13 Ekim 2012 Cumartesi

Update: Major Trends in New Jobless Claims

To contact us Click HERE

Today, we're updating our ongoing statistical analysis of the major trends in the weekly number of new jobless benefit claims in the U.S. since the end of 2005.

The big change is that since our last major update in April 2012, we've seen the end of one primary trend, gone through another, and have now started a third. Goodbye Trend I. Sayonara Trend J. Hello, Trend K!

Primary Trends in Seasonally-Adjusted Initial Unemployment Insurance Claims, 7 January 2006 - 8 September 2012

The table below summarizes each of the periods identified with letters of the alphabet in our updated chart showing each of the major trends over the period from January 2006 through the present:

Timing and Events of Major Shifts in Layoffs of U.S. Employees
Period Starting Date Ending Date Likely Event(s) Triggering New Trend (Occurs 2 to 3 Weeks Prior to New Trend Taking Effect)
A 7 January 2006 22 April 2006 This period of time marks a short term event in which layoff activity briefly dipped as the U.S. housing bubble reached its peak. Builders kept their employees busy as they raced to "beat the clock" to capitalize on high housing demand and prices.
B 29 April 2006 17 November 2007 The calm before the storm. U.S. layoff activity is remarkably stable as solid economic growth is recorded during this period, even though the housing and credit bubbles have begun their deflation phase.
C 24 November 2007 26 July 2008 Federal Reserve acts to slash interest rates for the first time in 4 1/2 years as it begins to respond to the growing housing and credit crisis, which coincides with a spike in the TED spread. Negative change in future outlook for economy leads U.S. businesses to begin increasing the rate of layoffs on a small scale, as the beginning of a recession looms in the month ahead.
D 2 August 2008 21 March 2009 Oil prices spike toward inflation-adjusted all-time highs (over $140 per barrel in 2008 U.S. dollars.) Negative change in future outlook for economy leads businesses to sharply accelerate the rate of employee layoffs.
E 28 March 2009 7 November 2009 Stock market bottoms as future outlook for U.S. economy improves, as rate at which the U.S. economic situation is worsening stops increasing and begins to decelerate instead. U.S. businesses react to the positive change in their outlook by significantly slowing the pace of their layoffs, as the Chinese government announced how it would spend its massive economic stimulus effort, which stood to directly benefit U.S.-based exporters of capital goods and raw materials. By contrast, the U.S. stimulus effort that passed into law over a week earlier had no impact upon U.S. business employee retention decisions, as the measure was perceived to be excessively wasteful in generating new and sustainable economic activity.
F 14 November 2009 11 September 2010 Introduction of HR 3962 (Affordable Health Care for America Act) derails improving picture for employees of U.S. businesses, as the measure (and corresponding legislation introduced in the U.S. Senate) is likely to increase the costs to businesses of retaining employees in the future. Employers react to the negative change in their business outlook by slowing the rate of improvement in layoff activity.
G 18 September 2010 2 April 2011 Possible multiple causes. Political polling indicates Republican party could reasonably win both the U.S. House and Senate, preventing the Democratic party from being able to continue cramming unpopular and economically destructive legislation into law, bringing relief to distressed U.S. businesses. Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke announces Federal Reserve will act if economy worsens, potentially restoring some employer confidence. The White House announces there will be no big new stimulus plan, eliminating the possibility that more wasteful economic activity directed by the federal government would continue to crowd out the economic activity of U.S. businesses.
H 9 April 2011 26 November 2011 Rising oil and gasoline prices exceed the critical $3.50-$3.60 per gallon range (in 2011 U.S. dollars), forcing numerous small businesses to act to reduce staff to offset rising costs in order to prevent losses. The trend ends when average motor gasoline prices in the U.S. fall back below the $3.50 level in the week between 5 November 2011 and 12 November 2011 - the corresponding improvement in business outlook shows up in the data with the next full pay cycle (2-3 weeks later, or rather, the week ending 26 November 2011!)
I 3 December 2011 11 February 2012 With average gasoline prices in the U.S. having fallen below the critical $3.50 per gallon level, employers respond to the improving business outlook by reducing the number weekly layoffs at a faster rate, as both businesses and consumers benefit from lower transporation and fuel costs, while consumers gain more disposable income. Trend I ended shortly after gasoline prices rose back above the $3.50 per gallon mark in late January 2012.
J 18 February 2012 23 June 2012 With average gasoline prices continuing to be a high levels through the spring and summer, the pace of layoffs in the U.S. steadily increased until June 2012, when the national average price of gasoline in the U.S. finally dropped back below the $3.50 per gallon mark.
K 30 June 2012 Present Trend K began with a sudden shift downward in the number of new jobless claims as gasoline prices fell below the $3.50 per gallon mark in June 2012, and although the average price of gasoline in the U.S. has since risen back above that level, there has been no sudden upward shift in new jobless claims. Instead, the number of initial unemployment insurance benefit claims filed in the weeks since has been rising at a faster rate than at any time since on the onset of the 2007 recession.

We can see that faster rate of increase in our close-up view of the residual distribution of the four most recent primary trends, covering the period of time since 26 March 2011:

In determining the primary trend for Trend K, we should note that we have omitted the data for the weeks ending 7 July 2012 and 14 July 2012. Both weeks were suspected to be atypical given the delay in the timing of annual automotive industry plant holidays in 2012, which was not compensated for in the BLS' seasonal adjustments. As it happens, the data for 7 July 2012 appears to be right in line with the primary trend we determined using all the weekly data reported in the period since 21 July 2012, while the data for 14 July 2012 appears as an outlier.

We also note that the data for the most recent week ending 8 September 2012 also includes roughly 9,000 additional layoffs due to the effect of Hurricane Isaac. In the context of our statistical analysis, the effect of the hurricane appears to be consistent with typical natural variation in the data.

Finally, we observe that new jobless claims in the U.S. appear to be rising at the fastest rate recorded since the onset of the 2007 recession. As such, this measure indicates that the health of the U.S. job market is currently declining, although we continue to anticipate stronger economic growth in 2012-Q3 than occurred in 2012-Q2.





What's Your Income Percentile?

