Now you're saying something different

Post #333,847 by drook 10/7/10 10:45:20 PM Reply	Now you're saying something different Now you're saying "uncertainty". The Republicans could solve that overnight by giving up the obstructionism. -- Drew
Post #333,850 by beepster 10/8/10 1:15:29 AM Reply	you obviously didn't read the links political uncertainty. I'm not saying something different. You're focussed on one aspect. Sure, understanding today's complex world of the future is a little like having bees live in your head. But...there they are.
Post #333,906 by drook 10/9/10 7:50:26 AM Reply	Scott already asked you to show your work While political uncertainty takes many different shapes and forms, such as changes in the government and changes in its domestic and foreign policy, this paper focuses on one particular kind of political uncertainty, which is associated with national elections. Your argument is about uncertainty around specific policies being advocated by the current administration. The paper you linked explicitly excludes that from what is addressed. Could that paper apply to the U.S. in any case? What are the main factors contributing to financial crises in Latin America in 1994-95 and in Asia in 1997-98? Why is market volatility so high in emerging markets? Last I checked, the U.S. isn't an emerging market. Why should this matter? (Aside from the obvious fact that they're not studying anything like what you're talking about.) In their models, the government uses its money printing machine to finance a budget deficit while also trying to maintain fixed exchange rates by using limited exchange reserves. Foresighted speculators, recognizing this unsustainable conflicting policies, launch a speculative attack, which quickly exhaust the country's reserves and force an abandonment of the fixed exchange rate. Do speculators have the capacity to exhaust the reserves of the U.S.? The reason the government may like to depreciate its currency could be due to a large domestic debt burden or high unemployment rate. As a result, it may be tempted to inflate away the debt burden or to pursue a more expansionary monetary policy by abandoning the fixed rate. I haven't heard that the administration is trying to depreciate the dollar. (Though they should.) A related class of crisis model is that of self-fulfilling exchange rate crises (see, for example, Banerjee (1992)). In such a model, an individual investor will not pull his money out of the country if he believes that the currency is unlikely to devalue, but he will do so if a currency drop seems likely. A crisis, however, will happen if many individual investors do pull out. There has been plenty of discussion about whether our investors (China) will pull out. The clear answer is no, they won't. They can't without destroying their own economy. I could keep going with reasons that paper doesn't apply to the U.S. But more to the point, you're asking for an example in history of a very specific set of circumstances. You're suggesting that this set of circumstances is unprecedented, and that's the source of the uncertainty you insist is preventing investment. And that's the problem. You insist the uncertainty is what's preventing investment. It's your thesis to prove. Saying, "This has never happened before, therefore we need to do X," is a logical fallacy. You could fill in anything at all for X and it would be logically equivalent. "This has never happened before, therefore we need to impeach the president." "This has never happened before, therefore we need to devalue the dollar." "This has never happened before, therefore we need to cut taxes." "This has never happened before, therefore we need to raise taxes." "This has never happened before, therefore we need to create tariffs." "This has never happened before, therefore we need to eliminate tafirrs." "This has never happened before, therefore we need to just fucking do something!" You can't make the argument that the current situation is unprecedented, and argue that the unique nature of the circumstances points to an obvious best course of action. -- Drew
Post #333,946 by crazy 10/10/10 6:51:26 AM Reply	Well done Actually, no, you f'ing roasted him.
Post #333,992 by beepster 10/11/10 10:49:03 AM Reply	Glad you think so... Sure, understanding today's complex world of the future is a little like having bees live in your head. But...there they are.
Post #333,995 by beepster 10/11/10 11:32:53 AM Reply	In all of this... you using the same logical fallacy. I was asked to prove a correlation between political uncertainty and impact on underlying economics. I was asked this because you were looking for some reason as to why there is excess savings in the economy. (correct?) My point was and remains very simple. The money is sitting there (trillions) in business coffers in part because of the uncertain political situation. It seems that you believe that this environment should have no impact on business decisions (IE: the economy) whatsoever. Certainly that paper doesn't measure the current specific situation of the US. It does, however, use specific measurable political uncertainty in multiple locations and tie it directly to more economic volatility rather than less. Also, unfortunately for your argument...it is a national election year. We go to polls in about a month. Also, unfortunately for you, I was not arguing a course of action. Simply providing an underlying cause of the situation that you brought forward. Perhaps if I had stated that "this has never happened before and we need to cut taxes"...you might have an argument. At this point, however, you are inventing your own debate and pretending that somewhere within there is my argument. You've not disproven anything I've said. You haven't even addressed it, beyond challenging the one piece of research put forward. And while I applaud your effort, by challenging this research, you are pretty much arguing in favor of the US situation being unprecedented and by doing so, arguing somewhat in favor of my point. Sure, understanding today's complex world of the future is a little like having bees live in your head. But...there they are.
