Tuesday, August 29, 2006
The Bush Boom,The Midterm Elections, and October Surprises
Gee, I can see why Republican politicians and strategists are worried about the American electorate taking out the shitty economy on the party in power:
Of course, the Bush economy is not shitty for everybody:
Perhaps the economy, shitty for the overwhelming majority of Americans, coupled with the way the Iraq war is going, is spurring the kind of activity reported by Bob Novak in his Sunday column:
Lobbying firms hiring Democrats for the first time since the Delay era/K Street project got under way, political analysts like Stu Rothenberg, Thomas Mann, and Chris Bowers predicting a Democratic takeover of the House, now furious activity by Hill Republicans to seek employment elsewhere before Dems retake the House - it should be an interesting 70 days until the midterm elections.
So, how will Rove and Company try and change the political dynamic now that we are just 10 weeks away from the midterms, and there is little to no positive news for Republicans to tout going into November 7th other than "Hey, the number of people living in poverty didn't increase for the first time in five years?
Johnny Wendell at Down with Tyranny has a few ideas. He's not the first to suggest an attack on Iran right around Halloween is in the cards. I predicted the same thing over on a comment thread at Born at the Crest (sorry, too pressed for time to find the thread - trust me, it's there.)
Now that we're very close to October, what do the rest of you think? Will there be a Rovian Ocober Surprise and if so, what will it be (and when)?
UPDATE: More bad news on the economic front for the GOP going into November 7th:
Pessimistic consumer confidence rivaling last year's post-Katrina low is just one more reason why Rove's October Surprise has got to be really, really big. Cuz' they've got nothing else going into this election season.
Last night on the Lou Dobbs Show, Congressman Tom Reynolds, the chairman of the National Republican Congressional Committee, was asked what the Republican Party plans to do to help middle class people who are being squeezed by the fall in real wages, higher energy prices, higher health costs, higher college tuition, record levels of debt, and rising interest rates/higher mortgage payments. But all he could come up with was making Preznit Bush's tax cuts permanent.
That's it. That's what they've got - tax cuts so that Steve Forbes has a lower tax bill (as my friend NYC Educator constantly reminds me, this is the primary function of government these days - to lower Steve Forbes' tax burden.) And that's the solution to all that plagues America.
Yeah, it's going be a long election night for Reynolds and Company if Rove doesn't come up with a really, really big October Surprise.
The number of Americans without health insurance continues to rise at an alarming rate, men and women are earning less money and there are as many people living in poverty as there have ever been. Some key stats:
– In 2005, 46.6 million people were without health insurance coverage, up from 45.3 million people in 2004.
– The percentage of people without health insurance coverage increased from 15.6 percent in 2004 to 15.9 percent in 2005.
– The median earnings of men declined 1.8 percent to $41,386. The median earnings of women declined 1.3 percent to $31,858.
– In 2005, 37.0 million people were in poverty, not statistically different from 2004.
Of course, the Bush economy is not shitty for everybody:
In 2004, the top 1 percent of earners — a group that includes many chief executives — received 11.2 percent of all wage income, up from 8.7 percent a decade earlier and less than 6 percent three decades ago, according to Emmanuel Saez and Thomas Piketty, economists who analyzed the tax data.
Perhaps the economy, shitty for the overwhelming majority of Americans, coupled with the way the Iraq war is going, is spurring the kind of activity reported by Bob Novak in his Sunday column:
A political indicator of hard times ahead for Republicans is frantic activity during the current congressional recess by GOP staffers contemplating life under a Democratic-controlled House of Representatives.
Several Republican aides, including many working for House members from safe seats, are seeking employment elsewhere. Most of them have never worked under Democratic control and dread the prospect of minority status on Capitol Hill.
Other aides, working on House committee staffs, would lose those jobs in a Democratic House and want to transfer now to work for safe Republican members.
Lobbying firms hiring Democrats for the first time since the Delay era/K Street project got under way, political analysts like Stu Rothenberg, Thomas Mann, and Chris Bowers predicting a Democratic takeover of the House, now furious activity by Hill Republicans to seek employment elsewhere before Dems retake the House - it should be an interesting 70 days until the midterm elections.
So, how will Rove and Company try and change the political dynamic now that we are just 10 weeks away from the midterms, and there is little to no positive news for Republicans to tout going into November 7th other than "Hey, the number of people living in poverty didn't increase for the first time in five years?
Johnny Wendell at Down with Tyranny has a few ideas. He's not the first to suggest an attack on Iran right around Halloween is in the cards. I predicted the same thing over on a comment thread at Born at the Crest (sorry, too pressed for time to find the thread - trust me, it's there.)
Now that we're very close to October, what do the rest of you think? Will there be a Rovian Ocober Surprise and if so, what will it be (and when)?
UPDATE: More bad news on the economic front for the GOP going into November 7th:
Americans are more pessimistic than they have been all year about the state of the economy, according to a new report that reflects a widespread view that a period of brisk growth is coming to an end.
The Conference Board said today that in its monthly survey, American consumer confidence fell sharply in August to its lowest level since last November. The latest index reading of 99.6 was far below the 107.0 reported in July, and represented the steepest single-month decline since the immediate aftermath of Hurricane Katrina a year ago.
“Ouch,” wrote Ian Shepherdson, chief United States economist with High Frequency Economics, in a research report on the index today.
The pace of growth in the American economy has slowed by more than half since the first quarter, and many economists think the outlook will grow worse, not least because consumers sense the slowdown and are reining in their spending accordingly.
...
“Lead indicators suggest little prospect of a turnaround anytime soon,” James Knightley, an economist with ING, wrote today. “Confidence is likely to remain under downward pressure.”
Pessimistic consumer confidence rivaling last year's post-Katrina low is just one more reason why Rove's October Surprise has got to be really, really big. Cuz' they've got nothing else going into this election season.
Last night on the Lou Dobbs Show, Congressman Tom Reynolds, the chairman of the National Republican Congressional Committee, was asked what the Republican Party plans to do to help middle class people who are being squeezed by the fall in real wages, higher energy prices, higher health costs, higher college tuition, record levels of debt, and rising interest rates/higher mortgage payments. But all he could come up with was making Preznit Bush's tax cuts permanent.
