Economic Recovery: Profits From Overseas Ops Double Fed Ex 1st Qtr Profit – 1700 American Workers To Be Laid Off

FedEx 1Q profit doubles; will cut 1,700 jobs

FedEx Corp. indicated Thursday that the global economic recovery remains uneven. It touted strength in its international shipping operations while moving to fix the weak spot in its business: its money-losing U.S. trucking business.

FedEx did raise its financial outlook for the full fiscal year after its first-quarter net income doubled. But the projections for the second quarter and full year fell shy of Wall Street expectations, and the stock dropped almost 3 percent in premarket trading.

Growth in international air shipments has been driving FedEx’s results lately. That continued in the first quarter. But the FedEx Freight segment lost money again as demand for large items like refrigerators and other appliances continues to be weak. As it competes with other trucking companies to ship a limited amount of freight, FedEx has been forced to forgo the rate increases that are helping its other segments grow.

FedEx will combine its FedEx Freight and FedEx National less-than-truckload operations on Jan. 30, closing 100 facilities and cutting 1,700 workers. FedEx says the move, along with other cost cuts, will ensure the trucking business is profitable next year.

Less-than-truckload shippers take goods from many different manufacturers and consolidate them into a single truck for delivery.

The move suggests that big companies like FedEx, which is a bellwether for broader economic health, are feeling that the global economy still has a way to go for a full recovery.

The world’s second-largest package delivery company now expects to earn between $1.15 and $1.35 per share for the quarter ending in November, below analysts’ expectations of $1.36 per share.

For the full fiscal year that ends in May, the company now expects net income of $4.80 to $5.25 per share. That’s up from its estimate of $4.60 to $5.20 per share in July but some analysts were forecasting earnings as high as $5.60 per share, according to Thomson Reuters.

The Memphis, Tenn., company earned $380 million, or $1.20 per share in the fiscal first-quarter that ended in August, compared with $181 million, or 58 cents per share a year ago. That’s slightly under the $1.21 per share that Wall Street expected.

The reinstatement of some employee compensation programs, higher pension, medical and aircraft maintenance expenses, and a loss at FedEx Freight countered improvements at its Express and Ground operations.

Revenue rose 18 percent to $9.46 billion.

FedEx shares fell 2.9 percent to $83.45 in premarket trading.

http://www.canadianbusiness.com/markets/headline_news/article.jsp?content=b4534970

McAuleys World Comments:

This article is all about what Clinton Labor Secretary Robert Reich would call “The Great Decoupling of Corporate Profits from Jobs”… search for Reich’s article of that name.
Reports of quarterly profits by multinational corporations and a “phantom” recovery in the DJIA is an unreliable indicator of an American economic recovery… the record profits being reported by many DJIA companies have nothing to do with American business operations … Fed Ex being the latest example … There is nothing wrong with Fed Ex or GM posting a profit from overseas operations … the problems arise when the politicos and the press try to claim an “American Recovery” based on business growth in Red China or the Far East … or to claim an American Recovery, that is not only “jobless”, but is based on policies that continue to ship American Jobs and manufacturing capacity overseas ….
Even Clinton’s Labor Secretary Reich noted that $30 billion of the GM “bailout” went to create jobs in Red China before he stated, “GM officials say no American taxpayer money is being used to expand in China. But money is fungible. Because of our generosity, GM can now use the dollars it doesn’t have to spend in the United States meeting its American payrolls and repaying its creditors, for new investments in China.”
Reich went on to say, “GM now sells more cars in China than it does in the US, but makes most of them there. The company now employs 32,000 hourly workers in China. But only 52,000 GM hourly workers remain in the United States – down from 468,000 in 1970.”
My research would indicate that GM now employees 40,000 in China and 48,000 in America. By 2012 GM will employ more people in China than in the US – what are the implications for GM’s pension and medical fund liabilities …
Since Reich’s article was published GM has transferred control of GM-China to the Chinese Government for a 1 time payment of $85 million dollars, shielding any of the GM/China profit from American Taxation …
Profits are not “evil” they are the reason a Company exists … however, quarterly profit announcements are not a reliable indication or “bell weather” of how the US economy has rebounded …
We need to re-examine Governmental policies and stewardship that allows $30 billion dollars of taxpayer money, money intended to “stimulate” the American economy and create American jobs, to be used to expand auto production in China … and then have the Government’s handpicked GM leadership team transfer control of a $30 billion dollar investment for a single $85 million dollar payment from the Chinese Government … GM will sell 2 million cars in China in 2010, GM transferred control of it’s Chinese operations, in perpetuity, for the price of $42.50 per 2010 unit …

August 2010 Employment Numbers: Economy 200,000 jobs short of breakeven point – Unemployment rises to 9.6%

McAuley’s World Comments in Blue:

Companies add 67K workers, but jobless rate rises             AP

Thousands of Job Seekers Attend Job Fair In Detroit (Aug 2010)

WASHINGTON – Private employers hired more workers over the past three months than first thought, a glimmer of hope for the weak economy ahead of the Labor Day weekend. But the unemployment rate rose because not enough jobs were created to absorb the growing number of people looking for work.

Companies added a net total of 67,000 new jobs last month and both July and June’s private-sector job figures were upwardly revised, the Labor Department said Friday. [See my comments below]

Stocks surged after the report’s release. The Dow Jones industrial average rose more than 100 points in afternoon trading and broader indexes were all up. [Yes, after it was reported that 67,000 “net jobs’ were added and not lost … as was expected … wait until Tuesday when the vacation has ended and people return to their offices and digest the “true story” … please read on] ….

….. Overall, the economy lost 54,000 jobs as 114,000 temporary census positions came to an end. For the first time this year, the manufacturing sector lost jobs, down a net total of 27,000 for the month….

http://cbs5.com/wireappolitics/Companies.add.67.2.1894681.html

“Companies added a net total of 67,000 new jobs last month”…. no wait“Overall, the economy lost 54,000 jobs”… you cannot have a “net total increase” and “Overall, lose jobs” at the same time.

 Private companies “allegedly” added 67,000 jobs – there was no “net increase” as the economy, as a whole, lost a “net” of 54,000.

