[bsrsharma]

I too have a deposit at Countrywide (below FDIC limit) but I am not worried. When they close down (which I think is very probable), FDIC will mail me a check. It may take a couple of days, but I can live with that. BTW, they are giving a good rate on deposits and I like them! Same thing with GMAC Bank; likely to close down but good rates now.

[bsrsharma]

‘Reagan Democrat, or an ‘Obamacan’

I have nothing against partisan politics. But observe that it was Paulson who was having sleepless nights that $ may become Peso if that bill doesn’t pass. He seems to be a fairly middle of the road guy.

[bsrsharma]

‘Reagan Democrat, or an ‘Obamacan’

I have nothing against partisan politics. But observe that it was Paulson who was having sleepless nights that $ may become Peso if that bill doesn’t pass. He seems to be a fairly middle of the road guy.

[bsrsharma]

‘Reagan Democrat, or an ‘Obamacan’

I have nothing against partisan politics. But observe that it was Paulson who was having sleepless nights that $ may become Peso if that bill doesn’t pass. He seems to be a fairly middle of the road guy.

[bsrsharma]

‘Reagan Democrat, or an ‘Obamacan’

I have nothing against partisan politics. But observe that it was Paulson who was having sleepless nights that $ may become Peso if that bill doesn’t pass. He seems to be a fairly middle of the road guy.

[bsrsharma]

‘Reagan Democrat, or an ‘Obamacan’

I have nothing against partisan politics. But observe that it was Paulson who was having sleepless nights that $ may become Peso if that bill doesn’t pass. He seems to be a fairly middle of the road guy.

[bsrsharma]

I am quite pleased with her response and defense of her vote.

I hope everyone realizes that explanation covers only the crumbs. The meat is in the $800 Billion treasury guarantee. The rationale for that is:

Bailing Out the Bank of China

Now that Congress has approved the bailout of housing giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, those who voted “yes” are soon going to be asked an uncomfortable question: Why are you taking money from U.S. taxpayers to bail out the Bank of China and other nations’ central banks?…

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121734906485393697.html?

[bsrsharma]

I am quite pleased with her response and defense of her vote.

I hope everyone realizes that explanation covers only the crumbs. The meat is in the $800 Billion treasury guarantee. The rationale for that is:

Bailing Out the Bank of China

Now that Congress has approved the bailout of housing giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, those who voted “yes” are soon going to be asked an uncomfortable question: Why are you taking money from U.S. taxpayers to bail out the Bank of China and other nations’ central banks?…

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121734906485393697.html?

[bsrsharma]

I am quite pleased with her response and defense of her vote.

I hope everyone realizes that explanation covers only the crumbs. The meat is in the $800 Billion treasury guarantee. The rationale for that is:

Bailing Out the Bank of China

Now that Congress has approved the bailout of housing giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, those who voted “yes” are soon going to be asked an uncomfortable question: Why are you taking money from U.S. taxpayers to bail out the Bank of China and other nations’ central banks?…

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121734906485393697.html?

[bsrsharma]

I am quite pleased with her response and defense of her vote.

I hope everyone realizes that explanation covers only the crumbs. The meat is in the $800 Billion treasury guarantee. The rationale for that is:

Bailing Out the Bank of China

Now that Congress has approved the bailout of housing giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, those who voted “yes” are soon going to be asked an uncomfortable question: Why are you taking money from U.S. taxpayers to bail out the Bank of China and other nations’ central banks?…

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121734906485393697.html?

[bsrsharma]

I am quite pleased with her response and defense of her vote.

I hope everyone realizes that explanation covers only the crumbs. The meat is in the $800 Billion treasury guarantee. The rationale for that is:

Bailing Out the Bank of China

Now that Congress has approved the bailout of housing giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, those who voted “yes” are soon going to be asked an uncomfortable question: Why are you taking money from U.S. taxpayers to bail out the Bank of China and other nations’ central banks?…

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121734906485393697.html?

[bsrsharma]

Based on the complexity of measuring GDP and the frequent large swings due to corrections applied later on, I think a small figure in the +/-1% range has too much uncertainty to make sense as an accurate measure (see how +0.7% swung to -0.2%). If there is a high (and uneven) inflation regime as we are in now (large inflation in food & energy, none in labor, deflation in house prices), I think the figures are even more unreliable. Ideally, BEA should bound the figures with margins of error and say GDP increased by +1.9% +/- 1%. (That way we know it was somewhere between 0.9% to 2.9%)

[bsrsharma]

Based on the complexity of measuring GDP and the frequent large swings due to corrections applied later on, I think a small figure in the +/-1% range has too much uncertainty to make sense as an accurate measure (see how +0.7% swung to -0.2%). If there is a high (and uneven) inflation regime as we are in now (large inflation in food & energy, none in labor, deflation in house prices), I think the figures are even more unreliable. Ideally, BEA should bound the figures with margins of error and say GDP increased by +1.9% +/- 1%. (That way we know it was somewhere between 0.9% to 2.9%)

[bsrsharma]

Based on the complexity of measuring GDP and the frequent large swings due to corrections applied later on, I think a small figure in the +/-1% range has too much uncertainty to make sense as an accurate measure (see how +0.7% swung to -0.2%). If there is a high (and uneven) inflation regime as we are in now (large inflation in food & energy, none in labor, deflation in house prices), I think the figures are even more unreliable. Ideally, BEA should bound the figures with margins of error and say GDP increased by +1.9% +/- 1%. (That way we know it was somewhere between 0.9% to 2.9%)

[bsrsharma]

Based on the complexity of measuring GDP and the frequent large swings due to corrections applied later on, I think a small figure in the +/-1% range has too much uncertainty to make sense as an accurate measure (see how +0.7% swung to -0.2%). If there is a high (and uneven) inflation regime as we are in now (large inflation in food & energy, none in labor, deflation in house prices), I think the figures are even more unreliable. Ideally, BEA should bound the figures with margins of error and say GDP increased by +1.9% +/- 1%. (That way we know it was somewhere between 0.9% to 2.9%)

[Author]

Posts