Democratic agenda Options

[pebkac]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,,1981688,00.html

The proposed legislation from the Democrats includes:

· Ethics reform, with a ban on gifts from lobbyists to congressmen and other controls;

· A rise in the federal minimum wage for the first time in a decade from $5.15 to $7.25 an hour;

· An end to the Bush administration's restrictions on stem cell research;

· Implementation of the recommendations of the commission on the 9/11 terror attacks;

· A plan for the federal government to negotiate cheaper prices for prescription drugs;

· And the halving of interest rates on student loans.

I suppose the minimum wage thing is debatable, but I like most of the stuff on the agenda (although I really don't know much about the 9/11 committee's recommendations. I do like the last one the best though.

Another interesting part...

In a much-anticipated speech, Mr Bush is expected to reveal his new strategy on the war as early as next week, amid widespread speculation that he intends to bolster the US presence in Iraq in the short term by an additional 30,000 troops.

That troop "surge" and a White House request for an additional $100bn (£51bn) to pay for the war this year are expected to encounter strong opposition from a previously supportive Congress.

This should turn out to be interesting. Wonder what the Dems are going to do if Bush does decide to try a surge.

[GOB]

Leading Indicators Point To Economic Acceleration
By ISABELLE LINDENMAYER
January 23, 2007 10:32 a.m.

U.S. economic activity is set to accelerate slightly in the coming months, according to a report released Tuesday by the Conference Board.

The private research group said its composite index of leading indicators rose 0.3% to 138.0 in December, from a downwardly revised flat reading in November. The December reading was on target with analysts' expectations. The index was equal to 100 in 1996.

"The latest data for the Leading Economic Index is pointing to continued moderate growth or even a little acceleration," Ken Goldstein, labor economist at the Conference Board said. "Energy prices are again on the decline. The housing slump does not appear to be deepening. Inflation remains relatively in check at the moment," he said. "Consumer income growth appears to be picking up … as wage growth improves and job generation does not appear to be slowing."

In its report, the group said its coincident indicators index rose by 0.2% to 123.3 last month, echoing November's 0.2% gain, while the lagging index for December rose by 0.9% to 127.3, compared with a 0.6% rise the prior month.

The Conference Board noted that for the month, six of the 10 components making up the leading index rose, lifted by building permits, average weekly initial claims for unemployment insurance, real money supply and stock prices. The biggest negative contributors included interest-rate spreads and the index of consumer expectations.

The report said that, from June to December, the leading index rose by 0.1%, which represents a 0.3% annual rate of increase.

The Conference Board is a nonprofit research and business membership group, which computes the composite indexes from the U.S. Department of Commerce.

source:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1169564872..._lead_story_lsc



the release of the leading economic indicators was delayed for some reason until this morning at 9am. odd, but good news. (examples of economic indicators = s&p500 stock prices, avg weekly work hours, avg unemployment claims, inflation adj orders for consumer goods, vendor performance, new building permits, t-bill rates, and consumer expectations-- which, oddly enough, includes many finance PhDs)

[Billy]

source:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1169564872..._lead_story_lsc
the release of the leading economic indicators was delayed for some reason until this morning at 9am. odd, but good news. (examples of economic indicators = s&p500 stock prices, avg weekly work hours, avg unemployment claims, inflation adj orders for consumer goods, vendor performance, new building permits, t-bill rates, and consumer expectations-- which, oddly enough, includes many finance PhDs)

Read the article again. You just blew your whole argument. Even they throw in energy prices correlates with the market.

Anyway, stop arguing about it. If you do not believe the change in energy prices influences the market, it's not my problem. Perhaps they do not. That's all the finance professors would talk about when I was a finance undergrad (2003 and 2004), were the rising energy prices and the negative effects it would have on the market. But I am not necessarily partial to it. The data you showed definitely made their claim questionable. So who knows.

[GOB]

Read the article again. You just blew your whole argument. Even they throw in energy prices correlates with the market.

Anyway, stop arguing about it. If you do not believe the change in energy prices influences the market, it's not my problem. Perhaps they do not. That's all the finance professors would talk about when I was a finance undergrad (2003 and 2004), were the rising energy prices and the negative effects it would have on the market. But I am not necessarily partial to it. The data you showed definitely made their claim questionable. So who knows.

how did the article blow my whole argument? it says that one of the reasons the market is doing well is because of the decrease in energy prices. i never said that the change in energy prices didn't affect the market, i think that was brandon-- you had brought the market strength-energy price correlation back to 2000-01 when the market dropped because of the technology bust, among other things, and before oil started going crazy. the tech sector eventually recovered and grew with the rest of the market, at the same time when energy prices started to rise, which did have a part in slowing possible growth, but wasn't the only factor.