That's it. That's what they've got - tax cuts so that Steve Forbes has a lower tax bill (as my friend NYC Educator constantly reminds me, this is the primary function of government these days - to lower Steve Forbes' tax burden.) And that's the solution to all that plagues America.
Yeah, it's going be a long election night for Reynolds and Company if Rove doesn't come up with a really, really big October Surprise.
Comments:
<< Home
reality, you wrote:
"– In 2005, 46.6 million people were without health insurance coverage, up from 45.3 million people in 2004."
Why is this alarming? What do you know about WHY the 2005 number is higher than the 2004 number? Does it include recent immigrants who have yet to get coverage? Does it include people who are young and figure they don't need to spend the money on health insurance?
You wrote:
– The percentage of people without health insurance coverage increased from 15.6 percent in 2004 to 15.9 percent in 2005."
This statistic is dicey and extremely questionable. If 46.6 million people had no health insurance in 2005 and that number of people equals 15.9% of the population, then the average population in 2005 was 293 million (calculated by dividing 46.6 million by 15.9%)
By the same analysis, the 2004 population was 290 million.
Thus, the population grew by 3 million from 2004 through 2005. And the number of uninsured people grew by 1.3 million.
That sounds like a lot of recent immigrants and a lot of new-borns. Now, even though we don't like to count illegal aliens in our population figures, we absolutely count births because any kid born on US soil is a citizen and every illegal alien knows it's okay to have a baby in a US hospital.
Babies are born at the rate of about 4 million a year in the US. Meanwhile, US taxpayers are stuck with their healthcare bills. Like having uninsured babies.
You wrote:
"– The median earnings of men declined 1.8 percent to $41,386. The median earnings of women declined 1.3 percent to $31,858."
Okay. These figures are stated as medians. It's important to know the means and the modes, as well. The median figure alone is inconclusive.
You wrote:
"– In 2005, 37.0 million people were in poverty, not statistically different from 2004."
Does this number include illegal aliens, whose numbers have increased considerably in recent years?
You wrote:
"In 2004, the top 1 percent of earners — a group that includes many chief executives — received 11.2 percent of all wage income, up from 8.7 percent a decade earlier and less than 6 percent three decades ago..."
Why is the preceding so significant? There is no cap on the size of the economy and no mandated distribution of income. Thus, 11.2% of 2004 aggregate income does not conclusively show any more wealth concentration than the 6% figure from 30 years ago.
Lately, older people selling homes they've owned for many years are receiving windfall paydays. The widow who previously owned my house received $500,000 to pack her bags. Her kids can't wait to inherit that pot of money.
The point is this. Capital gains taxes are lower than income taxes and many more people are now receiving big capital gains paydays.
You wrote:
"Johnny Wendell at Down with Tyranny has a few ideas."
I looked at his site. He's fundamentally just a vile bigmouth. I suppose he believes he funny. He's not. He's just vile. Al Franken can be funny. Other liberal pundits crack occasional jokes at the expense of conservatives. But Wendell serves up nothing more than sneering sarcasm and bile. He's a waste of time.
You wrote:
"He's not the first to suggest an attack on Iran right around Halloween is in the cards."
Yeah, yeah, yeah. That puts him in the same camp as all the nuts who claimed Bush would trot out Osama bin Laden shortly before the last presidential election. For some reason liberals neglected to say "oops" after that one didn't happen.
The same was said about Reagan and the Iranian Hostage Crisis in 1979. Yeah, Reagan was going to win the election by getting the hostages released BEFORE he was president. But the Iranians waited until inauguration day to embarrass ex-president Carter.
Meanwhile, there's absolutely no reason to think attacking Iran would win votes for Republicans. Attacking Iran doesn't fulfill conservative fantasies.
In fact, far more voters would feel sanguine about Republican leadership if our diplomats actually got Iran to willingly give up its nuclear ambitions.
You wrote:
"Now that we're very close to October, what do the rest of you think?"
Politics as usual. Full-court smearing by both sides.
YOu wrote:
"Will there be a Rovian Ocober Surprise?"
No.
You wrote:
"...and if so, what will it be (and when)?"
If anything qualifies as a Rovian Surprise, it is the surprise and embarrassment of liberals who bought into the bullshit about Rove being indicted and "frog-walked" out of the White House in handcuffs.
I noticed that, once again, after reporting the pending indictment through all the liberal back channels and causing oceans of saliva to gush from the mouths of Rove-hungry liberals, there wasn't a peep or an "oops" from anyone after it became obvious the whole story was phony.
And as far as I know, the idiot reporter who fabricated the story still has his job.
"– In 2005, 46.6 million people were without health insurance coverage, up from 45.3 million people in 2004."
Why is this alarming? What do you know about WHY the 2005 number is higher than the 2004 number? Does it include recent immigrants who have yet to get coverage? Does it include people who are young and figure they don't need to spend the money on health insurance?
You wrote:
– The percentage of people without health insurance coverage increased from 15.6 percent in 2004 to 15.9 percent in 2005."
This statistic is dicey and extremely questionable. If 46.6 million people had no health insurance in 2005 and that number of people equals 15.9% of the population, then the average population in 2005 was 293 million (calculated by dividing 46.6 million by 15.9%)
By the same analysis, the 2004 population was 290 million.
Thus, the population grew by 3 million from 2004 through 2005. And the number of uninsured people grew by 1.3 million.
That sounds like a lot of recent immigrants and a lot of new-borns. Now, even though we don't like to count illegal aliens in our population figures, we absolutely count births because any kid born on US soil is a citizen and every illegal alien knows it's okay to have a baby in a US hospital.
Babies are born at the rate of about 4 million a year in the US. Meanwhile, US taxpayers are stuck with their healthcare bills. Like having uninsured babies.
You wrote:
"– The median earnings of men declined 1.8 percent to $41,386. The median earnings of women declined 1.3 percent to $31,858."
Okay. These figures are stated as medians. It's important to know the means and the modes, as well. The median figure alone is inconclusive.
You wrote:
"– In 2005, 37.0 million people were in poverty, not statistically different from 2004."
Does this number include illegal aliens, whose numbers have increased considerably in recent years?
