| Thursday, May 8, 2008 |
| Recession |
The Associated Press’s business writers just won’t let go of their claim (or is it audacious hope?) that we are in a recession — not heading towards one, but actually in one. Despite yet another decent economic report, this one on productivity, the AP’s Martin Crutsinger downplayed a significant beating of expectations, and continued to invoke the R-word (bolds are mine):
Click through to read the rest. At least if Obamessiah wins the Presidency we'll start to get good news from the MSM on the economy (regardless of the actual numbers). Just look at today compared to '96 heh
Labels: economy, MSM, recession |
posted by Lord Nazh @ 11:12 View blog reactions |
|
|
|
| Wednesday, April 9, 2008 |
| D trumps R (reporting) |
On the economy, make sure to follow the link to the good part of the post:
It’s the Politics, Stupid: Comparing Labor Market Data in 1996 and 2008
Democrats on the Economy in 1996: “Our economy is the healthiest it has been in three decades.” (President Bill Clinton, State of the Union Address, January 23, 1996)
Democrats on the Economy in 2008: “The bottom line is that this administration is the owner of the worst jobs record since Herbert Hoover." (Senator Charles Schumer, Press Release, March 7, 2008)
The Corner Via Flopping Aces; You can bet your last dollar that if BO or HC wins the next election, the economy will be turning around (in the media) no matter what the numbers say. Likewise if JM wins, the economy will slip into depression (with the same numbers). This is not a new phenomena, just one that people don't seem to believe; and unlike man-made global warming, this one is actually proveable hehLabels: democrats, economy, MSM, politics, republicans |
posted by Lord Nazh @ 19:51 View blog reactions |
|
|
|
| Wednesday, December 26, 2007 |
| NFL sells out, W shines |
The NFL sells out (due to political pressure) NEW YORK (CBS/AP) ― The New England Patriots' shot at history Saturday night will be available for every household in the country with a television after months of wrangling.
The game against the New York Giants, in which the Patriots could become the first NFL team to go 16-0 in the regular season, was originally scheduled to be shown only on the NFL Network, which is available in fewer than 40 percent of the nation's homes with TVs.
But the league announced Wednesday that the NFL Network feed will be simulcast on NBC and CBS. It's a major concession by league officials, who repeatedly said they would not show the game anywhere but the NFL Network. The NFL had faced mounting pressure from politicians in recent weeks to make the game available to more viewers.
This will be the first three-network simulcast in NFL history and the first simulcast of any kind of an NFL game since the first Super Bowl in 1967, when CBS and NBC both televised the first meeting of the champions of the newly merged National Football League and American Football League.
"We have taken this extraordinary step because it is in the best interest of our fans," commissioner Roger Goodell said. "What we have seen for the past year is a very strong consumer demand for NFL Network. We appreciate CBS and NBC delivering the NFL Network telecast on Saturday night to the broad audience that deserves to see this potentially historic game. Our commitment to the NFL Network is stronger than ever." WCBSTV.com
And W has a very good year.Against all odds, and despite the usual drumbeat of criticism, President Bush had a very good year.
The troop surge in Iraq is succeeding. America remains safe from terrorist attacks. And the Goldilocks economy is outperforming all expectations.
At his year-end news conference, Mr. Bush said with optimism that the economy is fundamentally sound, despite the housing downturn and the subprime credit crunch. The very next day, that optimism was reinforced with news of the best consumer spending in two years. The prophets of recessionary doom, such as former Fed Chairman Alan Greenspan, Republican adviser Martin Feldstein, ex-Democratic Treasury Secretary Lawrence Summers, and bond-maven Bill Gross have been proven wrong once again. The Washington Times Very good story, read it all.
On my last midnight tonight and then two weeks off (yay me). I'll still be around to visit everyone, but I may not get any more posts in tonight. I'll make up for it in the weeks ahead with all the off-time. Or not, hopefully there will be some overtime during my vacation, I need the money.
tag: NFL, NFL Network, simulcast, W, economy, Verlin Martin, Lord NazhLabels: economy, growth, jobs, NFL, W, war |
posted by Lord Nazh @ 18:16 View blog reactions |
|
|
|
| Sunday, February 11, 2007 |
| Living Wage |
Suprise news from the economic front. It seems that raising the minimum-wage has indeed created a living wage ... for the people that didn't get fired or have their hours reduced.
