|
| |
Why is this man
laughing so hard?
He's got your dollar
And he got your dollar while claiming
that he didn't "know with certainty that an actual bubble exists" as he drove
the price to earnings ratio above 50, a level more than four times higher than the
historic average.
This is Economics 101. This is
the first week of Economics 101 in some schools. And we lemmings are expected to
accept that the chairman of the federal reserve system in the US didn't even know
Economics 101?
Of course he knew Economics 101.
He still does. That's why he's laughing so hard. He was an active participant,
no, a cheerleader, in driving up the stock market to such unprecedented heights. He
badgered insurance companies and pension funds and all kinds of other credible American
institutions whose historic practice had been to keep their money in banks, into putting
it in the "stock market". Then at just the right moment, just as he and
his minions prepared themselves for an $8 trillion plunge in stock values, they pulled the
rug out from under America.
Yet we lemmings are so inured to such
evil practices by American jews that he remains chairman of our national bank?
You should be laughing harder than he
is.
The Fed is Culpable http://www.mises.org/fullstory.asp?control=1089
by Hans F. Sennholz
[Posted November 12, 2002]
 It is surely more shameful to lose a good reputation than never to have had
one. During the great equity bubble of the 1990s Alan Greenspan acquired an
illustrious reputation as the world's greatest central banker and staunch guardian of the
U.S. dollar. His admirers in the U.S. Congress never tired of applauding him and
Queen Elizabeth of the United Kingdom joined them by knighting him. But since the
collapse of the bubble and the $8 trillion decline in equity wealth since 2000 he may have
lost some of his repute. A few critics now hold him and his Fed colleagues
responsible for it all.
With his reputation at stake the Federal Reserve chairman is rejecting all such charges.
In a recent speech to the money managers around the world Mr. Greenspan assured
them that there was nothing he could have done to prevent the bubble and its collapse.
It is beyond the ability of central bankers or anyone else, he asserted, to know
with certainty that a bubble actually exists. And even if they knew, neither tough
talk nor tight margin requirements would have been effective. Even boosts in
interest rates would have worked only if they had produced a recession. Surely no
one could expect him to kill the patient with the cure.
Most Americans probably agree with the Chairman. They believe him because he led and
encouraged them in a decade of feverish financial activity and soaring stock prices; they
trust him because he always consults the thermometer of public opinion. Most
economists probably are in accord with him because they embrace financial theories and
doctrines similar to those that guide the Chairman. If called upon, they would
gladly follow in his footsteps.
The few critics who hold him and his Fed colleagues responsible for the financial
instability disagree with the Chairman on every issue. They are astounded by his
inability to know with certainty that a bubble actually exists. Economic bubbles
have plagued the American economy ever since the First United States Bank opened its doors
in Philadelphia in 1791. They preceded and led to many financial crises and even
depressions, which have been an important object of economic research and voluminous
writing ever since.
Searching for the causes of the equity bubble and its painful aftermath, the critics
immediately point to the Fed's very mandate "to regulate the national money
supply." The mandate obviously elevates Fed regulations over all laws and
principles of the market, which, as all economists know, would destabilize and impede the
smooth functioning of any and all economic activities. In equity markets the visible
symptoms are extravagant price-earnings ratios.
The historic P/E ratio of the DOW stocks hovers around 12; it soared to
more than 50 during the 1990s and after a precipitous decline still stands at 20.86 today,
November 1, 2002. Surely, when stock prices sell at four times their historic
values, the suspicion of a feverish market should arise. Earlier this year Intel was
selling at 160.7 times earnings, Disney at 142.6 and Eastman Kodak at 118.1; it is
difficult to overlook such ratios or justify them with prospects of wondrous profits in
the future.
The bubble ratios of the National Association of Securities Dealers
Automated Quotations system (NASDAQ), which provides price quotations for securities
traded Over the Counter as well some New York Stock Exchange listed securities, were and
continue to be even more extreme. Over-the-Counter securities generally represent
high-risk investments in new ventures which command rather low price/earnings ratios.
In calm times they may trade at a ratio of ten or less; during the 1990s many
prices soared to several hundred times their earnings. Yet the Chairman speaks of
the inability to know with certainty that a bubble actually exists.
