Euclid,
I checked the forum one last time before turning in for the night. I've got to get up early for my volunteer job tomorrow, at Habitat for Humanity, so I have some idea that there are people out there who are in economic distress. There certainly are pundits who put all different spins on their assessment of the economy. That's why I tend to put more trust in the Fed and other groups that represent varied political and intellectual points of view, and arrive at their conclusions after a more deliberative process. I don't put much credence in bloggers.
Yes, long lines of stored locos are observable evidence. They are evidence of a lot of idle equipment. Only by knowing that there is not an equivalent amount of horsepower to replace it, could we then deduce that traffic was down. We have all seen the data to show that rail traffic is down. However, without plausable arguements to show correlation, that is still anecdotal evidence with relation to economic trends. I bring up coal because that traffic is off about 30%, and crude-by-rail has fallen off the charts, so that must be taken into account as a significant contribution to lower rail traffic. As I have shown before, net coal has been replaced by gas in the power generation economy, and oil goes by pipeline or water, and you have not shown that merely its transportaion mode has some large effect on the economy.
I never said that 1.2% growth in the economy is great, but it is at least positive, and last I heard, was the best in the world. The fact that the economic rate is slightly positive, and the rail traffic totals are down by several %, brings me to the observation that present rail traffic is not a direct indication of economic trend.
The economy has over 300 million inputs (according to census figures). Let's just say that I am skeptical that you, or anyone else, can directly observe that activity.
Midland Mike,
It would not surprise me if the Fed disagrees with me on several points.
When I speak of opinions, I do not consider the meaning of the terms, anecdotal evidence and empirical evidence to be subject to my opinion. The definitions of those terms are not my opinion, but the meaning of the evidence is. Say that someone looked out the window and observed that a train had only 78 cars when it usually has over 100 cars; and then concluded it must mean the economy is slowing down. I would consider that to be anecdotal evidence. I explained above my consideration of the thousands of parked locomotives by several companies which are all explaining that the reason is slow economic demand. I consider that to be solid, observable evidence, that is, empirical evidence rather than anecdotal evidence. In my opinion, the evidence means the economy is slowing.
I certainly have not redefined empirical evidence based on my opinion. It appears to me, however, that you have narrowed the definition.
But I don’t need slow railroad business to assess the economy. Just the GDP is sufficient for that. One percent growth rate is pathetic. As I suggested, you seem to be differing with me over something deeper than just the acceptable methods of measuring the economy. I take it that the “something deeper” is that you think the economy is doing well, and you interpret my comments as meaning that I think the economy stinks. This goes back to my original post where I said:
“It seems as if we have two economies these days. One hovers on the verge of recession and hampers consumer spending due a scarcity of jobs and falling wages. The other is experiencing a robust recovery, creating thousands of new, good paying jobs, and boasts the lowest unemployment in many years. Which of these is true depends on each person’s individual point of view. It can be fact checked, but there are enough published facts to support either viewpoint. So I see it as a personal choice.” Anyone choosing which economy to believe in will consider those holding the opposite view to be wrong.”
I think the reason for this “two economies” is obvious. There are many who are not just content to dispense or hear the economic news. Instead, they want to convince others what to conclude by it. There is great power to be had from causing people to believe that the economy is great shape, especially when approaching an election
Another reason is that the economic assessment is somewhat of a self-fulfilling prophecy. So telling people that you believe that the economy is weakening causes fear in those people that makes them reduce their economic risk. This then does indeed slow the economy. This is why when you ask a businessman how the business is doing; he will always say it could not be better even if he is having his worst year ever. And you never want to tell a customer that business is slow because it gives them an advantage in dealing on the price.
Therefore, I believe that most economic reporting is affected by self-serving spin.
To your points about coal and oil, I am not sure why you brought this up in the first place. I cited low levels of rail traffic, and you seem to say that rail traffic is not a reliable indicator of the economy. But then you go ahead and add that a significant part of the low rail traffic is due to less traffic of coal and crude oil. I took that to mean that rail traffic is not reflecting the economy as much as it appears to be because a big part of the downturn is coal and oil traffic—as if somehow they don’t count in the low rail traffic affecting the economy.
