Alcoa - Canary in the Coal Mine and a Repeat of History?

???? what insults?
You did present some facts I simply pointed out that they were hardly conclusive. "Year over Year for March" sounds to me like you mean from March to March i.e. 1 year. February to March is one month by my reckoning so where is the "six months of sales being the same"? In any case whether "no growth" is dismal or not is rather a subjective measure. The fact that the year to year growth was positive would preclude me from considering it "dismal" but again that's at least somewhat subjective.

As for me "simply trolling". That is the clearest insult I've seen on this thread a definite attack on the poster rather than the post. Coming after your "rest my case" claim is rather telling isn't it...

 

If you want to say "inconclusive" then explain how. Your response is rather vague. Weird. Simply an opinion not based on facts. Philosophic.

As explained retail sales are the same as last summer and a trend line would show such (I for some reason can't upload files) with some minor up and down. Given a .7% population growth that is hardly inconclusive. Therefore your response is an opinion not based on facts.

What you are doing is the attack. You do this often. Uses of the words nonsensical and weird are hardly words of fair discourse.

Try saying: Your premise is incorrect. Here is why based on this data..... or something like that.

Now, please respond to the premise with your opinion backed up by facts.

To do less is an attack the way you put it.

 

Inconclusive means just that. Your facts didn't prove your point.
Indeed "weird" is an opinion I could have said unusual instead but the slightly stronger statement seamed warranted. You still haven't clarified what you meant by the way.

We are seeing, an admittedly rather slow, upward trend. I see that as a positive sign. Indeed there's not a huge difference between 1.7 % and 2% which you indicated as "healthy". So while it could be better and indeed we would like to see better I certainly wouldn't describe it "dismal". Not sure why you keep bringing up the population growth either. Depending on just what sectors of the population are growing and/or declining the impact could be considerably different.

Actually by the convention of this and most good historical boards if you are the proponent of an idea and it is brought to question it is up to you to support it. If I had stated you were wrong then I would also bear responsibility for supporting that position but it's not clear to me at this point whether or not you are indeed wrong. What I have yet to see is much in the way of support for your position.

As it happens I did look up some of the data and what limited research I did hardly supports your position. There was admittedly a recession in 1921 but after that commodity and in particular agricultural commodity prices were relatively stable as was farm income up until the Depression hit. This doesn't seem consistent with over production to me (it is consistent with the recession of 21).

As to my previous statements being an attack. That is completely accurate but I was attacking your post and not you and that is completely legitimate. You are the one who made it personal which is generally frowned on here and most other historical forums.

 

You don't read what is said. North of 2% is considered healthy. You jumped to a conclusion.

Don't agree on upward ascent. No pattern except we are were we were over summer.

Farmland as an asset from which loans are based peaked in 1920. Slight dip in 21 and then a downward spiral. Look it up. Tell me that I'm wrong. I'm not.

The depression of 21...yes that is what is called had a business dip of 38.1 percent. Hardly a minor blip. Wholesale prices declined by 1/3.


There were recessions in 23/24 and 26/27. Considered mild they were quite sharp by today's standards.

Farm and Farm Mortgage foreclosure rates
https://www.google.com/search?q=farm+foreclosures+us+1920s&espv=2&biw=1536&bih=783&tbm=isch&imgil=4AKWYcumWyvn7M%253A%253BINI8qAjvwt7XSM%253Bhttps%25253A%25252F%25252Feh.net%25252Fencyclopedia%25252Fthe-u-s-economy-in-the-1920s%25252F&source=iu&pf=m&fir=4AKWYcumWyvn7M%253A%252CINI8qAjvwt7XSM%252C_&usg=__CjoE27gyIJHSIPZveZ35btCBXK8%3D&ved=0ahUKEwjEmaK3xIzMAhVIlYMKHdHRDh4QyjcIQg&ei=8LYOV8ThA8iqjgTRo7vwAQ#imgrc=4AKWYcumWyvn7M%3A

 

Cotton prices

Wheat prices 1915 to 1933
0.96 1.43 2.04 2.05 2.16 1.82 1.03 0.96 0.92 1.24 1.43 1.21 1.18 0.99 1.03 0.66 0.38 0.38

Corn Prices
http://www.nass.usda.gov/Statistics_by_State/Washington/Historic_Data/fieldcrops/cornprc.pdf

Anything else one of us is weird or wrong about? Your opinion doesn't hold. Nonsensical. No facts.

