i've often wondered if the peak of population looms
and our time is bright but short just like a fleeting flower blooms
and maybe there's no going back the tipping point's been crossed
'cause we're all of us the most we'll be - peak people
GE gets money printed out of thin air from the Federal Reserve and then uses those funds to transfer technology to China so that eventually their Chinese joint venture partners can absorb their technology and put them out of business. Because we have a system where money gets printed out of thin air which causes people to put money into stocks to preserve their savings, CEOs will for the short term give away the farm so that they can cash out their stock options that get inflated from the constant printing of money that goes to special interest in Washington like the multinationals whose only goal is to outsource everything.
Just generally for lately the email, which is supposed to be not for "look at what I wrote" content, is getting flooded. But people can, although sometimes formatting a post so it's professional, since this site does not limit authors on formatting, is getting to be a real serious conflict that I am considering changing....to avoid conflict over screwed up posts (by screwed up I mean XHTML formatting issues).
I think you are reading it wrong. FRED is simply the St. Louis Federal Reserve research arm's graphing tool and maintained updated economic data sets. they are simply offering up easy graphing and data manipulation tools from statistics that are released by other government statistical branches. Their numbers are fine and in this case, the releasing statistical agency is the BEA, who is under the U.S. Department of Commerce.
The above graph is annual and just goes out to 2010 since I do the quarterly graphs in GDP and have that linked up. Quarterly real GDP is annualized, just so you can compare the performance of a particular quarter against the annual results from the previous year.
The actual data revisions, released by the BEA, well anything going back even a year it's understood how it can be revised, for one, they have their own price deflators, dealing with imports/exports and those really can change.
The link explains more of what the BEA had to say as to why they revised down so harshly PCE for years.
As far as the 1st graph in this post, That's annualized GDP, annual results and updated to the latest numbers from the BEA. 2008 is -0.3, 2009 is -3.5 and 2010 is 3.0.
I use the FRED system because it's so awesome, easy to use and is way faster than creating graphs in Excel, uploading, optimizing and so on.
Here is the below Equation for annualizing data, for quarters, where raw data is in months, using monthly PCE as an example: , where for each quarter, the data was a simple average of the monthly PCE numbers, or
When calculating for year
, where for each quarter, the data was a simple average of the quarterly real GDP numbers, or .
I agree with your remarks on San Francisco, Manhattan and Washington, D.C.. Also that the 'poker game' is global with global consequences.
Not sure about advice on cross-posting. All I have done here is looked at and critiqued link posted for GlobalPropertyGuide.com, but I never said and would not say that said source is economic fiction, hostile or spam. They have disclosed their limitations, including that they are striving for earliest stats reports in their field.
Of course, sometimes (not relating to GlobalPropertyGuide, I don't believe) political bias flows into economic fiction. Problem is that the streams of politics and economics are intertwined, and it's difficult or impossible to find coverage of politics without bias. For that matter, it's difficult to find reports of econometric data that are without bias. EP in that regard is as good as it gets, and I try to respect that.
I do frequently suggest EP to friends, but I have never posted at EP to my article or other work anywhere but at EP, and I have posted a reference to EP outside EP only once -- that being recently at Michael Collins' themoneyparty webpage.
Sometimes I think I am just an old ostrich with my head plunged into the sand. Does it make me a 'conservative' to view all tendencies toward increasing social instability with skepticism and suspicion?
This is political news, I suppose, but it seems to me to be of some legitimate interest in a reality-based econometrics site like EP, especially since the two authors of the WSJ opinion piece are both known as pollsters.
Caddell and Schoen have previously published jointly, notably in the Washington Post. Caddell is well established as a political consultant and pollster, was pollster for President Jimmy Carter and is currently known as the "Fox News Democrat." Schoen was polster for President Bill Clinton, well known as a pollster, political analyst, author and commentator.
Here are some excerpts taken, for review purposes, from the WSJ opinion piece --
The United States is in the midst of what we would both call a prerevolutionary moment ....
.... Rasmussen Reports poll conducted earlier this month found that "just 17% of likely U.S. voters think that the federal government today has the consent of the governed," while an extraordinary 69% "believe the government does not have that consent."
What's more, a poll of 1,000 Americans conducted by Douglas E. Schoen LLC in April found that a solid majority of Americans are now looking for alternatives to the two-party system ....
More than half (51%) of voters favored having a third major political party. Nearly one-third (31%) said that having a third major party in our country is very important. Voters favored having a major third party run a candidate for president in 2012 58%-13% —- with one in five saying they were absolutely certain or very likely to vote for a third-party candidate.
In line with these findings, 52% of all respondents in a May Gallup poll said there is a need for a third party, and for the first time in Gallup's history, a majority of Republicans embraced the idea. In a June Rasmussen poll, 30% of respondents said they would consider voting for a third-party candidate for president in 2012.
We already see evidence on the ground .... Look no further than the recent launch of the centrist, bipartisan, Americans Elect ,,,, selecting a third presidential ticket, via an Internet convention, that will be on the ballot in 2012.
....
The political order as we know it is deteriorating and disintegrating, and politics abhors a vacuum.
BTW:
Video linked at WSJ discusses that, despite polls showing low (44%) approval rating of Obama by the public, the President polls well against ALL Republican contenders admitted into the running by corporate media. (WSJ interview of Alyssia Finley, Assistant Editor, OpinionJournal.com)
FRED graph one, tells everything you need to know, 3% growth 2011 ain't gonna happen. So if you can't get it right one year out, what's the point of a seven year forecast? These are numbers the models project, I know. Maybe it's time to adjust the models. When was the last time FRED underestimated GDP? They always seem to lower GDP numbers well after it's relevant.
I'm not surprised at all for I believe derivatives based on Mortgage Backed Securities was global as a poker game, plus there was a global economic recession for the most part.
In certain geographical areas there is a local economy as well as supply-demand. San Francisco has limited supply and is still considered one of those "status" places for the uber-rich, as is Marin county. You have tech CEOs and VCs around to jack it all up. Income inequality is massive in the bay area, so much for the city of hippie love.
Then, Manhattan was over-inflated but Washington D.C. has a thriving economy, in part thanks for huge government contracts and there is also an impossible traffic gridlock, so finding something within driving distance pops up the prices.