Euclid MidlandMike Euclid, Early on you were clear that the downturn in rail traffic as a corollary to the economy was your personal opinion. After giving my personal point of view, which disagreed with yours, there was not much more to talk about. However, when you said "rail traffic levels are fine empirical evidence of economic performance" I could not take that to mean anything other than you thought the connection between the two was directly observable, or that you had built a scientific case for it. Railroads are a subset of transportation, and transportation is a subset of the economy, so the burden of proof is on you to show the direct connection. Some economist use rail traffic as one of a number of economic indicators, but that is still anecdotal evidence. I observe from stats that much of rail's loss of traffic can be accounted for by the major downturn in coal traffic, and to a lesser extent buy the loss of crude-by-rail. According to the Federal Reserve, while the economy may be slow growing, it is nevertheless growing. I also think I heard the term used (something like) "there are still pockets of weakness." Pockets of weakness? I would say there are oceans of weakness, and pockets of hope. The economy was growing at 1.2% at the end of last quarter and slowing. I expect it to be negative territory by the end of this quarter, and it may be there now. The fourth quarter is a major wild card. It will either signal recovery, or sharp decline into a second dip of recession. I think the connection between rail traffic levels and economic performance is indeed directly observable. That is why I called it empirical evidence. It can be empirical evidence while being my opinion. The fact that I believe it is empirical evidence does not require me to prove it to everyone else to their satisfaction. There is no burden of proof on me unless I take on the challenge of making everyone agree with me. Of course that would be impossible. That is why I said I regard everyone’s view on the economy as being their opinion just as I regard my own assessment. On what basis do you isolate the downturn in coal traffic and CBR from the performance of the economy? They may be artificially forced by regulation, but why should that mean that they don’t count when measuring economic performance? Regulations affect many facets of the economy. Also, it may be that some of the downturn in coal and CBR are directly related to a slackening of demand from the rest of the sagging economy rather than being repressed by regulation. I would certainly not dismiss the decline in rail traffic as being anecdotal evidence as might be considered to be based on small, insufficient sampling or hearsay. What is observable conveys large numbers that lead to obvious, observable conclusions. I take that as empirical evidence.
MidlandMike Euclid, Early on you were clear that the downturn in rail traffic as a corollary to the economy was your personal opinion. After giving my personal point of view, which disagreed with yours, there was not much more to talk about. However, when you said "rail traffic levels are fine empirical evidence of economic performance" I could not take that to mean anything other than you thought the connection between the two was directly observable, or that you had built a scientific case for it. Railroads are a subset of transportation, and transportation is a subset of the economy, so the burden of proof is on you to show the direct connection. Some economist use rail traffic as one of a number of economic indicators, but that is still anecdotal evidence. I observe from stats that much of rail's loss of traffic can be accounted for by the major downturn in coal traffic, and to a lesser extent buy the loss of crude-by-rail. According to the Federal Reserve, while the economy may be slow growing, it is nevertheless growing. I also think I heard the term used (something like) "there are still pockets of weakness."
MidlandMike
Early on you were clear that the downturn in rail traffic as a corollary to the economy was your personal opinion. After giving my personal point of view, which disagreed with yours, there was not much more to talk about. However, when you said "rail traffic levels are fine empirical evidence of economic performance" I could not take that to mean anything other than you thought the connection between the two was directly observable, or that you had built a scientific case for it. Railroads are a subset of transportation, and transportation is a subset of the economy, so the burden of proof is on you to show the direct connection. Some economist use rail traffic as one of a number of economic indicators, but that is still anecdotal evidence. I observe from stats that much of rail's loss of traffic can be accounted for by the major downturn in coal traffic, and to a lesser extent buy the loss of crude-by-rail. According to the Federal Reserve, while the economy may be slow growing, it is nevertheless growing. I also think I heard the term used (something like) "there are still pockets of weakness."
Pockets of weakness? I would say there are oceans of weakness, and pockets of hope. The economy was growing at 1.2% at the end of last quarter and slowing. I expect it to be negative territory by the end of this quarter, and it may be there now. The fourth quarter is a major wild card. It will either signal recovery, or sharp decline into a second dip of recession.
I think the connection between rail traffic levels and economic performance is indeed directly observable. That is why I called it empirical evidence. It can be empirical evidence while being my opinion. The fact that I believe it is empirical evidence does not require me to prove it to everyone else to their satisfaction. There is no burden of proof on me unless I take on the challenge of making everyone agree with me. Of course that would be impossible. That is why I said I regard everyone’s view on the economy as being their opinion just as I regard my own assessment.