To contact us Click HERE

Where do you rank in the U.S. income spectrum?

Now that the U.S. Census has released its total money income data it collected as part of its 2012 Annual Social and Economic Supplement survey, we can tell you almost exactly where you rank among American individuals, men (if you're a man), women (if you're a woman). Or, once you consider the combined income for your family or the members of your household, we can determine your percentile rank among each of those kinds of groupings!

It all starts below! Just enter your personal income, your family's income, which includes the incomes of your spouse and any dependents you might have, regardless of whether they live with you or not, and also the combined income of just the people who live within the same four walls of the household that you do and we'll tell you where you rank (if you're accessing this article through a site that republishes our RSS feed, click here to access the tool on our site.) And if you live outside the United States, be sure to convert your income into U.S. dollars first!

Income Data
Input Data Values
Your Personal Total Money Income
Your Family's Combined Total Money Income
Your Household's Combined Total Money Income

Cumulative Distribution of Total Money Income for U.S. Individuals, 2011Your Income Percentile
Individuals
- Men
- Women
Families
Households
   

The default data we've presented in the tool above represents the average total money income of U.S. individuals, families and households in 2011.

In the tool above, your percentile ranking indicates the percentage of Americans who either share your income or earn less than you do. As such, it tells you what percentage of the population you're above in the income earning food chain.

For example, a percentile ranking of zero would indicate that you are at the very bottom end of the American income spectrum, while a percentile ranking of 100 indicates that you are effectively at the very top end. A percentile rank of 50.0 would indicate that you're within spitting range of being the middle of all Americans (our tool should be able to place most people within 0.2% of their actual percentile ranking.)

In considering your percentile ranking, here's how many income-earning people, families and households there were in 2011:

  • Individuals: 214,559,000
    • Men: 106,228,000
    • Women: 108,332,000
  • Families: 80,529,000
  • Households: 121,084,000

And here are our charts showing the cumulative distribution for U.S. families (left) and households (right). Click the images for larger versions:

Cumulative Distribution of Total Money Income for U.S. Families, 2011 Cumulative Distribution of Total Money Income for U.S. Households, 2011

The U.S. Census will report the data it collects for income earned in 2012 sometime in September 2013.

The Future According to Dividends, Through 2013-Q3

To contact us Click HERE

First the good news: we can now peer ahead to the end of the third quarter of 2013 and see what is in store for the quarterly dividends of the S&P 500! The chart below reveals what we see in that future:

S&P 500 Quarterly  Dividends per Share, 2009-Q1 Through 2012-Q2, with Expected Future Dividends per Share Through 2013-Q3

Taking the change in dividends over time as a good measure of the health of the U.S. economy, 2013 thus far appears to be destined for spectacularly lackluster growth, as dividends would seem to be set to stall out during the year, losing the momentum they've sustained since mid-2010.

Here, instead of increasing at a year-over-year rate of anywhere from $0.84 to $1.49 per share as they have since mid-2010, the S&P 500's dividends from the third quarter of 2012 to the third quarter of 2013 would appear to be set to rise by just $0.56 per share. At this writing, that low figure indicates that investors expect a rather dramatic slowdown in the economy to take place by the third quarter of 2013.

To put that observation into a larger context, our next chart shows the S&P 500's quarterly cash dividends per share going back for each quarter since 1988-Q1. Why only go back to this quarter? That's because the first quarter of 1988 is as far back as Standard and Poor provides this data in quick and easy to access spreadsheet format!

S&P 500 Quarterly Cash Dividends per Share, 1988-Q1 Through 2011-Q4, with Futures Through 2013-Q3

Here, we see that what happens with the S&P 500's quarterly dividends provides a pretty good indication of what's going on with the U.S. economy, and in particular the U.S.' employment situation, as growing levels of dividends generally correspond with a growing job market, while falling or flat dividend levels correspond with a poor job market.

Even falling dividend levels from a previous quarter correlate to periods of poor economic performance in the U.S., which we've referred to as microrecessions. And from this vantage point, 2013 would appear to be set to have at least two of them during the year. Or maybe that's just us being optimistic in our reading of the data....

That, of course, assumes that the future will play out as investors currently expect. As best as we can tell, there is clearly not much optimism for the fate of the economy going into 2013.

Charting the Growth Rates of the S&P 500

To contact us Click HERE

Since we referred to the growth rate of dividends per share in discussing our rather dismal outlook for 2013 yesterday, we thought we'd take look at the growth rate of trailing year dividends per share and stock prices for the S&P 500 today. We'll first look at the S&P 500's trailing year dividends per share from January 1997 through this point in mid-September 2012:

S&P 500 Trailing Year Dividends per Share, January 1997 through 13 September 2012

Looking at the trailing year data, there seems little to be concerned about for 2013, however that might change rapidly should the the currently expected lackluster quarterly dividend growth for 2013 continue much longer.

Next, let's look at the year-over-year growth rate of stock prices over the same period of time:

S&P 500 Price Dividend Growth Rate Ratio, January 1997 through 13 September 2012

As a bonus, our third chart shows the ratio between the growth rate of stock prices and the growth rate of dividends per share for the S&P 500 from January 1997 through mid-September 2012:

S&P 500 Year-Over-Year Stock Price Growth Rate, January 1997 through 13 September 2012

The reason this chart is a bonus is because we've found that the price dividend growth ratio is a key measure of the level of distress in the stock market (or the economy) at any given time. In fact, whenever the ratio spikes (hits a relative peak), we can expect stock prices will trough (hit a relative bottom) within a two month long window of the spike some 81.1% of the time (it's basically a given for a three month long window of time). Or at least that's what's happened according to the all the data we have going back to January 1871!

Make of this what you will: At present, the price dividend growth rate ratio is rising....

President Obama's Debt Achievement

To contact us Click HERE

How does President Obama's contribution to the national debt compare to those of other modern Presidents?

To answer that question, we're going to express the United States' total public debt outstanding in the more human scale terms of U.S. households, for which the U.S. Census provides data going back to 1967. Our chart below summarizes what we find when we calculate the national debt per U.S. household for each of the U.S. government's fiscal year from 1967 through the just ended fiscal year for 2012, both in nominal and real (inflation-adjusted) terms.

