<?xml version="1.0"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:itunes="http://www.itunes.com/dtds/podcast-1.0.dtd">
<channel>
<title>BloggingStocks</title>
<link>http://www.bloggingstocks.com</link>
<description>BloggingStocks</description>

<language>en-us</language>
<copyright>Copyright 2012 Weblogs, Inc. The contents of this feed are available for non-commercial use only.</copyright>
<generator>Blogsmith http://www.blogsmith.com/</generator><item><title><![CDATA[Inadequate Q4 U.S. GDP Growth Points to Fed's Extension of QE2]]></title><link>http://www.bloggingstocks.com/2011/03/27/inadequate-q4-u-s-gdp-growth-points-to-feds-extension-of-qe2/</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.bloggingstocks.com/2011/03/27/inadequate-q4-u-s-gdp-growth-points-to-feds-extension-of-qe2/</guid><comments>http://www.bloggingstocks.com/2011/03/27/inadequate-q4-u-s-gdp-growth-points-to-feds-extension-of-qe2/#comments</comments><description><![CDATA[<p>Filed under: <a href="http://www.bloggingstocks.com/category/forecasts/" rel="tag">Forecasts</a>, <a href="http://www.bloggingstocks.com/category/economic-data/" rel="tag">Economic Data</a>, <a href="http://www.bloggingstocks.com/category/federal-reserve/" rel="tag">Federal Reserve</a></p><p><img vspace="4" hspace="4" border="1" align="right" src="http://www.blogcdn.com/www.dailyfinance.com/media/2010/03/federal-reserve-bldg-1268425618.jpg"  alt="Federal Reserve" />This past week's data point of significance for investors has to be the revised, final, fourth quarter U.S. GDP report, which indicated the world's largest economy <a href="http://www.bea.gov/newsreleases/national/gdp/gdpnewsrelease.htm">grew 3.1%</a> in the quarter, as well as 2.9% for 2010. </p>
<p>In 2009, the U.S. economy contracted 2.6% during the Great Recession -- the worst downturn since the Great Depression -- and even though the final 3.1% fourth quarter stat was better than the 2.8% previously estimated fourth quarter growth rate, the growth pace still is not strong enough.</p><p><a href="http://www.bloggingstocks.com/2011/03/27/inadequate-q4-u-s-gdp-growth-points-to-feds-extension-of-qe2/" rel="bookmark">Continue reading <em>Inadequate Q4 U.S. GDP Growth Points to Fed's Extension of QE2</em></a></p><p style="padding:5px;background:#ddd;border:1px solid #ccc;clear:both;"><a href="http://www.bloggingstocks.com/2011/03/27/inadequate-q4-u-s-gdp-growth-points-to-feds-extension-of-qe2/">Inadequate Q4 U.S. GDP Growth Points to Fed's Extension of QE2</a> originally appeared on <a href="http://www.bloggingstocks.com">BloggingStocks</a> on Sun, 27 Mar 2011 10:10:00 EST.  Please see our <a href="http://www.weblogsinc.com/feed-terms/">terms for use of feeds</a>.</p><h6 style="clear: both; padding: 8px 0 0 0; height: 2px; font-size: 1px; border: 0; margin: 0; padding: 0;"></h6><a href="http://www.bloggingstocks.com/2011/03/27/inadequate-q4-u-s-gdp-growth-points-to-feds-extension-of-qe2/" rel="bookmark" title="Permanent link to this entry">Permalink</a>&nbsp;|&nbsp;<a href="http://www.bloggingstocks.com/forward/19892857/" title="Send this entry to a friend via email">Email this</a>&nbsp;|&nbsp;<a href="http://www.bloggingstocks.com/2011/03/27/inadequate-q4-u-s-gdp-growth-points-to-feds-extension-of-qe2/#comments" title="View reader comments on this entry">Comments</a>]]></description><category>economic growth</category><category>economic recovery</category><category>GDP</category><category>inthenews</category><category>job creation</category><category>jobs</category><category>Q4 GDP</category><category>QE2</category><category>quantitative easing</category><category>stimulus</category><dc:creator><![CDATA[Joseph Lazzaro]]></dc:creator><pubDate>Sun, 27 Mar 2011 10:10:00 EST</pubDate></item><item><title><![CDATA[$12.2 Trillion Was Not Enough Stimulus]]></title><link>http://www.bloggingstocks.com/2010/09/23/12-2-trillion-was-not-enough-stimulus/</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.bloggingstocks.com/2010/09/23/12-2-trillion-was-not-enough-stimulus/</guid><comments>http://www.bloggingstocks.com/2010/09/23/12-2-trillion-was-not-enough-stimulus/#comments</comments><description><![CDATA[<p>Filed under: <a href="http://www.bloggingstocks.com/category/federal-reserve/" rel="tag">Federal Reserve</a>, <a href="http://www.bloggingstocks.com/category/recession/" rel="tag">Recession</a>, <a href="http://www.bloggingstocks.com/category/financial-crisis/" rel="tag">Financial Crisis</a></p><p><img vspace="4" hspace="4" border="1" align="right" alt="Federal Reserve" src="http://www.blogcdn.com/www.bloggingstocks.com/media/2010/01/federalreserve-getty.jpg" />Developed countries are scrambling to put in place more rounds of stimulus to prop up their faltering economies.</p>
<p>The U.S. Federal Reserve has already pledged or spent an unbelievable $12.2 trillion to bail out a handful of bankers. The Fed slashed interest rates to zero and it is now purchasing more treasuries with proceeds from existing purchases. Finally, at its recent meeting the Fed stated that it stands ready to inject more stimulus in the <a class="inlinked" href="http://www.dailyfinance.com/category/economy/">economy</a>.</p><p><a href="http://www.bloggingstocks.com/2010/09/23/12-2-trillion-was-not-enough-stimulus/" rel="bookmark">Continue reading <em>$12.2 Trillion Was Not Enough Stimulus</em></a></p><p style="padding:5px;background:#ddd;border:1px solid #ccc;clear:both;"><a href="http://www.bloggingstocks.com/2010/09/23/12-2-trillion-was-not-enough-stimulus/">$12.2 Trillion Was Not Enough Stimulus</a> originally appeared on <a href="http://www.bloggingstocks.com">BloggingStocks</a> on Thu, 23 Sep 2010 10:50:00 EST.  Please see our <a href="http://www.weblogsinc.com/feed-terms/">terms for use of feeds</a>.</p><h6 style="clear: both; padding: 8px 0 0 0; height: 2px; font-size: 1px; border: 0; margin: 0; padding: 0;"></h6><a href="http://www.bloggingstocks.com/2010/09/23/12-2-trillion-was-not-enough-stimulus/" rel="bookmark" title="Permanent link to this entry">Permalink</a>&nbsp;|&nbsp;<a href="http://www.bloggingstocks.com/forward/19645608/" title="Send this entry to a friend via email">Email this</a>&nbsp;|&nbsp;<a href="http://www.bloggingstocks.com/2010/09/23/12-2-trillion-was-not-enough-stimulus/#comments" title="View reader comments on this entry">Comments</a>]]></description><category>central banks</category><category>European Central Bank</category><category>featured</category><category>Federal Reserve</category><category>inthenews</category><category>job creation</category><category>stimulus</category><category>stimulus spending</category><dc:creator><![CDATA[Connie Madon]]></dc:creator><pubDate>Thu, 23 Sep 2010 10:50:00 EST</pubDate></item><item><title><![CDATA[Why Is a Rise in Corporate Profits Not Creating More Jobs?]]></title><link>http://www.bloggingstocks.com/2010/08/03/why-is-a-rise-in-corporate-profits-not-creating-more-jobs/</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.bloggingstocks.com/2010/08/03/why-is-a-rise-in-corporate-profits-not-creating-more-jobs/</guid><comments>http://www.bloggingstocks.com/2010/08/03/why-is-a-rise-in-corporate-profits-not-creating-more-jobs/#comments</comments><description><![CDATA[<p>Filed under: <a href="http://www.bloggingstocks.com/category/f/" rel="tag">Ford Motor (F)</a>, <a href="http://www.bloggingstocks.com/category/china/" rel="tag">China</a>, <a href="http://www.bloggingstocks.com/category/employees/" rel="tag">Employees</a>, <a href="http://www.bloggingstocks.com/category/financial-crisis/" rel="tag">Financial Crisis</a></p><img vspace="4" hspace="4" border="1" align="right" alt="" src="http://www.blogcdn.com/www.dailyfinance.com/media/2010/02/unemployment.jpg" />This is earnings season. By most accounts, corporations are reporting higher profits this year than last. If this is the case, you would assume that more jobs are being created. This is not happening.<br />
<br />
