Very interesting information. My props go out to you. I for one would read it.

Other information which would assist in giving a clearer signal of the US economy is the level of bankruptcys, levels of personal and municipal debt etc. Not being an american I do not know which organisation releases that data. Growth based on unsustainable debt is like building a house on quicksand, it might look good to start with but inevitably it sinks.

This site has excellent links to raw data charts

http://www.financialsense.com/monitor.htm

For analysis of economic issues, without the shrill boosterism of the mainstream press and financial media

http://www.levy.org/2/index.asp?

From an investors perspective:

http://www.morganstanley.com/GEFdat...est-digest.html

From the Morgan Stanley webpage

(3) The imbalance between ‘capitalists’ and ‘labourers’, i.e., those who hold financial wealth versus those who don’t, is the least appreciated imbalance. One cyclical source of this imbalance has been rate cuts. Interest rates are the cost of capital: lower rates incentivise economic agents to engage in capital expenditures. However, wages are the cost of labour and these tend to be sticky. When interest rates collapsed, relative costs were heavily skewed in favour of capex rather than employment. This is one key reason why we are seeing a US jobless recovery: firms are not incentivised to hire workers when the cost of capital is so low. One structural source of this capital-labour imbalance is outsourcing. Outsourcing is also advantageous for US capitalists and is one of the key reasons why US productivity has been so high and the profitability of US firms should remain superior but, at least over the medium term, is negative for US labourers.

Week ending Feb 15

RELEASE: Jobless Claims [United States]: 363,000
FIRST TAKE: Initial jobless claims rose for the second consecutive week, climbing to 363,000 last week. Claims for the prior week were revised up slightly, to 357,000. This blip does not alter the generally improving trend found in recent months. Continuing claims fell to their lowest total since mid-2001.

RELEASE: Retail Sales (MARTS) [United States]: -0.3%
FIRST TAKE: Total retail sales fell 0.3% in January, below expectations, due to a larger than expected decline in auto sales. Excluding autos, sales rose 0.9% as projected. December sales growth was revised down, due to a downward revision to the growth of auto sales. In January, apparel, grocery, gas and sporting goods sales led the way.

RELEASE: Business Inventories (MTIS) [United States]: 0.3%
FIRST TAKE: Business inventories followed consensus expectations exactly in December, posting a moderate 0.3% increase. The inventory increase was paired with a larger gain in sales, driving the inventory-to-sales ratio to a new record low.

RELEASE: Weekly Natural Gas Storage Report [United States]: 1,603 Bcf
FIRST TAKE: Underground storage of natural gas decreased by 224 billion cubic feet during the week ending February 6. The draw exceeded expectations for a decline of 194 Bcf. Thus, today’s report will have a moderately bullish impact on natural gas markets.

RELEASE: Treasury Budget [United States]: -$1.4 billion
FIRST TAKE: The unified deficit for January was $1 billion, on track with CBO’s preliminary estimate of $1 billion. Through the first four months of fiscal year 2004, the federal government has run a cumulative deficit of $130 billion.

RELEASE: MBA Mortgage Applications Survey [United States]: 797.8
FIRST TAKE: The MBA index declined last week by 6.8% to 798. Nonetheless, purchase activity remains very high, thanks to mortgage interest rates that remain very low. As long as mortgage rates remain low, mortgage demand for purchase will be sturdy. While it looks good relative to a month ago, the refi index stands considerably below its heights of last year.

RELEASE: ABC News/Money Magazine Consumer Comfort Index [United States]: -6
FIRST TAKE: The ABC News/Money Magazine consumer comfort index slipped a single point this week, marking the third straight week that the index was either flat or down. Confidence appears to have stalled lately after surging forward in recent months.

RELEASE: Oil and Gas Inventories [United States]: 268.9 MB
FIRST TAKE: The Energy Information Administration reported a decline in crude oil stocks by 2.7 million barrels during the week ending February 6. Motor gasoline stocks recorded a moderate draw while distillate stocks were down substantially during the week. Overall, the EIA’s data will have a bullish impact on the petroleum complex. The data published by the American Petroleum Institute are delayed.

