The Decline and Fall of Network Television News — Leaning Left and Falling Viewers and Ratings — Videos

Posted on January 24, 2015. Filed under: Uncategorized | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |

Project_1

The Pronk Pops Show Podcasts

Pronk Pops Show 402: January 23, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 401: January 22, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 400: January 21, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 399: January 16, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 398: January 15, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 397: January 14, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 396: January 13, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 395: January 12, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 394: January 7, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 393: January 5, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 392: December 19, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 391: December 18, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 390: December 17, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 389: December 16, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 388: December 15, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 387: December 12, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 386: December 11, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 385: December 9, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 384: December 8, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 383: December 5, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 382: December 4, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 381: December 3, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 380: December 1, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 379: November 26, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 378: November 25, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 377: November 24, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 376: November 21, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 375: November 20, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 374: November 19, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 373: November 18, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 372: November 17, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 371: November 14, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 370: November 13, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 369: November 12, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 368: November 11, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 367: November 10, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 366: November 7, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 365: November 6, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 364: November 5, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 363: November 4, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 362: November 3, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 361: October 31, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 360: October 30, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 359: October 29, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 358: October 28, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 357: October 27, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 356: October 24, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 355: October 23, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 354: October 22, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 353: October 21, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 352: October 20, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 351: October 17, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 350: October 16, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 349: October 15, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 348: October 14, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 347: October 13, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 346: October 9, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 345: October 8, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 344: October 6, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 343: October 3, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 342: October 2, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 341: October 1, 2014

Evening-News-Audience-Continues-a-30-Year-Decline1

Story 1: The Decline and Fall of Network Television News — Leaning Left and Falling Viewers and Ratings — Videos

Network – Mad as Hell Scene

Network (1976) – Ned Beatty – “The World is a Business”

Paddy Chayefsky on “Network”

Nobody cares about you (George Carlin)

[yotuube=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yi6XV8yBFoU]

New England Patriots Cialis Commercial Parody ‘Deflate gate’ NFL Investigating Patriots

‘Deflate-gate’: NFL Investigating Patriots

The NFL is investigating whether the New England Patriots deflated footballs that were used in their AFC championship game victory over the Indianapolis Colts. (Jan. 20)

Patriots’ QB Tom Brady Says He Didn’t Deflate the Footballs

CBS Evening News 22 January 2015

Former NFL QB Explains Deflated Footballs

The NFL is investigating whether the New England Patriots used under-inflated footballs in the AFC championship game. Former NFL quarterback Hugh Millen says the footballs give quarterbacks a better grip and faster throws. (Jan. 23)

SportsCenter | Science behind New England Patriots deflated footballs

The Declining Influence Of TV News

Ken Auletta: Writer Liberation and the Decline of Broadcast

 

Pew study finds Americans more polarized than ever

A major study by the Pew Research Center finds the increasing polarization in the U.S. is not just in our politics. American adults are less likely to compromise and often decide where to live, who to marry and who their friends should be based on what they already believe. Michael Dimock of the Pew Research Center and Amy Walter of The Cook Political Report join Gwen Ifill to assess the data.

 

Major TV Networks’ News Viewership Declining

Mainstream media blends the lines of news and entertainment

“Apparently” This Kid is Awesome, Steals the Show During Interview

It’s the Individual that’s finished.

Network

Network (1976) (Trailer)

The NFL Doesn’t Want to Know How Deflate-gate Happened

By Andrew C. McCarthy

As Brendan’s post reports, at this afternoon’s press conference, Tom Brady flatly denied altering the footballs “in any way,” which I presume includes causing anyone else associated with the Patriots to alter them. Let me add a few points.

The major takeaway of the press conference is that, according to Brady, no one from the NFL has interviewed him. This is simply mind-boggling. Because of the way footballs are handled pregame, the quarterback would be the most essential source of information in the event irregularities occur. Brady is thus the first person the NFL should have spoken with if the league really wanted to get to the bottom of what happened.

One now has to be suspicious that the league would rather not know at this point. Why? Because we are just ten days from the Super Bowl and there is very strong evidence of cheating. If the league quickly learns who is responsible, it would have to suspend the cheater(s) from the big game or be mercilessly ridiculed for turning a blind eye. The NFL obviously does not want to suspend star players or coaches from its showcase event.

But now, the league will be mercilessly ridiculed anyway. There are very few people who handle the balls or might influence how they are handled between the time they are chosen and the time they are used in a game: the starting QB, the equipment manager, the ball boy(s), the referees, and the coaches. That means a competent investigation to get to the bottom of this growing controversy could be completed in a few hours – meaning, it should have been done by now. Plus, if you need to talk to the QB, you do it before he has to start ramping up his prep for the Super Bowl – meaning, between Monday and Wednesday of this week. You don’t wait until now, when he is turning his focus to the game.

If the NFL wanted to interview Tom Brady, it would have been done already. Football turns out to be a lot like politics: Officials avoid information because if they learn something bad has been done, they are expected to do something about it.

This is an extraordinarily foolish way to handle things. The NFL has run out of feet to shoot itself in this year, and this controversy is worse because it actually affects the integrity of the game. Tom Brady and Coach Bill Belichick claim they simply don’t know what happened, but almost everyone who knows football says that is impossible. Either way, because no explanation has been forthcoming from the Pats, there is a media feeding frenzy at the worst time: when over 5,000 international media figures are descending to cover the Super Bowl, which is as much a cultural phenomenon as a sporting event. Deflate-gate will now surely overwhelm coverage of the game, and the league’s incompetent (at best) handling of the investigation will invite endless reminders of its earlier black eyes this season.

A lot of this seems so unnecessary. Before we rehearse the really damaging facts, let’s cover one that is not well understood and that should have undercut the significance of the ball deflation.

Everyone agrees that, after the Colts raised concerns about the balls just before halftime, the balls were reexamined at halftime, and new balls were substituted for the under-inflated ones. That is, the second half was unquestionably played on the up and up . . . and in it the Patriots outscored the Colts 35-0 28-0. So whatever happened with the balls did not affect the outcome of the game – the right team made it to the Super Bowl.

Other than that, though, the story is bad. The refs examined the balls before the game – 12 from the Pats and 12 from the Colts – and found them to fit the specifications, weighing between 12.5 and 13.5 pounds [of air per square inch].

Right before halftime, a member of the Colts intercepted a Brady pass and noticed the ball was soft – something the Colts already had suspicions about based on (a) a prior game with the Pats in which they intercepted a couple of passes and detected under-inflated balls, and (b) similar suspicions about the Pats harbored by the Baltimore Ravens, who apparently shared those suspicions with the Colts after losing a tight playoff game to the Pats two weeks ago.

After the interception before halftime, the Colts’ sideline informed their general manager, who informed league officials. Based on the complaint, the refs re-examined all 24 balls at halftime. The Colts’ balls were all still within the specs, but 11 of the 12 Pats’ balls were under-inflated by up to two pounds per square inch – i.e., about 10.5 pounds. It was unseasonably mild for Foxboro, Mass., in January – about 51 degrees. Between that and the fact that the Colts’ footballs were unchanged, there seems to be no weather-related explanation for a drop in air pressure in the Pats’ footballs.

There are thus only two apparent possibilities, neither of which is good for the Pats: Either (a) the Pats supplied under-inflated balls and the refs did not competently examine them prior to the game; or (b) the Pats, who had control of their chosen footballs after the pregame examination by the refs, deflated the balls before or during the first-half.

Because the league has not done much of an investigation or released much information, we do not know how thorough the refs’ examination process is. I am also not in a position to say how noticeable the difference between 10.5 and 12.5 pounds is. The refs – football lifers – handle the balls on every play, and they obviously did not notice during the first-half. I saw Hall of Fame QB Dan Marino interviewed on Fox News earlier this week, and upon being presented with two footballs, one fully and one under-inflated, he indicated it was hard to tell the difference. But he also said, after squeezing and throwing them a few times, that the under-inflated one was somewhat easier to grip.

I still think the best case scenario for the Pats is that, based on years of experience, the equipment managers know Brady prefers a ball at the very bottom of the 12.5 to 13.5 pound range (as he said today at his press conference). It would not surprise me if, without there needing to be any discussion, the process is for equipment managers to bring Brady only balls that are at or slightly under 12.5 pounds. Those balls no doubt deflate a bit in the four or five days he breaks them in at practice, so by the time he selects a dozen for the game, they are likely to be under 12.5 pounds – perhaps markedly under, but maybe not enough that you could tell unless you examined very closely.

I’m sure Brady and the equipment manager do not measure the air pressure at that point; Brady just picks the ones he wants. Then, as he said at the press conference, he is done with the process and doesn’t deal with the balls again until game-time. That’s what allows him to say both that he doesn’t know what happened after he chose game balls and that he did not deflate those balls.

The equipment manager brings the balls to the refs for pregame inspection a couple of hours before game-time. So it would be important to know how thorough the refs’ inspection is. If the balls were not up to spec because of the Pats’ routine manner of handling them, and then the refs failed to do a careful enough examination to make sure they were up to spec, that could explain why they were under-inflated when checked at halftime. That is, it is not necessarily true that someone deflated them after the refs’ examination.

Of course, if the refs did do a competent pregame examination, then someone on the Pats has to have deflated the footballs.

One more interesting tidbit that could be relevant. Turns out that it is largely because of Tom Brady that the NFL changed its protocols in order to allow each team to supply game balls for its own use. It used to be that the home teams were responsible for supplying all the game balls. But nine years ago, Brady and Broncos star QB Peyton Manning successfully petitioned the competition committee to change the rules. The rationale was that every QB likes the ball to be broken in differently, and since there is some leeway in the rules about inflation (i.e., the 12.5 to 13.5 range), the league should accommodate the slightly different size and contour preferences of different QBs.

Personally, I would have thought the range allowing a pound of difference simply reflected that air pressure can change depending on climate conditions and how the ball is handled – just like it does with your car’s tires. I seriously doubt the rule was written with the thought that players on opposing teams would not be using the same ball. That would be inconceivable in, say, baseball, in which players for both teams pitch and hit balls that are exactly the same.

Tom Brady indicated at today’s press conference that he did not think the balls used made much difference – he did not, he said, notice any difference between the first-half balls that were under-inflated and the second-half balls that were inflated to league specifications. Maybe . . . but sounds remarkably blasé coming from a guy who previously pushed the league to change its rules so he could always have footballs that conformed to his unique preferences.

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/397011/nfl-doesnt-want-know-how-deflate-gate-happened-andrew-c-mccarthy

State of the News Media 2014

Overview

In many ways, 2013 and early 2014 brought a level of energy to the news industry not seen for a long time. Even as challenges of the past several years continue and new ones emerge, the activities this year have created a new sense of optimism – or perhaps hope – for the future of American journalism.

Digital players have exploded onto the news scene, bringing technological knowhow and new money and luring top talent. BuzzFeed, once scoffed at for content viewed as “click bait,” now has a news staff of 170, including top names like Pulitzer Prize-winner Mark Schoofs, and is the kind of place that ProPublica’s Paul Steiger says he would want to work at if he were young again. Mashable now has a news staff of 70 and enticed former New York Times assistant managing editor Jim Roberts to become its chief content officer. And in January of this year, Ezra Klein left the Washington Post for Vox media, which will become the new home for his explanatory journalism concept. Many of these companies are already successful digital brands – built around an innate understanding of technology – and are using revenues from other parts of the operation to get the news operations off the ground.

Other kinds of new revenue are flowing into news operations as well. A new breed of entrepreneurs – like Jeff Bezos, John Henry and Pierre Omidyar — are investing their own money in the industry, in some cases creating wholly new entities and in others looking to bring new life to long-standing ones. Among their best credentials – beyond deep pockets – is that they are tech industry insiders and news media outsiders.  Philanthropic money has grown as well, in many cases focused on smaller outlets seeking to fill the gap in news coverage left by legacy cutbacks. As recently as March 2014, the Jerome L. Greene Foundation announced a $10 million grant to New York Public Radio to help build its digital capabilities, an expressed need among nonprofits.

The year also brought more evidence than ever that news is a part of the explosion of social media and mobile devices, and in a way that could offer opportunity to reach more people with news than ever before. Half of Facebook users get news there even though they did not go there looking for it. And the Facebook users who get news at the highest rates are 18-to-29-year-olds. The same is true for the growth area of online video. Half of those who watch some kind of online video watch news videos. Again, young people constitute the greatest portion of these viewers.

Accompanying this momentum is the question of what it adds up to within the full scope of news that consumers receive. Here the events of the last year get put in some perspective. Our first-ever accounting found roughly 5,000 full-time professional jobs at nearly 500 digital news outlets, most of which were created in the past half dozen years. But the vast majority of bodies producing original reporting still comes from the newspaper industry. But those newspaper jobs are far from secure. Full-time professional newsroom employment declined another 6.4% in 2012 with more losses expected for 2013. Gannett alone is estimated to have cut 400 newspaper jobs while the Tribune Co.  announced 700 (not all of them in the newsroom).

The new money from philanthropists, venture capitalists and other individuals and non-media businesses, while promising, amounts to only a sliver of the money supporting professional journalism. Traditional advertising from print and television still accounts for more than half of the total revenue supporting news, even though print ad revenues are in rapid decline. While seeing some small gains in new revenue streams like digital subscriptions and conferences, total newspaper advertising revenue in 2013 was down 49% from 2003. (That 2013 number also includes some niche and non-daily publications.) Television ad revenue, while stable for now, faces an uncertain future as video becomes more accessible online. What’s more, most of the new revenue streams driving the momentum are not earned from the news product itself.

There were a number of other events over the last year for which the impact on citizens is mixed or unclear. Local television, which remains the primary place American adults turn to for news, saw its audience increase for the first time in five years. At the same time, though, there were fewer stations producing original news compared with 2012, primarily the result of television acquisitions that left fewer companies in control of more stations.  At this point, fully a quarter of the 952 U.S. television stations that air newscasts do not produce their news programs. Additional stations have sharing arrangements where much of their content is produced outside their own newsroom. The impact on the consumer seems to vary from market to market, with some markets increasing potential reach by airing news on stations that never had it – even if that newscast is the same one that airs on another local station. In other markets the news has contracted, as news organizations have reduced staff or content production for cost efficiency.     

In digital news, the overlap between public relations and news noted in last year’s State of the News Media report became even more pronounced. One of the greatest areas of revenue experimentation now involves website content that is paid for by commercial advertisers – but often written by journalists on staff – and placed on a news publishers’ page in a way that sometimes makes it indistinguishable from a news story. Following the lead of early adapters like The Atlantic and Mashable, native advertising, as it is called by the industry, caught on rapidly in 2013. The New York Times, The Washington Post and most recently The Wall Street Journal have now begun or announced plans to begin devoting staff to this kind of advertising, often as a part of a new “custom content division.” eMarketer predicts that native ads spending will reach $2.85 billion by 2014.

Many of these publishers initially expressed caution over such ads, with Wall Street Journal editor-in-chief Gerard Baker even describing it as a “Faustian pact.” In the end, though, many publishers eventually came down with a conclusion similar to Baker’s, who said that he was  “confident that our readers will appreciate what is sponsor-generated content and what is content from our global staff,” according to a statement released by The Journal. That may be the case, and it could also be the case that stories created for and paid for by advertisers do not bother consumers as long as they are a good read. At this point, though, there is little if any public data that speak to consumer response one way or the other.

And despite evidence of news consumption by Facebook users—half of whom report getting news across at least six topic areas—recent Pew Research data finds these consumers to have rather low levels of engagement with news sites. Another question looming over developments in social media is whether the self-selective process combined with algorithmic feeds are narrowing the kinds of information Americans are exposed to.

One of the biggest stories of the year, the NSA documents leaked by Edward Snowden, shined light on yet another area of challenge for journalism in the digital age: easy access to web-based content. It threatens the security of journalists’ communications and their ability to get sources to share information with them, the ultimate impact of which could be the stories that don’t get reported on and delivered to consumers.

A year ago, the State of the News Media report struck a somber note, citing evidence of continued declines in the mainstream media that were impacting both content and audience satisfaction. As indicated above and throughout this report, many of these issues still exist, some have deepened and new ones have emerged. Still, the level of new activity this past year is creating a perception that something important, perhaps even game-changing, is going on. If the developments in 2013 are at this point only a drop in the bucket, it feels like a heavier drop than most. The momentum behind them is real, if the full impact on citizens and our news system remains unclear.

This year’s Annual Report, our 11th edition, set out to examine these shifts—in revenue, in jobs, in technology, in content, in consumer behavior. It is structured a bit differently than in the past – to account for the widening of the industry, the growing influence of technology and new ways of sharing of our data. This year’s report includes four original research reports and two graphical presentations, along with key findings and a searchable database of all the statistics gathered in past years. From these reports, six major trends emerge:

1) Thirty of the largest digital-only news organizations account for about 3,000 jobs and one area of investment is global coverage.  Vice Media has 35 overseas bureaus; The Huffington Post hopes to grow to 15 countries from 11 this year; BuzzFeed hired a foreign editor to oversee its expansion into places like Mumbai, Mexico City, Berlin and Tokyo. The two-year-old business-oriented Quartz has reporters in London, Bangkok and Hong Kong, and its editorial staff speaks 19 languages. This comes amid pullbacks in global coverage form mainstream media. The amount of airtime network evening newscasts devoted to overseas reporting in 2013 was less than half of what it was in the late 1980s. International reporters working for U.S. newspaper have declined 24% from 2003 to 2010. As the new digital native outlets continue to add staff, the country may be seeing the first real build-up of international reporting in decades – save for a few start- ups like Global Post.

2) So far, the impact of new money flowing into the industry may be more about fostering new ways of reporting and reaching audience than about building a new, sustainable revenue structure.  The news industry in the U.S. brings in a little over $60 billion of revenue annually, according to estimates in our report. Advertising, at least for now, accounts for roughly two-thirds of this pie, most of which remains tied to legacy forms. Audience revenue accounts for about a quarter and is growing both in total dollars and in share. But this revenue may also be coming from a smaller—or at least flat—pool of contributors. New kinds of earned revenue streams like event hosting and web consulting account for about 7%, while investment from sources such as venture capital and philanthropy amount to only about 1% of the total.  One part of the equation worth exploring is what kind of savings occurs at digital news startups free of the legacy infrastructure, but taking on the newer costs of technology development and maintenance.

3) Social and mobile developments are doing more than bringing consumers into the process – they are also changing the dynamics of the process itself. New survey data released here find that half (50%) of social network users share or repost news stories, images or videos while nearly as many (46%) discuss news issues or events on social network sites. And with broader mobile adoption, citizens are playing important eyewitness roles around news events such as the Boston bombing and the Ukrainian uprising. Roughly one-in-ten social network users have posted news videos they took themselves, according to the data.  And 11% of all online news consumers have submitted their own content (including videos, photos, articles or opinion pieces) to news websites or blogs. Just as powerful, though, are the shifts in how news functions in these spaces.  On social sites and even many of the new digital-only sites, news is mixed in with all other kinds of content – people bump into it when they are there doing other things. This bumping into means there may be opportunity for news to reach people who might otherwise have missed it, but less of that may be in the hands of news organizations. Only about a third of people who get news on Facebook follow a news organization or individual journalist. Instead, stories get shared from friends in their networks. And few Facebook visitors, according to a separate Pew Research study of traffic to top news sites, end up also coming to a site directly.  For news providers, this means that a single digital strategy – both in terms of capturing audience and building a viable revenue base – will not be enough.

4) New ways of storytelling bring both promise and challenge. One area of expansion in 2013 was online news video. Ad revenue tied to digital videos over all (no firm calculates a figure specifically for news videos) grew 44% from 2012 to 2013 and is expected to continue to increase. For now, though, its scale is still small, accounting for just 10% of all digital ad revenue in the U.S. YouTube alone already accounts for 20% of these revenues and Facebook has now entered the digital video ad market and, based on its rapid growth in display ad revenue, is expected to quickly account for a significant portion of these dollars. In terms of audience appeal, one-third of U.S. adults watch online news videos, but that growth has slowed considerably. After a 27% increase from 2007 to 2009, the next four years saw just 9% growth. Again, large distributors of video content like YouTube and Facebook already account for a hefty portion of video watching on the web.  Nonetheless, some news providers are making significant investments in digital video. The Huffington Post celebrated the one year anniversary of HuffPost Live, Texas Tribune held a successful Kickstarter campaign to raise funds for the purchase of equipment to stream live video coverage of the 2014 Texas governor’s race, and the multimedia company Vice in early 2014 launched a new multimedia portal just for news stories.

5) Local television, which reaches about nine in ten U.S. adults, experienced massive change in 2013, change that stayed under the radar of most. Nearly 300 full-power local TV stations changed hands in 2013 at a price of more than $8 billion. The number of stations sold was up 205% over 2012 and the value up 367%, with big owners getting even bigger. If all the pending sales go through, Sinclair Broadcasting alone will own or provide service to 167 stations in 77 markets, reaching almost 40% of the U.S. population. Sinclair’s CEO, David Smith, at the UBS conference in December 2013 expressed an interest in growing even more: “I’d like to have 80% of the country if I could get it. I’d like to have 90%.” Much of what is driving these purchases is the growth in fees that local stations are able to charge cable companies for re-airing their content – known by the industry as retransmissions fees. Both Meredith (which owns 13 stations) and Scripps (which owns 19) said they saw their retransmission revenues roughly triple in the last three years.  In terms of programming, a clear result is more stations in the same market being operated jointly and sharing more content. As of early 2014, joint service agreements exist in almost half of the 210 local TV markets nationwide, up from 55 in 2011. And fewer stations are producing their own newscasts. The ultimate impact on the consumer is complicated to assess, but the economics benefit to the owner is indisputable.

6) Dramatic changes under way in the makeup of the American population will undoubtedly have an impact on news in the U.S, and in one of the fastest growing demographic groups – Hispanics – we are already seeing shifts. The Hispanic population in the U.S. has grown 50% from 2000 to 2012–to 53 million people. Most of that growth has come from births in the U.S. rather than the arrival of new immigrants, reversing a trend from previous decades. As a result, a growing share of the Hispanic population is American-born and a growing number speak English proficiently.  In response to these trends, more general-market media companies—like ABC, NBC, Fox and The Huffington Post—have started Hispanic news operations. Since 2010, six national Hispanic outlets have been launched, all of which are either owned in full or in partnership by a general-market media company. Not all of them have been successes, however.  Earlier this year, NBC Latino—a website-only outlet—closed, after only 16 months, and CNN Latino, which had both a web and on-air presence, was shut down just a year after its launch. At the same time, Fusion, a joint effort by ABC and Univision, initially described the channel as aimed at Hispanic millennials but later switched to aiming it at millennials more broadly—currently the largest and most diverse generational group in the U.S. As demographic shifts within the U.S. continue, so too will their impact on the news ecosystem.

http://www.journalism.org/2014/03/26/state-of-the-news-media-2014-overview/

Key Indicators in Media & News

Audience

Cable

1 cable tv viewership

In 2013, the cable news audience, by nearly all measures, declined. The combined median prime-time viewership of the three major news channels—CNN, Fox News and MSNBC—dropped 11% to about 3 million, the smallest it has been since 2007. The Nielsen Media Research data show that the biggest decline came at MSNBC, which lost nearly a quarter (24%) of its prime-time audience. CNN, under new management, ended its fourth year in third place, with a 13% decline in prime time. Fox, while down 6%, still drew more viewers (1.75 million) than its two competitors combined (619,500 at MSNBC and 543,000 at CNN).
The daytime audience for cable news was more stable, holding flat at about 2 million viewers across the three news channels. CNN (up 12%) and Fox (up 2%) actually experienced growth here. That was counterbalanced by more deep loses at MSNBC (down 15.5%).

Local TV

After years in decline, local television news showed new signs of life in 2013. Viewership increased in every key time slot. Local morning news (5 to 7 a.m. Eastern Time or equivalent) gained 6.3%, early evening newscasts followed with a 3.3% increase and late night news programs were flat (up 0.1%). This follows declines every year across all time slots from 2008 to 2012, with the exception of a small uptick in 2011. The jump in viewership in the key timeslots was due largely to significant increases in the November sweeps period when morning news was up 12%, early evening grew by 8% and late night increased by 6%.

2 local news viewership in key time slots

The 2013 picture was more mixed for Fox broadcast affiliates. Morning newscasts gained 9% more audience on average, continuing the steady growth of previous years. However, late-night viewership continued to decline, although the loss in 2013 was small, just 1.2%. Over the past six years, these programs have lost more than 25% of their viewers, while one of the worst performing traditional time slots, the 11 p.m. newscasts, have lost 17.3% since 2007.

Local news in nontraditional time slots are expanding their audience. The nontraditional early-morning news slots continued to grow. At 4:30 a.m., viewership increased 13% to 2.9 million. Viewership at 4 a.m. increased by 21% on average, to 257,000, following a 19% increase in 2012. Newscasts at midday and following the network news at 7 p.m. added viewers after having lost audience the year before. Midday newscasts saw a 5% increase of their audience and viewership also grew 2% for 7 p.m. newscasts. Though audiences in these time slots are growing, the programs attract far fewer viewers than some of the most popular hours for local TV. Late-night news programs, for instance, averaged 24.3 million viewers in 2013.

Network

3 network evening news audience

In the evening, an average of 22.6 million viewers tuned into one of the three commercial broadcast news programs on ABC, CBS or NBC, a 2.3% increase over the average viewership for 2012, according to Pew Research analysis of Nielsen Media Research data. The ABC World News increased 2.2% to 7.7 million viewers on average and CBS Evening News increased 6.5% to 6.5 million viewers. NBC Nightly News, the ratings leader, was the only evening news program to decrease, dipping 0.7% to 8.4 million viewers on average.

Morning news saw a 6.7% increase in average viewership compared with 2012, to 13.4 million. For years, NBC’s Today show led in viewership and ratings, but ABC’s Good Morning America took the throne in 2012 and grew its margin of victory in 2013. ABC’s Good Morning America increased 11% to 5.5 million viewers on average, CBS This Morning increased 17.9% to 3.2 million viewers and NBC’s Today show decreased 3.7% to 4.7 million.

Newspapers

Newspapers increased their total circulation by 3% daily and 1.6% Sunday, according to an analysis by the Newspaper Association of America’s John Murray. But that result is influenced by liberalized reporting rules by the Association for Audited Media and includes both paying visitors to digital platforms and distribution of Sunday insert packages to nonsubscribers.

Print now accounts for only 71.2% of daily circulation and 74.9% of Sunday, according to Murray. And Murray’s analysis of 15 of the largest newspapers shows that those papers now have just 54.9% of their total circulation in print.

News Magazines

4 news magazines newsstand sales

According to the Alliance for Audited Media, sales of newsstand copies for news magazines, the measure most accepted by the industry, fell 2% on average, following years of declining numbers. In 2013, though, the decrease was smaller than the total industry decline in newsstand sales (10%). The Economist was the hardest hit, losing 16% of its newsstand sales, after a 17% decline in 2012. The Atlantic and The Week were also hit (down 12% and 7% respectively). The New Yorker enjoyed a 16% increase, one of the highest reported in past years. Time posted some significant gains too, up 6% from the year before. Since 2008, when Pew Research started tracking these figures, the news magazines have lost 43% of their single-copy sales on average.

Subscriptions were flat, as they have been in years past. But these are normally kept from declining through discounts or special offers.

Audio

Traditional radio continues to reach the vast majority of Americans 12 and older, 91% in 2013 (roughly unchanged from 2012), but online listening is where the growth is. According to Edison Media research, fully 33% of Americans reported listening to online radio “in the last week” in 2013, up from 29% in 2013. In addition, online radio listening in cars (long a stronghold of AM/FM radio) rose to 21%, from 17% in 2012.

