Jim Devine wrote,
>and why do these financial whizzes care about a statistic for only one
>quarter, one that will likely be revised within the next year or so? (See
>Dean Baker's comment on these stats, how revisions make the "New Economy"
>look more paltry.) They deserve their fate if they ar
Tom Walket writes:
>... Featured with the Greenspan rumour is Friday's Dresdner bank
>"forecast" of a 1.5% productivity revision. The productivity revision is
>out and it's 2.5%. So much for the Apocalyse. ...
and why do these financial whizzes care about a statistic for only one
quarter, one
Looks like a silly right-wing site. Featured with the Greenspan rumour is
Friday's Dresdner bank "forecast" of a 1.5% productivity revision. The
productivity revision is out and it's 2.5%. So much for the Apocalyse. Maybe
some folks went on a shorting binge and are hoping to start a stampede
befor
http://finance.yahoo.com/mo
"A site called newsmax.com is running a story titled "Greenspan Reportedly To
Quit" which claims that administration sources have said that Greenspan will
retire by year-end. Briefing.com has never heard of newsmax.com and, needless
to say, this is an unlikely place to
