Oil is tied into economic growth. I pulled some statistics from eia.gov and yahoo.gov: 1986 to present Cushing oil spot price and Dow Jones Industrial over the same time period. What I noticed: from 1986 and up until the begining of Desert storm - oil and the DJI grew at about the same rate. I found that much by dividing the DJI by the oil price. Elementary stuff, right? For instance, the DJI/Oil graph slumped in the late parts of 1990 due to high oil price caused by Desert Storm. Then starting in the 2nd quarter of 1993 the DJI/Oil graph slowly begins to climb. This is due to rising DJI while oil stayed flat at about $20.00. However by late 1998 oil was at $11.00. Some per gallon averages: 1998 Oil - $0.34 1998 Gasoline - $1.115 2008 Oil - $2.37 2008 Gasoline - $3.317 Today Oil - $2.21 Today Gasoline - $3.50 Throw in some more heavy oils and condensates for 2008's and today's oil. It may have something to do with price and oil quality but I find it interesting that the gasolineil ratio went from 1:3.3 in 1998 to 1:1.58 today yet oil companies experienced record profits and revenues. Must have been those "convenience stores". I guess what I am trying to say is at least during all the "irrational exuberance" the price of oil stayed relatively low by decreasing in price by about 40% at one point. However in 2008, oil was as low as $30.28 in the 4Q after being as high as $145.31 during the summer - a difference by a factor of almost 5! No doubt no one wants to see such large increases in food price but such increases are sustained by high oil price.
The internet bubble was mostly costly to investors and a small high-tech population that lost jobs. But the majority of secondary jobs that were created in the mid-90s to 2000 didn't disappear. That was real wealth and real income to the middle class that sustained after the bubble burst. That's different than, for example, the real estate bubble which hit the middle class by destroying their own wealth. Not all bubbles are equal.
Personally, I'm amused that you say so much but don't say anything. You have no idea what you're talking about.
Personally, I'm surprised you found the time to tear yourself away from Goldline to make this post. Clown on, i"m interested to hear of both your views/newsletters they are based upon. Ready set go! Hint: If I were you, I wouldn't lead off with the Schiffster.....he's a bit...damaged....
Really. So if I were to compare unemployment rates over several years, the UK is always going to be lower?
US Unemployment Rate: http://www.google.com/#pq=us+vs.+uk...w.,cf.osb&fp=19557f1f637173eb&biw=972&bih=549 UK Unemployment Rate: http://www.google.com/#pq=us+unempl...w.,cf.osb&fp=19557f1f637173eb&biw=972&bih=549 GOOGLE IS YOUR FRIEND.
Yes, the U.K. gov't employs a higher percentage of it's workforce than the U.S. does. Also Americans enter the workforce at an earlier age and leave at a later age therefore increasing unemployment as well. Finally, culturally because Americans change jobs more often, have greater mobility, and have more choices of places to work for, there is higher fricitional unemployment. So there ya go. That's why the U.S. will tend to be higher over the long term.
I'm amazed you find time to feed yourself in between your time trolling the D&D. You must be one of those spoiled losers living in their parent's basement while the rest of us are working for our living. You don't have the credibility to attack anybody, nonetheless a man whose made a living making better investments than all of the times your daddy forgot to pull out.
That's what we need! Bigger government and a smaller private sector like the socialists in the UK. Geez...socialists are coming out of every corner. Here is a great picture. From the start of 2009 to the end of 2009, public payrolls stopped increasing and actually dropped slightly. Surprise surprise...when private payrolls finally started growing again at the start of 2010. Declining public payrolls=increasing private payrolls. If the smaller government trend continues, more funds will be allocated to the more efficient private enterprise.
LOL, so you do worship at the altar of schiff - it was hard to call that. Let's put it this way, had I invested with Peter "This time it's different/decoupling/hyperinflation! " Schiff I'd be much, much poorer Do you actually have an argument? Because thus far you have nothing but lame insults and you're about as predictable as a fat tea partier on a medicare scooter - aka, I know where you're going before you get there. Come on Juan, I'm von mise-ing a challenge here. Anything? Hello?
Actually your graph shows that the number of public jobs is most affected by changes in private jobs. When the private industry loses jobs, a short while after the public market does too. It's that gov't spending is impacted by the private sector. Gov't follows private industry. And that is why recessions are drawn out. Because when the private sector falters, tax revenues dive and gov't responds by laying people off further hurting the situation. We're cutting jobs just when the private sector is starting to hire and we are risking killing the recession with negative stimulus. Very foolish thinking you have my friend, better wake up quick!
Your argument was incredibly ****ing stupid and didn't make any actual sense. If I went to an introductory economics class in any university in the country and wrote something like "output doesn't actually matter as a measure of output" I would get an F. Actually if you went into any class and says "X doesn't matter because believing it is inconvenient for my notions" - you would fail. Which is why your argument doesn't really work. Anybody can see that. So unless you have a Y, you are done, son. Enjoy Schiff investments and your -23% ROI.