<a href="http://marketplace.publicradio.org/display/web/2010/07/28/pm-rise-in-profits-more-hiring-not-exactly/#">Robert Reich,</a> a Columbia University professor, offers his reasons why higher corporate profits are not creating more jobs. He cites GM as an example. GM sells more cars in China than it does in the U.S. GM has 32,000 hourly workers in China, as compared to 52,000 hourly workers in the U.S. This is down from 468,000 in 1970. GM insists that no American taxpayer money is being used to expand in China. But GM can use the money it makes in China to pay American workers and pay down debt.<p><a href="http://www.bloggingstocks.com/2010/08/03/why-is-a-rise-in-corporate-profits-not-creating-more-jobs/" rel="bookmark">Continue reading <em>Why Is a Rise in Corporate Profits Not Creating More Jobs?</em></a></p><p style="padding:5px;background:#ddd;border:1px solid #ccc;clear:both;"><a href="http://www.bloggingstocks.com/2010/08/03/why-is-a-rise-in-corporate-profits-not-creating-more-jobs/">Why Is a Rise in Corporate Profits Not Creating More Jobs?</a> originally appeared on <a href="http://www.bloggingstocks.com">BloggingStocks</a> on Tue, 03 Aug 2010 10:20:00 EST.  Please see our <a href="http://www.weblogsinc.com/feed-terms/">terms for use of feeds</a>.</p><h6 style="clear: both; padding: 8px 0 0 0; height: 2px; font-size: 1px; border: 0; margin: 0; padding: 0;"></h6><a href=http://marketplace.publicradio.org/display/web/2010/07/28/pm-rise-in-profits-more-hiring-not-exactly/#>Read</a>&nbsp;|&nbsp;<a href="http://www.bloggingstocks.com/2010/08/03/why-is-a-rise-in-corporate-profits-not-creating-more-jobs/" rel="bookmark" title="Permanent link to this entry">Permalink</a>&nbsp;|&nbsp;<a href="http://www.bloggingstocks.com/forward/19576255/" title="Send this entry to a friend via email">Email this</a>&nbsp;|&nbsp;<a href="http://www.bloggingstocks.com/2010/08/03/why-is-a-rise-in-corporate-profits-not-creating-more-jobs/#comments" title="View reader comments on this entry">Comments</a>]]></description><category>creating jobs</category><category>featured</category><category>inthenews</category><category>job creation</category><category>jobs</category><category>unemployment</category><dc:creator><![CDATA[Connie Madon]]></dc:creator><pubDate>Tue, 03 Aug 2010 10:20:00 EST</pubDate></item><item><title><![CDATA[Comfort Zone Investing: Seems Like Old, Old Times]]></title><link>http://www.bloggingstocks.com/2010/06/12/comfort-zone-investing-seems-like-old-old-times/</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.bloggingstocks.com/2010/06/12/comfort-zone-investing-seems-like-old-old-times/</guid><comments>http://www.bloggingstocks.com/2010/06/12/comfort-zone-investing-seems-like-old-old-times/#comments</comments><description><![CDATA[<p>Filed under: <a href="http://www.bloggingstocks.com/category/comfort-zone-investing/" rel="tag">Comfort Zone Investing</a>, <a href="http://www.bloggingstocks.com/category/recession/" rel="tag">Recession</a></p><img hspace="4" border="1" align="right" vspace="4" alt="Comfort Zone Investing: Seems Like Old, Old Times" src="http://www.blogcdn.com/www.bloggingstocks.com/media/2010/06/jobs.positions.avail.getty.jpg" />It seems all the news is bad. The little bit of good that's out there is quickly dismissed as something bad overwhelms it. Every day, something new, something bad. As <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roseanne_Roseannadanna">Roseanne Roseannadanna</a> used to say: It's always something.<br />
<br />
Sometimes when things seem really awful, it helps to do a little research and look at history, at previous times when everything seemed to be on the road to ruin, that good fortune would never return. So I looked back at some newspapers from the 1930's (the Web can take you anywhere). If you lived in those times, you knew for certain the American way was dead and gone, that nothing positive would ever happen again.<p><a href="http://www.bloggingstocks.com/2010/06/12/comfort-zone-investing-seems-like-old-old-times/" rel="bookmark">Continue reading <em>Comfort Zone Investing: Seems Like Old, Old Times</em></a></p><p style="padding:5px;background:#ddd;border:1px solid #ccc;clear:both;"><a href="http://www.bloggingstocks.com/2010/06/12/comfort-zone-investing-seems-like-old-old-times/">Comfort Zone Investing: Seems Like Old, Old Times</a> originally appeared on <a href="http://www.bloggingstocks.com">BloggingStocks</a> on Sat, 12 Jun 2010 10:30:00 EST.  Please see our <a href="http://www.weblogsinc.com/feed-terms/">terms for use of feeds</a>.</p><h6 style="clear: both; padding: 8px 0 0 0; height: 2px; font-size: 1px; border: 0; margin: 0; padding: 0;"></h6><a href="http://www.bloggingstocks.com/2010/06/12/comfort-zone-investing-seems-like-old-old-times/" rel="bookmark" title="Permanent link to this entry">Permalink</a>&nbsp;|&nbsp;<a href="http://www.bloggingstocks.com/forward/19509519/" title="Send this entry to a friend via email">Email this</a>&nbsp;|&nbsp;<a href="http://www.bloggingstocks.com/2010/06/12/comfort-zone-investing-seems-like-old-old-times/#comments" title="View reader comments on this entry">Comments</a>]]></description><category>Bernanke</category><category>Comfort Zone Investing</category><category>economic recovery</category><category>featured</category><category>Great Depression</category><category>job creation</category><category>market recovery</category><category>similarities between now and Great Depression</category><dc:creator><![CDATA[Ted Allrich]]></dc:creator><pubDate>Sat, 12 Jun 2010 10:30:00 EST</pubDate></item><item><title><![CDATA[A Sight Investors Would Love: Above-Trend Job Growth]]></title><link>http://www.bloggingstocks.com/2010/04/16/a-sight-investors-would-love-above-trend-job-growth/</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.bloggingstocks.com/2010/04/16/a-sight-investors-would-love-above-trend-job-growth/</guid><comments>http://www.bloggingstocks.com/2010/04/16/a-sight-investors-would-love-above-trend-job-growth/#comments</comments><description><![CDATA[<p>Filed under: <a href="http://www.bloggingstocks.com/category/employees/" rel="tag">Employees</a>, <a href="http://www.bloggingstocks.com/category/recession/" rel="tag">Recession</a></p><img hspace="4" border="1" align="right" vspace="4" alt="" src="http://www.blogcdn.com/www.bloggingstocks.com/media/2008/03/wantadspic.jpg" />That the job creation task ahead for policy makers and executives alike is significant would be an understatement. The task is, arguably, as great as any economic endeavor since the restructuring of the U.S. economy for armaments production during the mobilization for World War II. <br />
<br />
Here are the basics: the U.S. Labor Department puts the number of unemployed persons <a href="http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.nr0.htm">at 15 million</a> as of the end of March, roughly 8.4 million of which stems from the 2007-2009 recession.<p><a href="http://www.bloggingstocks.com/2010/04/16/a-sight-investors-would-love-above-trend-job-growth/" rel="bookmark">Continue reading <em>A Sight Investors Would Love: Above-Trend Job Growth</em></a></p><p style="padding:5px;background:#ddd;border:1px solid #ccc;clear:both;"><a href="http://www.bloggingstocks.com/2010/04/16/a-sight-investors-would-love-above-trend-job-growth/">A Sight Investors Would Love: Above-Trend Job Growth</a> originally appeared on <a href="http://www.bloggingstocks.com">BloggingStocks</a> on Fri, 16 Apr 2010 17:00:00 EST.  Please see our <a href="http://www.weblogsinc.com/feed-terms/">terms for use of feeds</a>.</p><h6 style="clear: both; padding: 8px 0 0 0; height: 2px; font-size: 1px; border: 0; margin: 0; padding: 0;"></h6><a href="http://www.bloggingstocks.com/2010/04/16/a-sight-investors-would-love-above-trend-job-growth/" rel="bookmark" title="Permanent link to this entry">Permalink</a>&nbsp;|&nbsp;<a href="http://www.bloggingstocks.com/forward/19443025/" title="Send this entry to a friend via email">Email this</a>&nbsp;|&nbsp;<a href="http://www.bloggingstocks.com/2010/04/16/a-sight-investors-would-love-above-trend-job-growth/#comments" title="View reader comments on this entry">Comments</a>]]></description><category>inthenews</category><category>job creation</category><category>jobs</category><category>recovery</category><category>unemployment rate</category><dc:creator><![CDATA[Joseph Lazzaro]]></dc:creator><pubDate>Fri, 16 Apr 2010 17:00:00 EST</pubDate></item><item><title><![CDATA[The unemployed are seeking answers: Obama, Democrats must deliver]]></title><link>http://www.bloggingstocks.com/2009/12/07/the-unemployed-are-seeking-answers-obama-democrats-must-delive/</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.bloggingstocks.com/2009/12/07/the-unemployed-are-seeking-answers-obama-democrats-must-delive/</guid><comments>http://www.bloggingstocks.com/2009/12/07/the-unemployed-are-seeking-answers-obama-democrats-must-delive/#comments</comments><description><![CDATA[<p>Filed under: <a href="http://www.bloggingstocks.com/category/forecasts/" rel="tag">Forecasts</a>, <a href="http://www.bloggingstocks.com/category/employees/" rel="tag">Employees</a>, <a href="http://www.bloggingstocks.com/category/politics/" rel="tag">Politics</a>, <a href="http://www.bloggingstocks.com/category/recession/" rel="tag">Recession</a></p><p><img border="1" hspace="4" vspace="4" align="right" src="http://www.blogcdn.com/www.dailyfinance.com/media/2009/11/unemploymentrate.jpg" alt="" />As most investors know, before President Obama took the oath of office, there were <a href="http://www.bloggingstocks.com/2009/01/15/the-bush-economic-legacy-the-u-s-s-decade-of-descent/">a half dozen problems waiting for him</a> and his administration -- problems that no-doubt have discouraged many qualified, future aspirants from even thinking of running for the presidency during what will surely be a decade of repair and correction for the United States.</p>