Remember that today, when the press and the Obama Administration claims that jobs have been “added”, the number includes the new “saved or created” concept. After all the numbers were “crunched”, including all the claims of “saved or created” … the economy lost a total of 54,000 jobs in August, there was “zero net jobs gained”. The net loss of 54,000 jobs includes the 67,000 jobs that were allegedly saved or created. But for the claim that there were 67,000 jobs “created or saved” the economy would have lost 114,000 total jobs in August. Once again, there was zero “net job increase” in July 2010.  

 The United States needs to “create” a minimum of 150,000 new jobs, “actual jobs” as opposed to imaginary or “virtual” jobs, each and  every month, to maintain an “employment equilibrium” – to have the economy keep pace with new workers entering the workforce – to have “zero change” in the unemployment rate – no increase – no decrease.  If employers eliminate jobs, the economy must create and equal number of new jobs, in addition to the 150,000 jobs needed to accomodate the new workers entering the work force, just to break even. The U.S. economy needed to create at least 1.2 million new jobs between January and the end of August 2010 to maintain an “employment equilibrium” for 2010. (8 months x 150,000 per month = 1.2 million). We are at least ½ million new jobs short of “employment equilibrium” for 2010 (even when we count all of the claimed “saved or created” nonsense jobs).

Query: With a short fall of ½ million new jobs to date in 2010, ½ million jobs short of keeping pace with new workers entering the workforce, never mind creating jobs to replace those jobs that have been lost, why hasn’t the unemployment rate changed (increased) since January 2010?  The January 2010 unemployment rate was 10%, today the Obama Administration claims our unemployment rate is 9.6%. If we haven’t created enough jobs to maintain an “”employment equilibrium” with the new workers entering the work force, how did our unemployment rate drop?

Example: In August 2010 the economy needed to create 150,000 new jobs to stay even with the number of new workers entering the work force. The economy actually lost 54,000 jobs …. so in August 2010 the economy was a total of 204,000 jobs short of breaking even ( 150,000 new workers entering the work force plus 54,000 jobs that were lost  in the month …).  

 The shortfall of ½ million new jobs means that the economy fell 40% short of creating enough jobs to maintain an “employment equilibrium”, never mind creating enough new  jobs to reduce the unemployment rate.

How has the Obama Administration kept the unemployment rate from rising? (How is the Obama Administration cooking the books?).

1). For every “new worker” who enters the economy without a job being created for them, the Obama Administration claims that 1 unemployed worker gives up their job search and leaves the work force. This is a fraud, but it manufactures  a false “employment equilibrium” for the press to report.

2). When the Obama Administration claims to “save” a job, the “save” can be a monthly event – a single individual working for a single employer can have the same job “saved” up to 12 times in a year. Not 12 jobs, 1 job 12 times. When 12 jobs are lost you cannot create a true “employment equilibrium” by saving 1 job 12 times, because that still leaves 11 unemployed people.

 Do I smell something burning… are those numbers done yet … shouldn’t someone stop cooking the numbers and look for some real solutions?

While I was reading various blogs today I noted an amazing number of wild claims about unemployment during G. W. Bush’s Presidency … these are the true facts and not some wild political claims:

Average Annual Unemployment Under G.W. Bush – all 8 years – 5.2 %

Highest Annual Unemployment Rate During G.W. Bush: 5.99 (2003)

Lowest Annual Unemployment Rate During G.W. Bush: 4.61 (2007) Just before the Democrats took over Congress …

B. OBAMA’S ANNUAL UNEMPLOYEMNT RATES:       2009   –  9.2%

                                                                                      Jan – Aug  2010   –  9.6%      

http://www.miseryindex.us/urbyyear.asp

Unemployment Numbers Hit 9 Month High – 500,000 File New Unemployment Claims

Employers appear to be laying off workers again as applications for unemployment insurance reached the half-million mark last week for the first time since November. Initial claims for jobless benefits rose by 12,000 last week to 500,000, the Labor Department said Thursday.

It was the fourth increase in the past five weeks and evidence that the economic recovery has weakened. Homebuilders and other construction firms are laying off more workers as the housing sector slumps after the expiration of a popular homebuyers’ tax credit. State and local governments are also cutting jobs to close large budget gaps.

“This is obviously a disappointing number that shows ongoing weakness in the job market,” said Robert Dye, senior economist at the PNC Financial Services Group. The four-week average, a less volatile measure, rose by 8,000 to 482,500, the highest since December.

The increase suggests the economy is creating even fewer jobs than in the first half of this year, when private employers added an average of about 100,000 jobs per month. That’s barely enough to keep the unemployment rate from rising. The jobless rate has been stuck at 9.5 percent for two months. Stock futures fell on the prospects of more layoffs.

Dow Jones industrial average futures had risen by 50 points before the report was released. They dropped immediately afterward and were down six points shortly before the market opened.

Jobless claims declined steadily last year from a peak of 651,000 in March 2009 as the economy recovered from the worst downturn since the 1930s. After flattening out earlier this year claims have begun to grow again. Dye said that claims showed a similar pattern in the last two recoveries, but eventually began to fall again.

The current elevated level of claims is a sign employers are reluctant to hire until the rebound is well under way. That’s what happened in the recoveries following the 1991 and 2001 recessions, which were dubbed “jobless recoveries.”

The number of people continuing to receive benefits fell by 13,000 to 4.5 million, the department said. The continuing claims data lags initial claims by one week. But that doesn’t include millions of people receiving extended unemployment insurance, paid for by the federal government.

About 5.6 million unemployed workers were on the extended unemployment benefit rolls, as of the week ending July 31, the latest data available. That’s an increase of about 300,000 from the previous week.

During the recession, Congress added up to 73 extra weeks of benefits on top of the 26 weeks customarily provided by the states. The number of people on the extended rolls has increased sharply in recent weeks after Congress renewed the extended program last month.

It had expired in June.

Private employers added only 71,000 jobs in July. But that increase was offset by the loss of 202,000 government jobs, including 143,000 temporary census positions. July marked the third straight month that the private sector hired cautiously.