Total U.S. Public Debt Outstanding per U.S. Household, 1967-2012

Here's how much each President since 1969 added to the U.S. national debt burden per household on average for each year they were in office, after adjusting for inflation (note: we're omitting the data for 1967 and 1968 since it coincides with only part of Lyndon Johnson's term in office):

Average Inflation-Adjusted Annual Change in U.S. National Debt Burden per Household for Modern U.S. Presidents, 1969-2012

After accounting for the effect of inflation, we find that President Obama is racking up national debt at a rate that's nearly three times faster than any other U.S. President in the modern era since 1969.

That's quite an achievement.

12 Ekim 2012 Cuma

President Obama's Debt Achievement

To contact us Click HERE

How does President Obama's contribution to the national debt compare to those of other modern Presidents?

To answer that question, we're going to express the United States' total public debt outstanding in the more human scale terms of U.S. households, for which the U.S. Census provides data going back to 1967. Our chart below summarizes what we find when we calculate the national debt per U.S. household for each of the U.S. government's fiscal year from 1967 through the just ended fiscal year for 2012, both in nominal and real (inflation-adjusted) terms.

Total U.S. Public Debt Outstanding per U.S. Household, 1967-2012

Here's how much each President since 1969 added to the U.S. national debt burden per household on average for each year they were in office, after adjusting for inflation (note: we're omitting the data for 1967 and 1968 since it coincides with only part of Lyndon Johnson's term in office):

Average Inflation-Adjusted Annual Change in U.S. National Debt Burden per Household for Modern U.S. Presidents, 1969-2012

After accounting for the effect of inflation, we find that President Obama is racking up national debt at a rate that's nearly three times faster than any other U.S. President in the modern era since 1969.

That's quite an achievement.

U.S. and China Trade Growth Hits Zero

To contact us Click HERE

Looking at the just published trade data between the U.S. and China, it would appear that both the U.S. and China have fallen into recession. Both nations are now showing near-zero annualized growth rates for the value of goods and services traded between them in August 2012:

Annualized Growth Rates of US-China Trade, January 1985 through August 2012

That's a change from what we observed back in August, when it appears that China's economy had rebounded somewhat from a slow spring, based on the data then that only covered the period through June 2012.

Since then, the annualized growth rate of U.S. exports to China has fallen back to the low single digits that are consistent with that nation's economy being in recession. Going by international trade data, China entered into recession back in December 2011.

Meanwhile, the year-over-year growth rate of U.S. imports from China has turned negative for the first time since November 2009, when the U.S. was still coming out of recession.

So far, that's consistent with our earlier observation that the U.S. economy was in a microrecession in the second quarter of 2012, as the trade data collected and reported by the U.S. Census tends to lag the actual state of the economy by a number of months. The growth rate of the U.S. imports from China had last been negative in the period from November 2008 through November 2009, although officially, the previous recession in the U.S. ran from December 2007 through June 2009, with fairly mild recessionary conditions prevailing through the first half of 2008.

I've Been Banned

To contact us Click HERE

CREDIT: True Dinos
CREDIT: True Dinos

So much for having a conversation.  


I visited the FaceBook page, True Dinos, of a young Earth creationist (YEC) run a fellow named Aaron Tulllock.  You can no longer see my posts, because I've blocked by the administrator for "being a troll." 
What did I do?
I asked about the design of the vas deferens and the recurrent laryngeal nerve. [See Smack Down.] Here's what left of the comments about Intelligent Design.




CREDIT: True Dinos
Then there was my comments on this post. Since True Dinos is also a biblical literalist, I informed him that the bible literally claims that the Sun revolves around the Earth. When pressed by another YEC called The Question Evolution Project, I provided not only the biblical verses, but a link to other biblical literalists who truly believe in geocentrism. [Regular readers might know my earlier blog posts Your Elementary School Teachers Were Right and LA Times Does Story on Geocentrism.] He never responded; in fact, his comments on True Dinos have been wiped.
Since The Question Evolution Project was unwilling to confront his obvious hypocrisy on the bible being literally true, I visited The Question Evolution Project FaceBook page. Because I had the audacity to debate, he promptly blocked me . 
Oh, what am I to do now? 
If any of the administrators from those pages wish to comment on this blog, they are free to do so.  All I ask is that they not do so anonymously. They are free to use whatever language they see fit to use. They will not be banned.
A bit more about these two pages.
Aaron Tullock (True Dinos) claims to have sighted a living pterosaur in 1995 in Marion County, Texas. The fossil and geologic evidence shows quite dramatically that  these reptiles became extinct about 65.5 million years ago. An excellent resource for those interested in pterosaurs is Pterosaur.net.
The paleontologists there say
Unusual winged animals reported from around the world have been suggested by some cryptozoologists and creationists to be modern-day pterosaurs that survived the end-Cretaceous extinction event. From Africa, people have reported a semi-aquatic winged animal called the kongamato while on New Guinea and the surrounding islands sightings are claimed of a gigantic, bioluminescent, crested flying creature (the duah) and a smaller, long-tailed version, the ropen. Fossil evidence demonstrates overwhelmingly that pterosaurs did not survive beyond the end of the Cretaceous, and the sightings of pterosaur-like animals that have been reported appear to be a combination of hoaxes and misidentification of large birds and bats. So-called modern pterosaurs are generally ugly, dark, carnivorous, bat-winged horrors—they sound more like imaginary generic flying monsters than the pterosaurs we know from the fossil record.
Like these other foundational scientific theories, the theory of evolution is supported by so many observations and confirming experiments that scientists are confident that the basic components of the theory will not be overturned by new evidence.
Plus technically speaking, pterosaurs aren't dinosaurs, although they did coexist.
Now for The Question Evolution Project.  In their About section, they write "true science is not afraid to examine contrary evidence and allows alternative theories to the interpretation of the evidence." Agreed. Science does not make progress without questioning.  Consider the Copernican revolution or the quantum revolution. So why was I banned? I presented biblical evidence that didn't fit their preconceived notions about what the bible says. 
On the other hand, "the Admins have other things to do besides engage in lengthy debates." It's strange that for people that being interested in "scientific evidence and its interpretation" and "intellectual honesty and freedom," they refuse to discuss anything.  How does The Question Evolution Project feel about questions? They say "[the site] is for people who can think for themselves and dare to ask questions," but don't ask them if they're geocentrists, because that will get you banned.
One last item, The Question Evolution Project claims that evolution is not a fact."  What do scientists say about that?  
The National Academy of Sciences says 
Like these other foundational scientific theories, the theory of evolution is supported by so many observations and confirming experiments that scientists are confident that the basic components of the theory will not be overturned by new evidence.