Post #334,000 by drook 10/11/10 1:24:13 PM Reply	Or you could read the first post in this thread And the question I asked in the first response to it. And, in an interview, Chicago Fed Charles Evans said, "It seems to me if we could somehow get lower real interest rates so that the amount of excess savings that is taking place relative to investment needs is lowered, that would be one channel for stimulating the economy." So the problem is too many people saving too much money -- "excess savings" -- instead of spending it? Tell me why this article -- http://www.dailymark...cal-savings-rate/ -- is wrong: The thesis is that there is a problem of excess savings (aka lack of investment), and that the solution is to lower the real interest rate. I pointed to a differing analysis, saying a better solution is to increase the number of people participating in the economy and paying taxes. You put forth the idea that the excess savings was in fact due to uncertainty caused by tax proposals from the administration The original WSJ article had a suggestion from Bernanke that a policy of increasing inflation would create uncertainty, so uncertainty tied to tax policy seems to be your invention. So: The original article posited that there is excess savings and proposed lowering interest rates as a solution. When I asked why the alternative solution wasn't better, you suggested the cause of that excess savings was uncertainty about possible tax changes. The implication is that increased employment will not solve the excess savings (lack of investment) because high unemployment is not the cause. So yes, you have argued in support of a policy: lower interest rates. And I didn't bring forward a situation, Box did in the post that started this thread. You tried to change the terms of the debate, demanding that someone else provide a historical example of similar conditions, phrased in a way that assumes several conclusions, among them the uniqueness of the current situation. -- Drew
Post #334,005 by beepster 10/11/10 2:29:27 PM Reply	Re: Or you could read the first post in this thread If you strip "about possible tax changes", you may be a bit closer to figuring out what my point was. In addition, the branch that I responded to...specifically, and so noted in the title, was on >business< spending. You see, there are 2 savings "issues" now..one is with consumers..and no matter what you do with interest rates, you aren't going to change this. Getting higher employment will certainly raise consumer demand, because there will be more participants..but will those participants go back to spending like drunken sailors? No. No matter what the policy. ON BUSINESS, however, there is uncertainty in 1) taxes, 2) energy costs based on gov't policy 3) healthcare costs (no one really knows, yet, still, whatever, what the cost impact of that legislation will bring 4) labor relations/unionization just to name a few "minor" things. Add to this, the government failed to put a budget proposal in place...so there isn't even certainty on what the government is planning to do. Given that uncertainty, there are decisions that most likely would impact employment that are not being made, money sitting in company accounts that is not being spent and this is leading to what is, by all accounts, abnormally slow post recession growth/recovery. And again, you can dismiss >me< easily. I'm not running a small business..only operating within business and seeing the brakes remain on. Others are out there polling real business owners and they are getting the exact same message... http://smallbiztrend...ness-economy.html specifically bullets 3, 4 and 7. Sure, understanding today's complex world of the future is a little like having bees live in your head. But...there they are.