Economists are concerned that the unemployment rate will start rising again because overall economic growth has weakened significantly since the start of the year. In a healthy economy, jobless claims usually drop below 400,000. But the recent increases in claims provide further evidence that the economy has slowed and could slip back into a recession.

Many analysts are worried that economic growth will ebb further in the second half of this year. After growing at a 3.7 percent annual rate in the first quarter, the economy’s growth slowed to 2.4 percent in the April-to-June period.

Some economists forecast it will drop to as low as 1.5 percent in the second half of this year.

http://www.nydailynews.com/money/2010/08/19/2010-08-19_half_a_million_are_jobless_unemployment_numbers_hit_9month_high.html#ixzz0x43i6hde

AIG & The Bailout Of Greece – The Return of Credit Default Swaps (CDS) – Are US Taxpayers “On The Hook” Again?

Please, tell me it isn’t so!

First, in case you missed it, the country of Greece is dead butt broke ….. flat busted.  The BBC has announced that Greece will receive an initial bailout of $146 billion US dollars from various parties, http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/8656649.stm , while the Euro Zone sets up a $1 trillion US dollar bailout fund. http://www.business-standard.com/india/news/germany-okays-trillion-dollar-euro-zone-bailout-plan/94028/on , http://money.cnn.com/2010/05/10/markets/dollar/?eref=aol .

Reminds me of AIG – really – an intial bailout – with a huge amount of “follow-on” cash a few weeks later. 

The initial cost to US Taxpayers is being estimated at something between $56 billion and $170 billion dollars. The estimates are based on the fact that the IMF or International Monetary Fund, will contribute $284 billion to start and may commit up to $1 trillion dollars. http://money.cnn.com/2010/05/10/markets/dollar/?eref=aol

At present the United States Taxpayer provides $54 billion annually in IMF funds. http://www.house.gov/jec/imf/11-18-03.pdf  The US pays, at a minimum, 17% of the IMF’s debts. 17% of $1 trillion is $170 billion.

Wait, this isn’t the worst of it.

The American Taxpayer maybe assuming the entire national debt of Greece.

Sounds crazy doesn’t it. I hope to heck it is crazy and not true. America simply can’t afford it!

AIG and the Greek Bailout

Enter AIG, the former international insurance giant currently owned by the American Taxpayer, thanks to the US Government and the US Government’s bailout programs.

AIG, American Internation Group, the international insurance giant was ”nationalized” in September 2008 and given an initial infusion of $85 billion in taxpayer cash. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122156561931242905.html

Additional taxpayer cash was provided to AIG and at present the total amount “fronted to AIG” is at least $135 billion taxpapaer dollars.                                                         http://www.propublica.org/ion/bailout/item/how-big-is-aigs-bailout-really707  http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122627437470412029.html

The amount “fronted” to AIG may be in excess of $180 million, it is hard to tell because the US taxpayer has not had a recent accounting of how much additional cash has been funnelled to AIG. http://www.propublica.org/ion/bailout/item/how-big-is-aigs-bailout-really-707

AIG used much of the money to pay off French & German banks who had invested in “toxic mortgage securities” or related securities sold by AIG called “Credit Default Swaps” or CDS. http://www.businessweek.com/the_thread/economicsunbound/archives/2009/03/german_and_fren.html

In the initial payoff, French and German banks received $36 billion in US taxpayer funds, paid through AIG by the Obama Administration. The payout to the French and German banks took place in March 2009 during the first 3 months of the Obama Administration under the direction of Obama Treasury Secretary Geithner.  http://www.businessweek.com/the_thread/economicsunbound/archives/2009/03/german_and_fren.html 

Almost $60 billion dollars of the initial US Taxpayer payout to AIG went to foreign banks. http://www.businessweek.com/the_thread/economicsunbound/archives/2009/03/german_and_fren.html

You might remember that Neil Barofsky, the Special Inspector General for the $700 billion financial bailout, reported to Congress that the Obama Administration had mismanaged the intial payouts, resulting in billions more than necessary being paid out to foreign and US banks and brokerages. http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/world/2009-11/17/content_8984419.htm

The whole issue of paying out US Taxpayer dollars in satisfaction of AIG’s debt was so “mucked up” that current Treasury Secretary Geithner first refused to disclose who got what and when, in the deals. Inspector General Barofsky faulted Secretary Geitner and the Federal Reserve for refusing at first to reveal which banks had received the billions of American taxpayer dollars supposedly intended to save AIG. Geithner and the Fed released the banks’ names and the amount of their payoffs only after the American Public demanded greater transparency and the US Congress responded to that demand.   http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/world/2009-11/17/content_8984419.htm                  http://www.marketwatch.com/story/geithner-paulson-defend-182-bln-aig-bailout-2010-01-27

Is AIG at it again?

The international press has reported on how President Obama is pushing for a bailout of Greece’s new Socialist Government. http://www.businessinsider.com/now-obama-is-making-emergency-calls-to-merkel-over-greek-aid-2010-4

For years the Socialists in Greece’s Government have fudged the numbers concerning the Greek National Debt. “To keep within the monetary guidelines of the European Union, the government of Greece has been found to have consistently and deliberately misreported, in other words falsified, the country’s official economic statistics.[17][18] In the beginning of 2010, it was discovered that Greece had paid Goldman Sachs and other banks hundreds of millions of dollars in fees (CDS fees or “premiums”)  arranging transactions that hid the actual level of Greek borrowing.[19] The purpose of these deals …. was to enable them to spend beyond their means, while hiding the actual deficit from the EU overseers.[20]. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010_European_sovereign_debt_crisis

“Speculation in the CDS market began after 4 October 2009, as the Greek Socialists celebrated their election victory. Two weeks later the newly-elected government informed its Euro-partners that the deficit for 2009 was going to lie at 12.7 percent of economic performance (GDP).”  “The new estimate for the budget deficit called onto the stage the first hedge funds, reports a London CDS-dealer working for a large American bank.http://www.eurosavant.com/2010/02/21/cds-just-another-evanescent-bubble/

Speculation in the CDS market? 

Now the Eurpoean Press is reporting that AIG is selling CDS or Credit Default Swaps once again. Only this time, AIG is “insuring” Greece’s debt with the instruments not “toxic mortgage securities”.