Soaring levels of commercial and industrial indebtedness also pointed to the growth of a
financial bubble. Between 1995 and 2000 such loans nearly doubled, rising from some $600
billion to more than $1.1 trillion. The funds were used primarily to repurchase corporate
stock in order to create the appearance of improved earnings per share or to finance
mergers and acquisitions which served to cut costs and raise share prices. Many
American corporations busily depleted their liquidity and even embarked upon massive
borrowing in order to finance the mergers and acquisitions. At the same time,
domestic savings sank to an all-time low while consumer indebtedness and foreign trade
deficits rose to all-time highs. All such symptoms clearly signaled the growth of a
financial bubble and looming danger to the economy; unfortunately the Fed Board of
Governors persisted in ignoring or misinterpreting the signs.
He who does not recognize a bubble obviously does not search for its causes. While stock
prices soared to lofty heights the Chairman repeatedly expressed his admiration for the
"new economy" and rising productivity which, in his eyes, justified the soaring
stock prices. But even if there had been a visible bubble, he assures us, tough talk
would have been ineffective.
We readily agree with the Chairman that "tough talk" or even vague threats are
rather empty without action. His well-known critical observation of "irrational
exuberance" in December 1996 was a timely remark which frightened exuberant investors
for a day or two, but, unaccompanied by Federal Reserve action, was soon disregarded.
On the other hand, the Chairman's frequent references to the "new
economy" and its admirable productivity said a lot to anyone willing to listen; they
made him a cheerleader and backstop of the bubble market.
The Chairman wants us to believe that tighter margin requirements would have been
ineffective in deflating the equity bubble. These are minimum amounts of cash which
a buyer of stock must deposit in a margin account. Throughout the bubble years the
Fed's Regulation T had pegged the minimum at $2,000 or fifty percent of the purchase price
of eligible securities. The Board obviously did not see fit to raise the required margin
because it did not perceive the bubble. But it is rather surprising to be told now
that any boost in margin requirements would have had no effect anyway.
Surely, a boost to seventy or even one hundred percent would have
dampened the enthusiasm of most speculators immediately. It would not have removed
the driving force of the bubble, the credit expansion, but probably would have limited or
prohibited the use of credits in the stock market, which would have affected stock prices.
The credits created by the Fed and the bank credits resting on the Fed funds
undoubtedly would have found other uses and created other investment bubbles, such as in
real estate, precious metals, or objects of art and collection. The stock market, thus
circumscribed by Fed Regulation T, might have been spared the sick fever of a bubble.
Aware of a stock bubble, the Chairman and his Board could also have raised the reserve
requirements mandating that member banks must keep cash and other reserve assets as a
percentage of demand deposits and time deposits. They decide how much money banks
can lend, thus setting the pace at which the banks can expand their credits. The
higher the reserve requirements, the tighter the limits of expansion.
The very raison d'�tre of the Federal Reserve System, as perceived by its founders and
sponsors, is to promote economic stability by influencing the flow of money relative to
the flow of goods and services. The System has no direct control over the flow of
money but it indirectly exerts its influence over commercial bank loans and deposits
through the requirement of bank reserves. Its major tools which may be used to
determine the cost and availability of reserves are the discount rate, open-market
operations, and changes in reserve requirements. They are powerful tools which the
Board has used continually ever since the U.S. Congress created them.
Mr. Greenspan, at the helm of the Fed since 1987, has used them
sparingly to restrain bank credit expansion but frequently to expand its scope and volume.
As stock prices were soaring, his Board eased credit because currency crises were
wracking Asia in 1997. And again in the fall of 1998 it chose to expand rapidly when
Russia defaulted and Long-Term Credit ran into difficulties. Between June 1999 and
May 2000, at the top of the boom, finally, it tightened six times by raising the discount
rate. But as soon as the economy began to stagnate and readjust in the first quarter
of 2001, the Fed reacted by lowering its rate no fewer than eleven times during the year.
The Chairman was always fearful of killing the patient with the cure. He
obviously was more averse to any slowdown than to the irrational exuberance he observed.