The American Association for the Advancement of Science states
But the phenomenon of gravity, like evolution, is an accepted fact.

I imagine The Question Evolution Project will just say we're being bullies.

Dr. Oz's Diet Advice

To contact us Click HERE

I was really bored yesterday, August 6, 2012.  Flipping through the channels, I came upon the Dr. Oz show, and I wondered what woo he was pushing today.  Sure enough, he begins the show with metabolism boosters.  
I immediately began to wonder whether a person can really boost their metabolism by simply drinking tomato juice spiked with a little Tabasco sauce and lime juice, but then he said this.
"And while wine snobs may not approve, adding ice chips to your red wine forces your body to burn calories, as it has to use its own energy to warm the liquid to body temperature."
Let's see what science has to say about this.
One learns in both physics and chemistry courses that to raise the temperature of any substance it takes an amount of energy equal to Q = mcdT where m is the mass of the substance, dT is the final temperature minus the initial temperature, and c is called the specific heat. The specific heat takes into account all the complicated physics and chemistry of how energy is distributed among the atoms and molecules.
I went to my freezer and looked at a ice cube - technically it's not a cube, it's a rectangular solid, but I'm being pedantic.  I don't have a kitchen scale, so I'll determine its mass by measuring its dimensions.  My cube is 5 cm by 3 cm by 3.5 cm or about 53 cm3.  The density of ice is 0.998 grams per cubic centimeter, so I can calculate its mass by multiplying the density by the volume.  Therefore, my ice cube's mass is 53 grams.
The ice will melt and cool the wine as cold as 0ºC.  After you drink the wine, your body will warm the liquid to body temperature, about 37ºC.
The specific heat of water is 1 calorie per gram per Celsius degree.  So your body will use 
Q = (53 g)(1 cal/(g ºC))(37ºC–0ºC) = 1961 calories.
But I have to correct something here.  A food calorie is different from a calorie.  A food calorie, also called the Calorie (notice the capital C), is equal to 1000 calories.
So your body has to expend almost 2 Calories to warm the cold wine.  I think you can burn 2 Calories by breathing for a whole minute.

UPDATE: Oops! I made a mistake here.  Your body has to warm all the liquid, not just the melted ice.  If you have a standard serving of wine, 6 oz., then your body expends 8.5 Calories.
You can do a little better by eating the ice, since your body has to melt the ice, too.  I''ll spare you the details, but that takes a whopping10 Calories! Assuming you drink the wine, too.

Even if you live a sedentary lifestyle, you will burn at least 1200 Calories every day by just existing. This is your metabolic activity. If you are active, your metabolic activity can be as high as 3000 Calories.  
If you want a little dieting advice, I share with you the only diet proven to work.  
The Thermodynamic Diet
The 1st law of thermodynamics states that one cannot create nor destroy energy.  All that can be done is to convert energy from one form to another.  Your body converts chemical energy in the food to kinetic energy (energy of motion) and thermal energy (you may call that heat, but that's technically incorrect).  Any energy not converted into these two forms may be converted into another form of chemical energy; that is, weight gain.
So the thermodynamic diet is burn more calories than you ingest.

I'm Being Sued?

To contact us Click HERE

Almost a month ago, I wrote about how I had been banned by a couple of Facebook users FaceBookers, The Question Evolution Project and True Dinos.  In the post I invited both of them to respond.  It took them three weeks, but Cowboy Bob Sorensen did on this blog,and Aaron Tullock did on his True Dinos Facebook FB page.I'm a physicist, not a lawyer, but I'm pretty sure I didn't post anything illegally.  Both of the Facebook pages are public, as are their web pages.  I believe that the Fair Use Doctrine may apply.

As to the defamation charge, Aaron needs to know the difference between slander and libel.  Notwithstanding the vocabulary, I think libel is " to publish in print (including pictures), writing or broadcast through radio, television or film, an untruth about another which will do harm to that person or his/her reputation, by tending to bring the target into ridicule, hatred, scorn or contempt of others." [dictionary.law.com]  If Aaron can point out the untruth, I will gladly retract.
By the way, Cowboy Bob and Aaron, calling you out for your scientific nonsense is not ridiculing you for spreading your gospel.  I'm ridiculing you for believing in creationist gibberish.
Lastly, I will take this opportunity to once again invite them to address the issue that led them to ban me.

Both Cowboy Bob and Aaron are biblical literalists.  The bible literally says the Sun orbits the Earth.  [A historical point here.  Galileo was tried and convicted by the Catholic Church in 1633 for promoting the heliocentric model for which Pope John Paul II apologized in 1992.]  Do they adhere to the biblical view or is their bible wrong on this matter?  To make matters easy on them I will once again provide a link to true biblical literalists that know what the bible says on this. Galileo Was Wrong; The Church Was Right.

They are invited to comment here using whatever language they deem appropriate.  I ask that they do not do so anonymously.  They will not be banned.

I wonder if they will extend to me the same courtesy?




11 Ekim 2012 Perşembe

Is Unemployment Set to Explode?

To contact us Click HERE

Now that the average price of gasoline in the United States is clocking in at all-time record levels for this time of year, especially in California, what effect will that factor have upon the official U.S. unemployment rate, which just clocked in at its lowest level since early 2009?

Unfortunately, that's the wrong question to be asking today, because it takes roughly two years for a major change in the price of oil and gasoline to play out and fully impact the U.S. unemployment rate. The right question to ask today is: "what was the price of gasoline doing two years ago that put the events in motion that are just now about to affect the U.S. economy?

