Showing posts with label Business. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Business. Show all posts

Monday, December 26, 2011

Retailers Brace for Hordes of Post-Christmas Shoppers

I'm looking forward to the total retail sales numbers.

A big holiday season will give the 4th quarter GDP numbers a boost. That's going to be great for Americans, and could help Obama's reelection prospects --- to the great consternation of Republicans.

At Los Angeles Times, "Hordes of post-Christmas shoppers expected."

Sunday, December 25, 2011

Even Profitable Firms Fleeing California

Something I've written about on numerous occasions.

At O.C. Register, "California businesses can expect little sympathy from leadership in Sacramento":
Democratic reaction to the news that Waste Connections, a $3.6-billion company and major Sacramento-area employer, is headed to Houston to seek a friendlier business climate tells other businesses all they need to know about the attitudes of those who run California's government.

State Senate President Pro Tem Darrell Steinberg, D-Sacramento, gave these clueless and snarky remarks in response to the news: "In this instance you have a company that is, in fact, profitable, making significant revenue gains in 2011 and 2010. That doesn't speak to a bad business climate here in California when a good company is able to thrive in that way. So whatever Mr. Middelstaedt's (company CEO) reasons are to leave the great state of California, I know I'm pushing back."

Steinberg claims to have worked on improving the state's business climate, but from what we see in Sacramento, Steinberg and the party he helps lead have been pushing hard mainly for additional regulations and much higher taxes. The California Democratic Party's attitude long has been that businesses are basically trying to rip off the public, and the source of all wealth and advancement can be found in the public sector, When businesses leave. Steinberg and Co. show little sympathy.
That's because Democrats suck.

Continue reading at the link.

Friday, December 23, 2011

Obama Post-Recession Recovery Badly Lags the Reagan Recovery After the Severe 1981-82 Recession

Photobucket
Over the past several months, President Obama has spent much time pleading for patience on the sluggish economy and ongoing high unemployment, arguing that the economic hole was so deep and the crisis so monumental that a slow recovery — now in its 30th month — was inevitable.

But in making his case, Obama appears to be perpetuating several myths about the recession he inherited and the slow recovery over which he's presided. Among them....

2) The country had to dig out of a historically deep hole. Obama often explains the length of the recovery by noting how deep the recession had been.

But while the so-called Great Recession lasted 18 months and sent unemployment to 10.1%, the 1981-82 recession was comparable in length and severity. That one lasted 16 months, and pushed unemployment even higher, to 10.8%.

The difference is that today unemployment is still at an historically high 8.6%, and it's only that low because the labor force has declined. Real GDP is a mere 0.04% above its pre-recession peak. At the comparable point in the Reagan recovery, unemployment had plunged to 7.3%, while the economy had grown 12% above its pre-recession peak, and was still climbing fast.
RTWT at the link.

PHOTO CREDIT: The White House, "President Barack Obama talks with a patron at Reid's House Restaurant in Reidsville, N.C., during a lunch stop on the American Jobs Act bus tour, Oct. 18, 2011. (Official White House Photo by Pete Souza).

New Air Jordans Cause Race Riots Across the United States

That's hardly exaggerating.

See the headline at Edmonton Journal, "New Air Jordan shoes cause shopping frenzy in Seattle, across U.S."

And at Small Dead Animals, "The Decline and Fall of the American Empire."



Added: At London's Daily Mail, "Arrests, pepper spray, brawls and doors pulled off hinges: Chaos at stores across U.S. as thousands of shoppers scramble for new Air Jordans."

Sunday, December 18, 2011

California Unemployment Rate Falls to 11.3 Percent! Break Out the Champagne!

I'm being facetious.

But I can't help it. Look at this ridiculously enthusiastic headline at the Los Angeles Times: "California's Jobless Rate Falls for Fourth Month in a Row! The State Unemployment Rate Declines to 11.3% in November, a Sign That the Labor Market is Slowly Recovering!"

That's the real headline. All I've added is the exclamation point! But seriously. You'd think it's HAPPY DAYS AGAIN! by the looks of the newspaper, and remember I still get the rag in hard copy!

And it only takes a quick glance at Google to see that the state's still mired in depression-like conditions in many parts for state, the California Central Valley, for example. See the Turlock Journal, "Good news, bad news in local unemployment rates":
The latest figures from the Economic Development Department reflect some good news for Stanislaus County and some not so heartening news.