<p>But if one had to isolate one problem President Obama must fix -- one on which his presidency will likely hinge -- it would be, of course, the U.S. economy, and within that, the issue of jobs.</p><p><a href="http://www.bloggingstocks.com/2009/12/07/the-unemployed-are-seeking-answers-obama-democrats-must-delive/" rel="bookmark">Continue reading <em>The unemployed are seeking answers: Obama, Democrats must deliver</em></a></p><p style="padding:5px;background:#ddd;border:1px solid #ccc;clear:both;"><a href="http://www.bloggingstocks.com/2009/12/07/the-unemployed-are-seeking-answers-obama-democrats-must-delive/">The unemployed are seeking answers: Obama, Democrats must deliver</a> originally appeared on <a href="http://www.bloggingstocks.com">BloggingStocks</a> on Mon, 07 Dec 2009 13:00:00 EST.  Please see our <a href="http://www.weblogsinc.com/feed-terms/">terms for use of feeds</a>.</p><h6 style="clear: both; padding: 8px 0 0 0; height: 2px; font-size: 1px; border: 0; margin: 0; padding: 0;"></h6><a href="http://www.bloggingstocks.com/2009/12/07/the-unemployed-are-seeking-answers-obama-democrats-must-delive/" rel="bookmark" title="Permanent link to this entry">Permalink</a>&nbsp;|&nbsp;<a href="http://www.bloggingstocks.com/forward/19267528/" title="Send this entry to a friend via email">Email this</a>&nbsp;|&nbsp;<a href="http://www.bloggingstocks.com/2009/12/07/the-unemployed-are-seeking-answers-obama-democrats-must-delive/#comments" title="View reader comments on this entry">Comments</a>]]></description><category>2010 elections</category><category>2012 elections</category><category>Arianna Huffington</category><category>birthers</category><category>congress</category><category>Democrats</category><category>employment</category><category>inthenews</category><category>job creation</category><category>Obama</category><category>populism</category><category>Sarah Palin</category><category>tea party</category><dc:creator><![CDATA[Joseph Lazzaro]]></dc:creator><pubDate>Mon, 07 Dec 2009 13:00:00 EST</pubDate></item><item><title><![CDATA[Democrats' jobs bill likely to hinge on job creation in the private sector]]></title><link>http://www.bloggingstocks.com/2009/11/30/democrats-jobs-bill-likely-to-hinge-on-job-creation-in-the-priv/</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.bloggingstocks.com/2009/11/30/democrats-jobs-bill-likely-to-hinge-on-job-creation-in-the-priv/</guid><comments>http://www.bloggingstocks.com/2009/11/30/democrats-jobs-bill-likely-to-hinge-on-job-creation-in-the-priv/#comments</comments><description><![CDATA[<p>Filed under: <a href="http://www.bloggingstocks.com/category/employees/" rel="tag">Employees</a>, <a href="http://www.bloggingstocks.com/category/politics/" rel="tag">Politics</a></p><p><img vspace="4" hspace="4" border="1" align="right" alt="" src="http://www.blogcdn.com/www.dailyfinance.com/media/2009/04/capitol-senate200.jpg" />What are the chances of a <a href="http://edition.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/11/17/hoyer.jobs.bill/">jobs bill</a> emanating from the U.S. Congress in the immediate future? As of now, put it at 60/40 in favor.</p>
<p>Two factors that will help determine the jobs bill's fate: 1) health care reform legislation and 2) net monthly job losses/creation.</p>
<p>Assuming a December passage of health care reform legislation (signing it on the one-year anniversary of President Obama's inauguration has a nice ring to it), and continued, monthly job losses through March (which is likely), that will give Congress the legislative time and also underscore the necessity of an infrastructure-based jobs bill.</p><p><a href="http://www.bloggingstocks.com/2009/11/30/democrats-jobs-bill-likely-to-hinge-on-job-creation-in-the-priv/" rel="bookmark">Continue reading <em>Democrats' jobs bill likely to hinge on job creation in the private sector</em></a></p><p style="padding:5px;background:#ddd;border:1px solid #ccc;clear:both;"><a href="http://www.bloggingstocks.com/2009/11/30/democrats-jobs-bill-likely-to-hinge-on-job-creation-in-the-priv/">Democrats' jobs bill likely to hinge on job creation in the private sector</a> originally appeared on <a href="http://www.bloggingstocks.com">BloggingStocks</a> on Mon, 30 Nov 2009 13:20:00 EST.  Please see our <a href="http://www.weblogsinc.com/feed-terms/">terms for use of feeds</a>.</p><h6 style="clear: both; padding: 8px 0 0 0; height: 2px; font-size: 1px; border: 0; margin: 0; padding: 0;"></h6><a href="http://www.bloggingstocks.com/2009/11/30/democrats-jobs-bill-likely-to-hinge-on-job-creation-in-the-priv/" rel="bookmark" title="Permanent link to this entry">Permalink</a>&nbsp;|&nbsp;<a href="http://www.bloggingstocks.com/forward/19257416/" title="Send this entry to a friend via email">Email this</a>&nbsp;|&nbsp;<a href="http://www.bloggingstocks.com/2009/11/30/democrats-jobs-bill-likely-to-hinge-on-job-creation-in-the-priv/#comments" title="View reader comments on this entry">Comments</a>]]></description><category>employment</category><category>health care reform</category><category>inthenews</category><category>job creation</category><category>job losses</category><category>jobs bill</category><dc:creator><![CDATA[Joseph Lazzaro]]></dc:creator><pubDate>Mon, 30 Nov 2009 13:20:00 EST</pubDate></item><item><title><![CDATA[Layoffs slowing down, but upturn isn't coming yet]]></title><link>http://www.bloggingstocks.com/2009/11/07/layoffs-slowing-down-but-upturn-isn-t-coming-yet/</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.bloggingstocks.com/2009/11/07/layoffs-slowing-down-but-upturn-isn-t-coming-yet/</guid><comments>http://www.bloggingstocks.com/2009/11/07/layoffs-slowing-down-but-upturn-isn-t-coming-yet/#comments</comments><description><![CDATA[<p>Filed under: <a href="http://www.bloggingstocks.com/category/employees/" rel="tag">Employees</a>, <a href="http://www.bloggingstocks.com/category/economic-data/" rel="tag">Economic Data</a>, <a href="http://www.bloggingstocks.com/category/recession/" rel="tag">Recession</a></p><p><img width="200" vspace="4" hspace="4" height="145" border="1" align="right" alt="" src="http://www.blogcdn.com/www.bloggingstocks.com/media/2007/10/layoffs.jpg" /></p>
<div> </div>
<p>Employers are planning to cut fewer jobs for the third month in a row, according to a new report that   <span style="float: left; margin-right: 10px; margin-top: 7px;"><script> digg_url = 'http://digg.com/business_finance/Layoffs_slowing_down_but_upturn_isn_t_coming_yet'; </script> <script src=" http://digg.com/api/diggthis.js"></script></span>  <a href="http://www.challengergray.com/" target="_blank">Challenger, Gray &amp; Christmas</a> has supplied to <em>BloggingStocks</em>. </p>
<p>The executive outplacement firm says that the number of planned reductions fell 16% in October to 55,679 positions -- from 66,404 in September. Last month's level was the lowest seen since March 2008, when 53,579 layoffs were planned. And, it's 51% lower than October 2008's 112,884 result. Planned staff reductions have fallen in eight of the past 10 months.</p><p><a href="http://www.bloggingstocks.com/2009/11/07/layoffs-slowing-down-but-upturn-isn-t-coming-yet/" rel="bookmark">Continue reading <em>Layoffs slowing down, but upturn isn't coming yet</em></a></p><p style="padding:5px;background:#ddd;border:1px solid #ccc;clear:both;"><a href="http://www.bloggingstocks.com/2009/11/07/layoffs-slowing-down-but-upturn-isn-t-coming-yet/">Layoffs slowing down, but upturn isn't coming yet</a> originally appeared on <a href="http://www.bloggingstocks.com">BloggingStocks</a> on Sat, 07 Nov 2009 14:10:00 EST.  Please see our <a href="http://www.weblogsinc.com/feed-terms/">terms for use of feeds</a>.</p><h6 style="clear: both; padding: 8px 0 0 0; height: 2px; font-size: 1px; border: 0; margin: 0; padding: 0;"></h6><a href="http://www.bloggingstocks.com/2009/11/07/layoffs-slowing-down-but-upturn-isn-t-coming-yet/" rel="bookmark" title="Permanent link to this entry">Permalink</a>&nbsp;|&nbsp;<a href="http://www.bloggingstocks.com/forward/19227245/" title="Send this entry to a friend via email">Email this</a>&nbsp;|&nbsp;<a href="http://www.bloggingstocks.com/2009/11/07/layoffs-slowing-down-but-upturn-isn-t-coming-yet/#comments" title="View reader comments on this entry">Comments</a>]]></description><category>auto industry</category><category>auto sector</category><category>challenger gray christmas</category><category>downsizing</category><category>job creation</category><category>job cuts</category><category>jobless recovery</category><category>layoffs</category><dc:creator><![CDATA[Tom Johansmeyer]]></dc:creator><pubDate>Sat, 07 Nov 2009 14:10:00 EST</pubDate></item><item><title><![CDATA[White House claims 650,000 jobs saved by stimulus: are these numbers really accurate?]]