The answer is revealed in our chart below, in which we've shifted the average price of motor gasoline in the United States forward in time by two years to visually correlate the price of gasoline with the recorded official U.S. unemployment rate for each month since January 1976 (or actually, since January 1978):

U.S. Unemployment Rate and Two-Years-Later Average Gasoline Price, January 1976 through September 2012, with Forecast Through 2013

Here, we see that the U.S. unemployment rate has been tracking pretty closely with where the two-year time lagged price of gasoline in the U.S. would put it - including the "unexpectedly" low 7.8% unemployment rate that was just reported for September 2012.

The bad news is that if that correlation between the time-lagged price of gasoline and the U.S. unemployment rate continues, the U.S. is about to see a major spike upward in its unemployment rate, corresponding to the sustained surge in gasoline prices that began at the end of 2010.

It's only a coincidence that this surge in unemployment would appear set to take place just as the U.S. government approaches its self-created "fiscal cliff", where the ongoing failure of the Obama administration to negotiate government spending reductions in good faith with the U.S. Congress threatens to push the U.S. directly into recession in early 2013!

To start getting a feel for what the real forces are behind the relationship between oil and gasoline prices and the U.S. unemployment rate, let's turn to the San Francisco branch of the U.S. Federal Reserve's Dr. Econ for an explanation:

What effects do oil prices have on the "macro" economy?

I've just explained how oil prices affect households and businesses; it is not a far leap to understand how oil prices affect the macroeconomy. Oil price increases are generally thought to increase inflation and reduce economic growth. In terms of inflation, oil prices directly affect the prices of goods made with petroleum products. As mentioned above, oil prices indirectly affect costs such as transportation, manufacturing, and heating. The increase in these costs can in turn affect the prices of a variety of goods and services, as producers may pass production costs on to consumers. The extent to which oil price increases lead to consumption price increases depends on how important oil is for the production of a given type of good or service.

Oil price increases can also stifle the growth of the economy through their effect on the supply and demand for goods other than oil. Increases in oil prices can depress the supply of other goods because they increase the costs of producing them. In economics terminology, high oil prices can shift up the supply curve for the goods and services for which oil is an input.

High oil prices also can reduce demand for other goods because they reduce wealth, as well as induce uncertainty about the future (Sill 2007). One way to analyze the effects of higher oil prices is to think about the higher prices as a tax on consumers (Fernald and Trehan 2005). The simplest example occurs in the case of imported oil. The extra payment that U.S. consumers make to foreign oil producers can now no longer be spent on other kinds of consumption goods.

Despite these effects on supply and demand, the correlation between oil price increases and economic downturns in the U.S. is not perfect. Not every sizeable oil price increase has been followed by a recession. However, five of the last seven U.S. recessions were preceded by considerable increases in oil prices (Sill 2007).

Alan A. Carruth, Mark A. Hooker and Andrew J. Oswald connect the macro-economic dots then between yesterday's oil and gasoline prices and today's unemployment rates in their 1998 paper:

Intuitively, the mechanism at work is the following. An increase in, for example, the price of oil leads to an erosion of profit margins. Firms lose money, and begin to go out of business. To restore a zero-profit equilibrium, some variable in the economy has to alter. If labor and energy are the key inputs and interest rates are largely fixed internationally, it is labor's price that must decline.

But there is only one way in which this can happen. If wages and unemployment are connected inversely by a no-shirking condition, equilibrium unemployment must rise, because only that will induce workers to accept the lower levels of pay necessitated by the fact that the owners of oil are taking a larger share of the economy’s real income.

The same kind of process follows any rise in the real rate of interest. When capital owners' returns increase, the new zero-profit equilibrium requires workers’ returns to be lower. In a world where the level of unemployment acts as a "discipline device," higher real input prices lead to lower wages and greater unemployment rates.

This effect is what Obama administration officials are after in part when they state their political objective that the price of fuel must "necessarily skyrocket", as it gives the administration a target to scapegoat (capital owners) while simultaneously increasing their client base of unemployed individuals who will become dependent upon government-provided welfare for their income.

Or maybe they're just a bunch of screwups where all this can all be chalked up to "bad luck"....

Updated: Using Gas Prices to Forecast Unemployment

To contact us Click HERE

Good morning, White House Staffer!

Say, do you remember when we said you should enjoy it while you can as the average price of gasoline in the U.S. dropped below $3.50 per gallon back in June?

Summer's over dude, and has been for well over a month!

Although your boss' spokesman is chillin' from his job (such strange behavior with the national election less than six weeks away, but what should we expect when the boss himself has been phoning it in all this time!), maybe you should have spent more time working on real, non-election-related stuff for the last four months, because gas prices in the U.S. have spiked sharply upward. Again.

So, to help you better understand why you really don't want that to happen, we've updated our tool that allows you to roughly forecast what today's high gas prices will mean for tomorrow's soon-to-come unemployment rate in the U.S. Basically, we've incorporated all the available data through September 2012 and accounted for inflation through that month as well.


Average Gasoline Price Trends for Washington D.C. and USA

Washington D.C. Gas Prices Provided by GasBuddy.com

The Future Unemployment Rate
Enter: Today's Average USA Gasoline Price
U.S. Unemployment Rate In Two Years*
* If High Gas Prices Are Sustained.... See you tomorrow!

Just for fun, you should try this exercise using yesterday's average price of gasoline in California, $4.67.

"Good Morning, White House Staffer" is a special feature we run periodically whenever the average U.S. national retail price for gasoline rises above $3.50 per gallon!

Expected Future Dividends Continue Flatlining

To contact us Click HERE

Eavesdropping in the comment threads at Slope of Hope....


boopoo - Detour Ahead

Earnings Graph Reminder

http://cdn.socialtrade.com/comsys/imgs/2012-10-08_1242_l4khWG_m.png


COTrader

More important in my opinion.....

http://politicalcalculations.blogspot.com/2012/10/dividends- us-continuing-descent-toward.html#.UHWmdFFRD1A


boopoo - Detour Ahead

Don't Companies cut Divi's after the fact ? " Oh, shit our stock price has been cut in half, we better cut our Divi at the next board meeting"


COTrader

Not the highest quality companies. But for the highest quality companies, forward expectations for dividend growth has flatlined - that tells you they aren't confident enough in future cash flow to grant higher payouts.

