|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
POWERED BY
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Resource Center » Event Release Dates | Event Definitions | Today's Calendar
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Monday, March 25, 2013
Producer Price Index
http://bloomberg.econoday.com/byshoweventfull.asp?fid=456114&cust=bloomberg-us&year=2013&lid=0&prev=/byweek.asp#top
![[Chart]](https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/blogger_img_proxy/AEn0k_sRMOPqik0kx3dbP5luYVO_5bqcjioUq6oEjOPRNs4bgjlsLwnbaKa3YpmMW2RmuroepiyRCuqwENgNDf7J2Nik_mdYC4xlqM_Vo13LpaIzD4bh_o0E3p-C-A0iSg=s0-d)
![[Chart]](https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/blogger_img_proxy/AEn0k_tstxExU_4wgyusjLHg75uZsmjxnyh-7NL8XOzzd4j1_Liy330K_VDpAau971ZBkOV0LL9MOUaZjMNWWkpJx-poLDfHepYLMmsTS_gEOTwdNeEu7mU9f47Wh1v7Rw=s0-d)
Wednesday, March 20, 2013
Industrial production
http://mam.econoday.com/byshoweventfull.asp?fid=456210&cust=mam&year=2013&lid=0
| Industrial Production | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Highlights
Today's industrial production report was released early-at 9:11 a.m. ET. Manufacturing in in February improved sharply. Overall industrial production jumped 0.7 percent in February after no change in January (originally down 0.1 percent). Market expectations were for a 0.5 percent gain in February for overall production. The manufacturing component rebounded 0.8 percent, following a 0.3 percent drop in January. Analysts projected a 0.3 percent rise for the manufacturing component. The rate of motor assemblies remained strong and rose 3.6 percent after a 4.9 percent drop in January. Other industries generally showed healthy gains. Excluding motor vehicles, manufacturing gained 0.6 percent in February after a 0.1 percent increase the prior month. The output of utilities increased 1.6 percent in February while production at mines dipped 0.3 percent. Capacity utilization for total industry advanced to 79.6 percent from 79.2 percent in January. Expectations were for 79.4 percent. Manufacturing may be making a comeback after a soft January. Today's numbers will likely nudge up estimates for first quarter GDP. The report also will boost debate next week within the Fed on when to unwind easy monetary policy. The traditional non-NAICS numbers for industrial production may differ marginally from the NAICS basis figures. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Market Consensus before announcement
Industrial production in January fell back but after strong gains in December and November. Industrial production in January slipped 0.1 percent, following an advance of 0.4 percent the month before and a 1.4 percent jump in November. In January, the manufacturing component declined 0.4 percent, following a boost of 1.1 percent in December and an increase of 1.7 percent in November. The output of utilities gained 3.5 percent in January while production at mines fell 1.0 percent. Capacity utilization for total industry eased to 79.1 percent from 79.3 percent in December. Looking ahead, national manufacturing growth is likely to be on the plus side as production worker hours rebounded 0.5 percent in February. This should boost the manufacturing component in industrial production. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Definition The Federal Reserve's monthly index of industrial production and the related capacity indexes and capacity utilization rates cover manufacturing, mining, and electric and gas utilities. The industrial sector, together with construction, accounts for the bulk of the variation in national output over the course of the business cycle. The production index measures real output and is expressed as a percentage of real output in a base year, currently 2007. The capacity index, which is an estimate of sustainable potential output, is also expressed as a percentage of actual output in 2007. The rate of capacity utilization equals the seasonally adjusted output index expressed as a percentage of the related capacity index. Why Investors Care |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
![[Chart]](https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/blogger_img_proxy/AEn0k_tBSgeieqxMFJNHpwEQpHkOoE8rCBL0zNik1wJl6ybPjjIY8f2g7Tf5aPtII-96OVW3AH6dx2wP-kWI0W-0plnOu0HHuWXU0Mn2MTpyIoabWOC_v2ndtw=s0-d)
![[Chart]](https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/blogger_img_proxy/AEn0k_vcrB8Dqjc7ba4R4b7QlQXT-g6e8sqddebGKB48DPLgA2bKfvLSFUyqdF5oz7AhIvNDSchvE7ae6d6hTIDspNmdy2DVuwevvmHEC3-v0TUCZIRWBYWg=s0-d)
Monday, March 18, 2013
Working from home - telecommuting
http://money.cnn.com/2013/03/14/news/economy/telecommuting-survey/index.html
Monday, March 4, 2013
Friday, March 1, 2013
Monday, February 18, 2013
Gas spending and prices by state
http://money.cnn.com/2013/02/17/news/economy/gas-prices/index.html
Graph: http://money.cnn.com/news/storysupplement/economy/gas_prices_by_state/
Graph: http://money.cnn.com/news/storysupplement/economy/gas_prices_by_state/
32 days of higher gas prices comes at tough time
@CNNMoney February 18, 2013: 7:54 AM ET
Gas prices have been rising due to higher oil prices, production cuts and refinery issues. Click chart for state-by-state data.
