Most Favorable Mich. Survey About Jobs in 5 Years
The final June reading on the overall index on consumer sentiment rose to 76 from 73.6 in May. The figure was above the median forecast of 75.5 among economists polled by Reuters, which was also the reading in early June. Reports of job losses fell by half since last June, from 65 percent of respondents to 29 percent, the survey showed.
"The June 2010 survey recorded the most favorable news heard by consumers about jobs in five years," Richard Curtin, director of the surveys, said in a statement."
11 Comments:
Reuters?!?!
The same folks that were shocked by slower than predicted growth?
I wonder when the BLS will come out with their guess?
i'm a bit confused by this number. is this supposed to be a good number or a bad one?
we're off the lows, but still below anything from the 2001 recession in absolute terms, so on what are we supposed to be focusing?
does this survey really have any predictive power?
Could be the fact that Granholm's reign of error is about to end.
The completion of financial reform may lift uncertainty and free-up credit, to spur economic growth.
However, the new Consumer Protection agency may protect consumers from borrowing money they cannot pay back.
"However, the new Consumer Protection agency may protect consumers from borrowing money they cannot pay back."
Peak, Why would an agency that is a bureau within the Federal Reserve be of any benefit to consumers? The Fed hasn't helped consumers in the past, and I don't know why they would start now.
Besides, what ever happened to self-determination? Shouldn't consumers decide for themselves what they can afford to pay? If they are wrong, they will suffer.
Beyond that, shouldn't lenders assess risk and control lending? I'm aware if the perverse incentives that have existed that caused our current problem, but this new agency certainly sounds like one more construct of those elitists who know what is best for all of us.
Ron, I agree, bureaucrats in Washington deciding what's fair and what's unfair will have undesirable effects.
The government created the financial crisis and wants to protect us from the next one, although it doesn't seem to understand how it caused the last one.
Hey PPT and Ron H., consider the following critique on Comprehensive Financial Reform...
Thanks, juandos, I guess the word "comprehensive" means something different these days.
I know when I hear it, I think "Oh no! This means trouble."
Economic reform is not being carried out in the correct areas so as to change what is needed to change over the long term.
Taxation,Regulation,Banking,Current account deficit,Defence spending priorities,State government administration,Health,Financial regulation,and many more.
The federal government is comprised of elected people that are not the ones you would employ to carry out the job of financially restructuring a country.
Ultimately these reforms will create another mess/meltdown.
I'm still chuckling over paul's comment about Granholm...:-)
'I know when I hear it, I think "Oh no! This means trouble."'...
That's exactly the feeling I'm getting Ron H....
Foreboding?
"The federal government is comprised of elected people that are not the ones you would employ to carry out the job of financially restructuring a country"...
From where I'm sitting grant, there are words of wisdom...
I think you've hit the nail squarely on the head...
Consider the following from the American Thinker: New financial regulation bill a farce
Do check out the Tyler Durden of Zero Hedge link, its particularly blunt...
"The June 2010 survey recorded the most favorable news heard by consumers about jobs in five years," Richard Curtin, director of the surveys, said in a statement."
Doesn't this last quote prove how irrelevant this survey really is? After all, this survey showed that consumer sentiment was much higher in 2005 and look what has happened since.
Post a Comment
<< Home