We may understand his feelings and actions because they conformed completely with
public opinion. A host of media commentators, market analysts, and vocal politicians
never tire clamoring for ever more money and lower interest rates; they instantly would
vent their wrath against the Chairman if he would raise the discount rate and withhold the
credits. It would take great courage of conviction to confront public opinion and
its vocal spokesmen. In this age of fanaticism and terrorism it may even be
dangerous to life and limb for a central banker to sanction a recession. The
Chairman was never in danger; he enjoyed the bright light of popularity, laboring to
prolong the boom indefinitely.
His critics are fully aware that the Federal Reserve System, which he and his fellow
governors are supposed to manage, is a creature of politics. It sprang from the most
revolutionary single piece of legislation in American currency and banking history, the
Federal Reserve Act of 1913. It meant to improve the earlier financial system
created by the National Banking Act of 1863 which placed the federal government in the
very center of American money and banking. Both Acts were designed to reform the
market order which was deemed to be unstable and unresponsive to the needs of the federal
government and the national economy.
Actually, they constituted early steps toward a hybrid fiat system which
in time spread to all corners of the world. It is neither a command system in the
manner of radical socialism nor a market order on a gold standard; it probably is the most
unstable financial system conceivable which no human being, no matter how brilliant and
distinguished, could manage satisfactorily.
The American money and credit system now resembles an inverted pyramid that rests on
legal-tender Federal Reserve notes and credit. These support various forms of bank
money such as commercial bank deposits, savings accounts, large time deposits, and other
liquid assets. The base of some $672 billion may expand rather moderately, presently
at some 6 percent a year or $40 billion; the layered superstructure of $8.333 trillion
bank money (M3) may grow at a similar rate or $529 billion (as of 10/23/2002).
Commercial banks tend to "securitize" their loans, converting them into
marketable securities for sale to investors which enables them to grant new loans in a
continuing process of lending, securitizing, selling, and lending again.
Massive non-bank credit constitutes the upper layers of the money
pyramid; there are Federal Home Loan Banks, thrift institutions, life insurance companies,
brokerage firms, mutual funds and other credit grantors. Last but not least,
offshore banks in the Bahamas, the Cayman Islands, Panama, Hong Kong, and Singapore,
enjoying favorable regulatory and tax treatment, provide the top layer of the
multitrillion dollar money pyramid. And high above the American pyramid hovers the
international pyramid which builds on the U.S. dollar standard.
The Chairman and his fellow governors are expected to balance it all
with their high-powered Federal-Reserve-dollar base. They are expected not only to
manage this monstrous pyramid of fiat money and fiduciary credit but also to safeguard the
stability of the American economy, to maintain asset prices, protect the value of the
dollar, and avoid the business cycle. They are supposed to manage a monstrous
structure which politicians built for their own use and glory. That's too much to
ask of any mortal.
"Money will not manage itself"; that is the very rationale of Federal Reserve
existence. Its sponsors and managers usually refer to the days when gold and silver
coins were the principal media of exchange. The supply of money, they assure us,
depended more on the discovery and exhaustion of gold and silver mines than upon the needs
of business. Moreover, many abuses developed, such as debasing the coinage,
"clipping" and counterfeiting.
Unfortunately, the Fed sponsors and managers hate to admit that the
clipping of a few coins in ages past was a negligible abuse when compared with the
continuous "clipping" of all forms of money today. Even in moments of
"stability" all U.S. dollars in the form of cash or deposits lose at least two
to three percent every year. They have lost some 95 percent since the Federal
Reserve introduced its dollar in 1914. They probably will lose more in the coming
years.
Fed sponsors and managers point to the recurrence of business cycles prior to the
inauguration of the Federal Reserve System. They may turn to the crisis of 1873 and
the depression that followed, or to the crash of 1893 and the aftermath, or the crisis of
1907 and the "creeping depression" which lasted until the World War brought an
unprecedented boom. Unfortunately, the Fed supporters hate to recall the cyclical
instability that has characterized the economy ever since. We count at lease eight
boom-and-bust cycles since 1914 in addition to the Great Depression which held the country
in its grip from 1929 to the outbreak of World War II in 1939.
Surely, no one can contend that the Federal Reserve System has brought
economic stability or conquered the trade cycle. On the contrary, its critics are
convinced that a politically conceived and administered money monopoly, such as the
Federal Reserve System, is the worst of all money systems. It will breed business
cycles as long as it lives.