If the highest quality companies aren't increasing payouts, lower quality companies will be cutting dividends.

This confirms the weak economic environment. And is why I'm comfortable saying that 1450 on the SPX will remain at the upper bound of this move.

Think the top is in for the Russell 2k.

We'll interject here to note that COTrader is a very sharp observer. Forward expectations for dividend growth at the "highest quality" companies has indeed flatlined - and has for months. Here's the evidence for that, with the highest quality companies being represented by the S&P 500:

Expected Future Trailing Year Dividends per Share for the S&P 500, with Futures as of 10 October 2012

The wild card right now is the Fed's latest quantitative easing exercise, which as best as we can tell right now, hasn't done much to elevate stock prices. We suspect the reason why is because of how the Fed has executed it so far, focusing on purchasing mortgage backed securities as opposed to the outright massive purchases of U.S. Treasuries that characterized previous rounds, which provides a more direct boost to equity prices by lowering long term interest rates.

Still, this flatlining of expected future dividends is a big reason why we've been so bearish regarding the economic outlook for 2013. A relatively healthy stock market would see these values for each future quarter rise over time. For all practical purposes, that hasn't happened in the stock market since the end of the earnings season for 2012-Q1....

I've Been Banned

To contact us Click HERE

CREDIT: True Dinos
CREDIT: True Dinos

So much for having a conversation.  


I visited the FaceBook page, True Dinos, of a young Earth creationist (YEC) run a fellow named Aaron Tulllock.  You can no longer see my posts, because I've blocked by the administrator for "being a troll." 
What did I do?
I asked about the design of the vas deferens and the recurrent laryngeal nerve. [See Smack Down.] Here's what left of the comments about Intelligent Design.




CREDIT: True Dinos
Then there was my comments on this post. Since True Dinos is also a biblical literalist, I informed him that the bible literally claims that the Sun revolves around the Earth. When pressed by another YEC called The Question Evolution Project, I provided not only the biblical verses, but a link to other biblical literalists who truly believe in geocentrism. [Regular readers might know my earlier blog posts Your Elementary School Teachers Were Right and LA Times Does Story on Geocentrism.] He never responded; in fact, his comments on True Dinos have been wiped.
Since The Question Evolution Project was unwilling to confront his obvious hypocrisy on the bible being literally true, I visited The Question Evolution Project FaceBook page. Because I had the audacity to debate, he promptly blocked me . 
Oh, what am I to do now? 
If any of the administrators from those pages wish to comment on this blog, they are free to do so.  All I ask is that they not do so anonymously. They are free to use whatever language they see fit to use. They will not be banned.
A bit more about these two pages.
Aaron Tullock (True Dinos) claims to have sighted a living pterosaur in 1995 in Marion County, Texas. The fossil and geologic evidence shows quite dramatically that  these reptiles became extinct about 65.5 million years ago. An excellent resource for those interested in pterosaurs is Pterosaur.net.
The paleontologists there say
Unusual winged animals reported from around the world have been suggested by some cryptozoologists and creationists to be modern-day pterosaurs that survived the end-Cretaceous extinction event. From Africa, people have reported a semi-aquatic winged animal called the kongamato while on New Guinea and the surrounding islands sightings are claimed of a gigantic, bioluminescent, crested flying creature (the duah) and a smaller, long-tailed version, the ropen. Fossil evidence demonstrates overwhelmingly that pterosaurs did not survive beyond the end of the Cretaceous, and the sightings of pterosaur-like animals that have been reported appear to be a combination of hoaxes and misidentification of large birds and bats. So-called modern pterosaurs are generally ugly, dark, carnivorous, bat-winged horrors—they sound more like imaginary generic flying monsters than the pterosaurs we know from the fossil record.
Like these other foundational scientific theories, the theory of evolution is supported by so many observations and confirming experiments that scientists are confident that the basic components of the theory will not be overturned by new evidence.
Plus technically speaking, pterosaurs aren't dinosaurs, although they did coexist.
Now for The Question Evolution Project.  In their About section, they write "true science is not afraid to examine contrary evidence and allows alternative theories to the interpretation of the evidence." Agreed. Science does not make progress without questioning.  Consider the Copernican revolution or the quantum revolution. So why was I banned? I presented biblical evidence that didn't fit their preconceived notions about what the bible says. 
On the other hand, "the Admins have other things to do besides engage in lengthy debates." It's strange that for people that being interested in "scientific evidence and its interpretation" and "intellectual honesty and freedom," they refuse to discuss anything.  How does The Question Evolution Project feel about questions? They say "[the site] is for people who can think for themselves and dare to ask questions," but don't ask them if they're geocentrists, because that will get you banned.
One last item, The Question Evolution Project claims that evolution is not a fact."  What do scientists say about that?  
The National Academy of Sciences says 
Like these other foundational scientific theories, the theory of evolution is supported by so many observations and confirming experiments that scientists are confident that the basic components of the theory will not be overturned by new evidence.

The American Association for the Advancement of Science states
But the phenomenon of gravity, like evolution, is an accepted fact.

I imagine The Question Evolution Project will just say we're being bullies.

