has just grown faster,
and
productivity improvements keep reducing the need for workers.

There are many stories like that.

How far back have you chased constant-dollar volume of manufacturing?
It would be interesting to see it past WW2.

Joe Gwinn

I think that 1947 is as far back as I've gone for detailed reports; 1929 for
some general ones. Mostly my clients and employers have been interested in
the period from 1960 or so.

If you want to go back a lot farther you'll need to see the Statistical
Abstracts of the United States, which are mostly available as scanned files
from the printed pages. If you're game:

http://www.census.gov/prod/www/abs/statab1901-1950.htm

Someone may have compiled that old data in digital form, but it would take
some searching to find it if it exists. And I think you'll have to apply
your own deflators for constant dollars.

For some reason, Census, rather than Commerce, has the broadest array of
data. One you should know about is the M3 reports. Reading those tables will
make you blind, but if you really want fine data on manufacturing (at least
from 1958 onward), it's the

http://www.census.gov/indicator/www/...t/m3bendoc.htm

--
Ed Huntress

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...

"Joseph Gwinn" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"Ed Huntress" wrote:

"Joseph Gwinn" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"Ed Huntress" wrote:

[snip]

My more general complaint about many statistical arguments one sees is
precisely that they don't go back far enough to see how things really
work. Like those financial models that failed to include market
crashes, thus leading some companies into failure.

Joe Gwinn

You can learn a lot by looking at those graphs, even if you don't have a
background in the field. But be cautious in drawing conclusions.
Particularly with the historical data, the history *itself* needs
context --
a historical view of events and trends in policy, changes in the state
of
technology, and so on -- to make sense of it.

For example, it's a common misconception that manufacturing has been in
decline in the US for a long time, which people conclude after seeing
how
the percentage of GDP represented by manufacturing has dropped, and
after
looking at employment figures. But manufacturing has in fact steadily
climbed in dollar output. The rest of the economy has just grown faster,
and
productivity improvements keep reducing the need for workers.

There are many stories like that.

How far back have you chased constant-dollar volume of manufacturing?
It would be interesting to see it past WW2.

Joe Gwinn

I think that 1947 is as far back as I've gone for detailed reports; 1929
for some general ones. Mostly my clients and employers have been
interested in the period from 1960 or so.

If you want to go back a lot farther you'll need to see the Statistical
Abstracts of the United States, which are mostly available as scanned
files from the printed pages. If you're game:

http://www.census.gov/prod/www/abs/statab1901-1950.htm

Someone may have compiled that old data in digital form, but it would take
some searching to find it if it exists. And I think you'll have to apply
your own deflators for constant dollars.

For some reason, Census, rather than Commerce, has the broadest array of
data. One you should know about is the M3 reports. Reading those tables
will make you blind, but if you really want fine data on manufacturing (at
least from 1958 onward), it's the

http://www.census.gov/indicator/www/...t/m3bendoc.htm


This is why I opted for the EconoMetrics subscription Ed.
You create spreadsheet and graphing cruteria dynamically and the service
fills in the data.
They've done the conversions and have sourced data almost as old as your
first interview - Jesus G


JC

"John R. Carroll" wrote in message
...

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...

"Joseph Gwinn" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"Ed Huntress" wrote:

"Joseph Gwinn" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"Ed Huntress" wrote:

[snip]

My more general complaint about many statistical arguments one sees
is
precisely that they don't go back far enough to see how things really
work. Like those financial models that failed to include market
crashes, thus leading some companies into failure.

Joe Gwinn

You can learn a lot by looking at those graphs, even if you don't have
a
background in the field. But be cautious in drawing conclusions.
Particularly with the historical data, the history *itself* needs
context --
a historical view of events and trends in policy, changes in the state
of
technology, and so on -- to make sense of it.

For example, it's a common misconception that manufacturing has been in
decline in the US for a long time, which people conclude after seeing
how
the percentage of GDP represented by manufacturing has dropped, and
after
looking at employment figures. But manufacturing has in fact steadily
climbed in dollar output. The rest of the economy has just grown
faster, and
productivity improvements keep reducing the need for workers.