Stock market cycles are the most spectacular offsprings of central banking and credit
creation. There are several others, less sensational, such as the cycles in precious
metals and objects of art and collection. They affect only small groups of affluent
clientele who usually suffer in silence. The most ominous of all cycles, which
touches millions of people, is the boom-and-bust sequence in real estate. Just as in
equity markets, these bubbles are clearly visible in their price-earnings ratios or
price-rental ratios that greatly exceed those of healthy markets.
Abundant credit at bargain rates of interest causes housing prices to
soar, especially in growing communities, which fosters not only feverish construction
activity but also enlarges the mountains of debt, even consumer debt. Fannie Mae,
the publicly owned and government-sponsored Federal National Mortgage Association, reports
that soaring housing prices and falling mortgage rates are allowing homeowners to
refinance $1.4 trillion of mortgages in 2002, up from $1.1 trillion last year. In
both years homeowners are estimated to take out some $100 billion in equity.
The real estate bubble is bound to burst as soon as the distortions become visible to ever
greater numbers of participants. Commercial construction already has fallen sharply
in 2001 and 2002 with the steepest declines in the industries most afflicted by the
September 11 attacks, including hotels and office space. Government-sponsored
industries such as public works and health-care facilities are likely to expand further.
Driven by the same forces of easy credit and falling interest rates, all interest-bearing
and discounted government securities have developed fever bubbles. The U.S. Treasury
bubble, which few economists have as yet discovered, is still growing under the impact of
avalanches of investors' money seeking shelter in Treasury safety. Tired of losing
any more money in stocks, investors are piling into Treasury notes yielding barely 4
percent. As the federal government will be forced to raise hundreds of billions of
dollars in the coming months in order to cover its growing deficits, interest rates are
likely to rise. They are bound to increase substantially when the current flood of
new money and credit finally aggravates the price inflation. When note rates return
to just five percent, the yield of two years ago, the bubble will burst and the market
value of all notes and bonds will drop drastically.
The economic maladjustments are numerous and severe, inflicting painful losses on ever
more people. The number of job cuts continues to rise, making unemployment a potent
economic and political problem. It is compounded by the chronic trade and
current-account deficits which are causing many American jobs to move to Asia. The rising
rates of unemployment together with the staggering losses of income and wealth cast doubt
on the ability of American consumers who are carrying record burdens of debt to support
the American economy much further.
Some pessimists hold to the single notion that the length of a readjustment is determined
by the length of the bubble which preceded it. Because we experienced the longest
and most spectacular financial bubble in history, we are condemned to suffer history's
longest recession. Such notions unfortunately spring from robotistic perceptions of
human action and reaction. It is the severity of the maladjustment, not its
duration, together with the capacity of correction, not its length of time, that will
determine the kind and quality of readjustment.
An administration walking in the footsteps of Presidents Hoover and
Roosevelt who practically closed the national borders to trade and commerce, who doubled
the tax burden, and imposed numerous business regulations and restrictions undoubtedly
will create another "great depression." An administration that lightens
its burdens and releases the energy of the people will facilitate a speedy recovery.
A Federal Reserve Board which, obedient to public opinion, keeps its
interest rates far below market rates and readily finances growing federal deficits will
make matters worse. The popular reduction of its rates on November 6, 2002 was just
another popularity ploy which is bound to aggravate the maladjustment and delay the
recovery.
Hans F. Sennholz, emeritus professor of economics at Grove City College,
is an adjunct scholar of the Mises Institute. Send him MAIL. See also his Mises.org Articles Archive and
his Personal Website.
To subscribe or unsubscribe to Mises.org's Daily Article, enter your name and
email address and click on the appropriate button.
On the playbill Alan Greenspan
is Mr. Magoo... totally myoptic, or so it seems!
I Call It Treason
Yay, verily, we need a new
monetary system!
(Yep, one made by us...
for us!)
 Doug McIntosh http://www.gold-eagle.com/gold_digest_02/mcintosh082902pv.html
You have to hand it to Mr. Magoo. I'll
give him an A for chutzpah, that's for sure. The man is nothing but a common criminal of
the white collar type. I openly and publicly call the FED chief a traitor, a coward and a
common white collar criminal. The system is beyond accountability and I have a bad feeling
this will end in blood. "Strike for Liberty and Honor" was the battle cry of our
Revolutionary War, the Irish and also Bonnie Prince Charlie's cry at Culloden. Our
criminal leaders have to go to jail on treason charges and there is no beating around the
bush, pun intended.