Stanislaus County posted an unemployment rate of 15.5 percent in November, just slightly up from the revised October rate of 15.3 percent. This marked the third month in a row that the county has had an unemployment rate below 16 percent, something that has been a rarity during these troubled economic times.

A small uptick in November's unemployment rate hasn't been seen since November 2007, and bucks the trend of the past few years, said EDD labor market analyst Nati Martinez.

In November 2007, the unemployment rate went from 8.2 percent to 8.8 percent. In 2008, it rose from 11.2 percent to 12.1 percent in November. In November 2009, the rate grew from 15.9 percent to 16.7 percent and last year it jumped from 16.1 percent to 17.2 percent in the same time frame, according to the EDD.

Stanislaus County's November unemployment rate for this year was well below the year-ago estimate of 17.2 percent.

However, the gains reflected in the EDD's report are tempered by the fact that less people are reporting that they are looking for work. Stanislaus County's labor force, which stood at an estimated 237,300 in October, fell to 233,200.
I added the italics, since for all the "great" news about declining unemployment --- nationwide and in California --- the fact is huge numbers of people are discouraged and remain so unhappy about their prospects that they've simply given up looking for a job. When that happens, they drop off the statistics for the "active" labor force, and in fact the unemployment rate improves. As always, official unemployment statistics systematically undercount the unemployed.

More on all of this later. When the national unemployment rate falls to 6 percent I'll pop a bottle of champagne. And 8 percent in California would be worth a little celebration.

RELATED: At New York Times, "As Wars End, Young Veterans Return to Scant Jobs."

Monday, December 12, 2011

Debbie Wasserman Schultz Goes All Baghdad Bob on Obama Administration's Epic Unemployment Numbers

U.S. unemployment was 7.2 percent in December of 2008, which at that time was the highest since 1993, according to a New York Times report from January 2009 (the month Barack Obama took office). But don't tell that to Debbie Wasserman Schultz, who sounds like Saddam Hussein's Minister of Information, Baghdad Bob:

Via RealClearPolitics, "DNC Chair Denies Unemployment Has Gone Up Under Obama." And Miami Herald, "DNC chair Wasserman Schultz stumbles on Obama unemployment stat."

And more at Hot Air, "DNC chair: Unemployment didn’t go up under Obama!"

Lonely Conservative has it all graphed out: "Obama’s Unemployment Record." Plus, "Unemployment Is 11% If You Count Those Who Gave Up In Despair."

Tuesday, December 6, 2011

Big Oil Companies Are Shifting Their Focus Back to the West

A great piece.

At Wall Street Journal, "Big Oil Heads Back Home":
Big Oil is redrawing the energy map.

For decades, its main stomping grounds were in the developing world—exotic locales like the Persian Gulf and the desert sands of North Africa, the Niger Delta and the Caspian Sea. But in recent years, that geographical focus has undergone a radical change. Western energy giants are increasingly hunting for supplies in rich, developed countries—a shift that could have profound implications for the industry, global politics and consumers.

Driving the change is the boom in unconventionals—the tough kinds of hydrocarbons like shale gas and oil sands that were once considered too difficult and expensive to extract and are now being exploited on an unprecedented scale from Australia to Canada.

The U.S. is at the forefront of the unconventionals revolution. By 2020, shale sources will make up about a third of total U.S. oil and gas production, according to PFC Energy, a Washington-based consultancy. By that time, the U.S. will be the top global oil and gas producer, surpassing Russia and Saudi Arabia, PFC predicts.

That could have far-reaching ramifications for the politics of oil, potentially shifting power away from the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries toward the Western hemisphere. With more crude being produced in North America, there's less likelihood of Middle Eastern politics causing supply shocks that drive up gasoline prices. Consumers could also benefit from lower electricity prices, as power plants switch from coal to cheap and plentiful natural gas.
RTWT.

Monday, December 5, 2011

What's So Awful About the 1%?

From Bradley Schiller, at Los Angeles Times:
Occupy Wall Street has said it's the 99% of 'us' against the 1% of 'them.' But many of 'them' started out like 'us' and have brought us great innovations that we embrace.

The class war is on. It's the 99% of "us" versus the 1% of "them."

