Morning Report: Slew of economic data this morning 10/1/15

Posted on October 1, 2015 by Brent Nyitray

Stocks are higher after yesterday’s rally. Given that yesterday was the end of a pretty lousy month (and quarter) it looked like people gunned the market a little to make their quarterly returns look a little better. Bond yields continue to grind lower.

The next two days are going to have a lot of economic data.

The ISM Manufacturing Index fell to 50.2 in September from 51.1 in August. 7 industries reported expansion, while 11 reported contraction. The slowdown in China and the strong US dollar are weighing on business confidence. A 50.2 reading would correspond to about a 2.2% GDP growth rate.

Construction spending rose 0.7% in August, which was better than the 0.5% Street estimate. Residential construction is up 1.3% for the month and 16% for the year.

Initial Jobless Claims rose to 277k last week. We continue to bounce around the lows with this number. That said….

Jobless Claims may be increasing in the future, as Challenger and Gray announced job cuts increased 93%. This indicator combs the newswires for companies making announcements for job cuts. Something like 58,000 job cut announcements were made in September, with the 30,000 cuts at HP accounting for most of it.

The Bloomberg Consumer Comfort index rose to 43 from 41.9 last week.

Auto sales numbers are looking strong. Fiat Chrysler jeep sales are up 40%. Amazing what cheap gasoline can do.

Filed under: Morning Report |

« »

26 Responses

  1. markinaustin, on October 1, 2015 at 11:13 am said:

    Frist.

    Can a Socialist make his campaign bucks stretch further? Inquiring minds want to know.

    Like

    Reply
  2. Let the mutherfuker burn!, on October 1, 2015 at 11:28 am said:

    Fascinating.

    Like

    Reply
  3. novahockey, on October 1, 2015 at 11:48 am said:

    re: gender bias
    the muppets made a trans joke last night. at least i think i was.
    ‘m not sure what’s worse. that they made it in a show that i thought would be for kids. or that i laughed.

    Like

    Reply
  4. jnc4p, on October 1, 2015 at 12:08 pm said:

    “Let the mutherfuker burn!, on October 1, 2015 at 11:28 am said:

    Fascinating.”

    Someone won’t be surviving Zombie Apocalypse.

    Like

    Reply
  5. Let the mutherfuker burn!, on October 1, 2015 at 12:08 pm said:

    Trannies sure make a lot of noise for the proportion of the population. Is being a tranny the sun-dried tomato?

    Like

    Reply
  6. jnc4p, on October 1, 2015 at 12:09 pm said:

    “ScottC, on October 1, 2015 at 11:40 am said:

    The greatest threat to the credibility of science remains scientists themselves. ”

    I’d say the greatest threat is the use of the term “science” try and appropriate scientific authority for things that aren’t actually science, like for example studies on sexism.

    Like

    Reply
  7. Let the mutherfuker burn!, on October 1, 2015 at 12:09 pm said:

    Is that request re Hillary’s email a result of the cushiness of elected office or of wealth?

    Like

    Reply
  8. jnc4p, on October 1, 2015 at 12:10 pm said:

    Elected office, or in HRC’s case appointed office. Trump could find NPR on his own.

    When you are elected or appointed, the taxpayers pay for the aides, not you.

    It’s like an open bar for concierge services.

    Like

    Reply
  9. jnc4p, on October 1, 2015 at 12:12 pm said:

    You see this Brent? Mel Watt isn’t going far enough for Elizabeth Warren.

    “She scolded FHFA chief Mel Watt for postponing action on principal reduction for struggling homeowners. “Evidently there is no need for delay, no need for further study, if the government takes a loss and Wall Street makes a profit,” she said, “but it is absolutely necessary to delay if homeowners might have a chance to cut their mortgages and stay in their homes. This is wrong, and it is time to fight back!””

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/elizabeth-warren-is-on-the-hunt-again/2015/09/30/0e21163a-67be-11e5-8325-a42b5a459b1e_story.html

    Like

    Reply
  10. novahockey, on October 1, 2015 at 12:48 pm said:

    “Someone won’t be surviving Zombie Apocalypse.”

    she’ll be typing away on her blackberry, wondering why her staff is late to every meeting.

    Like

    Reply
  12. Let the mutherfuker burn!, on October 1, 2015 at 2:35 pm said:

    Should the R POTUS or D POTUS be made to explain how any new spending they want get’s 60 votes in the Senate?

    Will they?

    Like

    Reply
  13. jnc4p, on October 1, 2015 at 2:53 pm said:

    Naiomi Klein is always good for revealing the left’s actual agenda:

    “Klein traces the ideological infrastructure our current petrochemical economy is founded on back to the Enlightenment period. “It’s a moment in history where you have the Scientific Revolution and you also have the colonial project overlapping temporarily. The idea of infinite growth begins and there’s the birth of the machine,” she said. “These are all happening in the very same century.” She thinks drawing attention to when and where these concepts came from is intrinsic to developing alternatives to them. “Calling it human nature erases that it comes from a place. There are other ideas and other ways of relating to the world.””

    http://www.newrepublic.com/article/122981/naomi-kleins-radical-guide-anthropocene

    Because you can’t fight climate change by just chucking capitalism. You have to get rid of the Industrial Revolution and the Enlightenment at the same time to really get back to nature.

    Aletheia isn’t an outlier.

    Like

    Reply
  14. Kevin S. Willis, on October 1, 2015 at 3:27 pm said:

    @jnc4p:

    ““Calling it human nature erases that it comes from a place. There are other ideas and other ways of relating to the world.”””

