CI -- I would be surprised if Greenspan said 2.6 million jobs this year is probable. Can you post a reference for the original text of what he actually said?
Just not a fan of misquoting, c.i., whether directly or by inference. I'm more impressed by facts and analysis than by opinion and propaganda. Some folks don't seem to care, or just can't tell the difference. What Greenspan said matters far more to me than what some pundit says about what Greenspan said. Greenspan looks at the same numbers I do, just lots more of 'em. I simply can't share your economic pessimism; the numbers don't support it.
Here ya go, Thomas
Quote:Reuters: Greenspan - Economy Set for Vigorous Growth[/b]
... Greenspan faced stiff questioning from lawmakers on the dearth of new U.S. jobs and the trend toward "outsourcing" by firms sending work to low-wage countries like India.
He conceded there was "a significant shortfall" between job creation and economic growth and expressed sympathy for the jobless.
"We may be governors of the Federal Reserve but we are also citizens of this country," Greenspan said.
But he said new jobs should appear soon, if only because companies cannot indefinitely squeeze ever more output from existing workforces through technological advances.
"Unless I'm mistaken, my view is that this pattern is about to change. I don't know when it's going to change. I just find it highly difficult to imagine that we can continue to advance efficiencies as quickly as we have been doing," he said.
He called a controversial White House forecast for 2004 job growth "feasible" but said there is no evidence yet of hiring. ...
The full transcript of his testimony should be available tomorrow. but at 3 hours or so, it'll be a 40 or 50 page PDF download, I'm sure.
Speaking of misquoting, I see I said "plausible", but that Greenspan actually said "feasible".
Oh. well, I was just going by what I remembered from hearing a soundbite from the testimony earlier this afternoon.
Greenspan is, of course, eternally in the position of a fellow whose wife has just inquired, "Do you still find me as attractive as when we first met?" In fact, he may find her even more attractive now, but that doesn't mean he has the option of saying anything different.
Quote, "He called a controversial White House forecast for 2004 job growth "feasible" but said there is no evidence yet of hiring. ... "
I rest my case. You can manipulate it any way you wish, but MY interpretation seems "plausable."
Today's report by Reuters.
**********************
Sales Down, Jobless Claims Up
5 minutes ago Add Business - Reuters to My Yahoo!
By Jonathan Nicholson
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.S. retail sales, with the exception of the volatile car and truck sales, posted an unexpectedly strong gain in January, a government report showed on Thursday, as shoppers loaded up on food and clothing.
In a separate report, the Labor Department (news - web sites) said initial claims for jobless benefits unexpectedly rose last week by 6,000 to 363,000, confounding analysts, who had predicted an improving job market and expected a dip to 345,000 new claims.
*********
This administration better get on the gall and start creating those jobs.
How come I seem to be the only one that's not confounded by this?
Greenspan said to congress today, "Expects reasonable good job growth in short period of time." Is that double-speak or what? What does he mean by "good?" What does he mean by "short period of time?"
Just wanted to repost this opinion I wrote last August. Maybe, some people participating in this forum will "get the hint."
**********************
cicerone imposter
Veteran Member
Joined: 22 Oct 2002
Posts: 14696
Location: Silicon Valley in California
Posted: August 21st 2003, 23:33 Post: 325245 -
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Scrat, The thought that you are stupid never entered my mind; I think you are intelligent, articulate, and able to say things very clearly to communicate your ideas. Your ability to see the signs of growth and positive changes in our economy is encouraging, but I still disagree with your opinion. It's only an opinion - after all - mine included. You could be right, and I could be wrong. We're here to share our ideas; not to criticise the other's opinion. As you say, we shape our opinions by our own experience. If everybody agreed, there would be no use for discussion. That's what makes life interesting; my opinion still conflicts with most people in the stock market today. They've pushed the p/e ratio above 30 on the DOW. Many seem to have the same confidence you do about our economy. I hope you're right, because we also gain. c.i.
cicerone imposter wrote:Greenspan said to congress today, "Expects reasonable good job growth in short period of time." Is that double-speak or what? What does he mean by "good?" What does he mean by "short period of time?"