I got this send to the site administration email and for anyone else reading this, look, if you want EPers to read your article, blog or whatever, there are two options: first, if it's not economic fiction or has some political bias that flows into economic fiction, we do encourage cross posting. If you want someone to read your article in reference to an article on EP, just leave it in a comment, it will get published unless it's again economic fiction or hostile or spam.
THIS POST REVISED 28 AUGUST 2011 (All links, except one as specifically noted, have been tested and are functional as of 28 August 2011.)
A friend has been after me for talking up the need for a "new reform party" when there actually is a new Reform Party today, 2011. All it needs right now is voters to register as Reform!
Perot presenting his famous "giant sucking sound" analysis
of NAFTA proposal (1992 three-way presidential debate)
In introducing PerotCharts.com in 2008, Perot specifically requested anyone who found fault with the underlying numbers to contact PerotCharts.com and provide their sources. In that respect, PerotCharts perhaps was like EconomicPopulist today, but with a political agenda. (In 2008, Perot opposed John McCain, endorsed Mitt Romney).
__________
Problem is that the Reform Party has been deviled by in-fighting since the year 2000, when it was taken over by Pat Buchanan in the service of Buchanan's concept of 'cultural war'. Buchanan, claiming to have parted ways with the GOP, returned to the Republican fold in 2002 -- having completed an apparent mission to infiltrate and destroy the Reform Party in the 2000 elections. But that's now history.
By the time Buchanan was done with his 'work', the Reform Party had lost any claim to public funding for presidential elections. By 2008, the party appeared to be dissolved for all intents and purposes, having dabbled in support of Ralph Nader for president. However, the national Reform Party met in Dallas in 2008 and agreed on a statement of principles(UPDATE by 2OLD -- links to reformparty.org are probably no longer functional, as the site has been recreated at www.rpusa.info with updated platform ... I like that ".info" !).
Ross Perot has always been big on 'family values' (a family man himself), but he founded the Reform Party without reliance on divisive "social issues." The 2008 Reform Party statement of principles makes no mention of divisive "social issues" -- focusing on economic problems and structural reform of the political system.
Notably, the Reform Party Principles as amended by the National Convention in 2008, specifically called for a jobs creation program consisting of two points:
● Negotiate trade agreements that promote American jobs, consumer safety, environmental protection, and fair trade. Rescind and get us out of NAFTA, GATT, CAFTA and the WTO now. Tear up these trade agreements for new, fair agreements.
● Create a business environment that supports small business, which accounts for roughly 80 percent of jobs held by Americans today. Trade agreements, tax reform, health care reform, and other programs must reflect the needs of small business.
[The United States should] Provide a balanced, tailored trade program that:
..... Withdraws from the WTO and [the United States should] develop tailored trade agreements with other nations according to the practices and performance of those countries.
In 2010, the Reform Party began to rebuild on the basis of the 2008 National Convention. In 2011, under the leadership of David Collison (a Texan), the Reform Party presents itself at an excellent website and appears to be well organized to stage a comeback in 2012, IF enough voters decide to register in state parties affiliated with the Reform Party.
There's a good, IMO, Wikipedia article on the history of the Reform Party.
Also, a good Wikipedia article on Ross Perot -- an impressive bio, causing the reader to wonder at how Perot could have lost to anyone either in 1992 or in 1996.
I hereby reform my statement of alternatives to the two major parties. The list is as follows: Reform Party, Libertarian, Green, Socialist. But the only way you can have the choice of Reform is to register Reform in your state!
(In some states, you may need to get together with friends to file some paperwork to create or recreate the party so that people can register in it. Of course, that doesn't automatically get any candidates on the ballot or achieve party standing in your state ... but that's where Mr. Perot started too. If you want reform, you have to start somewhere.)
"The world's housing markets were on balance weaker during the year ending in the second quarter of 2011, according to the first-ever published survey covering the Q2 2011 data, released today by the Global Property Guide, which traditionally publishes global housing data ahead of other research houses." -- GlobalPropertyGuide.com
Full disclosure by GlobalPropertyGuide.com is appreciated!
_________
It's interesting, but hard to make a trend out of it, other than what would be expected out of a global liquidity crisis. We kinda already knew about that.
Looking for liquidity crisis effects in residential property, the greatest indicator might well be reduced market volume, at least in some areas. And as we know, market volume is subject to effects of control by governments both public and private (banks) as well as subject to the effects of wealth and income distribution. Then there is the matter of to what extent is residential property leveraged or under water? That's going to vary hugely with differing law from jurisdiction (nation) to jurisdiction (nation).
We have here averages based on annual totals where data bases are not standard and where the rules may even be changing substantially during the course of any given year. Obviously we cannot rely on any assumption that everything cancels out with averages, as though it were an example of a law of rounding, so that valid conclusions can be drawn notwithstanding both material and methodological differences. So, okay, some kind of global trend may be shown ... possibly. But is that trend anything more than the already well-known 'trend' of a liquidity crisis?
In general, price trends without reference to market volume? Moreover, there are bound to be huge variations in underlying conditions and even in the survey numbers criteria:
In much of Europe and elsewhere, residential housing property (resident-owned to varying extent, but with a resident-owned component) routinely includes multiple units -- to a much greater extent than in USA.
"In Latvia, standard type apartments in Riga fell by 5.40% year-on-year, after a solid comeback since Q2 2010."
Housing in Singapore, and maybe even in Hong Kong, is essentially a government monopoly.
"In Taiwan and Singapore, government curbs seem to have been effective."
"Government curbs" in Singapore? That's one way of describing a market that is and has long been effectively controlled by the government, much of it effectively government-owned.
Residential real estate in Sweden is dominated by regulatory controls designed to prevent homelessness and ... well, the word that comes to mind is 'socialism', not that there's anything wrong with it.
And then there are the parenthetical methodological notes --
Ukraine - Kiev
Greece - Athens
Australia - 8 cities
Poland - Warsaw
Latvia - Riga
Japan - Tokyo
Lithuania - 5 largest cities (who knew Lithuania included 5 cities?)
China - Shanghai
Indonesia - 14 cities
Estonia - Tallinn
Brazil - Sao Paulo
Why not "US - San Francisco"?
This data may be of some value to real estate brokers dealing in (promoting) international purchases, but otherwise ????
Oh well. It's "location, location, location." Or is it "perceived value, perceived value, perceived value"?
Either way, I suppose "global" is part of it. The set of all sets ... does it include itself?
"In his speech, Bernanke said the Federal Open Market Committee would consider its options at its next meeting in late September"
Classical government speak for kicking the can down the road...
