Posted on 11/17/2005 6:19:20 AM PST by SoFloFreeper
WASHINGTON (AP) -- Output at the nation's factories, mines and utilities rose at the fastest pace in 17 months in October, posting a solid rebound from the devastating Gulf Coast hurricanes. The Federal Reserve reported that industrial output was up a healthy 0.9 percent last month as refineries and oil and natural gas platforms began production again after widespread shutdowns caused by hurricanes Katrina and Rita. Last month's increase followed a 1.5 percent plunge in September, which had been the biggest one-month drop in industrial production in more than two decades.
Well excuse me Mr. Friedman.
The business cycle iteself carries the greatest weight of all reasons for the current state of the economy.
D'ya just finish reading a book on business cycles? You are looking up from the bottom of a well. Certainly there are business cycles but they are by and large the result of extraneous factors. No two cycles are ever alike, just similar. Don't get so hung up on the concept of business cycles that you lose the big picture.
No, the Fed does not manage short term interest rates. Those who say that imply that the Fed makes short term rates go up and down.
Boy, you got some studyin' to do. You are right, the Fed doesn't make short term rates go up and down, it SETS short term rates by pegging the benchmark Fed Funds rate. You really have this all wrong.
The Fed doesn't so much react as anticipate. Greenspan,for instance has a few favorite indicators that he watches, Personal Consumption Deflator is one, for anticipating inflation. This isn't reactionary at all. If the Fed were purely reactionary it would always be late (later than it is). Back when Wayne Angel was a governor he used to write articles about the price of gold being a future indicator. This isn't reacting to inflation but anticipating it.
Wrong answer...
Tax cuts have RAISED tax revenues.
The fact that politicians have continued to increase spending may mask that cause-and-effect relationship -- but does not negate it.
Without the tax cuts, the deficit would be much larger.
The Fed reacts to market elements.
The Fed's look into the future (e.g., to "allay inflationary stirrings" or some other Greenspeak) still is based on currrent and recent past market forces.
The Fed is basically a reactionary body to recent past economic trends.
Several years ago, my employer tried to have a leading semiconductor fabricator in Taiwan fabricate our simplest microprocessor, an older, proven design which was being retargeted towards embedded applications. This processor was probably in the class of the Intel Celeron at the time. The Taiwan company could not do it. We had to go back to a U.S. fab.
That's also why Texas Instruments licenses its DLP technology to be built by Samsung.
Huh? TI sells its DLP chips to many consumer electronics companies. TI builds semiconductors, not televisions. It relies on television manufacturers to do that. It is the same way with TI's DSP chips. They are used in a lot of cell phones. But TI is a semiconductor manufacturer, not a cell phone manufacturer.
Lots of foreign automobile companies assemble cars in the United States, not manufacture them.
I hear this all the time, but nobody who says it can define the difference between "assemble" and "manufacture".
Some claim foreign car companies simply ship all of the completed subassemblies to the U.S., bolt them togther here, to avoid tarriffs. I could say, "So what", as it still employs Americans. But looking beyond that, such an approach would increase transportation costs. It would also drive up costs, as most manufacturing has been based on just-in-time suppliers for decades. But, the proof point of this would be the lack of suppliers near the final assembly plant. But a quick look around the Mercedes plant near Tuscaloosa Alabama shows either this is not the case. And Hyundai proves the same, as the suppliers to their new plant in Montgomery AL were built, hired employees, and started manufacturing several months ahead of the main Hyundai plant. They had to be in place for Hyundai to analyze their output before they began manufacture themselves.
Yes, some components like engines are shipped in. But many are not. Toyota has manufactured engines in Huntsville AL for years.
They all do that to help the American worker.
They, like every other free market company, do this to sell more product, make more money, grow their business, and increase their shareholder's wealth.
Good lord, "Dont_Tread," the phrase "it's Bush's fault" is an ironic joke -- a poke in the proverbial eye of those who blame GWB for almost everything that goes bad in the country. It may be tired, but it's a joke nevertheless. You really do need to lighten up some.
Unemployment? Heck,it takes a week to get a plumber on the coast.
These jobs here only pay 11.00 a hour and we know no one can live on that.
8 states have "Help Wanted" signs in windows in the South.
Bump.
Sure it does. But you fail to define what you mean by "market elements". That could be many things. Greenspan said the market was exhibiting "irrational exhuberance" in 1998. Was that a market element? Commodity prices, as gauged by the CRB Index went to the moon earlier this year but "official" inflation has remained fairly tame. Is that a market element? The Chinese could decide to sell a trillion dollars worth of our treasury bonds tomorrow. Is that a market element? Housing bubble? Market element? Katrina? Unemployment? Taxes?
replacing broken items or destroyed items is always a boom
Let's see these gains with no storms, then I will believe it is not a bubble
I'll repeat myself for the record. The housing boom is liquidity-driven (too much money chasing too few investments). This means there's "too much" prosperity.