Another form of nontraditional radio, podcasting, has largely leveled off. The number of Americans who have “ever” listened to an audio podcast was down slightly from 29% in 2012 to 27% in 2013.

The other main non-AM/FM audio platform, satellite radio, saw moderate growth in subscribers in 2013. By the end of 2013, Sirius XM had 25.6 million subscribers in the U.S., up from 23.9 million at year end 2012.

Alternative Weeklies

Circulation for the top 20 alternative weekly newspapers declined again in 2013, but at a slower pace than in previous years: 6% in 2013, compared to 8% in 2012.

Digital

The vast majority of Americans now get news in some digital format. In 2013, 82% of Americans said they got news on a desktop or laptop and 54% said they got news on a mobile device. Beyond that, 35% reported that they get news in this way “frequently” on their desktop or laptop, and 21% on a mobile device (cellphone or tablet).

Digital Natives

Commercial

While commercial digital native sites remain a relatively small part of the economics of the news industry, their digital audience figures compete with those of much larger legacy news organizations. In April, May, and June of 2013, for example The Huffington Post averaged 45 million unique monthly visitors, putting it second only to Yahoo among the top news sites. Buzzfeed.com also fared well with 17 million monthly unique visitors, putting it at roughly the same as The Washington Post with 19 million monthly unique visitors.

Nonprofit

Audiences of noncommercial digital native news organizations vary widely and can be hard to determine because of syndication and partnership arrangements with other news outlets. On the national level, for example, ProPublica, an investigative journalism nonprofit site founded in 2007, had 544,799 unique visitors to its site in October 2012, according to a Knight Foundation report. While that is a 176% increase over October 2010, it probably misses a fair amount as the organization syndicates its content to various news organizations.

There are also regionally oriented outlets like the New England Center for Investigative Reporting with far fewer visitors per month: 2,362 unique visitors in October 2012, according to self-reported data in the Knight report. Still, that was up 87% from October 2010.

At the local level, MinnPost attracted 268,955 unique visitors in October 2012, according to the report, while The Lens, which focuses on New Orleans and Gulf Coast news, reported just 20,177 unique visitors in October 2012 (though again a huge increase – 375% – over October 2010). The variation in these data speaks to both the diversity in the scope of noncommercial digital start-ups as well as the degree to which collaboration and syndicated content may mean that site visits is not the best way to assess total audience.

Economics

Cable

5 cable news revenues

The year 2013 was a relatively weak one for economic growth among the cable news outlets. Fox News was projected to increase its total revenue, according to research firm SNL Kagan, by 5% to $1.89 billion. CNN was projected to increase just 2% to $1.11 billion, and MSNBC was projected to decline by 2% to $475 million. Both CNN and MSNBC experienced advertising revenue losses year over year.

Revenue from license fees, which cable channels charge to providers in exchange for the right to carry their programming, continued to grow in 2013, according to projections, becoming a larger part of the revenue pie for the news channels. For CNN, license fee revenue now accounts for 64% of its total intake. For Fox, it is 58%. And for MSNBC, it makes up 51% of total revenue.

Local TV

Local TV stations make the vast majority of their revenue from on-air advertising, which typically follows a cyclical pattern of increases in election years and decrease in non-election years. In 2013, total local TV ad revenue was expected to decline 2.5% from election-year 2012, according to BIA/Kelsey, amounting to $19.7 billion. But this is less of a decline than in 2011, when advertising revenues dropped by about 8% from the year before, and in 2009, when the decline was 22%.

To calculate ad revenue going just to news-producing stations (i.e. stations that include news programming,) we have to go back one year to 2012, the most recent year that BIA has final station-level data. For that year, news-producing stations took in $17.3 billion in total ad revenue, compared with $20.2 billion in the industry over all.

This year, Pew Research also estimated what portion of the $17.3 billion in ad revenues at these news-producing stations is connected to the news programming. Local TV news directors, in an annual survey by Bob Papper, attributed 48.6% of 2012 stations’ revenues to news. That would amount to $8.4 billion in all. Other sources of revenues for the local TV industry have been growing. Retransmission payments have been increasing rapidly in the past decade, according to data from the investment firm Veronis Suhler Stevenson. In 2011, the last year for which there were final data, retransmission revenues equaled almost $1.5 billion, more than 70 times higher than they had been in 2003 ($20 million). And VSS projects that revenue will more than double—to about $3.7 billion—by 2016. In 2013 alone, 21st Century Fox— created after the split-up of News Corp. — doubled its retransmission revenues. And Nexstar, which owns 108 local stations, reported a 66% increase in its retransmission fee revenues for the fourth quarter 2013, which now account for about 23% of its total revenues.

Digital revenues for the local TV market were forecast to grow 23% in 2013, following 17% growth the previous year, according to Borrell Associates. But, the typical local TV station makes only about 4% of its total revenue from online and mobile ads, according to Borrell Associates.

Newspapers (updated April 22, 2014)

The Newspaper Association of America has stopped compiling quarterly reports on advertising revenue. According to its annual numbers, which were released in April 2014, overall revenue for newspapers in 2013 was $37.6 billion, a decrease of 2.6% from 2012. Within that total, combined print and digital ad revenue decreased by 7%—to $20.7 billion. While daily and Sunday print ad revenue dropped 8.6%, digital advertising edged up by 1.5%. That is a slowdown from the 3.7% digital ad growth rate in 2012.

The news was better with circulation revenue which was up 3.7% in 2013, slightly lower than the growth rate in 2012, 4.6%.  Many companies continue to add digital subscriptions and raise rates for a combination of print and digital access. The biggest paywall gains tend to come in the first year with revenues flattening in following years. Many companies are also building other revenue sources like digital marketing services for local businesses, contract printing or events and newsletters. Direct marketing revenue increased by 2.4% in 2013 while new and other revenue increased 5%, in 2013, according to the NAA, but both only constituted a fraction of the total revenue picture.

News Magazines

For a third year in a row, news magazines faced a difficult print advertising environment. Combined ad pages (considered a better measure than ad revenue) for the five magazines studied in this report were down 13% in 2013, following a decline of 12.5% in 2012, and about three times the rate of decline in 2011, according to the Publishers Information Bureau. Again, hardest hit was The Week, which suffered a 20% drop in ad pages. The Atlantic fell 17%, The Economist 16%, and Time about 11%, while The New Yorker managed to keep its ad pages losses in single digits (7%). For print magazines, the number of ad pages sold across the industry over all was down in 2013 (4.1%), after a steep decline in 2012 (8.2%).

Network TV

According to Kantar Media, ad revenue for network television evening news programs increased 2% in the first three quarters of 2013 to $401 million. ABC’s World News decreased 3% to $130 million, the CBS Evening News saw an 11% increase to $116 million and NBC Nightly News remained steady at $155 million. Revenue for network television morning shows increased 7% in the first three quarters of 2013. At ABC’s Good Morning America revenues increased 12% to $260 million and CBS This Morning fell 2% to $108 million. At NBC’s Today show, revenue increased 6% to $504 million.

Digital

6 top 5 companies make more than half of total display ad revenue

Total digital ad spending rose to $42.6 billion in 2013, a 15.7% increase over 2012. But the bigger news was that display made up almost as much of that total as search (which is not a source of revenue for news organizations.) In 2013 display ads accounted for about 42% of the total, or $17.7 billion, according to eMarketer, and are projected to outpace search by 2015.

While the ascent of display is a good thing for news organizations, the dominance of large tech companies remains an issue. In 2012 the top five display advertising companies made 47% of all display ad revenue on the web; in 2013 that proportion increased to 51%. And while Google had been on top, Facebook overtook the search giant in 2013, taking in 17.9% of all display ad revenue to Google’s 16.9%.

Commercial

Much of the for-profit digital news landscape is occupied by private or unincorporated concerns that do not disclose detailed financial figures. But based on publicly available estimates and reports, Pew Research analysts identified a minimum of roughly $500 million in annual ad revenue from a range of digital news sites. Even that estimate does not include outlets that had been identified, but for whom no revenue estimates were found. That $500 million figure would account for roughly 1% of all known news ad revenue across U.S. media sectors. While the actual figure is almost certainly higher, even if it were doubled, it would still account for a small fraction of all news revenue in the U.S.

Nonprofit

7 majority of outlets raise 5000 or less in 2011

About one-fifth of nonprofits (21%) surveyed by the Pew Research Center in 2012 said they generated $50,000 or less in annual revenue in 2011, the latest year for which data were available, and 26% took in between $50,001 and $250,000. Foundations have been prominent sources of funding, particularly in the form of start-up grants. For many outlets, this initial funding has been difficult to replace. Nearly two-thirds of the survey respondents (61%) began with a start-up grant that accounted for at least one-third of their original funding, and a majority of those grants were for $100,000 or more. Yet less than a third of those outlets had the funding renewed. As with the audience for digital native noncommercial sites, discussed above, the economics for these sites also vary, but a 2013 report by the Pew Research Center finds on average total income is quite small and heavily reliant on foundations.

Audio

Traditional AM/FM radio remains heavily reliant on “spot” advertising (ads aired during radio broadcasts) for its revenue, which saw virtually no year-over-year change in the third quarter of 2013 (the most current data available) compared with the third quarter of 2012. Digital and off-air advertising saw increases of 15% and 3% respectively, but is just a drop in the network advertising bucket.

Sirius XM, the only satellite radio provider in the U.S., grew its revenue in 2013 as well. In 2013, Sirius XM had $3.8 billion in revenue, up from $3.4 billion in 2012, an 11.7% increase. This follows several years of growth in subscriber revenue after the merger of the two companies (Sirius and XM) in 2007.

News Investment

Local TV

8 very early morning news add more stations

Staffing levels in the local TV sector were expected to be stable in 2013, according to the yearly Hofstra University survey. A majority of news directors expected no change in staff size in 2013, while just a third said they anticipated adding more staff, about the same as the year before. And only 2.5% said they expected to have to cut staff, fewer than the year before.

The average amount of weekday local TV news programming declined by six minutes in 2012, the last year for which data exist, to five hours and 24 minutes, according to the same survey. This follows four straight years of increases in the hours of news, but still puts the average hours at 5.4 in 2012, up 46% from what is was in 2003 (3.7 hours). And weekend programming continued to add time: up 11% on Saturday and 6% on Sunday on average.

One area seeing more news is in the very early 4:30 a.m. time slot. The number of stations airing news at 4:30 a.m. increased 159% in 2013 to 634, up from 245 in 2012, according to Nielsen data. Those stations cut across 207 markets, up from 113 in 2012.

Cable

Under Jeff Zucker, CNN, already a sizable global news operation, was projected to increase its spending more than either Fox or MSNBC in 2013. SNL Kagan estimated that CNN would grow its news investment by 11% to $757 million in 2013, compared to Fox’s increase of 4% (to $848.5 million) and MSNBC’s scale-back by 4% (to $272 million).

CNN still maintains by far the largest bureau system among the three major news channels with 33 around the world, though the organization laid off at least 40 journalists in late 2013 and lists one fewer domestic bureau than it had the previous year. (Fox lists two fewer bureaus than it did a year earlier, and no updated information was available from NBC News.)

Newspapers

During 2012, the most recent year for which figures are available, full-time professional newsroom employment at newspaper organizations fell by 2,600 jobs, or 6.4%. The total of 38,000 jobs is down 33.2% from its 1989 peak of 56,900, according to the annual census of the American Society of News Editors. Most of that loss was in the last six years. When the organization’s census for 2013 is released, more job losses are likely.

According to various sources, including media accounts, several major companies eliminated hundreds of newspaper jobs in 2013—including two companies that began investing more heavily in local television stations. Gannett is estimated to have cut about 400 newspaper jobs while the Tribune Co. announced about 700 cuts, not all of them in the newsroom. Media reports put newsroom layoffs at The Plain Dealer in Cleveland at about 50 and at The Oregonian in Portland at about 35 in 2013.

In one eye-catching cutback, The Chicago Sun-Times laid off its entire 28-person photography department in 2013, but hired back four photographers in December. Even Aaron Kushner, a California publisher who attracted considerable attention for hiring scores of journalists and investing heavily in print journalism, implemented about 70 layoffs at The Orange County Register and The Press-Enterprise in Riverside early in 2014.

Digital Native

Commercial

One of the noteworthy developments in 2013 (and early 2014) was the growth of editorial jobs in the expanding world of big commercial digital native news outlets. Rapidly growing Buzzfeed added approximately 170 editorial jobs last year, Gawker’s editorial staff grew to 132, almost double what it was two years earlier. Mashable lured former New York Times editor Jim Roberts to oversee its robust investment in news coverage while Yahoo News hired several high profile Times journalists to build up its original content. Henry Blodget’s Business Insider hired 15 new people to grow its editorial staff to 70. The founder of eBay, Pierre Omidyar, is building its growing staff at the fledgling First Look Media around Glenn Greenwald, while Ezra Klein’s Project X at Vox Media is signing up former Washington Post staffers at a brisk clip. Vice Media, which has expanded from a Montreal punk magazine to a worldwide news operation, now has more than 1,100 total global employees (that includes all staff positions), and as of the deadline for this report, had hired nearly 50 U.S. new employees in 2014 alone.

Not all of the news was good. AOL’s network of Patch hyperlocal sites at one time employed about 1,000 reporters and editors but that had been cut back to fewer than 100 by early 2014, signaling the failure of the most ambitious effort to create a universe of digital community news sites under one roof.

News Magazines

In January 2013, Time magazine cut six positions as part of broader wave of layoffs (500 jobs) at Time Inc., the publishing division that houses Time magazine. Those cuts were part of a mandate from Time Warner CEO Jeff Bewkes to shave $100 million from the publishing division’s annual costs. In late 2013, soon after Nancy Gibbs replaced Rick Stengel as Time’s managing editor (becoming the first women to hold that position), Time announced 11 new hires and three promotions. However, in February 2014 Time Inc. proceeded with another round of reductions, reportedly 500 jobs, as part of a restructuring plan to spin off from its parent company, Time Warner.

Audio

News in traditional radio is a hard category to define, one measure being the number of stations that carry news content only. While the number of all-news radio stations in the U.S. remains small, 37 in 2012, according to the latest data available, that number was unchanged from 2011.

Ownership

Local TV

9 total value of local tv acquisitions

Local TV station sales exploded in 2013. Nearly 300 TV stations were sold, up 205% from 2012, according to BIA/Kelsey. Likewise, the total value of these transactions was up, a 367% increase in 2013 from 2012, reaching $8.8 billion.

Sinclair, which already owned more local stations than any other company, purchased 63 more in 2013, the most notable of which were seven stations from Allbritton Communications and 22 from Fisher Communications. Sinclair now operates 167 television stations in 77 markets. The Tribune Co. acquired Local TV Holdings for $2.73 billion (a total of 19 stations) and Gannett purchased Belo, adding 17 stations, in a $2.2 billion transaction. BIA/Kelsey attributes this growth to strong political advertising revenues from the previous year, retransmission consent revenues and continued historically low interest rates.

Network

The only major development in the ownership and executive level positions at the three network news divisions in 2013 was the joint venture between Disney/ABC with Univision to create a new cable channel, Fusion. They each own 50% of the channel.

Cable

A process that began in 2012 was completed in mid-2013 when News Corp.—parent of Fox News Channel and Fox Business Network—formally spit in two. The movie and TV division containing the news channels was renamed Twenty-First Century Fox Inc. with Rupert Murdoch continuing as chief executive.

In August of 2013, Qatar-based Al Jazeera Media Network launched a new channel aimed squarely at U.S. audiences—Al Jazeera America. It occupies the same space on the dial held by Current TV.

Newspapers

Within days in August of 2013, two venerable newspapers changed hands. Multi-millionaire and Red Sox owner John Henry bought The Boston Globe and another Massachusetts newspaper, The Worchester Telegram & Gazette, from The New York Times for $70 million. And, Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos acquired The Washington Post for $250 million. In other transactions, Warren Buffett’s Berkshire Hathaway acquired several more newspapers, The News & Record in Greensboro, N.C., and Tulsa World, among them. A. H. Belo sold one its four newspapers – The Press-Enterprise in Riverside, Calif., and plans to sell The Providence Journal in Rhode Island. That will leave just its flagship Dallas Morning News and the nearby Denton Record-Chronicle. Tribune Co., on the other hand, pulled eight of its papers off the market in 2013, after failing to fetch an attractive offer. Tribune now plans to spin them off into a separate company.

Commercial Digital Natives

Unlike other sectors studied here most commercial digital native sites are privately held companies and in 2013 saw little movement. One notable development, though, was AOL’s dropping of the hyperlocal news network Patch. Patch was founded by AOL CEO Tim Armstrong in 2007, at first independent of AOL but then acquired by it in 2009.

In 2009 and 2010, AOL hired 900 employees, Armstrong said, with half of them going to Patch. By early 2011, Patch sites were up and running in about 800 cities and towns across the U.S. Despite this aggressive growth, and plans being made to hire for 1,000 Patch sites by the end of 2011, Armstrong drew back, saying in early 2012, “We don’t have a massive number of Patches on a run-rate profitability, and some of them have bounced in and bounced out.”

Despite the early growth at Patch and investment by AOL the company’s business model quickly came under criticism. In May, 2012 Starboard Value (an investment firm that owned 5.3% of Patch at the time) released a report calling Patch’s business model unsustainable. The report offered some rare estimates of Patch’s finances, which showed that the company had lost $147 million in 2011 and only brought in $13 million in advertising revenue.

Over the course of 2013, Patch suffered more losses. In August 2013 AOL announced the closing of 400 of the 900 Patch sites that existed at the time. Finally, in early 2014, AOL dropped Patch entirely and sold majority ownership of the remaining sites to Hale Global.

News Magazines

In March 2013, Time Warner announced that it would spin off Time Inc. into a separate publicly traded company. In March of 2014, these plans seem to be in full effect as Time Inc. prepares to separate from Time Warner. In the meantime, Time Inc. has been integrating American Express Publishing, which it bought last year.

http://www.journalism.org/2014/03/26/state-of-the-news-media-2014-key-indicators-in-media-and-news/

How Americans Get TV News at Home

TV News ViewingEven at a time of fragmenting media use, television remains the dominant way that Americans get news at home, according to a new Pew Research Center analysis of Nielsen data. And while the largest audiences tune into local and network broadcast news, it is national cable news that commands the most attention from its viewers.

Almost three out of four U.S. adults (71%) watch local television news and 65% view network newscasts over the course of a month, according to Nielsen data from February 2013. While 38% of adults watch some cable news during the month, cable viewers—particularly the most engaged viewers—spend far more time with that platform than broadcast viewers do with local or network news.1

On average, the cable news audience devotes twice as much time to that news source as local and network news viewers spend on those platforms.  And the heaviest cable users are far more immersed in that coverage—watching for more than an hour a day—than the most loyal viewers of broadcast television news.  Even those adults who are the heaviest viewers of local and network news spend more time watching cable than those broadcast outlets.

Time Spent with TV NewsThe data in this study was prepared specifically for the Pew Research Center by Nielsen, the primary source of ratings and viewership information for the television industry. This comparison of in-home network and local television, cable and internet news consumption offers a unique look at how people get news across different platforms in a rapidly changing media environment. It is based on Nielsen’s national panel of metered homes and reflects viewership in the month of February 2013, which largely coincides with the first television “sweeps” period of the year. (See Methodology)

The numbers in this report dovetail with other data about television news viewership. A 2012 Pew Research Center survey of news consumption habits shows that local television remains the most popular way of accessing news. And Pew Research’s annual State of the News Media reportshows that the nightly network newscasts draw far larger audiences than the prime-time cable news shows.

But the deeper level of viewer engagement with cable news may help to explain why cable television—despite a more limited audience—seems to have an outsized ability to influence the national debate and news agenda. Previous Pew Research Center data have shown that in prime time—when the audience is the largest—cable talk shows tend to hammer away at a somewhat narrow news agenda that magnifies the day’s more polarizing and ideological issues. The Nielsen data make it clear that cable’s audience is staying for a healthy helping of that content.

In one finding that may seem counterintuitive in an era of profound political polarization, significant portions of the Fox News and MSNBC audiences spend time watching both channels. More than a third (34%) of those who watch the liberal MSNBC in their homes also tune in to the conservative Fox News Channel. The reverse is true for roughly a quarter (28%) of Fox News viewers. Even larger proportions of Fox News and MSNBC viewers, roughly half, also spend time watching CNN, which tends to be more ideologically balanced in prime time. (The channel’s new version of Crossfire, which debuted on Sept. 9, follows its formula of delivering opinion from both the left and right.)

Some of the key findings from this initial analysis include:

  • While the largest portion of Americans watch local and network TV news at home, those who tune into cable news do so for an average of 25 minutes a day. That is more than twice as much time as local and network TV viewers spend getting news on those platforms.
  • Even heavy viewers of local TV news and network news spend more time watching cable news than they do watching these respective platforms. The heaviest local news viewers spend, on average, 11 more minutes watching cable news than local news. The heaviest network news viewers spend about one more minute watching cable news than they do network news.
  • Across all three platforms, there is a very large gap between the heaviest news consumers and everyone else. The top third of network news viewers in terms of time spent, for example, average almost 32 minutes a day watching network news. The next third spends about one-sixth as much time, or five minutes, watching network news.
  • There is no news junkie like a cable junkie. The most dedicated cable news viewers average 72 minutes, more than an hour, of home viewing a day. That compares with about 32 minutes for the heaviest network news viewers and 22 minutes for the most engaged local news audience. There is, however, a precipitous drop—to only three minutes a day—for the second most dedicated group of cable watchers.
  • There is widespread news consumption across different platforms, particularly with broadcast news. Fully 90% of network news viewers also watch local news and 82% of local news viewers also tune in to network news. The result is that more than half (58%) of U.S. adults watch both network and local news.

How Many Watch TV News and When

Emerging digital technology has changed news consumption choices and habits, and in a report released last fall, Pew Research Center found that local television has experienced viewership declines in the last several years, most acutely among young people. Additionally, Pew Research has documented significant declines in Americans’ reliance on newspaper and radio over time.

At the same time, the Nielsen data provide a reminder of the central role television still plays in news consumption in the comfort of home. Almost three-quarters of Americans, (71%) watch local TV news and almost two-thirds, (65%) watch network news over the course of a month. And more than one-third (38%) of Americans watch news on cable television.

Although broadcast television may have a wider reach, cable news handily wins the competition for the time and attention of news consumers at home. People who watch cable news do so for an average of about 25 minutes a day, compared with the slightly more than 12 minutes a day local television and network news viewers spend on those platforms. Some of this is no doubt due to cable news’ role as an around-the-clock, news-on-demand operation.

On every television platform, viewership is largest in the evening and nighttime hours. The number of viewers watching cable news is quite stable between 8 a.m. and 4 p.m., begins to grow modestly in the late afternoon and then peaks between 8-11 p.m.

The local news audience is highest during the late 11 p.m. newscast, with about 15% more viewers than the slots from 5 p.m. to 7 p.m. The early morning newscasts, from 6 a.m. to 7 a.m., generate about 60% of the viewership that the late night program does.

Heavy vs. Light TV News Viewers

Average Time News Consumers Spend on Various PlatformsA deeper analysis of television news watchers reveals major differences in the amount of time they spend on that activity. To illustrate this, the audience data were sliced into thirds based on the time spent watching each platform, and Nielsen averaged the viewing time for each of the three groups of viewers.

Overall, people in the top category for each platform—the heaviest users in terms of time spent—are far more engaged than those in tiers two and three. That is particularly true for cable. The heaviest users of cable news devote, on average, one hour and 12 minutes (72 minutes) a day to that platform. Viewing time drops off dramatically for the bottom two-thirds of cable news viewers. Those in the middle tier average slightly more than three minutes of viewing time and those at the bottom catch a glimpse for less than a minute.

Similarly, for local TV news, the top tier of viewers averages almost 22 minutes a day, compared with six and a half minutes a day for those in the middle tier and one minute for those on the bottom rung. At the network news level, the most engaged viewers watch for almost 32 minutes day. But that drops off to slightly more than five minutes for the next tier and less than one minute for the lightest viewers.

News Viewing is Dominated by the Very Engaged

According to the numbers, people who are heavy users of any type of television news tend to be heavy viewers of other platforms. But the heaviest viewers of cable news far outpace heavy viewers of local and network news, racking up almost 50 more minutes a day, on average, than the most dedicated local news viewers and approximately 40 more minutes than the top tier of network news viewers.

Even the heavy viewers of local and network news spend more time watching cable news than they do watching network and local news.

The most devoted local news viewers spend an average of about 22 minutes a day on local news compared with about 32 on cable. (They also spend almost 24 minutes a day watching network news.) The heaviest network news users spend about a half minute more (32 minutes) watching cable than network.

The heaviest cable news users also spend more time watching local news (almost 14 minutes) and network news (almost 17 minutes) than the average viewer does (around 12 minutes). But that time is low compared with the 72 minutes they spend watching cable news in the home.

Crossing Over: Many People Get News from More Than One Source

The Nielsen data clearly indicate that those who watch television news on one platform are likely to watch it on another—particularly when it comes to broadcast news. The greatest overlap occurs between local and network newscasts, which often are on the same channel. Fully 90% of network news viewers also watch local news and 82% of local news viewers also tune in to network news.

Cross-Platform News Consumption

The crossover is not as great from broadcast news (network and local) to cable. Slightly less than half—about 44%—of both network and of local news viewers also watch cable news.

Similarly, cable news viewers, while a smaller group overall, are heavy consumers of local and network news. Indeed, cable viewers exhibit the heaviest news consumption habits of any group measured here. Three out of four cable viewers (76%) also watch some network news and even more (82%) watch some local news.

Overall, more than half of adult Americans watch more than one form of television news. The biggest cross platform viewing involves the broadcast platforms, with 58% of the adult population watching both local and network news. Slightly more than half as many, 31%, watch local television and cable news, followed by the 29% of the population that watches both network and cable television news.

Hand Me the Remote: Viewers Flip Among Cable News Channels

Many Americans Consume News on Two PlatformsThe three major cable news competitors differ somewhat in their viewership levels, with CNN reaching 20% of U.S. adults, Fox News reaching 18% and MSNBC reaching 14%. CNN’s viewership lead is supported by years of datashowing it has a wider reach than its competitors, but weaker “appointment” viewership, meaning it is less successful in getting viewers to tune in regularly for scheduled programs, especially in prime time. That helps explain why CNN consistently trails Fox News Channel in the rating wars since Fox News has a clear lead over competitors in its prime-time programming.

Cable News Cross-PlatformOne of the most striking findings in this analysis is the degree to which viewers of one of the three cable news channels also view the competition. While the formats of the three major cable news channels are quite similar, there are significant ideological differences, most pronounced in prime time.

In the evening, Fox News boasts a lineup of conservative talk show hosts while MSNBC features a team of liberal ones. CNN, the original cable news outlet, has built its brand around national and global reporting of breaking news events. It also airs opinion in prime time, but includes commentators from both the right and the left.

The perception is that because of their distinct identities—and particularly because of the divergent ideological leanings of Fox News and MSNBC—the cable news channels appeal to different, politically segmented audiences. However the data show something different.