TRANSLATION: "We don't know what the @#$%! we're doing. The wine and food was great and the fresh air here in Wyoming a wonderful change from the stuffy basement of the Fed, but we remain at a loss of what to do. I don't know what to tell you, I guess I really never did know what we were doing and I apologize for all the mumbo jumbo @#$%! we've been feeding you, but FOMC's job was never more than to do the bidding of the member banks, and we can't even save them... You're on your own,... sorry."
What do I know? I'm an old man, living in my little part of a big world.
Maybe there will be effective mass demonstrations coming and lots of them, although I still don't see attacks on corporate HQs. (Wouldn't they have to go to Shanghai or Dubai to do that?)
Anyway, here's link to Michael Collins' at themoneyparty.org article titled
All politics is local, these days often more as to time than as to place. The Jackson Hole conference didn't take place in a political vacuum and has nothing to do with the beautiful mountain views. The reference locale isn't in terms of geography, it's in terms of time.
So we look around at the time frame and what do we see, next thing coming up? The TAA and three FTAs pending as soon as Congress reconvenes in September! That's the political locale in time -- from the last week of August through the first week of September after Labor Day. There's a sense of urgency.
Congress hates its 82% disapproval rating, with 14% approval. The plan is to win praise from media by trying something new -- getting along or at least looking like they're getting along. It's a delicate situation, and I would like to see it become much less delicate -- I'd like to see it more crude and rude.
The delicate situation is the uneasy deal struck between Boehner and Obama that first there will be a vote in the House on the TAA, and then votes on the three FTAs. This involves Boehner trusting the Democrats, and that's why he has been leaning publicly on Obama to help out on passing the FTAs -- because Boehner fears that after he talks enough reluctant populist House republicans into voting AYE on the TAA, then along will come enough progressive Democrats joining with populist protectionist Republicans to break up the Obama-Boehner unholy alliance and stop the three FTAs dead in their tracks.
There's a major requirement for trust involved, and Boehner, knowing that any Democrat would be a fool to trust him, is suspecting that he's a fool for trusting Obama that he (Obama) can command the necessary Democrat votes. Obama may even pull a switcheroo -- just as Boehner had all those problems with the Tea Party gang, so Obama may have no end of problems with populist progressive Democrats. The TAA demand could get bigger and bigger.
What do we think Bernanke means here? Like when he says, "Fortunately, the two goals of achieving fiscal sustainability--which is the result of responsible policies set in place for the longer term--and avoiding the creation of fiscal headwinds for the current recovery are not incompatible."
He means Republicans and Democrats in the House (the Senate already has an 'agreement to agree' in place) can and should unite behind both the TAA and the FTAs -- the FTAs being, according to conventional wisdom, "responsible policies set in place for the longer term." Similarly, a specially authorized expenditure for the TAA is exactly the kind of thing we need for "avoiding creation of fiscal headwinds for the current recovery."
In the context of all this, I read Bernanke as saying, "There's room for compromise, for everybody to get along." Which, in the temporal context, can only mean "Vote AYE on the TAA ("encourage investments in the skills of our workforce") and then vote AYE on the FTAs, of course. For the FTAs, he knows there's reaction to the patent law proposals, so he throws in "promote research and development." He's speaking code -- which is fairly easy to break in the context. "Encourage investments in skills of workforce" means we need the TAA so that the people who lose jobs can be trained to take higher paid jobs in high tech. Of course, that's a canard, but that's what this is about.
The one place where I have used the term 'Republican' is where I say "Republicans will at least claim to be successful in demanding some kind of ransom to be paid to the MNCs, as usual." I think that's true, assuming things go according to plan. They see that the Democrats are getting something they want (TAA), something maybe even unions want, something they can work with politically in their districts, so Republicans want something too. Maybe there will be enough Republicans wanting the TAA, I don't know, but Boehner won't want to be seen as so doggone reasonable that he is willing to just go along with Obama in order to get the FTAs and look like Mr. Nice Guy all of a sudden. Obama is known to want the FTAs too -- so both parties presumably will be awarded the same payoffs. But to counterbalance the TAA, what will Boehner be able to show as what Republicans got? Nothing for nothing? That's why I say about the TAA, "Republicans will at least claim to be successful in demanding some kind of ransom to be paid to the MNCs." Maybe some kind of cut in capital gains tax, maybe another round of expedited depreciation, who knows?
The flea in the ointment is mainly Ron Paul. He is almost certain to vote against the FTAs and the TAAs. Ron Paul's sometime ally, Dennis Kucinich, is lining up opposition on the Democratic side of the aisle. Probably neither Paul nor Kucinich could care less about the Obama-Boehner deal.
I think that quite a few someones with a lot of money and influence do want, and expect to get, these FTAs. It's all been arranged in the Senate. The House vote will test whether Boehner and Obama can get anything done, or it's only the Super-Congress now.
If the Boehner-Obama deal can be stopped, that will be a victory for democracy and for America -- much more interesting than the way things have been going.
I feel like traders are still stuck on Greenspan, who must speak in code for if anyone really follows him, frankly he's a complete economic idiot. He's all for wage repression, middle class destruction and lest we not forget the entire set up to create the real estate bubble and denial..
although as I recall Bernanke was in the same denial bubble.
I always link up to the actual speech, data, government agency and so on in these articles so everyone can simply read the words directly.
But we have multiple speeches by Bernanke along these lines, it's clear he is saying Congress, this administration needs to do a very directed, very specific policy modifications to stimulate the economy.
That was what was wrong with the "Stimulus", it was so loaded with political favors, loopholes and stuff that was just "spending". Well, spending is stimulative but it's not real Keynes by a long shot. Not very effective or "bang for the buck".
I'm not a fan of Bernanke but frankly, I don't see him saying "Republican" types of things here.
But it would be nice to see some government official somewhere confront all of those CEOs and billionaires to start giving back to America and hiring Americans.
That, we don't see anywhere.
But in terms of policy positions, I don't see Bernanke recommending draconian cuts to Medicare and SS.
I mean he makes a point to say the problem is costs and the problem is costs, we've been pointing that out on this site since it started.
I know everyone wants to hate Bernanke and $1.2 trillion in secret loans half going to foreign banks, plus the entire TARP/AIG/GS "takeover" and on and on, I get it.
But recently, he seems to more be pointing to policies this site and many economists say are desperately needed.
