Tweet
Roland: It's not because of the bulls. Rather, it's because the bears are getting scared that a bottom has been reached. Everybody's covering their shorts.
-
I came upon a barroom full of bad Salon pictures in which men with hats on the backs of their heads were wolfing food from a counter. It was the institution of the "free lunch" I had struck. You paid for a drink and got as much as you wanted to eat. For something less than a rupee a day a man can feed himself sumptuously in San Francisco, even though he be a bankrupt. Remember this if ever you are stranded in these parts. ~ Rudyard Kipling, 1891 -
Still doesn't explain why the markets are so volatile, covering is the reaction on a movement isn't it? So where did it start and why doesn't it end like it did months ago. Is it because stabilising actors left the market?DISCLAIMER: the author of the above written texts does not warrant or assume any legal liability or responsibility for any offence and insult; disrespect, arrogance and related forms of demeaning behaviour; discrimination based on race, gender, age, income class, body mass, living area, political voting-record, football fan-ship and musical preference; insensitivity towards material, emotional or spiritual distress; and attempted emotional or financial black-mailing, skirt-chasing or death-threats perceived by the reader of the said written texts.Comment
-
You are alluding to the $55 billion or whatever in fund redemptions in July?
I rather take a different approach. The structure still supports a downward price slide. But the bears have to butter their bread by taking some money off the table. Who else in the market is enthusiastic and who is able to support these 10% swings to the upside? The new information we have seen has not supported positive swings for a while.I came upon a barroom full of bad Salon pictures in which men with hats on the backs of their heads were wolfing food from a counter. It was the institution of the "free lunch" I had struck. You paid for a drink and got as much as you wanted to eat. For something less than a rupee a day a man can feed himself sumptuously in San Francisco, even though he be a bankrupt. Remember this if ever you are stranded in these parts. ~ Rudyard Kipling, 1891Comment
-
The (adjusted) returns on the last business cycle are starting to roll in. Kasriel has a good, short look at comparable productivity during expansion periods...
I think he's looking at this cup half empty. 2% productivity growth per annum for a 10 year stretch is good, IMO, especially compared to our experience 1973-1990 and the decade-long employment and population boom.
Looking back, 1960-73 was an amazing period. To me, it isn't even real in a sense. I was born in '73 and am a child of the oil shocks. 2% productivity growth rate felt very good and the change seemed very fast. I can only imagine what a nearly 3.5% growth rate would be like.Attached FilesLast edited by DanS; August 20, 2002, 12:54.I came upon a barroom full of bad Salon pictures in which men with hats on the backs of their heads were wolfing food from a counter. It was the institution of the "free lunch" I had struck. You paid for a drink and got as much as you wanted to eat. For something less than a rupee a day a man can feed himself sumptuously in San Francisco, even though he be a bankrupt. Remember this if ever you are stranded in these parts. ~ Rudyard Kipling, 1891Comment
-
-
Anecdotal evidence suggests that productivity growth due to information technology has a ways to run.
My brother-in-law is a machinest at Meritor, which builds custom heavy axels and we have been having a running discussion--mainly him telling me how things are run at the plant (yeh, you've got to believe you're interested at family gatherings to make it through
). About 3 or 4 years ago, they moved to a just-in-time model, which he just hates. He says the assembly line is always being held up because they don't have one or another small and cheap part.
Also, he uses a terminal to track what he does, which automates the stocking process from the back office. He complains that often it doesn't work like it should, and that he has to call the back office anyway to make sure he's stocked. He does admit that it's nice when it does work. If he uses 4 bolts of a specific type, then 4 bolts are re-ordered automatically.
Of course, I try to explain to him that from management's POV, him using this system, even if faulty and inconsistent, is amazingly good--a huge step forward in management control. But it's a tough sell, considering that he doesn't see it. He just sees an idled line because of a nut that costs $1 is not in stock.
This reminds me a lot of the 80s and 90s, when the advent of complicated spreadsheets allowed financial engineering on a mass scale.
The other day, my secretary told me about how her first job was in a corporate accounting department, where they did spreadsheet calculations using a typewriter and 9 copies using carbon paper.
In the 80s, they moved to Lotus, etc., which was kludgy. Then the 90s brought the blue screen of death. Now, I run spreadsheets doing at least a million calculations without a second thought.
