[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]
|
Status: Not Logged In; Sign In
Business Title: Durable Goods Orders Rebound In May; GDP Revised Up WASHINGTON — Businesses boosted their orders for machinery, electronics products and airplanes in May. The pickup suggests manufacturing is rebounding after the Japan crises made parts scarce and slowed production of some factory goods temporarily. Orders long-lasting manufactured products increased 1.9% in last month, the Commerce Department said Friday. A key category that signals business investment plans rose 1.6%. The stronger demand follows a revised 2.7% decline in April that was largely the result of supply disruptions caused by Japan's March 11th earthquake and tsunami. The inability to get critical component parts in such industries as autos and electronics slowed U.S. manufacturing. Orders for autos and auto parts rose 0.6% in May after having fallen 5.3% in April. The rebound in May in both autos and broader categories supports the view that the April lull was temporary. Separately, the Commerce Department said the economy grew at a 1.9% annual rate in the January-March quarter. That's not much better than the 1.8% rate estimated a month ago. The small upward revision reflected stronger exports and more business spending on stockpiles. The bulk of the strength in the durables report came across a wide range of industries. Businesses boosted their orders for machinery 1.2% and demand for computers rose 1.3%. Communications equipment jumped 3.6% increase. Businesses boosted demand for transportation products 5.8%. Much of that increase reflected a 36.5% surge in orders for commercial aircraft, a very volatile industry that had reported a big decline in production in April. Excluding the volatile transportation category, orders would have risen 0.6% in May after dropping 0.4% in April. The capital goods category excluding aircraft is viewed as a proxy for business investment. It rose 1.6% after a 0.8% drop in April. Economists believe this category will show strength as companies respond to a one-year tax break aimed at spurring capital spending. Manufacturing has been one of the strongest sectors of the economy since the recession official ended two years ago. However, there are concerns that the production pace could slow in coming months as businesses decide to scale back their restocking of inventories. A closely watched gauge of manufacturing activity from the Institute of Supply Manage showed manufacturing dipped to 53.5 in May from 60.4 in April. Readings above 50 indicate manufacturing is continuing to expand. Regional manufacturing surveys put out by the Federal Reserve Banks of New York and Philadelphia also showed recent weakness. But as production returns to more normal levels in Japan, economists are forecasting that disruptions to factory production in the United States will ease in coming months. Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 50. Under 2% is basically 'running in reverse'.
#4. To: Badeye (#1) Under 2% is basically 'running in reverse'. Not hardly, Badlie. The economy is slowly improving despite your best efforts to suggest otherwise.
#5. To: Thunderbird (#4) A growth of under 2% 2 years after the recession supposedly ended is pathetically anemic growth.
#6. To: no gnu taxes (#5) (Edited) A growth of under 2% 2 years after the recession supposedly ended is pathetically anemic growth. Given the depths of the economic downturn, which, btw, the stim stopped dead in its tracks, any positive growth rate is a miracle.
#7. To: war (#6) Not only did the stimulus not work, it actually made the economy worse
#8. To: no gnu taxes (#7) (Edited) Bullshit. There's not a credible economist out there who can support any conclusion that the stim did not work. The economy stopped bleeding jobs. Confidence at major corporations increased. Consumer confidence increased. Purchases of big ticket items such as cars and houses stablized or turned up. Just about every aspect of the economy that was targeted in that stim reacted positively to it. A stim is a pump prime...a crutch...hopefully deep enough to initiate and sustain its own activity until the broader economy turns up...it functions as an innoculation does. Had you a brain you'd know this. YOu don't so you're an ignoramus and, as we saw again today, a racist one at that. But I'm sure Boofer will be along to agree with you. [snicker]
#10. To: war (#8) How we know the stimulus didn't work
#11. To: no gnu taxes (#10) That was an assessment made 6months into the stim when 3 months of hard data was available. Stick to posting rants about ni**ers, Paddy...that's what you're best equipped for...
#14. To: war (#11)
#16. To: no gnu taxes (#14) His argument is that that the stim didn't work because it didn't hit the baselines that HE, ex post facto, created for it. What else you got?
#19. To: war (#16) At least these sources are providing genuine analysis. All you've offered is boilerplate left wing rhetoric on why it SHOULD have worked.
#21. To: no gnu taxes (#19) (Edited) All you've offered is boilerplate left wing rhetoric There's an old saying in the economic world that states: "When you have to use charts, graphs and statistics instead of words to 'prove' a point...you're probably lying." That last link was hilarious, btw. Upon further review of Mulligan's work, I nailed EXACTLY what he did, i.e. he simply made up his own baselines, declared them "Keynesian" and then drew his "comparison". What you call "boilerplate" is actually HOW the effectiveness of a stim gets measured, doofus. The first goal of a stim in a recession is to stop the reccession. It did that. The second goal of a stim in a recession is to initiate nascient growth in some "critical" sectors of the economy of which "sentiment" is a part. The stim did all of that. The problem with the stim is that while it was BIG enough to stop the recession it was not big enough to jump start, or to use the term that an economist would use, "shock" the economy into a broader based recovery and expansion. In fact, we've only recently "recovered" to the chain weighted value of 4Q 2007 GDP when the recession began. teh stim worked only in its target sectors and nothing more. It just wasn't big enough. The problem with MouthBreathers such as you and the Boofers of the world is that you beleive the political rhetoric. Is the economy in good shape? No. But it would have been far worse without the stim.
