This chart, in Saturday's WSJ, shows that even when the stock market is rockin', the economy - as reflected by the gross domestic product - isn't doing as well as it has in the past.
As the saying goes, liars figure and figures lie. Well, sometimes they do and sometime they don't. One of the reasons I really like reading the WSJ - not skimming it, but actually reading it - is that a person can really learn a lot about what is going on in the world, especially concerning economics. The next key, after reading, is to implement your own values into the things you've learned. If you just follow it blindly, you're just a robot. If you take everyone at their words, you're not thinking for yourself.
For example, I've always loved the phrase, Economists need to learn to subtract. Well, one might say, economists know how to subtract. But do they? Do they, for example, subtract the detractions of pollution on economic growth? Nope. They just add up the value. Do they figure in the harm of free trade agreements when they add up all the economic value? Nope, they don't. They just add. No subtracting. The point is that for every action, there is a reaction, both negative and positive. Now, I'm not trying to stress just the negative. Economists should add. But they should also subtract.
Alright, well what's the point about this and why graphs and charts? Well, look at the one above. Do you see anything in it? It doesn't matter if the stock market is raging. It doesn't mean the economy is any better because it is raging. Some folks need to kinda get over that.
I found another interesting statistic in Saturday's WSJ on the back page of the B section in the Breakingviews.com column, which I read everyday. The columnists are noting that while blue chip stocks are under-performing, the recent devaluation of the dollar is boosting their revenue pictures:
For example, I've always loved the phrase, Economists need to learn to subtract. Well, one might say, economists know how to subtract. But do they? Do they, for example, subtract the detractions of pollution on economic growth? Nope. They just add up the value. Do they figure in the harm of free trade agreements when they add up all the economic value? Nope, they don't. They just add. No subtracting. The point is that for every action, there is a reaction, both negative and positive. Now, I'm not trying to stress just the negative. Economists should add. But they should also subtract.
Alright, well what's the point about this and why graphs and charts? Well, look at the one above. Do you see anything in it? It doesn't matter if the stock market is raging. It doesn't mean the economy is any better because it is raging. Some folks need to kinda get over that.
I found another interesting statistic in Saturday's WSJ on the back page of the B section in the Breakingviews.com column, which I read everyday. The columnists are noting that while blue chip stocks are under-performing, the recent devaluation of the dollar is boosting their revenue pictures:
"Nearly half of the revenues of companies in the S&P 500 come from overseas. A similar figure isn't available for small companies. But since only 8% of total U.S. economic activity comes from exports, it's clear that bigger companies account for most foreign sales."OK, think about that for a second. Did you catch it? Only 8 percent of total U.S. economic activity comes from exports. Free trade agreements allegedly boost exports while costing Americans millions of jobs. Three million, in fact, since NAFTA's implementation in 1994. So, why are our leaders costing us millions of jobs to only assist 8 percent of the total country's activity? Seems foolish, doesn't it?
No comments:
Post a Comment