In any case, the CDS-wager has gone up because more and more true-believers in the Greek State have come to feel the need to insure their holdings. This rapidly-rising demand for insurance has been set off by the escalation of the debt crisis. But it is past Greek governments that have to answer in the first place for the exhausted budget situation. The higher demand for insolvency protection that has driven up the CDS price follows from the evidently poorer estimation of Greek credit-worthiness.”

Greek banks as insurers
On the other hand, whoever expected Greece’s rescue by Europartner countries would have had to position himself on the CDS market as an insurer, that is, as a seller of payment protection. The take in premiums from insurance protection sold provides increased revenue. But it’s on the seller-side that the weak points of the CDS market become evident. It’s still unclear who has sold insurance protection for Greece. In one study analysts from the major French bank BNP Paribas referred to market-rumors that Greek banks had insured a large sum by CDS. If this is correct, then the payment protection they have provided is worth nothing. Greek banks hold State debt of over 40 billion euros. This corresponds roughly to the entire amount of equity in the Greek credit market. A bankruptcy of the State would lead to a collapse of the banking system.”

“London investment bankers name AIG as a further CDS-seller. That company had to be nationalized during the financial crisis due to its having written insolvency insurance on American mortgages. This debt-load would have led to the collapse of the world’s biggest insurer. Prior to the financial crisis AIG is said to have widely held State credit-risk. If yet-larger insurance positions on Greece exist, then the American government would have a strong interest in preventing that country’s insolvency.”
http://www.eurosavant.com/2010/02/21/cds-just-another-evanescent-bubble/

Read the full article in Germany’s Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung GmbH, the German equivalent of the Wall Street Journal. The original article, in German, can be read here: http://www.faz.net/s/Rub645F7F43865344D198A672E313F3D2C3/Doc~EC22CF3FE26F8487A9B4E8E99B0DA384E~ATpl~Ecommon~Scontent.html

The english translation here: http://www.eurosavant.com/2010/02/21/cds-just-another-evanescent-bubble/ 

What might this mean to the US taxpayer? Well that will depend on several things.

First, Greece’s total National Debt is a bit of a mystery. The Politicans in Greece have been fudging the numbers for so long, that it is hard to accurately estimate the total debt and without knowing the total debt, it is nearly impossible to estimate how much may have been “insured” by purchasing CDS and how much of the CDS business may have passed through AIG. 

Surprisingly similar to the “financial collapse” isn’t it? 

A Greek Debt bubble, insured through AIG with CDS.

What is clear is this, if AIG is selling CDS to “insure” the Greek National Debt, the American people have not been told exactly why this is being done, nor have we been told how much we are on the hook for and who is making a buck off the deal. Two of the “usual suspects” are on the sceen, AIG & Goldman Sachs, two large and powerful players in the international financial scene and Democratic to their cores.   You can bet on one thing, the average Jack or Jill Taxpayer isn’t going to make a dime on these dealings.    

Meanwhile the Greeks Socialists and Anarchists are rioting in the streets over proposed and desperately needed budget cuts and the US is agreeing to bailout Greek workers while US workers run out of unemployment benefits.

Contact Your Congressperson today and insist that they investigate these reports. The US Taxpayer should not be “on the hook” for the Socialist Greek Government’s mismanagement of the Greek economy. Lets put our house in order before we try to prop up foreign Socialists Governments and their failed welfare states. 

Lets practice saying “NO” to California by saying “NO” to Greece first!

http://www.usa.gov/Contact/Elected.shtml

Read the March 2009 post on AIG’s collapse here: https://mcauleysworld.wordpress.com/2009/03/18/the-story-behind-aigs-collapse-bad-mortgages-credit-default-swaps-accounting-irregularities/

Economic Recovery on Tax Day 2010? In The 4th Year of Democratic Control Of Congress – Unemployment And Home Foreclosures Continue To Soar

“The worst economy on our lifetime” screamed the Democratic political ads back in 2005 as we moved towards the 2006 election when the Democrats took control of both Houses of Congress. http://uspolitics.about.com/od/usgovernment/l/bl_party_division_2.htm

After winning control of Congress the Democrats acellerated Government spending and the reckless mortgage practices of Fannie & Freddie.

The month before the Democrats took control of Congress in November 2006 the National unemployment rate stood at  4.4%. http://www.laworks.net/Downloads/LMI/Data_for_November_2006.pdf

The aveage unemployment rate during Bush’s 8 years as President was 4.8%.

Unemployment stands at 9.7% today (04-15-2010) and 1st time unemployment claims continues to set records and remains above 425,000 first time claims, week after week. (Jobless Claims Rise to 484,000 First-Time Claims, Associated Press: Jobs are still hard to come by as first-time requests for jobless benefits rose to 484,000 last week. http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/04/15/jobless-claims-rise-time-claims/?loomia_ow=t0:s0:a4:g4:r2:c0.000000:b0:z5 ) 

Mortgage foreclosures continue at a record pace. (Foreclosure Rates Surge, Biggest Jump in 5 Years.  Associated Press: A record number of U.S. homes were lost to foreclosure in the first three months of this year, a sign banks are starting to wade through the backlog of troubled home loans at a faster pace. http://www.foxnews.com/us/2010/04/15/foreclosure-rates-surge-biggest-jump-years/?loomia_ow=t0:s0:a4:g4:r3:c0.000000:b0:z5 )

Nearly two years ago Obama launched his $75 Billion Dollar mortgage program during a speech in Nevada. The President promised his program would help 9 million American Homeowners. To date less than 100,000 familes have been helped at a cost to taxpayers of more than $1 million per mortgage. 1 out of every 33 houses in Nevada has received a foreclosure notice in 2010. In a normal suburban neighborhood that means 8 to 10 houses on every street are in foreclosure. In November 2006 one out of every 389 households in Nevada were in foreclosure. 1 in 33 versus 1 in 389? http://efinancedirectory.com/articles/Home_Foreclosures_Increase_Across_the_Nation.html   http://www.foxnews.com/us/2010/04/15/foreclosure-rates-surge-biggest-jump-years/?loomia_ow=t0:s0:a4:g4:r3:c0.000000:b0:z5

Nationwide, one home in every 759 was in foreclosure in November 2006, and that number represented a doubling of the number in foreclosure in 2005 (1 home in every 1500 in 2005 – but would Congress listen when the Regulators warned about Fannie & Freddie – heck no – the Congresspeople claimed the “Regulators” findings were racially motivated and biased …. Congress played the race card rather than face facts). How does the 2006 foreclosure rate of 1 home out of every 759 compare with today? “In all, more than 900,000 households, or one in every 138 homes, received a foreclosure-related notice, in the first 3 months of 2010, RealtyTrac said. The firm based in Irvine, Calif., tracks notices for defaults, scheduled home auctions and home repossessions”. http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/04/15/business/main6398303.shtml

For every 1 home foreclosure in 2006 there are 6 home foreclosures in 2010. 