 

If you can't see them I don't think my pointing them out will help you at all.

I really don't know who you are. I get a lot of people asking me about getting a book published.

As far as getting what I wish for, if that is meant to be a threat then carry it out or don't make the threat. It will make no difference for me. I come hear for WW2 discussion and occasionally general discussion. I don't need LWD's insults or your aloofness in the matter.

I actually try and bring WW2 discussion to the table which is not the case for everyone.

 

Guilty, as charged.
i try to bring what i can, which ain't much.
Also come to read good ww2 bits, which there are a'plenty.

 

You're mellowing in your old age Poppy.

I was expecting a video of The Police's "Canary in a Coal Mine."

 

I actually do read what is said. 2% may be considered healthy (although by whom is a good question) that doesn't mean that close to 2% is all that bad.

What conclusion did I jump to?

No pattern? Looking at the US census data for retail and food industry sales I don't see a single month between now and 2010 where the latter sales aren't greater than the earlier figure. Pretty clear trend to me. Gasoline stations do show a considerable decline recently but given the fall in gas prices that's not unexpected or unreasonable.

What does the price of farmland have to do with over production? Especially when you consider that farm income after recovering from the 1921 event was pretty stable.

Found a wiki page that lists recessions in the US. Interesting to note that the period between recessions was longer in the 20's than it was in most of US history up to that point. Agreed the recession/depression of 21 was serious but I'm not seeing that it proves your point in regards to the "Great Depression".

 

I believe I said under 2% wasn't great. The reality is that we never had a normal jump coming out of the recession. Malaise.

For the past 6 months we are flat. Yes, it isn't conclusive, but maybe concerning given the current negative interest rates. Much of the growth was from autos with very low interest rates and the now standard ability to borrow up to 25% over the value. The concept of 10 or 20 percent down would kill auto sales.

Price of farmland THEN had everything to do with the economy as it was so much more a major part. Land values had fallen in steady decline by 40% before the stock crash. That is a major player in the depression. Similar to the housing situation in 07/08. Land values are in direct correlation with farm economic health. Only 3x in modern history (100 years) have land values gone up in a bubble. First 2x ended very badly. We are currently starting to slide again after a major run up.

In RE to 20s recessions, they were warning shots that were ignored. Signs that there were problems. The euphoria was going to continue, but it wasn't realistic.

For gasoline, you need to look at gallons.

 

US Gasoline consumption:
However, recently consumption has ticked up but can't find a good chart.

 

You said sales figures were dismal.
If you look at every month for the past 5 or so years and compare it to the same month the previous year the sales are up. That's not flat in my book.
"negative interest rates" needs a bit of explaining as well I don't see that anyone is paying to loan money.

Price of farm land may have had an impact on the economy back then but that doesn't mean it is a measure of over production. The fall of land prices in and of itself looks to have been an important issue but that rather takes away your over production point doesn't it?

If recessions are occurring every 1-3 years over a period of 80+ years why should the ones in the 20's be considered "warning shots" that the others weren't?

As for gasoline the point was that it was the only sector I saw where sales (in dollars) were down. This is obviously a function of both volume and price. Why does one only need to look at volume? Indeed doing so gives a rather false impression does it not? Since the decline in transportation cost due to fuel price decreases has positive ramifications through a lot of the economy that's not altogether a bad sign either is it? By the way you chart isn't showing and you haven't really sated what your point is in regards to it either.

 

There are always plenty of ways to look at economics. Dismal in the amount of money and lowering of rates which is destroying savers (retirees) comes at a very high cost. Those costs are not factored in.

A healthy economy grows 2.5 to 4 percent per year. We have been barely above population growth even though we have spent huge sums and destroyed a lot of savings (very low earnings).


Subtract out the high cost and we have been in a severe depression for some time. Just masked over. Barring a big change in tech to improve efficiency, the piper will be paid. Unfortunately that change in tech will likely be robotics and manual jobs and some others will disappear making it very rough on the unskilled and uneducated.

 

"You're mellowing in your old age Poppy.

I was expecting a video of The Police's "Canary in a Coal Mine."

That sounds like something i should have done...off my game