Post #334,007 by drook 10/11/10 3:09:31 PM Reply	Why do you make people work so hard to figure out your point If I'm reading the tea leaves right, what you're saying is that business spending is more important than personal spending, so issues that affect personal spending (employment rate) are unimportant. Or at least so much less important that they can be left out of the discussion. If that's your point -- or at least if that assumption is a prerequisite to your point -- than I'll have to remind you that I agree with the "two economies" theory. Quick refresher: Owners have one economy, workers have another. The recession that ended in June of 2009 was in the owners' economy. The workers are still in a recession. Now, you like points 3, 4 & 7? Owner pessimism is up, with fewer business owners expanding sales and more experiencing cash flow problems Owners don't choose whether or not to expand sales. They can expand marketing efforts, or hire more people in sales, as attempts to expand sales. Maybe the reason sales aren't expanding is because they're not spending on sales and marketing. Fewer owners are making capital investments, hiring, or increasing compensation Yeah, like I just said ... Angels are financing fewer companies Is this a cause or a symptom? Are there fewer new businesses because there is no angel money, or are the angels holding back because they're not seeing promising new businesses? Is angel spending below what is appropriate, or is it below the bubble-inflated levels where billions of dollars were thrown at businesses without a business plan? Maybe angel financing should be down from that level. Let's check ... ah yes, his figures are comparing August 2010 to December 2007, near the peak of the bubble. You would expect most every number to look worse than it was at the peak of a bubble. -- Drew
Post #334,010 by beepster 10/11/10 4:04:32 PM Reply	Not certain what is clouding your mind my point is very clear. This administration is creating a huge amount of political uncertainty and that uncertainty is slowing growth and recovery, including recovery of jobs. I remember that you think there are 2 different economies...and you should remember that I believe that belief to be wrong. The 07 bubble was real estate, by the way. The venture bubble burst in 2001...so the 07 10 comparison is more valid that you give credence to. You now are trying to make it a chicken or egg argument. If you don't want to accept it, fine. There's no real need to continue. I brought up a point, high-lit that point with publications, polls and even an econometric analysis that perhaps not directly but certainly supported the general tenant of my point and you now say you don't understand what my point is. So, clarified above, directly and succinctly. Believe it or don't. Beyond that, I'm not terribly interested in discussing this point further. Your initial post and quote was partially correct, we need to get employment numbers back up. Getting some resolution in the political climate will help that. Sure, understanding today's complex world of the future is a little like having bees live in your head. But...there they are.
Post #334,021 by drook 10/11/10 5:31:52 PM Reply	Wherein I replace you with a simple script 10 Drook asks why, when two published analyses disagree, we should believe one and not the other. 20 BeeP states a position that is vaguely related to the question, as though it answers the question (but it really doesn't). 30 Drook points out that BeeP's response is unresponsive 40 BeeP points to published article 50 Drook shows point-by-point why BeeP's article seems to be 52 irrelevant 54 inapplicable 56 unsupportive of BeeP's point 60 BeeP ignores all details and accuses Drook of missing the point 70 Drook asks what the point was, then? 80 GOTO 20 -- Drew
Post #334,023 by drook 10/11/10 5:39:56 PM Reply	Aaaaaand ... let's try a different tack Republicans still revere Reagan. Even critics call him the "Great Communicator". His "Morning in America" was brilliant PR. He boosted confidence in a non-specific way that encouraged people to tell themselves, "Things are getting better." Critics at the time said, "You can't just say things are getting better and that makes them better." Except that if you can effectively change a mood -- with a figurehead speaking reassuringly and a huge political machine dedicated to agreeing with him -- you can help to foster a virtuous cycle. If, on the other hand, the huge political machine is dedicated to questioning everything the current figurehead says, it seems reasonable to suppose this could foster a negative spiral. Now is where you say, "Gotchya! You just admitted that uncertainty can depress the economy." Then I point out that the uncertainty isn't caused by what the figurehead is saying, but how the political machine responds to him. When I said earlier that the Republicans could end the uncertainty immediately by simply agreeing with whatever Obama says, that wasn't facetious. If you really think uncertainty is the most important factor in continued slow growth, shouldn't you be advocating going along with Obama for the good of the economy? I'm still not agreeing with your premise that uncertainty is the primary factor at work, just saying that to the extent that it is, it's a problem not of Obama's making. -- Drew
Post #334,024 by boxley 10/11/10 6:00:43 PM Reply	you had 3/4 of the repo party chanting voodoo economics with the dems picking up the charge after reagan became the candidate. Boy you have a selective memory Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free American and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 55 years. meep
Post #334,028 by drook 10/11/10 6:23:26 PM Reply	So to be clear ... You are saying that confidence (or uncertainty) have no effect on the economy? -- Drew
Post #334,034 by boxley 10/11/10 7:29:18 PM Reply	wrong the economy was in the toilet and people wanted to try something else, the democrats had owned congress and the senate for 40 years, people didnt want to repeat the constant failures of the past. We tried reagan and things SLOWLY got better. Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free American and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 55 years. meep
Post #334,026 by beepster 10/11/10 6:10:42 PM Reply	Riight. These issues are being discussed why? I didn't bring them up, campaign on them nor bet my political career on them happening. And certainly you could end the uncertainty by simply saying...yep, do whatever you want. The impact of what he wants, however, may not make you very happy if its jobs you are looking for. Sure, understanding today's complex world of the future is a little like having bees live in your head. But...there they are.