At the current rate 9 million homes will face foreclosure by 2012. http://minnesotaindependent.com/39184/nine-million-foreclosed-homes-by-2012

Didn’t the Obama Adminstration tell us that an economic recovery was dependent on a recovery in the housing market? http://www.silvar.org/index.cfm/article_392.htm   Wait a minute, wasn’t an economic recovery dependent on the auto industry? http://change.gov/agenda/economy_agenda/ , or pension relief , http://www.necanet.org/index.cfm?fa=newsAboutNecaItem&articleID=4210 and of course, we can’t have a recovery without a Government take over of health care …….     

As the Democrats “feed” the Government with your tax dollars it continues to grow and as Government grows so does the unemployment rate and the number of homes in foreclosure ……\

The Democrats have been leading us down this path since 2006 …… now they are running down that  path at full speed ……. running with their eyes closed and at full speed …..

By the way …. has anyone else noticed the strange coincidence that seems to occur month after month …..  that the Administration saves or creates just enough jobs that when the number of jobs “saved” is combined with the “number of unemployed Americans who give up looking for work” – that the unemployment rate remains constant. Week after week, we have 400,000 plus new unemployment claims and yet the unemployment rate remains stuck at 9.7%.

Yeah, I believe it is just a coincidence.

Wait, let me guess …. it is all George’s fault ……….. George was in office for 8 years and the Democrats have been “in charge” the last 4. Yeah, blame it on George ….. don’t take any responsibility but please admit the obvious – you’ve been in charge the last 4 years and things have gotten a heck of a lot worse …..

ClimateGate: Debunking Global Warmings 5 Sacred Myths

The Global Warming Myth – Debunking Global Warmings 5 Commandments

The Five Things You Need To Know About The Global Warming Myth

1).  Carbon Dioxide, CO2, is not a pollutant. Carbon Dioxide is a naturally occurring element in our atmosphere. Carbon Dioxide is no more a pollutant than say, oxygen or nitrogen. Without CO2 there would be no life on earth.  http://www.eoearth.org/article/Carbon_cycle  . Carbon Dioxide is the food which keeps plants alive. Through photosynthesis plants transform CO2 into plant food. Oxygen is produced as a waste product. All living things are dependent on this ”Cycle”. http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/CarbonCycle/carbon_cycle2.php 

Carbon Dioxide is called a “green house gas” because it allows visable light to pass through while it absorbs infrared and near infrared rays. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide  

The human body produces CO2 naturally. The Human Respiration System is the system that controls the exchange of oxygen for CO2 in the Human Body. Everytime you breath out you are exhaling CO2.

Carbon Dioxide is not a pollutant. Carbon Dioxide is a natural atmospheric element. All life on earth is dependent on CO2. Without CO2 there would be no life on earth. Compared to past history, the Earth’s atmosphere is currently CO2 “impoverished”.On average, there is less CO2 in the atmosphere today than there has been since life formed on earth.

2). Even at present levels, Carbon Dioxide is a trace gas. Current CO2 levels are only a small fraction of the Earths atmosphere, CO2 represents less than 1/2 of one percent of the atmosphere today.

The CO2 content in the atmosphere is measured in terms of CO2 parts per million (ppm) by volume. At present the globally averaged concentration of CO2 is stated as 387 PPM. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide  For every million parts (1,000,000,000 parts) in the atmosphere 387 of those parts are CO2. CO2 levels have increased over the past 50 years from 320 PPM to today’s 387 PPM, an increase of 67 PPM.  

The CO2 level today, 387 PPM, can be compared to with a level of  8000 PPM (20X todays levels) 500 million years ago or CO2 levels of 2000 – 3000 PPM (5 to 6 times todays levels) during the Jurasic Period, when the Great Dinosaurs roamed the earth. http://earthguide.ucsd.edu/virtualmuseum/climatechange2/07_1.shtml

During the ice ages CO2 levels fell to between 200PPM and 280 PPM. During interglacial periods the CO2 Level has been measured at between 280 – 310 PPM. One does not need a calculator to see that current CO2 levels are much nearer to those recorded during the Ice Age and the interglacial periods than that time when Earth’s great green forests were first formed. CO2 is essential for plant life and growth. 

In a longer historical context – Earth’s current CO2 Levels are quite low. http://ff.org/centers/csspp/library/co2weekly/2005-08-18/dioxide.htm

In fact, in Earth’s entire history there have only been two prior periods where CO2 levels were this low, . http://ff.org/centers/csspp/library/co2weekly/2005-08-18/dioxide.htm ,   ”Today, at 370 PPM our atmosphere is CO2-impoverished”  http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/Carboniferous climate.html . “So far the signal of a discernible human contribution to global climate change has not emerged from this natural variability or background noise.”

“Without the warming caused by natural levels of CO2 and water vapor in our atmosphere, the average surface temperature of our planet would be well below freezing.” http://www.whoi.edu/oceanus/viewArticle.do?id=17726

3). Human’s produce a very small percentage of  the CO2 found in the Atmosphere:

Over 95% of the total CO2 emissions into our atmosphere would occur even if humans were not present on Earth. For example, the natural decay of organic material in forests and grasslands, such as dead trees and grasses, results in the release of about 220 gigatonnes of carbon dioxide every year. This carbon dioxide alone is over 8 times the amount emitted by humans. There are many other sources of CO2 in the Earth’s atmopshere. 