< sarc > We should tax this windfall prosperity /sarc
"
Initially yes, but wasn't the predicted deficit +$600 Billion start of 2005 and now we are looking at $300 billion?
More tax receipts makes for more money in the government coffers."
Yes.
I fully support tax cuts.
I am probably in the minority on this board in that I do support some deliberate deficit spending to stimulate the economy and running a surplus to cool the economy when needed.
My problem is considering tax cuts as an absolute- they can be instituted as needed to cause deficit spending to stimulate the economy but beyond that they need to be conditioned on spending cuts. Beyond a certain point there is no benefit to borrowing money from the Chinese and Japanese just to spend it and I believe the Bush administration has exceeded that point even allowing for special circumstances. God knows he has a difficult congress so there is blame to go around.
pfony1, with due respect tp Dr. Laffer and his curve I don't believe you can demonstrate that a reduction of income tax rates has increased incomes tax revenue. If you are talking capital gains taxes I'd agree with you.
It is tired.
Why not use this stupid phrase for something very bad, like Hurricane Katrina where the RATs blame him for a natural disaster. That would get some giggles from some here. Or, use it for something very good, like John Bolton hinting the UN is becoming dysfunctional and the RATs are acting like this is a disaster. In those two cases, the snicker value is enough to cause a reading on the power gauge. But in this case, Bush could not have caused a good or bad industrial production report, so this stale phrase falls flat.
The key word was "reacts" and that was the key based on what was discussed in that post and response. All the minutia you listed has nothing to do with the fact that a USA president has no impact on the industrial production indicator.
And more proof the average American is a total moron - the "majority" of idiots they poll (I think they actually ask several questions to determine if the person they called is dumb enough to buy into their loaded poll questions) think the economy sucks.
Ditto for what they think of Iraq and the war on terror. You know the type...they spend all morning at work talking about the TV shows they watched the night before like it actually matters.
You are wrong. You underestimate the influence a President has on the economy, my friend.
In fact, there is quite a lot an Administration can do.
Firstly, the Treasury can flood the market with money, making loans easier to get and spurring business.
Secondly, the Administration can do a variety of things to strengthen, or weaken, the US dollar, thereby making US goods and contrarily, foreign goods, either cheaper or more expensive to US consumers.
Thirdly, the Adminstration has a variety of Presidential statutes he can implement relating to tarriffs and trade. For example, the president can put a 30 percent tarriff on steel imports, or on textiles.
The president can also negotiate a variety of trade agreements, such as the ongoing dialog with CHINa about that country joining the WTO, or whatever it is.
The US can also jawbone foreign countries into investing their bank savings in US dollars rather than in Euro's, or Ruples, or whatever.
The President also has tremendous clout simply by people having faith in their foreign leadership ability. Remember Carter??
People had no, I mean NO confidence in Carter, and the US economy plunged.
Then there is oil, energy policy. The president can authorize a host of regulations which helps US energy companies produce more oil, etc.
There is a dozen other things the President can do, but my brain is too tired to list them all.
Of course the PResident does not hold ALL the keys to an economy, But you are wrong when you say the President does little.
Could you BE any more condescending?
No.
Money supply is a leading indicator, not a coincident indicator.
Secondly, the Administration can do a variety of things to strengthen, or weaken, the US dollar, thereby making US goods and contrarily, foreign goods, either cheaper or more expensive to US consumers.
No.
1] What weakens here strengthens there. Net effect = ZERO. 2] Name me one thing the Executive Branch does that manipulates the US dollar.
the Adminstration has a variety of Presidential statutes he can implement relating to tarriffs and trade. For example, the president can put a 30 percent tarriff on steel imports, or on textiles.
Here was my statment: "Name just one thing that President Bush has done that has caused Industrial Production to be changed from what was reported."
What you just mentioned did not happen. Your hypothetical did not happen. You have not come up with one thing Bush has done that has influenced the Industrial Production figure.
The president can also negotiate a variety of trade agreements
No.
This could spur trade in the future but does not affect the current. Industrial production is a coincident indicator, not a leading indicator. Besides, trade agreements often "redistribute the wealth" but do not alter overall supply and demand for the global economy.
The US can also jawbone foreign countries into investing their bank savings in US dollars rather than in Euro's, or Ruples, or whatever.
No.
No serious person would say this would affect the current state of Industrial Production. I know you are serious so you should not say that.
The President also has tremendous clout simply by people having faith in their foreign leadership ability. Remember Carter??
No.
Consumer sentiment is a leading indicator, not a coincident indicator.
Then there is oil, energy policy. The president can authorize a host of regulations which helps US energy companies produce more oil, etc.
No.
"More regulations" would help more oil production? Is this a typo?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.