In the rhetoric of this war, we are fighting the 1% because they possess most of the nation's wealth, bankroll their handpicked political candidates, control the banks and get million-dollar paychecks and billion-dollar bailouts; yet they don't pay enough taxes or invest their wealth in creating American jobs. They're the "millionaires and billionaires" President Obama has called out as needing to pony up more for progressive reforms of our healthcare, banking, tax and political systems. They are the enemy of "us" — the 99% who toil at low-wage jobs, hold underwater mortgages, face foreclosures, suffer recurrent and protracted job layoffs and plant closings, and yet pay our fair share of taxes.

But there's a flaw in this strategy. The Occupy Wall Street movement envisions the 1% as a monolithic cadre of entrenched billionaires who have a firm and self-serving grip on all the levers of the economy. But a closer look at that elite group reveals how untrue that perspective is.

Forbes magazine compiles a list of the richest 400 Americans every year. To get on that list, you must have at least $1 billion of wealth. They are the creme de la creme of the 1% — indeed, the top 0.0000013% (!) of Americans. So who are these dastardly people?

The late Steve Jobs was in that elite club this year. In his earlier days, Jobs would have been camped out with the OWS crowd, probably passing around a joint. Should we count him as one of "us" or one of "them"? (And you can't use your iPhone or iPad to vote "them.")

Then there's 27-year old Mark [Zuckerberg] (No. 14 on the Forbes list), whose Facebook innovation enables the OWS movement to communicate so easily. He and five other Facebook entrepreneurs just joined the Forbes 400 this year.

We'd also quickly recognize among "them" Sergey Brin, Larry Page and Eric Schmidt, who became billionaires developing Google. And, as they are sipping a latte to keep warm, the OWS campers should also reflect on whether Howard Schultz, Starbucks' founder and No. 330 on the Forbes list, is with "us" or "them."

Not every member of the Forbes 400 is a high-tech folk hero. There is a lot of inherited wealth on that list too (the Mars, Walton, Cargill and Ford dynasties). But 70% of the Forbes elite are self-made billionaires. Those entrepreneurial successes include not just the names behind Facebook, Google, Apple and Starbucks but also EBay (Meg Whitman, Pierre Omidyar), Yahoo (Jerry Yang), Nike (Phil Knight), AOL (Steve Case), Amazon (Jeff Bezos), Subway sandwiches (Peter Buck, Fred DeLuca), "Star Wars" (George Lucas) and even Beanie Babies (Ty Warner). Does anyone doubt that these members of the reviled 1% have enriched the country in significant ways?

Even more to the point is that all of these club-400 elites were once just like "us." Jobs worked on the first Apple computer in a garage on a shoestring budget. He had vision, not wealth, to propel him to fame and fortune. Oprah Winfrey (No. 139) rose from poverty to TV queen through determination, hard work and a couple of lucky breaks. Even Warren Buffett, No. 2 on the Forbes list, started out looking very much like just another hardworking middle-class kid with good Midwestern values.
I checked out the Forbes 400 earlier and was thinking pretty much the same thing, especially since a bunch of those on the list are Democrats.

Sunday, December 4, 2011

China's State-Led Model Showing Signs of Trouble

ICYMI, you might want to skim former SIEU chief Andy Stern's op-ed at the Wall Street Journal from earlier this week, "China's Superior Economic Model." I don't begrudge China's economic success, but I've never been one to fall head over heels for China's model, especially as a replacement for the American free-enterprise ideal. Stern's piece reminded me of the "Japan as Number One" school from the late-1980s and early-1990s. Back then I thought more reliance on industrial policy and governmental intervention might be a good thing. Then Japan collapse and by the end of the Clinton years the American economy was booming. Hardly anyone was championing the Japanese "developmental state" by that time. And thus, I mostly yawned when reading Andy Stern, and that was after a little chuckle, considering the former union boss was throwing his lot in with one the most murderous regimes in modern times.

In any case, the editors at Wall Street Journal throw some cold water on the Chinese economic system. See, "China's Hard Landing":
China is a poster child for the Austrian school of economics' theory of the business cycle. After undertaking the biggest stimulus program the world has ever seen in response to the global financial crisis, the country is drowning in unproductive investments financed with credit.

The government spent 15% of GDP largely on public works projects in inland regions, financed with loans from the state-owned banks. Investment as a share of GDP soared to 48.5% in 2010, and the M2 measure of money supply ballooned to 140% that of the U.S.