On what basis do you isolate the downturn in coal traffic and CBR from the performance of the economy? They may be artificially forced by regulation, but why should that mean that they don’t count when measuring economic performance? Regulations affect many facets of the economy. Also, it may be that some of the downturn in coal and CBR are directly related to a slackening of demand from the rest of the sagging economy rather than being repressed by regulation.
I would certainly not dismiss the decline in rail traffic as being anecdotal evidence as might be considered to be based on small, insufficient sampling or hearsay. What is observable conveys large numbers that lead to obvious, observable conclusions. I take that as empirical evidence.
Apparently the Fed does not share your opinion of the economy, as they are indicating they may raise the interest rate sooner than later.
I understand that it is your opinion that rail traffic is directly connected to the economic conditions, but when the meaning of terms such as empirical evidence is now subject to your own opinion, those terms become meaningless.
I did not "isolate the downturn in coal traffic and CBR from the performance of the economy". I said "I observe from stats that much of rail's loss of traffic can be accounted for by the major downturn in coal traffic, and to a lesser extent buy the loss of crude-by-rail." I was only talking about aspects of rail traffic. Connecting that traffic to the economy would be a study in itself. The coal that formerly went to electric generation has been replaced by natural gas and renewables that don't go by rail. And looking at the latest data available from EIA (June 2016) total net electrical generation was up 1.7% from that month a year ago; natural gas consumption was up 9.1%; and coal consumption was down by -8.4%. In my opinion that puts a hole in your theory "it may be that some of the downturn in coal and CBR are directly related to a slackening of demand from the rest of the sagging economy"
http://www.eia.gov/electricity/monthly/update/
Finally, you seem to be conflating data and evidence. Figures that show decline in rail traffic are data, and I have no problem with their accuracy. However, using this data to infer a direct correlation with the economy is anecdotal evidence.
Old news from January
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-01-11/bank-of-america-rail-traffic-is-saying-something-worrying-about-the-u-s-economy
“We believe rail data may be signaling a warning for the broader economy. Carloads have declined more than 5 percent in each of the past 11 weeks on a year-over-year basis. While one-off volume declines occur occasionally, they are generally followed by a recovery shortly thereafter. The current period of substantial and sustained weakness, including last week’s -10.1 percent decline, has not occurred since 2009.”
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/videos/2016-01-20/weak-rails-what-to-make-of-train-carload-volume-falling
schlimm Euclid I think the connection between rail traffic levels and economic performance is indeed directly observable. That is why I called it empirical evidence. It can be empirical evidence while being my opinion. The fact that I believe it is empirical evidence does not require me to prove it to everyone else to their satisfaction. There is no burden of proof on me unless I take on the challenge of making everyone agree with me....That is why I said I regard everyone’s view on the economy as being their opinion just as I regard my own assessment. What is observable conveys large numbers that lead to obvious, observable conclusions. I take that as empirical evidence. There is a huge difference between inferences from empirical evidence (inferential statistics) and opinion. Apples and oranges. You conflate the two. You seem to be unaware of that. Perhaps it would profit you to read a text on scientific methodology (emphasis on correlational studies) for enlightenment on your own, since you dispute almost everything anyone says.
Euclid I think the connection between rail traffic levels and economic performance is indeed directly observable. That is why I called it empirical evidence. It can be empirical evidence while being my opinion. The fact that I believe it is empirical evidence does not require me to prove it to everyone else to their satisfaction. There is no burden of proof on me unless I take on the challenge of making everyone agree with me....That is why I said I regard everyone’s view on the economy as being their opinion just as I regard my own assessment. What is observable conveys large numbers that lead to obvious, observable conclusions. I take that as empirical evidence.
There is a huge difference between inferences from empirical evidence (inferential statistics) and opinion. Apples and oranges. You conflate the two. You seem to be unaware of that.
Perhaps it would profit you to read a text on scientific methodology (emphasis on correlational studies) for enlightenment on your own, since you dispute almost everything anyone says.
I am not conflating the two. It only seems that way if you restrict the meaning of the term, empirical to its role in scientific method.
If I observed that the sky is blue, could I say the sky is blue? I think you and Midland Mike are seeing the word “empirical” and assuming that it automatically triggers the requirement for pursuing scientific method in a quest for scientific proof.
Just because the scientific method begins with empirical evidence does not mean that one cannot witness empirical evidence and stop there with an opinion of what the evidence means. In that case, empirical just means there is observable evidence rather than pure conjecture.
