Replies

I can. Borrowing is 100% relative to your income. In a $40 TRILLION economy, $1 Trillion is not much.

But I underestimate the value of our economy. I just saw a study by the IRS (complaining you understand!) that its own stats (based on business filings) substantially undervalued American business assets and income. That is fully in keeping with other studies I have seen that have concluded that corporate assets (forget stock, for a moment) have generally undervalued U.S. business assets.

Once again, the "Financial Sense Online" negative spin. Since WHEN is 3.1% GROWTH CONSIDERED BAD? Europe would BEG to have such growth. It was "not in keeping with expectations."

Well come on, be consistent and fair! If the corporations put out rosy estimates that you don't like, you call them smoke and mirrors and say, "Let's check the real data." So here we have real data. Good growth, just below great growth.

I also saw several analysts on a variety of shows saying that in their opinion, they were seeing signs that tech was coming back. Not ROARING back, but slow and steady improvement.

"Since WHEN is 3.1% GROWTH CONSIDERED BAD? Europe would BEG to have such growth. It was "not in keeping with expectations."

Even CNBC thought that 3.1% was "not in keeping with expectations..."

By the way, did you catch the currrent analysis on the S&P 500 profit to earnings ratio?:

Standard & Poor's Core Earnings Figures Released for the S&P 500

New Earnings Definition Indicates Lower EPS Results than As-Reported Earnings with Pension Expenses a Major Factor

New York, October 24, 2002 –Standard & Poor's,

the independent financial research and ratings leader, today announced that Standard & Poor’s Core Earnings for the S&P 500 Index for the 12 months ended June 2002 were $18.48 per share compared to as-reported earnings per share (EPS) of $26.74.

This means P/E ratios are over 40 for the S&P...

Don't GDP results usually undergo a couple of revisions?

If I'm not mistaken, the last few quarterly GDP results were revised downward. Can't recall by how much though.

Well come on, be consistent and fair! If the corporations put out rosy estimates that you don't like, you call them smoke and mirrors and say, "Let's check the real data." So here we have real data. Good growth, just below great growth.I also saw several analysts on a variety of shows saying that in their opinion, they were seeing signs that tech was coming back. Not ROARING back, but slow and steady improvement.

I wonder why then, "experts" are calling for the Fed to lower interest rates by up to 1/2 percent at their next meeting...........

This is the calm before the perfect storm.

If you want to go to the beach, fine.

Buy the dips and knock yourself out. Catch the perfect wave.

But no belly-aching next summer when your house is worth less than your mortgage and your stocks are all delisted because they are under a dollar.

Normal people, on the other hand, should be preparing to sell into this rally now, and getting ready to buy gold/mining shares in December.

Once again, the "Financial Sense Online" negative spin. Since WHEN is 3.1% GROWTH CONSIDERED BAD? Europe would BEG to have such growth. It was "not in keeping with expectations."

I kept looking for that growth number when reading the report, it was not there. What kind of 'report' is this? I guess in there 2000+ words there was not enough room to say 3.1%. All they said was how disappointing todays numbers were. What a crook. No one was expecting 3.1% growth. This STUPID report needs to be renamed TODAY'S MARKET GLOOM PROPAGANDA.