Alan Greenspan did conspire, manipulate and
commit "high crimes and felonies" by forcing state pension funds to bail out the
stock market on July 24th, 2002. Quite honestly, for this alone Mr. Greenspan should be
tried and executed for treason. In fact, what's left of America is headed towards a
racial, economic and cultural civil war. The system is collapsing a little more every day.
As for Mr. Magoo, he used his position to jawbone the pension funds to reverse the nearly
20% freefall in both Citibank and JP Morgan stock. Each one point of the DOW represents
around one billion United States fiat dollars. The 1000 point swing since late July
represents a staggering ONE TRILLION dollars of investment, or mal investment. Even the
mainstream press admitted that the "little guy" sat this one out and the money
came from pension funds, insurance companies and the like. In other words, the FED had the
system bail out the system. Talk about economic incest. What the FED did is to loot the
retirement plans of public employees. The government has already looted the private
retirement plan called Social Security. The looting is done. The money is gone. What
cynical, arrogant whores these people are. Common criminals posing as upholders of the
law.
The FED is a private banking corporation
that sets the economic policy for the people of the United States. I call that treason and
worthy of death or exile for the oligarchic elite that has been destroying America since
1860. I think the United States was a Republic until 1860; then began a transition period
until 1912 and 1913 with the FED and the Income Tax. We are now in the final phase. I
guess you could call me a revolutionary seeking to restore the Republic. The bankers and
the elite has already overthrown the true government. Here at gold-eagle.com we are all
not so much revolutionaries as restorers. How can you overthrow the government when the
current government has already overthrown it? And frankly, I think we are all getting
pissed off about these usurpers posing as patriots. Our leaders are arrogant oligarchs
bleeding the common people dry for their own purposes. And it will soon stop, one way or
another.
As for the current economic situation, it
is almost beyond comprehension. The disconnect between economic reality and the true
economic reality is getting narrower every passing day. We were told there was no
recession and then there was but it ended quickly. Now we are told we are in recovery,
except the recession never ended. There is no double dip; there is only the death spiral.
A wave of corporate bankruptcies has been happening since 2000. A wave of personal
bankruptcies has been happening since 2000. June durable goods orders were down nearly 4%
from May. I find it fascinating that the same court economists who ignored nearly two
years of manufacturing declines, were so pleased with a few months of "reported
increases." If two years of declines were ignored; then, why would any increase
matter at all? These court jester economists are pathetic. We now see in July and August
that retail sales are stagnating. The back to school season was a bust. Car sales are only
being fueled by zero percent financing. I guess the novel idea you have to make money on
cars is beyond the Big Three. In another essay I commented about the heavy debt loads, the
pension fund liabilities and the need to generate cash flow to deal with this. How can the
stock market avoid collapse when companies aren't profitable, can't service their debt and
have cooked the books? It can't. Add to that the fact the foreigners have figured all this
out and are starting to bail out of both the stock market and the dollar. You don't have
to be a rocket scientist to figure out the logical result. It helps to be a doomer of
course.
President Pretzel gave his speech on
corporate accountability and the markets tanked. Mr. Greenspan gave his little speech and
the markets tanked. Vice President Cheesy gave his little sound bite on corporate
responsibility and nobody even noticed. The President should go to jail for his actions at
Harken energy. The Vice President should go to jail for his corruption at Haliburton. And
Mr. Magoo should go to jail for his destruction of the retirement hopes of millions of
Americans. I believe Vice President Chessy will be impeached after the corrupt democrats
retake the Senate and House in November. Mr. Magoo will eventually be allowed to crawl off
and rot somewhere. Sir Greenspan the criminal has been recognized for his economic
contributions to our age. Do they mean a culture of business and political corruption? Or
how about the stock and housing bubbles? Perhaps they mean Mr. Magoo's manipulation of the
stock and gold markets. Yeah, Mr. Magoo sure has made major contributions to our age. As
for President Pretzel, he's in a class all by himself. Our very own wannabe f�hrer, along
with his police state. The economy is going to hell rapidly. The retail sales show the
sheeple have figured it out. It's wag the dog time. If Bush is stupid enough to actually
invade Iraq, a chain reaction of events will bring the end of our age. All in the next
five years or so. Enjoy yourself and live each day to the fullest.