You wrote:
"In 2004, the top 1 percent of earners — a group that includes many chief executives — received 11.2 percent of all wage income, up from 8.7 percent a decade earlier and less than 6 percent three decades ago..."
Why is the preceding so significant? There is no cap on the size of the economy and no mandated distribution of income. Thus, 11.2% of 2004 aggregate income does not conclusively show any more wealth concentration than the 6% figure from 30 years ago.
Lately, older people selling homes they've owned for many years are receiving windfall paydays. The widow who previously owned my house received $500,000 to pack her bags. Her kids can't wait to inherit that pot of money.
The point is this. Capital gains taxes are lower than income taxes and many more people are now receiving big capital gains paydays.
You wrote:
"Johnny Wendell at Down with Tyranny has a few ideas."
I looked at his site. He's fundamentally just a vile bigmouth. I suppose he believes he funny. He's not. He's just vile. Al Franken can be funny. Other liberal pundits crack occasional jokes at the expense of conservatives. But Wendell serves up nothing more than sneering sarcasm and bile. He's a waste of time.
You wrote:
"He's not the first to suggest an attack on Iran right around Halloween is in the cards."
Yeah, yeah, yeah. That puts him in the same camp as all the nuts who claimed Bush would trot out Osama bin Laden shortly before the last presidential election. For some reason liberals neglected to say "oops" after that one didn't happen.
The same was said about Reagan and the Iranian Hostage Crisis in 1979. Yeah, Reagan was going to win the election by getting the hostages released BEFORE he was president. But the Iranians waited until inauguration day to embarrass ex-president Carter.
Meanwhile, there's absolutely no reason to think attacking Iran would win votes for Republicans. Attacking Iran doesn't fulfill conservative fantasies.
In fact, far more voters would feel sanguine about Republican leadership if our diplomats actually got Iran to willingly give up its nuclear ambitions.
You wrote:
"Now that we're very close to October, what do the rest of you think?"
Politics as usual. Full-court smearing by both sides.
YOu wrote:
"Will there be a Rovian Ocober Surprise?"
No.
You wrote:
"...and if so, what will it be (and when)?"
If anything qualifies as a Rovian Surprise, it is the surprise and embarrassment of liberals who bought into the bullshit about Rove being indicted and "frog-walked" out of the White House in handcuffs.
I noticed that, once again, after reporting the pending indictment through all the liberal back channels and causing oceans of saliva to gush from the mouths of Rove-hungry liberals, there wasn't a peep or an "oops" from anyone after it became obvious the whole story was phony.
And as far as I know, the idiot reporter who fabricated the story still has his job.
Rove wasn't indicted in the CIA leak case, that is true. He also instructed WH press secretary Scott McClellan to tell the press back in 2003 that he had nothing to do with the leak. That of course was a lie. We know that he spoke with Matt Cooper of TIME and Bob Novak about Valerie Plame Wilson. If Rove had nothing to hide regarding the case, then why did he instruct Scotty to lie to the press?
reality, you wrote:
"If Rove had nothing to hide regarding the case, then why did he instruct Scotty to lie to the press?"
This entire issue is overcome by he-said-she-said-he-said ad nauseum.
Nevertheless, press secretaries are intermediaries whose jobs exist to filter and manage information. They are not bound to utter incontestable truth when they speak. They are not under oath.
On the other hand, when journalists state information they are reporting is factual, rather than rumor or innuendo, it's expected that it will be factual.
Otherwise, they're lying, which is against the "rules". The reporter who authoritatively stated Rove was to be "frog-walked out of the White House" was lying.
But, like I said, I believe he's still got his job. So much for journalistic integrity!
"If Rove had nothing to hide regarding the case, then why did he instruct Scotty to lie to the press?"
This entire issue is overcome by he-said-she-said-he-said ad nauseum.
Nevertheless, press secretaries are intermediaries whose jobs exist to filter and manage information. They are not bound to utter incontestable truth when they speak. They are not under oath.
On the other hand, when journalists state information they are reporting is factual, rather than rumor or innuendo, it's expected that it will be factual.
Otherwise, they're lying, which is against the "rules". The reporter who authoritatively stated Rove was to be "frog-walked out of the White House" was lying.
But, like I said, I believe he's still got his job. So much for journalistic integrity!
Scotty McClellan said he spoke directly to three men in the Bush administration - Scooter Libby, Eliot Abrams and Karl Rove - and asked them if they had anything to do with the leaking of Valerie Plame's identity to members of the press. McClellan said all three directly denied to him that they had had anything to do w/ the leak. As the official mouthpiece for the Bush administration, when McClellan himself says directly to the press at the gaggle on camera that Rove, Libby and Abrams all denied having anything to do w/ the leak, the American people ought to be able to take that very direct statement at face value. Unfortunately that was not the case, as we later found that both Libby and Rove were very much involved in the leak and Libby was actually indicted for repeatedly lying to federal investigators and a federal grand jury when questioned about his involvement. If nothing unethical and/or illegal happened, why all the denials? Why all the lies?
Great post, rbe. I love the Steve Forbes line.
These stats speak loud and clear, despite transparent attempts to obfuscate.
In 2005, the poverty rate actually went down, from 12.7% to 12.6% - statistically insignificant, according to US Census officials. And the last time the poverty rate went down was during Clinton's last full year - to 11.3%. Pretty damning for the Republicans.
Cartledge is right when he says that people vote the economy above all else. The Repubs should be very afraid this November.
These stats speak loud and clear, despite transparent attempts to obfuscate.
In 2005, the poverty rate actually went down, from 12.7% to 12.6% - statistically insignificant, according to US Census officials. And the last time the poverty rate went down was during Clinton's last full year - to 11.3%. Pretty damning for the Republicans.
Cartledge is right when he says that people vote the economy above all else. The Repubs should be very afraid this November.
reality, you wrote:
"As the official mouthpiece for the Bush administration, when McClellan himself says directly to the press at the gaggle on camera that Rove, Libby and Abrams all denied having anything to do w/ the leak, the American people ought to be able to take that very direct statement at face value."
Like when Clinton declared "I never had sex with that woman."?
Look. Press secretaries are hired liars. They're not legally accountable for public statements they deliver. They are not under oath when they speak. They are not journalists held to a high standard of truthfulness.