Dr. Oz's Diet Advice

To contact us Click HERE

I was really bored yesterday, August 6, 2012.  Flipping through the channels, I came upon the Dr. Oz show, and I wondered what woo he was pushing today.  Sure enough, he begins the show with metabolism boosters.  
I immediately began to wonder whether a person can really boost their metabolism by simply drinking tomato juice spiked with a little Tabasco sauce and lime juice, but then he said this.
"And while wine snobs may not approve, adding ice chips to your red wine forces your body to burn calories, as it has to use its own energy to warm the liquid to body temperature."
Let's see what science has to say about this.
One learns in both physics and chemistry courses that to raise the temperature of any substance it takes an amount of energy equal to Q = mcdT where m is the mass of the substance, dT is the final temperature minus the initial temperature, and c is called the specific heat. The specific heat takes into account all the complicated physics and chemistry of how energy is distributed among the atoms and molecules.
I went to my freezer and looked at a ice cube - technically it's not a cube, it's a rectangular solid, but I'm being pedantic.  I don't have a kitchen scale, so I'll determine its mass by measuring its dimensions.  My cube is 5 cm by 3 cm by 3.5 cm or about 53 cm3.  The density of ice is 0.998 grams per cubic centimeter, so I can calculate its mass by multiplying the density by the volume.  Therefore, my ice cube's mass is 53 grams.
The ice will melt and cool the wine as cold as 0ºC.  After you drink the wine, your body will warm the liquid to body temperature, about 37ºC.
The specific heat of water is 1 calorie per gram per Celsius degree.  So your body will use 
Q = (53 g)(1 cal/(g ºC))(37ºC–0ºC) = 1961 calories.
But I have to correct something here.  A food calorie is different from a calorie.  A food calorie, also called the Calorie (notice the capital C), is equal to 1000 calories.
So your body has to expend almost 2 Calories to warm the cold wine.  I think you can burn 2 Calories by breathing for a whole minute.

UPDATE: Oops! I made a mistake here.  Your body has to warm all the liquid, not just the melted ice.  If you have a standard serving of wine, 6 oz., then your body expends 8.5 Calories.
You can do a little better by eating the ice, since your body has to melt the ice, too.  I''ll spare you the details, but that takes a whopping10 Calories! Assuming you drink the wine, too.

Even if you live a sedentary lifestyle, you will burn at least 1200 Calories every day by just existing. This is your metabolic activity. If you are active, your metabolic activity can be as high as 3000 Calories.  
If you want a little dieting advice, I share with you the only diet proven to work.  
The Thermodynamic Diet
The 1st law of thermodynamics states that one cannot create nor destroy energy.  All that can be done is to convert energy from one form to another.  Your body converts chemical energy in the food to kinetic energy (energy of motion) and thermal energy (you may call that heat, but that's technically incorrect).  Any energy not converted into these two forms may be converted into another form of chemical energy; that is, weight gain.
So the thermodynamic diet is burn more calories than you ingest.

10 Ekim 2012 Çarşamba

Tax Plan From Romney Works : Progressive's Plan Failed

To contact us Click HERE
As usual, and expected, the media and the progressive Democrats, a redundant statement, are distorting the Romney tax proposal to cover for not having a workable proposal of their own other than to take as much from everyone as possible. Stealing from others is not a workable or acceptable plan.

Unfortunately, it's easy to get lost in the weeds when it comes to economics and who gets what and when. The easiest thing to believe is that if the progressives Democrats are waving their arms and screaming about a Republican proposal, it must be a good proposal.

Would the Romney Tax Plan Necessarily Reduce After-Tax Incomes for the Middle Class?
Source: Gerald Prante, "Would the Romney Tax Plan Necessarily Reduce After-Tax Incomes for the Middle Class," Tax Foundation, October 2, 2012.

October 8, 2012
The Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center (TPC) released a report in August arguing Mitt Romney's plan for tax reform would raise taxes on the middle class and reduce their after-tax incomes, as well as give a tax cut to high-income taxpayers. Some economists such as Martin Feldstein and Harvey Rosen have taken issue with the study, arguing that Romney's tax plan would not necessarily require raising taxes on the middle class, says Gerald Prante of the Tax Foundation.

The TPC reports that Romney's plan would:

•Decrease the after-tax income of earners between $75,000 and $100,000 by $884, or 1.2 percent.
•Yet increase the after-tax income of those earning more than $1 million by $87,000, or 4.1 percent.
•And all tax units earning less than $200,000 would have their after-tax income fall by $539 on average and by $2,041 for tax units with children.

Those numbers are used heavily by the Obama campaign in many television ads across the country. However, there are several issues that the TPC report overlooks.

•First, it doesn't take into account the income growth effects of Romney's revenue-neutral tax plan.
•Furthermore, Romney's plan would reduce economic distortions in the tax code, which increases economic efficiency.
•Additionally, the revenue-neutral tax reform does not require financing, which by itself would raise revenue because it increases the overall income tax base.
•A 1 percent increase in pretax income (across the board) would have a dynamic effect of $28 billion.

As the pretax income increases as a result of economic efficiency and the ensuing income growth, so too would the after-tax income for low- and middle-income groups. For instance, if there is even a 2 percent growth rate, there would be a $223 increase in pretax incomes for the lowest tax bracket.



Transportation Unions Cripple the System

To contact us Click HERE
To think that decades of union abuse in the transportation business can be changed, especially in big cities, boggles the mind. Union excesses in hiring, firing and wages for employees, as well as managers, defies common sense other then everyone wants more for doing less.

But given the unions don't have to worry about where the money comes from, tax dollars and a captive ridership, the sky is the limit to what ever they want to do to extend and entrench their control over the system.

Competitive contracting would bring new to life to the industry and death to union power. Could this happen in a city that has been entrenched in union nightmares for ever? A question beyond comprehension.

Privatization and Competition in New York City Transit
Source: E.S. Savas, "Privatization and Competition in New York City Transit," National Center for Policy Analysis, October 8, 2012.

October 9, 2012
The antidote to monopolies, including public-sector ones, is competition. Not all public services lend themselves to it, but we should opt for competitive contracting wherever possible. One viable area is bus services, where competition would help break up inefficient transit monopolies. With more than 2 million daily riders -- the most in the country -- New York is a city that would especially benefit from privatizing its bus system, says E.S. Savas, a senior fellow with the National Center for Policy Analysis, and Presidential Professor at the School of Public Affairs at Baruch College, City University of New York.

Major cities such Los Angeles, San Diego, Stockholm, London and Copenhagen introduced bus competition several decades ago and were spectacularly successful in reducing costs without negatively affecting service. Indeed, savings ranged from 20 percent to 51 percent in cities that used competitive bidding to select bus contractors, according to a Manhattan Institute study. Specifically, after privatizing its bus service:

•Stockholm's cost per kilometer for bus operations dropped 20 percent from 1991 to 1999.
•Copenhagen's cost per kilometer dropped 25 percent from 1989 to 1999.
•London's cost per kilometer dropped 51 percent from 1985 to 2000.