Maybe he's a better mirror these days and one just sees their own reflection in his words (which is an art form), but that's my take.
"He said the things Obama and Congressional leaders should have been saying throughout 2010 and this year too and I will always be grateful to him for that. His brief statements about our unemployment emergency were unacknowledged and were not acted upon in any effective way, as we all know. ... how pathetic it is to hope not for real leadership and candor about where we stand, but for someone who will just toss us out a few more crumbs than the rest who give us nothing or mislead us." -- Jersey
Exactly right!
It's a strange thing that corporate media can be covering Bernanke's Jackson Hole speech as passing the buck to Congress -- with no risk to corporatist interests of upsetting even the slightest little tea cup in their feeding-frenzy party. How this can be is really simple -- Bernanke did not indicate specifically what it is that Congress is supposed to do. He just indicates that Congress and their big money supporters can have their cake and eat it too ... by seeking a big happy "bipartisan" compromise as soon as they reconvene in September.
Bernanke:
Fortunately, the two goals of achieving fiscal sustainability--which is the result of responsible policies set in place for the longer term--and avoiding the creation of fiscal headwinds for the current recovery are not incompatible.
I think it's clear enough that Bernanke is saying no to QE, and no one thinks it could possibly work anyway. But otherwise, you tell me, is he saying yes or no to Warren Buffet's call for raising the high bracket income tax rate and for eliminating egregious tax loopholes? Did he say yes or no to cutting off unemployment benefits for millions of working families? Did he say yes or no to HARP and other relief for mortgagees holding 'negative equity'? Did he say yes or no to anything?
Oh yes, tax and spending policies should "increase incentives to work and to save" and "stimulate private capital formation". My translation of Bernanke: "No tax increases (equals no revenue increases) but another cut in the capital gains tax would be good."
Then there is the phrase that Robert Oak emphasizes, namely "provide necessary public infrastructure." Okay, so will we see unfunded expansion of investment in highways and bridges? Paid for, not by taxes, but by bonds backed by state and federal government? Oh sure, just the thing now in the year 1956, ooops, did I typo '1956'? Oh yeah, it's now 2011 ... hmmmm. Or will we see privatization of public infrastructure by foreign financial interests, eased along by WTF 'free' trade agreements? Bernanke did not exactly say, did he?
Reading between the lines, the one thing Bernanke is 'clear' about is the need to "encourage investments in the skills of our workforce and promote research and development." My translation or Bernanke: "Enact the Trade Adjustment Assistance (TAA) part of the FTAs pending as soon as Congress reconvenes AND the FTAs (of course) ... and don't forget 'necessary' reform of patent law."
Reminds me of Red Skelton's joke about 'Freddie the Freeloader' and another skid-row drunk waking up in an alley. As they shake off the night's sleep, starting off toward the street, Freddie's friend tugs Freddie's arm and points out, "Vommick!"
Freddie says, "Yeah, I know ... careful, don't step in it!"
Okay, durable goods orders are for domestic manufacturing. That's only indirectly about ordering stuff from Asia or Mexico or wherever. Only indirectly about inventories. Really an index of business activity for the manufacturing sector.
Of course, durable goods orders are going to be related to investment in manufacturing as well as to productivity. That's why NYSE reacted favorably! So that was rational behavior.
Since increases in durable goods orders are presumably linked to marginally larger pay checks, durable goods orders are related to PCE. Of course, PCE must also be related to government payouts and (at least in 2008) such things as MEW. See, CalculatedRisk (2008)
About inventories, I understand "slope versus quantity" -- slope is the first derivative of a graph, so continuous positive slope means steady increase, even if second derivative is flat. That's why I am puzzled by "steady increases in inventories (although down from peaking in 2010) with rate of change in final sales numbers bouncing around like a stumbling drunk."
I would assume, given population growth, that inventories, sales and PCE would all steadily if slowly increase over time. Durable goods orders, however, would be subject to things like fluctuation in exchange rates (although not in the case of China). Similarly, although inversely, percent changes in PCE for durable goods (red bar in the graph) would also be sensitive to fluctuation in exchange rates.
I suppose retailers are just going to say "that month was good, this month not so good." No real trend, so keep doing what we have been doing, using annualized estimates.
By liquidity problems, I mean suppliers vs. retailers as to when or how soon goods are delivered vs. payment received in the supplier's bank account -- in other words, availability of goods at the retail level as payments are worked out. The result isn't failure to meet demand but it could be failure to meet demand until next month's payday. I notice lack of some items on shelves more often than used to be, also demand for payment up front before ordering parts ... and maybe that reflects some kind of liquidity problem. But there are many possibilities.
Sales come up a little, then flat for the next month. Up a little, then flat again. No trend except "could be worse" -- puzzling, especially considering population growth.
But there are many possibilities. Retailers are more competitive some months than others? Customers are more flush one month than the next? Relation of sales to price of gas or diesel fuel? Presumably, it's all based on inventory numbers in Cost of Goods Sold ... but there is the infamous transportation factor, with a delayed effect.
Probably, steady inventory growth is just that retailers are ordering based on annualized estimates and assuming growth.
It appears that you are 100% correct on the global supply chain thing, at least if we can believe the business-school kind of thing. "Supply chain management" is the bee's buzz these days. To me, that's an argument for a tariff -- or, since you prefer, VAT.
Trying to tax MNC corporate profits or net income on an 1120, although the international stuff is very complex, is like trying to measure flow of a river with a gauge set into a tube in the river. Sure you can measure the flow for the tube and that means you could estimate the flow for the river ... making many assumptions or having a whole lot of other data. But why not try the old dam approach? Water will still flow and you can estimate it closely. And since we have no choice but to maintain a dam anyway ....
I am still and have long been wondering about 'national accounts' and how foreign investment is handled there. You can sure get arguments on that subject! It seems like the media and even the academia spin is "those bad over-consuming lazy Americans, but they should quit complaining, they are lucky -- imagine year after year of negative exports, what a wonderful life!"
My thinking is that every negative export is one more nail in the 'For Sale' sign posted at our borders -- with a 'Sold' sticker now pasted over it.
BTW: A niche these days is good. That's what everybody is looking for. Of course, if some MNC offers the big bucks ... study the contract carefully!
i've often wondered if the peak of population looms
and our time is bright but short just like a fleeting flower blooms
and maybe there's no going back the tipping point's been crossed
'cause we're all of us the most we'll be - peak people
http://thepeakoilpoet.blogspot.com/2011/08/peak-people.html
The Economic Populist Facebook page is now a direct link:
http://www.facebook.com/EconomicPopulist
There were also problems with the Facebook app used to pull in post alerts onto the Economic Populist Wall.
