*grin* ... they could all give it to me, and I'll control it for them! hmmnnn ... wonder if I could do it from a white sanded beach somewhere and find enough suitcases to store it all in?

Kidding! I have no aspirations to be rich ... I'm looking for the bus to glory! *grin*

     Steve Wynn is a high-respected businessman among his peers. He has an obvious attention to detail and commitment to excellence. There is a great deal of warranted fear in the world. In fact , it's very hard to hold on to optimism.
     I think we all need to take up the ministry of 2 Corinthians 5 , that calls us to reconciliation.
     I think we can listen to Mr. Wynn's words - be aware of the real dangers we face - then pray for wisdom as to how God would have us move forward.

Steve Winn. $1.5 billion net worth.

Certainly he knows how to make money.

Do you think we ever have selective listening? Like the message? Snatch on to it and ignore the baggage that might come with it? Or, on the other hand, don't like the message? Snatch onto the baggage in order to ignore the message.

Oprah Winnfrey. Networth $2.3 billion. She certainly knows how to make money. She owns several financial empires. She knows how to make money better than Steve Winn does apparently.

Oprah is very liberal, likes Obama and is supportive of his financial policies. Should we listen up when Oprah talks?

The two richest men in the world, Bill Gates and Warren Buffett are both Democrats and are on the record as being supportive of Obama and his financial policies. Should we listen up when they talk?

Lots of Hollywood moguls certainly know how to make money. Should we listen to them when they talk about economic policy coming out of Washington DC?

Al Gore? Did we, or did we not, ignore his message because of any baggage that he carried around? Or, did we proudly declare that his baggage outweighed his message?

My point here is not that we should, or should not, listen to any particular person. But rather "how" we listen, and "why" we listen. Are we seeking messages that confirm what we already think? Or are we trying to listen so that we can actually learn?

I do respect what Republican and Libertarian, Alan Greenspan has to say about things:

http://www.boston.com/business/articles/2010/08/07/greenspan_calls_for_repeal_of_bush_tax_cuts/

Private Sector Employment Shows Sixth Straight Month Of Growth
http://rttnews.com/ArticleView.aspx?Id=1382353



Wall Street marks best month in a year in July
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE66B1HP20100730

This chart shows the DOW the last year of Bush's presidency.


This chart shows the DOW since the Obama inauguration until today.


I was on the leading edge of vocal opposition to the bailout, that Bush pleaded for, and Obama and McCain both voted for.
I thought it might be one of the dumbest things to ever come out of DC. I still am against it.
There are at least two leading economists that disagree:

In Study, 2 Economists Say Intervention Helped Avert a 2nd Depression
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/28/business/economy/28bailout.html

I should not be misunderstood here. These are troubling economic times. There is a lot of work to do.
But, how do we look at things. Do we see problems that need to be solved? Or do we see the Apocalypse and doomsday?

One thing not addressed in the growth figures in context of a recovering economy, is the issue with risky home loans.

This, in and of itself, despite the supposed bail-out, has had more impact on stabilizing our economy than anything else.

The government dumped a bunch of paper money on the market, which did little more than devalue the currency.  And everyone knew it would do that ahead of time, both those for and against the bailouts.

The government changing the rules to keep lenders from giving loans to peopel who can't afford them, thereby setting them up for foreclosure and bankruptcy, that has done more to stabilize property values and stablize our economic base than anything else.

If the government had not initially devalued our currency in such a drastic way, the house market would not have reccessed as far as it did.  But the realestate market always stabilizes in context, and is always a solid indicator of the strengths and growths (or ressessions) of our economy.

The high risk loans in question were a liberal-Democrat program to begin with based on an agenda of making home-ownership easier for people.   But it didn't work out that way.   So I am actually glad that President Obama had the guts to change this particular disastrous economic policy, against the agendas of previous Democratic leaders of our nation.  President Bush should have done it, but he couldn't have gotten away with it in context of his erstwhile popularity problems.

Just pointing out that I can find at least one good thing Pres. Obama has done.

Careful, this still reflects a 200,000 gain, which is the point Clark is making...

 

But your point, in which I do agree, is the data is going to be painted by the government to reflect themselves in a positive light.

My concern is less about the number of jobs going up or down each month as it is about the strength of the economy to sustain long-term stability.  And short term fluxuats in job gains and losses does not directly translate into long term stability. It never has.