If I was blind and said the sky is blue, that would be conjecture. If I see the blue sky and say it is blue, my evidence for a blue sky is empirical. My opinion is just in how I interpret the empirical evidence. A color blind person may look at the blue sky and form the opinion that the empircal evidence shows the sky to be gray.
The class one railroads will tell you that they have locomotives out of service because business demand is down. Business demand is part of the economy. Are these facts insufficient to conclude that the parked locomotives are “empirical evidence” of a slow economy? I could just use the word evidence if adding empirical causes a distraction.
Angus Maddison gathered growth rates in earlier decades in the US. He came up with real GDP growth rates per capita (eliminates the impact of immigration) from 1870-2001. Another writer re-calculated decadal averages:
Decadal averages from the lowest to highest:
(1) Average Growth Rate 1921–1930: 1.27%(2) Average Growth Rate 1911–1920: 1.28%**(3) Average Growth Rate 1931–1940: 1.54%(4) Average Growth Rate 1871–1880: 1.64%(5) Average Growth Rate 1881–1890: 1.65%(6) Average Growth Rate 1951–1960: 1.75%(7) Average Growth Rate 1991–2000: 1.94%(8) Average Growth Rate 1891–1900: 2.04%(9) Average Growth Rate 1901–1910: 2.13%(10) Average Growth Rate 1971–1980: 2.16%(11) Average Growth Rate 1981–1990: 2.26%(12) Average Growth Rate 1961–1970: 2.88%(13) Average Growth Rate 1941–1950: 3.87%.**
** = major wars, WWI or WWII.
One can easily make the observation that the growth rates prior to the beginning of Progressivism's regulations were the same or lower than many since, i.e., a statistically insignificant variance.
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
Here's a link to a stat that is more useful than raw GDP growth. It's Real GDP Growth Rate.
EuclidI think the connection between rail traffic levels and economic performance is indeed directly observable. That is why I called it empirical evidence. It can be empirical evidence while being my opinion. The fact that I believe it is empirical evidence does not require me to prove it to everyone else to their satisfaction. There is no burden of proof on me unless I take on the challenge of making everyone agree with me....That is why I said I regard everyone’s view on the economy as being their opinion just as I regard my own assessment. What is observable conveys large numbers that lead to obvious, observable conclusions. I take that as empirical evidence.
MidlandMike Euclid MidlandMike Euclid ... So I would say that rail traffic levels are fine empirical evidence of economic performance that most people seek in forming their opinion of the economy. So far I would say this thread has been one of economic arguements. Economics seems the be as much an art than a science. Now you seem to want to rap up your theory in science. Rail traffic is only empirical evidence of car loadings, ton-miles, or whatever other metric you want to use. To infer that it is a mesure of the economy as a whole is not a conclusion that you have backed up with further empirical evidence to show a direct connection. Midland Mike, A lot of the thread has been a debate over which economic metrics are officially credible, with the underlying implication that slow rail traffic is not a credible metric. I assume that debate represents a deeper debate over what the current condition of the economy actually is now. I agree that economics is as much (or more) about art than science. But I do not understand what you mean when you say I want to wrap my theory in science. I am not trying to prove anything. I began offering my opinion that each person's assessment of the economy is nothing but their opinion. When I speak of slow rail traffic as being empirical evidence, I just mean I take it as evidence that is tangible. So, as evidence, it works for me whether or not it is an officially acceptable metric. But I am certainly not presenting it as scientific proof that I expect to stand the test of everyone else's economic opinions. I have no need to back up my conclusions beyond what they simply are. They are just my opinion. You seem to challenge every assertion I make on this topic. What exactly is the point of your challenge. Are you disagreeing with the method I use to form my opinion about the economy. Do you disagree with the premise that the a massive number of out of service locomotives indicates a slow economy? Do you disagree with the premise that the economy is very slow now? Euclid, Early on you were clear that the downturn in rail traffic as a corollary to the economy was your personal opinion. After giving my personal point of view, which disagreed with yours, there was not much more to talk about. However, when you said "rail traffic levels are fine empirical evidence of economic performance" I could not take that to mean anything other than you thought the connection between the two was directly observable, or that you had built a scientific case for it. Railroads are a subset of transportation, and transportation is a subset of the economy, so the burden of proof is on you to show the direct connection. Some economist use rail traffic as one of a number of economic indicators, but that is still anecdotal evidence. I observe from stats that much of rail's loss of traffic can be accounted for by the major downturn in coal traffic, and to a lesser extent buy the loss of crude-by-rail. According to the Federal Reserve, while the economy may be slow growing, it is nevertheless growing. I also think I heard the term used (something like) "there are still pockets of weakness."