This was fixed last night and all posts should have an update summary on The Economic Populist page and wall.
This should make it easier to share Economic Populist posts while staying on Facebook to share and discuss. (although please come over here!)
I read it wrong. 2010 3% looks like an anomaly. Thanks for your response.
GE gets money printed out of thin air from the Federal Reserve and then uses those funds to transfer technology to China so that eventually their Chinese joint venture partners can absorb their technology and put them out of business. Because we have a system where money gets printed out of thin air which causes people to put money into stocks to preserve their savings, CEOs will for the short term give away the farm so that they can cash out their stock options that get inflated from the constant printing of money that goes to special interest in Washington like the multinationals whose only goal is to outsource everything.
Just generally for lately the email, which is supposed to be not for "look at what I wrote" content, is getting flooded. But people can, although sometimes formatting a post so it's professional, since this site does not limit authors on formatting, is getting to be a real serious conflict that I am considering changing....to avoid conflict over screwed up posts (by screwed up I mean XHTML formatting issues).
I think you are reading it wrong. FRED is simply the St. Louis Federal Reserve research arm's graphing tool and maintained updated economic data sets. they are simply offering up easy graphing and data manipulation tools from statistics that are released by other government statistical branches. Their numbers are fine and in this case, the releasing statistical agency is the BEA, who is under the U.S. Department of Commerce.
The above graph is annual and just goes out to 2010 since I do the quarterly graphs in GDP and have that linked up. Quarterly real GDP is annualized, just so you can compare the performance of a particular quarter against the annual results from the previous year.
The actual data revisions, released by the BEA, well anything going back even a year it's understood how it can be revised, for one, they have their own price deflators, dealing with imports/exports and those really can change.
The link explains more of what the BEA had to say as to why they revised down so harshly PCE for years.
As far as the 1st graph in this post, That's annualized GDP, annual results and updated to the latest numbers from the BEA. 2008 is -0.3, 2009 is -3.5 and 2010 is 3.0.
I use the FRED system because it's so awesome, easy to use and is way faster than creating graphs in Excel, uploading, optimizing and so on.
Here is the below Equation for annualizing data, for quarters, where raw data is in months, using monthly PCE as an example:
, where for each quarter, the data was a simple average of the monthly PCE numbers, or 
When calculating for year
The general eq. for annualizing data is explained by the Dallas Fed.
I agree with your remarks on San Francisco, Manhattan and Washington, D.C.. Also that the 'poker game' is global with global consequences.
Not sure about advice on cross-posting. All I have done here is looked at and critiqued link posted for GlobalPropertyGuide.com, but I never said and would not say that said source is economic fiction, hostile or spam. They have disclosed their limitations, including that they are striving for earliest stats reports in their field.
Of course, sometimes (not relating to GlobalPropertyGuide, I don't believe) political bias flows into economic fiction. Problem is that the streams of politics and economics are intertwined, and it's difficult or impossible to find coverage of politics without bias. For that matter, it's difficult to find reports of econometric data that are without bias. EP in that regard is as good as it gets, and I try to respect that.
I do frequently suggest EP to friends, but I have never posted at EP to my article or other work anywhere but at EP, and I have posted a reference to EP outside EP only once -- that being recently at Michael Collins' themoneyparty webpage.
Don't short Third Party stock
(Even Fourth Party is looking up!)
Sometimes I think I am just an old ostrich with my head plunged into the sand. Does it make me a 'conservative' to view all tendencies toward increasing social instability with skepticism and suspicion?
I just can't believe that WSJ editorial page recently featured a piece (25 August 2011) using a Marxist term like "prerevolutionary" to describe a period of time, especially when that period of time is the present.
This is political news, I suppose, but it seems to me to be of some legitimate interest in a reality-based econometrics site like EP, especially since the two authors of the WSJ opinion piece are both known as pollsters.
I refer to "Expect a Third-Party Candidate in 2012" by Patrick H. Caddell and Douglas E. Schoen.
Caddell and Schoen have previously published jointly, notably in the Washington Post. Caddell is well established as a political consultant and pollster, was pollster for President Jimmy Carter and is currently known as the "Fox News Democrat." Schoen was polster for President Bill Clinton, well known as a pollster, political analyst, author and commentator.
Here are some excerpts taken, for review purposes, from the WSJ opinion piece --
BTW:
Video linked at WSJ discusses that, despite polls showing low (44%) approval rating of Obama by the public, the President polls well against ALL Republican contenders admitted into the running by corporate media. (WSJ interview of Alyssia Finley, Assistant Editor, OpinionJournal.com)
Also see, Rev'd. 28 Aug. 2011, Economics 101 - Reform Party
FRED graph one, tells everything you need to know, 3% growth 2011 ain't gonna happen. So if you can't get it right one year out, what's the point of a seven year forecast? These are numbers the models project, I know. Maybe it's time to adjust the models. When was the last time FRED underestimated GDP? They always seem to lower GDP numbers well after it's relevant.
I'm not surprised at all for I believe derivatives based on Mortgage Backed Securities was global as a poker game, plus there was a global economic recession for the most part.
In certain geographical areas there is a local economy as well as supply-demand. San Francisco has limited supply and is still considered one of those "status" places for the uber-rich, as is Marin county. You have tech CEOs and VCs around to jack it all up. Income inequality is massive in the bay area, so much for the city of hippie love.
Then, Manhattan was over-inflated but Washington D.C. has a thriving economy, in part thanks for huge government contracts and there is also an impossible traffic gridlock, so finding something within driving distance pops up the prices.
I got this send to the site administration email and for anyone else reading this, look, if you want EPers to read your article, blog or whatever, there are two options: first, if it's not economic fiction or has some political bias that flows into economic fiction, we do encourage cross posting. If you want someone to read your article in reference to an article on EP, just leave it in a comment, it will get published unless it's again economic fiction or hostile or spam.
THIS POST REVISED 28 AUGUST 2011 (All links, except one as specifically noted, have been tested and are functional as of 28 August 2011.)
A friend has been after me for talking up the need for a "new reform party" when there actually is a new Reform Party today, 2011. All it needs right now is voters to register as Reform!