The Earth’s Oceans contain 50 times more CO2 than the atmosphere.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide ,  http://www.whoi.edu/oceanus/viewArticle.do?id=17726 .

If 5% of todays CO2 is produced by human activity (95% would occur if no humans existed on the planet) then a simple calculation will provide us with an absolute figure for Human CO2 production. 387 PPM CO2 x 5% = 19.35 PPM.

How does this compare to the Earth’s total atmosphere?

Well for every 1 Million (1,000,000) parts of atmosphere, there are Seven Hundred Eighty One Thousand (781,000) parts Nitrogen, Two Hundred Ten Thousand (210,000) parts Oxygen, Nine Thousand Parts (9,000) Argon and Three Hundred Eighty Seven Parts (387) CO2. All other gases account for the remaining 500 plus parts. http://web.rollins.edu/~jsiry/VapgasAt.htm 

Total CO2  in the atmosphere represents . (CO2 is less than half of one tenth of 1 percent of the atmosphere – If the atmosphere were a $100 dollar bill – all the CO2 in the atmosphere would equal less than 4 cents). http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/atmos_gases.html .  

I asked a scientific friend to help me conceptualize this amount with an everyday example. Just how big is the total contribution of manmade CO2 to the Earth’s atmosphere? The friend couldn’t remember where he first heard this comparison, so I cannot provide a site, he didn’t want to take personal credit, but here goes; “Imagine a Farmers field 100 miles long and 100 miles wide. It is filled with corn. A mouse sitting in the middle of the field farts.” Ask yourself,”Will the fart affect the crop?” As much as manmade CO2 affects our global temperatures. 

4). Temperature Impacts CO2 Level   –  CO2 levels do not drive Temperature Change

First, CO2 levels rise and fall with the seasons or time of day. CO2 levels rise in the Autumn and Winter as green plants go dormant or die. The plants cease to “process” CO2 as part of their food chain. In the spring and summer CO2 levels fall as these same plants come back to life and consume CO2 in photosyntesis. Likewise CO2 levels fluctuate in the night and day. http://www.learner.org/courses/envsci/visual/animation.php?shortname=anm_co2_levels

Read:  Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology, Department of Earth, Atmospheric and Planetary Science, MIT http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/03/30/lindzen-on-negative-climate-feedback/

CO2 levels follow changes in temperature, not the other way around.  http://icecap.us/images/uploads/CO2,Temperaturesandiceages-f.pdf .

“ There is, overall, a good match between temperature and CO2 and temperature. One important piece of information that can be determined from ice core data is whether changes in temperature follow or proceed changes in CO2.” “Changes in temperature precede changes in CO2″  http://www.brighton73.freeserve.co.uk/gw/paleo/400000yrfig.htm  

http://www.sciencebits.com/IceCoreTruth ,

First, the total increaase in Global Temperatures over the last 100 years is ……….  7/10s of one degree. That is right, total Global warming over the Century is less than 1 degree.  During that same century the Sun’s measurable intensity or heat has increased.  

“Actual climate history shows no such correlation (that CO2 caused an increase in temperature) and there is no compelling evidence that the recent rise in temperature was caused by CO2.                                                                                           http://www.friendsofscience.org/assets/documents/FOS%20Essay/Climate_Change_Science.html#Correlation

Numerous papers published in major peer-reviewed scientific journals shows the Sun is the primary driver of climate change. http://www.co2science.org/articles/V6/N26/EDIT.php , http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/2007/03/16/the-coming-global-cooling/ , http://www.friendsofscience.org/assets/documents/FOS%20Essay/Climate_Change_Science.html#Sun_Activity , http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/ice_ages.html

5). Current Global Warming trends are neither catastrophic nor are they unusual given the Earth’s very recent past.

Global Warming Alarmists state that man made CO2 is responsible for what is becoming a catastrophic increase in Global temperatures. (You know the 1 degree increase in the last century).

Science has told us for decades (decades prior to the Global Warming Alarmist taking the stage) that earth’s last ice age (referred to as the “little ice age”) began sometime near the year 1400 and lasted until approximately 1860.  This “little ice age” was responsible for disasters like the “Irish Potato Famine”. The end of the “little ice age” was not preceeded by an increase in CO2 levels. Other natural causes were responsible for the “global warming” which followed the end of the “little ice age” and continues to this date. http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/ice_ages.html , http://www.friendsofscience.org/assets/documents/FOS%20Essay/Climate_Change_Science.html#Hockey

During the Middle Ages (1066 – 1485) a time that saw the Norman’s conquest of England, King Richard The Lion Hearted, The Crusades – all 7 of them, the Early Italian Renaissance – a period of time long before the  ”Industrial Revolution”, mankind contributed very little to Global CO2 levels. The Middle Ages experienced a period of global warming that exceeds the global warming of today. Yes, temperatures were higher than they are now, significantly higher.  http://www.friendsofscience.org/assets/documents/FOS%20Essay/Climate_Change_Science.html#Hockey , http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2003/04/06/1049567563628.html ,

“A review of more than 240 scientific studies has shown that today’s temperatures are neither the “warmest ever” nor are the Temperatures producing extreme conditions “never seen before”. The findings of these 240 studies stand in stark contrast to the claims of the alarmists. The findings prove that the world had a medieval warm period between the ninth and 14th centuries, with world temperatures significantly higher than today’s. They also confirm claims that a little Ice Age began in about 1300, with the world cooling dramatically. Just before the turn of the century, in 1900, the world began to warm up, but as of today, has still to reach the balmy temperatures of the Middle Ages.  The end of the little Ice Age is significant because it implies that the records used by climate scientists (THE ALARMISTS) date from when the Earth was relatively cold, thereby exaggerating the significance of today’s temperature rise. According to the researchers, the evidence confirms suspicions that today’s alleged “unprecedented” temperatures are simply the result of examining temperature change over too short a period.   http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2003/04/06/1049567563628.html

The Global Warming Alarmists have choosen the “Little Ice Age” to begin their temperature measurements and comparisons. By choosing the coldest period in Earth’s history over the last 10,000 years, the Alarmists are assured of finding data that will show a warming trend. But the warming trend is not unusual when compared to all of Earth’s prior warming trends.