Euclid MidlandMike Euclid ... So I would say that rail traffic levels are fine empirical evidence of economic performance that most people seek in forming their opinion of the economy. So far I would say this thread has been one of economic arguements. Economics seems the be as much an art than a science. Now you seem to want to rap up your theory in science. Rail traffic is only empirical evidence of car loadings, ton-miles, or whatever other metric you want to use. To infer that it is a mesure of the economy as a whole is not a conclusion that you have backed up with further empirical evidence to show a direct connection. Midland Mike, A lot of the thread has been a debate over which economic metrics are officially credible, with the underlying implication that slow rail traffic is not a credible metric. I assume that debate represents a deeper debate over what the current condition of the economy actually is now. I agree that economics is as much (or more) about art than science. But I do not understand what you mean when you say I want to wrap my theory in science. I am not trying to prove anything. I began offering my opinion that each person's assessment of the economy is nothing but their opinion. When I speak of slow rail traffic as being empirical evidence, I just mean I take it as evidence that is tangible. So, as evidence, it works for me whether or not it is an officially acceptable metric. But I am certainly not presenting it as scientific proof that I expect to stand the test of everyone else's economic opinions. I have no need to back up my conclusions beyond what they simply are. They are just my opinion. You seem to challenge every assertion I make on this topic. What exactly is the point of your challenge. Are you disagreeing with the method I use to form my opinion about the economy. Do you disagree with the premise that the a massive number of out of service locomotives indicates a slow economy? Do you disagree with the premise that the economy is very slow now?
MidlandMike Euclid ... So I would say that rail traffic levels are fine empirical evidence of economic performance that most people seek in forming their opinion of the economy. So far I would say this thread has been one of economic arguements. Economics seems the be as much an art than a science. Now you seem to want to rap up your theory in science. Rail traffic is only empirical evidence of car loadings, ton-miles, or whatever other metric you want to use. To infer that it is a mesure of the economy as a whole is not a conclusion that you have backed up with further empirical evidence to show a direct connection.
Euclid ... So I would say that rail traffic levels are fine empirical evidence of economic performance that most people seek in forming their opinion of the economy.
...
So I would say that rail traffic levels are fine empirical evidence of economic performance that most people seek in forming their opinion of the economy.
So far I would say this thread has been one of economic arguements. Economics seems the be as much an art than a science. Now you seem to want to rap up your theory in science. Rail traffic is only empirical evidence of car loadings, ton-miles, or whatever other metric you want to use. To infer that it is a mesure of the economy as a whole is not a conclusion that you have backed up with further empirical evidence to show a direct connection.
A lot of the thread has been a debate over which economic metrics are officially credible, with the underlying implication that slow rail traffic is not a credible metric. I assume that debate represents a deeper debate over what the current condition of the economy actually is now.
I agree that economics is as much (or more) about art than science. But I do not understand what you mean when you say I want to wrap my theory in science. I am not trying to prove anything. I began offering my opinion that each person's assessment of the economy is nothing but their opinion. When I speak of slow rail traffic as being empirical evidence, I just mean I take it as evidence that is tangible. So, as evidence, it works for me whether or not it is an officially acceptable metric. But I am certainly not presenting it as scientific proof that I expect to stand the test of everyone else's economic opinions. I have no need to back up my conclusions beyond what they simply are. They are just my opinion.
You seem to challenge every assertion I make on this topic. What exactly is the point of your challenge. Are you disagreeing with the method I use to form my opinion about the economy. Do you disagree with the premise that the a massive number of out of service locomotives indicates a slow economy? Do you disagree with the premise that the economy is very slow now?
EuclidAs I mentioned earlier, we currently have two diametrically opposed assessments that make up the popular perception of the current U.S. economy. So apparently, the accepted economic indexes are not sufficient to settle the issue.
"accepted economic indexes", good luck with that, it's not one size fits all or one index fits all, it is what question your trying to answer and which indexes fit the analysis the best. It's hard for folks to understand but there is a basket of measurements available to select from and each is prejudiced in it's own way via weighting one way or another. The question was asked earlier what the leading indicators or predictors of the economy were and it was answered by myself and a few others.