There are many stories like that.

How far back have you chased constant-dollar volume of manufacturing?
It would be interesting to see it past WW2.

Joe Gwinn

I think that 1947 is as far back as I've gone for detailed reports; 1929
for some general ones. Mostly my clients and employers have been
interested in the period from 1960 or so.

If you want to go back a lot farther you'll need to see the Statistical
Abstracts of the United States, which are mostly available as scanned
files from the printed pages. If you're game:

http://www.census.gov/prod/www/abs/statab1901-1950.htm

Someone may have compiled that old data in digital form, but it would
take some searching to find it if it exists. And I think you'll have to
apply your own deflators for constant dollars.

For some reason, Census, rather than Commerce, has the broadest array of
data. One you should know about is the M3 reports. Reading those tables
will make you blind, but if you really want fine data on manufacturing
(at least from 1958 onward), it's the

http://www.census.gov/indicator/www/...t/m3bendoc.htm


This is why I opted for the EconoMetrics subscription Ed.
You create spreadsheet and graphing cruteria dynamically and the service
fills in the data.
They've done the conversions and have sourced data almost as old as your
first interview - Jesus G

Wiseguy. d8-)

--
Ed Huntress

On 2009-02-12, Steve Ackman wrote:
In , on Mon, 09 Feb 2009
17:51:24 -0600, Ignoramus17377, lid
wrote:
From Barron's:

http://igor.chudov.com/tmp/Debt-Service.jpg

I had to download and use 'display' because the "jpg"
won't display in links. Here's why:

$ file Debt-Service.jpg
Debt-Service.jpg: GIF image data, version 89a, 507 x 443

Why a GIF format with a .jpg suffix?


I think that it is so because I gave it a file name without looking at
its previous extension. It worked in my browser, so I assumed that it
was OK.

Here's a new URL:


http://igor.chudov.com/tmp/Debt-Service.gif

--
Due to extreme spam originating from Google Groups, and their inattention
to spammers, I and many others block all articles originating
from Google Groups. If you want your postings to be seen by
more readers you will need to find a different means of
posting on Usenet.
http://improve-usenet.org/

Firefox like it either way.
It knew what the file type was.

Martin

Ignoramus13596 wrote:
On 2009-02-12, Steve Ackman wrote:
In , on Mon, 09 Feb 2009
17:51:24 -0600, Ignoramus17377, lid
wrote:
From Barron's:

http://igor.chudov.com/tmp/Debt-Service.jpg
I had to download and use 'display' because the "jpg"
won't display in links. Here's why:

$ file Debt-Service.jpg
Debt-Service.jpg: GIF image data, version 89a, 507 x 443

Why a GIF format with a .jpg suffix?


I think that it is so because I gave it a file name without looking at
its previous extension. It worked in my browser, so I assumed that it
was OK.

Here's a new URL:


http://igor.chudov.com/tmp/Debt-Service.gif

On 2009-02-13, Martin H. Eastburn wrote:
Firefox like it either way.
It knew what the file type was.

Yep, I use Firefox as well.

i

Martin

Ignoramus13596 wrote:
On 2009-02-12, Steve Ackman wrote:
In , on Mon, 09 Feb 2009
17:51:24 -0600, Ignoramus17377, lid
wrote:
From Barron's:

http://igor.chudov.com/tmp/Debt-Service.jpg
I had to download and use 'display' because the "jpg"
won't display in links. Here's why:

$ file Debt-Service.jpg
Debt-Service.jpg: GIF image data, version 89a, 507 x 443

Why a GIF format with a .jpg suffix?


I think that it is so because I gave it a file name without looking at
its previous extension. It worked in my browser, so I assumed that it
was OK.

Here's a new URL:


http://igor.chudov.com/tmp/Debt-Service.gif


--
Due to extreme spam originating from Google Groups, and their inattention
to spammers, I and many others block all articles originating
from Google Groups. If you want your postings to be seen by
more readers you will need to find a different means of
posting on Usenet.
http://improve-usenet.org/