Why is it that no one on the left will ever understand that if a business must pay more to make a product, they will raise prices or cut costs. To cut costs, you get rid of people or hours (hence killing the effect of raising pay). And most business (initially) will cut costs instead of raising prices so they dont' damage their market share. Later businesses will begin to increase prices after the cuts to costs have been finished (economics 101) and then the people making the new 'living wage' will be just as poor as they were before government intervention into supply and demand. New wage boost puts squeeze on teenage workers across Arizona Employers are cutting back hours, laying off young staffers Chad Graham The Arizona Republic Feb. 10, 2007 12:00 AM Oh, for the days when Arizona's high school students could roll pizza dough, sweep up sticky floors in theaters or scoop ice cream without worrying about ballot initiatives affecting their earning power. That's certainly not the case under the state's new minimum-wage law that went into effect last month. Some Valley employers, especially those in the food industry, say payroll budgets have risen so much that they're cutting hours, instituting hiring freezes and laying off employees. (link)
Of course this is only in Arizona, but if a nation-wide bill passes, this will be the result nationwide. Yes the minimum wage is a very poor wage to make and will not support a family. Lost in this statement is the fact that most people making the minimum wage did NOT support a family and also that most (probably 99%) business that pay the minimum also offer raises after a certain amount of work time (or improvement). So the 'workers at minimum havn't had a raise in 10 years' meme is shot also. If someone had been working for that rate for 10 years, they seriously need to look into that business and their pay practices. Also the person needs to be looking into other employment. __________ Reason to think Filed: minimum wage, Economics, nanny state, teens, logical conclusion, LordNazhLabels: economy, government, wages |
posted by Lord Nazh @ 18:31 View blog reactions |
|
|
|
| Wednesday, December 27, 2006 |
|
Finally some good news on the home front:
 Dow closes above 12,500 for first time AP Photo: In this photo released by the New York Stock Exchange, Noreen Culhane, third left, Executive... |
By JOE BEL BRUNO, AP Business Writer 19 minutes ago
NEW YORK - Wall Street surged higher Wednesday, hurtling the Dow Jones industrials past 12,500 for the first time as year-end bargain hunters picked up stocks across a variety of sectors.
The auto industry was in focus after a meeting between executives at Toyota Motor Corp. and Ford Motor Co. sparked hope about a potential alliance between the two rivals. Shares of both companies moved higher on the speculation. |
Further takeover activity lent support to the overall market after McClatchy Co. announced late Tuesday it agreed to sell the Star Tribune newspaper in Minneapolis to a private equity fund. Also, graphics communication company Cenveo Inc. agreed to buy rival Cadmus Communications Corp. But investors looking to buff up their portfolios by year's end were behind most of the gains after major indexes languished last week. (link) Thank G-d the democrats won congress so the economy would get better. It's amazing that they havn't even officially taken over yet the economy is booming. All that unpleasantness the republicans put the poor 'ole economy through must have finally wore off.
Yes, I'm being sarcastic, but you wouldn't know from reading the papers pre- and post-election regarding the economy and state of union in general.
Just the last person I would have expected to see:
John Edwards joins presidential race   AP Photo: John Edwards smiles as he is interviewed by reporters during a break while working with... |
By NEDRA PICKLER, Associated Press Writer 7 minutes ago
WASHINGTON - Former Democratic vice presidential nominee John Edwards jumped into the presidential race Wednesday a day earlier than he'd planned, prodded by an Internet glitch to launch a candidacy focused on health care, taxes and other domestic issues.
The North Carolina Democrat's campaign accidentally went live with his election Web site a day before an announcement Thursday that was supposed to use Hurricane-ravaged New Orleans as a backdrop. |
The slip-up gave an unintended double-meaning to his campaign slogan on the John Edwards '08 Web site: "Tomorrow begins today." Aides quickly shut down the errant Web site but could not contain news of the obvious, even in the shadows of former President Ford's death. "Better a day earlier than a day late," said Jennifer Palmieri, an Edwards adviser. (link) So his site was up early so couldn't take advantage of the people of New Orleans. Doesn't he think that just maybe they have suffered enough and he should help them instead of exploiting them? (probably not) Well, there goes Hillary's chances (hehTM). With so many candidates staking their particular field out, Edwards comes in as 'the rich man for the poor man' candidate. Although his record doesn't reflect that, or his lifestyle; that is the way he will portray himself with ample help from the MSM. (Note: when all candidates are favorites of the MSM, who gets slandered? Republicans :) __________ Reason to vote Filed: economy, DOW, John Edwards, MSM, liberal coverage, LordNazhLabels: economy, election, MSM |
posted by Lord Nazh @ 17:20 View blog reactions |
|
|
|
| Friday, December 15, 2006 |
| Taxes and Poverty |
Just read a very interesting piece over at the QandO blog. Basically it dissects a study that shows poverty grows in relation to government spending and taxation (what every fiscal conservative know/believes).
Poverty, taxation, government and the economy Posted by: McQ on Friday, December 15, 2006
The Goldwater Institute just did a very interesting study (pdf) concerning poverty, taxes and government spending. It's conclusions seem to validate classical liberal economic theory concerning the best way to address poverty.
It measured overall poverty and childhood poverty in all 50 states and any reduction or gains within those two categories when compared to the national average between 1990 and 2000. Their findings: (link) Follow the link and read the whole post (and the comments). It is a very good post (and you need to see the study itself too) and points out things that seem very obvious to some and extremely far away to others. To me it seems simple, but I'll let you judge it on your own and make your own opinion of it. __________ Reason to think
Labels: conservative, economy, poverty, taxes |
posted by Lord Nazh @ 20:04 View blog reactions |
|
|
|
|
|
|