RELEASE: Chain Store Sales Snapshot [United States]: 1.8%
FIRST TAKE: Chain store sales jumped 1.8% in the week ending February 7, more than reversing the prior week’s decline, according to the ICSC-UBS chain store sales index. Year-over-year growth accelerated sharply to 5.9%.

RELEASE: Richmond Fed Manufacturing Survey [United States]: 18
FIRST TAKE: Manufacturing activity in the Fifth Federal Reserve District continued to grow in January. Indices of production and orders improved, although the employment index fell. Expectations weakened slightly but remained bright.

RELEASE: Wholesale Trade (MWTR) [United States]: 1.0%
FIRST TAKE: Both sales and inventories for wholesalers exceeded expectations in December. Each posted healthy gains, with sales outpacing inventory additions. This report offers continued positive news for the wholesale industry’s recovery.

RELEASE: Survey of Business Confidence: 171.0
FIRST TAKE: Global business confidence remains high, but has softened notably since peaking since late last year. Confidence has slipped most among real estate, business services and financial services companies. Businesses continue to report stronger sales and firmer pricing, however. Manufacturers and high-tech companies are particularly upbeat. Most businesses are also increasingly positive about their investment and hiring intentions.

RELEASE: Kansas City Fed Manufacturing Survey [United States]: 24
FIRST TAKE: Manufacturing activity in the Tenth Federal Reserve district continued to expand in January. The net percentage of firms reporting year-ago increases in production slid to 24 from the low thirties reported during the fourth quarter. Note, however, that a rating higher than 24 was last reported in 1998.

___________________
Retro ...

did you have european figures too?

where do you get it from?

quote:

Originally posted by occrider Week ending Feb 15 RELEASE: Kansas City Fed Manufacturing Survey [United States]: 24 FIRST TAKE: Manufacturing activity in the Tenth Federal Reserve district continued to expand in January. The net percentage of firms reporting year-ago increases in production slid to 24 from the low thirties reported during the fourth quarter. Note, however, that a rating higher than 24 was last reported in 1998.

Woohoo!

Occ's making my town famous again!

Aren't there any graphy thingies anywhere?

Okay, I'll try and be a little more serious today.

___________________
Whence September dusk grows crisper still,
with leaves all crimson conquered,
I yearn to shout,
and dance about,
and stick pickles in my honker...

quote:

Originally posted by St_Andrew did you have european figures too? where do you get it from?

I do as a matter of fact. I get them from a number of economics sites that I subscribe to. Give me some time ... I'll start collating Euro data.

___________________
Retro ...

quote:

Originally posted by MisterOpus1 Woohoo! Occ's making my town famous again! Aren't there any graphy thingies anywhere? Okay, I'll try and be a little more serious today.

Heheh the only reason why I know that KC is in Missouri and not Kansas is because of the Kansas City Fed

___________________
Retro ...

Okay, Occrider or anyone else, help me out here....

According to the BLS numbers, jobs rose 112,000 for the month of January. But Total employment rose by 496,000 in January after accounting for the adjustment to population controls.

Okay, what's "population controls"? How come I never hear of the nearly 500k job rise figure? Is it necessary to report population controls, because I do not run across this figure anywhere in the newpapers? Why is that?

Thanx

___________________
Whence September dusk grows crisper still,
with leaves all crimson conquered,
I yearn to shout,
and dance about,
and stick pickles in my honker...

Oh yeah, here's a link in case you're interested:

http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.nr0.htm

___________________
Whence September dusk grows crisper still,
with leaves all crimson conquered,
I yearn to shout,
and dance about,
and stick pickles in my honker...

quote:

Originally posted by MisterOpus1 Okay, Occrider or anyone else, help me out here.... According to the BLS numbers, jobs rose 112,000 for the month of January. But Total employment rose by 496,000 in January after accounting for the adjustment to population controls. Okay, what's "population controls"? How come I never hear of the nearly 500k job rise figure? Is it necessary to report population controls, because I do not run across this figure anywhere in the newpapers? Why is that? Thanx

Well here's some info on population controls to calibrate surveys:

http://www.icis.dk/ICIS_papers/F1_6_2.pdf

Essentially, since all employment surveys are taken from random samples which are then extrapolated to the general population, there are always going to be revisions as size and demographics of the general population are constantly changing.