  • More than one-quarter (28%) of the people who watch Fox News also tune in to MSNBC. An even higher number (34%) of MSNBC viewers turn on Fox News.
  • There is even more crossover viewing when it comes to CNN. Slightly more than half (54%) of MSNBC viewers watch CNN, while 44% of Fox News viewers tune in to CNN. Healthy segments of the CNN audience also watch Fox News (39%) and MSNBC (38%).
  • Overall, 5% of the adult American population watches both MSNBC and Fox News. That is slightly lower than the percentage who watches both CNN and Fox (8%) or CNN and MSNBC (also 8%).
  • Despite some crossover, there are also viewers who watch only one of the three cable channels. Here, Fox News Channel narrowly has the largest singularly dedicated audience. About one- quarter of American adults, (24%) watch only Fox News, 23% watch only CNN and 15% watch only MSNBC.

Online News Consumption at Home

Cable News Websites Cross-PlatformAccording to the February 2013 data used in this study, about 38% of Americans access news online at home via a desktop or laptop computer. Nielsen’s online numbers—based on those who access news websites—do not measure those getting news at home from a smartphone or tablet device. This data also reflect the fact that those getting online news at home generally spend very small amounts of time on that task. On average, that amounts to 90 seconds per day getting news online.

Looking at the data by intensity of use, the heaviest online news users spent only about four minutes a day on that activity. Medium online news searchers spent about 18 seconds per day at that task, while light users spent less than six seconds.

Overlap Among Cable News Sites

Some of the most popular news websites are affiliated with the three major cable news channels. Though all three are consistently among the top 10 most trafficked news websites, their audiences are fairly small as a percentage of U.S. adults.

Nbcnews.com (formerly MSNBC.com) is one of the most trafficked news sites on the web, but it still only reaches about 9% of adults in America, according to Nielsen. About 6% of the public gets news on cnn.com each day. In addition, 5% of Americans get news from foxnews.com.

When it comes to news consumers visiting multiple sites, 37% of those who visit foxnews.com also go to nbcnews.com, while 22% of those who visit nbcnews.com view foxnews.com.  In addition, 28% of those who visited foxnews.com and 21% of those who visited nbcnews.com also go to cnn.com. Among cnn.com users, 26% also went to foxnews.com and 33% also went to nbcnews.com.

For the most part, there is more crossover news consumption on the television side of the three competitive cable news outlets than there is on their digital properties.

 

http://www.journalism.org/2013/10/11/how-americans-get-tv-news-at-home/

The Pronk Pops Show Podcasts Portfolio

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 400-402

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 391-399

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 383-390

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 376-382

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 369-375

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 360-368

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 354-359

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 346-353

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 338-345

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 328-337

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 319-327

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 307-318

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 296-306

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 287-295

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 277-286

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 264-276

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 250-263

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 236-249

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 222-235

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 211-221

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 202-210

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 194-201

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 184-193

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 174-183

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 165-173

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 158-164

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 151-157

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 143-150

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 135-142

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 131-134

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 124-130

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 121-123

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 118-120

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 113 -117

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 112

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 108-111

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 106-108

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 104-105

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 101-103

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 98-100

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 94-97

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 93

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 92

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 91

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 88-90

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 84-87

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 79-83

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 74-78

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 71-73

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 68-70

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 65-67

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 62-64

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 58-61

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 55-57

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 52-54

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 49-51

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 45-48

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 41-44

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 38-40

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 34-37

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 30-33

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 27-29

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 17-26

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 16-22

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 10-15

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 01-09

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

First Good Jobs Report In Years with 321,000 Jobs Created In November With 5.8% Unemployment Rate U-3, 9.1 Million Unemployed — Still 10-12 Million Jobs Short Due To Low Labor Participation Rate of 62.8% — Years Away From Near Full Unemployment Rate of 3% With 67% Labor Participation Rate — National Debt Hits $18 Trillion and Climbing — Videos

Posted on December 6, 2014. Filed under: American History, Banking, Blogroll, British History, Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), College, Communications, Constitution, Crisis, Data, Demographics, Diasters, Economics, Education, Energy, Enivornment, European History, Faith, Family, Federal Government, Federal Government Budget, Fiscal Policy, Foreign Policy, Freedom, Friends, government, government spending, Health Care, history, Illegal, Immigration, Inflation, Investments, Islam, Islam, Law, liberty, Life, Links, Literacy, Macroeconomics, media, Microeconomics, Monetary Policy, Money, National Security Agency (NSA_, Natural Gas, Natural Gas, Nuclear Power, Obamacare, Oil, Oil, People, Philosophy, Photos, Politics, Press, Psychology, Public Sector, Radio, Raves, Regulations, Religion, Resources, Security, Shite, Sunni, Talk Radio, Tax Policy, Taxes, Technology, Terrorism, Unemployment, Video, War, Wealth, Weapons | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |

Project_1

The Pronk Pops Show Podcasts

Pronk Pops Show 383: December 5, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 382: December 4, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 381: December 3, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 380: December 1, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 379: November 26, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 378: November 25, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 377: November 24, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 376: November 21, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 375: November 20, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 374: November 19, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 373: November 18, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 372: November 17, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 371: November 14, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 370: November 13, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 369: November 12, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 368: November 11, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 367: November 10, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 366: November 7, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 365: November 6, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 364: November 5, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 363: November 4, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 362: November 3, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 361: October 31, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 360: October 30, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 359: October 29, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 358: October 28, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 357: October 27, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 356: October 24, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 355: October 23, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 354: October 22, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 353: October 21, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 352: October 20, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 351: October 17, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 350: October 16, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 349: October 15, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 348: October 14, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 347: October 13, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 346: October 9, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 345: October 8, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 344: October 6, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 343: October 3, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 342: October 2, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 341: October 1, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 340: September 30, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 339: September 29, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 338: September 26, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 337: September 25, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 336: September 24, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 335: September 23 2014

Pronk Pops Show 334: September 22 2014

Pronk Pops Show 333: September 19 2014

Pronk Pops Show 332: September 18 2014

Pronk Pops Show 331: September 17, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 330: September 16, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 329: September 15, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 328: September 12, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 327: September 11, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 326: September 10, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 325: September 9, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 324: September 8, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 323: September 5, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 322: September 4, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 321: September 3, 2014

Story 1: First Good Jobs Report In Years with 321,000 Jobs Created In November With 5.8% Unemployment Rate U-3, 9.1  Million Unemployed — Still 10-12 Million Jobs Short Due To Low Labor Participation Rate of 62.8% — Years Away From Near Full Unemployment Rate of 3% With 67% Labor Participation Rate — National Debt Hits $18 Trillion and Climbing —  Videos

national-debt-wave

37b-cartoon Cartoon-Stretched-Thin-ALG-600 national_debt

sinkhole-cartoon_thumb

U.S. Debt Clock

http://www.usdebtclock.org/

 

sgs-emp

http://www.shadowstats.com/alternate_data/unemployment-charts

private sector payroll employment monthly change

gdp_large

world-oil-supplyunnamed

Crude Oil Brent

Latest Price & Chart for Crude Oil Brent

End of day Commodity Futures Price Quotes for Crude Oil Brent

oil_spot

 http://www.nasdaq.com/markets/crude-oil-brent.aspx#ixzz3LA0mUyxX

OilPriceChartDec2014

Get Ready for More Layoffs and Higher Unemployment

Ep 28: Media Spins Horrible Holiday Sales as Reflecting Economic Strength

The Real Reason for Falling Oil and Gas Prices

Crude Oil Drop – Richard Perrin – December 5, 2014

Could Oil Fall To $60?

Series Preview: The Global Drop in Oil Prices

Falling Gas Prices Impact US Oil Extraction

Over $150 Billion of Oil Projects Face Axe in 2015

Nook Fail, Jobs Report, Buffet backs Clinton – Today’s Investor News

Mohamed El-Erian: Nov. Jobs Report Is Great News for Economy

Hiring surge: 321k jobs added in November

Employment Situation Report – November 2014

Labor Force Statistics from the Current Population Survey

Employment Level

147,287,000

Series Id:           LNS12000000
Seasonally Adjusted
Series title:        (Seas) Employment Level
Labor force status:  Employed
Type of data:        Number in thousands
Age:                 16 years and over

 

employment level

 

Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Annual
2000 136559(1) 136598 136701 137270 136630 136940 136531 136662 136893 137088 137322 137614
2001 137778 137612 137783 137299 137092 136873 137071 136241 136846 136392 136238 136047
2002 135701 136438 136177 136126 136539 136415 136413 136705 137302 137008 136521 136426
2003 137417(1) 137482 137434 137633 137544 137790 137474 137549 137609 137984 138424 138411
2004 138472(1) 138542 138453 138680 138852 139174 139556 139573 139487 139732 140231 140125
2005 140245(1) 140385 140654 141254 141609 141714 142026 142434 142401 142548 142499 142752
2006 143150(1) 143457 143741 143761 144089 144353 144202 144625 144815 145314 145534 145970
2007 146028(1) 146057 146320 145586 145903 146063 145905 145682 146244 145946 146595 146273
2008 146378(1) 146156 146086 146132 145908 145737 145532 145203 145076 144802 144100 143369
2009 142152(1) 141640 140707 140656 140248 140009 139901 139492 138818 138432 138659 138013
2010 138451(1) 138599 138752 139309 139247 139148 139179 139427 139393 139111 139030 139266
2011 139287(1) 139422 139655 139622 139653 139409 139524 139904 140154 140335 140747 140836
2012 141677(1) 141943 142079 141963 142257 142432 142272 142204 142947 143369 143233 143212
2013 143384(1) 143464 143393 143676 143919 144075 144285 144179 144270 143485 144443 144586
2014 145224(1) 145266 145742 145669 145814 146221 146352 146368 146600 147283 147287
1 : Data affected by changes in population controls.

 

Civilian Labor Force Level

156,397,000

Civilian Labor Force


Series Id:           
LNS11000000
Seasonally Adjusted
Series title:        (Seas) Civilian Labor Force Level
Labor force status:  Civilian labor force
Type of data:        Number in thousands
Age:                 16 years and over

Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Annual
2000 142267(1) 142456 142434 142751 142388 142591 142278 142514 142518 142622 142962 143248
2001 143800 143701 143924 143569 143318 143357 143654 143284 143989 144086 144240 144305
2002 143883 144653 144481 144725 144938 144808 144803 145009 145552 145314 145041 145066
2003 145937(1) 146100 146022 146474 146500 147056 146485 146445 146530 146716 147000 146729
2004 146842(1) 146709 146944 146850 147065 147460 147692 147564 147415 147793 148162 148059
2005 148029(1) 148364 148391 148926 149261 149238 149432 149779 149954 150001 150065 150030
2006 150214(1) 150641 150813 150881 151069 151354 151377 151716 151662 152041 152406 152732
2007 153144(1) 152983 153051 152435 152670 153041 153054 152749 153414 153183 153835 153918
2008 154063(1) 153653 153908 153769 154303 154313 154469 154641 154570 154876 154639 154655
2009 154210(1) 154538 154133 154509 154747 154716 154502 154307 153827 153784 153878 153111
2010 153404(1) 153720 153964 154642 154106 153631 153706 154087 153971 153631 154127 153639
2011 153198(1) 153280 153403 153566 153526 153379 153309 153724 154059 153940 154072 153927
2012 154328(1) 154826 154811 154565 154946 155134 154970 154669 155018 155507 155279 155485
2013 155699(1) 155511 155099 155359 155609 155822 155693 155435 155473 154625 155284 154937
2014 155460(1) 155724 156227 155421 155613 155694 156023 155959 155862 156278 156397
1 : Data affected by changes in population controls.

 

Labor Force Participation Rate

62.8%

Labor Participation Rate

Series Id: LNS11300000

Seasonally Adjusted
Series title: (Seas) Labor Force Participation Rate
Labor force status: Civilian labor force participation rate
Type of data: Percent or rate
Age: 16 years and over

Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Annual
2000 67.3 67.3 67.3 67.3 67.1 67.1 66.9 66.9 66.9 66.8 66.9 67.0
2001 67.2 67.1 67.2 66.9 66.7 66.7 66.8 66.5 66.8 66.7 66.7 66.7
2002 66.5 66.8 66.6 66.7 66.7 66.6 66.5 66.6 66.7 66.6 66.4 66.3
2003 66.4 66.4 66.3 66.4 66.4 66.5 66.2 66.1 66.1 66.1 66.1 65.9
2004 66.1 66.0 66.0 65.9 66.0 66.1 66.1 66.0 65.8 65.9 66.0 65.9
2005 65.8 65.9 65.9 66.1 66.1 66.1 66.1 66.2 66.1 66.1 66.0 66.0
2006 66.0 66.1 66.2 66.1 66.1 66.2 66.1 66.2 66.1 66.2 66.3 66.4
2007 66.4 66.3 66.2 65.9 66.0 66.0 66.0 65.8 66.0 65.8 66.0 66.0
2008 66.2 66.0 66.1 65.9 66.1 66.1 66.1 66.1 66.0 66.0 65.9 65.8
2009 65.7 65.8 65.6 65.7 65.7 65.7 65.5 65.4 65.1 65.0 65.0 64.6
2010 64.8 64.9 64.9 65.2 64.9 64.6 64.6 64.7 64.6 64.4 64.6 64.3
2011 64.2 64.2 64.2 64.2 64.2 64.0 64.0 64.1 64.2 64.1 64.1 64.0
2012 63.7 63.9 63.8 63.7 63.8 63.8 63.7 63.5 63.6 63.7 63.6 63.6
2013 63.6 63.5 63.3 63.4 63.4 63.5 63.4 63.2 63.2 62.8 63.0 62.8
2014 63.0 63.0 63.2 62.8 62.8 62.8 62.9 62.8 62.7 62.8 62.8

 

Unemployment Level

9,110,000

 

Series Id:           LNS13000000
Seasonally Adjusted
Series title:        (Seas) Unemployment Level
Labor force status:  Unemployed
Type of data:        Number in thousands
Age:                 16 years and over

unemployment level

Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Annual
2000 5708 5858 5733 5481 5758 5651 5747 5853 5625 5534 5639 5634
2001 6023 6089 6141 6271 6226 6484 6583 7042 7142 7694 8003 8258
2002 8182 8215 8304 8599 8399 8393 8390 8304 8251 8307 8520 8640
2003 8520 8618 8588 8842 8957 9266 9011 8896 8921 8732 8576 8317
2004 8370 8167 8491 8170 8212 8286 8136 7990 7927 8061 7932 7934
2005 7784 7980 7737 7672 7651 7524 7406 7345 7553 7453 7566 7279
2006 7064 7184 7072 7120 6980 7001 7175 7091 6847 6727 6872 6762
2007 7116 6927 6731 6850 6766 6979 7149 7067 7170 7237 7240 7645
2008 7685 7497 7822 7637 8395 8575 8937 9438 9494 10074 10538 11286
2009 12058 12898 13426 13853 14499 14707 14601 14814 15009 15352 15219 15098
2010 14953 15121 15212 15333 14858 14483 14527 14660 14578 14520 15097 14373
2011 13910 13858 13748 13944 13873 13971 13785 13820 13905 13604 13326 13090
2012 12650 12883 12732 12603 12689 12702 12698 12464 12070 12138 12045 12273
2013 12315 12047 11706 11683 11690 11747 11408 11256 11203 11140 10841 10351
2014 10236 10459 10486 9753 9799 9474 9671 9591 9262 8995 9110

Unemployment Rate U-3

5.8%

Series Id:           LNS14000000
Seasonally Adjusted
Series title:        (Seas) Unemployment Rate
Labor force status:  Unemployment rate
Type of data:        Percent or rate
Age:                 16 years and over
unemployment rate

 

Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Annual
2000 4.0 4.1 4.0 3.8 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.1 3.9 3.9 3.9 3.9
2001 4.2 4.2 4.3 4.4 4.3 4.5 4.6 4.9 5.0 5.3 5.5 5.7
2002 5.7 5.7 5.7 5.9 5.8 5.8 5.8 5.7 5.7 5.7 5.9 6.0
2003 5.8 5.9 5.9 6.0 6.1 6.3 6.2 6.1 6.1 6.0 5.8 5.7
2004 5.7 5.6 5.8 5.6 5.6 5.6 5.5 5.4 5.4 5.5 5.4 5.4
2005 5.3 5.4 5.2 5.2 5.1 5.0 5.0 4.9 5.0 5.0 5.0 4.9
2006 4.7 4.8 4.7 4.7 4.6 4.6 4.7 4.7 4.5 4.4 4.5 4.4
2007 4.6 4.5 4.4 4.5 4.4 4.6 4.7 4.6 4.7 4.7 4.7 5.0
2008 5.0 4.9 5.1 5.0 5.4 5.6 5.8 6.1 6.1 6.5 6.8 7.3
2009 7.8 8.3 8.7 9.0 9.4 9.5 9.5 9.6 9.8 10.0 9.9 9.9
2010 9.7 9.8 9.9 9.9 9.6 9.4 9.5 9.5 9.5 9.5 9.8 9.4
2011 9.1 9.0 9.0 9.1 9.0 9.1 9.0 9.0 9.0 8.8 8.6 8.5
2012 8.2 8.3 8.2 8.2 8.2 8.2 8.2 8.1 7.8 7.8 7.8 7.9
2013 7.9 7.7 7.5 7.5 7.5 7.5 7.3 7.2 7.2 7.2 7.0 6.7
2014 6.6 6.7 6.7 6.3 6.3 6.1 6.2 6.1 5.9 5.8 5.8

 

Employment -Population Ratio

5.9%

Series Id:           LNS12300000
Seasonally Adjusted
Series title:        (Seas) Employment-Population Ratio
Labor force status:  Employment-population ratio
Type of data:        Percent or rate
Age:                 16 years and over

employment population ratio

Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Annual
2000 64.6 64.6 64.6 64.7 64.4 64.5 64.2 64.2 64.2 64.2 64.3 64.4
2001 64.4 64.3 64.3 64.0 63.8 63.7 63.7 63.2 63.5 63.2 63.0 62.9
2002 62.7 63.0 62.8 62.7 62.9 62.7 62.7 62.7 63.0 62.7 62.5 62.4
2003 62.5 62.5 62.4 62.4 62.3 62.3 62.1 62.1 62.0 62.1 62.3 62.2
2004 62.3 62.3 62.2 62.3 62.3 62.4 62.5 62.4 62.3 62.3 62.5 62.4
2005 62.4 62.4 62.4 62.7 62.8 62.7 62.8 62.9 62.8 62.8 62.7 62.8
2006 62.9 63.0 63.1 63.0 63.1 63.1 63.0 63.1 63.1 63.3 63.3 63.4
2007 63.3 63.3 63.3 63.0 63.0 63.0 62.9 62.7 62.9 62.7 62.9 62.7
2008 62.9 62.8 62.7 62.7 62.5 62.4 62.2 62.0 61.9 61.7 61.4 61.0
2009 60.6 60.3 59.9 59.8 59.6 59.4 59.3 59.1 58.7 58.5 58.6 58.3
2010 58.5 58.5 58.5 58.7 58.6 58.5 58.5 58.6 58.5 58.3 58.2 58.3
2011 58.4 58.4 58.4 58.4 58.4 58.2 58.2 58.3 58.4 58.4 58.5 58.5
2012 58.5 58.5 58.6 58.5 58.6 58.6 58.5 58.4 58.6 58.8 58.7 58.6
2013 58.6 58.6 58.5 58.6 58.7 58.7 58.7 58.6 58.6 58.2 58.6 58.6
2014 58.8 58.8 58.9 58.9 58.9 59.0 59.0 59.0 59.0 59.2 59.2

 

Unemployment Rate 16-19 Years Old

17.7%


Series Id:           
LNS14000012
Seasonally Adjusted
Series title:        (Seas) Unemployment Rate – 16-19 yrs.
Labor force status:  Unemployment rate
Type of data:        Percent or rate
Age:                 16 to 19 yearsteenage unemployment rate

 

Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Annual
2000 12.7 13.8 13.3 12.6 12.8 12.3 13.4 14.0 13.0 12.8 13.0 13.2
2001 13.8 13.7 13.8 13.9 13.4 14.2 14.4 15.6 15.2 16.0 15.9 17.0
2002 16.5 16.0 16.6 16.7 16.6 16.7 16.8 17.0 16.3 15.1 17.1 16.9
2003 17.2 17.2 17.8 17.7 17.9 19.0 18.2 16.6 17.6 17.2 15.7 16.2
2004 17.0 16.5 16.8 16.6 17.1 17.0 17.8 16.7 16.6 17.4 16.4 17.6
2005 16.2 17.5 17.1 17.8 17.8 16.3 16.1 16.1 15.5 16.1 17.0 14.9
2006 15.1 15.3 16.1 14.6 14.0 15.8 15.9 16.0 16.3 15.2 14.8 14.6
2007 14.8 14.9 14.9 15.9 15.9 16.3 15.3 15.9 15.9 15.4 16.2 16.8
2008 17.8 16.6 16.1 15.9 19.0 19.2 20.7 18.6 19.1 20.0 20.3 20.5
2009 20.7 22.3 22.2 22.2 23.4 24.7 24.3 25.0 25.9 27.2 26.9 26.7
2010 26.0 25.6 26.2 25.4 26.5 26.0 25.9 25.6 25.8 27.3 24.8 25.3
2011 25.5 24.1 24.3 24.5 23.9 24.8 24.8 25.1 24.5 24.2 24.1 23.3
2012 23.5 23.8 24.8 24.6 24.2 23.7 23.7 24.4 23.8 23.8 23.9 24.0
2013 23.5 25.2 23.9 23.7 24.1 23.8 23.4 22.6 21.3 22.0 20.8 20.2
2014 20.7 21.4 20.9 19.1 19.2 21.0 20.2 19.6 20.0 18.6 17.7

 

Average Weeks Unemployed

33.0%

 


Series Id:           LNS13008275
Seasonally Adjusted
Series title:        (Seas) Average Weeks Unemployed
Labor force status:  Unemployed
Type of data:        Number of weeks
Age:                 16 years and over

average weeks unemployed
Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Annual
2000 13.1 12.6 12.7 12.4 12.6 12.3 13.4 12.9 12.2 12.7 12.4 12.5
2001 12.7 12.8 12.8 12.4 12.1 12.7 12.9 13.3 13.2 13.3 14.3 14.5
2002 14.7 15.0 15.4 16.3 16.8 16.9 16.9 16.5 17.6 17.8 17.6 18.5
2003 18.5 18.5 18.1 19.4 19.0 19.9 19.7 19.2 19.5 19.3 19.9 19.8
2004 19.9 20.1 19.8 19.6 19.8 20.5 18.8 18.8 19.4 19.5 19.7 19.4
2005 19.5 19.1 19.5 19.6 18.6 17.9 17.6 18.4 17.9 17.9 17.5 17.5
2006 16.9 17.8 17.1 16.7 17.1 16.6 17.1 17.1 17.1 16.3 16.2 16.1
2007 16.3 16.7 17.8 16.9 16.6 16.5 17.2 17.0 16.3 17.0 17.3 16.6
2008 17.5 16.9 16.5 16.9 16.6 17.1 17.0 17.7 18.6 19.9 18.9 19.9
2009 19.8 20.2 20.9 21.7 22.4 23.9 25.1 25.3 26.6 27.5 28.9 29.7
2010 30.3 29.9 31.6 33.3 33.9 34.5 33.8 33.6 33.4 34.2 33.9 34.8
2011 37.2 37.5 39.2 38.7 39.5 39.7 40.4 40.2 40.2 39.1 40.3 40.7
2012 40.1 40.0 39.4 39.3 39.6 40.0 38.8 39.1 39.4 40.3 39.2 38.0
2013 35.4 36.9 37.0 36.6 36.9 35.7 36.7 37.0 36.8 36.0 37.1 37.1
2014 35.4 37.1 35.6 35.1 34.5 33.5 32.4 31.7 31.5 32.7 33.0

Not In Labor Force

2,109,000


Series Id:                       LNU05026642
Not Seasonally Adjusted
Series title:                    (Unadj) Not in Labor Force, Searched For Work and Available
Labor force status:              Not in labor force
Type of data:                    Number in thousands
Age:                             16 years and over
Job desires/not in labor force:  Want a job now
Reasons not in labor force:      Available to work now

Not In Labor force
Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Annual
2000 1207 1281 1219 1216 1113 1142 1172 1097 1166 1044 1100 1125 1157
2001 1295 1337 1109 1131 1157 1170 1232 1364 1335 1398 1331 1330 1266
2002 1532 1423 1358 1397 1467 1380 1507 1456 1501 1416 1401 1432 1439
2003 1598 1590 1577 1399 1428 1468 1566 1665 1544 1586 1473 1483 1531
2004 1670 1691 1643 1526 1533 1492 1557 1587 1561 1647 1517 1463 1574
2005 1804 1673 1588 1511 1428 1583 1516 1583 1438 1414 1415 1589 1545
2006 1644 1471 1468 1310 1388 1584 1522 1592 1299 1478 1366 1252 1448
2007 1577 1451 1385 1391 1406 1454 1376 1365 1268 1364 1363 1344 1395
2008 1729 1585 1352 1414 1416 1558 1573 1640 1604 1637 1947 1908 1614
2009 2130 2051 2106 2089 2210 2176 2282 2270 2219 2373 2323 2486 2226
2010 2539 2527 2255 2432 2223 2591 2622 2370 2548 2602 2531 2609 2487
2011 2800 2730 2434 2466 2206 2680 2785 2575 2511 2555 2591 2540 2573
2012 2809 2608 2352 2363 2423 2483 2529 2561 2517 2433 2505 2614 2516
2013 2443 2588 2326 2347 2164 2582 2414 2342 2302 2283 2096 2427 2360
2014 2592 2303 2168 2160 2130 2028 2178 2141 2226 2192 2109

 

Not In Labor Force Searched For Work and Available, Discouraged Reasons For Not Currently Looking

698,000

Series Id:                       LNU05026645
Not Seasonally Adjusted
Series title:                    (Unadj) Not in Labor Force, Searched For Work and Available, Discouraged Reasons For Not Currently Looking
Labor force status:              Not in labor force
Type of data:                    Number in thousands
Age:                             16 years and over
Job desires/not in labor force:  Want a job now
Reasons not in labor force:      Discouragement over job prospects  (Persons who believe no job is available.)

Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Annual
2000 236 267 258 331 280 309 266 203 253 232 236 269 262
2001 301 287 349 349 328 294 310 337 285 331 328 348 321
2002 328 375 330 320 414 342 405 378 392 359 385 403 369
2003 449 450 474 437 482 478 470 503 388 462 457 433 457
2004 432 484 514 492 476 478 504 534 412 429 392 442 466
2005 515 485 480 393 392 476 499 384 362 392 404 451 436
2006 396 386 451 381 323 481 428 448 325 331 349 274 381
2007 442 375 381 399 368 401 367 392 276 320 349 363 369
2008 467 396 401 412 400 420 461 381 467 484 608 642 462
2009 734 731 685 740 792 793 796 758 706 808 861 929 778
2010 1065 1204 994 1197 1083 1207 1185 1110 1209 1219 1282 1318 1173
2011 993 1020 921 989 822 982 1119 977 1037 967 1096 945 989
2012 1059 1006 865 968 830 821 852 844 802 813 979 1068 909
2013 804 885 803 835 780 1027 988 866 852 815 762 917 861
2014 837 755 698 783 697 676 741 775 698 770 698

Total Unemployment Rate U-6

11.4%

Series Id:           LNS13327709
Seasonally Adjusted
Series title:        (seas) Total unemployed, plus all marginally attached workers plus total employed part time for economic reasons, as a percent of all civilian labor force plus all marginally attached workers
Labor force status:  Aggregated totals unemployed
Type of data:        Percent or rate
Age:                 16 years and over
Percent/rates:       Unemployed and mrg attached and pt for econ reas as percent of labor force plus marg attached


Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Annual
2000 7.1 7.2 7.1 6.9 7.1 7.0 7.0 7.1 7.0 6.8 7.1 6.9
2001 7.3 7.4 7.3 7.4 7.5 7.9 7.8 8.1 8.7 9.3 9.4 9.6
2002 9.5 9.5 9.4 9.7 9.5 9.5 9.6 9.6 9.6 9.6 9.7 9.8
2003 10.0 10.2 10.0 10.2 10.1 10.3 10.3 10.1 10.4 10.2 10.0 9.8
2004 9.9 9.7 10.0 9.6 9.6 9.5 9.5 9.4 9.4 9.7 9.4 9.2
2005 9.3 9.3 9.1 8.9 8.9 9.0 8.8 8.9 9.0 8.7 8.7 8.6
2006 8.4 8.4 8.2 8.1 8.2 8.4 8.5 8.4 8.0 8.2 8.1 7.9
2007 8.4 8.2 8.0 8.2 8.2 8.3 8.4 8.4 8.4 8.4 8.4 8.8
2008 9.2 9.0 9.1 9.2 9.7 10.1 10.5 10.8 11.0 11.8 12.6 13.6
2009 14.2 15.2 15.8 15.9 16.5 16.5 16.4 16.7 16.7 17.1 17.1 17.1
2010 16.7 17.0 17.1 17.2 16.6 16.4 16.4 16.5 16.8 16.6 16.9 16.6
2011 16.1 16.0 15.9 16.1 15.8 16.1 16.0 16.1 16.3 15.9 15.6 15.2
2012 15.1 15.0 14.5 14.6 14.8 14.8 14.9 14.7 14.7 14.4 14.4 14.4
2013 14.4 14.3 13.8 13.9 13.8 14.2 13.9 13.6 13.6 13.7 13.1 13.1
2014 12.7 12.6 12.7 12.3 12.2 12.1 12.2 12.0 11.8 11.5 11.4

 

Employment Situation Summary

 

Transmission of material in this release is embargoed until                  USDL-14-2184
8:30 a.m. (EST) Friday, December 5, 2014

Technical information:
 Household data:      (202) 691-6378  •  cpsinfo@bls.gov  •  www.bls.gov/cps
 Establishment data:  (202) 691-6555  •  cesinfo@bls.gov  •  www.bls.gov/ces

Media contact:       (202) 691-5902  •  PressOffice@bls.gov


                             THE EMPLOYMENT SITUATION -- NOVEMBER 2014


Total nonfarm payroll employment increased by 321,000 in November, and the unemployment
rate was unchanged at 5.8 percent, the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics reported today.
Job gains were widespread, led by growth in professional and business services, retail
trade, health care, and manufacturing.

Household Survey Data

In November, the unemployment rate held at 5.8 percent, and the number of unemployed
persons was little changed at 9.1 million. Over the year, the unemployment rate and
the number of unemployed persons were down by 1.2 percentage points and 1.7 million,
respectively. (See table A-1.)

Among the major worker groups, the unemployment rate for adult men rose to 5.4 percent
in November. The rates for adult women (5.3 percent), teenagers (17.7 percent), whites
(4.9 percent), blacks (11.1 percent), and Hispanics (6.6 percent) showed little change
over the month. The jobless rate for Asians was 4.8 percent (not seasonally adjusted),
little changed from a year earlier. (See tables A-1, A-2, and A-3.)

The number of long-term unemployed (those jobless for 27 weeks or more) was little
changed at 2.8 million in November. These individuals accounted for 30.7 percent of
the unemployed. Over the past 12 months, the number of long-term unemployed declined
by 1.2 million. (See table A-12.)

The civilian labor force participation rate held at 62.8 percent in November and has
been essentially unchanged since April. The employment-population ratio, at 59.2
percent, was unchanged in November but is up by 0.6 percentage point over the year.
(See table A-1.)

The number of persons employed part time for economic reasons (sometimes referred to
as involuntary part-time workers), at 6.9 million, changed little in November. These
individuals, who would have preferred full-time employment, were working part time
because their hours had been cut back or because they were unable to find a full-time
job. (See table A-8.)

In November, 2.1 million persons were marginally attached to the labor force,
essentially unchanged from a year earlier. (The data are not seasonally adjusted.)
These individuals were not in the labor force, wanted and were available for work,
and had looked for a job sometime in the prior 12 months. They were not counted as
unemployed because they had not searched for work in the 4 weeks preceding the
survey. (See table A-16.)

Among the marginally attached, there were 698,000 discouraged workers in November,
little different from a year earlier. (The data are not seasonally adjusted.)
Discouraged workers are persons not currently looking for work because they believe
no jobs are available for them. The remaining 1.4 million persons marginally attached
to the labor force in November had not searched for work for reasons such as school
attendance or family responsibilities. (See table A-16.)

Establishment Survey Data

Total nonfarm payroll employment rose by 321,000 in November, compared with an
average monthly gain of 224,000 over the prior 12 months. In November, job growth
was widespread, led by gains in professional and business services, retail trade,
health care, and manufacturing. (See table B-1.)

Employment in professional and business services increased by 86,000 in November,
compared with an average gain of 57,000 per month over the prior 12 months. Within
the industry, accounting and bookkeeping services added 16,000 jobs in November.
Employment continued to trend up in temporary help services (+23,000), management
and technical consulting services (+7,000), computer systems design and related
services (+7,000), and architectural and engineering services (+5,000).

Employment in retail trade rose by 50,000 in November, compared with an average
gain of 22,000 per month over the prior 12 months. In November, job gains occurred
in motor vehicle and parts dealers (+11,000); clothing and accessories stores
(+11,000); sporting goods, hobby, book, and music stores (+9,000); and nonstore
retailers (+6,000).

Health care added 29,000 jobs over the month. Employment continued to trend up in
offices of physicians (+7,000), home health care services (+5,000), outpatient care
centers (+4,000), and hospitals (+4,000). Over the past 12 months, employment in
health care has increased by 261,000.

In November, manufacturing added 28,000 jobs. Durable goods manufacturers accounted
for 17,000 of the increase, with small gains in most of the component industries.
Employment in nondurable goods increased by 11,000, with plastics and rubber products
(+7,000) accounting for most of the gain. Over the year, manufacturing has added
171,000 jobs, largely in durable goods.

Financial activities added 20,000 jobs in November, with half of the gain in insurance
carriers and related activities. Over the past year, insurance has contributed 70,000
jobs to the overall employment gain of 114,000 in financial activities.

Transportation and warehousing employment increased by 17,000 in November, with a
gain in couriers and messengers (+5,000). Over the past 12 months, transportation
and warehousing has added 143,000 jobs.

Employment in food services and drinking places continued to trend up in November
(+27,000) and has increased by 321,000 over the year.

Construction employment also continued to trend up in November (+20,000). Employment in
specialty trade contractors rose by 21,000, mostly in the residential component. Over
the past 12 months, construction has added 213,000 jobs, with just over half the gain
among specialty trade contractors.

In November, the average workweek for all employees on private nonfarm payrolls rose
by 0.1 hour to 34.6 hours. The manufacturing workweek rose by 0.2 hour to 41.1 hours,
and factory overtime edged up by 0.1 hour to 3.5 hours. The average workweek for
production and nonsupervisory employees on private nonfarm payrolls was unchanged at
33.8 hours. (See tables B-2 and B-7.)

Average hourly earnings for all employees on private nonfarm payrolls rose by 9 cents
to $24.66 in November. Over the year, average hourly earnings have risen by 2.1 percent.
In November, average hourly earnings of private-sector production and nonsupervisory
employees increased by 4 cents to $20.74. (See tables B-3 and B-8.)

The change in total nonfarm payroll employment for September was revised from +256,000
to +271,000, and the change for October was revised from +214,000 to +243,000. With
these revisions, employment gains in September and October combined were 44,000 more
than previously reported.

_____________
The Employment Situation for December is scheduled to be released on Friday,
January 9, 2015, at 8:30 a.m. (EST).



   __________________________________________________________________________________
  |                                                                                  |
  |               Upcoming Changes to the Employment Situation News Release          |
  |                                                                                  |
  |Effective with the release of January 2015 data on February 6, 2015, the U.S.     |
  |Bureau of Labor Statistics will introduce several changes to The Employment       |
  |Situation news release tables.                                                    |
  |                                                                                  |
  |Household survey table A-2 will introduce seasonally adjusted series on the labor |
  |force characteristics of Asians. These series will appear in addition to the not  |
  |seasonally adjusted data for Asians currently displayed in the table. Also, in    |
  |summary table A, the seasonally adjusted unemployment rate for Asians will replace|
  |the not seasonally adjusted series that is currently displayed for the group.     |
  |                                                                                  |
  |Household survey table A-3 will introduce seasonally adjusted series on the labor |
  |force characteristics of Hispanic men age 20 and over, Hispanic women age 20 and  |
  |over, and Hispanic teenagers age 16 to 19. The not seasonally adjusted series for |
  |these groups will continue to be displayed in the table.                          |
  |                                                                                  |
  |The establishment survey will introduce two data series: (1) total nonfarm        |
  |employment, 3-month average change and (2) total private employment, 3-month      |
  |average change. These new series will be added to establishment survey summary    |
  |table B. Additionally, in the employment section of summary table B, the list     |
  |of industries will be expanded to include utilities (currently published in       |
  |table B-1). Also, hours and earnings of production and nonsupervisory employees   |
  |will be removed from summary table B, although these series will continue to be   |
  |published in establishment survey tables B-7 and B-8. A sample of the new summary |
  |table B is available on the BLS website at www.bls.gov/ces/cesnewsumb.pdf.        |
  |__________________________________________________________________________________|




   __________________________________________________________________________________
  |                                                                                  |
  |            Revision of Seasonally Adjusted Household Survey Data                 |
  |                                                                                  |
  |In accordance with usual practice, The Employment Situation news release for      |
  |December 2014, scheduled for January 9, 2015, will incorporate annual revisions in|
  |seasonally adjusted household survey data. Seasonally adjusted data for the most  |
  |recent 5 years are subject to revision.                                           |
  |__________________________________________________________________________________|



 

http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.nr0.htm

 

Employment Situation Summary Table A. Household data, seasonally adjusted

HOUSEHOLD DATA
Summary table A. Household data, seasonally adjusted
[Numbers in thousands]

CategoryNov.
2013Sept.
2014Oct.
2014Nov.
2014Change from:
Oct.
2014-
Nov.
2014

Employment status

 

Civilian noninstitutional population

246,567248,446248,657248,844187

Civilian labor force

155,284155,862156,278156,397119

Participation rate

63.062.762.862.80.0

Employed

144,443146,600147,283147,2874

Employment-population ratio

58.659.059.259.20.0

Unemployed

10,8419,2628,9959,110115

Unemployment rate

7.05.95.85.80.0

Not in labor force

91,28392,58492,37892,44769

Unemployment rates

 

Total, 16 years and over

7.05.95.85.80.0

Adult men (20 years and over)

6.75.35.15.40.3

Adult women (20 years and over)

6.25.55.45.3-0.1

Teenagers (16 to 19 years)

20.820.018.617.7-0.9

White

6.15.14.84.90.1

Black or African American

12.411.010.911.10.2

Asian (not seasonally adjusted)

5.34.35.04.8

Hispanic or Latino ethnicity

8.76.96.86.6-0.2

Total, 25 years and over

5.84.74.74.70.0

Less than a high school diploma

10.68.47.98.50.6

High school graduates, no college

7.35.35.75.6-0.1

Some college or associate degree

6.45.44.84.90.1

Bachelor’s degree and higher

3.42.93.13.20.1

Reason for unemployment

 

Job losers and persons who completed temporary jobs

5,7314,5304,3584,483125

Job leavers

89082979483844

Reentrants

3,0652,8092,8712,773-98

New entrants

1,1691,1051,0631,0641

Duration of unemployment

 

Less than 5 weeks

2,4392,3832,4732,52956

5 to 14 weeks

2,5852,5082,3122,39078

15 to 26 weeks

1,7421,4161,4171,43114

27 weeks and over

4,0442,9542,9162,815-101

Employed persons at work part time

 

Part time for economic reasons

7,7237,1037,0276,850-177

Slack work or business conditions

4,8694,1624,2144,064-150

Could only find part-time work

2,4992,5622,4472,4536

Part time for noneconomic reasons

18,85819,56119,76920,004235

Persons not in the labor force (not seasonally adjusted)

 

Marginally attached to the labor force

2,0962,2262,1922,109

Discouraged workers

762698770698

– Over-the-month changes are not displayed for not seasonally adjusted data.
NOTE: Persons whose ethnicity is identified as Hispanic or Latino may be of any race. Detail for the seasonally adjusted data shown in this table will not necessarily add to totals because of the independent seasonal adjustment of the various series. Updated population controls are introduced annually with the release of January data.

 

 

 

Employment Situation Summary Table B. Establishment data, seasonally adjusted

ESTABLISHMENT DATA
Summary table B. Establishment data, seasonally adjusted
Category Nov.
2013
Sept.
2014
Oct.
2014(p)
Nov.
2014(p)

EMPLOYMENT BY SELECTED INDUSTRY
(Over-the-month change, in thousands)

Total nonfarm

274 271 243 321

Total private

272 249 236 314

Goods-producing

68 36 28 48

Mining and logging

1 6 1 0

Construction

32 18 7 20

Manufacturing

35 12 20 28

Durable goods(1)

19 11 18 17

Motor vehicles and parts

4.7 1.7 2.0 3.0

Nondurable goods

16 1 2 11

Private service-providing(1)

204 213 208 266

Wholesale trade

16.8 2.9 6.1 2.5

Retail trade

22.3 39.9 34.2 50.2

Transportation and warehousing

32.4 7.0 15.3 16.7

Information

1 3 -5 4

Financial activities

-4 14 6 20

Professional and business services(1)

73 66 52 86

Temporary help services

36.6 23.2 19.5 22.7

Education and health services(1)

25 35 37 38

Health care and social assistance

24.4 24.8 31.5 37.2

Leisure and hospitality

37 47 55 32

Other services

-1 0 7 15

Government

2 22 7 7

WOMEN AND PRODUCTION AND NONSUPERVISORY EMPLOYEES(2)
AS A PERCENT OF ALL EMPLOYEES

Total nonfarm women employees

49.5 49.4 49.4 49.3

Total private women employees

48.0 47.9 47.9 47.9

Total private production and nonsupervisory employees

82.6 82.6 82.6 82.6

HOURS AND EARNINGS
ALL EMPLOYEES

Total private

Average weekly hours

34.5 34.5 34.5 34.6

Average hourly earnings

$24.15 $24.54 $24.57 $24.66

Average weekly earnings

$833.18 $846.63 $847.67 $853.24

Index of aggregate weekly hours (2007=100)(3)

99.6 101.4 101.6 102.2

Over-the-month percent change

0.5 0.2 0.2 0.6

Index of aggregate weekly payrolls (2007=100)(4)

114.8 118.7 119.1 120.2

Over-the-month percent change

0.8 0.2 0.3 0.9

HOURS AND EARNINGS
PRODUCTION AND NONSUPERVISORY EMPLOYEES

Total private

Average weekly hours

33.7 33.7 33.8 33.8

Average hourly earnings

$20.30 $20.67 $20.70 $20.74

Average weekly earnings

$684.11 $696.58 $699.66 $701.01

Index of aggregate weekly hours (2002=100)(3)

107.1 109.1 109.6 109.8

Over-the-month percent change

0.5 -0.1 0.5 0.2

Index of aggregate weekly payrolls (2002=100)(4)

145.3 150.6 151.6 152.2

Over-the-month percent change

0.8 -0.1 0.7 0.4

DIFFUSION INDEX(5)
(Over 1-month span)

Total private (264 industries)

66.9 63.4 63.8 69.7

Manufacturing (81 industries)

65.4 59.3 64.2 63.0

Footnotes
(1) Includes other industries, not shown separately.
(2) Data relate to production employees in mining and logging and manufacturing, construction employees in construction, and nonsupervisory employees in the service-providing industries.
(3) The indexes of aggregate weekly hours are calculated by dividing the current month’s estimates of aggregate hours by the corresponding annual average aggregate hours.
(4) The indexes of aggregate weekly payrolls are calculated by dividing the current month’s estimates of aggregate weekly payrolls by the corresponding annual average aggregate weekly payrolls.
(5) Figures are the percent of industries with employment increasing plus one-half of the industries with unchanged employment, where 50 percent indicates an equal balance between industries with increasing and decreasing employment.
(p) Preliminary

 

EMBARGOED UNTIL RELEASE AT 8:30 A.M. EST, TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 25, 2014
BEA 14-59

* See the navigation bar at the right side of the news release text for links to data tables,
contact personnel and their telephone numbers, and supplementary materials.

Lisa S. Mataloni: (202) 606-5304 (GDP) gdpniwd@bea.gov
Kate Shoemaker: (202) 606-5564 (Profits) cpniwd@bea.gov
Jeannine Aversa: (202) 606-2649 (News Media)
National Income and Product Accounts
Gross Domestic Product: Third Quarter 2014 (Second Estimate)
Corporate Profits: Third Quarter 2014 (Preliminary Estimate)
      Real gross domestic product -- the value of the production of goods and services in the United
States, adjusted for price changes -- increased at an annual rate of 3.9 percent in the third quarter of
2014, according to the "second" estimate released by the Bureau of Economic Analysis.  In the second
quarter, real GDP increased 4.6 percent.

      The GDP estimate released today is based on more complete source data than were available for
the "advance" estimate issued last month.  In the advance estimate, the increase in real GDP was 3.5
percent.  With the second estimate for the third quarter, private inventory investment decreased less than
previously estimated, and both personal consumption expenditures (PCE) and nonresidential fixed
investment increased more.  In contrast, exports increased less than previously estimated (see
"Revisions" on page 3).

      The increase in real GDP in the third quarter reflected positive contributions from PCE,
nonresidential fixed investment, federal government spending, exports, residential fixed investment, and
state and local government spending that were partly offset by a negative contribution from private
inventory investment.  Imports, which are a subtraction in the calculation of GDP, decreased.

      The deceleration in the percent change in real GDP reflected a downturn in private inventory
investment and decelerations in exports, in nonresidential fixed investment, in state and local
government spending, in PCE, and in residential fixed investment that were partly offset by a downturn
in imports and an upturn in federal government spending.

      The price index for gross domestic purchases, which measures prices paid by U.S. residents,
increased 1.4 percent in the third quarter, 0.1 percentage point more than in the advance estimate; this
index increased 2.0 percent in the second quarter.  Excluding food and energy prices, the price index for
gross domestic purchases increased 1.6 percent in the third quarter, compared with an increase of 1.7
percent in the second.


_____
FOOTNOTE.  Quarterly estimates are expressed at seasonally adjusted annual rates, unless otherwise
specified.  Quarter-to-quarter dollar changes are differences between these published estimates.  Percent
changes are calculated from unrounded data and are annualized.  "Real" estimates are in chained (2009)
dollars.  Price indexes are chain-type measures.

This news release is available on BEA's Web site along with the Technical Note and Highlights related
to this release.  For information on revisions, see "The Revisions to GDP, GDI, and Their
Major Components."
_____

      Real personal consumption expenditures increased 2.2 percent in the third quarter, compared
with an increase of 2.5 percent in the second.  Durable goods increased 8.7 percent, compared with an
increase of 14.1 percent.  Nondurable goods increased 2.2 percent, the same increase as in the second
quarter.  Services increased 1.2 percent, compared with an increase of 0.9 percent.

      Real nonresidential fixed investment increased 7.1 percent in the third quarter, compared with an
increase of 9.7 percent in the second.  Investment in nonresidential structures increased 1.1 percent,
compared with an increase of 12.6 percent.  Investment in equipment increased 10.7 percent, compared
with an increase of 11.2 percent.  Investment in intellectual property products increased 6.4 percent,
compared with an increase of 5.5 percent.  Real residential fixed investment increased 2.7 percent,
compared with an increase of 8.8 percent.

      Real exports of goods and services increased 4.9 percent in the third quarter, compared with an
increase of 11.1 percent in the second.  Real imports of goods and services decreased 0.7 percent, in
contrast to an increase of 11.3 percent.

      Real federal government consumption expenditures and gross investment increased 9.9 percent
in the third quarter, in contrast to a decrease of 0.9 percent in the second.  National defense increased
16.0 percent, compared with an increase of 0.9 percent.  Nondefense increased 0.4 percent, in contrast to
a decrease of 3.8 percent.  Real state and local government consumption expenditures and gross
investment increased 0.8 percent, compared with an increase of 3.4 percent.

      The change in real private inventories subtracted 0.12 percentage point from the third-quarter
change in real GDP after adding 1.42 percentage points to the second-quarter change.  Private
businesses increased inventories $79.1 billion in the third quarter, following increases of $84.8 billion in
the second quarter and $35.2 billion in the first.

      Real final sales of domestic product -- GDP less change in private inventories -- increased 4.1
percent in the third quarter, compared with an increase of 3.2 percent in the second.


Gross domestic purchases

      Real gross domestic purchases -- purchases by U.S. residents of goods and services wherever
produced -- increased 3.0 percent in the third quarter, compared with an increase of 4.8 percent in the
second.


Gross national product

      Real gross national product -- the value of the goods and services produced by the labor and
property supplied by U.S. residents -- increased 3.8 percent in the third quarter, compared with an
increase of 4.6 percent in the second.  GNP includes, and GDP excludes, net receipts of income from the
rest of the world, which decreased $1.6 billion in the third quarter, in contrast to an increase of $1.4
billion in the second; in the third quarter, receipts decreased $1.1 billion, and payments increased $0.5
billion.


Current-dollar GDP

      Current-dollar GDP -- the market value of the production of goods and services in the United
States -- increased 5.3 percent, or $227.0 billion, in the third quarter to a level of $17,555.2 billion.  In
the second quarter, current-dollar GDP increased 6.8 percent, or $284.2 billion.


Gross domestic income

      Real gross domestic income (GDI), which measures the value of the production of goods and
services in the United States as the costs incurred and the incomes earned on that production, increased
4.5 percent in the third quarter, compared with an increase of 4.0 percent (revised) in the second.  For a
given quarter, the estimates of GDP and GDI may differ for a variety of reasons, including the
incorporation of largely independent source data.  However, over longer time spans, the estimates of
GDP and GDI tend to follow similar patterns of change.


Revisions

      The upward revision to the percent change in real GDP primarily reflected upward revisions to
private inventory investment, to personal consumption expenditures, and to nonresidential fixed
investment that were partly offset by a downward revision to exports and an upward revision to imports.


                                         Advance Estimate  Second Estimate

                                     (Percent change from preceding quarter)
Real GDP...............................         3.5            3.9
Current-dollar GDP.....................         4.9            5.3
Real GDI...............................         --             4.5
Gross domestic purchases price index...         1.3            1.4
Corporate Profits


Profits from current production

      Profits from current production (corporate profits with inventory valuation adjustment (IVA) and
capital consumption adjustment (CCAdj)) increased $43.8 billion in the third quarter, compared with an
increase of $164.1 billion in the second.

      Profits of domestic financial corporations increased $20.3 billion in the third quarter, compared
with an increase of $33.3 billion in the second.  Profits of domestic nonfinancial corporations increased
$22.5 billion, compared with an increase of $134.3 billion.  The rest-of-the-world component of profits
increased $1.0 billion, in contrast to a decrease of $3.6 billion.  This measure is calculated as the
difference between receipts from the rest of the world and payments to the rest of the world.  In the third
quarter, receipts were unchanged, and payments decreased $1.0 billion.

      Taxes on corporate income decreased $4.8 billion in the third quarter, in contrast to an increase
of $45.7 billion in the second.  Profits after tax with IVA and CCAdj increased $48.6 billion, compared
with an increase of $118.4 billion.

      Dividends decreased $3.9 billion in the third quarter, compared with a decrease of $0.5 billion in
the second.  Undistributed profits increased $52.5 billion, compared with an increase of $118.8 billion.
Net cash flow with IVA -- the internal funds available to corporations for investment -- increased $25.1
billion, compared with an increase of $133.4 billion.

	The IVA and CCAdj are adjustments that convert inventory withdrawals and depreciation of
fixed assets reported on a tax-return, historical-cost basis to the current-cost economic measures used in
the national income and product accounts.  The IVA increased $16.8 billion in the third quarter,
compared with an increase of $11.9 billion in the second.  The CCAdj increased $1.2 billion, in contrast
to a decrease of $0.8 billion.


Gross value added of nonfinancial domestic corporate business

      In the third quarter, real gross value added of nonfinancial corporations increased, and profits per
unit of real gross value added increased.  The increase in unit profits reflected an increase in unit prices
that was partly offset by an increase in unit nonlabor costs; unit labor costs were unchanged.


                                     *          *          *

      BEA's national, international, regional, and industry estimates; the Survey of Current Business;
and BEA news releases are available without charge on BEA's Web site at www.bea.gov.  By visiting
the site, you can also subscribe to receive free e-mail summaries of BEA releases and announcements.


                                     *          *          *


                     Next release -- December 23, 2014 at 8:30 A.M. EST for:
                  Gross Domestic Product:  Third Quarter 2014 (Third Estimate)
                    Corporate Profits:  Third Quarter 2014 (Revised Estimate)


                                     *          *          *


Release dates in 2015


Gross Domestic Product

                 2014: IV and 2014 annual     2015: I          2015: II          2015: III

Advance....           January 30              April 29         July 30           October 29
Second.....           February 27             May 29           August 27         November 24
Third......           March 27                June 24          September 25      December 22


Corporate Profits

Preliminary...        ..                      May 29           August 27         November 24
Revised.......        March 27                June 24          September 25      December 22

http://bea.gov/newsreleases/national/gdp/gdpnewsrelease.htm

The Pronk Pops Show Podcasts Portfolio

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download 

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 376-382

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 369-375

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 360-368

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 354-359

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 346-353

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 338-345

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 328-337

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 319-327

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 307-318

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 296-306

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 287-295

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 277-286

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 264-276

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 250-263

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 236-249

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 222-235

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 211-221

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 202-210

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 194-201

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 184-193

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 174-183

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 165-173

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 158-164

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 151-157

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 143-150

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 135-142

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 131-134

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 124-130

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 121-123

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 118-120

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 113 -117

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 112

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 108-111

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 106-108

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 104-105

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 101-103

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 98-100

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 94-97

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 93

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 92

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 91

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 88-90

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 84-87

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 79-83

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 74-78

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 71-73

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 68-70

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 65-67

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 62-64

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 58-61

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 55-57

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 52-54

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 49-51

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 45-48

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 41-44

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 38-40

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 34-37

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 30-33

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 27-29

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 17-26

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 16-22

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 10-15

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 01-09

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

Excessive Speculation, Intercontinental Exchange and Government Regulation

Posted on December 29, 2012. Filed under: American History, Blogroll, Communications, Demographics, Diasters, Economics, Education, Energy, Federal Government, Fiscal Policy, Foreign Policy, government, government spending, history, Inflation, Investments, Language, Law, liberty, Life, Links, Macroeconomics, media, Oil, People, Philosophy, Politics, Programming, Rants, Resources, Video, Wisdom | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |

ICE_logo

Gas Prices Explained

Mike Masters on Regulating Commodities Speculation

Michael W. Masters (Better Markets & Masters Capital Management)

Court Strikes Down CFTC Regulation to Limit Excessive Speculation

Michael Greenberger on Crude Oil Speculation

5th OPEC International Seminar – Michael Masters

Michael Masters Chairman, Better Markets Inc Michael W Masters is the founder and Managing Member of Masters Capital Management, an investment management firm. He is also a Partner in Masters Capital Nanotechnology, a venture capital fund. Mr Masters, an expert on the topic of commodities speculation and financial reform, has testified before many Congressional committees and government agencies, including the House Energy Subcommittee, the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) and the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission. Recently, he participated in joint SEC-CFTC roundtable discussions on a variety of security-based swaps issues. Speaking out about the far-reaching harmful effects of unregulated commodities speculation and the need for financial reform, Mr Masters has made numerous appearances in media outlets around the world. He has also addressed consumer and corporate groups, and has served as an expert panellist before international and investor groups. He is the founder of Better Markets, a Washington, DC-based non-profit, non-partisan organization established to promote transparency and accountability in the financial markets for the public interest. He was the 2004 winner of the “Open Your Heart” award from Hedge Funds Care and is a 1989 graduate of the University of Tennessee.
The OPEC International Seminar is now regarded as one of the premier events on the world energy calendar, bringing together Ministers from OPEC Member Countries and other oil-producing countries, heads of intergovernmental organizations, chief executives of national and international oil companies, other industry leaders, renowned academics, analysts and media.
The 5th OPEC International Seminar, held in Vienna’s historic Hofburg Palace on 13–14 June 2012, focussing on the theme ‘Petroleum: Fuelling Prosperity, Supporting Sustainability’. The latest in the series of Seminars, which began in 2001, provided fresh impetus to key industry issues and developed existing and new avenues of dialogue and cooperation.