></title><link>http://www.bloggingstocks.com/2009/10/30/650-000-jobs-created-or-saved-by-stimulus-package-the-white-hou/</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.bloggingstocks.com/2009/10/30/650-000-jobs-created-or-saved-by-stimulus-package-the-white-hou/</guid><comments>http://www.bloggingstocks.com/2009/10/30/650-000-jobs-created-or-saved-by-stimulus-package-the-white-hou/#comments</comments><description><![CDATA[<p>Filed under: <a href="http://www.bloggingstocks.com/category/economic-data/" rel="tag">Economic Data</a>, <a href="http://www.bloggingstocks.com/category/recession/" rel="tag">Recession</a>, <a href="http://www.bloggingstocks.com/category/financial-crisis/" rel="tag">Financial Crisis</a></p><img vspace="4" hspace="4" border="1" align="right" alt="" src="http://www.blogcdn.com/www.bloggingstocks.com/media/2009/03/geithner_obama_220.jpg" />This morning, the White House reported that President Obama's stimulus package has <a href="http://money.cnn.com/2009/10/30/news/economy/Stimulus_jobs_created/index.htm?postversion=2009103007">created or saved 650,000 jobs</a> -- of course, this time the Obama Administration promises <a href="http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5jMNoef6xDenBbHWO0Im6rIjDmAgAD9BL1D800">that the new figures will be "more accurate" than in the past</a>. As for the jobs saved or created, the administration based its finds on roughly $150 billion in spending from the $787 billion stimulus package. These "more accurate" numbers are taken from state reports and private companies. The White House did note that the actual number of jobs created thus far is "likely closer to 1 million" because this report looked at only $150 billion of the $339 billion invested in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act funds spent.<p><a href="http://www.bloggingstocks.com/2009/10/30/650-000-jobs-created-or-saved-by-stimulus-package-the-white-hou/" rel="bookmark">Continue reading <em>White House claims 650,000 jobs saved by stimulus: are these numbers really accurate?</em></a></p><p style="padding:5px;background:#ddd;border:1px solid #ccc;clear:both;"><a href="http://www.bloggingstocks.com/2009/10/30/650-000-jobs-created-or-saved-by-stimulus-package-the-white-hou/">White House claims 650,000 jobs saved by stimulus: are these numbers really accurate?</a> originally appeared on <a href="http://www.bloggingstocks.com">BloggingStocks</a> on Fri, 30 Oct 2009 17:00:00 EST.  Please see our <a href="http://www.weblogsinc.com/feed-terms/">terms for use of feeds</a>.</p><h6 style="clear: both; padding: 8px 0 0 0; height: 2px; font-size: 1px; border: 0; margin: 0; padding: 0;"></h6><a href="http://www.bloggingstocks.com/2009/10/30/650-000-jobs-created-or-saved-by-stimulus-package-the-white-hou/" rel="bookmark" title="Permanent link to this entry">Permalink</a>&nbsp;|&nbsp;<a href="http://www.bloggingstocks.com/forward/19216350/" title="Send this entry to a friend via email">Email this</a>&nbsp;|&nbsp;<a href="http://www.bloggingstocks.com/2009/10/30/650-000-jobs-created-or-saved-by-stimulus-package-the-white-hou/#comments" title="View reader comments on this entry">Comments</a>]]></description><category>featured</category><category>GDP</category><category>gross domestic product</category><category>GrossDomesticProduct</category><category>job creation</category><category>JobCreation</category><category>jobs</category><category>new jobs</category><category>NewJobs</category><category>stimulus</category><category>stimulus package</category><category>StimulusPackage</category><dc:creator><![CDATA[Mark Fightmaster]]></dc:creator><pubDate>Fri, 30 Oct 2009 17:00:00 EST</pubDate></item><item><title><![CDATA[After health care, economy is next hurdle for congressional Democrats, Obama administration]]></title><link>http://www.bloggingstocks.com/2009/10/13/after-health-care-economy-is-next-hurdle-for-congressional-demo/</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.bloggingstocks.com/2009/10/13/after-health-care-economy-is-next-hurdle-for-congressional-demo/</guid><comments>http://www.bloggingstocks.com/2009/10/13/after-health-care-economy-is-next-hurdle-for-congressional-demo/#comments</comments><description><![CDATA[<p>Filed under: <a href="http://www.bloggingstocks.com/category/forecasts/" rel="tag">Forecasts</a>, <a href="http://www.bloggingstocks.com/category/employees/" rel="tag">Employees</a>, <a href="http://www.bloggingstocks.com/category/politics/" rel="tag">Politics</a>, <a href="http://www.bloggingstocks.com/category/recession/" rel="tag">Recession</a></p><p>Investors, like the former great New York Yankee Manager <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_Torre">Joe Torre</a>, now manager of the Los Angeles Dodgers, have to be both aware of the current game situation, and be a few innings ahead, working through the permutations of what might occur.</p>
<p>With the above in mind, from an investor-relevance standpoint, what's next on the public policy front, after health care reform?</p><p><a href="http://www.bloggingstocks.com/2009/10/13/after-health-care-economy-is-next-hurdle-for-congressional-demo/" rel="bookmark">Continue reading <em>After health care, economy is next hurdle for congressional Democrats, Obama administration</em></a></p><p style="padding:5px;background:#ddd;border:1px solid #ccc;clear:both;"><a href="http://www.bloggingstocks.com/2009/10/13/after-health-care-economy-is-next-hurdle-for-congressional-demo/">After health care, economy is next hurdle for congressional Democrats, Obama administration</a> originally appeared on <a href="http://www.bloggingstocks.com">BloggingStocks</a> on Tue, 13 Oct 2009 18:20:00 EST.  Please see our <a href="http://www.weblogsinc.com/feed-terms/">terms for use of feeds</a>.</p><h6 style="clear: both; padding: 8px 0 0 0; height: 2px; font-size: 1px; border: 0; margin: 0; padding: 0;"></h6><a href="http://www.bloggingstocks.com/2009/10/13/after-health-care-economy-is-next-hurdle-for-congressional-demo/" rel="bookmark" title="Permanent link to this entry">Permalink</a>&nbsp;|&nbsp;<a href="http://www.bloggingstocks.com/forward/19194711/" title="Send this entry to a friend via email">Email this</a>&nbsp;|&nbsp;<a href="http://www.bloggingstocks.com/2009/10/13/after-health-care-economy-is-next-hurdle-for-congressional-demo/#comments" title="View reader comments on this entry">Comments</a>]]></description><category>cap and trade bill</category><category>Congress</category><category>job creation</category><category>jobs</category><category>Obama</category><category>unemployment</category><dc:creator><![CDATA[Joseph Lazzaro]]></dc:creator><pubDate>Tue, 13 Oct 2009 18:20:00 EST</pubDate></item><item><title><![CDATA[President Obama says that financial crisis is not over]]></title><link>http://www.bloggingstocks.com/2009/09/08/president-obama-says-that-financial-crisis-is-not-over/</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.bloggingstocks.com/2009/09/08/president-obama-says-that-financial-crisis-is-not-over/</guid><comments>http://www.bloggingstocks.com/2009/09/08/president-obama-says-that-financial-crisis-is-not-over/#comments</comments><description><![CDATA[<p>Filed under: <a href="http://www.bloggingstocks.com/category/recession/" rel="tag">Recession</a>, <a href="http://www.bloggingstocks.com/category/financial-crisis/" rel="tag">Financial Crisis</a></p><img vspace="4" hspace="4" border="1" align="right" src="http://www.blogcdn.com/www.bloggingstocks.com/media/2008/01/obamapict..jpg" alt="" />President Obama was in Cincinnati yesterday, where he spoke to a group of union members at a picnic. While he was on his way here, the White House released a statement noting that "working Americans will help our nation emerge from this crisis." Nevertheless, the President believes that the country still faces a <a href="http://money.aol.com/article/obama-says-economic-crisis-isnt-over/657940">"vast and complex" economic crisis</a>. Here is the problem, with a dwindling American workforce, President Obama says that it will be the working Americans that pull the nation out of the economic crisis. Last time we checked (and that was last week), the jobless rate was 9.7%.<p><a href="http://www.bloggingstocks.com/2009/09/08/president-obama-says-that-financial-crisis-is-not-over/" rel="bookmark">Continue reading <em>President Obama says that financial crisis is not over</em></a></p><p style="padding:5px;background:#ddd;border:1px solid #ccc;clear:both;"><a href="http://www.bloggingstocks.com/2009/09/08/president-obama-says-that-financial-crisis-is-not-over/">President Obama says that financial crisis is not over</a> originally appeared on <a href="http://www.bloggingstocks.com">BloggingStocks</a> on Tue, 08 Sep 2009 16:30:00 EST.  Please see our <a href="http://www.weblogsinc.com/feed-terms/">terms for use of feeds</a>.