You can pretend otherwise, but you're only kidding yourself.
"As the official mouthpiece for the Bush administration, when McClellan himself says directly to the press at the gaggle on camera that Rove, Libby and Abrams all denied having anything to do w/ the leak, the American people ought to be able to take that very direct statement at face value."
Like when Clinton declared "I never had sex with that woman."?
Look. Press secretaries are hired liars. They're not legally accountable for public statements they deliver. They are not under oath when they speak. They are not journalists held to a high standard of truthfulness.
You can pretend otherwise, but you're only kidding yourself.
no_slappz,
Hired liars? Wow, that is an interesting concept: the official spokesman for the president of the United States is less accountable for what he says than a free-lance, ex-cocaine addict who publishes on a blog.
Spokesmen are supposed to deflect questions that pretain to confidential matters and answer questions truthfully that don't. Sure, they are not exactly what one would call straitforward, but the press is supposed to take what the official spokesperson says as truthful.
I think you are the one that is kidding one's self.
RBE, the numbers have been consistently worse than expected for the U.S. economy over the last few weeks. This includes jobless claims, manufacturing indexes and consumer confidence indexes.
What is interesting is that the markets have been taking it all in stride. No currency has been able to get the upperhand on the dollar, and you see the dow getting compressed into a tighter and tighter range. The 11,300 resistance level is now providing support, but no sustained rally has been able to take foot.
This is a classic "coil up" before a breakout. No one knows which way it will go, but if the numbers keep coming in the way they are, you can expect the drop to come.
Pay close attention to the NFP number and the ISM index on Friday. It could be a doosey (although probably more for the FX markets than anything else. We are finally looking for the Euro to break 1.30).
A final note: the 10 year yeild is now almost 50 basis points lower than the overnight rate. Despite inflation worries, I just don't see the Fed raising again this year. Currently the bond market gives it a 28% chance for a raise to 5.5 by year's end.
Hired liars? Wow, that is an interesting concept: the official spokesman for the president of the United States is less accountable for what he says than a free-lance, ex-cocaine addict who publishes on a blog.
Spokesmen are supposed to deflect questions that pretain to confidential matters and answer questions truthfully that don't. Sure, they are not exactly what one would call straitforward, but the press is supposed to take what the official spokesperson says as truthful.
I think you are the one that is kidding one's self.
RBE, the numbers have been consistently worse than expected for the U.S. economy over the last few weeks. This includes jobless claims, manufacturing indexes and consumer confidence indexes.
What is interesting is that the markets have been taking it all in stride. No currency has been able to get the upperhand on the dollar, and you see the dow getting compressed into a tighter and tighter range. The 11,300 resistance level is now providing support, but no sustained rally has been able to take foot.
This is a classic "coil up" before a breakout. No one knows which way it will go, but if the numbers keep coming in the way they are, you can expect the drop to come.
Pay close attention to the NFP number and the ISM index on Friday. It could be a doosey (although probably more for the FX markets than anything else. We are finally looking for the Euro to break 1.30).
A final note: the 10 year yeild is now almost 50 basis points lower than the overnight rate. Despite inflation worries, I just don't see the Fed raising again this year. Currently the bond market gives it a 28% chance for a raise to 5.5 by year's end.
abi, I agree w/ you that people often vote their personal finances. Right now, polls and economic statistics show that people aren't doing so well and are very pessimistic about the future. That ALWAYS bodes ill for the party in power. Perhaps some Dems will be hurt (such as Granholm in Michigan), but it seems Republicans stand to lost the most here
praguetwin, I'm w/ you on the function of the WH spokesperson. The White House press secretary is the official mouthpiece of the administration and stands in for the president himself. McClellan was obviously upset when he found that Rove and Libby had lied to him about their involvement and he had subsequently passed on that information to the press. His credibility, which by all press accounts was quite good, plummeted after that and he never recovered.
pt, I was wondering about the curve. Months back when the yield curve first inverted for a short period of time, I remember hearing doom and gloom scenarios for the economy on CNBC (an inverted yield curve often precedes a slowdown/recession, etc.) But then the curve returned to normal and I heard no more about it. Over the summer, I watch CNBC a lot in the morning and I noticed once again that the yield curve was inverted and was staying that way. Yet I heard no gloom and doom scenarios on CNBC. Have concerns over the inverted yield curve diminished or is something else going on there?
Job numbers are expected to come in at 120,000. Do you think they're coming in over or under? I assume even slightly under would solidify the perception that the Fed is done for the year.
praguetwin, I'm w/ you on the function of the WH spokesperson. The White House press secretary is the official mouthpiece of the administration and stands in for the president himself. McClellan was obviously upset when he found that Rove and Libby had lied to him about their involvement and he had subsequently passed on that information to the press. His credibility, which by all press accounts was quite good, plummeted after that and he never recovered.
pt, I was wondering about the curve. Months back when the yield curve first inverted for a short period of time, I remember hearing doom and gloom scenarios for the economy on CNBC (an inverted yield curve often precedes a slowdown/recession, etc.) But then the curve returned to normal and I heard no more about it. Over the summer, I watch CNBC a lot in the morning and I noticed once again that the yield curve was inverted and was staying that way. Yet I heard no gloom and doom scenarios on CNBC. Have concerns over the inverted yield curve diminished or is something else going on there?
Job numbers are expected to come in at 120,000. Do you think they're coming in over or under? I assume even slightly under would solidify the perception that the Fed is done for the year.
I think we are on the same page with the whitehouse spokesman. Good point about McClellan.
I think the reason that the inversion is now causing less of a stir is that it has stayed inverted and even widened yet growth is still robust (even if it is slowing). Most analyst are now saying that this is evidence that the Fed has overshot on it's tightening, or at least will be forced to loosen because of this inversion. Historically, they have never raised when it was thus inverted.
I'm betting the under on the NFP because every piece of US data has disappointed over the last few weeks. I expect the trend to continue. What is interesting is that the FX markets have been reacting opposite to how they should on disappointing numbers. The dollar has strengthened each time after an initial drop. It really sucks to be right and still loose money, but hey, I'm still learning.