NEW YORK (CNNMoney)
Gas prices have risen for 32 days straight, according to AAA.
That means that the average price for a gallon of regular unleaded gasoline has increased more than 13% over that period to $3.73.
It's hitting wallets right in the middle of winter, when people are already looking at large home heating bills. And it comes just after many Americans have been hit with smaller paychecks, and are worried about looming budget cuts that could deliver an even deeper blow.
What's behind the higher prices at the pump? It's a confluence of factors, from rising crude oil prices, to production cuts and refinery closings.
"Right now, things are tight worldwide," said Ray Carbone, president of New York commodities trading firm Paramount Options. "Refineries going down, unanticipated maintenance, and higher demand ... going into driving season."
Two-thirds of the cost of one gallon of gas comes from the price of crude, which has jumped 10% in the last two months, according to the Energy Information Administration. As the U.S. housing market experiences a resurgence, the jobs picture brightens and consumer spending expands, anticipation of higher oil demand is driving up prices. At the same time, fears have ebbed that there would be a protracted slowdown in China's economy, which would have dampened global demand for oil.
OPEC, the powerful cartel of petroleum exporting countries, is also believed to have cut production by about 1 million barrels a day in the last few months, partly in response to rising oil production elsewhere, notably the United States.
Adding to that, several refineries are either preparing to, or have already, shut down for maintenance before their annual switch to summer gasoline, which is formulated differently.
For the average American, all this couldn't be happening at a worse time.
Most of the country's 160 million workers are taking home less pay each week since thepayroll tax cuts expired last month.
The government in 2011 had temporarily lowered the payroll tax rate for the first $113,700 of annual earnings in an effort to keep more cash in the pockets of Americans and provide a boost to the economy.
Now, workers earning the national average salary of $41,000 are receiving about $60 less on every monthly paycheck.
Many Americans are also worried that the federal aid programs they rely on are on thechopping block. Next month, lawmakers will face off against the so-called "sequester,"which will slash $85 billion from federal agencies over seven months.
By some estimates, up to 1 million jobs will be lost even as millions of federal workers will be furloughed and a bevy of programs and services across the government will be curtailed.
In such a scenario of widespread furloughs and job cuts, gas price will likely have a deeper impact if they continue to rise. 
Friday, February 15, 2013
America’s staggering defense budget, in charts
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/01/07/everything-chuck-hagel-needs-to-know-about-the-defense-budget-in-charts/
On Monday afternoon, President Obama will nominate
former Nebraska senator Chuck Hagel (R) as secretary of defense. The
confirmation hearings are likely to focus on Hagel’s views on Israel and
Iran. Yet the biggest headache likely to face the next defense
secretary will almost certainly be the U.S. military budget.
The United States spends far more than any other country on defense
and security. Since 2001, the base defense budget has soared from $287
billion to $530 billion — and that’s before accounting for the primary
costs of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars. But now that those wars are
ending and austerity is back in vogue, the Pentagon will have to start
tightening its belt in 2013 and beyond. If Hagel gets confirmed as
secretary of defense, he’ll have to figure out how best to do that.
Below, we’ve provided an overview of the U.S. defense budget — to get a better sense for what we spend on, and where Hagel might have to cut:
1) The United States spent 20 percent of the federal budget on defense in 2011.
All told, the U.S. government spent about $718 billion on defense and international security assistance in 2011 — more than it spent on Medicare. That includes all of the Pentagon’s underlying costs as well as the price tag for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, which came to $159 billion in 2011. It also includes arms transfers to foreign governments.
(Note that this figure does not, however, include benefits for veterans, which came to $127 billion in 2011, or about 3.5 percent of the federal budget. If you count those benefits as “defense spending,” then the number goes up significantly.)
U.S. defense spending is expected to have risen in 2012, to about $729 billion, and then is set to fall in 2013 to $716 billion, as spending caps start kicking in.
2) Defense spending has risen dramatically since 9/11.
Here’s a historical chart of U.S. defense spending since World War II in inflation-adjusted dollars. There’s a big spike for the Korean and Vietnam wars. There’s another big ramp-up during the 1980s under President Reagan. Then defense spending got cut significantly during the Clinton years until soaring to historically unprecedented levels after 9/11.
U.S. defense spending is set to fall again in 2013, though it will still be as high in real terms as it was at the height of the Reagan build-up for the foreseeable future.