#22. To: war (#21) instead of words Bullshit talks. The stimulus underperformed ALL stated goals and expectations. There is absolutely no evidence that it produced any better results than doing NOTHING. In fact, the unemployment rate exceeded what was predicted if we did do NOTHING. You think different? Prove it. And frankly, the money from that was supposed to be used for jobs was simply transferred to local agencies who used it to finance existing projects and pay local employees. All we got from it was another day older and trillions in debt.
#24. To: no gnu taxes (#22) And frankly, the money from that was supposed to be used for jobs was simply transferred to local agencies who used it to finance existing projects and pay local employees. Bullshit.
#26. To: war (#24) State governments and the inefectiveness of the Federal stimulus
#28. To: no gnu taxes (#26) "Leakage" is a problem with any inter-government transfer of funds. The article makes that general observation yet offers no tangible evidence beyond that observation. It might help if you knew what to look for. What you need to do is go back and look at a) what the expectations for the economy were as the stim was being formulated...b) what occurred as the "form" came into being and c) what we ended up with and, finally, d) how wrong the intial projections of exactly how bad Bush had left the economy were going forward from Jan of 2009.
#29. To: war (#28) The 800 lb gorilla out there you can't ignore is the sheer number of economists out there who don't speak from a partisan viewpoint (like Krugman or even fairly, the Heritage foundation) who provide frank and unbiased analysis that the stimulus was simply a failure.
#30. To: no gnu taxes (#29) You've yet to provide one that holds up to scrutiny. I have a one year head start on you with this Paddy. I totally eviscerated a well known - and very partisan - TV "economist" at a Roundtable last year - almost to the day, in fact - when he tried to promote this same nonsense.
#31. To: war (#30) So prove what you say the stimulus did.
#33. To: no gnu taxes (#31) So prove what you say the stimulus did. A) We're no longer in a recession. B) Business optimism did turn up after the stim had passed. C) Job losses, especially in construction, were halted and turned positive - where they remain today. D) Manufacturing indicators turned positive where they remain today.
#37. To: war (#33) A) We're no longer in a recession. Begging the point. How do you know the recession wouldn't have ended anyway as they always do? And frankly to claim we might not technically be in a recession isn't saying much as shitty as the economy has been and still is 2 1/2 years after the stimulus was passed. Business optimism did turn up after the stim had passed. So much so that 2 1/2 years later, and 2 years after the recession ended, businesses STILL do not want to hire full time workers. Sure. Job losses, especially in construction, were halted and turned positive - where they remain today. The job gains are not even keeping up with population gains -- 2 years into "recovery." Manufacturing indicators turned positive where they remain today. Positive? By what standards. They are still very weak when looked at over the last few months. Two years after a recession ends (supposedly) with a stimulus plan in place and unemployment is still rising, and growth is under 2%? What planet would anyone live on to think that anything that dumbass did has worked?
#43. To: no gnu taxes (#37) All of your questions were answered in very plain English. If there is a particular answer that is difficult for you to understand, please quote it. Thanks. "How do you know the recession wouldn't have ended anyway as they always do?" You answered your own question, sorta. The recession would have ended. Next year, maybe. Or the year after, maybe. Without a stim it most certainly was not going to end in 2009 - as it did.
#46. To: war (#43) All I got was your OPINION.
I say on July 31, the DOW will be 11,900 and the U3 will be 8.9. Think you can beat me? Try. Yeah, and I am just pulling those numbers out my ass, like you do.
#47. To: no gnu taxes (#46) I say on July 31, the DOW will be 11,900 and the U3 will be 8.9. Is that suppose to be some sort of bold statement. In terms of "calling" the market, it's akin to standing at the ocean observing the water line and stating that in 8 hours it won't have changed much. Try 7/31/12...
#49. To: war (#47) Is that suppose to be some sort of bold statement. In terms of "calling" the market, it's akin to standing at the ocean observing the water line and stating that in 8 hours it won't have changed much. Good marketers can't predict a 1 week trend? You guys suck.
#50. To: no gnu taxes (#49) Who cares about a one week trend...one week 99/100 times is a technical trade. Calling the long term fundamental trade is what makes the donuts...
Replies to Comment # 50. There are no replies to Comment # 50.
End Trace Mode for Comment # 50. Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest |
|
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]
|