 Philip Stott, emeritus professor of bio-geography at the University of London, said: “What has been forgotten in all the discussion about global warming is a proper sense of history.” http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2003/04/06/1049567563628.html , http://www.michaelkeller.com/news/news575.htm , http://www.stanford.edu/~moore/history_health.html , http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/886494/posts ,  http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=2514
 

If mankind were to cease all economic production and cease buring all carbon fuels, at best, a 2% reduction in CO2 levels could be had. Additional reductions from manking would need to involve an end to “respiration” – manking would need to stop breathing. Having achieved these miniscule reductions, at fantastic cost and loss of personal freedom, nature could, in the bat of an eye, dramatically reverse any man made reduction. You see, temperature drives the CO2 level, CO2 levels do not drive temperature.    

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=8326 , http://www.stanford.edu/~moore/Boon_To_Man.html

Recent studies call into question wether Global Warming is continuing – the studies refute the wild claims concerning the amount of  ”warming” that occurred in the 1990’s. Even the ultra-green “Discovery Channel” has noted studies which indicate “global warming” is on “hold” and may not reappear for decades. That “Global Temperatures have flatlined since 2001″. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29469287/

The Boston Globe has asked, “Where is the Global Warming?”, before noting, “But for many people, the science of climate change is not nearly as important as the religion of climate change. When Al Gore insisted yet again at a conference last Thursday that there can be no debate about global warming, he was speaking not with the authority of a man of science, but with the closed-minded dogmatism of a religious zealot. Dogma and zealotry have their virtues, no doubt. But if we want to understand where global warming has gone, those aren’t the tools we need.” http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2009/03/08/wheres_global_warming/

UPDATE: 11/05/09

Carbon Dioxide irrelevant in climate debate says MIT Scientist

The pdf file located at the link above from the Science and Public Policy Institute has absolutely, convincingly, and irrefutably proven the theory of Anthropogenic Global Warming to be completely false.

Professor Richard Lindzen of MIT’s peer reviewed work states “we now know that the effect of CO2 on temperature is small, we know why it is small, and we know that it is having very little effect on the climate.” http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/monthly_report/sppi_monthly_co2_report_july.html      http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2009/10/cooler_heads_lindzen-talk-pdf.pdf              

The global surface temperature record, which we update and publish every month, has shown no statistically-significant “global warming” for almost 15 years. Statistically-significant global cooling has persisted for very nearly eight years. Even a strong el Nino – expected in the coming months – will be unlikely to reverse the cooling trend. http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/originals/co2_report_july_09.pdf
 
One of the basic premises of Global Warming rests on the assumption that CO2 not only “holds” heat in the earth’s atmosphere, but that it, CO2, also prevents the heat from radiating out into space during earths normal cooling process. Dr. Richard Lindzen of MIT has published a study, which underwent comprehensive peer review prior to publication, which demostrates the flaws or inaccuracies in this theory. Dr. Litzen’s study refutes the theory that CO2 is currently preventing heat radiation, because the study demonstrates that there has been no decrease in heat radiation as had been assumed. http://www.watchmanbiblestudy.com/News/2009/08/18%20Carbon%20Dioxide%20irrelevant%20in%20climate%20debate%20says%20MIT%20Scientist.htm  http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/originals/co2_report_july_09.pdf    
 
ADDITIONAL READINGS ON THE TOPIC:
Dr Richard Lindzen, PhD Harvard University and Alfred P Sloan Professor of Atmospheric Science at MIT, ; “Don’t Believe the Hype Al Gore is wrong. There’s no “consensus” on global warming.” – http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110008597
And this on Britian’s High Court (Supreme Court of Britian) rulings concerning the inaccuracy of Al Gore’s film, an “Inconvenient Truth”,  ”If the UK Government had not agreed to send to every secondary school in England a corrected guidance note making clear the mainstream scientific position on these nine “errors”, he, the ruling Judge, would have made a finding that the Government’s distribution of the film and the first draft of the guidance note earlier in 2007 to all English secondary schools had been an unlawful contravention of an Act of Parliament prohibiting the political indoctrination of children.” Yes, the Highest Court in England ruled Gore’s movie was political indoctrination and not science.  http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/monckton/goreerrors.html

For a very specific review of 35 of the erroreous claims made by Gore in his film see: http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/monckton/goreerrors.html

Notice: WATTS UP WITH THAT can now be located at Wattsupwiththat.com

For a very humorous, yet alarming, post on how the “scientific consensus” on the issue of Climate Change have been reached, see this post on the creation of “THE HARVARD ENERGY INITIATIVE” and the “inititaves” relationship to climate science (An insiders look at the Harvard Faculty Club?). http://motls.blogspot.com/2006/04/richard-lindzen-climate-of-fear.html

“On the other hand, the funding of climate science as such has grown nearly by one order of magnitude since 1988. Have you ever seen $1.7 billion, the amount that the climate science swallows annually? Or one point seven billion dollars a year worth of mostly junk science? It’s not just the overall macroscopic number we are familiar with. I also know some of the microscopic mechanisms that generate it.”