I came upon a barroom full of bad Salon pictures in which men with hats on the backs of their heads were wolfing food from a counter. It was the institution of the "free lunch" I had struck. You paid for a drink and got as much as you wanted to eat. For something less than a rupee a day a man can feed himself sumptuously in San Francisco, even though he be a bankrupt. Remember this if ever you are stranded in these parts. ~ Rudyard Kipling, 1891Comment
-
who was Kasriel's old boss? Oh yeah, Robert Deitrich. Funny old guy.
Productivity has always been difficult to analyse for service industries. Now that the economy is much more service oriented than manufacturing, I think it is impossible to compare this period economically to past periods. While not being overawed by the 'productivity' of teenagers sitting around dotcom shops playing video games on a brand new state of the art servers, I am certain that the late 90's produced significant productivity gains, simply through office and supply chain technology that wasn't available or user friendly in the past.
(simul-post)Be the bid!Comment
-
Re supply chain management, I was surprised that these manufacturing shops weren't further along in the process than they are--they seem to have just started overhauling their MOs in the last 5 years. Before that, it was probably just a bunch of management-speak.
Re office technology, I do wonder where any additional gains will come from. Everything that I use works OK, including the internet connection.
I came upon a barroom full of bad Salon pictures in which men with hats on the backs of their heads were wolfing food from a counter. It was the institution of the "free lunch" I had struck. You paid for a drink and got as much as you wanted to eat. For something less than a rupee a day a man can feed himself sumptuously in San Francisco, even though he be a bankrupt. Remember this if ever you are stranded in these parts. ~ Rudyard Kipling, 1891Comment
-
The 2 % are quite pathetic if you bear in mind that
a) about 0.5 percentage points comes from from funny hedonic measurements, especially in computers
b) the US economy is completely out of whack and those numbers reflect unsustainable overconsumption and overinvestment.
The japanese scenario looks ever likelier. I put it at ~35 % now.
Ad service industries - that is just a relative measurement problem. Even when manufacturing made up 40-50 % of GDP in many countries, services were still 30-50 %. The larger problem is that GDP is a crap concept.Comment
-
Just so that everyone is sure about it, here's Saras Jr.
Attached FilesOriginally posted by Serb:Please, remind me, how exactly and when exactly, Russia bullied its neighbors?
Originally posted by Ted Striker:Go Serb !
Originally posted by Pekka:If it was possible to capture the essentials of Sepultura in a dildo, I'd attach it to a bicycle and ride it up your azzes.Comment
-
-
What employment boom?Originally posted by DanS
I think he's looking at this cup half empty. 2% productivity growth per annum for a 10 year stretch is good, IMO, especially compared to our experience 1973-1990 and the decade-long employment and population boom.
The US's employment rate has been static or falling since 1990 after rising very strongly during the 1970's and 1980's.
If the employment growth had continued then GDP growth in the period 1990-2000 would have been higher than in the period 1970-1990, however it was exactly the same (3.2% in each case)
So the increase in productivity growth has been completely offset by a reduction in employment growth.
Even the underlying trend in growth hasn't improved - if you take the rise in productivity* and rise in the workforce over a cycle to be equivalent to the underlying growth rate then it was 3.1% in 1973-79, 2.9% in 1979-90 (the average for 1973-90 is 3.0%) and 3.0% in 1990-2000
*I am using GDP per man-year as I have no data for hours going back to 1973
BTW what does everyone think of the large budget deficits that the US is now racking up (over 3% of GDP in the first half of 2002)?Last edited by el freako; August 21, 2002, 09:53.19th Century Liberal, 21st Century EuropeanComment
-
Hey, where's my cigar??!!
Aren't little kids cute? Once you hit 25, you're over the hill though.
"What employment boom?"
The one that provided jobs to all of those immigrants.
"*I am using GDP per man-year as I have no data for hours going back to 1973"
I saw those numbers a couple of days ago. In the States, still holding steady at roughly 1,800-1,900 hours per annum, IIRC. In Europe, slides to (very) roughly 1,400 hours, depending on country.
"BTW what does everyone think of the large budget deficits that the US is now racking up (over 3% of GDP in the first half of 2002)?"
