What happened to all of the doom and gloom economic threads?

[richard_daily]

The liars club is meeting...



lol

you're at the glory hole with veteman?

 

[RobDownSouth]

For those not keeping track, that's 300% according to AJmath.

Not to quibble, but AJmath has been replaced with PatriotMath™, the fun new math that anyone....even a Tea Party supporter....can use!

Basically, PatriotMath™ is just like "real" math, only numbers can mean whatever you want them to mean!

President Obama visiting India? Use PatriotMath™ to claim the cost of his trip was $200 Billion dollars per day!

Glen Beck having a 60,000 person rally on the mall in Washington DC? Use PatriotMath™ to make the attendance figure TWO MILLION PEOPLE!

PatriotMath™ ....where numbers count!

 

[benschup]

My portfolio growth exceeds the rate of inflation (including whatever "alternate" measure you prefer) many times over. Sorry bro.

My GM stock alone (play money) is up almost 30%. What's the rate of inflation right now?

Buy a Volt with the 30%. Maybe it will help a little in cutting our loses.

 

[Busybody]

Buy a Volt with the 30%. Maybe it will help a little in cutting our loses.

Tee Hee

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

Gas prices are supply and demand right?

Demand goes down, price goes down...

Right???

Email From Lead Analyst, Weekly Petroleum Supply Team on Possibility of Recession


In response to Petroleum And Gasoline Usage Charts for June, July, August; Unemployment vs. Gasoline Usage Analysis, a post based on weekly petroleum stats from reader Tim Wallace, I received a very nice email including a superb set of charts from James Beck, Lead Analyst, Weekly Petroleum Supply Team for the Energy Information Administration.

James gave me permission to use his name and his charts as long as I mentioned that his email reflects his personal opinions, not necessarily that of the EIA.

It is a pleasure to get an email from a government worker who takes his job seriously, is exceptionally knowledgeable on his subject, and is willing to be quoted by name.

James writes ...

Hello, Mike and Tim,

Thank you again for using the data from the Weekly Petroleum Status Report (WPSR) in your analyses of the demand of petroleum and gasoline. As the Lead Analyst for the WPSR at the Energy Information Administration, I always appreciate when others use our data in providing analysis!

I have updated my charts that I sent to you a few months ago. I have included Total Petroleum "Product Supplied" (a proxy for demand), Gasoline Product Supplied, Total Distillate (Diesel and Heating Oil) Product Supplied, and Kerosene Jet Fuel Product Supplied charts for you to review. These charts (with all of their data included) are based on the EIA's Petroleum Supply Monthly (PSM) data. The reason to look at the monthly numbers is that they are more reliable than the weekly as the survey is of the entire industry and there is a great deal of extra time used to verify the data. Many people believe that the monthly numbers are a revision of the weekly numbers. This is not true. These are separate surveys. Where the monthly surveys the entire industry and collects much more detailed information, the weekly information is based on a sample of the industry drawn from the monthly reporters, collects less information, and is focused on timeliness versus completeness. The weekly numbers are estimates of the most recent week's data based on the sample and are a snapshot in time. The weekly is a very good indicator of the data, but the monthly is the touchstone (at least until the Petroleum Supply Annual (PSA) is released--which is, in fact, a revision of the monthly data). Also, the monthly numbers from 2011 have been revised (as have some of the numbers in 2012) with the release of the PSA late last month. You can see the revisions in the "Data 1" tab of the attached spreadsheets.

In each of these workbooks, I have also shown a comparison of the weekly data versus the monthly data. This shows that the weekly does do a reasonably good job of capturing trends; however, sometimes these are exaggerated in the weekly data. Although the monthly is lagged by two months, it is the better measure of the full picture.

The following commentary is from me as a private citizen, not as a spokesperson of the Energy Information Administration or the Department of Energy:

The data support your general point that total petroleum product demand is at 1997/98 levels. The running three-month average that I am using (Apr/May/Jun--the last three months available) show that total demand has bounced above the lowest point for the same three-month period in 2009, but remains significantly below 2010 and 2011 levels--remaining very near 1997/98 levels. This 15 years of demand destruction cannot be explained fully by increased efficiency or increased use of biofuels and renewables (these have, at most, a marginal effect). This is truly an indication of the real and continuing trouble in our economy, high unemployment and underemployment, loss of manufacturing, and reduction of shipping. Total product supplied for April - June has averaged 18.652 million barrels per day, 0.5% above the same period in 2009, and is the second-lowest level for the three-month period since 1997 (which was at 18.487 million barrels per day).

Demand for gasoline continues to be below 2002 levels and the lowest level for April - June since 2001 (earlier this year the PSM numbers had shown a slight increase over last year; however, with the revisions to the 2011 numbers in the PSA slightly upward, this trend was shown to be incorrect). Gasoline demand had rebounded somewhat in 2010 (rising near 2004 levels after the recession in 2008), but has fallen below the recessionary levels of 2008/09 in the last two years. At 9.035 million barrels per day, gasoline demand is down 0.4% from last year, but down 4.8% from the April - June peak in 2007 of 9.491 million barrels per day.