3) The Pentagon’s budget mostly consists of personnel pay, weapons procurement, and operations.
In 2011, the Pentagon spent
about $161 billion on personnel pay and housing, $128 billion on
weapons procurement, and $291 billion on operations and maintenance— the
last largely in Iraq and Afghanistan. Those three items made up the
bulk of the budget. Smaller amounts also were spent on R&D (about
$74 billion) and nuclear programs ($20 billion), as well as
construction, family housing and other programs ($22 billion).
My colleague Dylan Matthews created the graph above to show how these portions have changed over time. Personnel spending has stayed constant over the years, even as the number of soldiers in the U.S. military has shrunk (pay and benefits have increased). Weapons procurement can vary wildly. And operations spending has soared during the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
4) The United States spent more on its military than the next 13 nations combined in 2011.
Needless to say, the United States remains the world’s dominant military power. The graph above comes from the Pete G. Peterson Foundation, which compiled data from the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute.
5) The U.S. defense budget is poised to shrink in 2013 and beyond, although this won’t be the biggest downsizing it has ever faced.
Two big things are about to happen to military spending. The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are winding down. And, thanks to the 2011 Budget Control Act, the Pentagon is facing both hard budget caps and a looming sequester that would cut defense spending by about $1 trillion over the next decade (compared to what was expected).
That’s a serious cut. Although, as the graph above from the Center for Strategic and International Studies shows, even if the sequester is fully implemented, which no one expects, the drawdowns after Korea, Vietnam and the Cold War were far more drastic in inflation-adjusted dollars.
6) Sequester or no sequester, the 2011 Budget Control Act is expected to rein in the Pentagon’s base budget over the next decade:
The chart above comes from the Congressional Budget Office,* which points out that the spending caps in the Budget Control Act of 2011 are likely to force the Pentagon’s “base” budget to stay virtually flat in the next decade, adjusting for inflation (that’s the light-blue dashed line). If Congress fails to avert the sequester, then funding levels will drop to an even lower level (that’s the light-blue solid line).
These numbers don’t include any additional war funding that Congress might approve over the next decade. Still, sequester or no sequester, the Pentagon’s base budget will be well below the dark blue solid line, which is the CBO’s projection of what the Department of Defense’s budget would look like if costs remained “consistent with DoD’s recent experience.”
7) The Pentagon and Congress are already rejiggering the military budget in response to austerity.
Back in January, the Department of Defense unveiled its proposed
budget for fiscal year 2013 — a look at how it would deal with new
budget constraints. As Wired’s Spencer Ackerman reported,
the Pentagon wanted to downsize about 100,000 human soldiers and ramp
up advanced weapons programs, including drones, bombers and missiles.
Of course, the Pentagon doesn’t have the final say. Congress eventually passed its own $631 billion defense appropriations bill in December that made some changes to the Pentagon’s vision. Many of the weapons systems that the Obama administration wanted to retire — such as three Navy cruisers — were kept in. The final did, however, make plans to reduce civilian and contractor personnel by 5 percent over the next five years.
8) The next secretary of defense will have to make further tough choices about the Pentagon’s budget.
The chart above comes from a recent report from the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments, which asked seven teams of experts to come up with ways to meet the Pentagon’s new spending constraints in the coming decades. It shows what areas different teams would cut — some experts advised heavily slashing the civilian workforce, others advocated cutting aircraft inventory. (There were some areas of consensus, though: surface ships were generally cut more than submarines, for instance.)
The cuts weren’t always painless. For instance: “Five of seven teams agreed that they could not fully resource their strategies under the assumed fiscal guidance unless they accepted near-term risk by reducing current readiness programs.” These are trade-offs Hagel will have to navigate.
9) Ordinary Americans want to cut defense spending far more than is already on the table,
Back in May, the Stimson Center unveiled the results of a new survey asking U.S. voters about their views on defense spending. As it turns out, Democratic, Republican and independent voters all want to cut military spending far more severely than the sequester would and far, far more severely than either party has proposed. Congress isn’t likely to pay much attention here, but it’s a reminder that defense cuts tend to be extremely popular.
* Correction: I replaced the original graph in #6 with a better chart from the Congressional Budget Office, which shows military spending shrinking over the next decade under the 2011 Budget Control Act (after adjusting for inflation), not growing as originally stated. Apologies for the error.
Former senator Chuck Hagel. We’ll make thiiiiiis much in cuts. (Lauren Victoria Burke/Associated Press)
Below, we’ve provided an overview of the U.S. defense budget — to get a better sense for what we spend on, and where Hagel might have to cut:
1) The United States spent 20 percent of the federal budget on defense in 2011.