Perot presenting his famous "giant sucking sound" analysis
of NAFTA proposal (1992 three-way presidential debate)
YouTube link
__________
Perot in 2008 announcing PerotCharts.com, now a link
determined to be "dead 11 August 2011" per Wikipedia
YouTube link
_________
Example from PerotCharts.com per the YouTube
presentation by Ross Perot
In introducing PerotCharts.com in 2008, Perot specifically requested anyone who found fault with the underlying numbers to contact PerotCharts.com and provide their sources. In that respect, PerotCharts perhaps was like EconomicPopulist today, but with a political agenda. (In 2008, Perot opposed John McCain, endorsed Mitt Romney).
__________
Problem is that the Reform Party has been deviled by in-fighting since the year 2000, when it was taken over by Pat Buchanan in the service of Buchanan's concept of 'cultural war'. Buchanan, claiming to have parted ways with the GOP, returned to the Republican fold in 2002 -- having completed an apparent mission to infiltrate and destroy the Reform Party in the 2000 elections. But that's now history.
By the time Buchanan was done with his 'work', the Reform Party had lost any claim to public funding for presidential elections. By 2008, the party appeared to be dissolved for all intents and purposes, having dabbled in support of Ralph Nader for president. However, the national Reform Party met in Dallas in 2008 and agreed on a statement of principles (UPDATE by 2OLD -- links to reformparty.org are probably no longer functional, as the site has been recreated at www.rpusa.info with updated platform ... I like that ".info" !).
Ross Perot has always been big on 'family values' (a family man himself), but he founded the Reform Party without reliance on divisive "social issues." The 2008 Reform Party statement of principles makes no mention of divisive "social issues" -- focusing on economic problems and structural reform of the political system.
Notably, the Reform Party Principles as amended by the National Convention in 2008, specifically called for a jobs creation program consisting of two points:
The new website at www.rpusa.info (official website of the national Reform Party) provides a detailed statement of the current Reform Party platform, with this item under "Trade Policy" --
_________
The Reform Party after 2008 went through a series of legal entanglements, ending in a court battle that started in a Texas state court and ended in a U. S. District Court in the state of New York. End result was confirmation of David Collison (a Texan) as current national chairman, pursuant to Collison's election by the National Convention in 2008.
In 2010, the Reform Party began to rebuild on the basis of the 2008 National Convention. In 2011, under the leadership of David Collison (a Texan), the Reform Party presents itself at an excellent website and appears to be well organized to stage a comeback in 2012, IF enough voters decide to register in state parties affiliated with the Reform Party.
There's a good, IMO, Wikipedia article on the history of the Reform Party.
Also, a good Wikipedia article on Ross Perot -- an impressive bio, causing the reader to wonder at how Perot could have lost to anyone either in 1992 or in 1996.
I hereby reform my statement of alternatives to the two major parties. The list is as follows: Reform Party, Libertarian, Green, Socialist. But the only way you can have the choice of Reform is to register Reform in your state!
(In some states, you may need to get together with friends to file some paperwork to create or recreate the party so that people can register in it. Of course, that doesn't automatically get any candidates on the ballot or achieve party standing in your state ... but that's where Mr. Perot started too. If you want reform, you have to start somewhere.)
BTW: Discussion at Colorado4X4.org on "What happened to PerotCharts.com?"
Economics 101 -- Don't waste your vote!
"The world's housing markets were on balance weaker during the year ending in the second quarter of 2011, according to the first-ever published survey covering the Q2 2011 data, released today by the Global Property Guide, which traditionally publishes global housing data ahead of other research houses." -- GlobalPropertyGuide.com
Full disclosure by GlobalPropertyGuide.com is appreciated!
_________
It's interesting, but hard to make a trend out of it, other than what would be expected out of a global liquidity crisis. We kinda already knew about that.
Looking for liquidity crisis effects in residential property, the greatest indicator might well be reduced market volume, at least in some areas. And as we know, market volume is subject to effects of control by governments both public and private (banks) as well as subject to the effects of wealth and income distribution. Then there is the matter of to what extent is residential property leveraged or under water? That's going to vary hugely with differing law from jurisdiction (nation) to jurisdiction (nation).
We have here averages based on annual totals where data bases are not standard and where the rules may even be changing substantially during the course of any given year. Obviously we cannot rely on any assumption that everything cancels out with averages, as though it were an example of a law of rounding, so that valid conclusions can be drawn notwithstanding both material and methodological differences. So, okay, some kind of global trend may be shown ... possibly. But is that trend anything more than the already well-known 'trend' of a liquidity crisis?
In general, price trends without reference to market volume? Moreover, there are bound to be huge variations in underlying conditions and even in the survey numbers criteria:
In much of Europe and elsewhere, residential housing property (resident-owned to varying extent, but with a resident-owned component) routinely includes multiple units -- to a much greater extent than in USA.
"In Latvia, standard type apartments in Riga fell by 5.40% year-on-year, after a solid comeback since Q2 2010."
Housing in Singapore, and maybe even in Hong Kong, is essentially a government monopoly.
"In Taiwan and Singapore, government curbs seem to have been effective."
"Government curbs" in Singapore? That's one way of describing a market that is and has long been effectively controlled by the government, much of it effectively government-owned.
Residential real estate in Sweden is dominated by regulatory controls designed to prevent homelessness and ... well, the word that comes to mind is 'socialism', not that there's anything wrong with it.
And then there are the parenthetical methodological notes --
Ukraine - Kiev
Greece - Athens
Australia - 8 cities
Poland - Warsaw
Latvia - Riga
Japan - Tokyo
Lithuania - 5 largest cities (who knew Lithuania included 5 cities?)
China - Shanghai
Indonesia - 14 cities
Estonia - Tallinn
Brazil - Sao Paulo
Why not "US - San Francisco"?
This data may be of some value to real estate brokers dealing in (promoting) international purchases, but otherwise ????
Oh well. It's "location, location, location." Or is it "perceived value, perceived value, perceived value"?
Either way, I suppose "global" is part of it. The set of all sets ... does it include itself?
Someone sent me this site via email and it's a fairly useful table of housing market declines around the globe.
It's not just in the United States.
"Bernanke is simply stating the obvious"
"In his speech, Bernanke said the Federal Open Market Committee would consider its options at its next meeting in late September"
Classical government speak for kicking the can down the road...
