Bill Whittle: Eat the Rich
Building on a great post by Iowahawk (direct YouTube link), Whittle delivers an objectively irrefutable body blow to arch-leftist and world-class hypocrite Michael Moore:
Building on a great post by Iowahawk (direct YouTube link), Whittle delivers an objectively irrefutable body blow to arch-leftist and world-class hypocrite Michael Moore:
Former Clinton Labor Secretary Robert Reich, in a column appearing at Business Insider, says that we’re heading in the direction of a “double-dip” — and though he doesn’t follow it with the word “recession,” it’s obvious he’s not talking about an ice-cream cone. It’s also obvious that he’s less than pleased with the media spin that things are really okay.
Along the way, Reich had to go back to the mid-1930s, the era of Frankline Delano Roosevelt’s ongoing economic depression (at least as far as employment was concerned), to exemplify what a supposedly good recovery from an economic trauma looks. He was clearly desperate to avoid saying anything nice about the more historically relevant and objectively more impressive recovery and subsequent prosperity that occurred under Ronald Reagan. This is also true of the establishment press.
The failure to compare the current recovery to the recovery from the last serious recession the U.S. encountered has become a nasty establishment press habit, for a drop-dead obvious reason: Despite the fact that his challenges were arguably greater — 13% inflation, 20%-plus prime interest rates, and high unemployment — Reagan’s tax-cut and regulatory relief-driven economy boomed. By contrast, Barack Obama’s stimulus-laden, gimmick-dominated, fossil fule-hostile, uncertainty-driven economy isn’t impressing anyone.
Here are several paragraphs from Reich’s Thursday morning column (“The Truth About The Economy: We’re Heading Back Toward A Double Dip”):
Why aren’t Americans being told the truth about the economy? We’re heading in the direction of a double dip – but you’d never know it if you listened to the upbeat messages coming out of Wall Street and Washington.
… The Reuters/University of Michigan survey shows a 10 point decline in March – the tenth largest drop on record. Part of that drop is attributable to rising fuel and food prices. A separate Conference Board’s index of consumer confidence, just released, shows consumer confidence at a five-month low — and a large part is due to expectations of fewer jobs and lower wages in the months ahead.
… But isn’t the economy growing again – by an estimated 2.5 to 2.9 percent this year? Yes, but that’s even less than peanuts. The deeper the economic hole, the faster the growth needed to get back on track. By this point we’d expect growth of 4 to 6 percent. In 1934, emerging from the deepest hole of the Great Depression, the economy grew 7.7 percent. The next year it grew over 8 percent. In 1936 it grew a whopping 14.1 percent.
Add to these data two other ominous signs: Real hourly wages continue to fall, and housing prices continue to drop. Hourly wages are falling because with unemployment so high, most people have no bargaining power and will take whatever they can get. Houses are the biggest asset most Americans own, so as home prices drop most Americans feel even poorer.
Reich inexplicably fails to cite accurate mid-1930s growth figures, but the actual numbers seen here for 1934-1936 (10.9%, 8.9%, and 13.0%, respectively) still look pretty good. But c’mon: If we’re to believe the government’s data from the 1930s, the economy at the end of 1940 was 63% bigger than the economy at the end of 1933. I question how could that be if unemployment never got below 12%. But even if it’s accurate, it’s obvious that whatever growth occurred failed to reach an awful lot of people who wanted to work.
By contrast, once his policy prescriptions were finally in place, the post-1980s recession Reagan economy recovered exceptionally well and quickly, both in terms of GDP growth and employment. Here’s how the Reagan post-recession record compares to Obama’s in both metrics (through six quarters for GDP growth and 20 months for employment; click on the second graphic to enlarge and open in a separate window):
The post-recession economy under Reagan grew 9.9% (with compounding) in its first six quarters. Obama’s post-recession economy has grown 4.5%. Reagan’s economy created over 4.9 million jobs during its first 20 post-recession months. Believe it or not Obama’s economy went positive at a whopping 22,000 jobs just last month.
No wonder Reich didn’t want to make a comparison. It would imply the need for policy prescriptions he doesn’t like, virtually regardless of whether they will work. The same generally goes for the establishment press in their supposedly “objective” news reports.
Cross-posted at NewsBusters.org.
UPDATE, April 1: Joshua Shapiro, who is “quoted” in the AP article covered in this post, has emailed me and informed me of the following —
By using the word “said” without contextualizing it, Rugaber gave readers every reason to believe he spoke with Shapiro. Per Shapiro, he didn’t. Rugaber used information that Shapiro framed in a much longer-term context to make current news appear better than it really is. Rugaber’s AP report is even more risible than indicated in the post which follows.
____________________________________________
This morning, the Associated Press’s Christopher Rugaber, in his 9:14 a.m. coverage (saved here at my web host in case it’s revised, as well as for fair use and discussion purposes) of today’s weekly unemployment claims release by the Department of Labor, found an economist whose reaction was to get all pumped up about the job market:
“The downtrend … is undeniable,” Joshua Shapiro, chief economist at MFR Financial Inc., said. “We believe that this improvement will continue in the weeks and months ahead.”
While one of course hopes for improvement in the coming weeks and months, the existence of an “undeniable” downward trend is questionable, as seen below:

(Source data: March 24; March 17; March 10; figures going back more than three weeks can be found using the tool at this DOL web page.)
Perhaps other readers have better eyesight than yours truly, because if there’s an “undeniable” trend in the direction of “improvement,” I’m having a hard time seeing it.
That noted, it’s easy to see how Mr. Shapiro might be fooled, as the press has reported that unemployment claims have dropped during each of the past three weeks, while failing to notice that the revision of last week’s number from a seasonally adjusted 382,000 to 394,000 changed what had been a decline into an increase. So if Shapiro is only internalizing initial press reports without going through each week’s numbers in detail, he would of course believe that the situation has been consistently getting better. Trouble is, it hasn’t been. I should note that DOL incorporated changes in its seasonal adjustment factors going back four years into today’s report, and that those changes were responsible for about two-thirds of the 382K to 394K change; but regardless of the source, last week’s initial claims figure changed by a lot, and in the wrong direction.
Based on DOL’s record of upwardly revising initial week reports, it’s more than a little likely that today’s reported week-over week decrease will also turn into a week-over-week increase.
The AP’s Rugaber was among those failing to explicitly notice last week’s swing from positive to negative in his report today, saying only the following about today’s: “That’s the second decline in three weeks.” He did note an uptick in the moving four-week average, but not its degree (up 3,250 to 394,250, a number close enough to 400,000 that Rugaber might have wanted to avoid revealing it).
CNNMoney’s Ben Rooney noted the degree of the revision to last week (“Last week’s total, for example, was revised up by 12,000″), but failed to note that it turned what had been a decrease into an increase. So did this Reuters “Instant View.” Experts consulted by Reuters were far more muted in their enthusiasm (“a marginally weaker report for the labor market”; “we’re just not at the kind of pace we need in order to get employment back to normalized levels”).
Speaking of “normalized levels,” AP’s Rugaber seems to have lowered the bar for real improvement, especially when one compares it to the standard of an expert quoted at Reuters:
That’s a very big difference. It seems that Rugaber, like other AP business and economics reporters, is trying to define a decidedly non-ambitious “new normal.”
Cross-posted at NewsBusters.org.
They still claim “there is no crisis.”
___________________
Note: This column, absent the reference to Victor Davis Hanson, went up at Pajamas Media and was teased here at BizzyBlog on Tuesday.
___________________
“Debt is now the father of us all. In some sense, every cruise missile fired, every Social Security check cashed, ever NPR show aired is done so in part with borrowed money.”
– Victor Davis Hanson, March 20
Annually for well over a decade, the Social Security system’s trustees have been telling the public in polite words that a) its “Trust Funds” (Old Age and Disability) represent an accounting fiction, and b) that the time when yearly benefits paid would exceed tax collections is not all that far away.
In 2000, at Page 338 in a report (large PDF) originating from its Office of Management and Budget (OMB), the Clinton White House also acknowledged those verities. Specifically, as the Washington Post’s Charles Krauthammer noted a few weeks ago (bolds are mine), OMB analysts wrote:
These balances are available to finance future benefit payments and other trust fund expenditures—but only in a bookkeeping sense. These funds are not set up to be pension funds, like the funds of private pension plans. They do not consist of real economic assets that can be drawn down in the future to fund benefits. Instead, they are claims on the Treasury that, when redeemed, will have to be financed by raising taxes, borrowing from the public, or reducing benefits or other expenditures. The existence of large trust fund balances, therefore, does not, by itself, have any impact on the Government’s ability to pay benefits.
Jacob (“Jack”) Lew was Bill Clinton’s OMB Director at the time of that 2000 report. He has held the same job under President Obama since late last year.
For most of the decade which followed, the Trustees told us that the Social Security system would begin running cash deficits in the mid- to late-2010s. Then, in the late spring of 2008, along came what I have since been calling the POR (Pelosi-Obama-Reid) economy. The four-quarter recession as normal people define it which Nancy Pelosi, Barack Obama, Harry Reid, and their party caused, followed by the awful policy choices they made once they gained full control over the executive and legislative branches of government, have led to a “recovery” so anemic that, in the words of Mort Zuckerman, the economy “is neither certifiably dead nor robustly alive.”
That pathetic “recovery,” accompanied by heavy doses of administration-induced economic uncertainty, has caused unemployment to remain historically high. The 21-month string of seasonally adjusted unemployment rates of 9.0% or higher which finally ended in February is the longest such streak in the 62 years such records have been kept. The government’s Household Survey used to determine the unemployment rate tells us that only 875,000 more Americans were working in February 2011 compared to a year earlier. The Establishment Survey used to report jobs added or lost shows about 1.25 million jobs added; but its figures have been retroactively adjusted downward by hundreds of thousands of jobs in each of the past two years (378,000 in February 2011; 902,000 a year earlier).
The payroll tax receipts on which Social Security depends have plummeted, and remain depressed. Such collections, which amounted to $193.9 billion during the fourth quarter of 2008, came in 6.9% short of that mark at only $180.5 billion in the fourth quarter of 2010, six quarters after the recession ended.
The most recent Social Security Trustees’ report, issued last year based on the situation at the end of 2009, told us the following:
Social Security expenditures are expected to exceed tax receipts this year for the first time since 1983. … This deficit is expected to shrink substantially for 2011 and to return to small surpluses for years 2012-2014 due to the improving economy.
As already seen, the economy in 2010 did not improve in a way that would have helped the Social Security system retain its last shreds of solvency. As a result, the Congressional Budget Office now projects Social Security cash deficits as far as the eye can see, rising from over $40 billion in 2011 to over $100 billion by 2021. The estimable Victor Davis Hanson quoted at the beginning of this column is absolutely correct, even about Social Security. Until recently, today’s workers were funding the retirements of today’s retirees. Now generations yet unborn have also been conscripted for that same purpose.
Yet the Obama administration, including the aforementioned and now about-facing Jack Lew, insists that Social Security must be off-limits in any deficit discussions because, as Lew wrote in response to a USA Today editorial, “Social Security benefits are entirely self-financing.” Suddenly, the “Trust Fund” which Lew’s 2000 OMB wrote “do(es) not consist of economic assets” is what will in 2011 and beyond enable the system to “have adequate resources to pay full benefits for the next 26 years.”
The 2000 version of Jack Lew was right. Politicians raided Social Security for decades by “borrowing” its surpluses and squandering over $2 trillion. But that wasn’t enough. Except for a brief, primarily Republican-inspired period around the turn of the century, Democratic and Republican administrations have continually added to the nation’s debt load. The Obama administration has taken it to a horrifying new level. By September 2011, it will have rung up over $4 trillion in additional deficits in three fiscal years (it gets responsibility for fiscal 2009 because, as noted earlier, Democrats created the POR economy before that fiscal year began). It has also increased the national debt by roughly $5 trillion.
So, if we’re to believe Team Obama, the 2011 version of Jack Lew, and Harry Reid — who doesn’t see a need to deal with Social Security for 20 years — a government whose nonpublic debt is projected to be within a whisker of what many experts believe is the code-red level of 90% of GDP in 10 years is automatically going to be able to continue to fund Social Security’s cash deficits for the next 26 years. Horse manure.
These people know the truth, and they’re deliberately dodging it. They’re cynically hoping to ride a wave of ginned-up opposition to any and all entitlement reform in hopes of getting across the finish line in the 2012 elections. I don’t believe I’ve ever seen a more cynical strategy on a problem so important in my lifetime.
I hope they fail.
Note: This was originally posted shortly after midnight and has been carried to the top.
________________________________________________
The ultimate source is Edmunds, as carried at AutoObserver.com (HT Doug Ross):
… while it is no sure bet just yet, Ford Motor Co. has a shot at beating General Motors Co. for U.S. sales leadership in March, a month in which the Seasonally Adjusted Annual Rate (SAAR) of sales is expected to be 13.1 million vehicles. Ford will sell 210,400 vehicles in March to GM’s 208,400, according to Edmunds.com’s forecast released Thursday. However, as demonstrated dramatically of late, much can happen in the last week of the month and especially in this environment of rising gas prices, a catastrophe in Japan and turmoil in the Middle East.
The race between Ford and GM this month surely will be neck-and-neck. A number of factors — a last-minute sales drive, inventory issues, a fleet order – could decisively shift the advantage. If Ford does beat GM in sales, it would be the first time since February, 2010. Before that, Ford hadn’t surpassed GM since 1998, according to Edmunds.com’s records.
I’ll believe it when I see it — but I really didn’t think Ford was going to come close to getting even with GM for quite a while.
The guess here is that someone in the General Services Administration is going to be told on Thursday morning to place a really big order — and to somehow take delivery or otherwise do whatever it takes to make a sale.
You guys at Edmunds better not be playing with us on this.
Wow.
_____________________________________
UPDATE: The original news goes back to Sunday March 24. The gut says that there’s no way Obama Motors lets 2nd place happen — and if it still happens, it will be a spectacular failure, simply because they had so much warning.
Mar 30, 2011 / 01:24 am
With the May 1 beatification of Pope John Paul II fast approaching, those who knew and loved the late pontiff are speaking out about the imprint he left on the Church and the world.
Archbishop Piero Marini remembered the “almost father-son relationship” he enjoyed with the Pope while serving as his master of liturgical ceremonies. In a Vatican Radio broadcast on March 28, he said that the beatification is a way for all people to once again “re-encounter this friend of humanity” by getting to know him, his love for evangelization and his strong witness.
Archbishop Marini remembered that the “greatest gift” the Pope ever gave him was in reminding him of the everyday quality of holiness. “Each of us … must build sanctity responding to the vocation that the Lord has given us in our life with humility and simplicity as John Paul II did. He spent his entire life announcing the Gospel to create unity.”
By going out to meet the people where they were, proclaiming God’s Word and celebrating the Eucharist and sacraments, the Pope was able “to create around himself, around the person of the Pope, truly the unity of the Church,” said the archbishop.
Cardinal Roberto Tucci, who planned the Pope’s lengthy and frequent trips to international destinations, remembered the Pope for his “spontaneity.”
He was present at a press conference last week to launch Italian journalist Angela Ambrogetti’s new book, “Travel Companions,” examining previously unedited comments and conversations the Pope had with reporters on his trips abroad.
Cardinal Tucci called the book a “rare and efficient testimony of the personality and the ideas of Pope Wojtyla which comes across with great freshness – as it was – with his extraordinary spontaneity and freedom of expression, with his kindness and bluntness before others, also to that special kind of humanity that are journalists.”
Vatican spokesman Fr. Federico Lombardi, and veteran Vatican analysts Gian Franco Svidercoschi and Paloma Gomez Borrero recounted anecdotes of their personal experiences with the pontiff on the numerous papal flights. …
Go here for the rest of the story.
As a reminder that leftists have been poisoning the wells of civility and basic human decency for a very, very long time, I present these two items from the Associated Press and United Press International on April 1 and 2, 1981, respectively:
Details are after the jump.
Continued decent news from ADP:
Private-sector employment increased by 201,000 from February to March on a seasonally adjusted basis, according to the latest ADP National Employment Report® released today. The estimated change of employment from January 2011 to February 2011 was revised down to 208,000 from the previously reported increase of 217,000. This month’s ADP National Employment Report removes any remaining doubt that private nonfarm payroll employment accelerated heading into 2011. The increase of 201,000 is in line with the consensus expectation both for today’s report and for Friday’s jobs report from the Bureau of Labor Statistics.
That’s nice, and it beats the heck out of what we were seeing throughout 2009 and 2010.
But how was the economy under Ronald Reagan doing at a similar point?
Much better:

In June 1984, the 21st month after the 1980s recession ended, the economy under Ronald Reagan added 355,000 private-sector jobs. Population-adjusted with some tempering for aging demographics, that would be the same as adding about 420,000 jobs today. Additionally, the Reaganomics number brought that era’s 21-month total of private-sector jobs added to 5,086,000; population- and demographics-adjusted, that would be the same as adding about 6.5 million jobs today.
In the 20 post-recession months from July 2009 to February 2011 under Obamanomics, the economy has added 362,000 private-sector jobs — and that’s if future comprehensive revisions don’t knock the number down by a few hundred thousand or so, as has been the case during each of the past two years (for all jobs, 378,000 in February 2011; 902,000 a year earlier).
Thus, while it will be somewhat welcome news if the Bureau of Labor Statistics tells us on Friday that the economy added about 200,000 jobs in the private sector, in historical context it will not in any way, shape, or form represent an impressive result — not even if it’s 300,000.
To say that Illinois Governor Pat Quinn doesn’t get it fails to describe the depth of the man’s ignorance.
Here’s a recent statement he made about the possibility that one of the state’s marquee employers might leave the state — a statement which, after brief news search, I could only find in a Tuesday evening Investors Business Daily editorial:
Caterpillar is not leaving Illinois. They have well-skilled workers who know how to get the job done. They just signed an agreement with the United Auto Workers, I think for six years. I don’t think we should get in a panic at all.”
Even if Cat keeps its headquarters in Peoria and doesn’t reduce its existing Illinois blue- or white-collar workforce, it will be a hollow victory. Earth to Quinn: it isn’t just about keeping what you have, which Illinois is barely doing — maybe. It’s about capturing the new facilities growing companies like Cat build.
On that front, as Rich Miller at Capitol Fax details, Illinois has missed out on the following recent Caterpillar expansions, most if not all of which might have been reasonable prospects for the state if it didn’t have such a punishing business climate made worse recently by additional income tax hikes:
* Dec 18, 2008: Cat announces new plant in Texas …
* January 5, 2009: Caterpillar plant, 600 jobs bound for North Little Rock
* Jul 30, 2010: Cat announces new North Carolina plant – 850,000-square-foot facility will be used for axle assemblies
* October, 2010: Caterpillar Selects Victoria, TX, For New Hydraulic Excavator Facility
If an Illinois-based company like Caterpillar won’t even think about expanding in Illinois, it’s reasonable to believe that other Illinois-based companies are acting similarly, and that few out-of-state companies looking to expand are giving Illinois serious consideration.
The IBD editorial elaborates further, reminding the governor that the company didn’t just spring up out of the Illinois cornfields:
According to the nonpartisan Tax Foundation: “The (Illinois) corporate income tax will rise from 7.3% to 10.9%, a 49% increase and (making Illinois’) the highest state corporate income tax in the United States and the highest combined national-local corporate income tax in the industrialized world.”
In other words, anyplace Caterpillar moves — and that means anywhere — the tax situation will be an improvement on what it faces in Illinois.
Before he pooh-poohs the possibility of losing Caterpillar, Gov. Quinn might review the company’s history. Cat got its start not in Illinois, but in California in 1883 as the Stockton Wheel Co. After various incarnations and acquisitions through much of the 20th century, it became Caterpillar.
In 1967, the company moved its headquarters from Stockton to Peoria, where it now employs 23,000 of the 100,000 workers who make those gigantic yellow construction and mining machines that are among the best in the world, if not the best.
… Until the governor recognizes that businesses operate on real-world accounting, not the government’s big-tax approach to business, he’s looking at the migration of not only Caterpillar, but other big home-based enterprises — State Farm maybe, or McDonald’s — to states where entrepreneurs and world-class companies are treated as precious resources, not strip-mined for taxes to pay for unsustainable and inefficient government.
Caterpillar, of course, is lucky. It can move. Unfortunately, small towns that rely on business with Caterpillar workers will go under. So will many small businesses that aren’t able to move after such tax hikes.
If Quinn doesn’t think Caterpillar has given him reason to panic, he’d better think again.
Pat Quinn will not recognize that people — and companies — can and do vote with their feet. Caterpillar did so when it planted its headquarters in Illinois 44 years ago. It can do so again. So can other Illinois companies.
Mar 29, 2011 / 06:15 am
A pro-life group plans to continue their billboard campaign in Chicago after a recent ad was pulled in New York City following complaints.
Life Always, the organization behind ads claiming the abortion industry targets America’s black community, will launch a new billboard in Chicago on March 29, featuring an image of President Obama.
The billboard reads: “Every 21 minutes, our next possible leader is aborted.” In the ad, President Obama is shown next to the word “leader,” and viewers are also directed to visit thatsabortion.com.
“Our hope at Life Always is to call attention to the devastation that abortion is causing in America,” Marissa Gabrysch, group spokeswoman, told CNA March 28.