Even a 20 percent cut in costs would save New York close to $500 million a year -- enough to restore many dropped routes (more than 30 bus routes, 500 bus stops and two subway lines were dropped in recent years).

Competition for bus service should be introduced gradually. Beginning in one borough, existing bus routes could be divided into several logically related route clusters of similar size. The Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA) could continue to operate most of the clusters, at least initially, with just two or three put out to competitive bid for staggered three- to five-year contracts. The MTA could invite bids from qualified private bus operators and compare the bids with current costs. If a bid price is lower, the state would still continue to set fares and receive the income on the contracted routes, but award the cluster to the private bidder and pay it to operate the routes.

Because it is unrealistic to expect the MTA to fairly evaluate bids or private companies' performances, an independent authority would be set up to take over these tasks. The experience in other municipal services shows that after losing several rounds of competition, public agencies begin to adopt the better practices of the private sector.

Competitive contracting is neither a heretical notion nor an untested scheme. Many cities do it, and they have much experience to draw upon.




Organic Framing and Climate Changers : 18th Century Throw Backs

To contact us Click HERE
The organic farmer and the climate change environmentalist are in the same boat and it's sinking. Both of these agendas require a suspension of reality. The population has grown to such an extent that if we all went back to farming like we did a hundred years ago, a huge portion of the our population would starve. For many in these two camps of starry eyed believers, eliminating some of the population is a good thing.

But always believe that trying to recapture the past is fundamental to the organic farmer and the climate change church goer. Both, for the most part, are progressive liberals that believe what they believe is the right path for everyone. It's not good enough for them to present their way of life to be considered better, they want it forced on everyone because they know it's the best solution.

Organic Illusions
Source: Blake Hurst, "Organic Illusions," The American, October 1, 2012.

October 10, 2012
Conventional wisdom holds that organic foods are healthier to consume than their non-organic counterparts. However, a recent study by a group of scientists at Stanford University debunks that myth and finds that organic foods have less nutritional benefit than people would like to think. The same results were found by a 2009 study done with the British version of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, says Blake Hurst in The American.

Advocates of organic food make many bold claims about its health and environmental benefits but people in the industry concede this is just a marketing scheme to get consumers to purchase their goods. Advocates of organic foods also overlook the contributions that conventional forms of farming have made.

•Hybrid seeds have been used for 70 years, chemical fertilizers for 60 years and synthetic pesticides for 50 years.
•Additionally, production has increased dramatically. This past summer's drought was the worst in nearly a century, and yet the corn yield would have broken records just 20 years ago.
•Furthermore, studies show a 20 to 50 percent decline in yield per acre from organic methods.

Many people point to pesticides as reasons why organic foods are preferable to conventional methods of farming. However, the pesticides that foods are exposed to are thousands of times lower than levels needed to harm people. Organic foods, on the other hand, have higher rates of e. coli, a very dangerous bacterium that can kill humans. Furthermore, organic foods still use natural pesticides, and since they are less effective, they are used as much higher rates.

On the environmental question, organic foods tend to do more harm than conventionally grown foods, despite popular belief. The Department of Agriculture estimates that ending conventional production would require increasing the area of land tilled by more than the land in California.

Finally, shifting to organic methods of farming would require massive changes to the type and amount of labor. Conventional farming relies on new machinery to expedite the farming but organic farming requires a large proportion of the population to be involved. Because the pesticides that are used aren't strong enough, weeds grow that need to be handpicked. The human resources necessary to sustain this version of farming doesn't exist in the status quo.






Taxes: Who Pays as Supply and Demand Change

To contact us Click HERE
What the author is saying here, I believe, is we have 'trickle down taxes'. In the end, the consumer will pay the tax for the most part given it is the general population that needs the product to sustain a way of life.

In the open market, if the supply and demand for a product changes due a lack of demand or supply, consumption will determine who pays the most in tax revenue. Food is another consumer product where the last person in line pays the most as the consumer has no choice but to pay the tax in the form of transport and labor. This also is where the tax is split between supplier and consumer.

Who Should Bear the Burden of Tax Increases?
Source: Cecil E. Bohanon and Brandon M. Pizzola, "Who Pays the Tax? Theoretical and Empirical Considerations of Tax Incidence," Mercatus Center, September 24, 2012.

October 10, 2012
Debates over tax increases often end in discussion of who should bear the burden. The entity with the obligation to remit the tax revenues to the taxing authority may not be the entity that pays the tax. Tax incidence, as it is referred to, occurs when the entity that incurs the tax shifts the burden onto another entity.

For example, if a $1 tax is imposed on retailers for butter by the federal government, then the retailer would shift the burden to consumers or someone in the production process, say Cecil E. Bohanon, a professor of economics at Ball State University, and Brandon M. Pizzola, an MA Fellow at the Mercatus Center.

Traditionally, the impact of tax incidence has looked at price elasticity of demand and of supply. If the supply is inelastic, then consumers are willing to pay the increase. Moreover, if the supply is inelastic, then the quantity of a good is unlikely to change as well. However, it is possible that the supply for a good is more elastic than the demand, creating a more nuanced theory for explaining the tax incidence based on supply and demand.

•The party that is responsible for remitting the tax revenue to the government has little to do with who bears the tax burden.
•The party who remits the tax revenue can't shift the tax burden.
•The split of the tax burden is determined by the market.
•Furthermore, the split of the tax burden depends on the relative elasticity of supply and demand.
•Finally, the side of the market that is less elastic bears more of the tax.

There are empirical examples to support the aforementioned theory of tax burdens being unequal. For instance, take federal and state taxes on gasoline:

•The inelasticity of gasoline would normally mean that consumers bear the full burden of any taxes.
•Yet, at the federal level, consumers and wholesalers pay roughly half of the tax.
•But at the state level, consumers typically bear the full burden.

The popular belief that the tax burden is only on the party that has to remit the tax is false. Rather, the theory and empirical examples show that tax incidence is determined by market forces that assess the elasticity of the supply and demand of a product.