I spent the last weekend at the local
Italian festival eating good food and enjoying myself. Except for the riot when Bush came
to Portland you could almost think things were normal. That's the key: maintain the
illusion of normalcy as long as you can. Won't work though. It's too late for the illusion
to maintain its power. That's my basic message: the illusion is over and now reality is
rearing its ugly head. The sheeple sense it. The sheeple are spooked. The wolves are
circling the flock. It's only a matter of time before the screams start. Are you mentally
prepared to deal with it? I hope so. I really do because destiny waits for no man or
woman. And destiny, dear reader is now upon us. What we do with it is up to us. We are the
captains of our fate and the masters of our own souls. The buck stops with us,
individually and collectively. I hope the American people and the people of planet earth
are up to the challenges facing us. If not, we will have a dark age. I believe we still
have a choice. We will have to give up our illusions and take hold of the new unpleasant
reality with both hands. If we do that, we have a chance to create a better system than
the current farce. One's thing for sure, our leaders will have to go.
"Therefore, by
objective standards, the leading managers of the
U.S. economy...are collectively, clinically insane."
Lyndon LaRouche
29 August 2002
https://interactive.zogby.com/clickon/products.dbm
|
|
New
Reuters/Zogby poll reveals:
Bush gets high ratings for speech, but positive
job performance is a meager 53%;
Opinions on both Clintons continue freefall;
Majority pleads "move on" from pardon scandals
President George W. Bush receives high marks for his recent speech before Congress, but
only a slight majority give him a positive job performance rating, a new Reuters/Zogby
poll reveals.
The poll was conducted of 601 likely voters nationwide, on Tuesday February 27 (after
the President's speech) and Wednesday February 28. The poll has a margin of sampling error
of +/- 4%.
Results show that an overall three in four give Bush high marks for his speech (76%
positive, 23% negative). Among those who applaud the speech are Republicans (94% positive,
4% negative) and Independents (82% positive, 23% negative). Democrats are split on the
Bush speech (50% positive, 48% negative).
Bush's overall opinion rating continues to surge to a 67% favorable, 28% unfavorable
rating. In early February he received a 64% favorable, 30% unfavorable rating from voters.
While his approval rating among Democrats (39% favorable, 52% unfavorable) remains dismal,
Bush has made significant gains among African Americans (56% favorable, 36% unfavorable),
compared to the 29% favorable, 42% unfavorable, rating he received in February. Bush
continues to receive strong support from Independents (73% favorable, 21% unfavorable),
the survey shows.
At the same time, the president's job performance rating declined slightly to a 53%
positive, 37% negative rating. In February, he received a 57% positive, 29% negative job
performance rating.
The overall opinions of former President Bill Clinton and Senator Hillary Clinton both
continue to tumble. Respondents now give Bill Clinton a 40% favorable, 57% unfavorable
rating. In February he received a 48% favorable, 51% unfavorable rating. Hillary Clinton
receives a 43% favorable, 53% unfavorable rating. In February, likely New York State
voters gave her a 51% favorable, 46% unfavorable rating.
Support has diminished slightly for Bush's proposed $1.6 trillion tax cut. Results show
51% now favor the tax plan and 39% are now opposed. In February 57% supported the tax plan
and 33% were opposed.
When asked what should be the highest priority of Congress regarding the budget
surplus, reducing taxes is the fourth most popular choice by respondents (20%), behind
programs to help working families (29%), Saving Social Security (27%), and paying down the
national debt (21%).
Regarding the pardon controversy, a majority of likely voters (52%) say the country
should just move on, compared to 42% who say the pardons should be investigated by
Congress and the Justice Department. Another 6% are not sure. Democrats overwhelmingly
want to move on (22% investigate, 75% move on), while Republicans overwhelmingly want to
investigate (62% investigate, 30% move on). Independents, however, are split (46%
investigate, 47% move on, 7% not sure).