Post #334,016 by Another Scott 10/11/10 5:03:03 PM Reply	It's hopeless. You might as well quit banging your head against the wall. :-/ If I'm reading the tea leaves right, what you're saying is that business spending is more important than personal spending, so issues that affect personal spending (employment rate) are unimportant. Or at least so much less important that they can be left out of the discussion. Yes, he's beating around the bush about that point again. He claimed that for this recovery business investment was more important than consumer spending - http://iwt.mikevital....iwt?postid=35322 . But gave no numbers. Some recent numbers for the US: http://en.wikipedia....United_States.png 2010/Q1 - GDP = $14.601T, PCE = $10.362T, GPDI = $1.764T Now, when I went to school, 10.362/14.601 = 71% while 1.764/14.601 = 12% so consumer spending is a much, much, much bigger component of GDP than business investment. Maybe that's no longer true. Maybe Beep can explain why he thinks business investment is more important when the numbers say otherwise. Before he starts, I'll point out that he said in that previous thread that consumers were tapped out and underwater and wouldn't spend like "drunken sailors" again any time soon. Apparently, since we know we live in a black-and-white world, that means that we can't do anything on the consumer side and have to give money to business owners instead so that they invest and expand to make widgets for all of those invisible customers. If I were benevolent dictator, I would want to work on the biggest part of the economy - consumer spending. Especially since demand fell off a cliff. That means doing everything possible to keep people working and increasing employment in traditional industries while investing in new industries that will grow more rapidly in the future. That means money to state and local governments, infrastructure spending, extending unemployment benefits, and increased investment in R&D. IIRC, Beeps proposals were limited to infrastructure spending. Lately he's been throwing about canards about "uncertainty" due to Obama. Perhaps he and his compatriots would like to review Obama's proposals. AFAICS, Obama's doing what he ran on. The lack of progress on implementing his proposals is overwhelmingly due to the Republicans. IOW, any "uncertainty" is due to Beep's side. Shocking, I know. FWIW. Cheers, Scott.
Post #334,025 by beepster 10/11/10 6:03:55 PM Reply	Whatever dude. I'm not advocating what you say I am, but you are ignoring essentially every point. So, you want to increase employment? For whom do employees work? I'll simply leave you with that. Sure, understanding today's complex world of the future is a little like having bees live in your head. But...there they are.
Post #334,029 by drook 10/11/10 6:24:57 PM Reply	For the customers You do know that's who ultimately pays for everything at every company, don't you? -- Drew
Post #334,038 by beepster 10/11/10 10:46:57 PM Reply	Wherever they may be and we have discussed b 2 b, government infrastructure spend (or lack thereof) and the need to encourage exports all as needed to encourage further employment. In addition to discussing easing the regulatory environment. But we can't do these things, I'm told. Sure, understanding today's complex world of the future is a little like having bees live in your head. But...there they are.
Post #334,031 by Another Scott 10/11/10 7:07:02 PM Reply	One more thing to consider. From July - http://www.calculate...t-job-losses.html The effects of the Great Recession on local budgets will be felt most deeply from 2010 to 2012. In response, local governments are cutting services and personnel. This report from the National League of Cities (NLC), National Association of Counties (NACo), and the U.S. Conference of Mayors (USCM) reveals that local government job losses in the current and next fiscal years will approach 500,000, with public safety, public works, public health, social services and parks and recreation hardest hit by the cutbacks. [...] According to the BLS, local governments (ex-education) have cut 89,000 jobs over the last year, and this survey suggests there will be much deeper cuts ahead. From October: http://bls.gov/news....se/empsit.nr0.htm Government employment fell by 159,000, reflecting both the departure of 77,000 temporary Census 2010 workers from federal government payrolls and a decline of 76,000 in local government employment. HTH. Cheers, Scott.
Post #334,035 by beepster 10/11/10 10:09:17 PM Reply	Meaning... you need those evil bastards in the business world even more now. Sure, understanding today's complex world of the future is a little like having bees live in your head. But...there they are.