And this to me also explains why most Americans 401(k)'s are in such bad shape, in my view. I've had that conversation more than once on the Internet. You think the approaches to looking at the Economy are divergent, wait until you ask about investing. Everything from crazy loon to halfway respectable. Very few people have a clue on how to invest or what is the best way to invest. It changes over time with the type of economy your in but most people just check off the deduction to the 401(k) and select a few mutual funds and thats that. Never looking at what the mutual fund invests in or % of investments or fees charged or growth rates.
I think I said it before in another thread. Not much if any classes in High School on Economics, Investing or for that matter critical thinking. If the majority of the U.S. population does not go further than high school, how can we expect them to understand a 401(k) plan without any education? Lack of critical thinking skills, plenty of evidence of that each Presidential election cycle on both sides of the current partisan divide.
BaltACD Irrespective of anyones view - Does rail activity (however you want to measure it) lead, follow or trail the overall level of economic activity in the country.
Irrespective of anyones view -
Does rail activity (however you want to measure it) lead, follow or trail the overall level of economic activity in the country.
From what I was reading, it would be either coincident or trailing, not sure which.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
As I mentioned earlier, we currently have two diametrically opposed assessments that make up the popular perception of the current U.S. economy. So apparently, the accepted economic indexes are not sufficient to settle the issue.
The average person judges the economy based on their own personal experience involving that availability of jobs, whether their pay is keeping up with costs, the perception of their upward mobility, their ability to pay for their healthcare, and whether their employer is keeping their job duties consistent or is demanding that they do more and more. A slow growing economy will produce negative effects in all of these metrics whereas they all tend to be positive during a prosperous economy. So a lot of people reach their conclusions with these practical personal experiences rather than an intellectual analysis of official measures.
Some people are not subject to any of these factors, so they assess the economy based on what the news media tells them. I doubt that very many people overall continuously review the official indexes to maintain an assessment of the economy unless they are actually in that business. I find that well informed technical articles about what the economy is doing are typically composed of a number of relative statements that are impossible to assimilate into any specific meaning. The announcement of quarterly GDP is always accompanied with a barrage of such articles.
CMStPnPJust a few references where Rail Carloadings are called either a leading economic indicator or are used to see where the economy stands.
You claimed it was part of the Federal Reserve's Leading Economic Indicators. Still waiting.
Market cap is not at all the same as assets. Apples and oranges. Basic accounting. It's a reflection of what investors think of a corporation, much of it forward thinking. You might not like that, but it is what it is.
schlimmMost folks (including social democrats) believe in the validity of a market economy. Stock markets are an important determinant of the capitalization of a given corporation in a capitalist system, as it represents what investors believe a company is worth. So, looking at that metric: NSC = $26.88 billion CSX = $27.12 B UP = $79.38 B GM = $50.05 B Netflix = $40.97 B Tesla = $33.53 B PayPal = $45.43 B Exxon Mobil = $356.13 B Microsoft = $447.17 B Apple = $588.42 B So, based on a key figure of a market economy, the rails are a pretty modest component. At one time, the oldest stock index, the Dow Jones Transportation Index, was 9 rails plus Western Union and a steamship line. Now it is four rails and 16 others.
You would first have to deflate the stock prices to remove expected future earnings, which is a significant part of a technical stocks value but less of a part of a transportation stocks value due to one stock being more heavy in fixed assets than the other. Bottom line is you can't compare Technical Stock A against Railroad Stock B and get anything meaningful economically or for that matter investor wise because the two have different asset structures and accounting systems. Goodwill weighs heavily on a Tech Stocks Balance Sheet..........not so much on a Railroads Balance sheet. It's why they always show a stock as compared to it's INDUSTRY group and even that is not really a good comparison in some instances.
Also, if your talking commodity inputs into economic output you would measure the value and volume of the commodity carried and the distance carried vs just posting the value of the infrastructure it is carried on. Value of the infrastructure is unrelated to any measure of economic output that I am aware of.
http://www.tealinc.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/Tealinc_Press-Release_Waste-Management_OCTOBER-2012.pdf
I thought investors use the conference board.....
http://www.fool.com/investing/general/2014/06/26/time-to-rethink-warren-buffetts-favorite-industria.aspx
http://www.yardeni.com/pub/ecoindrailcar.pdf
http://press.ihs.com/press-release/country-industry-forecasting-media/north-american-railroad-carload-volumes-end-year-lo
http://mjperry.blogspot.com/2012/07/us-rail-traffic-for-june-ongoing.html
http://thetimes-tribune.com/news/business/northeast-pa-rail-industry-picking-up-1.1627182
http://community.xe.com/blog/xe-market-analysis/weekly-indicators-and-rail-goes-back-negative-edition
Just a few references where Rail Carloadings are called either a leading economic indicator or are used to see where the economy stands.