TRANSLATION: "We don't know what the @#$%! we're doing. The wine and food was great and the fresh air here in Wyoming a wonderful change from the stuffy basement of the Fed, but we remain at a loss of what to do. I don't know what to tell you, I guess I really never did know what we were doing and I apologize for all the mumbo jumbo @#$%! we've been feeding you, but FOMC's job was never more than to do the bidding of the member banks, and we can't even save them... You're on your own,... sorry."
What do I know? I'm an old man, living in my little part of a big world.
Maybe there will be effective mass demonstrations coming and lots of them, although I still don't see attacks on corporate HQs. (Wouldn't they have to go to Shanghai or Dubai to do that?)
Anyway, here's link to Michael Collins' at themoneyparty.org article titled
Anonymous to Occupy Wall Street
complete with video, link, image
BTW: Okay, cutting back on bold
Robert Oak:
All politics is local, these days often more as to time than as to place. The Jackson Hole conference didn't take place in a political vacuum and has nothing to do with the beautiful mountain views. The reference locale isn't in terms of geography, it's in terms of time.
So we look around at the time frame and what do we see, next thing coming up? The TAA and three FTAs pending as soon as Congress reconvenes in September! That's the political locale in time -- from the last week of August through the first week of September after Labor Day. There's a sense of urgency.
Congress hates its 82% disapproval rating, with 14% approval. The plan is to win praise from media by trying something new -- getting along or at least looking like they're getting along. It's a delicate situation, and I would like to see it become much less delicate -- I'd like to see it more crude and rude.
The delicate situation is the uneasy deal struck between Boehner and Obama that first there will be a vote in the House on the TAA, and then votes on the three FTAs. This involves Boehner trusting the Democrats, and that's why he has been leaning publicly on Obama to help out on passing the FTAs -- because Boehner fears that after he talks enough reluctant populist House republicans into voting AYE on the TAA, then along will come enough progressive Democrats joining with populist protectionist Republicans to break up the Obama-Boehner unholy alliance and stop the three FTAs dead in their tracks.
There's a major requirement for trust involved, and Boehner, knowing that any Democrat would be a fool to trust him, is suspecting that he's a fool for trusting Obama that he (Obama) can command the necessary Democrat votes. Obama may even pull a switcheroo -- just as Boehner had all those problems with the Tea Party gang, so Obama may have no end of problems with populist progressive Democrats. The TAA demand could get bigger and bigger.
What do we think Bernanke means here? Like when he says, "Fortunately, the two goals of achieving fiscal sustainability--which is the result of responsible policies set in place for the longer term--and avoiding the creation of fiscal headwinds for the current recovery are not incompatible."
He means Republicans and Democrats in the House (the Senate already has an 'agreement to agree' in place) can and should unite behind both the TAA and the FTAs -- the FTAs being, according to conventional wisdom, "responsible policies set in place for the longer term." Similarly, a specially authorized expenditure for the TAA is exactly the kind of thing we need for "avoiding creation of fiscal headwinds for the current recovery."
In the context of all this, I read Bernanke as saying, "There's room for compromise, for everybody to get along." Which, in the temporal context, can only mean "Vote AYE on the TAA ("encourage investments in the skills of our workforce") and then vote AYE on the FTAs, of course. For the FTAs, he knows there's reaction to the patent law proposals, so he throws in "promote research and development." He's speaking code -- which is fairly easy to break in the context. "Encourage investments in skills of workforce" means we need the TAA so that the people who lose jobs can be trained to take higher paid jobs in high tech. Of course, that's a canard, but that's what this is about.
The one place where I have used the term 'Republican' is where I say "Republicans will at least claim to be successful in demanding some kind of ransom to be paid to the MNCs, as usual." I think that's true, assuming things go according to plan. They see that the Democrats are getting something they want (TAA), something maybe even unions want, something they can work with politically in their districts, so Republicans want something too. Maybe there will be enough Republicans wanting the TAA, I don't know, but Boehner won't want to be seen as so doggone reasonable that he is willing to just go along with Obama in order to get the FTAs and look like Mr. Nice Guy all of a sudden. Obama is known to want the FTAs too -- so both parties presumably will be awarded the same payoffs. But to counterbalance the TAA, what will Boehner be able to show as what Republicans got? Nothing for nothing? That's why I say about the TAA, "Republicans will at least claim to be successful in demanding some kind of ransom to be paid to the MNCs." Maybe some kind of cut in capital gains tax, maybe another round of expedited depreciation, who knows?
The flea in the ointment is mainly Ron Paul. He is almost certain to vote against the FTAs and the TAAs. Ron Paul's sometime ally, Dennis Kucinich, is lining up opposition on the Democratic side of the aisle. Probably neither Paul nor Kucinich could care less about the Obama-Boehner deal.
Anyway, my take on Republicans and Democrats on the pending TAA and three FTAs is at my comment titled "Congress -- connect the dots?" -- and on the factual side and analysis of the FTAs, you (Robert Oak) have been ahead of me all along, as indicated in your response "no one wants these FTAs beyond U.S. Chamber, MNCs".
I think that quite a few someones with a lot of money and influence do want, and expect to get, these FTAs. It's all been arranged in the Senate. The House vote will test whether Boehner and Obama can get anything done, or it's only the Super-Congress now.
If the Boehner-Obama deal can be stopped, that will be a victory for democracy and for America -- much more interesting than the way things have been going.
Freedom -- use it or lose it!
I feel like traders are still stuck on Greenspan, who must speak in code for if anyone really follows him, frankly he's a complete economic idiot. He's all for wage repression, middle class destruction and lest we not forget the entire set up to create the real estate bubble and denial..
although as I recall Bernanke was in the same denial bubble.
I always link up to the actual speech, data, government agency and so on in these articles so everyone can simply read the words directly.
But we have multiple speeches by Bernanke along these lines, it's clear he is saying Congress, this administration needs to do a very directed, very specific policy modifications to stimulate the economy.
That was what was wrong with the "Stimulus", it was so loaded with political favors, loopholes and stuff that was just "spending". Well, spending is stimulative but it's not real Keynes by a long shot. Not very effective or "bang for the buck".
I'm not a fan of Bernanke but frankly, I don't see him saying "Republican" types of things here.
But it would be nice to see some government official somewhere confront all of those CEOs and billionaires to start giving back to America and hiring Americans.
That, we don't see anywhere.
But in terms of policy positions, I don't see Bernanke recommending draconian cuts to Medicare and SS.
I mean he makes a point to say the problem is costs and the problem is costs, we've been pointing that out on this site since it started.