Here's what the BLS says with regards to its use of current population surveys to correct sampling error:

http://www.bls.gov/gps/notescps.htm

The reason why I think there are two different figures, 100,000 vs. 400,000, asides from the use of population controls to calibrate data, is due to there being two different measures of unemployment. When talking about payrolls, the BLS uses the payroll survey whereby they ask some 400,000 businesses how many payrolls they have added to their business. The household survey on the other hand (which is where you are getting your 400,000 figure) is when the labor departments collect data from 60,000 households and ask those living there whether they are employed or not. Whereas one is a much larger sampling and therefore statistically more accurate, the sample itself is flawed since it doesn't take into account the growing number of self-employed which has been booming after all the dot com crises. Economists generally join the two figures together to arrive at the unemployment level I believe. Plus another thing which may be affecting your two results is that the payroll survey is composed of only non-farm payrolls whereas the household survey takes into account every employment type. Yea ... I think that makes sense.

___________________
Retro ...

quote:

Originally posted by occrider blah blah blah...why I think there are two different figures, 100,000 vs. 400,000, asides from the use of population controls to calibrate data, is due to there being two different measures of unemployment.

WOW! You have just made me the most confused I have ever been in my life. I will no longer trust any economic statistics I hear form now on - you have made it completely obvious to me that no mere mortal will ever be capable of understanding what they actually need. That's it I'm through with the free market and all it's 'statistics' we need blant obvious control that only dumb people can understand available to us only by communism.

I'm through with this economy and its 'statistics'!

p.s.
I can't wait for next week's update.. keep up the good work!

___________________
SAVE ZIONIST MUSTARD: BUY ZIONIST KETCHUP!


Click here to support the free mustard alliance.

quote:

Originally posted by Yoepus WOW! You have just made me the most confused I have ever been in my life. I will no longer trust any economic statistics I hear form now on - you have made it completely obvious to me that no mere mortal will ever be capable of understanding what they actually need. That's it I'm through with the free market and all it's 'statistics' we need blant obvious control that only dumb people can understand available to us only by communism. I'm through with this economy and its 'statistics'! p.s. I can't wait for next week's update.. keep up the good work!

There's nothing like a good quota to get people motivated . Whoops forgot to post friday's data ... must remember to do so tomorrow.

Edit: Friday's stats -

RELEASE: International Trade (FT900) [United States]: -$42.5 billion
FIRST TAKE: The balance of trade reversed course from last month, and fell to -$42.5 billion after registering -$38.4 billion in November. Exports posted a marginal decline, and imports rebounded strongly from November’s decline. For all of 2003, exports measured $1.018 trillion and imports came to $1.507 trillion, which resulted in a goods and services deficit of $489.4 billion, $71.3 billion more than the previous year. This, despite a 6.6% depreciation in the trade-weighted dollar.

RELEASE: Import and Export Prices [United States]: 1.3%
FIRST TAKE: Import prices in the U.S. rose a surprising 1.3% in January, including a strong 0.7% increase in non-petroleum imports. Export prices rose 0.5%, despite a 0.5% decline in agriculture prices, due in large part to the impact of mad cow disease concerns on beef prices.

RELEASE: University of Michigan Consumer Sentiment Survey [United States]: 93.1
FIRST TAKE: The University of Michigan Consumer Sentiment Index preliminary value for February was 93.1, down nearly 11 points and reversing almost all of January’s gain. The expectations component of the index fell most sharply, to below its December value.

RELEASE: ECRI Weekly Leading Index [United States]: 131.7
FIRST TAKE: The six-month growth rate of the ECRI Weekly Leading Index (WLI) fell to 11.0% during the week ending February 6. This came amid a decline in the index’s level from 132.6 to 131.7.

___________________
Retro ...

Last edited by occrider on Feb-18-2004 at 16:13