Greetings, Stig, and welcome. You wrote:<<I appreciate David finding additional figures, and it surely is nice to actually have a source of figures, but I am not convinced that he has refuted the numbers given by the WSJ article.>>LOL. I won't repeat what I already did in the three previous posts on this issue. I'll just add that I wasn't trying to refute the article at all. Instead, I was trying (and failing) to find the supporting data. In fact, I found data that indicated something far different.I don't dispute what you say in your post. However, you don't present anything to change my mind any more than the other posters did. In short, show me the data that says otherwise. I've shown you data that seriously calls into question that in the WSJ article. Now it's up to you or the anonymous economists to show me what proves that data false.And congratulations to you, too. Like the previous posters, you have passed the test that was the only point of the article itself. Don't accept as fact anything until you verify it. If everyone does that, then the article has served its purpose well.Regards..Pixy
Best Of |
Favorites & Replies |
Start a New Board |
My Fool |
BATS data provided in real-time. NYSE, NASDAQ and NYSEMKT data delayed 15 minutes.
Real-Time prices provided by BATS. Market data provided by Interactive Data.
Company fundamental data provided by Morningstar. Earnings Estimates, Analyst Ra