reply to post by SLAYER69
I truly believe it's all BS.
Whether that is deliberate or simply down to the stupidity of people who should know better is debatable. I think it's a mixture.
A few days ago I saw Alistair Darling saying that things were improving, then today they released news that things are actually worse than they were
predicting.
He followed this up by admitting that a lot of it is based on "confidence". Thereby, IMO, admitting that they are being deceitful in the hope of
"convincing" the right people to pump money back in.
The you have the hacks reading data with blinkers on. They see spikes and translate it as "improvement" while forgetting that the government has
pumped money in to inflate the system. What they are seeing is simply the absorption of that money, it's not an independent growth or genuine
improvement. These people are paid a lot of money to assess such information, and they are failing at the first hurdle.
You also have to consider the huge chasm between "wall street" and "main street". A lot of these analysts follow the markets as though it's a
religion. They believe that the market is implicitly connected to and reflective of the wider economy, and they are wrong.
The markets are driven by giant uber-corporations, far detached from the working economy we all deal with.
We (the people on the ground, in the street) haven't even finished feeling the damage of the initial collapse yet, we're probably about half way
through, and yet they believe a rise in market confidence between the major players is indicative of the general economy!
It's all rubbish.
When you see them talking about the economy in "market" terms, switch off, they're not talking to you or I, they're talking to the major business
players, trying to convince them to invest. None of the elected are following the real economy, they're responding to, supporting, and talking to the
market players.