Post #334,036 by Another Scott 10/11/10 10:21:41 PM Reply	Nope. Meaning, you need to have enough aid to states and localities so that they don't have to lay them off in the first place. Most S&L governments cannot run deficits. The federal government can, and should when the economy is in recession. There is no sensible reason for the S&Ls to be in the situation where they have to cut essential services in a recession. We have known for a very long time that the federal government can and should step in. You know this. http://www.nytimes.c...11krugman.html?hp Consider, in particular, one fact that might surprise you: The total number of government workers in America has been falling, not rising, under Mr. Obama. A small increase in federal employment was swamped by sharp declines at the state and local level Â most notably, by layoffs of schoolteachers. Total government payrolls have fallen by more than 350,000 since January 2009. Business employment will grow when demand from consumers grows. Not the other way around. HTH. Cheers, Scott.
Post #334,037 by beepster 10/11/10 10:34:54 PM Reply	Go figure, we disagree here also. http://mercatus.org/...pending-restraint Sure, understanding today's complex world of the future is a little like having bees live in your head. But...there they are.
Post #334,039 by Another Scott 10/11/10 11:33:55 PM Reply	What a surprise. http://www.greenpeac.../mercatus-center/ HTH. Cheers, Scott.
Post #334,040 by Ashton 10/12/10 1:06:16 AM Reply	Heh.. My Gramma quoted similarly {{chortle}} (in her case, "those big Men in Washington who know more than ordinary people could" cha. cha. cha.) Alas, I was an unarmed tyke and my dialup was ... about as long as the string. But when I looked at a couple of her pamphlets (once doggedly wading through a half-inch thick Monument of turgidity entitled, The Bricker Amendment [I can still recall the cheesy-paper institutional-pea-green cover of this thing printed by the USG Printing Office]) -- I kept reading slogans already heard from her via those other bastions of ~~Conservative~~ Reactionary cant, American Opinion aka The John Birch Society. The bedtime story that just wouldn't Quit ... boring. And ditto, well-beyond tykehood: still devoid of anything lasting.. except colorful vitriolic phrases, mostly ad-hominems. Some do not accept ad hominens as the sense does not admit of the plural -- but clearly the enemy of the Reactionary ever was: all who were otherwise. So then, where you Stand isn't necessarily just where you Sit -- maybe it's where your mindset goes for the daily comfort of that doctrine thing, that Certainty-of-POV reinforced by beloved tautologies? Aum Mane Padme Hmmm (Of course too, in Econ, "every new Surprise!" neither predicted (nor prepared-for even as a what-if) happens in unique circumstances: it never quite happened before, exactly.) But who, I ask, does not cringe a little (or a lot) when those Norse folk bestow a prize -- every bloody year!? -- for "Economic Science" ?? I could almost see voting for Palin in 2012 on the grounds that this sorry ratfucking excuse for a republic, this savage, smirking, predatory empire deserves her. Bring on the Rapture, motherfuckers! -- via RC
Post #334,049 by beepster 10/12/10 7:43:27 AM Reply	Also not a surprise that you don't even touch the premise that s&l govt growth should mirror population growth more than income. Guess its easier to try and shoot the messenger than to debate the message. Not sure what my post and global warming have to do with each other. Just sayin. Sure, understanding today's complex world of the future is a little like having bees live in your head. But...there they are.
Post #334,085 by boxley 10/12/10 8:45:27 AM Reply	Green Peace is right doesnt matter if they are wrong, they are right doesnt matter if it doesnt make sense they are right if they stand at your door with a harpoon to kill your children they are right now shaddap and do your ohms like you were told Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free American and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 55 years. meep
Post #334,090 by Another Scott 10/12/10 9:33:15 AM Reply	What's not a surprise is you trust teabagger sites. Rather than address the fact that government employment has dropped dramatically since January 2009, you link to a site that is funded by the Koch brothers - billionaires who have a well-known bias against Social Security, taxes, environmental science, etc., etc. http://www.newyorker...0830fa_fact_mayer The site isn't credible, and isn't a rebuttal to my point that government employment is being cut dramatically, decreasing aggregate demand. Reducing supposed "uncertainty" for businesses isn't going to address that problem. IOW, you're attempting to go off on yet another tangent. Have fun. Cheers, Scott.
Post #334,092 by boxley 10/12/10 9:53:22 AM Reply	what crap Cock Bro's are no different from soros moore etc. ABC MSNBC CBS is a front for the democratic party and faux news is a front for the repos. Half or more of the sources you quote are front groups for various enterprises whose only concern is getting their paws on the public purse. Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free American and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 55 years. meep
Post #334,093 by beepster 10/12/10 9:54:49 AM Reply	Ah, George Mason University is now a teabagger site. Greenpeace said so. Or Dan Stein, also a very impartial observer. Why should I accept your article either..the New Yorker is a well known democratic rag. Sure, understanding today's complex world of the future is a little like having bees live in your head. But...there they are.
Post #334,094 by Another Scott 10/12/10 10:13:44 AM Reply	RCP? Yeah, RCP. The Mercatus Center is not GMU. http://www.sourcewat...e=Mercatus_Center Don't like SourceWatch? How about the Wall Street Journal? http://mercatus.org/...-stick-regulation Mercatus's rise owes much to the oil-and-gas company Koch Industries Inc., (pronounced "coke"), a privately owned company in Wichita, Kan., that contributes heavily to Republican causes and candidates. A Koch family foundation has given Mercatus and George Mason University a total of $14.4 million since 1998, according to public documents analyzed by the Public Education Center, a Washington group that tracks environmental issues. A Koch spokesman says about half of the money went to Mercatus. In addition, the company's chief executive, Charles Koch, donated interests in limited partnerships to Mercatus that the think tank sold last year for $6.1 million. Mr. Koch is a Mercatus director. A predecessor to Mercatus was founded at Rutgers University by a former economics professor, Richard Fink, who also started an antitax group. Mr. Fink later moved the think tank to George Mason, a Virginia state university that has become a center for free-market economics. In 1990, Mr. Fink joined Koch Industries, where he is now an executive vice president overseeing lobbying and communications. He remains a Mercatus director. They don't just have an opinion (all of us do), they have skin in the game. HTH. Cheers, Scott.
Post #334,097 by beepster 10/12/10 10:44:52 AM Reply	Hmm Sourcewatch "The Mercatus Center, part of George Mason University, " And I'm sure that the K brothers bought that poor grad student who did the work a nice big hummer...since its obvious they have a vested interest in state and local gov spending. You're not being very convincing here. Sure, understanding today's complex world of the future is a little like having bees live in your head. But...there they are.
Post #334,099 by Another Scott 10/12/10 10:57:58 AM Reply	Ha! I guess that makes the US a banana republic since we're part of North America. :-/ You ever going to tell us how fear of taxes is more important than customers in determining business investment? http://iwt.mikevital....iwt?postid=36951 Cheers, Scott.
Post #334,100 by beepster 10/12/10 11:06:55 AM Reply	You ever going to read an entire post? Sure, understanding today's complex world of the future is a little like having bees live in your head. But...there they are.
Post #334,102 by Another Scott 10/12/10 11:28:00 AM Reply	Move to strike as unresponsive. Again, anecdotes aren't data. From 2007 - http://www.calculate...cre-overview.html Here is an overview of non-residential investment and commercial real estate (CRE) from our most recent newsletter. Recently many companies have announced plans to cut capital spending in 2008. This probably means non-residential fixed investments will decline in 2008, as compared to 2007. This decline in investment is an important indicator for the economy, since changes in fixed investment correlate very well with GDP. The first graph shows the change in real GDP and Private Fixed Investment over the preceding four quarters through Q1 2008. [...] The decline in non-residential investment was fairly rapid during the previous two recessions (a decline in non-residential investment is usually more rapid than a decline in residential investment). In fact most of the decline in investment happened within four quarters. During the '90/'91 investment slowdown, non-residential investment declined 17% in total, and about 14% in the first year. For the '01 investment slowdown, non-residential investment declined almost 20%, and 19% in the first four quarters. [...] Funny, fear of taxes and "uncertainty" about regulations doesn't show up there. I wonder why that is.... You got a better cite that supports your claim and applies to a significant fraction of the economy as a whole? Cheers, Scott.
Post #334,104 by boxley 10/12/10 11:39:23 AM Reply	a blog from someone who lives off of BOA bonuses, sure Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free American and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 55 years. meep
Post #334,105 by Another Scott 10/12/10 11:42:49 AM Reply	Heh.