</p><h6 style="clear: both; padding: 8px 0 0 0; height: 2px; font-size: 1px; border: 0; margin: 0; padding: 0;"></h6><a href="http://www.bloggingstocks.com/2009/09/08/president-obama-says-that-financial-crisis-is-not-over/" rel="bookmark" title="Permanent link to this entry">Permalink</a>&nbsp;|&nbsp;<a href="http://www.bloggingstocks.com/forward/19153906/" title="Send this entry to a friend via email">Email this</a>&nbsp;|&nbsp;<a href="http://www.bloggingstocks.com/2009/09/08/president-obama-says-that-financial-crisis-is-not-over/#comments" title="View reader comments on this entry">Comments</a>]]></description><category>education</category><category>featured</category><category>job creation</category><category>JobCreation</category><category>jobless</category><category>jobs</category><category>new jobs</category><category>NewJobs</category><category>President Obama</category><category>PresidentObama</category><category>unemployment</category><category>unemployment rate</category><category>UnemploymentRate</category><dc:creator><![CDATA[Mark Fightmaster]]></dc:creator><pubDate>Tue, 08 Sep 2009 16:30:00 EST</pubDate></item><item><title><![CDATA[An economic wish-list for the United States for the second half of 2009]]></title><link>http://www.bloggingstocks.com/2009/06/26/an-economic-wish-list-for-the-united-states-in-h2-2009/</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.bloggingstocks.com/2009/06/26/an-economic-wish-list-for-the-united-states-in-h2-2009/</guid><comments>http://www.bloggingstocks.com/2009/06/26/an-economic-wish-list-for-the-united-states-in-h2-2009/#comments</comments><description><![CDATA[<p>Filed under: <a href="http://www.bloggingstocks.com/category/forecasts/" rel="tag">Forecasts</a>, <a href="http://www.bloggingstocks.com/category/employees/" rel="tag">Employees</a>, <a href="http://www.bloggingstocks.com/category/economic-data/" rel="tag">Economic Data</a>, <a href="http://www.bloggingstocks.com/category/politics/" rel="tag">Politics</a>, <a href="http://www.bloggingstocks.com/category/oil/" rel="tag">Oil</a></p><img vspace="4" hspace="4" border="1" align="right" src="http://www.blogcdn.com/www.bloggingstocks.com/media/2008/01/bankers.jpg" alt="" />The first half of 2009 has whizzed by in what seems like a macroeconomic eye-blink. Wasn't <a href="http://www.whitehouse.gov/">President Obama</a> inaugurated just a few weeks ago? It's a clich&eacute; but it's true: time flies. <br /><br />The nation has made strides to recover from its <a href="http://www.bloggingstocks.com/2009/01/15/the-bush-economic-legacy-the-u-s-s-decade-of-descent/">near-decade of policy errors,</a> but much work remains. Accordingly, then, here are three economic wishes for the United States for the second half of the year: <br /><p><a href="http://www.bloggingstocks.com/2009/06/26/an-economic-wish-list-for-the-united-states-in-h2-2009/" rel="bookmark">Continue reading <em>An economic wish-list for the United States for the second half of 2009</em></a></p><p style="padding:5px;background:#ddd;border:1px solid #ccc;clear:both;"><a href="http://www.bloggingstocks.com/2009/06/26/an-economic-wish-list-for-the-united-states-in-h2-2009/">An economic wish-list for the United States for the second half of 2009</a> originally appeared on <a href="http://www.bloggingstocks.com">BloggingStocks</a> on Fri, 26 Jun 2009 18:00:00 EST.  Please see our <a href="http://www.weblogsinc.com/feed-terms/">terms for use of feeds</a>.</p><h6 style="clear: both; padding: 8px 0 0 0; height: 2px; font-size: 1px; border: 0; margin: 0; padding: 0;"></h6><a href="http://www.bloggingstocks.com/2009/06/26/an-economic-wish-list-for-the-united-states-in-h2-2009/" rel="bookmark" title="Permanent link to this entry">Permalink</a>&nbsp;|&nbsp;<a href="http://www.bloggingstocks.com/forward/19079867/" title="Send this entry to a friend via email">Email this</a>&nbsp;|&nbsp;<a href="http://www.bloggingstocks.com/2009/06/26/an-economic-wish-list-for-the-united-states-in-h2-2009/#comments" title="View reader comments on this entry">Comments</a>]]></description><category>energy policy</category><category>EnergyPolicy</category><category>gdp</category><category>health care reform</category><category>HealthCareReform</category><category>job creation</category><category>JobCreation</category><category>oil</category><category>tailwinds</category><dc:creator><![CDATA[Joseph Lazzaro]]></dc:creator><pubDate>Fri, 26 Jun 2009 18:00:00 EST</pubDate></item><item><title><![CDATA[Wal-Mart promises plenty of new jobs]]></title><link>http://www.bloggingstocks.com/2009/06/04/wal-mart-promises-plenty-of-new-jobs/</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.bloggingstocks.com/2009/06/04/wal-mart-promises-plenty-of-new-jobs/</guid><comments>http://www.bloggingstocks.com/2009/06/04/wal-mart-promises-plenty-of-new-jobs/#comments</comments><description><![CDATA[<p>Filed under: <a href="http://www.bloggingstocks.com/category/wmt/" rel="tag">Wal-Mart (WMT)</a>, <a href="http://www.bloggingstocks.com/category/recession/" rel="tag">Recession</a></p><img hspace="4" src="http://www.blogcdn.com/www.bloggingstocks.com/media/2008/03/walmart_forless_240.jpg" align="right" vspace="4" border="1" alt="" />Mega-retailer <a href="http://finance.aol.com/quotes/wal-mart-stores-inc/wmt/nys">Wal-Mart Stores</a> (NYSE: <a href="http://finance.aol.com/quotes/wal-mart-stores-inc/wmt/nys">WMT</a>) announced today that it <a href="http://www.smartmoney.com/breaking-news/on/?story=ON-20090604-000005-0015">will add more than 22,000 jobs this year</a>. The firm will add these jobs by adding positions to its current stores, building, or expanding. The 22,000 jobs will be in store management, pharmacies, human resources, customer service, cashiers, and sales staff. <br /><br />WMT says that its customer base is expanding thanks to the economic downturn, as shoppers are looking for lower prices during tough economic times. That said, the company has jettisoned 1,800 employees since the year began -- with 700 to 800 positions cut at its corporate headquarters, 400 when it closed a regional return center in Georgia, and 650 cut when WMT closed an eyewear facility in Ohio.<p><a href="http://www.bloggingstocks.com/2009/06/04/wal-mart-promises-plenty-of-new-jobs/" rel="bookmark">Continue reading <em>Wal-Mart promises plenty of new jobs</em></a></p><p style="padding:5px;background:#ddd;border:1px solid #ccc;clear:both;"><a href="http://www.bloggingstocks.com/2009/06/04/wal-mart-promises-plenty-of-new-jobs/">Wal-Mart promises plenty of new jobs</a> originally appeared on <a href="http://www.bloggingstocks.com">BloggingStocks</a> on Thu, 04 Jun 2009 11:20:00 EST.  Please see our <a href="http://www.weblogsinc.com/feed-terms/">terms for use of feeds</a>.</p><h6 style="clear: both; padding: 8px 0 0 0; height: 2px; font-size: 1px; border: 0; margin: 0; padding: 0;"></h6><a href="http://www.bloggingstocks.com/2009/06/04/wal-mart-promises-plenty-of-new-jobs/" rel="bookmark" title="Permanent link to this entry">Permalink</a>&nbsp;|&nbsp;<a href="http://www.bloggingstocks.com/forward/19057492/" title="Send this entry to a friend via email">Email this</a>&nbsp;|&nbsp;<a href="http://www.bloggingstocks.com/2009/06/04/wal-mart-promises-plenty-of-new-jobs/#comments" title="View reader comments on this entry">Comments</a>]]></description><category>job creation</category><category>JobCreation</category><category>jobs</category><category>new jobs</category><category>NewJobs</category><category>retail</category><category>retail sales</category><category>RetailSales</category><dc:creator><![CDATA[Mark Fightmaster]]></dc:creator><pubDate>Thu, 04 Jun 2009 11:20:00 EST</pubDate></item><item><title><![CDATA[The myth of job creation]]></title><link>http://www.bloggingstocks.com/2008/12/28/the-myth-of-job-creation/</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.bloggingstocks.com/2008/12/28/the-myth-of-job-creation/</guid><comments>http://www.bloggingstocks.com/2008/12/28/the-myth-of-job-creation/#comments</comments><description><![CDATA[<p>Filed under: <a href="http://www.bloggingstocks.com/category/employees/" rel="tag">Employees</a>, <a href="http://www.bloggingstocks.com/category/politics/" rel="tag">Politics</a></p><p><img  alt="" hspace="4" src="http://www.blogcdn.com/www.bloggingstocks.com/media/2008/12/interchange_reconstruction.jpg" align="right" vspace="4" border="1" />President-elect Barack Obama campaigned -- and has continued to generate positive press -- on his commitment to job creation.</p>
<p>I've been scratching my head at this for awhile and wondering: Why is job creation a worthy goal? Shouldn't the goal be economic growth, and job creation is a happy byproduct of that?</p>
<p>Writing in <em>Reason</em>, Jacob Sullum, dissects exactly why <a href="http://www.reason.com/news/printer/130303.html">Obama's rhetoric on job creation</a> is nonsensical, illogical, and flies in the face of economics:</p>