Distillate demand, on the other hand, continues to show weakness. For the period of April - June, it is down nearly 4.5% from last year. At 3.729 million barrels per day, it is at its lowest level since 2002. The concern I have is the year-over-year decline this year. Since diesel demand is a very good proxy for the health of the economy (all shipping uses diesel--trucking, rail, barge, etc.), this weakening from last year continues to be source of concern for the economy.

Demand for jet fuel has also fallen dramatically from 2007/08 (it had also fallen dramatically after the 9/11 attacks, never fully recovering to the levels seen from 1999 - 2001). At 1.437 million barrels per day during the period from April - June, KJet demand continues to be at levels we have not seen since 1994/95. The 2012 level is the second lowest for this three-month period since 1995. Although KJet demand is up 1.2% from the 2009 low for the period, it is down 2.4% from last year.

These numbers do not tell me that we are in a recovery. Despite increases in distillate and KJet demand in 2010 and 2011, and in gasoline in 2009 and 2010, these were well short of recovering from the decline in 2008/09. The decline year-over-year in these three core transportation indicators suggest a slowing in the economy if not a recession.

I hope you can make use of the charts. Please let me know if I can be of further assistance.

Thank you,
James Beck
Lead Analyst, Weekly Petroleum Supply Team
Energy Information Administration
Office of Petroleum and Biofuels Statistics

Read more at http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com/#9KGKLmudDr2ZKybJ.99

Our current gas prices are the magic of inflation.

QE1, 2, and now 3.

They snuck it in on you hoping that the recovery would cause you not to notice, but there never really ever was a real recovery for anyone other than Wall Street...

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

In selling a third round of quantitative easing to the investing public and fellow central bankers, Ben Bernanke has been faced with an onslaught of doomsday predictions about rampant inflation and the destruction of the U.S. dollar.

But little has been made of what the Federal Reserve sees as the best-case scenario for the U.S. economy if those dark predictions don’t come true and Congress successfully avoids the looming fiscal cliff.

That’s because even economists who support the Fed’s latest emergency actions acknowledge QE3 by itself isn’t likely to trigger the robust recovery Americans have been hoping for.

“ It’s certainly possible we could get into that self-reinforcing cycle where the housing market picks up and job gains” build momentum, leading to stronger consumer spending, said Gus Faucher, senior macroeconomist at PNC Financial (PNC: 66.78, +1.04, +1.58%). “It’s certainly possible. Is it likely? No.”

Read more: http://www.foxbusiness.com/economy/2012/09/14/even-qe3-best-case-scenario-wont-thrill/#ixzz26iueQDXY

 

[mercury14]

Gas prices are supply and demand right?

Demand goes down, price goes down...

Right???



Read more at http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com/#9KGKLmudDr2ZKybJ.99

Our current gas prices are the magic of inflation.

QE1, 2, and now 3.

They snuck it in on you hoping that the recovery would cause you not to notice, but there never really ever was a real recovery for anyone other than Wall Street...

So a recovery is determined by whatever measure you pull out of your ass on a given day?

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

So a recovery is determined by whatever measure you pull out of your ass on a given day?

No merc, the recovery is measured by the profit you make in the stock market and after your recent gloats were are all expecting your move to a new million-dollar home any day now...

What's the matter? It's not a spot number so you can't demand rolling averages?

I mean, if you had some positive numbers to show me, even out of your ass, then Bernake would not have been dishing the QE3 to us...



MERC! SHOW ME THE WORD RECESSION!!! WE'LL ALL WAIT!!!!!

 

[mercury14]

No merc, the recovery is measured by the profit you make in the stock market and after your recent gloats were are all expecting your move to a new million-dollar home any day now...

What's the matter? It's not a spot number so you can't demand rolling averages?

I mean, if you had some positive numbers to show me, even out of your ass, then Bernake would not have been dishing the QE3 to us...

A recession is most commonly defined by two consecutive quarters of negative GDP growth. In order to speak a common language and avoid cherry picking and I'm just going to go with that. I'm not willing to redefine the term on a daily basis as conservatives do here.

Bernanke didn't do what he did because we're in a recession, dingus.

 

[LiFeNdEaTh]

Read more: http://www.foxbusiness.com/economy/2012/09/14/even-qe3-best-case-scenario-wont-thrill/#ixzz26iueQDXY

*clicks*

 

[cheesehead2]

The start of another great day. Bow to the east and thank and lets all thank king Obama

 

[LiFeNdEaTh]

king Obama

KING??? really???

more like PRINCE NOBAMA

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

A recession is most commonly defined by two consecutive quarters of negative GDP growth. In order to speak a common language and avoid cherry picking and I'm just going to go with that. I'm not willing to redefine the term on a daily basis as conservatives do here.

Bernanke didn't do what he did because we're in a recession, dingus.

Again, done in by the running dialog in your head.