Secret Exemptions Allowed Speculators to Distort Futures Markets

FACTBOX: NYSE enters the ICE Age

Intercontinental Exchange to buy NYSE

IntercontinentalExchange (ICE): Delivering same-day response to regulatory requests

Derivatives still a ticking time bomb! Sept 2011

Jeff Sprecher, Chairman & CEO, IntercontinentalExchange

**MUST SEE** The Real Reason Gas Prices Are High – Best Explanation!

Will CFTC Limit Excessive Speculation?

Gas Prices & Oil Speculation

Oil Market Manipulation, Gas Prices, Energy Exploration, Securities Exchange Commission

How Wall St Speculation Drives Up Gas Prices

Find Out How Gasoline Gets to Your Tank

IntercontinentalExchange, Inc.,

“…IntercontinentalExchange, Inc., known as ICE, is an American financial company that operates Internet-based marketplaces which trade futures and over-the-counter (OTC) energy and commodity contracts as well as derivative financial products. While the company’s original focus was energy products (crude and refined oil, natural gas, power, and emissions), recent acquisitions have expanded its activity into the “soft” commodities (sugar, cotton and coffee), foreign exchange and equity index futures.

In 2011, ICE and NASDAQ OMX Group joined forces to bid against Deutsche Börse after the latter announced a $9.5 billion deal to merge with NYSE Euronext. The two U.S. bidders and then the German exchange ultimately withdrew after their bids encountered regulatory antitrust resistance. In December 2012 NYSE Euronext agreed to be acquired by ICE pending regulator approval.

ICE is organized into three business lines:

  • ICE Markets — futures, options, and OTC markets. Energy futures are traded via ICE Futures Europe; soft commodity futures/options are handled by ICE Futures U.S.
  • ICE Services — electronic trade confirmations and education.
  • ICE Data — electronic delivery of market data, including real-time trades, historical prices and daily indices.

Contracts sold through ICE Futures U.S. are processed through a subsidiary, ICE Clear U.S. (ICEUS). In May 2008, ICE launched its own Clearing House, ICE Clear, with divisions for Europe, US, Canada & Trust (ICEU).[2]

Headquartered in Atlanta, ICE also has offices in Calgary, Chicago, Houston, London, New York and Singapore, with regional telecommunications hubs in Chicago, New York, London and Singapore.

History

In the late 1990s, Jeffrey Sprecher, ICE’s founder, chairman, and Chief Executive Officer, acquired Continental Power Exchange, Inc. with the objective of developing an Internet-based platform to provide a more transparent and efficient market structure for OTC energy commodity trading. In May 2000, IntercontinentalExchange (ICE) was established, with its founding shareholders representing some of the world’s largest energy traders. The company’s stated mission was to transform OTC trading by providing an open, accessible, multi-dealer, around-the-clock electronic energy exchange. The new exchange offered the trading community better price transparency, more efficiency, greater liquidity and lower costs than manual trading.

In June 2001, ICE expanded its business into futures trading by acquiring the International Petroleum Exchange (IPE), now ICE Futures Europe, which operated Europe’s leading open-outcry energy futures exchange. Since 2003, ICE has partnered with the Chicago Climate Exchange (CCX) to host its electronic marketplaces. In April 2005, the entire ICE portfolio of energy futures became fully electronic. In April 2010 ICE bought CCX’s owner Climate Exchange PLC for 395 million pounds ($622 million). Climate Exchange PLC also owns the European Climate Exchange (ECX).[3]

ICE became a publicly traded company on November 16, 2005, and was added to the Russell 1000 Index on June 30, 2006. The company expanded rapidly in 2007, acquiring the New York Board of Trade (NYBOT),[4] ChemConnect (a chemical commodity market), and the Winnipeg Commodity Exchange. In March 2007 ICE made an unsuccessful $9.9 billion bid for the Chicago Board of Trade, which was instead acquired by the Chicago Mercantile Exchange.[5]

In January 2008, ICE partnered with TSX Group’s Natural Gas Exchange, expanding their offering to clearing and settlement services for physical OTC natural gas contracts.[6]

NYSE Euronext

In February 2011, in the wake of an announced merger of NYSE Euronext with Deutsche Borse, speculation developed that ICE and Nasdaq could mount a counter-bid of their own for NYSE Euronext. ICE was thought to be looking to acquire the American exchange’s derivatives business, Nasdaq its cash equities business. As of the time of the speculation, “NYSE Euronext’s market value was $9.75 billion. Nasdaq was valued at $5.78 billion, while ICE was valued at $9.45 billion.”[7] Late in the month, Nasdaq was reported to be considering asking either ICE or the Chicago Merc (CME) to join in what would be probably be an $11-12 billion counterbid for NYSE.[8] On April 1, ICE and Nasdaq made an $11.3 billion offer which was rejected April 10 by NYSE. Another week later, ICE and Nasdaq sweetened their offer, including a $.17 increase per share to $42.67 and a $350 million breakup fee if the deal were to encounter regulatory trouble. The two said the offer was a $2 billion (21%) premium over the Deutsche offer and that they had fully committed financing of $3.8 billion from lenders to finance the deal.[9] The Justice Department, also in April, “initiated an antitrust review of the proposal, which would have brought nearly all U.S. stock listings under a merged Nasdaq-NYSE.” In May, saying it “became clear that we would not be successful in securing regulatory approval,” the Nasdaq and ICE withdrew their bid.[10] The European Commission then blocked the Deutsche merger on 1 February 2012, citing the fact that the merged company would have a near monopoly.[11][12]

In December 2012, ICE announced it would buy NYSE Euronext for $8 billion, pending regulatory approval. Jeffrey Sprecher will retain his position as Chairman and CEO.[13] The boards of directors of both ICE and NYSE Euronext approved the acquisition.[14]

 Key subsidiaries subject to regulation

 ICE Clear Credit LLC

  • see main article ICE Clear Credit LLC
  • Clearing entity for credit default swaps (CDS)
  • Regulated by
    • CFTC – Derivatives Clearing Organization
    • SEC – Registered Securities Clearing Agency

ICE Clear Europe Limited

  • Clearing entity for credit default swaps (CDS)
  • CFTC – Derivatives Clearing Organization
  • Regulated by
    • SEC – Registered Securities Clearing Agency
    • U.K. Financial Services Authority (FSA) – Recognised Clearing House
    • U.K Financial Services Authority (FSA) – Settlement Finality Designation (SFD) under the Financial Markets and Insolvency Regulations 1999
    • Bank of England (U.K.s central bank) – regulated as an Inter-Bank Payment System (Banking Act 2009)

ICE Futures U.S., Inc.

  • Trades futures and options in three main areas
    • Agricultural – e.g. Sugar No. 11, Cotton No. 2
    • Currency – e.g. U.S. Dollar Index, more than 50 currency pairs
    • Equity index – e.g. Russell Indexes
  • Regulated by
    • CFTC – Exchange

ICE Clear U.S., Inc.

  • Clears products traded on ICE Futures U.S., Inc.
  • Regulated by
    • CFTC – Exchange

Commodities traded on the exchange

  • Coal
  • Crude and Refined products
  • Emissions
  • Natural Gas
  • Power
  • Cocoa
  • Coffee C
  • Cotton No. 2
  • FCOJ A
  • Orange juice concentrate
  • Sugar No. 11
  • Russell Indices
  • US Dollar Index
  • Iron Ore Swaps

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IntercontinentalExchange

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

Speculators and Oil Prices: What Do We Know and What Should We Do?–Videos

Posted on May 5, 2012. Filed under: American History, Blogroll, College, Communications, Demographics, Economics, Education, Employment, Energy, government spending, history, Homes, Inflation, Investments, Law, liberty, Life, Links, media, People, Philosophy, Politics, Psychology, Raves, Security, Taxes, Unemployment, Video, War, Wealth, Weather, Wisdom | Tags: , , , , , , , |

Speculators and Oil Prices: What Do We Know and What Should We Do?

U.S. Commodity Future Trading Commission

http://www.cftc.gov/About/Commissioners/BartChilton/index.htm

Banksters & Speculation Behind High Food-Oil Prices

Food Speculation

Speculation And The Frenzy In Food Markets

Background Articles and Videos

The Adequacy of Speculation in Agricultural Futures Markets: Too Much of a Good Thing?

Dwight R. Sanders*,

Scott H. Irwin and

Robert P. Merrin

“…Abstract

This paper revisits the “adequacy of speculation” debate in agricultural futures markets using the positions held by index                     funds in the Commitment of Traders reports. Index fund positions were a relatively stable percentage of total open interest                     from 2006–2008. Traditional speculative measures do not show any material shifts over the sample period. Even after adjusting                     speculative indices for commodity index fund positions, values are within the historical ranges reported in prior research.                     One implication is that long-only index funds may be beneficial in markets traditionally dominated by short hedging. …”

http://intl-aepp.oxfordjournals.org/content/32/1/77.full

Federal Regulation of Margin in the Commodity Futures Industry – History and Theory

by

Jerry W. Markham

“…Whether the federal government should regulate margin requirements for; commodity futures contracts has been the subject of intensive debate for over! fifty years. Although Congress has periodically rejected legislation that would have granted such authority, the stock market crash of 1987, and a subsequent mini-crash in 1989, have resulted in renewed demands for federal controls.

The· Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) and the Department of the Treasury contend that such controls are necessary to prevent the near disastrous set of events that occurred during those market crises. 1 The Commodity Futures Trading Commission (“CFTC”) and the commodity futures industry oppose federal controls on margin, and assert that market forces, not margins, were responsible for the events that occurred during the 1987 and 1989 market breaks.2

http://www.nationalaglawcenter.org/assets/bibarticles/markham_margin.pdf

Gas Prices Explained

Quantitative Easing Explained

Senator Blumenthal on Curbing Excessive Oil Speculation

Senator Blumenthal calls for action against excessive oil speculation that inflates gas prices

Cantwell: ‘Shenanigans’ in Oil Market Reminiscent of Enron ‘Nightmare’ in Pacific NW

How Uncertainty, Speculation Factor Into Gas Prices

Banksters & Speculation Behind High Food-Oil Prices

Under Questioning by Cantwell, Exxon CEO Estimates Oil Should Cost $60-70 Per Barrel

On May 12, 2011, when questioned by U.S. Senator Maria Cantwell (D-WA) at a Senate Finance Committee hearing, Exxon Mobil Chairman and Chief Executive Officer Rex Tillerson said that oil should cost between $60 and $70 per barrel, if the price of oil were based on supply and demand fundamentals. Oil was trading at $98 per barrel on Thursday morning, after inexplicitly plunging 5.5 percent yesterday.

Michael Greenberger on “commodity prices and volatility”

Regulations on Speculation Weak, But Better Than Nothing

Speculation and Watered Down Regulation

Secret Exemptions Allowed Speculators to Distort Futures Markets

CFTC Commissioner: “A Hair Trigger Away from Economic Calamity”

Will CFTC Limit Excessive Speculation?

Stossel: Oil Speculation

The Price Of Oil

CHHS Director explains derivatives regulation on C-SPAN – 5/15/09

Michael Greenberger Talks Speculation In Commodity Markets

Oil speculation and oil prices

Myth: The World is Running Out of Oil (Peak Oil)

Hearing on Energy Price Manipulation – Greenberger Testimony

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

Rising Gasoline Prices Due To Excessive Speculation In Oil Futures Contracts–Political Issue in 2012 Elections–American People Are Being Screwed At The Gas Pump & Grocery Store–Videos

Posted on May 2, 2012. Filed under: Agriculture, American History, Blogroll, Business, College, Communications, Economics, Education, Employment, Farming, Federal Government, Fiscal Policy, Food, government, government spending, Investments, Language, Law, liberty, Life, Links, Macroeconomics, media, Microeconomics, Monetary Policy, People, Philosophy, Politics, Raves, Resources, Taxes, Unemployment, Video, War, Weather, Wisdom | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |

http://www.gasbuddy.com/gb_retail_price_chart.aspx?time=24

Gas Prices Explained 

Quantitative Easing Explained

Senator Blumenthal on Curbing Excessive Oil Speculation

Senator Blumenthal calls for action against excessive oil speculation that inflates gas prices

Cantwell: ‘Shenanigans’ in Oil Market Reminiscent of Enron ‘Nightmare’ in Pacific NW

How Uncertainty, Speculation Factor Into Gas Prices 

Banksters & Speculation Behind High Food-Oil Prices

Under Questioning by Cantwell, Exxon CEO Estimates Oil Should Cost $60-70 Per Barrel

On May 12, 2011, when questioned by U.S. Senator Maria Cantwell (D-WA) at a Senate Finance Committee hearing, Exxon Mobil Chairman and Chief Executive Officer Rex Tillerson said that oil should cost between $60 and $70 per barrel, if the price of oil were based on supply and demand fundamentals. Oil was trading at $98 per barrel on Thursday morning, after inexplicitly plunging 5.5 percent yesterday.

Michael Greenberger on “commodity prices and volatility”

Regulations on Speculation Weak, But Better Than Nothing

Speculation and Watered Down Regulation

Secret Exemptions Allowed Speculators to Distort Futures Markets

CFTC Commissioner: “A Hair Trigger Away from Economic Calamity” 

Will CFTC Limit Excessive Speculation?

Stossel: Oil Speculation

The Price Of Oil

CHHS Director explains derivatives regulation on C-SPAN – 5/15/09

Michael Greenberger Talks Speculation In Commodity Markets

Oil speculation and oil prices 

Myth: The World is Running Out of Oil (Peak Oil) 

Hearing on Energy Price Manipulation – Greenberger Testimony 

Background Articles and Videos

Lecture 2: Course outline, futures markets history and market mechanics

Lecture 3: Futures contracts

Lecture 4: Options contracts and market history 

Lecture 5: Reading futures contract price quote tables

Lecture 15: A further review of technical analysis

Lecture 16: Introduction to hedging with futures 

Lecture 17: Hedging continued

Lecture 18: Hedging risk vs. return, diversification and options on futures

Lecture 19: Options on futures continued, with examples 

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

Press Conference with Chairman of the FOMC, Ben S. Bernanke–Videos

Posted on April 28, 2012. Filed under: American History, Banking, Blogroll, Business, Communications, Economics, Employment, Federal Government, Federal Government Budget, Fiscal Policy, government, government spending, history, Inflation, Investments, Language, Law, liberty, Life, Links, Macroeconomics, media, Microeconomics, Monetary Policy, Money, People, Philosophy, Politics, Public Sector, Raves, Regulations, Tax Policy, Unemployment, Unions, Video, War, Wealth, Wisdom | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , |

Press Conference with Chairman of the FOMC, Ben S. Bernanke

FOMC Statement: http://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/press/monetary/20120425a.htm

Federal Open Market Committee: http://www.federalreserve.gov/monetarypolicy/fomc.htm

Background Articles and Videos

Fed’s No. 2 Strongly Backs Low-Rate Policy 

Janet Yellen, S.F. Federal Reserve Bank, discusses US recovery from recession – Haas School 

Haas School Professor Emeritus Janet Yellen, CEO of the San Francisco Federal Reserve Bank, discusses the current US economy and her forecast for the remainder of 2009. Her presentation at the Haas School of Business, UC Berkeley, is part of the Dean’s Speaker Series focused on the recent financial crisis. (May 05, 2009)

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

Paul’s Jolt: Peace and Prosperity Full Employment Economy with Balanced Budgets vs. Obama’s Volt: Welfare and Warfare Economy With High Unemployment and Rising Debts and Prices–Videos

Posted on March 29, 2012. Filed under: Agriculture, American History, Babies, Banking, Blogroll, Books, Business, College, Communications, Demographics, Diasters, Economics, Education, Employment, Federal Government, Fiscal Policy, Foreign Policy, government, government spending, Health Care, history, Language, Law, liberty, Life, Links, Macroeconomics, media, Microeconomics, Monetary Policy, Money, People, Philosophy, Politics, Rants, Raves, Unemployment, Unions, Video, War, Wealth, Wisdom | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , |

http://www.federalbudget.com/chartinfo.html

Fiscal Year 2013 Historical Tables Budget of the U.S. Government

http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/budget/fy2013/assets/hist.pdf

Department of Treasury, Monthly Treasury Statement

http://www.fms.treas.gov/mts/index.html

Reality Check: Ron Paul’s Budget Plan

CNN: Ron Paul is the JOLT America needs 

Ron Paul Plan to Balance Budget and End Government Overspending

Ron Paul Ad – Plan 

It’s Simple to Balance The Budget Without Higher Taxes

Ronald Reagan Talks About Balancing the Budget on “The Tonight

President Obama: When I leave the White House, I’m buying a Volt

The President’s Budget in 62 Seconds 

Obama’s Budget compared to Bush’s Last One

Related Posts On Pronk Palisades

In Four Years Barack Obama Bankrupts American People With $5 Trillion In Budget Deficits and Increased Debt–Fiscal Year 2013 Budget Dead On Arrival–Videos

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

I Got The Obama Gasoline Price Blues–From $1.79 Per Gallon in January 2009 to $3.59 Per Gallon in February 2012–$5 Per Gallon By July 4, 2012!–Purchasing Power Plummets–Speculation Starves Society–Hope for Regime Change–Videos

Posted on February 24, 2012. Filed under: American History, Banking, Blogroll, Books, College, Communications, Economics, Education, Employment, Energy, Federal Government, Federal Government Budget, Fiscal Policy, Foreign Policy, government spending, history, Inflation, Investments, Language, Law, liberty, Life, Links, Macroeconomics, media, Microeconomics, Monetary Policy, Money, Natural Gas, Nuclear, Nuclear Power, Oil, People, Philosophy, Politics, Public Sector, Quotations, Rants, Raves, Regulations, Resources, Security, Strategy, Talk Radio, Tax Policy, Taxes, Technology, Transportation, Unemployment, Unions, Video, War, Wealth, Weapons, Wisdom | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |

Government Theft May 1, 1933

http://gasbuddy.com/gb_retail_price_chart.aspx

http://gasbuddy.com/gb_retail_price_chart.aspx

Quantitative Easing Explained

http://www.aier.org/research/briefs/1826-the-long-goodbye-the-declining-purchasing-power-of-the-dollar

U.S. Inflation Calculator

http://www.usinflationcalculator.com/

U.S. Debt Clock 

http://www.usdebtclock.org/

Ron Paul: The Worst Thing You Can Do For A People Is Purposely Devalue The Dollar

Obama’s Got America Singin’ the Blues

As Gas Prices Rise, White House Goes on Offensive, Defensive

Ron Paul tells the real reason for the oil prices in 2007 and today 

END FED: Bernanke Explains How To Devalue the Dollar, Quantitative Easing AKA Asset Purchase

Glenn Beck – Devaluing The Dollar 

Beck: Devaluing the Dollar

Iran Sanctions, War, Israel & Gas Prices

Ron Paul Doubles Down On War Stance

Armed Chinese Troops in Texas!

Why Gas Prices Are Rising

Playing the oil prices money game

Secret Exemptions Allowed Speculators to Distort Futures Markets

Regulations on Speculation Weak, But Better Than Nothing

The Price Of Oil

Bill Black: What I’d Demand of the Fed

Bill Black’s eye-popping opening statement at House FinServ hearing on Lehman Bros.

END FED: Goldman Sachs To Blame For Global Food-Oil Price Crisis; Speculators Outnumber Hedgers

CFTC Commissioner: “A Hair Trigger Away from Economic Calamity”

Will CFTC Limit Excessive Speculation?

Oil Supply and Demand and the Next Oil Price Spike

Bio-fuels, Speculation, Land Grabs = Food Crisis

Speculation And The Frenzy In Food Markets

Food, Speculation and Parasitical Trading

Speculation Drives Up Coffee Prices

Food Speculation

Oil Speculators

Oil speculation and oil prices

The Real TRUTH Behind The OIL PRICES 

Banks Behind High Gas Prices? 

Rising Gas Prices Slowing Economy

Gas Prices Soaring 

Ripple Effect Of Rising Gas Prices Hits Consumers

Krauthammer: Obama’s “war on fossil fuels” causes rising gas prices 

Obama Wanted High Gas Prices…Gradually (2008 Election Campaign) 

Ron Paul Expains High Gas Prices & War in 2008

Can We Stop A War With Iran? 

Obama admits his intentions are to skyrocket oil prices 

Ford O’Connell On Fox News – February 24, 2012 

Ron Paul Expains High Gas Prices & War in 2007

Obama gas prices

A Coincidence Over High Gasoline Prices- MoneyTV with Donald Baillargeon

Obama Admits the Truth: He Can’t Do Much about Gas Prices

James Grant

Jim Grant – Bloomberg Interview (30/6/11)

Government Theft 2012

Press Conference with Chairman of the FOMC, Ben S. Bernanke

 Blame High Oil Prices on Speculators and Bernanke

Seven Bucks A Gallon For Gas!

2012 Energy Prices

Ed Wallace 

“…That’s right, we not only reduced our overall gasoline use in America, reversing a century-long trend, but in 2011 we dropped our demand for gasoline once again. This likely explains why in December WTI oil jumped by close to $7 a barrel, but the futures market for gasoline barely budged, moving just a few cents in either direction.

Another way to look at it is in the percentage of utilization of our refineries for this time of year. According to the government’s data, the last week of December our refineries ran at 84.2 percent of capacity. But if one compares that week to the same week in the boom years, 2003 to 2007, our refineries were running at 91.7 percent, 94.2 percent, 88.9 percent, 90.9 percent and 89.4 percent. For those who have forgotten, that last figure in that chain, marking the last week of December 2007, also denotes the month we officially slipped into a recession. Interestingly, data released by the International Energy Agency in September of 2008 showed oil and fuel demand falling worldwide starting in August of 2007.

And yet with our refinery utilization running at far below normal, we managed to have the all-time-record year for the exportation of refined fuels. While the media speculation on where oil’s price is going is almost solely based on “Asian Demand” or the prospect of a total embargo on Iranian oil, the real problem is something completely different.

What is it? It’s refiners trying to find ways to get the price of gasoline on the futures market more in line with the high price of oil. To this end it appears that three refineries in the Northeast, including Sunoco’s Marcus Hook and Philadelphia refinery, along with Conoco’s Trainer unit, will be closed. To be sure, both Conoco and Sunoco claim their first choice is to sell those refineries, but failing that they will be closed.

What does that mean to you and me?

Dow Jones Newswire quoted Gene McGillian, an energy analyst with Tradition Energy, as saying, “Gasoline futures prices are based on New York Harbor prices. When you start to see disruptions in that Northeast market, it’s definitely reflected in gasoline futures.”

Translation: Close refineries and you can bump the futures price of gasoline – and by extension the retail price – regardless of where the price of oil is.

How does oil speculation raise gas prices?

by Josh Clark

“…An oil futureis simply a contract between a buyer and seller, where the buyer agrees to purchase a certain amount of a commodity — in this case oil — at a fixed price

. Futures offer a way for a purchaser to bet on whether a commodity will increase in price down the road. Once locked into a contract, a futures buyer would receive a barrel of oil for the price dictated in the future contract, even if the market price was higher when the barrel was actually delivered.

­As in all cases, Wall Street heard the word "bet" and flocked to futures, taking the market to strange new places on the fringe of legality. In the 19th and early 20th centuries it bet on grain. In the 21st century it was oil. Despite U.S. petroleum reserves being at an eight-year high, the price of oil rose dramatically beginning in 2006. While demand rose, supply kept pace. Yet, prices still skyrocketed. This means that the laws of supply and demand no longer applied in the oil markets. Instead, an artificial market developed.

Artificial markets are volatile; they’re difficult to predict and can turn on a dime. As a result of the artificial oil market, the average price per barrel of crude oil increased from $31.61 in July 2004 to $137.11 in July 2008 . The average cost for a gallon of regular unleaded gas in the United States grew from $1.93 to $4.09 over the same period .

So what happened? …"

"…What speculators do is bet on what price a commodity will reach by a future date, through instruments called <strong>derivatives</strong>. Unlike an investment in an actual commodity (such as a barrel of oil), a derivative’s value is based on the value of a commodity (for example, a bet on whether a barrel of oil will increase or decrease in price). Speculators have no hand in the sale of the commodity they’re betting on; they’re not the buyer or the seller.

By betting on the price outcome with only a single futures contract, a speculator has no effect on a market. It’s simply a bet. But a speculator with the capital to purchase a sizeable number of futures derivatives at one price can actually sway the market. As energy researcher F. William Engdahl put it, "[s]peculators trade on rumor, not fact" . A speculator purchasing vast futures at higher than the current market price can cause oil producers to horde their commodity in the hopes they’ll be able to sell it later on at the future price. This drives prices up in reality — both future and present prices — due to the decreased amount of oil currently available on the market.

Investment firms that can influence the oil futures market stand to make a lot; oil companies that both produce the commodity and drive prices up of their product up through oil futures derivatives stand to make even more. Investigations into the unregulated oil futures exchanges turned up major financial institutions like Goldman Sachs and Citigroup. But it also revealed energy producers like Vitol, a Swiss company that owned 11 percent of the oil futures contracts on the New York Mercantile Exchange alone .

As a result of speculation among these and other major players, an estimated 60 percent of the price of oil per barrel was added; a $100 barrel of oil, in reality, should cost $40 . And despite having an agency created to prevent just such speculative price inflation, by the time oil prices skyrocketed, the government had made a paper tiger out of it. …"

<a href="http://money.howstuffworks.com/oil-speculation-raise-gas-price.htm">http://money.howstuffworks.com/oil-speculation-raise-gas-price.htm</a>

</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<h4></h4>
<h4>It’s no secret that speculators are driving up fuel prices. The surprise? It’s the Fed’s fault, writes Ed Wallace</h4>
<h4>"…The Fed’s Cheap Liquidity Flood</h4>
The problem starts with Ben Bernanke, no matter how many of his Fed presidents claim they are not to blame for the high price of oil. The fact is that when you flood the market with far too much liquidity at virtually no interest, funny things happen in commodities and equities. It was true in the 1920s, it was true in the last decade, and it’s still true today.