Harvard energy initiative

On Monday, we had a faculty lunch meeting at the Faculty Club and one of the topics was the so-called “Harvard energy initiative”. A short story is that a large amount of money was given to something described by these three words – and up to 10 new faculty positions are expected to be created – except that no one knows what “Harvard energy initiative” means and what people should be hired. So one of the rather well-known Earth and Planetary Scientists at Harvard decided to meet with the physics department and to ask for ideas what “Harvard energy initiative” could mean…… The well known Physicis Department Professor stated, “I know what “high energy physics” means – we study physics of high-energy particles to determine the architecture of matter at very short distances” ….. Obviously, our colleague has a different energy in mind. Energy whose main feature is that it is not conserved. Energy that does not commute with momentum because whenever energy has to commute, we lose energy. It’s more about the energy industry except that the initiative will quite obviously be anti-industry because of the very basic philosophical preconceptions of those who are trying to kickstart the project. If you think for a while, you know exactly what will most likely happen. They will probably hire a couple of not-so-intelligent people and promote them to climate scientists and energy initiative professors who will strengthen the “scientific consensus” that the “climate change is real” and the humankind is approaching a catastrophe. They won’t be developing any new energy technologies because this is what either the greedy corporations or MIT are doing. Harvard’s image is different and its energy initiative will be doing something else except that no one knows what it is.  The proposed energy initiative should include the Physics Department, Earth and Planetary Sciences, the Kennedy School of Government, the Harvard Law School, and virtually any other Harvard school you can think of. Great. So what kind of science will you do by combining these people? Note that the university in this story, namely Harvard University, is not such a bad school after all. In fact, it is the most prestigious school in the world. Once you see what mechanisms determine how the new money is spent at Harvard, you may guess how good an investment are the billions of new dollars that are currently flowing to the U.S. climate science every year. Most of this amount is wasted money paid to the people who don’t want to make progress in science. Instead, they have already decided that they already know the most important insights about the world – that it is approaching a climate apocalypse – and by being paid, they do what is really important, namely to increase the political power of the “true believers” who are going to “save the world”. Yes, indeed, I am talking about $1.7 billion worth of religious bigots, and I apologize to the few exceptions for this generalization.””  I reccommend the full post:  http://motls.blogspot.com/2006/04/richard-lindzen-climate-of-fear.html

Also See: Lindzen: Deconstructing global warming   http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/10/27/lindzen-deconstructing-global-warming/    containing a PDF link to Dr Lindzen’s full report. The report sites the fact that two of the leading “proponents” of Global Warming admit that the “true science” is unsettled, however, that doesn’t matter – “we shouldn’t let that stop us from implementing “other agendas”. Read it for yourself ……. “The idea of climate change should be seen as an intellectual resource around which our collective and personal identities and projects can form and take shape. We need to ask not what we can do for climate change, but to ask what climate change can do for us….Because the idea of climate change is so plastic, it can be deployed across many of our human projects and can serve many of our psychological, ethical, and spiritual needs.We will continue to create and tell new stories about climate change and mobilize them in support of our projects. These myths transcend the scientific categories of ‘true’ and ‘false’”. The actual words from the “Founders” of Climate Change Science …….. I guess they have no shame. http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2009/10/cooler_heads_lindzen-talk-pdf.pdf

Dr. Lindzen’s actual presentation on this subject can be viewed here: http://www.youtube.com/view_play_list?p=22D4DD5727161348

Just How Bad Was The Bush Economy – 2% Unemployment – April 10, 2005

Those “Bad Old” Bush Days – Unemployment Rate 2% – April 10, 2005

Posted on April 14, 2009 by mcauleysworld | Edit

EMPLOYMENT AND TRAINING ADMINISTRATION
USDL 05-796-NAT

Program Contact:
TRANSMISSION OF MATERIAL IN THIS

Subri Raman (202) 693-3058
RELEASE IS EMBARGOED UNTIL

Tony Sznoluch (202) 693-3176
8:30 A.M. (EDT), THURSDAY

Media Contact :
May 5, 2005
(202) 693-4676

UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE WEEKLY CLAIMS REPORT

SEASONALLY ADJUSTED DATA

In the week ending April 30, the advance figure for seasonally adjusted initial claims was 333,000, an increase of 11,000 from the previous week’s revised figure of 322,000. The 4-week moving average was 321,500, a decrease of 2,000 from the previous week’s revised average of 323,500.

The advance seasonally adjusted insured unemployment rate was 2.0 percent for the week ending April 23, unchanged from the prior week’s unrevised rate of 2.0 percent.

The advance number for seasonally adjusted insured unemployment during the week ending April 23 was 2,589,000, an increase of 38,000 from the preceding week’s revised level of 2,551,000. The 4-week moving average was 2,606,500, a decrease of 24,250 from the preceding week’s revised average of 2,630,750.

UNADJUSTED DATA

The advance number of actual initial claims under state programs, unadjusted, totaled 288,626 in the week ending April 30, a decrease of 12,249 from the previous week. There were 283,236 initial claims in the comparable week in 2004.

The advance unadjusted insured unemployment rate was 2.0 percent during the week ending April 23, a decrease of 0.1 percentage point from the prior week. The advance unadjusted number for persons claiming UI benefits in state programs totaled 2,570,929, a decrease of 41,651 from the preceding week. A year earlier, the rate was 2.3 percent and the volume was 2,915,357.

Extended benefits were available in Alaska during the week ending April 16.

Initial claims for UI benefits by former Federal civilian employees totaled 974 in the week ending April 23, a decrease of 132 from the prior week. There were 1,974 initial claims by newly discharged veterans, a decrease of 242 from the preceding week.

There were 14,361 former Federal civilian employees claiming UI benefits for the week ending April 16, a decrease of 17 from the previous week. Newly discharged veterans claiming benefits totaled 26,320, an increase of 661 from the prior week.

The highest insured unemployment rates in the week ending April 16 were in Alaska (5.1 percent), Puerto Rico (4.1), Michigan (3.5), Oregon (3.1), New Jersey (3.0), Pennsylvania (3.0), Wisconsin (2.8), Massachusetts (2.7), Vermont (2.7), and California (2.6).

The largest increases in initial claims for the week ending April 23 were in Massachusetts (+5,534), Kentucky (+4,080), California (+3,257), Texas (+2,974), and Connecticut (+2,396), while the largest decreases were in Minnesota (-2,801), Tennessee (-2,201), Wisconsin (-880), Pennsylvania (-865), and South Carolina (-707).

http://www.dol.gov/opa/media/press/eta/ui/eta20050796.htm

UPDATE: June 10, 2009 – The uneployment rate now stands at 9.4%. Pending the 12 weekly upward revision of unemployment data the percentage of unemployed may surpass 10%. At the time of Obama’s election in November 2008 the unemployment rate was 6.5%. For every 2 people out of work when Obama was elected we know have 3 people out of work.

Update: 01/30/2010 – The Democrats took control of Congress in January 2006 and have retained control ever since. Why not blame Bush …..

%d bloggers like this: