The Bush Economy

[Secretariat]

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=542&ncid=542&e=1&u=/ap/20040826/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/census_poverty_7

[sq764]

You'd think moron Kerry would be all over the economy more than anything.. Instead he is fighting with Swift Boat people about his checkered war record.

He doesn't seem to see the big picture too well.

[JustMissed]

[Quote]The poverty rate of African Americans remained nearly twice the national rate, with 24.4 percent of blacks living below the poverty line in 2003, nearly unchanged from 24.1 percent a year earlier. The poverty rate for Hispanics was 22.5 percent, up from 21.8 percent.

Non-Hispanic whites fared best, with a poverty rate of 8.2 percent, nearly unchanged from 8.0 percent a year earlier.

The report showed real median income for all races was unchanged at $43,318 in 2003.[EndQuote]

The black leadership hates Bush's guts-hey, if they cared about their own people they would do something about it don't you think?

Hispanics are up only .007. Considering they are mostly illiterate immigrants, looks like they are doing pretty good considering compared to Mexico and Cuba they are living like kings here.

The rest of us seem to be doing pretty good don't you think. "unchanged at $43,318".

Hey, why don't you and your buddy john kerry go over to Jesse Jackson's house and say "Hey Jesse, get off the porch and get out there and help the folks get some jobs".

JM


:)

[JustMissed]

Hey, I forgot about Julian. Is this kind of talk real helpful to get your people employed?

[quote]NAACP Chairman Compares Republicans to Terrorists
By Robert B. Bluey
CNSNews.com Staff Writer
June 03, 2004

Washington (CNSNews.com) - In remarks to hundreds of cheering liberal activists Wednesday, NAACP Chairman Julian Bond singled out Republicans as enemies of black Americans and compared conservatives to the terrorist Taliban who once ruled Afghanistan.

"Their idea of equal rights is the American flag and the Confederate swastika flying side by side," Bond told a cheering audience. "They've written a new constitution for Iraq and ignore the Constitution here at home. They draw their most rabid supporters from the Taliban wing of American politics. Now they want to write bigotry back into the Constitution."

Bond's remarks came at an opening of the liberal Take Back America conference, a three-day event that has drawn more than 2,000 liberals from across the country to the nation's capital. Bond spoke moments after MoveOn.org founders Joan Blades and Wes Boyd received a rousing ovation from the partisan crowd.

Bond called the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Voting Rights Act of 1965 two of America's greatest achievement. He then went on to attack Republicans.

"The passage of these two laws in 1964 and 1965 marked the beginning of the dependence of the Republican Party on the politics of racial division to win elections and gain power," Bond said. "By playing the race card in election after election, they've appealed to that dark underside of American culture, to that minority of Americans who reject democracy and equality. They preach racial neutrality and they practice racial division."

Even though Bond said the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People remains a non-partisan organization, he reserved some of his harshest criticism for President Bush. Bond, who has been chairman of the NAACP since 1998, accused Bush of trying to starve the government of money through tax cuts. He said social programs aimed at minorities have suffered as a result.

"We have a president who talks like a populist and governs for the privileged," Bond said. "We were promised compassionate conservatism; instead, we got crummy capitalism."[endquote]

JM

[JustRalph]

Mr. Bond does no service to his followers...............

[Tom]

Originally posted by JustRalph
Mr. Bond does no service to his followers...............

He is a racist. Period. Most people are afraid to say so.
The NAACP is a racist organization. Period.
Both breed losers.

[Secretariat]

Man, even when the report is from the Census Bureau you don't want to beleive it. You guys would follow the Pied Piper.

[sq764]

Sec, you watch the polls much? You in denial?

[Secretariat]

Well, PA and I don't agree on a lot, but the only poll that counts is the one in November.

[sq764]

Well, you are worried about Census Beureau reports now, but not worrying about polls until November.. interesting..

[PaceAdvantage]

Hey Secretariat, didn't you say you were going on hiatus from the off-topic forums while Saratoga was running? Why are you back so soon in full force?

Is it some sort of order from the high command that has brought you back here to do damage spin-control? Just curious how you have suddenly found all this time to return, just as Kerry is coming under fire (no pun intended of course)

[Secretariat]

PA,

I am still playing SAR and am out of here during the afternoon. I should be focusing more on the cards there han on this board you are right. Very chalky this past summer overall so I have been passing a lot. Guess I got bored, came in here, and saw the SWV's posts which disgusted me so got involved. Sorry if my early return on non-SAR hours meets with any displeasure.

btw..here's some more Bush news on the economy from his own Commerce Department,

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=564&ncid=564&e=2&u=/nm/20040827/ts_nm/economy_gdp_dc

[sq764]

Sec, the bad news for you is that the question keeps being asked, "Do you have confidence in John Kerry being Commander in Chief".. And he is in the 33-35% range..

That is just not good :-)

[Secretariat]

SQ,

I've been eleigible to vote since 68, and have never had anyone ever poll me. In fact I;ve never talked to anyone who's been polled. Have you been, just curious?

I don't really place a great emphasis on polls. some of these polls are based on about 100 to 1000 people. I've got methods that show profits over those plays, but never held up over the next 100 or 1000 plays.

[sq764]

Well, I guess in that case, they must be all made up..

Thanks for the info, we learn things everyday..

[PaceAdvantage]

Polls are only useful when they favor your candidate.....;)

[Tom]

Originally posted by Secretariat
Man, even when the report is from the Census Bureau you don't want to beleive it. You guys would follow the Pied Piper.

Not questioning the report...but there are reason why theses conditions exist....and they are not Bush's fault. Perhaps if you looked closer at Jesse and Julie you might see the real reasons.....it is to thier benefit to keep minorities down.

[Tom]

Originally posted by Secretariat
SQ,

I've been eleigible to vote since 68, and have never had anyone ever poll me......


Move to New Jersey. Meet the govenor.:rolleyes:

[JustRalph]

A little more info on the so called Poverty Report.........Very Interesting stuff here.........

There are some nice charts and links included in this article
but you must go over to the website to see them...click the link below:

http://www.heritage.org/press/dailybriefing/policyweblog.cfm?blogid=9C083F71-A0C9-D18A-0FF1D24A7C4784FB

Here is the Article

Press Tip-Off: Behind the Census Poverty Report
08/26/04 12:58 PM

The number is already all over the news: 1.3 million Americans joined the ranks of the poor between 2002 and 2003. That's according to this year's "Income, Poverty, and Health Insurance Coverage in the United States" report from the Census Bureau (PDF link), but there's so much context missing from reporters' coverage.

Here are a few points to keep in mind on today's numbers:

- The figures are from 2003, not from this year. Given the strong economic growth since 2003 and the major gain in working Americans (more Americans are working now than ever before, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics), it is likely that poverty has decreased over the past year.

- Poverty is a lagging economic indicator and hits its peak a year or more after the end of a recession.

- That said, the increase in poverty stemming from the most recent recession was about half the increase from each of the previous two recessions. This chart compares how several recessions affected the poverty rate.

- In previous recessions, child poverty increased significantly, but the most recent recession affected child poverty little. The 1980 recession caused a 5.5 percentage point jump in child poverty. The 1990 recession caused a 2.7 percentage point jump in poverty. The 2001 recession, in contrast, caused only a 1.6 percentage point rise in child povery. This chart compares how several recessions affected child poverty.

- Welfare reform worked: The 1996 welfare reform drove down black child poverty from 42 percent, about where it had been stuck for decades, to 30 percent in 2001. In 2003, the rate hit 33.6 percent. See this paper for more on welfare reform, recession, and child poverty. See this paper for what remains to be done in welfare reform.

- The Census report shows that the number of Americans without health insurance grew. But the Census numbers on this have long been unreliable, coming in well above other measures, such as SIPP and MEPS, and undercounting Medicaid enrollees. This undercounting expanded in 2003. This chart shows the growing gap in Medicaid enrollment figures. In this paper, released today, Derek Hunter criticizes the Census Bureau's count of the uninsured, which by the Bureau's own estimation is unsound. Heritage's Stuart Butler suggests how to address the problem of uninsurance among small-business employees by offering tax credits here.

- The nature of poverty: As Robert Rector and others detail in this qualitative and statistical study of poverty in America, poverty, as defined by the government, has a very specific and often counterintuitive meaning. Some fact about the poor (more in this table):

Forty-six percent of all poor households actually own their own homes. The average home owned by persons classified as poor by the Census Bureau is a three-bedroom house with one-and-a-half baths, a garage, and a porch or patio.
Seventy-six percent of poor households have air conditioning. By contrast, 30 years ago, only 36 percent of the entire U.S. population enjoyed air conditioning.
Only 6 percent of poor households are overcrowded. More than two-thirds have more than two rooms per person.
The average poor American has more living space than the average individual living in Paris, London, Vienna, Athens, and other cities throughout Europe. (These comparisons are to the average citizens in foreign countries, not to those classified as poor.)
Nearly three-quarters of poor households own a car; 30 percent own two or more cars.
Ninety-seven percent of poor households have a color television; over half own two or more color televisions.
Seventy-eight percent have a VCR or DVD player; 62 percent have cable or satellite TV reception.
Seventy-three percent own microwave ovens, more than half have a stereo, and a third have an automatic dishwasher.
- The importance of work: As this paper by Robert Rector and Rea Hederman shows, a very large part of the income differences between America's highest and lowest income earners can be explained simply by quantity of work. Adjusting the 2002 Census data to include tax burden and government and non-government benefits (such as health insurance), Rector and Hederman find that if working-age adults with the least income worked as many hours as their higher-income counterparts, inequality drops. How much? In this scenario, the top fifth earn $2.91 for every $1 at the bottom. If welfare were further reformed to really require work, poverty would drop further than it already has since the 1996 reforms. This report discusses the relationship between parental work and child poverty. This chart shows the effects of accounting for household size, taxes, benefits, and quantity of work on income inequality.

- Father absence: Two-thirds of poor children reside in single-parent homes. If poor mothers married the fathers of their children, almost three-quarters would immediately be lifted out of poverty. If welfare were further reformed to encourage marriage, poverty would drop further than it already has since the 1996 reforms. This report explains the effect of marriage on child poverty. Look here for charts and statistics on the effects of marriage on poverty and other social ills.

[JustRalph]

A snippet from this website.........if you interested check it out...

http://www.heritage.org/


"There are two Americas," says Sen. John Edwards. "One America that does the work, another America that reaps the reward. One America that pays the taxes, another America that gets tax breaks."

"Edwards is correct," write Robert Rector and Rea Hederman, but "the reality is the opposite of what he suggests."

The top fifth of households perform one-third of all labor in the country. They provide a lopsided share of the economic investment that creates jobs. And they pay 82.5 percent of federal income taxes, compared to 1.1 percent for the bottom fifth.

If working-age adults with the least income worked as many hours as their higher-income counterparts, inequality drops: The top fifth earn $2.91 for every $1 at the bottom, adjusting for taxes and government benefits.

"Raising taxes even higher on hard-working families would be unfair and, by reducing future investments, would reduce economic growth, harming all Americans in the long run," conclude Rector and Hederman.

[Lefty]

I think the Dems consider the impoverished the families with only 2 tv's and 1 computer.

[sq764]

I Democrat's idea of poverty is actually defined as having dial-up internet and not DSL..

[Secretariat]

And it just keeps coming...

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&ncid=&e=6&u=/ap/20040831/ap_on_bi_ge/economy

[Secretariat]

It keeps on going, just like the energizer bunny....but perhaps that's been outsourced well.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=1896&ncid=1896&e=7&u=/nm/20040831/us_nm/economy_executives_dc_1

Let's see loans from Red China to support our economy to pay off the massive deficits and good paying jobs leaving our shores with no merging breakaway industry in this country to create new jobs...but CEO's still doing well......

Anyone who thinks Mr. Bush has created a good economy should be betting on the Brewers to reach the World Series.

[Secretariat]

And one more time...

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&ncid=&e=9&u=/ap/20040901/ap_on_bi_ge/auto_sales

[sq764]

You don't like to actually read the stories do you:

"Analysts and industry executives cautioned not to read too much into August's tallies, which were diminished somewhat by Hurricane Charley in Florida and the fact that last year's results included a bit of a boost from the start of Labor Day sales promotions."

[sq764]

Maybe these 3 articles will tie up the Republicans long enough for Kerry's staff to 'reorganize' their campaign as they planned.. You gotta love your boys deciding on September 1 that things aren't going so well :-)

[Secretariat]

Originally posted by sq764
You don't like to actually read the stories do you:

"Analysts and industry executives cautioned not to read too much into August's tallies, which were diminished somewhat by Hurricane Charley in Florida and the fact that last year's results included a bit of a boost from the start of Labor Day sales promotions."


lol...you are kidding. Of course the industry execs are going to try and spin it positively. Obviously you didn't read the whole story. Try reading the actual numbers. Man, could I sell you a used car.

"Overall, on an adjusted basis, the U.S. industry was down roughly 5 percent from an extremely robust month a year ago. The seasonally adjusted annual sales rate for August was 16.6 million units versus 17.95 million last August, according to Autodata Corp. Full-year sales for 2003 were 16.7 million. "

[Secretariat]

Originally posted by sq764
Maybe these 3 articles will tie up the Republicans long enough for Kerry's staff to 'reorganize' their campaign as they planned.. You gotta love your boys deciding on September 1 that things aren't going so well :-)

Sept 1st...lol ....under Mr. Bush things have NEVER GONE WELL economically. Loss of net jobs, loss of health care, rise in poverty, energy prices soaring, deficits skyrocketing....this is the economy you desire?

[sq764]

Yes, Bush started this.. It was in place when Clinton was in office.. But I guess you just blocked it out.. Understanadable..

This is interesting..

http://money.cnn.com/2004/08/30/news/economy/election_challenger/index.htm

You have 2 more months to bitch, get it out of your system..

[PaceAdvantage]

Sec won't say this publicly too much, but I think Sec believes most if not all offical numbers coming out of Washington are being manipulated to make Bush look good....


Shhhhh....don't tell anyone!!! LOL

[JustRalph]

Remember, A Gelding never wins the Kentucky Derby either......

[Secretariat]

Originally posted by sq764
Yes, Bush started this.. It was in place when Clinton was in office.. But I guess you just blocked it out.. Understanadable..

This is interesting..

http://money.cnn.com/2004/08/30/news/economy/election_challenger/index.htm

You have 2 more months to bitch, get it out of your system..

Well, since you are unable to rebut my previous posts, you choose to pull out the unemployment article. But i guessed you missed this in it:

"Economists and many policy-makers traditionally pay more attention to payroll figures, compiled by the Labor Department in a separate survey of businesses, that show whether companies are adding or subtracting jobs.

The department's unemployment rate, generated from its survey of households, can fluctuate at times as people who were previously discouraged re-enter the work force.

That can tend to push the rate higher. Conversely, people sometimes take part-time jobs until they find full-time work, which can pull the rate lower, even in a relatively sluggish labor market.

After a prolonged period of weakness, payroll growth surged for three months last spring, but then slowed sharply in June and July, coming in well below economists' forecasts."

SQ, Bush and Congress failed to extend unemployment benefits and so many got thrown off the roles. Whether you agree with that or not it helped lower the rate. Now, the problem is people who don't have work and want to receive unemployment are ineligible. Ya got to have had a recent job to be eligible. That's why economists are looking at payroll figures as the article you posted mentions. It shows whether companies are adding or subtracting jobs, and thank you for posting this as it reinforces the slowing down of the economy "slowed sharply in June and July, coming well below economists' forecasts."

No big surprise. He's on track with Hoover for the first president with a net job loss. Even your demon Clinton didn't do that. Fact, I beleive he managed a surplus, not record setting deficits.

[sq764]

PA, I think you're right.. The bad news is neutral, but the good news is slanted.. Interesting concept.

[sq764]

Sec, this is terrible too..

http://money.cnn.com/2004/09/01/news/economy/ceo_survey.reut/index.htm

[Secretariat]

Originally posted by sq764
Sec, this is terrible too..

http://money.cnn.com/2004/09/01/news/economy/ceo_survey.reut/index.htm

I love it. Now you're posting links to what CEO's "might do" in the fall. New jobs...maybe in India ot China.

How bout what's really happening now? Not some pipe dream.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&ncid=&e=7&u=/ap/20040902/ap_on_bi_go_ec_fi/economy_56

Even the Dept. of Labor concedes the figures indicate the economy is slowing down more. Geez, Clinton had to address major hurricanes like Andrew and Hugo and still managed to create a suplus, but apparently Hurricane Charlie is the new Bush excuse for everything in the economy.

But, hey, the CEO's whose pay has tripled in relation to the minimum wage since Nixon (see previous exercise). Can you imagine if it was tied to CEO pay, wow, the minimum wage would be over 15.00 today?

What a Wonderful World as Lousi Armstrong sang.

Thanks SQ, I did enjoy your post. It did make me smile today.

[sq764]

You need to face reality Secretariat.. That should happen in approximately 2 months.

Until then, keep your hope alive..

[Tom]

Sec, you better hope that if Kerry gets elected you have enough volunteers to make one bullshitload of spitballs!:D

[Lefty]

If the govt has a surplus that means we, the people, overpaid. Bush did the right thing and gave it back. After 9-11 and during a war on terrorism the economy is in better shape than it has a right to be. A remarkable job Mr. President. Thanks!

[Secretariat]

Originally posted by Lefty
If the govt has a surplus that means we, the people, overpaid. Bush did the right thing and gave it back.

Lefty, a one year surplus does not mean the people overpaid. It means they are paying for the debt incured by previous years which lead to the deficit.

Here's an example - just plug deficict in for credit card..

Year 2000 - I overspent, and so I owed 5,000 on my credit card (with associated interest)


2001 - This year I wanted to at least not increase my debt. I was fiscally responsible and I actually ended up saving a 1000 more than I anticipated and so I actually paid more to get my credit card down so I now owed only 4000. (In other words I applied an additional 1,000 from my yearly surplus toward reducing my long term indebtedness)

2002 - I overspent again and now owe 6,000 on my credit card.

Under your idea of a surplus that 1,000 I paid down on my credit card deficit in 2001 should have been given back, and not applied to my overall indebtedness.


That's what this admin has done. A balanced budget is simply a yearly balanced budget. A surplus means more was taken in "that year" than was budgeted. This money should be applied to reducing the deficit, not given back to people who "owe" it to futre generations since it was borrowed by previous ones. If Bush keeps "giving it back" the interest rates keep increasing the size of the deficit. In addition this money is actually money which is borrowed from Red China which has its own national security issue. Can you imagine if Red China said pay up?

And this doesn't even factor in discretionary spending...

[JustRalph]

from the Bush Speech at the Republican Convention:

Another drag on our economy is the current tax code, which is a complicated mess — filled with special interest loopholes, saddling our people with more than six billion hours of paperwork and headache every year. The American people deserve — and our economic future demands __ a simpler, fairer, pro-growth system. In a new term, I will lead a bipartisan effort to reform and simplify the federal tax code.

This is enough to get my vote

[Secretariat]

Originally posted by JustRalph
from the Bush Speech at the Republican Convention:

Another drag on our economy is the current tax code, which is a complicated mess — filled with special interest loopholes, saddling our people with more than six billion hours of paperwork and headache every year. The American people deserve — and our economic future demands __ a simpler, fairer, pro-growth system. In a new term, I will lead a bipartisan effort to reform and simplify the federal tax code.

This is enough to get my vote

I didn't see the speech, but if this what he said, I've heard this crap from every president from Nixon to the present day. As for pro-growth..well, I wish he'd actually do sometihng, cause the only growth that I hear about from people are the growing bills and deficits. And if anyone thinks Bush is ever going to lead a "bipartisan" anything, then they haven't been paying attention to the last four years.

JR, are you this naive to beleive that Bush cares about closing special interest loopholes, a man whose first Treasury Secretary resigned in disgust, and whose second claims outsourcing is good for us.

And as to getting your vote, Bush could have said. "I am an idiot," and would have already had your vote.

[JustRalph]

Originally posted by Secretariat
I didn't see the speech, but if this what he said, I've heard this crap from every president from Nixon to the present day. As for pro-growth..well, I wish he'd actually do sometihng, cause the only growth that I hear about from people are the growing bills and deficits. And if anyone thinks Bush is ever going to lead a "bipartisan" anything, then they haven't been paying attention to the last four years.

JR, are you this naive to beleive that Bush cares about closing special interest loopholes, a man whose first Treasury Secretary resigned in disgust, and whose second claims outsourcing is good for us.

And as to getting your vote, Bush could have said. "I am an idiot," and would have already had your vote.

Suffer on ........... yep....... I am just a babe in the woods. Everybody takes advantage of me.............naive is thy name and I shall vote for Bush.............woe is me.........for I have been taken advantage of.........the gubbermint must help me.........show me where to sign up Sec..........