I think he chooses his words carefully because the media and market react to is every breath.
mamajuana, bless her soul, posted this on September 2, 2003.
My emphasis in bold.
****************************
"Good news! The economy is up! Bush says so. Chao says so. The promise that the tax cuts will bring jobs is right around the corner. Someone from the Budget office said last night that the deficit is not important. That in the long run, it might be disastrous, but not now!
Jobs are the least of our worries!
Rbert Reich ponted out a simple and basic principle of economics - growth is fueled by consumer spending. Consumer spending occurs when the disposable income is there. Disposable income comes from people holding paying jobs who then make the money to buy the goods to keep the economy afloat.
So who needs jobs? Yes sir, Dr Pangloss, good to see you."
This statement by Greenspan supports what I've been saying all along. The economy now is different from past economic performance.
*************************************
"Greenspan said during questioning that the combination of rapid U.S. economic growth with few new jobs was unusual."
"I don't recall a period even remotely like this," he said. "What we are seeing is something new, it's something different."
*****
Yes, "new" and "different."
It's not just the people out of work who don't spend, it's those apprehensive about where the general economy is headed and what financial position they might be in in five to ten years. The stock market is now being played like a violin by the specialists and could be dangerous. I'm not buying until after the election.
LW, The stock market does not fluctuation on the basis of logic. Don't hold off buying just because the specialists are playing the market like a violin. That's gonna happen before and after the election(s). Look at the long-term trends, and invest that way. Have a good mix in your portfolio between equities, bonds, and cash. That's been pretty good for our retirement investments during the past three-four years. When the analysists say, buy bonds, that's when to sell - and visa versa. Most analysts have been wrong, and it's been proven over and over again that the dart board is a better predictor of market performance. That's gotta tell you something.
I'm not the only thinking this way on my own -- our estate manager is a retired Hughes financial executive and knows the ropes better than I do. He believes they are driving the market up to get more small investors into the market and get ready for a bigger sell off than anyone expects. Of course, he might be wrong and I might be wrong following him except over the past twenty years, he's made the family an average of 18% per annum on our investment portfolios. Most of that was from 1991 to 1998. He still buys stock for us judiciously for long term returns. Playing it for fast profit is the folly of wannabes. The stock we added in the past year were NetFlix and Krispy Kreme. Pays to have a good financial advisor. I indulge in NetFlix renting DVD's but not to keen on the use of the later product! (Trying not lose my student body).
To play the re-quote game right along with ya, c.i. ,
Back on [url=http://www.able2know.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=355587#355587]page 3[/url] of this thread, I wrote:Employment is always a trailing indicator. As autum arrives, inventory buildup (from near-historic low levels) will occaision an uptick in production and distribution jobs, and, of course, as the Christmas Season draws nearer, Retail and other Service positions will uptick. Given strong year-end sales results (not guaranteed, but seemingly highly likely), real employment growth will ensue. Of course, if that isn't what happens, The Current Administration faces considerable inconveniece, while, conversely, should it come to pass, The Opposition is left with the prospect of no prospect whatsoever.
I stand by that. Elsewhere on this thread, I've mentioned I expect employment to begin showing significant gains in the Q2/Q3 '04 timeframe, and I still stand by that.
timber, If you don't mind; exactly what do you mean by "significant gains?"
What I mean, c.i., is that instead of the weak back-and-forth, some-up/some-down figures we've been seeing in the employment numbers that a clear and substantial job growth trend will become evident. I expect that by Q3 there will be no reasonable question of broadbased employment expansion. Of course, the downside there is that raises the possibility of inflation, but lets deal with that if, when, and as necessary.
Can you give us an idea of what you mean by "broadbased?" I'm looking for a number like 2.6 million or three percent for 2004.