Anything under 100,000 will solidify that view, but at the end of the day the CPI and PPI data are what the Fed will be looking most closely at.
Summer is almost over and the traders are coming back. We should see a little rally on the back of a disappointing NFP number but if the inflation numbers come in high in mid-September and we are back to large volumes.... look out.
I think the reason that the inversion is now causing less of a stir is that it has stayed inverted and even widened yet growth is still robust (even if it is slowing). Most analyst are now saying that this is evidence that the Fed has overshot on it's tightening, or at least will be forced to loosen because of this inversion. Historically, they have never raised when it was thus inverted.
I'm betting the under on the NFP because every piece of US data has disappointed over the last few weeks. I expect the trend to continue. What is interesting is that the FX markets have been reacting opposite to how they should on disappointing numbers. The dollar has strengthened each time after an initial drop. It really sucks to be right and still loose money, but hey, I'm still learning.
Anything under 100,000 will solidify that view, but at the end of the day the CPI and PPI data are what the Fed will be looking most closely at.
Summer is almost over and the traders are coming back. We should see a little rally on the back of a disappointing NFP number but if the inflation numbers come in high in mid-September and we are back to large volumes.... look out.
I was going to respond, but abi stole my line :)
Rove and the apologists cannot produce justifications for the people who actually feel the pain.
I get the sense that the recent Bush post Katrina approach is close to the weary acceptance that I forshadowed.
You can't spin harsh reality!
Rove and the apologists cannot produce justifications for the people who actually feel the pain.
I get the sense that the recent Bush post Katrina approach is close to the weary acceptance that I forshadowed.
You can't spin harsh reality!
praguetwin, you wrote:
"Hired liars? Wow, that is an interesting concept: the official spokesman for the president of the United States is less accountable for what he says than a free-lance, ex-cocaine addict who publishes on a blog."
Yes, spokesman manage the information flow and that can include lying. Believe it or not.
Your comparison of the press secretary and the journalist is interesting.
You compare the job of the press secretary with an ad hominen attack on the specific fabricator of the Karl Rove story. That is an example of false logic.
It doesn't matter to me what the journalist wrote. It was all pretty amusing. But he operated in a journalistic capacity. The fact that he enjoys recreational drugs, like people in government positions, is irrelevant. But it serves your purposes of discrediting him after the fact.
His byline did not include the other information you mentioned. Maybe it's true, maybe it's not. I have no idea.
The rest of your post reads like it came from Maria Bartiromo's desk.
"Hired liars? Wow, that is an interesting concept: the official spokesman for the president of the United States is less accountable for what he says than a free-lance, ex-cocaine addict who publishes on a blog."
Yes, spokesman manage the information flow and that can include lying. Believe it or not.
Your comparison of the press secretary and the journalist is interesting.
You compare the job of the press secretary with an ad hominen attack on the specific fabricator of the Karl Rove story. That is an example of false logic.
It doesn't matter to me what the journalist wrote. It was all pretty amusing. But he operated in a journalistic capacity. The fact that he enjoys recreational drugs, like people in government positions, is irrelevant. But it serves your purposes of discrediting him after the fact.
His byline did not include the other information you mentioned. Maybe it's true, maybe it's not. I have no idea.
The rest of your post reads like it came from Maria Bartiromo's desk.
It occurred to me that if there is any Rovian October surprise in the works it is one that involves the price of oil falling to unexpectedly low levels.
Of course Rove would have had nothing to do with such a development, but if the price of oil falls, the current administration will benefit.
Of course Rove would have had nothing to do with such a development, but if the price of oil falls, the current administration will benefit.
praguetwin, you wrote:
"It really sucks to be right and still loose money, but hey, I'm still learning."
If you lose money, you weren't right. It's that simple. But the error may well be that you overlooked an important issue and didn't know it.
The economy is way too complex for one mind to account for all its parts and take investment action that is guaranteed to be profitable.
The best analysts are right a little more than half the time. Economists make vague predictions that are open to interpretation.
And some of the guys on Wall Street who think they are smarter than everyone else regularly self-destruct.
Blow-ups are occurring regularly among hedge funds. A recent bomb involved a fund manager who bet it all on the price of natural gas -- and lost. Why? Because the weather failed to match his expectation.
"It really sucks to be right and still loose money, but hey, I'm still learning."
If you lose money, you weren't right. It's that simple. But the error may well be that you overlooked an important issue and didn't know it.
The economy is way too complex for one mind to account for all its parts and take investment action that is guaranteed to be profitable.
The best analysts are right a little more than half the time. Economists make vague predictions that are open to interpretation.
And some of the guys on Wall Street who think they are smarter than everyone else regularly self-destruct.
Blow-ups are occurring regularly among hedge funds. A recent bomb involved a fund manager who bet it all on the price of natural gas -- and lost. Why? Because the weather failed to match his expectation.
Ladies and Gentlemen,
Hear and attend Oh Best Beloveds:
No Slappz is on the right track when he suggests that the Rovian October surprise w/ no apparent connection to Rove would be a fall in the price of oil, more specifically a fall in the price of gasoline.
Gas @ $3.00 a gallon guarantees that on the first Wednesday in November, the Republicans would be sitting around saying: "Shut up and deal." But Glorioski! Que passe? The price of gas nationally seems to have dropped to the $2.82.9-$2.84.9 range.
I never used to be much of a conspiracy nut, but anyone who doesn't believe that oil companies do not manipulate the market may also believe in the tooth fairy. Exxon Mobile reported the highest earnings ever by a publicaly traded company in the 4th quarter (N. of $10.7 billion)of 2005 and the 2nd highest (N. of 10.4 billion as I recall) in the 2nd quarter of 2006.
BP is being investigated for market manipulation and is already under investigation for thre manipulation of propane prices.
These companies and the people who run them are major supporters of the presidents "more tax breaks for the rich" agenda.
Expect the price of gasoline and oil products to keep falling and then spike after election day. We will hear the mantra of supply and demand, but we will also read Exxon Mobile's bottom line.
What is the connection to Karl Rove? He may not have even had to make the phone calls. The people running Exxon Mobile and BP don't need a weather man to know which way the wind blows.