All told, the U.S. government spent about $718 billion on defense and international security assistance in 2011 — more than it spent on Medicare. That includes all of the Pentagon’s underlying costs as well as the price tag for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, which came to $159 billion in 2011. It also includes arms transfers to foreign governments.
(Note that this figure does not, however, include benefits for veterans, which came to $127 billion in 2011, or about 3.5 percent of the federal budget. If you count those benefits as “defense spending,” then the number goes up significantly.)
U.S. defense spending is expected to have risen in 2012, to about $729 billion, and then is set to fall in 2013 to $716 billion, as spending caps start kicking in.
2) Defense spending has risen dramatically since 9/11.
Here’s a historical chart of U.S. defense spending since World War II in inflation-adjusted dollars. There’s a big spike for the Korean and Vietnam wars. There’s another big ramp-up during the 1980s under President Reagan. Then defense spending got cut significantly during the Clinton years until soaring to historically unprecedented levels after 9/11.
U.S. defense spending is set to fall again in 2013, though it will still be as high in real terms as it was at the height of the Reagan build-up for the foreseeable future.
3) The Pentagon’s budget mostly consists of personnel pay, weapons procurement, and operations.
Source: Office of Management and Budget, Graph: Dylan Matthews
My colleague Dylan Matthews created the graph above to show how these portions have changed over time. Personnel spending has stayed constant over the years, even as the number of soldiers in the U.S. military has shrunk (pay and benefits have increased). Weapons procurement can vary wildly. And operations spending has soared during the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
4) The United States spent more on its military than the next 13 nations combined in 2011.
Needless to say, the United States remains the world’s dominant military power. The graph above comes from the Pete G. Peterson Foundation, which compiled data from the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute.
5) The U.S. defense budget is poised to shrink in 2013 and beyond, although this won’t be the biggest downsizing it has ever faced.
Two big things are about to happen to military spending. The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are winding down. And, thanks to the 2011 Budget Control Act, the Pentagon is facing both hard budget caps and a looming sequester that would cut defense spending by about $1 trillion over the next decade (compared to what was expected).
That’s a serious cut. Although, as the graph above from the Center for Strategic and International Studies shows, even if the sequester is fully implemented, which no one expects, the drawdowns after Korea, Vietnam and the Cold War were far more drastic in inflation-adjusted dollars.
6) Sequester or no sequester, the 2011 Budget Control Act is expected to rein in the Pentagon’s base budget over the next decade:
The chart above comes from the Congressional Budget Office,* which points out that the spending caps in the Budget Control Act of 2011 are likely to force the Pentagon’s “base” budget to stay virtually flat in the next decade, adjusting for inflation (that’s the light-blue dashed line). If Congress fails to avert the sequester, then funding levels will drop to an even lower level (that’s the light-blue solid line).
These numbers don’t include any additional war funding that Congress might approve over the next decade. Still, sequester or no sequester, the Pentagon’s base budget will be well below the dark blue solid line, which is the CBO’s projection of what the Department of Defense’s budget would look like if costs remained “consistent with DoD’s recent experience.”
7) The Pentagon and Congress are already rejiggering the military budget in response to austerity.
Photo: Raytheon
Of course, the Pentagon doesn’t have the final say. Congress eventually passed its own $631 billion defense appropriations bill in December that made some changes to the Pentagon’s vision. Many of the weapons systems that the Obama administration wanted to retire — such as three Navy cruisers — were kept in. The final did, however, make plans to reduce civilian and contractor personnel by 5 percent over the next five years.
8) The next secretary of defense will have to make further tough choices about the Pentagon’s budget.
The chart above comes from a recent report from the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments, which asked seven teams of experts to come up with ways to meet the Pentagon’s new spending constraints in the coming decades. It shows what areas different teams would cut — some experts advised heavily slashing the civilian workforce, others advocated cutting aircraft inventory. (There were some areas of consensus, though: surface ships were generally cut more than submarines, for instance.)
The cuts weren’t always painless. For instance: “Five of seven teams agreed that they could not fully resource their strategies under the assumed fiscal guidance unless they accepted near-term risk by reducing current readiness programs.” These are trade-offs Hagel will have to navigate.
9) Ordinary Americans want to cut defense spending far more than is already on the table,
Back in May, the Stimson Center unveiled the results of a new survey asking U.S. voters about their views on defense spending. As it turns out, Democratic, Republican and independent voters all want to cut military spending far more severely than the sequester would and far, far more severely than either party has proposed. Congress isn’t likely to pay much attention here, but it’s a reminder that defense cuts tend to be extremely popular.
* Correction: I replaced the original graph in #6 with a better chart from the Congressional Budget Office, which shows military spending shrinking over the next decade under the 2011 Budget Control Act (after adjusting for inflation), not growing as originally stated. Apologies for the error.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)