“By using a likeness of our President, we hope to draw attention to the fact that our next generation of leaders is in jeopardy because of abortion,” Gabrysch said.
The organization says it plans to unveil over 30 billboards in South Chicago to draw attention to the disproportionate number of abortions among African Americans in the U.S. Life Always cites Census data and Center for Disease Control reports which show that although African Americans comprise less than 13 percent of the population, they account for 36 percent of the entire country’s abortions.
The plans to launch the Chicago ads follow the removal of the group’s prominent billboard in New York City. A 29 feet high and 16 feet wide billboard – unveiled on Feb. 22 and taken down within days – depicted a young black girl beneath the phrase “The most dangerous place for an African American is in the womb.”
“The New York billboard generated strong reactions, which was the goal,” Gabrysch said. “We all need to react.”
Pete Costanza, the general manager for Lamar Advertising, said the billboard was removed because an objector to the billboard harassed the waiters and waitresses in the Mexican restaurant below the sign.
The restaurant has no affiliation with the billboard company or the pro-life group.
Dr. Alveda King – niece of civil rights legend Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. – told CNA that despite being removed, the New York billboard “opened up dialogue across the country.”
“I’ve been able to have many conversations since the billboard went up and came right back down,” she said, “about how African American women and their children are victims and how we have been targeted by genocide.” …
Go here for the rest of the story.
The fight over Senate Bill 5 here in Ohio and the collective bargaining rights for public sector unions nationwide got personal for me last week. The school district that I attended for thirteen years of my life, Gahanna-Jefferson Public Schools, was forced to lay off 32 teachers. Honestly, I knew this was coming. The dreadful economy has depressed property tax revenue, which is by far the largest revenue stream for the district. In addition to that the voters in my school district have turned down levies in the past two election cycles. You really cannot fault the voters for turning down a tax increase in the middle of a recession. Given those facts, I was not surprised when the headline of my local paper, The Rocky Fork Enterprise, which read: “Gahanna School Board Approves Teacher Cuts for 2011-12.” As I somberly read the article, which included the names of the teachers that will be laid off, four of which I had in class or knew on a personal level, I could not help but feel sad that some quality, hard-working teachers had to be let go.
That sadness turned to anger when I read the twelfth paragraph of the article. The paragraph said, “(Superintendent Mark) White said reductions are determined through seniority and programming”. To confirm the impression that teacher reductions were based only on seniority and programming, meaning that teacher performance was not taken into account, I called Matt Cygnor, the Director of Human Resources of the Gahanna-Jefferson School District. According to Mr. Cygnor, teacher performance was not taken into account because the union contract does not allow the district to look at teacher performance when determining pay or personnel decisions. In short, the union contract protects incompetent teachers who have managed to subsist long enough to get tenure at the expense of good, young teachers who are just starting out. What is happening in my school district is exactly why the SB 5 must be passed and signed into law.
Senate Bill 5 would prohibit teachers from collectively bargaining and replace that process with a system of merit pay. With merit pay, good teachers will finally be paid what they are worth and bad teachers will be given the boot. SB 5 will ensure that good, young teachers will not be let go just because they were the last ones hired.
I attribute much of what I have been able to accomplish in my short life to the great education I received as a pupil in the Gahanna-Jefferson School District. I received a great education because I had good teachers. In order for those who are following me in the school district to receive the same quality of education that I got, the Gahanna-Jefferson School District needs to retain quality teachers. The current union contracts prevent that from occurring. That needs to change, and SB 5 will change it.
___________________________________________
Robert Roll is a freshman majoring in Finance at Ohio Northern University, and the blog owner’s nephew.
The link within Rob’s column was added by me.
Critical work commitments will prevent blogging until sometime this evening, if then. Fortunately, a Robert Roll item will appear later this morning to pick up some of the slack.
Work commitments have been doing the crowd-out thing for a while, the best/worst example being that last Friday’s final GDP revision (press release; full release with tables) to an annualized +3.1% for the fourth quarter of 2010 (up from the previous revision of +2.8%) blew right past me. Yikes. We need to more and/or better help around here.
The GDP news is pretty decent (though by no means Reaganesque), and beats the trend of downward revisions we’ve generally seen in previous quarters. I hope to dig deeper at some point, but given the circumstances, I can’t be sure that I will.


| M | T | W | T | F | S | S |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| « Feb | Apr » | |||||
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | |
| 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 |
| 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 |
| 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 |
| 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 | |||