Hear and attend Oh Best Beloveds:
No Slappz is on the right track when he suggests that the Rovian October surprise w/ no apparent connection to Rove would be a fall in the price of oil, more specifically a fall in the price of gasoline.
Gas @ $3.00 a gallon guarantees that on the first Wednesday in November, the Republicans would be sitting around saying: "Shut up and deal." But Glorioski! Que passe? The price of gas nationally seems to have dropped to the $2.82.9-$2.84.9 range.
I never used to be much of a conspiracy nut, but anyone who doesn't believe that oil companies do not manipulate the market may also believe in the tooth fairy. Exxon Mobile reported the highest earnings ever by a publicaly traded company in the 4th quarter (N. of $10.7 billion)of 2005 and the 2nd highest (N. of 10.4 billion as I recall) in the 2nd quarter of 2006.
BP is being investigated for market manipulation and is already under investigation for thre manipulation of propane prices.
These companies and the people who run them are major supporters of the presidents "more tax breaks for the rich" agenda.
Expect the price of gasoline and oil products to keep falling and then spike after election day. We will hear the mantra of supply and demand, but we will also read Exxon Mobile's bottom line.
What is the connection to Karl Rove? He may not have even had to make the phone calls. The people running Exxon Mobile and BP don't need a weather man to know which way the wind blows.
# posted by 
: 4:02 PM
: 4:02 PM
loop garoo, I noticed gas fell this week too and I heard the parrotheads on CNN say that gas was expected to fall at least another 15 cents a gallon in the coming days. One cheery estimate from a CNN reporter had if alling back to $2 a gallon in the coming months (which seems doubtful to me, but as you say, the gas/oil companies know which way the wind blows...)
Jack Cafferty at CNN said "Gee, if I was a cynic, I might say the gas and oil companies are manipulating the price of gas to help the gas and oil preznit and his party in the November midterms."
And as you say, Rove owuldn't even need to pick up the phone for that.
Jack Cafferty at CNN said "Gee, if I was a cynic, I might say the gas and oil companies are manipulating the price of gas to help the gas and oil preznit and his party in the November midterms."
And as you say, Rove owuldn't even need to pick up the phone for that.
Ns,
My point about Leopold was a bit tounge and cheek, but the ad hominen attack was uncalled for, fair enough. But just to be clear, according to you, bloggers are more reliable sources of information that the official spokesperson from the president. Did I get that right?
Comparing me with Maria? Wow, all I can say is thanks.
What I meant about being right is that I was right about which way the data came out, but wrong about how the market reacted. The overlooked factors were an overbought bias on the Euro and an Asian name buying huge chunks of dollars as it dropped. This created a bounce.
I don't expect that I am smarter than everyone else, but I am pretty good at not getting surprised by data. Get surprised by the market reaction to that data is another matter.
Hey, Loopy, nice to hear from you!
My point about Leopold was a bit tounge and cheek, but the ad hominen attack was uncalled for, fair enough. But just to be clear, according to you, bloggers are more reliable sources of information that the official spokesperson from the president. Did I get that right?
Comparing me with Maria? Wow, all I can say is thanks.
What I meant about being right is that I was right about which way the data came out, but wrong about how the market reacted. The overlooked factors were an overbought bias on the Euro and an Asian name buying huge chunks of dollars as it dropped. This created a bounce.
I don't expect that I am smarter than everyone else, but I am pretty good at not getting surprised by data. Get surprised by the market reaction to that data is another matter.
Hey, Loopy, nice to hear from you!
praguetwin, you wrote:
"But just to be clear, according to you, bloggers are more reliable sources of information that the official spokesperson from the president. Did I get that right?"
No. But bloggers do get it right often enough to prove they've added a huge positive dimension to information delivery.
Matt Drudge is pretty good example. He broke the Monica Lewinsky story and proved that snoopy individuals with no particular credentials can crack big stories.
Meanwhile, your undertone of belief in the integrity of "official spokespeople" seems misplaced for a guy with some understanding of Wall Street.
The Investor Relations departments at companies large enough to require those departments regularly spew information that is sometimes obfuscating, temporizing and occasionally deceptive.
But the reasons behind these practices don't always boil down to covering up chicanery. Although in cases like Enron, Worldcom, HealthSouth that is exactly the case.
Meanwhile, the head of IR is like the president's press secretary, overseeing handling all public appearances and orchestrating meetings with Wall Street, preparing speeches, Powerpoint presentations, and having a hand in the text appearing in 10-Qs, 10-Ks, Annual Reports and all other SEC documents. Important stuff.
Analysts have to cut through a lot to reach the bone. Sometimes, when an analyst suggests something is afoot, companies attempt to intimidate the offending analyst. That's happened to me.
Anyway, bloggers are partisans. But most do nothing more than spout badly formulated opinions. Few perform any investigative work. Occasionally, those who probe will uncover something critical, like the bloggers who uncovered the falsification of documents related to Bush's military record.
Journalists are supposed to seek truth and avoid partisanship. But few avoid the latter.
Presidential press secretaries are partisans who manage information for the benefit of the boss.
Why should anyone accept all statements made by a press secretary as truthful? As they say, it's nuanced.
A often-quoted piece of journalistic wisdom states "if your mother says she loves, check it out."
What's interesting about bloggers and blogging is the opportunity they provide for advancing the validity of a "tip."
While it's gotten easier to contact reporters at most newspapers, it's easier still to alert a recognized blogger who might have an interest in a seemingly obscure piece of information that a reporter hasn't time to evaluate.
Wall Street is loaded with self-proclaimed blogger pundits, some of whom have proven very very sharp.
Newspapers, press secretaries and all other information venues know they've got competition. In other words, the validity and impact of bloggers is well established and doesn't require my imprimatur for anything.
You wrote:
"Comparing me with Maria? Wow, all I can say is thanks."
Clear, crisp reporting.
You wrote:
"What I meant about being right is that I was right about which way the data came out, but wrong about how the market reacted."
Unless you're in the business of reporting and providing suggestions of what may lie ahead, being wrong is what matters.
You wrote:
"The overlooked factors were an overbought bias on the Euro and an Asian name buying huge chunks of dollars as it dropped. This created a bounce."
Maybe. Or maybe not. Wall Street abhors an explanation vacuum and will fill it with reasonably intelligent jabber as quickly as possible.