Now comes the hangover. The public works projects are winding down, unleashing a wave of unemployment and an uptick in social unrest. The banks' nonperforming loans are rising, and local governments are insolvent. The country is littered with luxurious county government offices, ghost cities of empty apartment blocks, unsafe high-speed rail lines and crumbling highways to nowhere.

One effect of negative real interest rates was a nationwide bubble in private housing, with the average price of an urban apartment reaching eight times the average annual income. Real estate is the most popular investment for the wealthy, according to a central bank survey in September. Millions of luxury apartments are vacant, even as there is a shortage of affordable housing for the poor....

There is no easy way to avoid the bust that is coming. The silver lining is that China's increasingly state-led growth model will be discredited, and a debate will begin on restarting the reforms that stalled in the mid-2000s. A financial sector that allocates credit based on politics rather than price signals led China into this mess. Popular pressure to dismantle crony capitalism is building, and the Communist Party would be wise to get in front of it while it can.

Number of Television Owners Declines for First Time in 20 Years

At the Kansas City Star, "For first time in 20 years, TV ownership declines."

I was working on this post while listening to the MSNBC live-feed of Herman Cain's campaign announcement. And just the other day I was thinking that I no longer head straight for the TV when I get home. I can watch news online while blogging. The Star reports on Nielson data tracking the shifts in television ownership and emerging technologies. Live-streaming shows from the web would seem to be an important alternative to the television news, but DVRs and HDTV are the fastest growing technologies, which are tied to the classic television-monitor format. I'm just online all the time so that's my main source of news and information --- which, in the case of Herman Cain's departure, was delivered in real time.

Friday, December 2, 2011

Signs of Hope? Unemployment Lingers Near 9 Percent as Obama Depression Drags On

The MFM is putting the most positive gloss on the job numbers, at New York Times, for example, "Signs of Hope in Jobs Report; Unemployment Drops to 8.6%."

The RNC isn't settling for the left's economic whitewash: "Republicans throw cold water on unemployment numbers."

And see Maggie's Farm, "More MSM Cheerleading." Plus, from James Pethokoukis, "November jobs report: 7 reasons why it’s better but still terrible."

And more at the Heritage Foundation, "Morning Bell: America Needs More Job Creation":

The question is whether this improvement is real and enduring or a fluke. The economy is growing, but there’s little evidence of the real strength the report suggests, and there’s a lot in the report to suggest something’s amiss with the numbers–something likely to be corrected in the next report. For example, is it likely the labor market strengthened as much as the job number suggests at the same time so many people abandoned the workforce? And this is only one of the anomalies in the report.

The White House would therefore be wise to trumpet today’s news with soft notes. The fact remains that under President Barack Obama’s watch, the U.S. unemployment rate remains high because America just isn’t creating enough new jobs. And if the only way the Obama Administration can get the unemployment rate to drop is by convincing people to quit looking for work, that’s bad news for the American economy. Or to quote liberal blogger Matt Yglesias, ”Decreasing unemployment by shrinking the labor force is not exactly winning the future.”

It goes without saying that if the U.S. economy loses more jobs than it creates, the unemployment rate goes up. If job losses are low but few new jobs are created, then the unemployment rate treads water and remains high, with occasional dips and rises–and that’s what we’re seeing today.
Still more from John Hayward, "Unemployment Rate Falls Due To Workforce Contraction."

Tuesday, November 29, 2011

Booming Cyber Monday!

At USA Today, "Buyers click away as Cyber Monday sales jump 18%."

The shopping season's biggest online holiday was more popular than ever yesterday as consumers rushed to the Web for exclusive Cyber Monday deals.

Online traffic was up 43% from last year, says content delivery network Akamai, and online sales were up 18% over Cyber Monday 2010 as of 9 p.m. ET, says IBM Smarter Commerce, a Web performance analytics firm for 500 of the largest retail websites.

Matt Shay, CEO of the National Retail Federation, says sales on Cyber Monday and over the long weekend show retail is "providing a needed shot in the arm to our nascent recovery."
RELATED: At New York Times, "A Shopping Day Invented for the Web Comes of Age."

The Myth of Income Inequalty

From Jim Pethokoukis, at The American, "Income inequality myths: No, the rich didn’t steal all the money."

Photobucket

And at Doug Ross, "More media myths shattered: #OWS 'income inequality' scam exposed."

PREVIOUSLY: "Occupy is 99 Percent Lies," and "Record-High Levels of Inequality?"