Search results

The headline "personal income" figures are reported as nominal figures: http://www.bea.gov/newsreleases/national/pi/pinewsrelease.htm But GDP headline is 'real': http://www.bea.gov/newsreleases/national/gdp/gdpnewsrelease.htm

I don't believe anybody's estimates. But that doesn't mean we should misinterpret them.

There is also a 10 cent fee for any contract you hold overnight.

Those growth figures are 'real' GDP growth rates, not 'nominal.' In other words, they are after inflation. A 4% nominal GDP growth rate and 2% inflation rate results in a 2% real growth rate. The Fed's estimates take us nowhere near a recession.

Are the UN scientists behind the new global warming report smarter than the UN scientists who mis-estimated the AIDS epidemic?

From the GISS: Not much movement over the last five years. What happened to that hockey stick?

It doesn't matter what the Fed wants to do. If the market demands an interest rate cut, they'll cut. I've argued for years that we should let the market set rates. Looks like we are there.

This isn't economics. It's econometrics. The application of math and statistics to economics. The other side of economics is praxeology, the study of human action. Many on that side of economics believe you can't "model" the economy using math/stats. It reminds me of "lies, damned lies...

Modern science is all about propaganda, funding, and crushing of dissent.

Extraordinary Popular Delusions & the Madness of Crowds

Agreed. Glaciers have been melting for hundreds and thousands of years. Whatever happened to the Wisconsin Glacier that covered most of North America and formed the Great Lakes? The fact that temperatures have risen in LA or Moscow is much more dependent on the heat island effect. Just...

Oh my goodness. I have been in downtown LA. Therefore, global warming must be true. However, I've also been to places in the middle of nowhere. Therefore, global warming is false. I assume you have a point with your downtown questions.... But the most obvious answer to your implied...

The numbers seem about right because you are adding the top NYSE and NASDAQ stocks. More importantly, the nominal figure is not important. I assume you want to see how volume is changing. As long as the numbers are consistent, they should be good enough.

http://finance.yahoo.com/q/hp?s=%5EGSPC http://moneycentral.msn.com/investor/charts/chartdl.aspx?PT=5&D5=0&D2=0&compsyms=&D4=1&MA0=0&MA1=0&CF=1&D7=&D6=&C5=1&C5D=1&C6=&C7=1&C7D=1&C8=&C9=0&showtablbt=Price+history+table&symbol=%24INX&nocookie=1

Who cares about the consumer? Not the Fed! But seriously, banks losing billions and bank runs would hurt consumers even more.

The Fed wants a steeper yield curve. If banks are losing money on sub-prime mortgages, they'll have to make back that money by borrowing at lower short term rates and lending at higher long term rates. So far, their rate cut has worked.

So this started under Clinton? Damn him!

The Wall Street Journal has been printing more and more silly articles. I was reading an article (don't remember where) about the feminization of the WSJ. Small pages. More articles on fashion. Not what is used to be....

TLT's duration does not match the 10-year cash bond either. I believe it has a duration around 12 (I used to track it on some of the ETF websites) while the 10-year cash bond duration is around 8.1 (according to my quick calculation). I "trade" the TNX and had the same problem you have...

TNX and ZN are not strictly related. ZN is based on the Cheapest to Deliver (CTD) bond. When rates are below 6%, this cheapest bond has a maturity around 6.5 years. When rates are above 6%, the CTD bond is around 10 years.