"President Bush has proposed a $1.6 trillion tax cut. Do you
support or oppose such a cut?"
|
3/01 |
2/01 |
1/19/01 |
1/07/01 |
| Favor |
51 |
57 |
48 |
53 |
| Oppose |
39 |
33 |
40 |
34 |
| Not Sure |
10 |
10 |
12 |
13 |
"What is your overall opinion of George Bush?"
|
3/01 |
2/01 |
1/19/01 |
1/07/01 |
5/00 |
4/00 |
| Favorable |
67 |
64 |
54 |
56 |
61 |
63 |
| Unfavorable |
28 |
30 |
42 |
35 |
36 |
33 |
| Not Familiar |
2 |
3 |
4 |
6 |
3 |
3 |
| Not Sure |
- |
2 |
1 |
4 |
1 |
2 |
"What is your opinion of George Bush's overall job
performance?"
|
3/01 |
2/01 |
1/19/01 |
| Positive |
53 |
57 |
42 |
| Negative |
37 |
29 |
36 |
| Not Sure |
10 |
14 |
21 |
"What is your overall opinion of Bill Clinton?"
|
3/01 |
2/01 |
1/01 |
5/00 |
| Very Favorable |
40 |
48 |
56 |
50 |
| Unfavorable |
57 |
51 |
43 |
48 |
| Not Sure |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
Overall, how would you rate Alan Greenspan's performance in office?
|
Total |
Region |
2000Presidential |
Union |
|
East |
South |
CentGrLk |
West |
Gore |
Bush |
Buchanan |
Nader |
Other |
NV/NS |
Yes |
No/NS |
| % |
% |
% |
% |
% |
% |
% |
% |
% |
% |
% |
% |
% |
| Exc |
22.1 |
28.0 |
22.3 |
18.3 |
21.0 |
25.3 |
22.1 |
50.4 |
13.4 |
|
7.9 |
26.8 |
20.9 |
| Good |
39.4 |
42.0 |
38.4 |
35.9 |
43.3 |
37.4 |
42.8 |
|
53.6 |
8.3 |
33.0 |
31.5 |
41.4 |
| Fair |
19.3 |
10.7 |
15.8 |
24.7 |
25.6 |
19.8 |
17.8 |
|
13.3 |
32.0 |
27.3 |
18.2 |
19.6 |
| Poor |
3.6 |
6.9 |
1.0 |
3.6 |
3.4 |
3.6 |
2.2 |
49.6 |
6.5 |
22.0 |
6.7 |
7.4 |
2.7 |
| NS |
15.5 |
12.4 |
22.5 |
17.6 |
6.7 |
13.9 |
15.2 |
|
13.2 |
37.8 |
25.2 |
16.0 |
15.4 |
| Total |
100.0 |
100.0 |
100.0 |
100.0 |
100.0 |
100.0 |
100.0 |
100.0 |
100.0 |
100.0 |
100.0 |
100.0 |
100.0 |
|
Party |
USDirection |
Income |
| Democrat |
Republican |
Independent |
Right |
Wrong |
NS |
< $15,000 |
$15-24,999 |
$25-34,999 |
$35-49,999 |
$50-74,999 |
$75,000+ |
| % |
% |
% |
% |
% |
% |
% |
% |
% |
% |
% |
% |
| Exc |
23.5 |
23.3 |
18.4 |
26.1 |
17.7 |
14.0 |
9.9 |
16.2 |
12.5 |
28.0 |
17.5 |
34.4 |
| Good |
36.3 |
40.2 |
43.1 |
40.7 |
36.0 |
40.9 |
26.2 |
33.6 |
30.0 |
39.3 |
58.3 |
41.0 |
| Fair |
19.1 |
19.7 |
19.3 |
17.7 |
23.6 |
17.6 |
18.0 |
20.4 |
37.1 |
19.0 |
12.6 |
16.8 |
| Poor |
4.5 |
1.3 |
5.4 |
2.0 |
6.2 |
5.4 |
2.0 |
1.1 |
2.6 |
7.7 |
2.6 |
3.2 |
| NS |
16.7 |
15.5 |
13.8 |
13.5 |
16.6 |
22.0 |
43.9 |
28.7 |
17.9 |
6.0 |
9.0 |
4.6 |
| Total |
100.0 |
100.0 |
100.0 |
100.0 |
100.0 |
100.0 |
100.0 |
100.0 |
100.0 |
100.0 |
100.0 |
100.0 |
Overall, how would you rate Alan Greenspan's performance in office?