I may have to begin ignoring you.

 

[LiFeNdEaTh]

I may have to begin ignoring you.

DO IT, DO IT, DO IT!! lol


jp

 

[mercury14]

I will cherry pick all I want in order to spin my narrative and I'm tired of people pointing out that I'm constantly bullshitting.

Or you could just make an argument on consistent terms. There are plenty of legitimate criticisms of Obama's handling of the economy, you just don't make them.

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

DO IT, DO IT, DO IT!! lol


jp

​

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

Or you could just make an argument on consistent terms. There are plenty of legitimate criticisms of Obama's handling of the economy, you just don't make them.

SHOW US THE WORD RECESSION!!!



Otherwise, it is just strawman argument to cover your total lack of the ability to acknowledge reality.



We'll WAIT!!! UNTIL THEN YOU ARE ON IGNORE!!!!!

 

[LiFeNdEaTh]

^ Lmfaooo

 

[mercury14]

^ Lmfaooo

I made him mad again.

 

[LiFeNdEaTh]

I made him mad again.

i don't think he's mad though.

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

^ Lmfaooo

i don't think he's mad though.

It would show up elsewhere...

 

[mercury14]

i don't think he's mad though.

Giant red font with superfluous exclamation points and threats of iggy? He's never blown his top like that before.

 

[LiFeNdEaTh]

lol... ya spicing things up this morning haha i needed it. it was kinda dead around here

 

[RobDownSouth]

Giant red font with superfluous exclamation points and threats of iggy? He's never blown his top like that before.

Large fonts and lots of superfluous punctuation....along with the ever changing "AJ corollaries"....are simply indications of the perceived righteousness he has of his own Glibertarian positions.

Glibertarianism, like conservatism, cannot fail....it can only be failed.

The fact that Glibertarianism has never succeeded anywhere someone has attempted to try it is irrelevant.

It's a juvenile philosophy posited by immature philosophers who seek to rationalize their selfishness.

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

Quantitative easing—a fancy term for the Federal Reserve buying securities from predefined financial institutions, such as their investments in federal debt or mortgages—is fundamentally a regressive redistribution program that has been boosting wealth for those already engaged in the financial sector or those who already own homes, but passing little along to the rest of the economy. It is a primary driver of income inequality formed by crony capitalism. And it is hurting prospects for economic growth down the road by promoting malinvestments in the economy.

How is the Federal Reserve contributing to regressive redistribution, income inequality, and manipulated markets? Let’s flesh this out a bit.

Last month, Bernanke said that quantitative easing had contributed to the rebound in stock prices over the past few years, and suggested this was a positive outcome. “This effect is potentially important, because stock values affect both consumption and investment decisions,” he argued, apparently under the belief that the Fed has a third mandate to support rising stock prices.

This is ironically a trickle down monetary policy theory, where rising stock prices mean more wealth and more consumption that trickles down the economic ladder. One problem with this idea is that there is a gigantic mountain of household debt—about $12 trillion worth—that is diverting away any trickle down. An even worse assumption is that the stock market really reflects what is going on in the real economy.

Where the Occupy movement should really be teed off is when you consider that most equity shares in America are owned by the wealthiest 10 percent. That is not inherently a problem—wealthier individuals with more disposable income will have more ability take ownership stakes in companies than those in lower income brackets. And it is not a call for class warfare. However, it does mean that when the Fed engages in quantitative easing it is providing a benefit to a very narrow segment of society at the expense of others (either through future inflation or through the cost of raising taxes to pay for increased federal debts). That is the definition of crony capitalism.

At the same time, all Americans have seen the prices of basic goods increase over the past few years in large part due to rising commodities prices. The whole idea of QE is to drive investors out of lower risk investments like mortgage backed securities and government debt and get them to put that money in “more productive” use—lend it, build skyscrapers, invest in technology, etc. Since there is little confidence about the future of the economy, many investors have crowded into the stock market with their money, and still others have invested in commodities.

The problem is that investing in commodities can push up prices on things like gas, meat (because of feed corn prices), bread (because of wheat prices), and even orange juice. There certainly have been other contributors to commodities prices going up, but if the Fed has boosted stocks, they've boosted commodities too. So not only are the cronies gaining from quantitative easing, there is a negative wealth effect too.

The cronyism doesn’t end there. In a Dallas Fed paper released in August, OPEC chief economist William White points out that easy monetary policy favors “senior management of banks in particular.” And even Bernanke himself suggested (as if it was a good thing) that quantitative easing purchases “have been found to be associated with significant declines in the yields on both corporate bonds and MBS.” Translation: the Federal Reserve has made it artificially cheaper for corporations to borrow money and has pushed up the prices of houses (benefiting homeowners but hurting homebuyers).

Correct me if I’m wrong, but I thought cheap loans allowing businesses to leverage up and juiced housing prices were key parts of what got us into this mess?

Anthony Randazza
http://reason.com/archives/2012/09/13/occupy-the-fed