<blockquote>Obama also wants to spend $60 billion to "provide financing to transportation infrastructure projects across the nation." He says "these projects will create up to two million new direct and indirect jobs and stimulate approximately $35 billion per year in new economic activity. Fixing a bridge, widening a highway or building a light rail system may or may not make economic sense. But the fact that it involves paying people to operate jackhammers and pour concrete does not make it any more worthwhile. If creating jobs can justify transportation projects, why not fill the country with bridges to nowhere.</blockquote>
<p>My optimistic hope is that Obama realizes that job creation is not a worthy goal and mentions only because he's politically savvy enough to know that it will generate consensus around his ambitious proposals. But if his billions of dollars in infrastructure projects are motivated by a desire to create jobs, we are in a lot of trouble.</p><p style="padding:5px;background:#ddd;border:1px solid #ccc;clear:both;"><a href="http://www.bloggingstocks.com/2008/12/28/the-myth-of-job-creation/">The myth of job creation</a> originally appeared on <a href="http://www.bloggingstocks.com">BloggingStocks</a> on Sun, 28 Dec 2008 09:10:00 EST.  Please see our <a href="http://www.weblogsinc.com/feed-terms/">terms for use of feeds</a>.</p><h6 style="clear: both; padding: 8px 0 0 0; height: 2px; font-size: 1px; border: 0; margin: 0; padding: 0;"></h6><a href=http://www.reason.com/news/printer/130303.html>Read</a>&nbsp;|&nbsp;<a href="http://www.bloggingstocks.com/2008/12/28/the-myth-of-job-creation/" rel="bookmark" title="Permanent link to this entry">Permalink</a>&nbsp;|&nbsp;<a href="http://www.bloggingstocks.com/forward/1411535/" title="Send this entry to a friend via email">Email this</a>&nbsp;|&nbsp;<a href="http://www.bloggingstocks.com/2008/12/28/the-myth-of-job-creation/#comments" title="View reader comments on this entry">Comments</a>]]></description><category>Barack Obama</category><category>Economics</category><category>Infrastructure</category><category>Jacob Sullum</category><category>Job Creation</category><category>Jobs</category><category>Obama</category><category>Reason</category><dc:creator><![CDATA[Zac Bissonnette]]></dc:creator><pubDate>Sun, 28 Dec 2008 09:10:00 EST</pubDate></item><item><title><![CDATA[Obama ups U.S. economic recovery plan goal to 3 million jobs]]></title><link>http://www.bloggingstocks.com/2008/12/22/obama-ups-u-s-economic-recovery-plan-goal-to-3-million-jobs/</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.bloggingstocks.com/2008/12/22/obama-ups-u-s-economic-recovery-plan-goal-to-3-million-jobs/</guid><comments>http://www.bloggingstocks.com/2008/12/22/obama-ups-u-s-economic-recovery-plan-goal-to-3-million-jobs/#comments</comments><description><![CDATA[<p>Filed under: <a href="http://www.bloggingstocks.com/category/forecasts/" rel="tag">Forecasts</a>, <a href="http://www.bloggingstocks.com/category/employees/" rel="tag">Employees</a>, <a href="http://www.bloggingstocks.com/category/politics/" rel="tag">Politics</a>, <a href="http://www.bloggingstocks.com/category/recession/" rel="tag">Recession</a></p><img hspace="4" align="right" vspace="4" alt="" src="http://www.blogcdn.com/www.bloggingstocks.com/media/2008/05/unemploymentpicture.jpg" />This is one increase the American people would no doubt welcome with open arms. <br /><br />President-elect Barack Obama, faced with a deepening U.S. recession, is expanding his fiscal stimulus package to achieve the <a href="http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&amp;sid=aErykotArO64">goal of creating or saving 3 million jobs</a> over two years.<br /><br /><strong>Job growth is priority No. 1</strong><br /><br />Obama has made job growth his first priority, with the new target revised up from the previous 2.5 million-job target, said Christina Romer, Chairman-designate for Obama's Council of Economic Advisors. <br /><br />Economist Richard Felson told BloggingStocks it's a good thing the Obama Administration is aiming higher.<br /><br />"The 3 million job creation total over two years is warranted. In fact, it's modest when one considers that the U.S. economy has already lost 2 million jobs since the recession started," Felson said. "Job growth is at the core of reversing negative trends in corporate revenue, earnings, and of course home mortgage foreclosures."<p><a href="http://www.bloggingstocks.com/2008/12/22/obama-ups-u-s-economic-recovery-plan-goal-to-3-million-jobs/" rel="bookmark">Continue reading <em>Obama ups U.S. economic recovery plan goal to 3 million jobs</em></a></p><p style="padding:5px;background:#ddd;border:1px solid #ccc;clear:both;"><a href="http://www.bloggingstocks.com/2008/12/22/obama-ups-u-s-economic-recovery-plan-goal-to-3-million-jobs/">Obama ups U.S. economic recovery plan goal to 3 million jobs</a> originally appeared on <a href="http://www.bloggingstocks.com">BloggingStocks</a> on Mon, 22 Dec 2008 09:29:00 EST.  Please see our <a href="http://www.weblogsinc.com/feed-terms/">terms for use of feeds</a>.</p><h6 style="clear: both; padding: 8px 0 0 0; height: 2px; font-size: 1px; border: 0; margin: 0; padding: 0;"></h6><a href=http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&amp;sid=aErykotArO64>Read</a>&nbsp;|&nbsp;<a href="http://www.bloggingstocks.com/2008/12/22/obama-ups-u-s-economic-recovery-plan-goal-to-3-million-jobs/" rel="bookmark" title="Permanent link to this entry">Permalink</a>&nbsp;|&nbsp;<a href="http://www.bloggingstocks.com/forward/1408571/" title="Send this entry to a friend via email">Email this</a>&nbsp;|&nbsp;<a href="http://www.bloggingstocks.com/2008/12/22/obama-ups-u-s-economic-recovery-plan-goal-to-3-million-jobs/#comments" title="View reader comments on this entry">Comments</a>]]></description><category>fiscal stimulus</category><category>gdp</category><category>inthenews</category><category>job creation</category><category>jobs</category><category>Obama</category><category>U.S. economy</category><category>unemployment</category><dc:creator><![CDATA[Joseph Lazzaro]]></dc:creator><pubDate>Mon, 22 Dec 2008 09:29:00 EST</pubDate></item><item><title><![CDATA[Outcome for the U.S. economy depends mostly on fiscal stimulus]]></title><link>http://www.bloggingstocks.com/2008/12/02/outcome-for-the-u-s-economy-depends-mostly-on-fiscal-stimulus/</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.bloggingstocks.com/2008/12/02/outcome-for-the-u-s-economy-depends-mostly-on-fiscal-stimulus/</guid><comments>http://www.bloggingstocks.com/2008/12/02/outcome-for-the-u-s-economy-depends-mostly-on-fiscal-stimulus/#comments</comments><description><![CDATA[<p>Filed under: <a href="http://www.bloggingstocks.com/category/forecasts/" rel="tag">Forecasts</a>, <a href="http://www.bloggingstocks.com/category/recession/" rel="tag">Recession</a>, <a href="http://www.bloggingstocks.com/category/financial-crisis/" rel="tag">Financial Crisis</a></p><img hspace="4" align="right" vspace="4" alt="" src="http://www.blogcdn.com/www.bloggingstocks.com/media/2008/03/nysepic.jpg" />A good rule for a forward-thinking executive to observe is never go anywhere -- at least don't walk into any meeting -- without the latest projections or models for the U.S. economy for the year ahead. <br /><br />How's the U.S. economy likely to perform in the year ahead? Well, here are the summaries of economist David H. Wang's models based on predetermined values for 20 proprietary variables.<br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">Realignment:</span> This forecast assumes a modest $200-400 billion fiscal stimulus, a $70-80 a barrel oil price, record / near-record home mortgage foreclosures, along with efforts to realign U.S. energy policy, and reductions in health care spending accompanying national health care legislation. In this model unemployment rises to 9.5% and the recovery does not begin until Q4 2010. (That's correct: Q4 <span style="font-style: italic;">2010</span>.)<br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">Elongated:</span> This model assumes a modest $200-400 billion fiscal stimulus and a $60 a barrel average oil price, with another year of record / near-record home mortgage foreclosures. Unemployment rises to 9.0%, and the economic recovery does not begin until late Q2 / early Q3 2010. <br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">Steady-state:</span> This model assumes about $500 billion in fiscal stimulus and a $60 a barrel average oil price, among other factors, that limits the recession's depth slightly. Unemployment still rises to 8.0% from the current 6.5%, but the economic recovery begins in early 2010.<p><a href="http://www.bloggingstocks.com/2008/12/02/outcome-for-the-u-s-economy-depends-mostly-on-fiscal-stimulus/" rel="bookmark">Continue reading <em>Outcome for the U.S. economy depends mostly on fiscal stimulus</em></a></p><p style="padding:5px;background:#ddd;border:1px solid #ccc;clear:both;"><a href="http://www.bloggingstocks.com/2008/12/02/outcome-for-the-u-s-economy-depends-mostly-on-fiscal-stimulus/">Outcome for the U.S. economy depends mostly on fiscal stimulus</a> originally appeared on <a href="http://www.bloggingstocks.com">BloggingStocks</a> on Tue, 02 Dec 2008 11:41:00 EST.  