I know everyone wants to hate Bernanke and $1.2 trillion in secret loans half going to foreign banks, plus the entire TARP/AIG/GS "takeover" and on and on, I get it.
But recently, he seems to more be pointing to policies this site and many economists say are desperately needed.
Maybe he's a better mirror these days and one just sees their own reflection in his words (which is an art form), but that's my take.
BTW: you're bold happy ;)
"He said the things Obama and Congressional leaders should have been saying throughout 2010 and this year too and I will always be grateful to him for that. His brief statements about our unemployment emergency were unacknowledged and were not acted upon in any effective way, as we all know. ... how pathetic it is to hope not for real leadership and candor about where we stand, but for someone who will just toss us out a few more crumbs than the rest who give us nothing or mislead us." -- Jersey
Exactly right!
It's a strange thing that corporate media can be covering Bernanke's Jackson Hole speech as passing the buck to Congress -- with no risk to corporatist interests of upsetting even the slightest little tea cup in their feeding-frenzy party. How this can be is really simple -- Bernanke did not indicate specifically what it is that Congress is supposed to do. He just indicates that Congress and their big money supporters can have their cake and eat it too ... by seeking a big happy "bipartisan" compromise as soon as they reconvene in September.
Bernanke:
I think it's clear enough that Bernanke is saying no to QE, and no one thinks it could possibly work anyway. But otherwise, you tell me, is he saying yes or no to Warren Buffet's call for raising the high bracket income tax rate and for eliminating egregious tax loopholes? Did he say yes or no to cutting off unemployment benefits for millions of working families? Did he say yes or no to HARP and other relief for mortgagees holding 'negative equity'? Did he say yes or no to anything?
Oh yes, tax and spending policies should "increase incentives to work and to save" and "stimulate private capital formation". My translation of Bernanke: "No tax increases (equals no revenue increases) but another cut in the capital gains tax would be good."
Then there is the phrase that Robert Oak emphasizes, namely "provide necessary public infrastructure." Okay, so will we see unfunded expansion of investment in highways and bridges? Paid for, not by taxes, but by bonds backed by state and federal government? Oh sure, just the thing now in the year 1956, ooops, did I typo '1956'? Oh yeah, it's now 2011 ... hmmmm. Or will we see privatization of public infrastructure by foreign financial interests, eased along by WTF 'free' trade agreements? Bernanke did not exactly say, did he?
Reading between the lines, the one thing Bernanke is 'clear' about is the need to "encourage investments in the skills of our workforce and promote research and development." My translation or Bernanke: "Enact the Trade Adjustment Assistance (TAA) part of the FTAs pending as soon as Congress reconvenes AND the FTAs (of course) ... and don't forget 'necessary' reform of patent law."
Reminds me of Red Skelton's joke about 'Freddie the Freeloader' and another skid-row drunk waking up in an alley. As they shake off the night's sleep, starting off toward the street, Freddie's friend tugs Freddie's arm and points out, "Vommick!"
Freddie says, "Yeah, I know ... careful, don't step in it!"
Economy reform starts with Congress NOW!
Okay, durable goods orders are for domestic manufacturing. That's only indirectly about ordering stuff from Asia or Mexico or wherever. Only indirectly about inventories. Really an index of business activity for the manufacturing sector.
Of course, durable goods orders are going to be related to investment in manufacturing as well as to productivity. That's why NYSE reacted favorably! So that was rational behavior.
Since increases in durable goods orders are presumably linked to marginally larger pay checks, durable goods orders are related to PCE. Of course, PCE must also be related to government payouts and (at least in 2008) such things as MEW. See, CalculatedRisk (2008)
About inventories, I understand "slope versus quantity" -- slope is the first derivative of a graph, so continuous positive slope means steady increase, even if second derivative is flat. That's why I am puzzled by "steady increases in inventories (although down from peaking in 2010) with rate of change in final sales numbers bouncing around like a stumbling drunk."
I would assume, given population growth, that inventories, sales and PCE would all steadily if slowly increase over time. Durable goods orders, however, would be subject to things like fluctuation in exchange rates (although not in the case of China). Similarly, although inversely, percent changes in PCE for durable goods (red bar in the graph) would also be sensitive to fluctuation in exchange rates.
I suppose retailers are just going to say "that month was good, this month not so good." No real trend, so keep doing what we have been doing, using annualized estimates.
By liquidity problems, I mean suppliers vs. retailers as to when or how soon goods are delivered vs. payment received in the supplier's bank account -- in other words, availability of goods at the retail level as payments are worked out. The result isn't failure to meet demand but it could be failure to meet demand until next month's payday. I notice lack of some items on shelves more often than used to be, also demand for payment up front before ordering parts ... and maybe that reflects some kind of liquidity problem. But there are many possibilities.
Sales come up a little, then flat for the next month. Up a little, then flat again. No trend except "could be worse" -- puzzling, especially considering population growth.
But there are many possibilities. Retailers are more competitive some months than others? Customers are more flush one month than the next? Relation of sales to price of gas or diesel fuel? Presumably, it's all based on inventory numbers in Cost of Goods Sold ... but there is the infamous transportation factor, with a delayed effect.
Probably, steady inventory growth is just that retailers are ordering based on annualized estimates and assuming growth.
It appears that you are 100% correct on the global supply chain thing, at least if we can believe the business-school kind of thing. "Supply chain management" is the bee's buzz these days. To me, that's an argument for a tariff -- or, since you prefer, VAT.
Trying to tax MNC corporate profits or net income on an 1120, although the international stuff is very complex, is like trying to measure flow of a river with a gauge set into a tube in the river. Sure you can measure the flow for the tube and that means you could estimate the flow for the river ... making many assumptions or having a whole lot of other data. But why not try the old dam approach? Water will still flow and you can estimate it closely. And since we have no choice but to maintain a dam anyway ....
I am still and have long been wondering about 'national accounts' and how foreign investment is handled there. You can sure get arguments on that subject! It seems like the media and even the academia spin is "those bad over-consuming lazy Americans, but they should quit complaining, they are lucky -- imagine year after year of negative exports, what a wonderful life!"
My thinking is that every negative export is one more nail in the 'For Sale' sign posted at our borders -- with a 'Sold' sticker now pasted over it.
BTW: A niche these days is good. That's what everybody is looking for. Of course, if some MNC offers the big bucks ... study the contract carefully!
Pages