How do you figure these numbers? By my calculation, it's well under 2%.
Jan -- 43.7B
Feb -- (76.1B)
Mar -- (64.3B)
Apr -- 67.2B
May -- (80.6B)
Jun -- 29.1B
Total deficit = $81B / $5,000 x 100% = 1.62%
This squares with the numbers provided by FT, which probably prompted your post...
But by and large, I think these numbers suck. There is no fiscal discipline in this town nowadays.I came upon a barroom full of bad Salon pictures in which men with hats on the backs of their heads were wolfing food from a counter. It was the institution of the "free lunch" I had struck. You paid for a drink and got as much as you wanted to eat. For something less than a rupee a day a man can feed himself sumptuously in San Francisco, even though he be a bankrupt. Remember this if ever you are stranded in these parts. ~ Rudyard Kipling, 1891Comment
-
"In Europe, slides to (very) roughly 1,400 hours, depending on country."
More like 1600.
US Deficit is estimated at 165 billion $, ie 1.6 % of GDP.
Will go to 5-7 %.Comment
-
There was a good graphic of this in FT or the WSJ (?) a couple of days ago, but now I can't find it. I don't remember the precise numbers or the basis.
Re the 5-7%, I haven't seen a good reason to believe that number.I came upon a barroom full of bad Salon pictures in which men with hats on the backs of their heads were wolfing food from a counter. It was the institution of the "free lunch" I had struck. You paid for a drink and got as much as you wanted to eat. For something less than a rupee a day a man can feed himself sumptuously in San Francisco, even though he be a bankrupt. Remember this if ever you are stranded in these parts. ~ Rudyard Kipling, 1891Comment
-
I am actually a proponent of having a fiscal deficit at this stage of the economy. Our cap ex budget is much, much larger than 3% of GDP and it just makes good sense to match your assets and liabilities. When the econ is weak, the borrowing costs are lowest, and the purchasing leverage is the highest. Basic math. Borrow more.
Plus it gives me some more bonds to trade.
I also think that the real US economy is quite healthy right now, in much better shape than it was three years ago. You actually have borrowing and staffing based on SOME cash flow numbers! It is a wonderfully healthy phenomenon.Be the bid!Comment
-
If it was a boom comparable to those in the 1970's and 1980's then you would have seen a rise in the US's employment rate (employed/working age population) similar to those times - what happened was stagnation.Originally posted by DanS
"What employment boom?"
The one that provided jobs to all of those immigrants.
If employing all those immigrants was so important then why has the US's activity rate been falling for over a decade?
You couldn't PM me either a link or the data could you?Originally posted by DanS
"*I am using GDP per man-year as I have no data for hours going back to 1973"
I saw those numbers a couple of days ago. In the States, still holding steady at roughly 1,800-1,900 hours per annum, IIRC. In Europe, slides to (very) roughly 1,400 hours, depending on country.
I'd love to get hold of an average annual hours series going back to 1973!
Pretty please
Actually I got that data from the BEA national accounts release (Table 3.1, line 24 'net lending'), this was a $300bn deficit in the first quarter and a $340bn one in the second (actually I estimated one figure to achieve this, it was line 3 'Corporate profits tax accruals', I estimated this at $200bn - slightly above the average for the last four quarters - when the preliminary estimate of GDP is out next thursday we'll see how far out I am)Originally posted by DanS
"BTW what does everyone think of the large budget deficits that the US is now racking up (over 3% of GDP in the first half of 2002)?"
How do you figure these numbers? By my calculation, it's well under 2%.
**edit**
looking at the new data it was $212bn so I was out by $6bn in the following estimate - or 0.1% of GDP
**edit**
The average figure of a $320bn deficit (at annual rate) is 3.1% of the $10,340bn (again, at an annual rate) GDP for the period.
The figures you are referring to seem to be only for the federal government, not all federal+state+government corporations etc.
My reason for choosing this measure of budget balance is (as usual) that is is the most internationally comparable figure. It reached a peak of $165bn surplus in Q1 2000 (1.7% of GDP), since then it has deteriorated by around 5% of GDP (or $10bn a week at today's pricesLast edited by el freako; September 6, 2002, 15:25.19th Century Liberal, 21st Century EuropeanComment
Comment