CMStPnPIt is rather surprising to me in a forum that should be supportive of the railroad industry so many people doubt that it is still a MAJOR industry in the United States.
Most folks (including social democrats) believe in the validity of a market economy. Stock markets are an important determinant of the capitalization of a given corporation in a capitalist system, as it represents what investors believe a company is worth.
So, looking at that metric:
NSC = $26.88 billion
CSX = $27.12 B
UP = $79.38 B
GM = $50.05 B
Netflix = $40.97 B
Tesla = $33.53 B
PayPal = $45.43 B
Exxon Mobil = $356.13 B
Microsoft = $447.17 B
Apple = $588.42 B
So, based on a key figure of a market economy, the rails are a pretty modest component.
At one time, the oldest stock index, the Dow Jones Transportation Index, was 9 rails plus Western Union and a steamship line. Now it is four rails and 16 others.
schlimm Conference Board
Conference Board
https://www.conference-board.org/data/bcicountry.cfm?cid=1
https://www.conference-board.org/pdf_free/economics/2016_08_10.pdf
“Economic growth in the first half of 2016 was weaker than expected as output growth was held back by a large inventory run off. Business investment in capital equipment continued to be very sluggish. Business seems to think demand is likely to remain soft for some time. The new wrinkle is higher short term uncertainty. While some of the uncertainty may go away, there are structural reasons for the weakness in business investment to remain. It is also unlikely that inventory building will strongly rebound and be much of a growth source in a slow growing economy. Consumer spending then remains the main source of growth -- expected to grow at a moderate 2% rate in the second half of this year and perhaps continuing into the early months of 2017. Sustained job growth, modest wage acceleration, even improving housing market conditions, all support consumer demand. But higher labor costs are negative for corporate margins. Nonetheless, with tightening labor market conditions, there is at least the possibility of the Federal Reserve raising short-term interest rates, conceivably even as early as September. A post-election hike is more likely, or even putting it off until the first half of 2017. Raising rates almost certainly would lead to some dollar appreciation, increasing the burden on making and shipping goods abroad. For the moment at least, post-Brexit, financial markets, the dollar, even nonenergy commodity prices all remained relatively quiet.”
http://www.businessinsider.com/warren-buffetts-railcar-desert-island-indicator-is-accurate-2015-6
"Warren Buffett once said that if he were stuck on a desert island and allowed only one number to know how the economy was doing, he would pick railcar traffic."
An "expensive model collector"
dakotafred More flow than ebb, I'd say. And the regulatory era got under a real head of steam, with Teddy Roosevelt, only 100 years ago. Imagine the cobweb of regulation with which we'll be contending in another few hundred years (if the U.S. is so lucky as to still be in business). More than laws, the problem is mission creep by ambitious agencies to whom a lazy Congress leaves the details. As when the EPA decided carbon dioxide, the very staff of life on this planet, is a pollutant and subject to the Clean Air Act.
In the Teddy Roosevelt era, the Standard Oil Case (settled after he left office) resulted in the breaking up of the vertual monopoly. Nevertheless, in the intervening century, the largest of those resulting companies, Standard Oil of New Jersey (Exxon) and Standard Oil Company of New York (Mobil) re-merged, and Standard Oil of Indiana (Amoco) and Standard Oil of Ohio (Sohio) were merged into BP.
While the carbon cycle is important for life, gelogic history shows when it gets out of balance, it's disasterous for life.
dakotafred Hard to enforce when you've said it won't happen? How about: You won't lose -- "you can keep" -- your doctor?
Hard to enforce when you've said it won't happen? How about: You won't lose -- "you can keep" -- your doctor?
Well you got me there in the literal sense. When they said if you liked your (health insurance) plan, you could keep your plan, they should have added the qualfier "providing it meets minimum standards". I believe the Supreme Court ruled on what the intent of the ACA was, so it was not sunk by the imprecise talk of the regulator.
Concerning the jurisdiction over the Waters of the US regulations, the "lazy Congress" should exercise their checks and balances, and insist that the agency spells out what waters are covered, so the intent is clear.
CMStPnPFederal Reserve treats them as a leading indicator.