    That “place” is the development of technology and infrastructure that allows human nature to manifest and ever-increasing levels of scale. “Capitalism” becomes a code word for “things I don’t like about how people and society works” and comes with concomitant fantasy that if only the right people were in charge and the right laws were written (and the right people removed from the planet) that they could all have their cake and eat it, too.

    What the Soviet Union managed to produce and product and, um, “innovation” ultimately all had incentives and disincentives tangled up in them. Decisions were made basically on what improved the positions of the individuals making those decisions. People will always require incentives to be “productive”, incentives that have feelings attached to them, and abstract notions of “everybody is working for the common good” is not, never has been, and never will be sufficient.

    Said another way: anybody who wants to get rid of the automobile either doesn’t drive and never sees a need to, or carves themselves out a special exception that they are doing Important Things, so must suffer the evil of the automobile, but others are not doing Important Things, so do not require access to automotive transportation. Folks like Naomi and Aletheia want to kill the goose that golden egg because they believe, in the right circumstance, with the right people “in charge” (but not dictators or anything like that . . . just “in charge”) human beings will stop wanting to better their own personal conditions.

    Ironic that Aletheia often posts such things in a forum that is illustrative of how narcissistic and tribal human beings are. If anything demonstrates that if only with a little bit “more” (money, technology, maternal guidance from the state) humanity will finally be perfected . . . online comment forums are the demonstrative medium. We are never going to be able to successfully live in a collective.

    Hell, a complaint I often hear from people of all ideological stripes is that co-workers are lazy, come in late and duck out early, and so on. In situations where such behavior might get them fired, or effect their pay . . . and they do it anyway. What would it be in an environment where that same person essentially couldn’t get fired?

    You have to get rid of the Industrial Revolution and the Enlightenment at the same time to really get back to nature.”

    And she’s a progressive!

    Talk about wanting to roll back the clock. Conservatives only want to take things back to the 1950s! She’s aiming for the 1600s!

    Like

    Reply
  15. Kevin S. Willis, on October 1, 2015 at 3:30 pm said:

    @Scottc1: “Great comments section!”

    Indeed. And all these people should be working together for the common good, paid a standard living wage, and allowed to buy one brand of government approved bread.

    Now is the time for the glorious revolution!

    Like

    Reply
  16. Kevin S. Willis, on October 1, 2015 at 3:41 pm said:

    @jnc4p: “I’d say the greatest threat is the use of the term “science” try and appropriate scientific authority for things that aren’t actually science, like for example studies on sexism.”

    This. Exactly. Social sciences are only science by the loosest possible definition. Like economics, it’s more observational and selective. If you can’t propose an experiment with a control group, it’s more analysis than it is science, and analysis is fraught with subjectivity. It’s one step away from punditry.

    Social sciences (which usually involves looking at some numbers and focusing on those that prove institutionalized racism or sexism) are not the equal of physics or genetics just because the word “science” is attached. Which is not to say they cannot be part of a valuable dialog, just that opposing the subjective analysis of one group of agenda-drive social scientists is part of that dialog, and not “an attack on science”.

    “I’m surprised that the authors, the reviewers, and the editors [of the PNAS paper] didn’t see this,” Albers says. “You don’t have to be all that knowledgeable about statistics to spot this problem.”

    You see what you want to. Indeed:

    Ellemers—who recently moved to Utrecht University—says she and Van der Lee were fully aware that the picture looked different when broken down by discipline, and that the paper elaborates on these differences. The overall success rates “were seen as a problem by NWO,” and “were the starting point for our analysis,” says Ellemers, who’s “not convinced” that Simpson’s Paradox invalidates the findings.

    Translation: though the evidence was not there, we added a number of subjective criteria that would inevitable prove our foregone conclusion. Why do you hate science?

    Like

    Reply
  17. Kevin S. Willis, on October 1, 2015 at 3:42 pm said:

    A spokesperson for NWO referred ScienceInsider’s questions about the PNAS paper to the authors, but said the organization will go ahead with its reforms because they’re a good idea, regardless of the paper’s quality. Among other things, NWO is planning a pilot experiment to see whether additional training for reviewers can improve women’s success rates.

    Yay! Science!

    Like

    Reply
  18. Let the mutherfuker burn!, on October 1, 2015 at 4:30 pm said:

    Can’t wait for CBS to comment on the use of the word “planted” as well as their opinion on why “balanced” was in scare quotes.

    And these are the emails she chose to turn over.

    Like

    Reply
    • ScottC, on October 1, 2015 at 8:16 pm said:

      McWing:

      Can’t wait for CBS to comment on the use of the word “planted” as well as their opinion on why “balanced” was in scare quotes.

      Who’s going to press them for a comment? Most of the media is just as guilty of being puppets for the left.

      Like

      Reply
  19. Let the mutherfuker burn!, on October 1, 2015 at 6:21 pm said:

    Sublime.

    Like

    Reply
  20. Let the mutherfuker burn!, on October 1, 2015 at 9:20 pm said:

    I admire his pluck but The Process as he calls it is dead. No one gives up power and the Speaker and Senate Majority leader will NEVER relinquish their total budget power. It’s CR’s forever.

    http://morningconsult.com/2015/10/paul-winfree-is-dangerous/

    Like

    Reply
  22. Let the mutherfuker burn!, on October 2, 2015 at 8:49 am said:

    Guess we’re still bouncing on the bottom.

    http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-10-02/payrolls-disaster-only-142k-jobs-added-september-zero-wage-growth-august-revised-muc

    I’m no expert, but are why are these guys considered so?

    As noted above, the headline jobs print was below the lowest wall street estimate. In other words 96 out of 96 economisseds did what they do best.

    Like

    Reply

Be kind, show respect, and all will be right with the world.