Post #334,114 by beepster 10/12/10 2:13:59 PM Reply	Slump in commercial real estate post bubble. News @ 11! Want to expand on why you think this is even remotely related to the subject? Sure, understanding today's complex world of the future is a little like having bees live in your head. But...there they are.
Post #334,117 by Another Scott 10/12/10 2:58:08 PM Reply	Here ya go. http://www.bea.gov/n...PAhandbookch6.pdf (33 page .pdf) Table 6.1ÂContent of Private Fixed Investment Investment in structures by private business -Includes construction of new nonresidential and residential buildings. -Includes improvements (additions, alterations, and major structural replacements) to nonresidential and residential buildings. -Includes certain types of equipment (such as plumbing and heating systems and elevators) that are considered an integral part of the structure. -Includes nonbuilding construction (such as pipelines, railroad tracks, power lines and plants, and dams and levees). -Includes mobile structures (such as office trailers at construction sites and temporary trailer classrooms) and manufactured homes. -Includes petroleum and natural gas well drilling and exploration, including Âdry holes.Â -Includes digging and shoring of mines. -Includes brokersÂ commissions on sales of new and existing structures. -Includes net purchases (purchases less sales) of existing structures from governments. -Excludes maintenance and repair of nonresidential and residential buildings. -Excludes demolition costs not related to the construction of new structures. IOW, Private Non-residential Fixed Investment includes CRE. CRE is a large component of PNFI. I would have thought you would have known that. HTH. Cheers, Scott.
Post #334,119 by beepster 10/12/10 3:13:43 PM Reply	What are you babbling about now? Did I not call out CRE? Same as your current favorite blogger? Aside from that...not certain what you are on about here. Sure, understanding today's complex world of the future is a little like having bees live in your head. But...there they are.
Post #334,121 by Another Scott 10/12/10 3:22:00 PM Reply	Reread #37242 http://iwt.mikevital....iwt?postid=37242 The point is, nonresidential investment, including CRE fell. It fell due to lack of demand. Not "uncertainty" about regulation or taxes or "taking over 25% of the economy". Try to keep up, Ok? ;-) Cheers, Scott.
Post #334,122 by boxley 10/12/10 3:23:35 PM Reply	you are claiming it is lack of demand they are not investing due to uncertainty Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free American and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 55 years. meep
Post #334,123 by Another Scott 10/12/10 3:35:42 PM Reply	Not me, businesses. Show me I'm wrong.
Post #334,107 by Another Scott 10/12/10 12:18:01 PM Reply	One more thing - NFIB http://www.calculate...imism-hiring.html Hiring plans have turned negative again. According to NFIB: "Over the next three months, eight percent plan to increase employment (unchanged), and 16 percent plan to reduce their workforce (up three points), yielding a seasonally adjusted net negative three percent of owners planning to create new jobs, down four points from August." And the third graph shows the percent of small businesses saying "poor sales" is their biggest problem. Usually small business owners complain about taxes and regulations (that usually means business is good!), but now their self reported biggest problem is lack of demand. QED. Here's the NFIB linky if you don't trust CR's summary - http://www.nfib.com/...-item?cmsid=54938 HTH. Cheers, Scott.
Post #334,115 by beepster 10/12/10 2:27:59 PM Reply	Hardly simply a chart representing anecdotal evidence, right? Survey? Additionally, nothing about what the other questions were? Was there another spike related to "health care costs"? After all, the NFIB was rabidly opposed to health care reform. Sure, understanding today's complex world of the future is a little like having bees live in your head. But...there they are.
Post #334,116 by beepster 10/12/10 2:39:57 PM Reply	I keep finding guys on the K bros payroll http://imarketnews.com/node/20440 This guy must be on the take too. Sure, understanding today's complex world of the future is a little like having bees live in your head. But...there they are.
Post #334,118 by Another Scott 10/12/10 3:00:29 PM Reply	More words, please.
Post #334,120 by beepster 10/12/10 3:15:16 PM 10/12/10 3:17:57 PM Reply	sorry mixing my references...this guy is an anecdote...not a k brother clone. my bad Sure, understanding today's complex world of the future is a little like having bees live in your head. But...there they are. Edited by beepster Oct. 12, 2010, 03:17:57 PM EDT Expand All History

Welcome to IWETHEY!