Evidence, other than your opinions? Show us on an official Federal Reserve site that they use rail carloadings as a leading economic indicator. If so, I would stand corrected. They might just use it as a coincident or trailing indicator, however. Dunno.
Conference Board Inex is widely used by investors, BTW. In a prior post I gave the link to the Philadelphia Fed Reserve site. They calculate the 50 Monthly State Leading Indices, which include the following, but not carloadings:
The Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia produces leading indexes for each of the 50 states. The indexes are calculated monthly and are usually released a week after the release of the coincident indexes. The Bank issues a release each month describing the current and future economic situation of the 50 states with special coverage of the Third District: Pennsylvania, New Jersey, and Delaware.
The leading index for each state predicts the six-month growth rate of the state’s coincident index. In addition to the coincident index, the models include other variables that lead the economy: state-level housing permits (1 to 4 units), state initial unemployment insurance claims, delivery times from the Institute for Supply Management (ISM) manufacturing survey, and the interest rate spread between the 10-year Treasury bond and the 3-month Treasury bill.
A time-series model (vector autoregression) is used to construct the leading index. Current and prior values of the forecast variables are used to determine the future values of the index.
dakotafredSure; and how many of you "taxpayers" will I also carry thru my own taxes?
I understand your anger, your name is Fred, and you live in Dakota, I think you have suffered enough.
ouibejamn dakotafred How about: You won't lose -- "you can keep" -- your doctor? Relax old man, you'll still get your Medicare, courtesy of us taxpayers.
dakotafred How about: You won't lose -- "you can keep" -- your doctor?
Relax old man, you'll still get your Medicare, courtesy of us taxpayers.
CMStPnPFirst time I ever heard of the Conference Board and I seriously doubt they are the keepers of an "official definition", they may think they are but you might ask yourself what they have to do with managing the U.S. Economy and if the answer is nothing...........there is your larger answer as well as to legitimacy.
Just because YOU are not aware of it does not mean it is not important. I never said it was the only index, but it is the one most investors watch.
"There is one economic- and consumer-research organization that traders rely on to gauge the health of the U.S. economy: the Conference Board (CB), which is, of course, responsible for widely followed benchmarks such as the Index of Leading Indicators (now released for nine countries) and the Consumer Confidence Index, among others." Investopedia
The Federal Reserve Bank of Philadephia publishes state indexes for each of the 50 states, which use a blend of coincident components and some leading (i.e., future trends) components. State Leading Index
Another good source is the National Bureau for Economic Research.
schlimm It's not my choice. I was simply pointing out a fact. The Conference Board sets the criteria for what is included in the accepted definition. Carloadings are important indicators also, but are not one of the accepted leading economic indicators.
It's not my choice. I was simply pointing out a fact. The Conference Board sets the criteria for what is included in the accepted definition. Carloadings are important indicators also, but are not one of the accepted leading economic indicators.
First time I ever heard of the Conference Board and I seriously doubt they are the keepers of an "official definition", they may think they are but you might ask yourself what they have to do with managing the U.S. Economy and if the answer is nothing...........there is your larger answer as well as to legitimacy.
General Motors was the largest manufacturer in the United States in the 1990's and it had top talent working for it at the time. Members of it's Economics Staff as well as other Big Three.......routinely testify in front of Congress as an expert witness on automotive issues and automotive outlook issues. Such as EPA rulings on CAFE for example.
The Conference Board Leading Economic Index is an American economic leading indicator intended to forecast future economic activity. It is calculated by The Conference Board, a non-governmental organization, which determines the value of the index from the values of ten key variables. These variables have historically turned downward before a recession and upward before an expansion. The single index value composed from these ten variables has generally proved capable of predicting recessions over the past 50 years, but in most cases it has been known to falsely predict recessions which did not occur
OK they are telling you above what they believe and what makes up their index NOT the official definition as there really is not one. There are a lot of Economic Indexes to choose from and follow........each of course is sold on a data subscription basis so they all want to say they are more accurate than others as well. A lot of the Conference Boards components to their index overlap what GM used in the 1990's but it's not a 100% overlap from my memory.
BaltACDWhile they may not be on your The Conference Board Leading Economic Index® they are still considered at leading economic indicator in that most raw materials that underpin the items listed in the conference board are shipped by rail. If building products aren't being shipped, nobody is securing building permits. The manufacture of consumer products requires raw materials for their manufacture and many of those materials move by rail.
Yup
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.