|
Total |
Race |
Religion |
BornAgain |
|
White |
Hisp |
AfrAmer |
Asian |
Other |
Catholic |
Protestant |
Jewish |
Muslim |
Other |
Yes |
No/NS |
| % |
% |
% |
% |
% |
% |
% |
% |
% |
% |
% |
% |
% |
| Exc |
22.1 |
23.0 |
34.5 |
15.1 |
|
|
30.8 |
18.0 |
31.6 |
|
20.8 |
16.1 |
19.5 |
| Good |
39.4 |
41.2 |
40.4 |
23.2 |
57.3 |
48.6 |
38.6 |
41.3 |
43.5 |
22.2 |
35.6 |
39.6 |
43.4 |
| Fair |
19.3 |
17.0 |
25.1 |
24.6 |
|
51.4 |
13.1 |
19.7 |
10.2 |
77.8 |
25.4 |
20.9 |
18.4 |
| Poor |
3.6 |
3.4 |
|
3.5 |
42.7 |
|
2.4 |
4.0 |
5.4 |
|
4.0 |
4.1 |
4.0 |
| NS |
15.5 |
15.3 |
|
33.7 |
|
|
15.1 |
17.0 |
9.3 |
|
14.2 |
19.2 |
14.8 |
| Total |
100.0 |
100.0 |
100.0 |
100.0 |
100.0 |
100.0 |
100.0 |
100.0 |
100.0 |
100.0 |
100.0 |
100.0 |
100.0 |
|
AgeGroup |
AgeGroup-B |
Children<17 |
| 18-29 |
30-49 |
50-64 |
65+ |
18-24 |
25-34 |
35-54 |
55-69 |
70+ |
Yes |
No/NS |
| % |
% |
% |
% |
% |
% |
% |
% |
% |
% |
% |
| Exc |
19.9 |
22.9 |
28.2 |
17.2 |
22.8 |
17.4 |
24.3 |
25.1 |
17.5 |
25.3 |
21.0 |
| Good |
38.0 |
32.9 |
34.1 |
51.9 |
40.5 |
24.8 |
36.5 |
41.3 |
49.9 |
27.3 |
43.7 |
| Fair |
17.4 |
24.2 |
22.1 |
13.3 |
23.0 |
27.6 |
19.0 |
22.3 |
10.8 |
24.0 |
17.7 |
| Poor |
2.9 |
4.5 |
4.2 |
1.9 |
|
7.0 |
5.3 |
1.0 |
3.0 |
3.8 |
3.6 |
| NS |
21.7 |
15.5 |
11.4 |
15.7 |
13.7 |
23.3 |
15.0 |
10.4 |
18.9 |
19.6 |
14.1 |
| Total |
100.0 |
100.0 |
100.0 |
100.0 |
100.0 |
100.0 |
100.0 |
100.0 |
100.0 |
100.0 |
100.0 |
Overall, how would you rate Alan Greenspan's performance in office?
|
Total |
Status |
Gender |
Outside |
|
Married |
Single |
D/W/S |
Together |
NS |
Male |
Female |
Yes |
No/NS |
| % |
% |
% |
% |
% |
% |
% |
% |
% |
% |
| Exc |
22.1 |
21.0 |
25.6 |
24.2 |
3.7 |
100.0 |
21.2 |
22.9 |
21.9 |
23.3 |
| Good |
39.4 |
41.3 |
36.9 |
37.0 |
32.0 |
|
43.9 |
35.3 |
33.6 |
36.7 |
| Fair |
19.3 |
19.9 |
19.7 |
16.8 |
23.7 |
|
21.8 |
17.1 |
18.4 |
16.0 |
| Poor |
3.6 |
4.7 |
2.1 |
1.1 |
6.3 |
|
4.3 |
3.0 |
4.3 |
2.1 |
| NS |
15.5 |
13.0 |
15.7 |
20.7 |
34.3 |
|
8.7 |
21.8 |
21.9 |
21.9 |
| Total |
100.0 |
100.0 |
100.0 |
100.0 |
100.0 |
100.0 |
100.0 |
100.0 |
100.0 |
100.0 |
|
|
| |
|