Please see our <a href="http://www.weblogsinc.com/feed-terms/">terms for use of feeds</a>.</p><h6 style="clear: both; padding: 8px 0 0 0; height: 2px; font-size: 1px; border: 0; margin: 0; padding: 0;"></h6><a href="http://www.bloggingstocks.com/2008/12/02/outcome-for-the-u-s-economy-depends-mostly-on-fiscal-stimulus/" rel="bookmark" title="Permanent link to this entry">Permalink</a>&nbsp;|&nbsp;<a href="http://www.bloggingstocks.com/forward/1388479/" title="Send this entry to a friend via email">Email this</a>&nbsp;|&nbsp;<a href="http://www.bloggingstocks.com/2008/12/02/outcome-for-the-u-s-economy-depends-mostly-on-fiscal-stimulus/#comments" title="View reader comments on this entry">Comments</a>]]></description><category>foreclosures</category><category>gdp</category><category>health care</category><category>inthenews</category><category>job creation</category><category>jobs</category><category>median home prices</category><category>mortgages</category><category>oil prices</category><category>U.S. economy</category><category>unemployment</category><dc:creator><![CDATA[Joseph Lazzaro]]></dc:creator><pubDate>Tue, 02 Dec 2008 11:41:00 EST</pubDate></item><item><title><![CDATA[Aren't stocks cheap now? Yes, but... ]]></title><link>http://www.bloggingstocks.com/2008/11/13/arent-stocks-cheap-now-yes-but/</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.bloggingstocks.com/2008/11/13/arent-stocks-cheap-now-yes-but/</guid><comments>http://www.bloggingstocks.com/2008/11/13/arent-stocks-cheap-now-yes-but/#comments</comments><description><![CDATA[<p>Filed under: <a href="http://www.bloggingstocks.com/category/press-releases/" rel="tag">Press Releases</a>, <a href="http://www.bloggingstocks.com/category/indices/" rel="tag">Indices</a>, <a href="http://www.bloggingstocks.com/category/djia/" rel="tag">DJIA</a></p>One hears the mantra almost daily, often from friends and relatives:<br /><br /><em>Aren't stocks cheap? Look at those low P/Es! GE is at $15 a share, Intel below $14, Du Pont at about $27. My goodness, the Dow is down to 8,200. Isn't now a good time to buy stocks?</em><br /><br />It is, if you believe <a href="http://stockcharts.com/charts/gallery.html?$INDU">the Dow</a> is forming a bottom and/or that the worst of the financial crisis is behind us, and the U.S. economy is set to recover. <br /><br />However, the alternate viewpoint argues that <a href="http://stockcharts.com/charts/gallery.html?$INDU">the Dow</a> has not bottomed, could very well fall another 1,000 points, with panic selling (known as <a href="http://www.investorwords.com/6438/capitulation.html">'capitulation'</a> in Wall Street circles) taking the Dow to levels well below that, at least for a short period of time, possibly longer. <br /><br />Hence, purchasing shares for the first time now (or adding to existing positions) given the latter scenario would create an immediate 10% loss, or possibly more.<br /><br /><strong>Monitor corporate earnings and job growth</strong><br /><br />What's a better tack to take concerning when to buy more shares? Monitor U.S. corporate earnings and job growth.<p><a href="http://www.bloggingstocks.com/2008/11/13/arent-stocks-cheap-now-yes-but/" rel="bookmark">Continue reading <em>Aren't stocks cheap now? Yes, but... </em></a></p><p style="padding:5px;background:#ddd;border:1px solid #ccc;clear:both;"><a href="http://www.bloggingstocks.com/2008/11/13/arent-stocks-cheap-now-yes-but/">Aren't stocks cheap now? Yes, but... </a> originally appeared on <a href="http://www.bloggingstocks.com">BloggingStocks</a> on Thu, 13 Nov 2008 13:46:00 EST.  Please see our <a href="http://www.weblogsinc.com/feed-terms/">terms for use of feeds</a>.</p><h6 style="clear: both; padding: 8px 0 0 0; height: 2px; font-size: 1px; border: 0; margin: 0; padding: 0;"></h6><a href="http://www.bloggingstocks.com/2008/11/13/arent-stocks-cheap-now-yes-but/" rel="bookmark" title="Permanent link to this entry">Permalink</a>&nbsp;|&nbsp;<a href="http://www.bloggingstocks.com/forward/1371203/" title="Send this entry to a friend via email">Email this</a>&nbsp;|&nbsp;<a href="http://www.bloggingstocks.com/2008/11/13/arent-stocks-cheap-now-yes-but/#comments" title="View reader comments on this entry">Comments</a>]]></description><category>bear market</category><category>bull market</category><category>capitulation</category><category>corporate earnings</category><category>DJIA</category><category>Dow</category><category>earnings</category><category>earnings estimate</category><category>earnings guidance</category><category>inthenews</category><category>job creation</category><category>jobs</category><category>pe</category><category>price per earnings</category><category>U.S. Labor Department</category><dc:creator><![CDATA[Joseph Lazzaro]]></dc:creator><pubDate>Thu, 13 Nov 2008 13:46:00 EST</pubDate></item><item><title><![CDATA[It was a global economy of imbalances]]></title><link>http://www.bloggingstocks.com/2008/11/11/it-was-a-global-economy-of-imbalances/</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.bloggingstocks.com/2008/11/11/it-was-a-global-economy-of-imbalances/</guid><comments>http://www.bloggingstocks.com/2008/11/11/it-was-a-global-economy-of-imbalances/#comments</comments><description><![CDATA[<p>Filed under: <a href="http://www.bloggingstocks.com/category/forecasts/" rel="tag">Forecasts</a>, <a href="http://www.bloggingstocks.com/category/recession/" rel="tag">Recession</a>, <a href="http://www.bloggingstocks.com/category/financial-crisis/" rel="tag">Financial Crisis</a></p>Time provides the advantage of not only additional events, but also the ability to the compare these events to conditions and issues in previous eras -- an argument against 'instant-analysis' and a major reason my Ph.D. advisor said, "<span style="FONT-STYLE: italic">Don't study any public official's decisions until he or she has been dead for 20 years."</span><br /><br />Hence, time is naturally providing more evidence and perspective on the recently-ended period of global economic growth, and increasingly the evidence is showing that it was a global economy of unsustainable imbalances -- balances that policy makers mistakenly ignored. <br /><strong><br />2001-2007: a policy void</strong><br /><br />First and probably foremost there was the <a href="http://stockcharts.com/charts/gallery.html?$WTIC">oil price imbalance.</a> Whether they were driven up by speculators, by institutional investors seeking a return on equity, global energy demand, and/or by other factors, economists had warned for years that the U.S. and global economies could not continue to grow at adequate rates with oil above $80 per barrel. In fact, every previous oil shock in the modern era was followed by a recession in the United States. Still, little was done from a policy standpoint to stem oil's price rise. <br /><br />Similarly, the U.S.'s then-increasing trade deficit, a good part of which had been fed by purchases of imported oil, and the notion that U.S. consumers could serve perpetually as the growth engine of the export-oriented developing world, was unsustainable, given stagnant U.S. incomes, and its nadir savings rate. Yet little was done to address this imbalance.<p><a href="http://www.bloggingstocks.com/2008/11/11/it-was-a-global-economy-of-imbalances/" rel="bookmark">Continue reading <em>It was a global economy of imbalances</em></a></p><p style="padding:5px;background:#ddd;border:1px solid #ccc;clear:both;"><a href="http://www.bloggingstocks.com/2008/11/11/it-was-a-global-economy-of-imbalances/">It was a global economy of imbalances</a> originally appeared on <a href="http://www.bloggingstocks.com">BloggingStocks</a> on Tue, 11 Nov 2008 17:15:00 EST.  Please see our <a href="http://www.weblogsinc.com/feed-terms/">terms for use of feeds</a>.