luckydevil Posted July 25, 2003 Share Posted July 25, 2003 http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/business/AP-Economy.html?hp 2 Key Economic Barometers Post Large Gains in June By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS Filed at 3:06 p.m. ET WASHINGTON (AP) -- The economy is showing fresh signs of snapping out of its funk: Orders to factories for big-ticket goods registered the biggest increase since the beginning of the year and new-home sales climbed to the highest level on record. The latest batch of economic news Friday reinforced hopes that a much anticipated revival will take hold in the second half of this year. ``It really is beginning to look as if the train has finally left the station,'' said Joel Naroff, president of Naroff Economic Advisors. ``The news was very good and adds to the belief the economy is on the mend.'' Especially heartening to Naroff and other economists was a Commerce Department report showing orders placed to U.S. factories for ``durable'' goods -- costly manufactured products expected to last at least three years-- went up by a solid 2.1 percent in June from May. The increase -- nearly double what economists were forecasting and the biggest since January -- suggested that the battered manufacturing sector is finally turning a corner. The advance came after America's manufacturers saw demand for their products fall by 2.4 percent in April and stay flat in May. In more welcome news, sales of new, single-family homes rose 4.7 percent in June from the month before to a seasonally adjusted annual rate of 1.16 million units, the best month for sales on record, the department said in a second report. That comes on top of a 10.9 percent jump in new-home sales from April to May. The National Association of Realtors, in a separate report, said sales of previously owned homes dipped by 0.3 percent in June from the previous month to a seasonally adjusted annual rate of 5.83 million units. Even with the decline, though, June's sales matched the fourth best month on record. Low mortgage rates have kept the housing market healthy. Rates on 30-year mortgages hit a record monthly low of 5.23 percent in June, down from 5.48 percent in May. Although a recent rise in mortgage rates may slow home sales in coming months, economists said they still expected sales of both previously owned and new homes to set new records this year. ``Some people jump in when they worry that rates will go higher,'' said Michael Carliner, economist at the National Association of Home Builders. While the housing market has been a main prop for the economy, manufacturing, hardest hit by the 2001 recession, has been a major drag. Factories have cut production and workers amid lackluster demand at home and overseas, where countries are struggling with a global economic slump. At the same time, manufacturers have to compete against a flood of imported goods flowing into the United States. However, the durable goods report along with other economic data on factory activity suggest that the industry may be seeing better days head. That's good news for manufacturers as well as the national economy's efforts to get back to full throttle. ``The sun is breaking through at last,'' said Jerry Jasinowski, president of the National Association of Manufacturers. Friday's report ``adds to the mounting evidence that the manufacturing recovery, which stalled last August, is on the rebound,'' he said. The gains reported for June were broad-based, with orders for commercial aircraft, automobiles, machinery, computers, electrical equipment and home appliances all going up. There were a few soft spots: orders for communications equipment and fabricated metal products went down. In a bid to energize the economy, the Federal Reserve on June 25 cut a key interest rate by quarter-point to 1 percent, a 45-year low. Economists believe the Fed is likely to hold rates steady at its next meeting on Aug. 12. Fed Chairman Alan Greenspan and private economists are hopeful the economy, which has been poking along, will pick up speed in the second half of this year as near rock-bottom short-term interest rates and President Bush's fresh round of tax cuts take hold. Policy-makers are banking on the notion that the combination of extra cash from tax cuts and lower borrowing costs will motivate consumers and businesses to spend and invest more, which would boost economic growth. ``An extraordinary nexus of expansionary policies ... is gaining traction towards spurring new business growth, causing companies to take out their checkbooks to gear up for and take advantage of it,'' said Ken Mayland, president of ClearView Economics. ^------ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Evil Genius Posted July 25, 2003 Share Posted July 25, 2003 Hey look! Someone's done fixed the economy! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
luckydevil Posted July 25, 2003 Author Share Posted July 25, 2003 I'm sure Krugman is praying that this is not true Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sarge Posted July 25, 2003 Share Posted July 25, 2003 I can hear the cussing at the DNC headquarters now Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redman Posted July 25, 2003 Share Posted July 25, 2003 I simply wonder how much of this has to do with unbelievably low interest rates - in other words, a one-time/temporary condition - rather than "turning the corner". Both sectors tend to require borrowing as they're big purchases, which is what prompts my question. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest SkinsHokie Fan Posted July 26, 2003 Share Posted July 26, 2003 It probably does have a lot to do with interest rates as well. However that formula of low taxes and low interest rates, in theory at least, should lead to greater economic activity Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chiefhogskin48 Posted July 26, 2003 Share Posted July 26, 2003 You know, it's funny, the European press are portraying our recent economy as a disastrous recession, while downplaying the continent's far deeper malaise. It's downright comical, actually, considering our GDP growth of around 2% would be a nice year by Old Europe standards (Germany is chugging along around 0% right now, while France is around 1%, and neither are forecast to improve much). I'm glad we hold ourselves to higher standards. A healthy, sustainable growth rate for us is about 3.5% per annum, which is certainly attainable in the near future. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StuckinIA Posted July 26, 2003 Share Posted July 26, 2003 Originally posted by chiefhogskin48 You know, it's funny, the European press are portraying our recent economy as a disastrous recession, while downplaying the continent's far deeper malaise. It's downright comical, actually, considering our GDP growth of around 2% would be a nice year by Old Europe standards (Germany is chugging along around 0% right now, while France is around 1%, and neither are forecast to improve much). I'm glad we hold ourselves to higher standards. A healthy, sustainable growth rate for us is about 3.5% per annum, which is certainly attainable in the near future. Completely off the subject, but 20% of Germans think the US was behind 9/11. I wouldn't even wipe with a German paper. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skinster Posted July 26, 2003 Share Posted July 26, 2003 Originally posted by SkinsHokie Fan It probably does have a lot to do with interest rates as well. However that formula of low taxes and low interest rates, in theory at least, should lead to greater economic activity :notworthy I hope your right!! Skinster!!! Skin 4 Life Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burgold Posted July 26, 2003 Share Posted July 26, 2003 Well, given the logic of this board... if the economy is turning around it is due to Clinton's policies finally taking hold. Afterall, we've discussed with the latency that Bush has entirely no blame in the economic state of his first three years. The latency effect of an administration's economic policy it has been argued ranged somewhere between 6 and 10 years. In this way, the good years of Clinton were entirely due to Reagan/Bush and the bad years of Bush and Bush were due entirely due Carter and Clinton. On the other hand, any positive symptom could, I suppose, be one of those rare exceptions to the latency and be in fact directly due to the current administrations policies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fansince62 Posted July 26, 2003 Share Posted July 26, 2003 or Fed policies that neither had anything to do with. or tax policies that certainly are in line with Clinton economic policy. or Bush cleaning up the corporate malfeasance mess Clinton behind.......... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burgold Posted July 26, 2003 Share Posted July 26, 2003 I hardly think you can credit Bush for cleaning up much corporate malfeasance. To be fair, I'm not sure you can pin the problem of that wholly on either Clinton or Bush. I think a lot of that had to do with deregulation and underfunding oversight agencies that began well before either's term. Agencies who are understaffed and mostly toothless hardly can be expected to police people interesting in cheating. And despite what some say, those interesting in cheating do a poor job of self governance. It's really the same argument that you (Fan) have made about the diminishment of our intelligence capabilities. The aggressive deregulation that began with Reagan and the subsequent reduction of funding of those agencies have led to these many of these corporate corruptions. Sadly, deregulation and staff reduction rarely is considered. Instead, the agency is given the brunt of the complaint even while often they were hamstrung. While I do hear sympathy and talk about increasing the millitary budget again, I don't think I've ever heard anyone suggest an increase in funding or a return to prior level of funding for the DEA EPA FDA and other oversight groups. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chiefhogskin48 Posted July 27, 2003 Share Posted July 27, 2003 Latency period of 6-10years? Where did you read that? Clinton actually did a great thing for the economy by cutting taxes during his second term, but his previous tax increase was punitive. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burgold Posted July 27, 2003 Share Posted July 27, 2003 The range was generated by the members of this board. If you read the economic threads all economic negatives originate with lCinton. W Bush is completely innocent. If it is suggested that the economy improved during the Clinton years and seemed to be much stronger than it was today or under either of the Bush Presidencies this is dismissed. The economists on this board relate Clinton's success directly to the policies of Reagan and say Clinton had no positive impact. If we believe the scapegoating and praise shifting, there seems to be a lag in the impact of policy of six to ten years that has gone on here. If so, then good economic indicators that we are seeing now must be the result of Clinton as none of Clinton's actions during his term caused the good economy under him. If you noticed when I suggested that Clinton may be due some credit for any current bloom given that he was given all credit for the busts... the antagonists or protragonists... couldn't take it and tried to generate other factors including ways in which to give G. W. Bush credit. Though to give him credit for his handling of corporate corruption earlier in his turn... I recall even conservatives being disappointed in how he handled all those corporate scandels. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fansince62 Posted July 27, 2003 Share Posted July 27, 2003 burgold...I can live with that! Clinton gets credit for the recovery and blame for thousands of deaths! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burgold Posted July 27, 2003 Share Posted July 27, 2003 I do think Clinton does bare part of the burden for the lack of communication between intelligence agencies. On the other hand, the intelligence was there it just wasn't fully pursued. Clinton was guilty of reducing the size and budgets of intelligence agencies and this may have helped make the events of 9/11 easier to pull off. Bush also bares a part of the burden as the acting President on duty becasuse there was intelligence available that was ignored. However, hindsight is too easy and I honestly think that no president could have prevented the attacks. Further, are venom and vitriol about those attacks would be better steered away from partisan bickering and aimed at the monsters who perpetrated the acts. Healthy introspection and analysis of what could have done better is fine, but I do not blame Bush for 9/11 nor do I blame Clinton. I find it disturbing that you would lay this at the feet of a President and not those who planned, committed, and executed the act. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OURYEAR#56 Posted July 28, 2003 Share Posted July 28, 2003 I don't blame Clinton for anyting. During his term he implemented several measures that allowed our economy to prosper. Consequentially some of those measures allowed other countries to prosper as well. Clinton's NAFTA and GATT acts both allowed free trade among several countries. These countries became emerging markets, and help boost our economy. I have concerns with Bush's concept of free trade. He has enacted a tarriff on exported steel, and other foriegn products. This ineffect has hurt freee trade with other countries. Is there any measures Bush has implemented to compensate for his restriction of NAFTA and GATT. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted July 28, 2003 Share Posted July 28, 2003 Clinton allowed corporate fraud to overinflate our economy. Bush and the new Justice Dept has cracked down on the abuses that Clinton turned a blind eye towards. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Evil Genius Posted July 28, 2003 Share Posted July 28, 2003 I guess I now know who Cheney can blame for Halliburton. Clinton! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chiefhogskin48 Posted July 28, 2003 Share Posted July 28, 2003 oUYEAR, good points about NAFTA and GATT. Point taken with Bush's idiotic steel tariff and agro-subsidies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OURYEAR#56 Posted July 28, 2003 Share Posted July 28, 2003 Kilmer, I'm tired of you blaming Bill Clinton for every disaster that has transpired since Bush took office. Bush needs to grow up and take accountability for what has happened since he took office. Why is Clinton such a bad president. Honestly, when Clinton had problems he never blamed George Bush senior for what happened. Clinton could have said Osama attempts to blow up the WTC the first time was George Bush Sr. fault. I don't remember him doing so. This administration is so quick to point fingers at other people when something goes wrong. Why don't they take the blame when things go wrong. Bush is very affirmative, until something makes him look incompotant. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jbooma Posted July 28, 2003 Share Posted July 28, 2003 Originally posted by OURYEAR#56 I don't blame Clinton for anyting. The major cause of all the problems was the over inflated stock market. This would cause companies to form, that never should have. People get paid incredible salaries, which they didn't deserve. 5 people working the same job, which was just plain stupid. The government toward the end of the clinton years did not do enough for slowing down the internet boom and the stock market. In all puroses the interest rates should have been raised during this time so people wouldn't blow stock options that were over inflated and now worth nothing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jbooma Posted July 28, 2003 Share Posted July 28, 2003 Originally posted by chiefhogskin48 oUYEAR, good points about NAFTA and GATT. Point taken with Bush's idiotic steel tariff and agro-subsidies. You guys all point to how great free trade but yet realize how it hurt south america, europe, and a majority of the world, as a result came the global depression. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted July 28, 2003 Share Posted July 28, 2003 Well, 56. Dont know what to tell you other than it's the truth. Look at when the downturn began. Look at the corporate frauds that happened under Clinton. The truth is out there. You just need to take off your rose colored glasses and see it. I give Clinotn credit for NAFTA. I wholly support it. As for Bush accepting responsibility, he should. He is responsible for 2 succesful war against terrorism, something his predecessor was too weak to do. He should accept it for the economy pulling out of the recession. He should accept responsibility for passing education reform, medicare reform, and giving regular joe american more money out of his/her paycheck. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OURYEAR#56 Posted July 28, 2003 Share Posted July 28, 2003 I feel the jury is still out on the war on terrorism. The other reforms dealing with education and medicare look good on paper, but they could potentially have serious consequences. I see the medicare reform as an attempt to have strict governmental regualtion on enterprises in private sector. As I understand it, in some degree it's an act of Socialism. I'm not sure about the educational provisions Bush is tring to implement. If it's the voucher system, then some schools will be up to par with eduacational standards, while others will fall even further behind. I don't have on any glasses, Rose colored or otherwise. I'm just sick of everybody calling Bill Clinton's name when something goes wrong. About our economy, people are still being laid off. Look at the news in CT, the Swiss Bank laid off 2000 people on Friday. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.