[Tom]

Ralph,
They're getting nervous.:D

[Secretariat]

The AIA Advocate
From: Editorial Staff,
The Association for Investor Awareness, Inc.
September 16, 2004
IN THIS ISSUE:

Consumer's Incomes Flat, Spending Still Rising
Businesses Refuse To Spend
"Soft Patch" Or Thin Ice?
Downturns Are More Dangerous Than Ever
Consumer's Incomes Flat, Spending Still Rising

The most worrisome problem for the economy and the stock market is that the U.S. consumer may be running into limits on their spending. As we mentioned last week, job growth has stalled according to some measures. Personal incomes were essentially flat but consumer spending grew at 0.8% in July, according to the most recent data available. Meanwhile, healthcare costs are soaring and are likely to go even higher. Energy prices remain at historically high levels, notwithstanding their recent modest pullback from record levels. There are reasons for optimism that energy prices might decline further but there are also plenty of things that could go bump in the night and send them screaming to new highs. This lopsided income-to-expense ratio points to tepid consumer spending over the next several months. Realistically, we will probably be lucky if consumers can simply hold their ground.

Another reason consumers are unlikely to provide much additional stimulus to the economy without substantial economic growth is they borrowed heavily from the future to make many of their recent purchases. We can hardly blame people for taking advantage of the unprecedented "0% down, 0% interest" deals they were offered for cars, appliances and other big-ticket items. Now, many people have what they want and won't need to replace these items for two or three years. Instead, consumers are obligated to use more of their income to service their increased debts.

Businesses Refuse To Spend

With consumers reducing their impact on the economy, any significant new growth must come from businesses. Unfortunately, most U.S. businesses have not exactly been high rollers; despite the fact corporate America has accumulated the highest levels of cash reported in a long time. In fact, companies have only added 1% to domestic spending for each of the previous three years and the increased business spending we saw earlier this year has slowed.

Most companies also have lots of inventory and enough reserve production capacity to create more, if they should need it. To make matters worse, many companies won't expand even when demand finally does pick up. Instead, they will simply order more of whatever they need from their suppliers in China. That news does not fill us with optimism about business spending rejuvenating the U.S. economy.

"Soft Patch" Or Thin Ice?

Fed Chairman Alan Greenspan has been talking recently about the current "soft patch" in the U.S. economy. To many analysts, Greenspan's soft spot patch looks a lot more like thin ice. They point to the worrisome slowing of growth in corporate earnings we are starting to see. Among the S&P 500 companies, 94 recently warned investors the upcoming quarterly numbers will be below expectations. That's almost 20% of the total. In the broader market, 541 companies (as of last Friday) made negative projections while 280 issued positive guidance. That is a disturbing 52/48 ratio. That looks like possibly more than a soft patch to us.
Downturns Are More Dangerous Than Ever

There's another way to look at the recent recession and why Alan Greenspan is very worried about the next one.

First we must ask ourselves, why did the Fed go to such extraordinary lengths to end the last recession? Previous downturns were seen as normal parts of the business cycle and were generally allowed to run their course. In most cases, only a few interest rate adjustments were made along the way to help create "soft landings."

We think the Fed's change to more aggressive tactics is due to the more perilous financial situation that now exists in our country. Consumers are in debt up to their proverbial eyeballs. Uncle Sam, state governments, and municipalities are equally bad off, if not worse. Many large pension funds are on shaky ground. In many parts of America, housing is a bubble waiting to burst. And, countless middle class families are living from paycheck to paycheck. Under the circumstances, a new downturn could have serious consequences - and the Fed knows it.

Implications For Investors

We think the bull market that began in the early 1980s has ended. As our economy began to feel the effects of globalization, the most significant economic event of our age, the underlying dynamics of our economy changed. Globalization started a long-term shift of financial strength from Europe and the U.S. to China, India, and other newly-industrialized countries. None of us are likely to live long enough to see the process through. This is a case of Schumpter's 'Creative Destruction' writ large. In 1992 the Dallas Fed published an interesting paper on Creative Destruction and jobs – you can find it at this website. While the paper is somewhat dated the principles it discusses remain important to understand as an investor.

We believe the U.S. stock market has entered a bear market cycle that may last for several more years. The uptrend that started in mid-2003 looks to us like another bear market rally within the longer-term downtrend.


*** The AIA Advocate, a weekly publication of The Association for Investor Awareness, Inc., tracks market trends, industry news, the SEC, global trade and finance and Washington developments for you because they affect your investments.

**For investors out there, they recommend one globalization stock - Archer, Daniels, Midland because they are set for globalization. Otherwise they say the future is set for a bear market, with profit to made by short selling.