</p><h6 style="clear: both; padding: 8px 0 0 0; height: 2px; font-size: 1px; border: 0; margin: 0; padding: 0;"></h6><a href="http://www.bloggingstocks.com/2008/11/11/it-was-a-global-economy-of-imbalances/" rel="bookmark" title="Permanent link to this entry">Permalink</a>&nbsp;|&nbsp;<a href="http://www.bloggingstocks.com/forward/1368971/" title="Send this entry to a friend via email">Email this</a>&nbsp;|&nbsp;<a href="http://www.bloggingstocks.com/2008/11/11/it-was-a-global-economy-of-imbalances/#comments" title="View reader comments on this entry">Comments</a>]]></description><category>Brazil</category><category>China</category><category>consumer spending</category><category>emerging markets</category><category>EU</category><category>Europe</category><category>gdp</category><category>India</category><category>Japan</category><category>job creation</category><category>jobs</category><category>median incomes</category><category>oil prices</category><category>Russia</category><category>trade deficit</category><category>U.S. economy</category><dc:creator><![CDATA[Joseph Lazzaro]]></dc:creator><pubDate>Tue, 11 Nov 2008 17:15:00 EST</pubDate></item><item><title><![CDATA[Non-farm U.S. private payrolls fall 157,000 in October, more trouble ahead]]></title><link>http://www.bloggingstocks.com/2008/11/05/non-farm-u-s-private-payrolls-fall-157-000-in-october-adp-says/</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.bloggingstocks.com/2008/11/05/non-farm-u-s-private-payrolls-fall-157-000-in-october-adp-says/</guid><comments>http://www.bloggingstocks.com/2008/11/05/non-farm-u-s-private-payrolls-fall-157-000-in-october-adp-says/#comments</comments><description><![CDATA[<p>Filed under: <a href="http://www.bloggingstocks.com/category/bad-news/" rel="tag">Bad News</a>, <a href="http://www.bloggingstocks.com/category/employees/" rel="tag">Employees</a>, <a href="http://www.bloggingstocks.com/category/economic-data/" rel="tag">Economic Data</a>, <a href="http://www.bloggingstocks.com/category/recession/" rel="tag">Recession</a></p><p><img vspace="4" hspace="4" border="0" align="right" alt="" src="http://www.blogcdn.com/www.bloggingstocks.com/media/2008/05/unemploymentpicture.jpg" />Non-farm private employment decreased a whopping 157,000 in October on a seasonally-adjusted basis, ADP announced Wednesday in the <a href="http://www.adpemploymentreport.com/pdf/FINAL_Report_October_08.pdf">ADP National Employment Report</a> (pdf).<br /><br />Meanwhile, the September estimated change in employment was revised to a decrease of 26,000 from the previously announced decrease of 8,000 jobs, ADP said.<br /><br />Manufacturing employment fell 85,000 in October -- its 26th consecutive monthly decline. Meanwhile, the service sector of the economy lost 31,000 jobs, the first monthly job loss in the service sector since November 2002.<br /><br />Economist Richard Felson said the October ADP private sector report offered little good news for the U.S economy. </p>
<p>"It is a large monthly job loss, and even more distressing was the job loss total in the service sector," Dawson said. "Up until now the service sector was creating jobs, helping to prop up the economy. The fact that services lost jobs in a month for the first time in six years is a bad sign for the economy because it removes one of the few remaining bright spots in the job market. Job market conditions have worsened and we're likely to continue to see 100,000-plus job loss months for awhile, I'm afraid."</p><p><a href="http://www.bloggingstocks.com/2008/11/05/non-farm-u-s-private-payrolls-fall-157-000-in-october-adp-says/" rel="bookmark">Continue reading <em>Non-farm U.S. private payrolls fall 157,000 in October, more trouble ahead</em></a></p><p style="padding:5px;background:#ddd;border:1px solid #ccc;clear:both;"><a href="http://www.bloggingstocks.com/2008/11/05/non-farm-u-s-private-payrolls-fall-157-000-in-october-adp-says/">Non-farm U.S. private payrolls fall 157,000 in October, more trouble ahead</a> originally appeared on <a href="http://www.bloggingstocks.com">BloggingStocks</a> on Wed, 05 Nov 2008 11:30:00 EST.  Please see our <a href="http://www.weblogsinc.com/feed-terms/">terms for use of feeds</a>.</p><h6 style="clear: both; padding: 8px 0 0 0; height: 2px; font-size: 1px; border: 0; margin: 0; padding: 0;"></h6><a href="http://www.bloggingstocks.com/2008/11/05/non-farm-u-s-private-payrolls-fall-157-000-in-october-adp-says/" rel="bookmark" title="Permanent link to this entry">Permalink</a>&nbsp;|&nbsp;<a href="http://www.bloggingstocks.com/forward/1362830/" title="Send this entry to a friend via email">Email this</a>&nbsp;|&nbsp;<a href="http://www.bloggingstocks.com/2008/11/05/non-farm-u-s-private-payrolls-fall-157-000-in-october-adp-says/#comments" title="View reader comments on this entry">Comments</a>]]></description><category>110508</category><category>ADP</category><category>featured</category><category>job creation</category><category>jobs</category><category>manufacturing</category><category>service sector</category><category>U.S. economy</category><dc:creator><![CDATA[Joseph Lazzaro]]></dc:creator><pubDate>Wed, 05 Nov 2008 11:30:00 EST</pubDate></item><item><title><![CDATA[Should Congress invest $50 billion in T. Boone Pickens' Plan to expand wind power? ]]></title><link>http://www.bloggingstocks.com/2008/10/30/should-congress-invest-50-billion-in-t-boone-pickens-plan-to/</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.bloggingstocks.com/2008/10/30/should-congress-invest-50-billion-in-t-boone-pickens-plan-to/</guid><comments>http://www.bloggingstocks.com/2008/10/30/should-congress-invest-50-billion-in-t-boone-pickens-plan-to/#comments</comments><description><![CDATA[<p>Filed under: <a href="http://www.bloggingstocks.com/category/other-issues/" rel="tag">Other Issues</a>, <a href="http://www.bloggingstocks.com/category/industry/" rel="tag">Industry</a>, <a href="http://www.bloggingstocks.com/category/aig/" rel="tag">Amer Intl Group (AIG)</a>, <a href="http://www.bloggingstocks.com/category/politics/" rel="tag">Politics</a></p><div id="imageResults" style="display: block;"><img hspace="4" vspace="4" border="1" align="right" alt="" src="http://www.blogcdn.com/www.bloggingstocks.com/media/2008/02/boonepickens.jpg" /></div>
If you're an economist, like David H. Wang, you wake up some days muttering, <span style="font-style: italic;">"What has happened to the industrial base in the U.S. economy?</span>"<br style="font-style: italic;" /><br />The auto companies are practically on life support, and other sectors are paring-back operations, even as international competition mounts. Hundreds of thousands of jobs have been lost. How did this happen? Eight more years of industrial base decline without a viable plan to counteract it? And now, as a result of the financial crisis and de-leveraging, the prospect of a period of less-available credit threatens to delay economic recovery. <br /><br />Well one remedy for the above, Wang argues, is to invest in the industrial sector via investing in the United States' infrastructure. And what's one project worthy of consideration? Investor T. Boone Pickens' plan to substantially increase domestic wind power via his <a href="http://www.pickensplan.com/act/">Pickens Plan,</a> Wang argued.<br /><br />Pickens' investment fund has fallen on tough times, as of late. His BP Capital investment fund has shrunk by 60%, due to energy sector losses, and will drop to about $500 million after redemptions, by week's end, <a href="http://www.cnbc.com/id/27452883">Pickens told CNBC Thursday</a>. Pickens, who sees oil sector consolidation, expects the price of oil to recover to $100 per barrel in 2009. <a href="http://www.nymex.com">Oil</a> Thursday closed down $1.81 to $65.69 per barrel.<br /><br /><strong>Pickens Plan: a better investment than AIG?</strong><br /><br />Wang is less certain about a $100 oil price in 2009, but he is certain about the merit and benefits from investing in Pickens' project, and his argument is compelling. (Wang added that he does not have an investment stake in any power/energy company.)<p><a href="http://www.bloggingstocks.com/2008/10/30/should-congress-invest-50-billion-in-t-boone-pickens-plan-to/" rel="bookmark">Continue reading <em>Should Congress invest $50 billion in T. Boone Pickens' Plan to expand wind power? </em></a></p><p style="padding:5px;background:#ddd;border:1px solid #ccc;clear:both;"><a href="http://www.bloggingstocks.com/2008/10/30/should-congress-invest-50-billion-in-t-boone-pickens-plan-to/">Should Congress invest $50 billion in T. Boone Pickens' Plan to expand wind power? </a> originally appeared on <a href="http://www.bloggingstocks.com">BloggingStocks</a> on Thu, 30 Oct 2008 18:00:00 EST.  Please see our <a href="http://www.weblogsinc.com/feed-terms/">terms for use of feeds</a>.</p><h6 style="clear: both; padding: 8px 0 0 0; height: 2px; font-size: 1px; border: 0; margin: 0; padding: 0;"></h6><a href="http://www.bloggingstocks.com/2008/10/30/should-congress-invest-50-billion-in-t-boone-pickens-plan-to/" rel="bookmark" title="Permanent link to this entry">Permalink</a>&nbsp;|&nbsp;<a href="http://www.bloggingstocks.com/forward/1357795/" title="Send this entry to a friend via email">Email this</a>&nbsp;|&nbsp;<a href="http://www.bloggingstocks.com/2008/10/30/should-congress-invest-50-billion-in-t-boone-pickens-plan-to/#comments" title="View reader comments on this entry">Comments</a>]]></description><category>Congress</category><category>featured</category><category>gdp</category><category>infrastructure</category><category>job creation</category><category>jobs</category><category>oil</category><category>Pickens</category><category>Pickens Plan</category><category>renewable energy</category><category>renewables</category><category>T. Boone Pickens</category><category>U.S. economy</category><category>wind mills</category><category>wind power</category><dc:creator><![CDATA[Joseph Lazzaro]]></dc:creator><pubDate>Thu, 30 Oct 2008 18:00:00 EST</pubDate></item></channel></rss>