You wrote:
"...but I am pretty good at not getting surprised by data. Get surprised by the market reaction to that data is another matter."
Again, in so many instances it is impossible to know enough to predict with certainty. But if you want to make money in the market by being right, well, you'll have to work at it.
"But just to be clear, according to you, bloggers are more reliable sources of information that the official spokesperson from the president. Did I get that right?"
No. But bloggers do get it right often enough to prove they've added a huge positive dimension to information delivery.
Matt Drudge is pretty good example. He broke the Monica Lewinsky story and proved that snoopy individuals with no particular credentials can crack big stories.
Meanwhile, your undertone of belief in the integrity of "official spokespeople" seems misplaced for a guy with some understanding of Wall Street.
The Investor Relations departments at companies large enough to require those departments regularly spew information that is sometimes obfuscating, temporizing and occasionally deceptive.
But the reasons behind these practices don't always boil down to covering up chicanery. Although in cases like Enron, Worldcom, HealthSouth that is exactly the case.
Meanwhile, the head of IR is like the president's press secretary, overseeing handling all public appearances and orchestrating meetings with Wall Street, preparing speeches, Powerpoint presentations, and having a hand in the text appearing in 10-Qs, 10-Ks, Annual Reports and all other SEC documents. Important stuff.
Analysts have to cut through a lot to reach the bone. Sometimes, when an analyst suggests something is afoot, companies attempt to intimidate the offending analyst. That's happened to me.
Anyway, bloggers are partisans. But most do nothing more than spout badly formulated opinions. Few perform any investigative work. Occasionally, those who probe will uncover something critical, like the bloggers who uncovered the falsification of documents related to Bush's military record.
Journalists are supposed to seek truth and avoid partisanship. But few avoid the latter.
Presidential press secretaries are partisans who manage information for the benefit of the boss.
Why should anyone accept all statements made by a press secretary as truthful? As they say, it's nuanced.
A often-quoted piece of journalistic wisdom states "if your mother says she loves, check it out."
What's interesting about bloggers and blogging is the opportunity they provide for advancing the validity of a "tip."
While it's gotten easier to contact reporters at most newspapers, it's easier still to alert a recognized blogger who might have an interest in a seemingly obscure piece of information that a reporter hasn't time to evaluate.
Wall Street is loaded with self-proclaimed blogger pundits, some of whom have proven very very sharp.
Newspapers, press secretaries and all other information venues know they've got competition. In other words, the validity and impact of bloggers is well established and doesn't require my imprimatur for anything.
You wrote:
"Comparing me with Maria? Wow, all I can say is thanks."
Clear, crisp reporting.
You wrote:
"What I meant about being right is that I was right about which way the data came out, but wrong about how the market reacted."
Unless you're in the business of reporting and providing suggestions of what may lie ahead, being wrong is what matters.
You wrote:
"The overlooked factors were an overbought bias on the Euro and an Asian name buying huge chunks of dollars as it dropped. This created a bounce."
Maybe. Or maybe not. Wall Street abhors an explanation vacuum and will fill it with reasonably intelligent jabber as quickly as possible.
You wrote:
"...but I am pretty good at not getting surprised by data. Get surprised by the market reaction to that data is another matter."
Again, in so many instances it is impossible to know enough to predict with certainty. But if you want to make money in the market by being right, well, you'll have to work at it.
loop garoo, you wrote:
"I never used to be much of a conspiracy nut, but anyone who doesn't believe that oil companies do not manipulate the market may also believe in the tooth fairy."
And to cover up this latest conspiracy, the oil companies preceded this skullduggery with another plot that knocked prices down to $10 a barrel at two points in the 1990s.
Oil is a commodity trading on world markets. Please tell me the mechanism that allows the oil company "conspiracy" to succeed.
You wrote:
"Exxon Mobile reported the highest earnings ever by a publicaly traded company in the 4th quarter (N. of $10.7 billion)of 2005 and the 2nd highest (N. of 10.4 billion as I recall) in the 2nd quarter of 2006."
High earnings? Based on what? Dollars alone? Big deal.
Perform some simple analysis. In 2005 Exxon reported revenue of $370 billion and net profits of $36 billion. I think you can determine that Exxon's net profit margin was slightly less than 10%.
A net profit margin of 10% is no better than average for US businesses. Most of the time Exxon's net profit margin is below average.
Compare that with Microsoft. In its latest full year, the MSFT saw revenue of $44 billion. But net profit was $12.6 billion, or about 33%.
By every financial measure, Microsoft is a far more profitable company.
Or IBM, which reported revenue of $91 billion last year while earning net profits of $8 billion, for a net profit margin similar to Exxon's.
Then there's GM, which is losing money at a dangerous clip.
Meanwhile, Exxon pays out about 20% of its profits as dividends to stockholders. If you participate in teacher pension plans, those dividends are accruing in your account.
The oil business is not highly profitable. Many oil companies were forced into bankruptcy in the 1980s following the collapse of the price of oil in 1983.
Things were grim for years and then got worse around 1991 when oil bounced off $9 a barrel and hung around $10. Natural gas sold for about $1.00 per thousand cubic feet. Nobody would drill in those days because more supplies of oil and gas would only put more downward pressure on prices.
Was this part of the conspiracy?
Today, restrictions on domestic drilling increase the fear factor over supplies coming from the middle east. Thus, prices rise -- out of fear over what might happen next week, not over the quantity of oil coming from wells today.
Do you believe Exxon is secretly funding eco-nuts who oppose drilling in the US as a gambit to keep prices high?
"I never used to be much of a conspiracy nut, but anyone who doesn't believe that oil companies do not manipulate the market may also believe in the tooth fairy."
And to cover up this latest conspiracy, the oil companies preceded this skullduggery with another plot that knocked prices down to $10 a barrel at two points in the 1990s.
Oil is a commodity trading on world markets. Please tell me the mechanism that allows the oil company "conspiracy" to succeed.
You wrote:
"Exxon Mobile reported the highest earnings ever by a publicaly traded company in the 4th quarter (N. of $10.7 billion)of 2005 and the 2nd highest (N. of 10.4 billion as I recall) in the 2nd quarter of 2006."