When Richard Fisher, president of the Dallas Federal Reserve, spoke in Germany late in March, Reuters quoted him as saying: "We are seeing speculative activity that may be exacerbating price rises in commodities such as oil." Fisher added that he was seeing the signs of the same speculative trading that had fueled the first financial meltdown.

Here Fisher is in good company. Kansas City Fed President Thomas Hoenig, who has been a vocal critic of the current Fed policy of zero interest and high liquidity, has suggested that markets don’t function correctly under those circumstances. And David Stockman, Ronald Reagan’s former budget director, recently wrote a scathing article for MarketWatch, "Federal Reserve’s Path of Destruction," in which he criticizes current Fed policy even more pointedly. Stockman wrote: "This destruction is namely the exploitation of middle-class savers; the current severe food and energy squeeze on lower income households … and the next round of bursting bubbles building up among the risk asset classes."

Let’s not kid ourselves. Oil in today’s world is worth far more than the $25 a barrel it sold for over a decade ago. But the ability of markets to function properly, based on real supply and demand equations, has been destroyed by allowing ridiculous leverage and the unlimited ability to borrow the leverage at historically low interest rates.

Fortunately for our elected officials, they’ve got the public convinced that the biggest threat from government is taxation and deficits. In reality the public should be infuriated with the rising costs of nondiscretionary items such as food and gasoline, which current Fed policy actively enables. …"

<a href="http://www.businessweek.com/investor/content/apr2011/pi20110419_786652_page_2.htm">http://www.businessweek.com/investor/content/apr2011/pi20110419_786652_page_2.htm</a>
<p style="text-align: left;"><strong>Price of petroleum</strong></p>
"…The <strong>price of petroleum</strong> as quoted in news generally refers to the spot price per barrel (159 liters) of either WTI/light crude as traded on the New York Mercantile Exchange (NYMEX) for delivery at Cushing, Oklahoma, or of Brent as traded on the Intercontinental Exchange (ICE, into which the International Petroleum Exchange has been incorporated) for delivery at Sullom Voe.

The price of a barrel of oil is highly dependent on both its grade, determined by factors such as its specific gravity or API and its sulphur content, and its location. Other important benchmarks include Dubai, Tapis, and the OPEC basket. The Energy Information Administration (EIA) uses the imported refiner acquisition cost, the weighted average cost of all oil imported into the US, as its "world oil price".

The demand for oil is highly dependent on global macroeconomic conditions. According to the International Energy Agency, high oil prices generally have a large negative impact on the global economic growth.<sup>[1]</sup>

The Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) was formed in 1960<sup>[2]</sup> to try and counter the oil companies cartel, which had been controlling posted prices since the so-called 1927 Red Line Agreement and 1928 Achnacarry Agreement, and had achieved a high level of price stability until 1972.

The price of oil underwent a significant decrease after the record peak of US$145 it reached in July 2008. On December 23, 2008, WTI crude oil spot price fell to US$30.28 a barrel, the lowest since the financial crisis of 2007–2010 began, and traded at between US$35 a barrel and US$82 a barrel in 2009.<sup>[3]</sup> On 31 January 2011, the Brent price hit $100 a barrel for the first time since October 2008, on concerns about the political unrest in Egypt.<sup>[4]</sup>

Price history before 2003

A low point was reached in January 1999 of 17 USD per barrel, after increased oil production from Iraq coincided with the Asian Financial Crisis, which reduced demand. Prices then increased rapidly, more than doubling by September 2000 to $35, then fell until the end of 2001 before steadily increasing, reaching $40–50 by September 2004.<sup>[5]</sup>
<h3>Price history from 2003 onwards</h3>
<div>Main article: 2003 to 2011 world oil market chronology</div>
<div>Further information: 2000s energy crisis</div>
<h4>Benchmark pricing</h4>
<div>Main article: Benchmark (crude oil)</div>
After the collapse of the OPEC-administered pricing system in 1985, and a short lived experiment with netback pricing, oil-exporting countries adopted a market-linked pricing mechanism.<sup>[6]</sup> First adopted by PEMEX in 1986, market-linked pricing received wide acceptance and by 1988 became and still is the main method for pricing crude oil in international trade.<sup>[6]</sup> The current reference, or pricing markers, are Brent, WTI, and Dubai/Oman.<sup>[6]</sup>
<h4> Market listings</h4>
<div>Main article: Commodities markets</div>
Oil is marketed among other products in commodities markets. See above for details. Widely traded oil futures, and related natural gas futures, include:<sup>[7]</sup>
<ul>
<li>Petroleum
<ul>
<li>Nymex Crude Future</li>
<li>Dated Brent Spot</li>
<li>WTI Cushing Spot</li>
<li>Nymex Heating Oil Future</li>
<li>Nymex RBOB Gasoline Future</li>
</ul>
</li>
<li>Natural gas
<ul>
<li>Nymex Henry Hub Future</li>
<li>Henry Hub Spot</li>
<li>New York City Gate Spot</li>
</ul>
</li>
</ul>
Most of the above oil futures have delivery dates in all 12 months of the year.<sup>[8]</sup>
<h4>Speculation</h4>
The surge in oil prices in the past several years has led some commentators to argue that at least some of the rise is due to speculation in the futures markets.<sup>[9]</sup>
<h4> Future price changes</h4>
In 2009, Seismic Micro-Technology conducted a survey of geophysicists and geologists about the future of crude oil. Of the survey participants 80 percent predicted the price for a barrel of oil will rise to be somewhere between $50 and $100 per barrel by June 2010.<sup>[10]</sup> Another 50 percent saying it will rise even further to $100 to $150 a barrel in the next five years.<sup>[10]</sup>

Oil prices could go to $200- $300 a barrel if the world’s top crude exporter Saudi Arabia is hit by serious political unrest, according to former Saudi oil minister Sheikh Yamani. Yamani has said that underlying discontent remained unresolved in Saudi Arabia. "If something happens in Saudi Arabia it will go to $200 to $300. I don’t expect this for the time being, but who would have expected Tunisia?" Yamani told Reuters on the sidelines of a conference of the Centre for Global Energy Studies (CGES) which he chaired on April 5th 2011.<sup>[11]</sup>
<h4>CFTC investigation</h4>
The U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) announced "Multiple Energy Market Initiatives" on May 29, 2008. Part 1 is "Expanded International Surveillance Information for Crude Oil Trading." The CFTC announcement stated it has joined with the United Kingdom Financial Services Authority and ICE Futures Europe in order to expand surveillance and information sharing of various futures contracts.<sup>[12]</sup> This announcement has received wide coverage in the financial press, with speculation about oil futures price manipulation.<sup>[13]</sup><sup>[14]</sup><sup>[15]</sup>

The interim report by the Interagency Task Force, released in July, found that speculation had not caused significant changes in oil prices and that fundamental supply and demand factors provide the best explanation for the crude oil price increases. The report found that the primary reason for the price increases was that the world economy had expanded at its fastest pace in decades, resulting in substantial increases in the demand for oil, while the oil production grew sluggishly, compounded by production shortfalls in oil-exporting countries.

The report stated that as a result of the imbalance and low price elasticity, very large price increases occurred as the market attempted to balance scarce supply against growing demand, particularly in the last three years. The report forecast that this imbalance would persist in the future, leading to continued upward pressure on oil prices, and that large or rapid movements in oil prices are likely to occur even in the absence of activity by speculators. The task force continues to analyze commodity markets and intends to issue further findings later in the year.
<h4>Future projections</h4>
<div>Main article: Oil depletion</div>
<div>Main article: Peak oil</div>
Peak oil is the period when the maximum rate of global petroleum extraction is reached, after which the rate of production enters terminal decline. It relates to a long term decline in the available supply of petroleum. This, combined with increasing demand, will significantly increase the worldwide prices of petroleum derived products. Most significant will be the availability and price of liquid fuel for transportation.

The US Department of Energy in the Hirsch report indicates that “The problems associated with world oil production peaking will not be temporary, and past “energy crisis” experience will provide relatively little guidance.”<sup>[16] …"</sup>

<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Price_of_petroleum">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Price_of_petroleum</a>
<p style="text-align: left;"><strong>Gas prices soar on dollar devaluation even as consumption drops to 10-year lows </strong></p>
<strong>Written By Kenneth Schortgen Jr on Monday, February 13, 2012</strong>

"…One of the biggest misnomers in finance and economics today is that prices work according to supply and demand.  This was true when America performed in actual capitalist system, but since we moved to both fascism and crony capitalism, where corporations, banks, and government all work together at the betterment of themselves and not society, prices are fixed due to other factors such as dollar devaluation.
<div style="padding-left: 30px;"><strong><em>U.S. drivers used 2.8 percent less motor gasoline last year and consumed the smallest amount since 1999, the U.S. Department of Energy said Wednesday. Officials credited the decrease to more fuel-efficient cars and an aging population taking few trips.</em></strong></div>
<div style="padding-left: 30px;"><strong><em>Meanwhile, U.S. domestic oil production increased by more than 2 percent last year to 5.6 million barrels per day. – </em></strong><a href="http://www.desmoinesregister.com/article/20120209/BUSINESS/302090065/-1/TERMSOFSERVICE/Gas-consumption-lowest-since-1999"><strong><em>Des Moines Register</em></strong></a></div>
So… if consumption is way down, and production is actually up, should not gasoline prices be falling?  They should, except if you take into consideration the amount of money printing and currency devaluation being done by the Federal Reserve over the past four years, the amount of  inflation is being created by our own banking system, and not by a lack of products, or by higher demand.
In the end, Americans are being deceived by Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke. …"

<a href="http://www.thedailyeconomist.com/2012/02/gas-prices-soar-on-dollar-devaluation.html">http://www.thedailyeconomist.com/2012/02/gas-prices-soar-on-dollar-devaluation.html</a>
<h3 style="text-align: left;"></h3>
<h3 style="text-align: left;">Gasoline Prices Are Not Rising, the Dollar Is Falling</h3>
<strong><a href="http://blogs.forbes.com/louiswoodhill/">Louis Woodhill</a></strong>

"…Panic is in the air as gasoline prices move above $4.00 per gallon. Politicians and pundits are rounding up the usual suspects, looking for someone or something to blame for this latest outrage to middle class family budgets. In a rare display of bipartisanship, President Obama and Speaker of the House <a href="http://www.forbes.com/profile/john-boehner/">John Boehner</a> are both wringing their hands over the prospect of seeing their newly extended Social <a href="http://www.forbes.com/security/">Security</a> tax cut gobbled up by rising gasoline costs.

Unfortunately, the talking heads that are trying to explain the reasons for high oil prices are missing one tiny detail. Oil prices aren’t high right now. In fact, they are unusually low. Gasoline prices would have to rise by another $0.65 to $0.75 per gallon from where they are now just to be “normal”. And, because gasoline prices are low right now, it is very likely that they are going to go up more—perhaps a lot more.

What the politicians, analysts, and pundits are missing is that prices are ratios. Gasoline prices reflect crude oil prices, so let’s use West Texas Intermediate (WTI) crude oil to illustrate this crucial point.

As this is written, West Texas Intermediate crude oil (WTI) is trading at $105.88/bbl. All this means is that the market value of a barrel of WTI is 105.88 times the market value of “the dollar”. It is also true that WTI is trading at €79.95/bbl, ¥8,439.69/barrel, and £67.13/bbl. In all of these cases, the market value of WTI is the same. What is different in each case is the value of the monetary unit (euros, yen, and British pounds, respectively) being used to calculate the ratio that expresses the price.

In terms of judging whether the price of WTI is high or low, here is the price that truly matters: 0.0602 ounces of gold per barrel (which can be written as Au0.0602/bbl). What this number means is that, right now, a barrel of WTI has the same market value as 0.0602 ounces of gold.

During the 493 months since January 1, 1971, the price of WTI has averaged Au0.0732/bbl. It has been higher than that during 225 of those months and lower than that during 268 of those months. Plotted as a graph, the line representing the price of a barrel of oil in terms of gold has crossed the horizontal line representing the long-term average price (Au0.0732/bbl) 29 times.

At Au0.0602/bbl, today’s WTI price is only 82% of its average over the past 41+ years. Assuming that gold prices remained at today’s $1,759.30/oz, WTI prices would have to rise by about 22%, to $128.86/bbl, in order to reach their long-term average in terms of gold. As mentioned earlier, such an increase would drive up retail gasoline prices by somewhere between $0.65 and $0.75 per gallon.

At this point, we can be certain that, unless gold prices come down, gasoline prices are going to go up—by a lot. And, because the dollar is currently a floating, undefined, fiat currency, there is no inherent limit to how far the price of gold in dollars can rise, and therefore no ultimate ceiling on gasoline prices. …"

<a href="http://www.forbes.com/sites/louiswoodhill/2012/02/22/gasoline-prices-are-not-rising-the-dollar-is-falling/">http://www.forbes.com/sites/louiswoodhill/2012/02/22/gasoline-prices-are-not-rising-the-dollar-is-falling/</a>

<strong>Why Gas Prices Are Actually Falling   </strong>
<div><strong>By Gary Gibson</strong></div>
"…It’s not gold and silver prices that are volatile. Those have been incredibly consistent for thousands of years in terms of commodities they could buy. And because of the increasing standard of living being raised by free market economies, in a very real sense these eternal monies actually buy more. It’s the dollar that has been erratic in its overall declining trend ever since it’s been cut loose from gold (and silver).

Again, people looking at the cost of a gallon of gas, or of milk, or the cost of a nice suit, or rent from behind their piles of gold and silver are finding very little to worry about. In fact, to them, prices are lower than normal and declining.

Also the price of oil has tended to track the price of silver awfully closely for about as long as oil has been industrially useful. And so it’s no mistake that you can still get a gallon of gas for about about $0.20…as long as that $0.20 is composed of a pre-1964 90% silver dimes. …"

<a href="https://raymondpronk.files.wordpress.com/2012/02/silver_quarter.png"><img class="aligncenter size-full wp-image-55554" title="silver_quarter" src="https://raymondpronk.files.wordpress.com/2012/02/silver_quarter.png" alt="" width="544" height="195" /></a>

"…You see, the pre-1965 quarter is worth $6.38 as I type this. The pre-1965 dime is worth $2.55. These coins hail from a time when the dollar was still tied to gold (at the official price of $35 per ounce prior to Nixon nixing the gold standard). The dollar was still as good as gold — even though Americans themselves were forbidden to own gold bullion from 1933 till 1974 — and there was actual silver in the coinage until that content was reduced in 1964 and eliminated in 1965.

Those old silver coins shine the harsh light on the strength of the currency and the abuse that currency suffers from the feds and the Federal Reserve.

If you’d been saving in gold, then from your point of view gas prices have been coming down for the past few years. If you’d been saving in that old “junk” silver (pre-1965 quarters, dimes and half dollars), then gas prices are a downright bargain, too. …"

<a href="http://whiskeyandgunpowder.com/why-gas-prices-are-actually-falling/">http://whiskeyandgunpowder.com/why-gas-prices-are-actually-falling/</a>
<h4><strong>Consequences to Expect if the U.S. Invades Iran   </strong></h4>
<h4><strong>By Whiskey Contributor<small>Feb 22nd, 2012</small></strong></h4>
<h4><strong>Exploding Oil Prices</strong></h4>
The U.S. has had a ban on Iranian oil imports since 1979, however, Iran still supplies about 5% of the global oil market. This might not seem like much, but Iran also has the means and ability to shut down the Straight of Hormuz, which is one of two major petroleum choke points in the world. Around 17 million barrels of oil per day are shipped through the Straight of Hormuz, or about 20% of all oil traded worldwide.
<p align="center"><img src="http://www.ezimages.net/WHISKEY/022212_pic2.png" alt="" width="363" height="208" /></p>
"…In 2006, during the last major Iran war scare, experts predicted gasoline price increases in excess of <a href="http://money.cnn.com/2006/02/07/news/international/iran_oil/" target="_blank">$10 a gallon if Iran was invaded.</a>

This would devastate the U.S. economy, which is already hanging by a thin thread. Iran has announced this past weekend it will cease all oil shipments to Britain and France in protest of their support of economic sanctions. This alone is causing oil to spike today. A global energy crisis will financially decimate average citizens who will have their savings sapped by extreme price inflation, not just in gasoline, but in all goods that require the use of gasoline in their production and shipping. If you like this idea, then by all means, support an invasion of Iran.

<strong>War Domino Effect</strong>

In January of 2010, I wrote an article for Neithercorp Press entitled <a href="http://www.alt-market.com/neithercorp/press/2010/01/will-globalists-trigger-yet-another-world-war/" target="_blank">“Will Globalists Trigger Yet Another World War</a>“. In that article, I warned about the dangers of an invasion of Iran or Syria being used to foment a global conflict, in order to create a crisis large enough to distract the masses away from the international banker created economic collapse.

In 2006, Iran signed a mutual defense pact with its neighbor, Syria, which is also in the middle of its own turmoil and possible NATO intervention. Syria has strong ties to Russia, and even has a revamped Russian naval base off its coast, a fact rarely mentioned by the mainstream media. Both Russia and China have made their opposition clear in the case of any Western intervention in Iran or Syria. An invasion by the U.S. or Israel in these regions could quickly intensify into wider war between major world powers. If you like the idea of a world war which could eventually put you and your family in direct danger, then by all means, support an invasion of Iran.

<strong>Dollar Collapse</strong>

Make no mistake, the U.S. dollar is already on the verge of collapse, along with the U.S. economy. Bilateral trade agreements between BRIC and ASEAN nations are sprouting up everywhere the past couple months, and these agreements are specifically designed to end the dollar’s status as the world reserve currency. An invasion of Iran will only expedite this process. If global anger over the resulting chaos in oil prices doesn’t set off a dump of the dollar, the eventual debt obligation incurred through the overt costs of war will. Ron Paul has always been right; it doesn’t matter whether you think invasion is a good idea or not. We simply CANNOT afford it. America is bankrupt. Our only source of income is our ability to print money from thin air. Each dollar created to fund new wars brings our currency ever closer to its demise. …"

<a href="http://whiskeyandgunpowder.com/consequences-to-expect-if-the-u-s-invades-iran/">http://whiskeyandgunpowder.com/consequences-to-expect-if-the-u-s-invades-iran/</a>
<h1 style="text-align: center;">Background Articles and Videos</h1>
<h4 style="text-align: center;"></h4>
<h4 style="text-align: center;"></h4>
<h4 id="watch-headline-title" style="text-align: center;">Introduction to Futures</h4>
<p style="text-align: center;"></p>

<h4 id="watch-headline-title" style="text-align: center;">What is a Future?</h4>
<p style="text-align: center;"></p>

<h4 id="watch-headline-title" style="text-align: center;">Investopedia Video: How Do Futures Contracts Work?</h4>
<p style="text-align: center;"></p>

<h4 id="watch-headline-title" style="text-align: center;">Commodity futures margin accounts</h4>
<p style="text-align: center;"></p>

<div><strong> Security Futures—Know Your Risks, or Risk Your Future</strong></div>
<div>

<strong>"…Margin & Leverage</strong>

When a brokerage firm lends you part of the funds needed to purchase a security, such as common stock, the term "margin" refers to the amount of cash, or down payment, the customer is required to deposit. By contrast, a security futures contract is an obligation not an asset and has no value as collateral for a loan. When you enter into a security futures contract, you are required to make a payment referred to as a "margin payment" or "performance bond" to cover potential losses.

For a relatively small amount of money (the margin requirement), a futures contract worth several times as much can be bought or sold. The smaller the margin requirement in relation to the underlying value of the futures contract, the greater the leverage. Because of this leverage, small changes in price can result in large gains and losses in a short period of time.

<strong>Example:</strong> Assuming a security futures contract is for 100 shares of stock, if a security futures contract is established at a contract price of $50, the contract has a nominal value of $5,000 (see definition below). The margin requirement may be as low as 20 percent, which would require a margin deposit of $1,000. Assume the contract price rises from $50 to $52 (a $200 increase in the nominal value). This represents a $200 profit to the buyer of the futures contract, and a 20 percent return on the $1,000 deposited as margin.

The reverse would be true if the contract price decreased from $50 to $48. This represents a $200 loss to the buyer, or 20 percent of the $1,000 deposited as margin. Thus, leverage can either benefit or harm an investor.
Note that a 4 percent decrease in the value of the contract resulted in a loss of 20 percent of the margin deposited. A 20 percent decrease in the contract price ($50 to $40) would mean a drop in the nominal value of the contract from $5,000 to $4,000, thereby wiping out 100 percent of the margin deposited on the security futures contract. …"

</div>
<div><a href="http://www.finra.org/Investors/InvestmentChoices/P005912">http://www.finra.org/Investors/InvestmentChoices/P005912</a></div>
<div></div>
<div>
<h4>Futures Margins<a href="http://www.dpbolvw.net/click-2519541-10992963" target="_blank"> </a></h4>
<!– google_ad_section_start –>Participants in a futures contract are required to post performance bond margins in order to open and maintain a futures position.

Futures margin requirements are set by the exchanges and are typically only 2 to 10 percent of the full value of the futures contract.

Margins are financial guarantees required of both buyers and sellers of futures contracts to ensure that they fulfill their futures contract obligations.
<h4>Initial Margin</h4>
Before a futures position can be opened, there must be enough available balance in the futures trader’s margin account to meet the initial margin requirement. Upon opening the futures position, an amount equal to the initial margin requirement will be deducted from the trader’s margin account and transferred to the exchange’s clearing firm. This money is held by the exchange clearinghouse as long as the futures position remains open.
<h4>Maintenance Margin</h4>
The maintenance margin is the minimum amount a futures trader is required to maintain in his margin account in order to hold a futures position. The maintenance margin level is usually slightly below the initial margin.

If the balance in the futures trader’s margin account falls below the maintenance margin level, he or she will receive a margin call to top up his margin account so as to meet the initial margin requirement.
<h4>Example</h4>
Let’s assume we have a speculator who has $10000 in his trading account. He decides to buy August Crude Oil at $40 per barrel. Each Crude Oil futures contract represents 1000 barrels and requires an initial margin of $9000 and has a maintenance margin level set at $6500.

Since his account is $10000, which is more than the initial margin requirement, he can therefore open up one August Crude Oil futures position.

One day later, the price of August Crude Oil drops to $38 a barrel. Our speculator has suffered an open position loss of $2000 ($2 x 1000 barrels) and thus his account balance drops to $8000.

Although his balance is now lower than the initial margin requirement, he did not get the margin call as it is still above the maintenance level of $6500.

Unfortunately, on the very next day, the price of August Crude Oil crashed further to $35, leading to an additional $3000 loss on his open Crude Oil position. With only $5000 left in his trading account, which is below the maintenance level of $6500, he received a call from his broker asking him to top up his trading account back to the initial level of $9000 in order to maintain his open Crude Oil position.

This means that if the speculator wishes to stay in the position, he will need to deposit an additional $4000 into his trading account.

Otherwise, if he decides to quit the position, the remaining $5000 in his account will be available to use for trading once again. …"
<a href="http://www.theoptionsguide.com/futures-margin.aspx">http://www.theoptionsguide.com/futures-margin.aspx</a>

</div>
<div></div>
<div></div>
<div><strong>Federal Regulation of Margin in the Commodities Futures Industry: History and Theory</strong></div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<h4><a href="http://www.nationalaglawcenter.org/assets/bibarticles/markham_margin.pdf">http://www.nationalaglawcenter.org/assets/bibarticles/markham_margin.pdf</a></h4>
<h4></h4>
<h4></h4>
<h4>How does oil speculation raise gas prices?</h4>
<h4>by Josh Clark</h4>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div align="left">

"…The next time you drive to the gas station, only to find prices are still sky high compared to just a few years ago, take notice of the rows of <a href="http://money.howstuffworks.com/personal-finance/debt-management/foreclosure.htm">foreclosed</a> houses you’ll pass along the way. They may seem like two parts of a spell of economic bad luck, but high gas prices and home foreclosures are actually very much interrelated. Before most people were even aware there was an <a href="http://money.howstuffworks.com/government-bailout.htm">economic crisis</a>, investment managers abandoned failing <a href="http://money.howstuffworks.com/mortgage-backed-security.htm">mortgage-backed securities</a> and looked for other lucrative investments. What they settled on was oil futures.

An <strong>oil future</strong> is simply a contract between a buyer and seller, where the buyer agrees to purchase a certain amount of a commodity — in this case <a href="http://science.howstuffworks.com/environmental/energy/oil-refining.htm">oil</a>– at a fixed price

. Futures offer a way for a purchaser to bet on whether a commodity will increase in price down the road. Once locked into a contract, a futures buyer would receive a barrel of oil for the price dictated in the future contract, even if the market price was higher when the barrel was actually delivered. …”

“…What speculators do is bet on what price a commodity will reach by a future date, through instruments called derivatives. Unlike an investment in an actual commodity (such as a barrel of oil), a derivative’s value is based on the value of a commodity (for example, a bet on whether a barrel of oil will increase or decrease in price). Speculators have no hand in the sale of the commodity they’re betting on; they’re not the buyer or the seller.

By betting on the price outcome with only a single futures contract, a speculator has no effect on a market. It’s simply a bet. But a speculator with the capital to purchase a sizeable number of futures derivatives at one price can actually sway the market. As energy researcher F. William Engdahl put it, “[s]peculators trade on rumor, not fact”

. A speculator purchasing vast futures at higher than the current market price can cause oil producers to horde their commodity in the hopes they’ll be able to sell it later on at the future price. This drives prices up in reality — both future and present prices — due to the decreased amount of oil currently available on the market.

Investment firms that can influence the oil futures market stand to make a lot; oil companies that both produce the commodity and drive prices up of their product up through oil futures derivatives stand to make even more. Investigations into the unregulated oil futures exchanges turned up major financial institutions like Goldman Sachs and Citigroup. But it also revealed energy producers like Vitol, a Swiss company that owned 11 percent of the oil futures contracts on the New York Mercantile Exchange alone

.

As a result of speculation among these and other major players, an estimated 60 percent of the price of oil per barrel was added; a $100 barrel of oil, in reality, should cost $40

. And despite having an agency created to prevent just such speculative price inflation, by the time oil prices skyrocketed, the government had made a paper tiger out of it. …”

http://money.howstuffworks.com/oil-speculation-raise-gas-price.htm

Weekly Petroleum Status Report

Highlights

“…U.S. crude oil refinery inputs averaged just under 14.9 million barrels per

day during the week ending February 17, 170 thousand barrels per day

above the previous week’s average. Refineries operated at 85.5 percent

of their operable capacity last week. Gasoline production increased

last week, averaging nearly 9.0 million barrels per day. Distillate fuel

production decreased last week, averaging just under 4.3 million barrels

per day.

U.S. crude oil imports averaged nearly 9.1 million barrels per day last

week, up by 335 thousand barrels per day from the previous week. Over

the last four weeks, crude oil imports have averaged about 8.8 million

barrels per day, 211 thousand barrels per day above the same four-week

period last year. Total motor gasoline imports (including both finished

gasoline and gasoline blending components) last week averaged 845

thousand barrels per day. Distillate fuel imports averaged 122 thousand

barrels per day last week.

U.S. commercial crude oil inventories (excluding those in the Strategic

Petroleum Reserve) increased by 1.6 million barrels from the previous

week. At 340.7 million barrels, U.S. crude oil inventories are in the

upper limit of the average range for this time of year. Total motor

gasoline inventories decreased by 0.6 million barrels last week and are

in the upper limit of the average range. Finished gasoline inventories

decreased while blending components inventories increased last week.