High earnings? Based on what? Dollars alone? Big deal.
Perform some simple analysis. In 2005 Exxon reported revenue of $370 billion and net profits of $36 billion. I think you can determine that Exxon's net profit margin was slightly less than 10%.
A net profit margin of 10% is no better than average for US businesses. Most of the time Exxon's net profit margin is below average.
Compare that with Microsoft. In its latest full year, the MSFT saw revenue of $44 billion. But net profit was $12.6 billion, or about 33%.
By every financial measure, Microsoft is a far more profitable company.
Or IBM, which reported revenue of $91 billion last year while earning net profits of $8 billion, for a net profit margin similar to Exxon's.
Then there's GM, which is losing money at a dangerous clip.
Meanwhile, Exxon pays out about 20% of its profits as dividends to stockholders. If you participate in teacher pension plans, those dividends are accruing in your account.
The oil business is not highly profitable. Many oil companies were forced into bankruptcy in the 1980s following the collapse of the price of oil in 1983.
Things were grim for years and then got worse around 1991 when oil bounced off $9 a barrel and hung around $10. Natural gas sold for about $1.00 per thousand cubic feet. Nobody would drill in those days because more supplies of oil and gas would only put more downward pressure on prices.
Was this part of the conspiracy?
Today, restrictions on domestic drilling increase the fear factor over supplies coming from the middle east. Thus, prices rise -- out of fear over what might happen next week, not over the quantity of oil coming from wells today.
Do you believe Exxon is secretly funding eco-nuts who oppose drilling in the US as a gambit to keep prices high?
NS,
I believe in the fear factor; I don't believe Exxon Mobile is funding "eco-nut;" as for the dividend innuring to the benefit of a teacher's pension fund, in July, EM's earnings were $1.72 per share--good for ther pension fund, not so good for the teacher paying $3.00 at the pump and paying more for everything whose transport or production is based on fuel costs; I am not saying one cannot learn from 1991, but in some ways, the 15 years between then and now have changed markets so much that what happened then my not even be possible now; I am saying EM manipulates its stock price; I am saying, as you pointed out in your response to PT, that various pronouncements, etc, etc drive up the price of oil. EM profit ans I care not wether Microsoft does better. I care about what I pay at the pump.
I believe in the fear factor; I don't believe Exxon Mobile is funding "eco-nut;" as for the dividend innuring to the benefit of a teacher's pension fund, in July, EM's earnings were $1.72 per share--good for ther pension fund, not so good for the teacher paying $3.00 at the pump and paying more for everything whose transport or production is based on fuel costs; I am not saying one cannot learn from 1991, but in some ways, the 15 years between then and now have changed markets so much that what happened then my not even be possible now; I am saying EM manipulates its stock price; I am saying, as you pointed out in your response to PT, that various pronouncements, etc, etc drive up the price of oil. EM profit ans I care not wether Microsoft does better. I care about what I pay at the pump.
# posted by : 2:30 PM
: 2:30 PM
loopy garoo, you wrote:
"I am saying EM manipulates its stock price;"
According to SEC data, Exxon purchased about $23 billion of its own stock in the 12 months ending June 30, 2006.
In your world, is this stock manipulation? And if you think it is, why would Exxon act to raise the price of its stock if it's buying those same shares?
Market manipulators usually drive the price down, then buy, then drive it up.
But that simply isn't possible with a company like Exxon, with a market capitalization of $400 billion.
In short, a company must be relatively small and its stock relatively obscure for market maniuplations to occur. It simply doesn't happen with large companies -- unless, they have become corrupt organizations perpetrating massive frauds, like Enron.
But even you will agree that Exxon is producing, refining and selling oil and refined products all over the world. No fraud there.
You wrote:
"I am saying, as you pointed out in your response to PT, that various pronouncements, etc, etc drive up the price of oil."
When Exxon BUYS oil it pays today's rate -- call it $70 a barrel. A barrel is 42 gallons. At $3 a gallon, a barrel of oil is worth $126 at the pump. But not really. A 42-gallon barrel of crude oil produces a lot less than 42 gallons of gasoline. But we will ignore that for a moment.
The barrel that was purchased for $70, yields a product that is sold for $126, leaving $56 to cover the costs of transportion from the well to the refiner, the cost of refining, the cost of transporting it to the gas station and many other costs that are incurred by the oil company.
At the end of the day, the oil that was bought for $70 a barrel and sold for $126 a barrel yields a profit of about $13 a barrel after income taxes are paid.
If you ran a business, you would not think such profits were extraordinary, or even high, except in relation to historical profits in the oil industry.
Post a Comment
"I am saying EM manipulates its stock price;"
According to SEC data, Exxon purchased about $23 billion of its own stock in the 12 months ending June 30, 2006.
In your world, is this stock manipulation? And if you think it is, why would Exxon act to raise the price of its stock if it's buying those same shares?
Market manipulators usually drive the price down, then buy, then drive it up.
But that simply isn't possible with a company like Exxon, with a market capitalization of $400 billion.
In short, a company must be relatively small and its stock relatively obscure for market maniuplations to occur. It simply doesn't happen with large companies -- unless, they have become corrupt organizations perpetrating massive frauds, like Enron.
But even you will agree that Exxon is producing, refining and selling oil and refined products all over the world. No fraud there.
You wrote:
"I am saying, as you pointed out in your response to PT, that various pronouncements, etc, etc drive up the price of oil."
When Exxon BUYS oil it pays today's rate -- call it $70 a barrel. A barrel is 42 gallons. At $3 a gallon, a barrel of oil is worth $126 at the pump. But not really. A 42-gallon barrel of crude oil produces a lot less than 42 gallons of gasoline. But we will ignore that for a moment.
The barrel that was purchased for $70, yields a product that is sold for $126, leaving $56 to cover the costs of transportion from the well to the refiner, the cost of refining, the cost of transporting it to the gas station and many other costs that are incurred by the oil company.
At the end of the day, the oil that was bought for $70 a barrel and sold for $126 a barrel yields a profit of about $13 a barrel after income taxes are paid.
If you ran a business, you would not think such profits were extraordinary, or even high, except in relation to historical profits in the oil industry.
<< Home