Distillate fuel inventories decreased by 0.2 million barrels last week and

are in the middle of the average range for this time of year. Propane/

propylene inventories decreased by 1.6 million barrels last week and are

above the upper limit of the average range. Total commercial petroleum

inventories increased by 3.3 million barrels last week.

Total products supplied over the last four-week period have averaged

about 18.1 million barrels per day, down by 6.7 percent compared to

the similar period last year. Over the last four weeks, motor gasoline

product supplied has averaged 8.2 million barrels per day, down by 6.1

percent from the same period last year. Distillate fuel product supplied

has averaged about 3.6 million barrels per day over the last four weeks,

down by 5.9 percent from the same period last year. Jet fuel product

supplied is 9.1 percent lower over the last four weeks compared to the

same four-week period last year.

WTI was $103.27 per barrel on February 17, 2012, $4.59 more than

last week’s price and $18.24 above a year ago. The spot price for

conventional gasoline in the New York Harbor was $3.023 per gallon,

$0.022 more than last week’s price and $0.483 above last year. The

spot price for No. 2 heating oil in the New York Harbor was $3.185 per

gallon, $0.002 less than last week’s price but $0.474 above a year ago.

The national average retail regular gasoline price increased for the fourth

week in a row to $3.591 per gallon on February 20, 2012, $0.068 per

gallon more than last week and $0.402 above a year ago. The national

average retail diesel fuel price also increased for the fourth straight week

in a row to $3.960 per gallon, $0.017 per gallon more than last week and

$0.387 above a year ago. …”

http://www.eia.gov/pub/oil_gas/petroleum/data_publications/weekly_petroleum_status_report/current/pdf/highlights.pdf

Inflation:  Calculating the rate of inflation

Historical CPI-U data from 1913 to the present

“…For just current CPI data, see CPI page. The following table provides all the Consumer Price Index data CPI-U from 1913 to the Present.

The Consumer Price Index (CPI-U)  is compiled by the Bureau of Labor Statistics and is based upon a 1982 Base of 100. A Consumer Price Index of 158 indicates 58% inflation since 1982. The commonly quoted inflation rate of say 3% is actually the change in the Consumer Price Index from a year earlier. By looking at the change in the Consumer Price Index we can see that what cost an average of 9.9 cents in 1913 would cost us about $1.82 in 2003 and $2.02 in 2007.

To find Prior Consumer Price Index (CPI) data on this table (back through 1913) click on the date range links below the table.

For Inflation data rather than Consumer Price Index data go to the Historical Inflation page. If you would like to calculate the inflation rate between two dates using the Consumer Price Index data from this chart, use our handy easy to use Inflation calculator or you might prefer to use our Cost of Living Calculator to compare the costs in two cities. You can find links to Inflation and Consumer Price Index data for other countries HERE. A chart of Inflation by decade, Annual Inflation and Confederate Inflation is also available. Menu navigation is available on the menu bar on the left of every page. We have a complete listing of all of our Articles on inflation, including Inflation Definitions, Which is better High or Low Inflation, and How to Calculate Inflation.

You might also be interested in the wide variety of articles on our sister site Financial Trend Forecaster a complete list of the articles on Financial Trend Forecaster is at the FTF Article Archives.

Note Effective January 2007 the BLS began publishing the CPI index to three decimal places (prior to that it was only one decimal place).  But InflationData.com is still the only place to get the Inflation Rate calculated to two decimal places.

Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Annual
2012 226.665
2011 220.223 221.309 223.467 224.906 225.964 225.722 225.922 226.545 226.889 226.421 226.230 225.672 224.939
2010 216.687 216.741 217.631 218.009 218.178 217.965 218.011 218.312 218.439 218.711 218.803 219.179 218.056
2009 211.143 212.193 212.709 213.240 213.856 215.693 215.351 215.834 215.969 216.177 216.330 215.949 214.537
2008 211.080 211.693 213.528 214.823 216.632 218.815 219.964 219.086 218.783 216.573 212.425 210.228 215.303
2007 202.416 203.499 205.352 206.686 207.949 208.352 208.299 207.917 208.490 208.936 210.177 210.036 207.342
2006 198.300 198.700 199.800 201.500 202.500 202.900 203.500 203.900 202.900 201.800 201.500 201.800 201.600
2005 190.700 191.800 193.300 194.600 194.400 194.500 195.400 196.400 198.800 199.200 197.600 196.800 195.300
2004 185.200 186.200 187.400 188.000 189.100 189.700 189.400 189.500 189.900 190.900 191.000 190.300 188.900
2003 181.700 183.100 184.200 183.800 183.500 183.700 183.900 184.600 185.200 185.000 184.500 184.300 183.960
2002 177.100 177.800 178.800 179.800 179.800 179.900 180.100 180.700 181.000 181.300 181.300 180.900 179.880
2001 175.100 175.800 176.200 176.900 177.700 178.000 177.500 177.500 178.300 177.700 177.400 176.700 177.100
2000 168.800 169.800 171.200 171.300 171.500 172.400 172.800 172.800 173.700 174.000 174.100 174.000 172.200
1999 164.300 164.500 165.000 166.200 166.200 166.200 166.700 167.100 167.900 168.200 168.300 168.300 166.600
1998 161.600 161.900 162.200 162.500 162.800 163.000 163.200 163.400 163.600 164.000 164.000 163.900 163.000
1997 159.100 159.600 160.000 160.200 160.100 160.300 160.500 160.800 161.200 161.600 161.500 161.300 160.500
1996 154.400 154.900 155.700 156.300 156.600 156.700 157.000 157.300 157.800 158.300 158.600 158.600 156.900
1995 150.300 150.900 151.400 151.900 152.200 152.500 152.500 152.900 153.200 153.700 153.600 153.500 152.400
1994 146.200 146.700 147.200 147.400 147.500 148.000 148.400 149.000 149.400 149.500 149.700 149.700 148.200
1993 142.600 143.100 143.600 144.000 144.200 144.400 144.400 144.800 145.100 145.700 145.800 145.800 144.500
1992 138.100 138.600 139.300 139.500 139.700 140.200 140.500 140.900 141.300 141.800 142.000 141.900 140.300
1991 134.600 134.800 135.000 135.200 135.600 136.000 136.200 136.600 137.200 137.400 137.800 137.900 136.200
1990 127.400 128.000 128.700 128.900 129.200 129.900 130.400 131.600 132.700 133.500 133.800 133.800 130.700
1989 121.100 121.600 122.300 123.100 123.800 124.100 124.400 124.600 125.000 125.600 125.900 126.100 124.000
1988 115.700 116.000 116.500 117.100 117.500 118.000 118.500 119.000 119.800 120.200 120.300 120.500 118.300
1987 111.200 111.600 112.100 112.700 113.100 113.500 113.800 114.400 115.000 115.300 115.400 115.400 113.600
1986 109.600 109.300 108.800 108.600 108.900 109.500 109.500 109.700 110.200 110.300 110.400 110.500 109.600
1985 105.500 106.000 106.400 106.900 107.300 107.600 107.800 108.000 108.300 108.700 109.000 109.300 107.600
1984 101.900 102.400 102.600 103.100 103.400 103.700 104.100 104.500 105.000 105.300 105.300 105.300 103.900
1983 97.800 97.900 97.900 98.600 99.200 99.500 99.900 100.200 100.700 101.000 101.200 101.300 99.600
1982 94.300 94.600 94.500 94.900 95.800 97.000 97.500 97.700 97.900 98.200 98.000 97.600 96.500
1981 87.000 87.900 88.500 89.100 89.800 90.600 91.600 92.300 93.200 93.400 93.700 94.000 90.900
1980 77.800 78.900 80.100 81.000 81.800 82.700 82.700 83.300 84.000 84.800 85.500 86.300 82.400
1979 68.300 69.100 69.800 70.600 71.500 72.300 73.100 73.800 74.600 75.200 75.900 76.700 72.600
1978 62.500 62.900 63.400 63.900 64.500 65.200 65.700 66.000 66.500 67.100 67.400 67.700 65.200
1977 58.500 59.100 59.500 60.000 60.300 60.700 61.000 61.200 61.400 61.600 61.900 62.100 60.600
1976 55.600 55.800 55.900 56.100 56.500 56.800 57.100 57.400 57.600 57.900 58.000 58.200 56.900
1975 52.100 52.500 52.700 52.900 53.200 53.600 54.200 54.300 54.600 54.900 55.300 55.500 53.800
1974 46.600 47.200 47.800 48.000 48.600 49.000 49.400 50.000 50.600 51.100 51.500 51.900 49.300
1973 42.600 42.900 43.300 43.600 43.900 44.200 44.300 45.100 45.200 45.600 45.900 46.200 44.400
1972 41.100 41.300 41.400 41.500 41.600 41.700 41.900 42.000 42.100 42.300 42.400 42.500 41.800
1971 39.800 39.900 40.000 40.100 40.300 40.600 40.700 40.800 40.800 40.900 40.900 41.100 40.500
1970 37.800 38.000 38.200 38.500 38.600 38.800 39.000 39.000 39.200 39.400 39.600 39.800 38.800
1969 35.600 35.800 36.100 36.300 36.400 36.600 36.800 37.000 37.100 37.300 37.500 37.700 36.700
1968 34.100 34.200 34.300 34.400 34.500 34.700 34.900 35.000 35.100 35.300 35.400 35.500 34.800
1967 32.900 32.900 33.000 33.100 33.200 33.300 33.400 33.500 33.600 33.700 33.800 33.900 33.400
1966 31.800 32.000 32.100 32.300 32.300 32.400 32.500 32.700 32.700 32.900 32.900 32.900 32.400
1965 31.200 31.200 31.300 31.400 31.400 31.600 31.600 31.600 31.600 31.700 31.700 31.800 31.500
1964 30.900 30.900 30.900 30.900 30.900 31.000 31.100 31.000 31.100 31.100 31.200 31.200 31.000
1963 30.400 30.400 30.500 30.500 30.500 30.600 30.700 30.700 30.700 30.800 30.800 30.900 30.600
1962 30.000 30.100 30.100 30.200 30.200 30.200 30.300 30.300 30.400 30.400 30.400 30.400 30.200
1961 29.800 29.800 29.800 29.800 29.800 29.800 30.000 29.900 30.000 30.000 30.000 30.000 29.900
1960 29.300 29.400 29.400 29.500 29.500 29.600 29.600 29.600 29.600 29.800 29.800 29.800 29.600
1959 29.000 28.900 28.900 29.000 29.000 29.100 29.200 29.200 29.300 29.400 29.400 29.400 29.100
1958 28.600 28.600 28.800 28.900 28.900 28.900 29.000 28.900 28.900 28.900 29.000 28.900 28.900
1957 27.600 27.700 27.800 27.900 28.000 28.100 28.300 28.300 28.300 28.300 28.400 28.400 28.100
1956 26.800 26.800 26.800 26.900 27.000 27.200 27.400 27.300 27.400 27.500 27.500 27.600 27.200
1955 26.700 26.700 26.700 26.700 26.700 26.700 26.800 26.800 26.900 26.900 26.900 26.800 26.800
1954 26.900 26.900 26.900 26.800 26.900 26.900 26.900 26.900 26.800 26.800 26.800 26.700 26.900
1953 26.600 26.500 26.600 26.600 26.700 26.800 26.800 26.900 26.900 27.000 26.900 26.900 26.700
1952 26.500 26.300 26.300 26.400 26.400 26.500 26.700 26.700 26.700 26.700 26.700 26.700 26.500
1951 25.400 25.700 25.800 25.800 25.900 25.900 25.900 25.900 26.100 26.200 26.400 26.500 26.000
1950 23.500 23.500 23.600 23.600 23.700 23.800 24.100 24.300 24.400 24.600 24.700 25.000 24.100
1949 24.000 23.800 23.800 23.900 23.800 23.900 23.700 23.800 23.900 23.700 23.800 23.600 23.800
1948 23.700 23.500 23.400 23.800 23.900 24.100 24.400 24.500 24.500 24.400 24.200 24.100 24.100
1947 21.500 21.500 21.900 21.900 21.900 22.000 22.200 22.500 23.000 23.000 23.100 23.400 22.300
1946 18.200 18.100 18.300 18.400 18.500 18.700 19.800 20.200 20.400 20.800 21.300 21.500 19.500
1945 17.800 17.800 17.800 17.800 17.900 18.100 18.100 18.100 18.100 18.100 18.100 18.200 18.000
1944 17.400 17.400 17.400 17.500 17.500 17.600 17.700 17.700 17.700 17.700 17.700 17.800 17.600
1943 16.900 16.900 17.200 17.400 17.500 17.500 17.400 17.300 17.400 17.400 17.400 17.400 17.300
1942 15.700 15.800 16.000 16.100 16.300 16.300 16.400 16.500 16.500 16.700 16.800 16.900 16.300
1941 14.100 14.100 14.200 14.300 14.400 14.700 14.700 14.900 15.100 15.300 15.400 15.500 14.700
1940 13.900 14.000 14.000 14.000 14.000 14.100 14.000 14.000 14.000 14.000 14.000 14.100 14.000
1939 14.000 13.900 13.900 13.800 13.800 13.800 13.800 13.800 14.100 14.000 14.000 14.000 13.900
1938 14.200 14.100 14.100 14.200 14.100 14.100 14.100 14.100 14.100 14.000 14.000 14.000 14.100
1937 14.100 14.100 14.200 14.300 14.400 14.400 14.500 14.500 14.600 14.600 14.500 14.400 14.400
1936 13.800 13.800 13.700 13.700 13.700 13.800 13.900 14.000 14.000 14.000 14.000 14.000 13.900
1935 13.600 13.700 13.700 13.800 13.800 13.700 13.700 13.700 13.700 13.700 13.800 13.800 13.700
1934 13.200 13.300 13.300 13.300 13.300 13.400 13.400 13.400 13.600 13.500 13.500 13.400 13.400
1933 12.900 12.700 12.600 12.600 12.600 12.700 13.100 13.200 13.200 13.200 13.200 13.200 13.000
1932 14.300 14.100 14.000 13.900 13.700 13.600 13.600 13.500 13.400 13.300 13.200 13.100 13.700
1931 15.900 15.700 15.600 15.500 15.300 15.100 15.100 15.100 15.000 14.900 14.700 14.600 15.200
1930 17.100 17.000 16.900 17.000 16.900 16.800 16.600 16.500 16.600 16.500 16.400 16.100 16.700
1929 17.100 17.100 17.000 16.900 17.000 17.100 17.300 17.300 17.300 17.300 17.300 17.200 17.100
1928 17.300 17.100 17.100 17.100 17.200 17.100 17.100 17.100 17.300 17.200 17.200 17.100 17.100
1927 17.500 17.400 17.300 17.300 17.400 17.600 17.300 17.200 17.300 17.400 17.300 17.300 17.400
1926 17.900 17.900 17.800 17.900 17.800 17.700 17.500 17.400 17.500 17.600 17.700 17.700 17.700
1925 17.300 17.200 17.300 17.200 17.300 17.500 17.700 17.700 17.700 17.700 18.000 17.900 17.500
1924 17.300 17.200 17.100 17.000 17.000 17.000 17.100 17.000 17.100 17.200 17.200 17.300 17.100
1923 16.800 16.800 16.800 16.900 16.900 17.000 17.200 17.100 17.200 17.300 17.300 17.300 17.100
1922 16.900 16.900 16.700 16.700 16.700 16.700 16.800 16.600 16.600 16.700 16.800 16.900 16.800
1921 19.000 18.400 18.300 18.100 17.700 17.600 17.700 17.700 17.500 17.500 17.400 17.300 17.900
1920 19.300 19.500 19.700 20.300 20.600 20.900 20.800 20.300 20.000 19.900 19.800 19.400 20.000
1919 16.500 16.200 16.400 16.700 16.900 16.900 17.400 17.700 17.800 18.100 18.500 18.900 17.300
1918 14.000 14.100 14.000 14.200 14.500 14.700 15.100 15.400 15.700 16.000 16.300 16.500 15.100
1917 11.700 12.000 12.000 12.600 12.800 13.000 12.800 13.000 13.300 13.500 13.500 13.700 12.800
1916 10.400 10.400 10.500 10.600 10.700 10.800 10.800 10.900 11.100 11.300 11.500 11.600 10.900
1915 10.100 10.000 9.900 10.000 10.100 10.100 10.100 10.100 10.100 10.200 10.300 10.300 10.100
1914 10.000 9.900 9.900 9.800 9.900 9.900 10.000 10.200 10.200 10.100 10.200 10.100 10.000
1913 9.800 9.800 9.800 9.800 9.700 9.800 9.900 9.900 10.000 10.000 10.100 10.000 9.900

To calculate inflation from a month and year to a later month and year, try our Inflation calculator

http://inflationdata.com/Inflation/Consumer_Price_Index/HistoricalCPI.aspx

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

Newt Gingrich Attacks Short-Sighted Stunningly Stupid Socialist: Comrade Obama Rejects Canadian Keystone XL Pipeline–Job Creator and Energy Supplier For Communist China!–Barack Hussein Obama–The Redistributor–Videos

Posted on January 19, 2012. Filed under: American History, Blogroll, Business, College, Communications, Economics, Education, Employment, Energy, Enivornment, Federal Government, Foreign Policy, government, government spending, history, Law, liberty, Life, Links, Macroeconomics, media, Microeconomics, Oil, Philosophy, Politics, Quotations, Rants, Raves, Resources | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , |

“…The Communists disdain to conceal their views and aims. They openly declare that their ends can be attained only by the forcible overthrow of all existing social conditions. Let the ruling classes tremble at a communist revolution. The proletarians have nothing to lose but their chains. They have a world to win.

  WORKING MEN OF ALL COUNTRIES, UNITE.”

~Karl Marx, The Communist Manifesto

Newt calls Obama’s Pipeline decision “stupidity” – like he’s “governing Mars”

Obama Nixes Keystone Pipeline 

Barack Obama Admits: Energy Prices Will Skyrocket Under Cap And Trade

Obama rejects Canada pipeline plan

Glimmer of Hope: Obama Admin Rejects Keystone XL

Speaker Boehner: “This is Not the End of the Fight” for Keystone Energy Jobs

Rep. Fred Upton discusses Keystone pipeline project with CNBC’s Larry Kudlow

Flores Denounces Obama’s Decision to Reject the Job-Creating Keystone XL Pipeline

Canada Will Sell Oil To China If US Keeps Delaying The Pipeline

Keystone XL Pipeline Controversy

Keystone Pipeline: No Brainer

Keystone pipeline fallout

[youtube-http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lT1EeEb1DGg&feature=related]

Obama faces Canadian pipeline dilemma

Energy Security: Rep. Barton urges President to approve Keystone XL Pipeline

Government is the worst failure of civilized man.

~H.L. Mencken

America will never be destroyed from the outside.

If we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves.

~Abraham Lincoln

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

The Progressive Radical Socialist Gang Are Robbing The American People Blind By Using The Federal Reserve And Banks To Create More Money To Devalue The U.S. Dollar Resulting in Inflation and Higher Prices For All Goods and Services!–Videos

Posted on April 22, 2011. Filed under: American History, Banking, Blogroll, Business, Communications, Crime, Culture, Demographics, Economics, Employment, Federal Government, government, government spending, history, Investments, Language, Law, liberty, Life, Links, media, Monetary Policy, Money, People, Philosophy, Politics, Private Sector, Public Sector, Rants, Raves, Security, Talk Radio, Taxes, Unions, Video, War, Wealth, Wisdom | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |

 

The US Economy… is over. Gold + Silver – the only hope for Middle Class survival…

 

Marc Faber – Obama is a prostitute – Laughs at interviewer

 

 

 

Marc Faber on Inflation – “The Ben Bernanke is a Murderer of the Working & Middle Class!”

 

Peter Schiff 2011 – A Financial Earthquake is Next – Get Prepared! – Free Food Offer Below!

 

Peter Schiff – Predictions for 2011 – Dollar Is Collapsing

 

 

END FED Inflation Created By Gov Buying Bonds; QE2 ‘Wealth Effect’; Companies Game System; QE3

 

END FED Social Security Looted By Government And Banks; Fund By Transaction Fee On Derivitives

 

END FED Budget-Entitlements Scapegoating Welfare Moms&Senior Not The Big Issue The Bankers

 

 

END FED: Celente On Economic-Fed Ponzi Scheme; Economy To Fall Once Interest Rates Rise

 

 

Glenn Beck-04/21/11-A

Glenn Beck-04/21/11-B

 

Glenn Beck-04/21/11-C

Background Articles and Videos

END FED: Keiser Explains How Fed-Banks Create Revolutions & Genocide; Speculation, Food-Oil

 

Related Posts On Pronk Palisades 

Ending The Crimes of Centuries–Ideas Whose Time Have Come–Constitutional Republics and Market Capitalism–Videos

Glenn Beck and G. Edward Griffin On The Federal Reserve System–The Creature from Jekyll Island–Videos

Economists

Milton Friedman On Monetary Policy–Videos

David Gordon–Five Best Books on the Current Crisis–Video

Robert Higgs–The Great Depression and the Current Recession–Videos

Robert Higgs–Why Are Politicians Always Trying to Scare Us?–Videos

Jörg Guido Hülsmann–The Ethics of Money Production–Videos 

Murray Rothbard–A History of Money and Banking in The United States–Videos

Murray Rothbard–The American Economy and the End of Laissez-Faire: 1870 to World War II–Videos

Murray Rothbard–The Case Against The Fed–Videos 

Murray Rothbard– What Has Government Done to Our Money?–Videos

Peter Schiff–Videos

Schiff, Forbers and Bloomberg Nail The Financial Crisis and Recession–Mistakes Were Made–Greed, Arrogance, Stupidity–Three Chinese Curses!

L. William Seidman on The Economic Crisis: Causes and Cures–Videos

Thomas Sowell On The Housing Boom and Bust–Videos

Thomas E. Woods–The Economic Crisis and The Federal Reserve–Videos

Tom Woods–Smashing Myths and Restoring Sound Money–Videos

Banking Cartel’s Public Relations Campaign Continues:Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke On The Record

Banking And The Federal Reserve System

Pushing On A G-String–No Job Recovery And Declining Prices Results In Federal Reserve Buying Govenment Debt To Spur Economic Growth By Expanding Money Supply–Videos

Fiat Empire–Why The Federal Reserve Violates The U.S. Constitution–Videos

Keynes Is Dead—-Obama Digging Up Keynes–Free Market Capitalism Lives

Thomas E. Woods–The Economic Crisis and The Federal Reserve–Videos

The Coming Inflation and A New Money Supply Backed By Real Estate?–Free Enterprise To The Rescue?

Banking Cartel’s Public Relations Campaign Continues:Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke On The Record

Banking–Videos

Creature from Jekyll Island: The Federal Reserve System–Videos

The Monopoly Men: The Federal Reserve Bank Cartel–Videos

M3 Money Meteorite Moves–Deep Impact–The Coming Inflation Tidal Wave–Wage and Price Controls Will Signal Radical Socialist Obama’s Failure!

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

World Wide Revolution–Communism, Caliphate, Crony Capitalism or Constitutional Republic?–The Puppet Master, George Soros, knows! –Videos

Posted on February 24, 2011. Filed under: Banking, Blogroll, Communications, Demographics, Economics, Employment, Energy, Federal Government, Fiscal Policy, Foreign Policy, government, government spending, history, Language, Law, liberty, Life, Links, media, Monetary Policy, Money, People, Philosophy, Politics, Rants, Raves, Resources, Security, Taxes, Technology, Video, War, Wisdom | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |

Glenn Beck-02/24/11-A

Glenn Beck-02/24/11-B

Glenn Beck-02/24/11-C

Billionaire George Soros Demonizes Fox News !!!

Bill O’Reilly – George Soros is Buying Political Power

George Soros with Fareed Zakaria

 

Background Articles and Videos

Glenn Beck Puppet master part 1 George Soros

 

Glenn Beck Puppet master part2 George Soros

 

Glenn Beck Exposes Soros’s Obama’s Scam 6-21-10 Billions Made pt.1

 

Glenn Beck Exposes Soros’s Obama’s Scam 6-21-10 Billions Made pt.2

 

 

Related Posts On Pronk Palisades

The Second American Revolution vs. The New World Orders–Videos

New World Orders–Crony Capitalism, Communism, Caliphate and The 12th Iman and Nuclear Weapons–Videos

George Soros: Government Interventionist and Global Socialist–Obama’s Puppeter Master–Videos

George Soros: Barack Obama’s Money Man and Agenda Puppeter

George Soros On Reflexivity And Fallibility–Videos

Shariah, the Threat–The Team B II Report–Videos

Understanding Jihad–Videos

The Third Jihad: Radical Islam’s Vision for America–Videos

CAIR Launches National PSA Campaign–Videos

Robert Spencer: Stealth Jihad: Islam’s War against the West–Videos

Andrew McCarthy–The Grand Jihad: How Islam and the Left Sabotaged America–Videos

Andrew C. McCarthy–America’s War on Terror…or is It?–Videos

Stealth Jihad–Terror From Within–Videos

Steve Emerson–American Jihad: The Terrorist Living Among Us–Videos

Robert Spencer–Stealth Jihad–Videos

Robert Spencer–The Truth About Muhammad–Videos

Terrorists Among Us: Jihad in America–Videos

Obsession: Radical Islams War Against the West–Videos

An Affront and Threat To The American People–The Ground Zero Mosque–Remembering 9/11 and The Unknown Falling Man

Just Because You Can Build A Mosque At Ground Zero Does Not Mean You Should: The Two Faces of President Obama–Let Me Be Clear–I Am An Agent Provocateur

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

President Obama Is Very Wrong on Ethanol–Yes He Can Raise Your Food and Gas Prices–Videos

Posted on February 15, 2009. Filed under: Blogroll, Climate, Economics, Employment, Energy, Law, Links, Politics, Quotations, Raves, Regulations, Resources, Technology, Video | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |

ethanol_fuel_pump 

President Obama is very wrong on ethanol.

He favors using the taxes paid by millions of Americans to subsidize ethanol production to be used as a biofuel in our cars and trucks.

Why is President Obama wrong on ethanol?

Who do you think were very big contributors to his political campaign?

Ethanol producers and farmers were two groups that contributed significant amounts of money to his campaign.

Archer Daniels Midland Company Profile

This is called pay to play.

The American farmers and ethanol producers pay campaign contributions to professional politicians of both political parties to  play or support tax credits and subsidies for ethanol.

The big winners are the farmers and ethanol producers.

Ethanol Boom Affecting Farms, Gas Pump

 

The big losers are the American people who pay not only taxes but higher prices for corn, milk, wheat and other farm products at the grocery store.

The American people and those abroad who depend upon the United States for their wheat and corn are facing significantly rising food prices.

For example several years ago you could buy on sale 4 cans of corn for $1.

Then a few years back you could buy 3 cans of corn for $1.

Today the price of 1 can of corn is between 69 cents and $1.

Why? Ethanol.

I for one would like to eat my corn and buy unleaded gasoline without ethanol.

This is not change that the American people hoped for.

Repeating the mistakes of former President Bush on ethanol is not change.

Global Pulse: Biofuel – Another Flawed Policy?

Ethanol also reduces gas mileage and increases smog.

Furthermore, ethanol may damage older cars and trucks and smaller engines as the percentage of ethanol added to the gasoline increases above 10% requiring costly repairs.

This is change the American people especially those unemployed or under-employed cannot afford–higher food prices, higher gas prices, lower gas mileage, more smog, and expensive car repairs.

Thanks a lot Mr. President.

Hope you enjoyed your Valentine’s dinner in Chicago.

Could President Obama be just as wrong about the stimulus package?

Yes he can!

Talking the talk, but not walking the walk.

 

Obama and Ethanol

 

Biofuels & Ethanol: The Real Story 

 

Glenn Beck: Food vs Fuel

 

Biofuels scandal + food prices. Biofuel crisis, biofuel oil, biofuel production, cars, algae, systems and basics introduction to facts about biofuels. Conference keynote speaker Patrick Dixon

 
Food vs Fuel–No one wins

 

The True Cost of Corn Ethanol


 

Subsidies for Biofuels

 

1/24/09: President Obama’s Weekly Address

 

LOL: Something Scientific: Ethanol

 

How To Make Ethanol Work – Presented by The Auto Channel

 

Ethanol Boom Affecting Farms, Gas Pump

 

Pitfalls of Ethanol Fuel

 

Marlo Lewis on the problems with Ethanol

 

Myth: Corn Ethanol is Great

 

Background Articles and Videos

 

Ethanol

Ethanol, also called ethyl alcohol, pure alcohol, grain alcohol, or drinking alcohol, is a volatile, flammable, colorless liquid. It is a psychoactive drug, best known as the type of alcohol found in alcoholic beverages and in modern thermometers. Ethanol is one of the oldest recreational drugs known to man. In common usage, it is often referred to simply as alcohol or spirits.

Ethanol is a straight-chain alcohol, and its molecular formula is C2H5OH. Its empirical formula is C2H6O. An alternative notation is CH3-CH2-OH, which indicates that the carbon of a methyl group (CH3-) is attached to the carbon of a methylene group (-CH2-), which is attached to the oxygen of a hydroxyl group (-OH). It is a constitutional isomer of dimethyl ether. Ethanol is often abbreviated as EtOH, using the common organic chemistry notation of representing the ethyl group (C2H5) with Et.

The fermentation of sugar into ethanol is one of the earliest organic reactions employed by humanity. The intoxicating effects of ethanol consumption have been known since ancient times. In modern times, ethanol intended for industrial use is also produced from by-products of petroleum refining.[1]

Ethanol has widespread use as a solvent of substances intended for human contact or consumption, including scents, flavorings, colorings, and medicines. In chemistry, it is both an essential solvent and a feedstock for the synthesis of other products. It has a long history as a fuel for heat and light and also as a fuel for internal combustion engines. …”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethanol

 

Ethanol Issues

Transportation obstacles: like other alcohols (and unlike gasoline, natural gas and oil), ethanol absorbs water and chemicals. For that reason, ethanol cannot travel through the established pipelines and tanks that move petroleum products without picking up excess water. Furthermore, as gasoline travels through pipelines or tanks, it leaves some solids that ethanol will pick up and dissolve into itself if it flows through the same pipeline or tank. Ethanol also corrodes pipelines, making the fuel unusable. To remain uncontaminated, ethanol must be transported by land separately from gasoline and it must be blended with gasoline just before distribution. This lack of infrastructure for shipping and blending ethanol with gasoline adds cost to the end product and eats away at profits.
Logistics: most ethanol plants are situated in the Midwest corn belt (Illinois, Iowa, Nebraska, Minnesota and Indiana) due to the close proximity of the feedstock. The further a region is from the corn belt, the higher the shipping costs and the higher the price at the pumps. This is a major reason for the push to develop technology that can economically produce ethanol from cellulosic vegetation.
Tight market: increased demand for ethanol has created a tight ethanol market in some areas. Distribution may be temporarily limited by production capacity as well as the cost and difficulties involved in moving very large volumes of ethanol on demand.
E85 infrastructure: only a small portion of the 168,000 service stations in the U.S. pump E85. Even with E85 incentives in place, the scarcity of E85 fueling stations means that most flexible fuel vehicle (FFV) owners end up filling their tanks with gasoline instead of ethanol.
Lower fuel economy: while prices for E85 may currently be less per gallon than regular unleaded gasoline (due to current tax incentives), mileage also is lower. Typically vehicles consume 1.4 gallons of E85 for every gallon of regular gasoline they would otherwise use. Additionally, even with its tax incentives ethanol is often more expensive than gasoline.
Corrosion: because the alcohol in ethanol corrodes aluminum, FFV components are made of stainless steel and E85 pumps must be modified or manufactured with stainless steel to prevent corrosion. Repeated exposure to E85 also corrodes the metal and rubber parts in older engines (pre-1988) designed primarily for gasoline.

http://www.seco.cpa.state.tx.us/re_ethanol.htm 

 

Obama Camp Closely Linked With Ethanol  

“…Mr. Obama is running as a reformer who is seeking to reduce the influence of special interests. But like any other politician, he has powerful constituencies that help shape his views. And when it comes to domestic ethanol, almost all of which is made from corn, he also has advisers and prominent supporters with close ties to the industry at a time when energy policy is a point of sharp contrast between the parties and their presidential candidates.

In the heart of the Corn Belt that August day, Mr. Obama argued that embracing ethanol “ultimately helps our national security, because right now we’re sending billions of dollars to some of the most hostile nations on earth.” America’s oil dependence, he added, “makes it more difficult for us to shape a foreign policy that is intelligent and is creating security for the long term.”

Nowadays, when Mr. Obama travels in farm country, he is sometimes accompanied by his friend Tom Daschle, the former Senate majority leader from South Dakota. Mr. Daschle now serves on the boards of three ethanol companies and works at a Washington law firm where, according to his online job description, “he spends a substantial amount of time providing strategic and policy advice to clients in renewable energy.”

Mr. Obama’s lead advisor on energy and environmental issues, Jason Grumet, came to the campaign from the National Commission on Energy Policy, a bipartisan initiative associated with Mr. Daschle and Bob Dole, the Kansas Republican who is also a former Senate majority leader and a big ethanol backer who had close ties to the agribusiness giant Archer Daniels Midland. …”

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/23/us/politics/23ethanol.html 

 

Corn-fed Obama

By Michelle Malkin  

He’s in the tank for ethanol.

Same old, same old.

http://michellemalkin.com/2008/06/23/corn-fed-obama/

 

 Ethanol Blended Fuels

http://www.ethanolacrossamerica.net/EthanolCurriculum93003.pdf

Ethanol: A Tragedy in 3 Acts

Amid the current panic about gas prices many people are embracing ethanol. But that’s not such a good idea

Mechanics see ethanol damaging small engines

Fuel blend, already implicated in high food prices, linked to rise in repairs

“…Although the Web is rife with complaints from car owners who say ethanol damaged their engines, ethanol producers and automakers say it’s safe to use in cars. But smaller engines — the two-cycle utility engines in lawnmowers, chain saws and outboard boat motors — are another story.

Benjamin Mallisham, owner of a lawnmower repair shop in Tuscaloosa, Ala., said at least 40 percent of the lawnmower engines he repairs these days have been damaged by ethanol.

“When you put that ethanol in here, it eats up the insides or rusts them out,” Mallisham said. “All the rubber gaskets and parts — it eats those up.”

The sludge problem
Auto mechanics say the same thing takes place in car engines, where debris dislodged by ethanol in gas station fuel tanks can gum things up. But car engines are highly sophisticated; especially in later models, they’re equipped to comfortably handle the fallout of ethanol-blended gas, mechanics said.  …”

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25936782/

 

The Manufacture and Distribution of Corn-Based Fuel Grade Ethanol

“…As of now (2007), there are ~ 110 operating corn-based ethanol plants in the US with 56 more under construction. IA has the most, at 26, with also the most currently under construction, at 13. The greatest concentration is in the midwest (the cornbelt), but ethanol plants can also be found in a few other areas with more new construction in the works. Most midwestern ethanol plants receive their corn locally, via truck, but those farther away also receive shipments via railroad covered hopper cars (each with a capacity of 3,800 bushels).

On arrival, the corn is ground to a powder, then mixed with water and enzymes. The enzymes will break the corn’s starch into even-chain sugars, such as glucose and dextrose. The sugars are then mixed with yeast, which breaks them down into CO2 and ethyl alcohol (ethanol). Some plants release the CO2 into the atmosphere while others capture it and ship it out by railroad tank car. The ethanol at this point is only about 13% of the resulting mix and must be distilled, which separates the alcohol from everything else. The remainder is 95% alcohol which is then vaporized and run through a dryer to yield 200 proof fuel-grade ethanol.

Ethanol plants aren’t licensed to ship out beverage-grade alcohol so the product must be denatured. A common denaturant is natural gasoline, a byproduct of the natural gas refining process. This is delivered to the ethanol plant using railroad tank cars. The final product is 95 to 98% pure ethanol and ready to be legally shipped to a distribution point.

An additional byproduct of the process ought to be mentioned for the sake of completeness. After the enzymes extract starch from the corn, there are wet, ground up bits rich in proteins, left over; they’re called distillers grains and some of it will be sold directly to local farmers for feed. The bulk of it is dried, shipped out by railcar, and sold in distant feed markets. …”

http://www.imazda.com/forums/showthread.php?t=12910 

 

Biofuels: From hope to husk

By Kevin Allison and Stephanie Kirchgaessner

“…It was an American dream that has failed to become a reality. For much of the last decade, enthusiasts from President George W. Bush down have touted corn-based ethanol as something approaching a superfuel, a home-grown alternative to foreign oil that would help cut smog and bring hope to struggling farmers.

It has not worked out that way. Instead, the ethanol industry has undergone a great boom and bust in which a Financial Times analysis has found investors as savvy as Bill Gates, Microsoft’s founder, have collectively lost billions of dollars.

Despite the billions more in taxpayers’ dollars that was spent to subsidise it, ethanol now eats up nearly one-quarter of the US corn crop without so far fulfilling the hopes held for its beneficial effect either on the environment or US dependence on foreign energy.

It may have helped keep gasoline prices lower in the world’s wealthiest nation, but a growing band of influential critics say it has also contributed to higher food prices in the world’s poorest countries. So far, the only sure beneficiaries from the ethanol promise have been the investors clever enough to get into the industry early and the corn farmers who have enjoyed a lucrative new market for their grain. …”

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/bec31b9c-9f9c-11dd-a3fa-000077b07658.html

Investors suffer as US ethanol boom dries up

By Kevin Allison in San Francisco and Stephanie,Kirchgaessner in New York

“…Investor losses come as taxpayers have paid billions to support the ethanol industry. More than $11.2bn has been spent since 2005 on tax breaks for companies that blend ethanol into petrol. Billions more have been spent on direct state and federal subsidies for US ethanol production.

“We’re looking at an industry that’s cost $80bn to get to this point,” said Bob Starkey, a fuels analyst at Jim Jordan & Associates, a research group in Houston.

However, ethanol has disappointed many who saw it as a wonder product that could reduce the US’s dependence on foreign oil while cutting down on pollution. Worse, a growing number of influential critics now say ethanol is helping raise the price of food. …”

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/a9c5698e-9fd3-11dd-a3fa-000077b07658.html?nclick_check=1

 

Surprise: Government Mandates Behind Ethanol ‘Bubble’

Boudreaux addressed ethanol in “America 2012,” BMI’s new Special Report on economic issues in the presidential campaign.  

“Farmers, especially corn farmers, made out like bandits because now there’s this artificial market enhancement for their product and so they’re receiving higher returns causing the price of corn products to rise, the price of foods that are close substitutes for corn to rise, and of course it’s … one element in the rise of the price of gasoline.”

Ethanol as an alternative source of energy is one of the major issues in the presidential campaign. Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Barack Obama has supported ethanol, calling it “only the beginning.” His GOP opponent, Sen. John McCain, has criticized ethanol subsidies.

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/nathan-burchfiel/2008/10/23/surprise-government-mandates-behind-ethanol-bubble

 

Ethanol Myths and Realties

http://www.businessweek.com/technology/content/may2006/tc20060519_225336.htm

 

Small Producer Credit Sought in Economic Stimulus Bill

“… Ethanol proponents are seeking to include an amended small ethanol producer tax credit in the economic stimulus package being debated in Congress. The Coalition’s, Chairman, Nebraska Governor Mike Johanns, recently sent a letter to Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus of Montana and Ranking Member Chuck Grassley of Iowa requesting their support. “The credit was created as an incentive for farmers who invested in small ethanol production facilities. At present, this credit works as a disincentive to farmers organized as a cooperative. The addition of the small ethanol producer credit for farmer cooperatives will make available an incentive that is important to the nation’s ethanol plant development efforts, especially in rural areas of our states,” Johanns said.

“If included in the economic stimulus package, this provision will be a timely incentive for farmer cooperatives that are facing significant economic challenges,” Johanns said. “The addition of farmer-owned ethanol cooperative incentives will help to stimulate the economy of areas in which the plants are located, and the new production will increase domestic ethanol production capacity. This combination of value-added agri-processing and production of renewable ethanol from domestic resources will serve to strengthen the economic stimulus package and will allow farmer cooperatives to participate in the growth of the ethanol industry.” …”

http://www.ethanol-gec.org/jan2002/jan01.html

 

Related Posts On Pronk Palisades

 Wealth, Income and Job Creation: Let A 1000 Microsofts Bloom

 Let Them Eat Cake Act: American Elites Killing and Starving The American People

President Doom and Panic Obama’s Big Lie: More Government Spending Works and Tax Cuts Do Not Work

American People’s Household Stimulus Package Check–Please Call Today–Ask: Where is My Household Check for $7,044.24! I want my money back!

American People’s Plan = 6 Month Tax Holiday + FairTax = Real Hope + Real Change!–Millions To March On Washington D.C. Saturday, July 4, 2009! 

Tea Parties Take Off In Texas–Spreading Nationwide–Are You Going To Washington Fair? Millions Celebrate The Second American Revolution–Saturday, July 4, 2009

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( 5 so far )

1 Minute Voter Guide Video: Killer of American Dreams–Barack Obama–Radical Socialist

Posted on October 27, 2008. Filed under: Babies, Blogroll, Books, Economics, Education, Employment, Energy, Immigration, Investments, Links, People, Politics, Rants, Raves, Regulations, Religion, Resources, Reviews, Security, Taxes, Video, War | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |

“Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both.”

 

~Benjamin Franklin

I am a classical liberal or libertarian.

Neither Senator McCain nor Senator Obama reflect my political philosophy or viewpoint and were not my first, second, or even tenth choice for who I would like to see on the ballot in November.

I have for many months studied and analyzed the positions of several candidates running for the office of President of the United States of America and posted my thoughts on this blog.

I have concluded that Senator McCain is a moderate Republican that leans slightly to the conservative right.

I will be voting for Senator McCain despite many reservations and concerns.

I have also concluded that Senator Obama is a radical socialist and most likely a Marxist.

I would never vote for any socialist for the simple reason they always end up killing people and/or ruining the economy (Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Hitler, Castro, Pol Pot, etc.).

If you are still undecided as to who to vote for in November and have only a minute to make up your mind, view the following video and Please Pass It On , Thank you.

Killer of American Dreams: Barack Obama Radical Socialist

If you are a radical socialist, progressive, liberal, pro abortion, communist, fascist, national socialist, welfare recipient, elitist or nonbeliever in God vote for Senator Obama.

If you are a conservative, libertarian, moderate, pro life, business owner, employer, employee, democratic or believer in God vote for Senator McCain.

If you are still undecided, then read and watch the articles and videos below:

 

Background Articles and Videos

 

Radical Socialism

GLENN BECK PICKS APART BARACK OBAMA’S 2001 RADIO INTERVIEW OF ‘REDISTRIBUTING WEALTH’ / PART 1

 

GLENN BECK PICKS APART BARACK OBAMA’S 2001 RADIO INTERVIEW OF ‘REDISTRIBUTING WEALTH’ / PART 2

 

Barack Obama: Global Poverty Act = World tax = Socialism 


 

 

SENATOR BARACK ‘GOVERNMENT’ OBAMA STANDS BY “SPREAD THE WEALTH” STATEMENT / RUSH LIMBAUGH

 

Words of Wisdom from Rush on the Final Days of the Campaign

 

Obama and Wright: He Never Complained Once

 

Babies

 

Barack Obama – Infanticide or Partial Birth Abortion

 

Obama & Live Birth Abortion / Induced Labor Abortions / Infanticide Pro-Life Anti-Abortion Video

 

Barack Obama Answers Issues On Abortion

 

Obama – I don’t want my daughters “punished with a baby”

 

Punished with a Baby? (Barack Obama’s View of Child Bearing)

 

Barack Obama Votes Against Babies Born Alive!

 

Barack Obama – Infanticide or Partial Birth Abortion

 

Barack Obama Addresses Planned Parenthood

 

Barack Obama Promises to Sign Freedom of Choice Act (FOCA)

Punished with a Baby? (Barack Obama’s View of Child Bearing)

 

Barack Obama, Planned Parenthood, and FOCA

 

Obama’s Health Care Proposals May Lead toMany More Abortion Deaths — Part One of Three

“…Abortion funding has always been a central goal of pro-abortionists since Roe v. Wade, Johnson explained. Pro-lifers have thwarted their efforts since 1976, when the Hyde Amendment banned federal funding of abortions. However, the 2008 presidential election may mark a crucial turning point.The differences between the prospective candidates could not be clearer. Sen. John McCain has always voted in support of the Hyde Amendment and other laws that prohibit taxpayer funding for abortion. On the other side, “Barack Obama as a state senator voted in favor of tax-funded abortion and he’s called publicly for the repeal of the federal Hyde Amendment,” Johnson said. “He has co-sponsored the so-called ‘Freedom of Choice Act’ [FOCA], which is a proposed federal law that would invalidate virtually all federal and state limitations on abortion and which would explicitly prohibit any level of government from discriminating against abortion in the provision of any type of services.”Furthermore, Obama’s health care platform hinges on universal health care, which would require all Americans to be covered by private insurance or government-provided coverage. However, under Obama’s plan, even private insurance plans would have to follow federal government mandates.Obama made it clear in a July 2007 speech to the Planned Parenthood Action Fund that abortion (euphemistically known as “reproductive care”) is, to him, a major part of health care. Johnson quoted him as saying, “in my mind, reproductive health care is essential care, basic care so it is at the center, the heart of the plan that I propose.”

 

Obama continued by explaining that while people could choose to keep their private health care plans, “insurers are going to have to abide by the same rules in terms of providing comprehensive care, including reproductive care … that’s going to be absolutely vital.” This means that any health plan or law that attempts to restrict abortion in any form would be nullified, Johnson explained. …”

http://www.nrlc.org/News_and_Views/Aug08/nv080608.html

Obama’s Abortion Extremism

By Michael Gerson

“…Obama has not made abortion rights the shouted refrain of his campaign, as other Democrats have done. He seems to realize that pro-choice enthusiasm is inconsistent with a reputation for post-partisanship.

But Obama’s record on abortion is extreme. He opposed the ban on partial-birth abortion — a practice a fellow Democrat, the late Daniel Patrick Moynihan, once called “too close to infanticide.” Obama strongly criticized the Supreme Court decision upholding the partial-birth ban. In the Illinois state Senate, he opposed a bill similar to the Born-Alive Infants Protection Act, which prevents the killing of infants mistakenly left alive by abortion. And now Obama has oddly claimed that he would not want his daughters to be “punished with a baby” because of a crisis pregnancy — hardly a welcoming attitude toward new life. …”

“…For decades, most Democrats and many Republicans have hoped the political debate on abortion would simply go away. But it is the issue that does not die. Recent polls have shown that young people are more likely than their elders to support abortion restrictions. Few Americans oppose abortion under every circumstance, but a majority oppose most of the abortions that actually take place — generally supporting the procedure only in the case of rape or incest, or to save the life of the mother.

Perhaps this is a revolt against a culture of disposability. Perhaps it reflects the continuing revolution of ultrasound technology — what might be called the “Juno” effect. In the delightful movie by that name, the protagonist, a pregnant teen seeking an abortion, is confronted by a classmate who informs her that the unborn child already has fingernails — which causes second thoughts. A worthless part of its mother’s body — a clump of protoplasmic rubbish — doesn’t have fingernails. …”

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/04/01/AR2008040102197.html  

 

Education

 

Blueprint for Change: Education

 

Obama back when it seemed he understood that education vouchers are inevitable II

 

Obama back when it seemed he understood that education vouchers are inevitable I

 

Stupid In America

 

Introduction to School Choice

 

The Case for School Vouchers

 

Milton Friedman: Education (Part One)

 

Milton Friedman: Education (Part Two)

 

Milton Friedman: Education (Part Three)

 

Milton Friedman On Education (Part Four)

 

Milton Friedman On Education (Part Five)

 

Milton Friedman On Education (Part Six)

 

 

Obama’s Little Red Schoolhouse

Obama Questioned On Vouchers

Many minority parents are at odds with the Democratic nominee on the issue of school choice.

 

But at the American Federation of Teachers convention this year, Obama repeated his attack against spending government money to help low-income students attend private schools. He criticized John McCain’s school-choice reform as “using public money for private-school vouchers,” and he called instead for overhauling public schools.

The blogosphere has been buzzing over Obama’s perspective on vouchers. Pro-voucher blogs praise the Democratic nominee for showing some willingness to consider vouchers as a viable alternative. Some critics, meanwhile, say that Obama flip-flopped in the Milwaukee interview, and some argue that the interview did not indicate a shift toward vouchers.

Roland Martin, a black talk-radio host and a contributor to CNN, is an Obama supporter who has slammed the candidate and other Democrats for their stance. “Obama’s opposition is right along the lines of the National Education Association, and the teachers union is a reliable and powerful Democratic ally,” Martin wrote. “But this is one time where he should have opposed [teachers unions] and made it clear that vouchers can force school districts, administrators, and teachers to shape up or see their students ship out.”

The statistics on minority students show that too many are indeed quitting the education system on their own. According to the National Center for Education Statistics, in 2006 nearly 11 percent of African-American students between the ages of 16 and 24 dropped out of school — almost double the rate for white students. The dropout rate among Hispanics was 22 percent. …”

http://www.nationaljournal.com/njmagazine/id_20081018_4744.php

 

Jobs

 

Obamanomics: A Recipe for Disaster!

 

OBAMAnomics — CHANGE: $0.04

 

 

Response to Obama, 5: Tax Rates and Job Creation

 

Adolescence as a failed cultural model

 

Cutting the U.S.’s Corporate Tax Rate

 

The Global Flat Tax Revolution

 

Energy

3 Ways to Lower Gas Prices

 

obama Says- Americans Want Higher Gas Prices

 

Obama Admits No Plan To Reduce Gas Prices

 

Barack Obama – Energy and ANWR

 

Security

Border Security and Illegal Immigration – Newt Gingrich

 

 

Obama – Yes I Can Make Us Defenseless, Just Like Dec 7, 1941

 

Barack Obama: Immigration

 

Barack Obama: Driver’s licenses for illegal immigrants?

 

Obama Wants Social Security for Illegals

 

Obama – Yes I Can Make Us Defenseless, Just Like Dec 7, 1941

 

Obama and the Military Budget

 

 

Obama’s gun ban rhetoric

For it before being against it, now no longer for it

John R. Lott Jr. 

 

 

“…A candidate questionnaire shows that Mr. Obama supported a ban on handguns in 1996. In 1998, he backed a ban on the sale of all semiautomatic guns (a ban that would encompass the vast majority of guns sold in the U.S.) In 2004, he advocated banning gun sales within five miles of a school or park (essentially a ban on all guns sold in almost all the states). Possibly, even more importantly, he served on the board of the Joyce Foundation, probably the largest private funder of anti-gun and pro-ban groups and research in the country.

The Obama campaign “flatly denied” the 1996 statement supporting a ban on handguns, blaming it instead on a staffer from his state senate race who they said had incorrectly filled out the candidate questionnaire. But the Politico obtained a copy of the statement and found Mr. Obama’s own handwritten notes on it indicating that he had personally checked and corrected answers.

His newfound support for gun ownership raises serious questions; not only where he stands on the gun issue, but also how trustworthy he is. With new legal cases being filed against Chicago’s gun ban over the last couple of weeks, will some reporter finally ask Mr. Obama why he has not only never spoken out against Chicago’s ban, he actively supported it? The release of the new Democratic National Platform’s discussion of “what [gun control] works in Chicago” implies Mr. Obama still supports Chicago’s gun ban. The platform also wants to take away so-called “assault weapons.” Also unclear is what his position means for who he would nominate to the Supreme Court. Mr. Obama’s recent comments to Rick Warren, pastor of the evangelical Saddleback Church, showed he opposed nominating those members of the Supreme Court who voted that the Second Amendment is an individual right. …”  

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2008/aug/29/obamas-gun-ban-rhetoric/ 

 

Obama in 2001: How to bring about “redistributive change;” Update: Biden decries “mean,” “ugly” questions

By Michelle Malkin

“…The blogosphere is buzzing about this video posted on YouTube Sunday night. It’s Barack Obama musing about how best to redistribute wealth in America in a Chicago Public Radio interview in 2001.

Not whether, but how: Through the courts or through legislation?

A caller asks The One to explain how he would do “reparative economic work.” Obama gives the legislative route two thumbs up as his preferred method of “breaking free of the constraints” placed by the founding fathers in the Constitution and then burbles about cobbling together the “actual coalition of powers through which you bring about redistributive change.”

Joe The Plumber, you barely scratched the surface: …”

http://michellemalkin.com/2008/10/26/obama-in-2001-how-to-bring-about-redistributive-change/

 

 

Prosperity 

Bombshell Audio of Obama from 2001 Wealth Redistribution

 

Obama the Socialist wants to spread YOUR money around 

 

Senator Obama’s Social Security Tax Plan

 

“Joe the Plumber” News Conference on MSNBC 10-16-08

 

 

Response to Obama, 4: What’s wrong with Obama’s Leftist View

 

 

Response to Obama, 7: Liberals and the fall of Detroit

 

After the Constitutional Convention had finished its work in 1787, a woman asked Ben Franklin what kind of government had been decided upon. He replied:

“A republic, if you can keep it.” 

~Benjamin Franklin

 

Related Posts On Pronk Palisades

 

The 2008 U.S. Presidential Election–Wedge Issues Now (WIN)?

Phoney Political Polls–Just Flip It Off–McCain 55% vs. Obama 40%

New Poll: McCain/Palin Will Win 50 States!–Obama/Biden Will Win 57 States?

General George S. Patton vs. Senator Barack H. Obama–No Contest

Marx, Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Castro, Chavez, Ayers–Obama, Biden–Socialist Thieves All!

George Soros: Barack Obama’s Money Man and Agenda Puppeter

The Movement Conservatives Will Rock You Obama!

Obama Anthem, Flag and Salute for The First Democratic Party Rally in Stadium

Conservative Turnout Will Determine the Outcome of The Presidential 2008 Race Between McCain vs. Obama

ACORN–Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now–Obama’s Red Shirts

Barrack “Taxman” Obama–Yes He Can Take Your Money–But Only You Can Stop Socialism!

Voters Beware: The Radical Rules of Saul Alinsky and Leftist Democrats

Obama–ACORN–CRA–Congress–Democratic Party–Fannie Mae–Barrack Obama’s Kansas Values–Killing Babies in Cold Blood?

Unconstrained Obama vs. Constrained McCain: A Conflict of Visions

Outting Obama: Radical Racist Rabble Rouser Reader

Barack Obama: The First Previable Puppet Presidential Candidate!

Barack Obama–A Reader Not A Leader!

Barack Obama Cult? 

Barack Obama: A Watermelon Man–Green on The Outside–Red on The Inside

Barack Obama–Damaged Goods–Birds of A Feather Flock Together

 

 

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( 15 so far )

Liked it here?
Why not try sites on the blogroll...