" Reagan's policies were seldom as radical as his rhetoric (and never as radical as the agenda of the militantly conservative Republican Congress of the mid-1990s). But taken together, the achievements of Reagan's first term represented a significant shift in the direction of public policy. That was visible above all in the administration's economic policies. For the first time since the 1920s, the government was shaping its fiscal policy (its taxing and spending) to promote investment more than consumption and to reduce the tax and regulatory burden on corporations and wealthy people. For the first time since the 1950s (and much more energetically than then), an administration was attempting to stop the growth of many areas of government and to reduce, at times even to eliminate, programs that many Americans had come to consider timeless and unassailable. So distinctive was the new economic program that many began describing it as the Reagan Revolution or, even more frequently and enduringly, Reaganomics.
Both in his campaign and in his early presidential speeches, Reagan had promised not only to reduce taxes and cut spending, but to balance the federal budget. He never did. Instead, his policies contributed to the largest budget deficits in American history and a tripling of the national debt during his eight years in office. Indeed, one of Reagan's most important legacies was his contribution to an enduring fiscal crisis. He helped create a federal budget that was structurally, and radically, unbalanced; and he launched an era in which the national debt grew steadily and dramatically for many years.
The fiscal crisis did little to erode Reagan's popularity. Even though his administration never proposed, let alone achieved, anything approaching a credible balanced budget, the public apparently did not care very much, or accepted the president's explanation that the deficit was the fault of Congress. But the fiscal crisis had a profound and lasting effect ..."
I agree. The msg board has been trying to get dbr to declare a clear gender, but she eludes continually, hoping for a different result by engaging in her own revisionism. The only constant is the timeshare she occupies, temporarily.
Hope the tennis game is steady at 5.0.
As you enlightened the board with insistence, Rfmd is not a fundie stock, especially during negative market sentiment.
So, as much as one tries to gather truths about the prospects of underlying business strengths, one must temper them with realistic expectations of what a market will do to the share price (because it will).
Would that Qrvo makes the company into a different stock than it has been.
Final data points for the China Mobile 4G subs ramp:
1H14 = 13m 4G
July = 6.5m 4G subs added.
Aug + Sept = 20m 4G added.
Total to start December quarter: 40.9m 4G for China Mobile.
Basically, this says China Mobile 4G subs doubled in the September quarter over the first half of the year, 27m subs versus 13m.
As I posted a week or so ago, a key factor for Qorvo success the second half of 2014 is the LTE rate of adoption in China. That number for 2H14 was 75m LTE handsets sold into China. From today's article about China Mobile's announcement, the 75m seems to be an intact run rate, with China Mobile alone accounting for 10m new LTE handset subs per month.
From Chuck Jones today (a columnist and Apple investor):
China Mobile reported very strong 4G growth of its wireless customer base today with almost 800 million total wireless users in September and 40.9 million of them using 4G technology.
The 4G ramp that China Mobile is experiencing is astounding. To help put it in perspective [ ] in the US there are 174 million total smartphone users, which is growing very slowly, and an additional 68 million feature phone customers. If China Mobile can maintain the same pace of monthly additions it has experienced the past two months, just over 10 million new 4G users per month, it will pass the US smartphone user base by the end of next year.
Cook led with remarks about iPhone, saying the company’s supply chain had ramped up production. He called demand “staggering,” adding it was “markedly higher in every single country where we launched the iPhone 5S a year ago. 115 countries by end of December.
Bush had Greenspan in his hip pocket, and Snow admitted driving the housing market had one serious flaw the Bush Admin did not realize: that maybe just maybe people would not be able to pay their mortgages.
Greenspan admitted he saw no issues with low rates because he assumed Wall St did not take excessive risks. Greenspan Fed policy made loans affordable, and yes, lending standards were laughable and illegal, as numerous court cases have attested (BAC is still paying for Countrywide misdeeds in the billions).
If you don't think the housing crisis was accelerated by the Bush Admin, there's plenty of books out there for a rounded perspective and a chronology. Even Bush's autobio points to admin failures to stem the housing bubble once recognized. Yes, numerous deregulations prior to Bush led to mortgages becoming criminally unsound but Bush relied on housing to drive the consumer economy. After all, a new house with a 3 car garage, 4 BR, 3 1/2 BA costs more to furnish than the old 3 BR 2 BA 2 Car garage in that old middle-class neighborhood, and those furnishings must be new so get out the credit card and take out a home equity loan as soon as possible.
I think you will see that NAFTA or something like it was inevitable and important to get into place. NAFTA was a poor excuse for dealing with globalization before globalization was a popular word. Mexico has more trade agreements with other countries than just about any country, including the U.S.
Mexico is a big country with 130 million people and all of them need jobs in order for Mexico to prosper. Mexico labor rate has been stuck for a dozen years, while China labor has tripled. Right now, nearly all the car manufacturers in the world are expanding operations in Mexico: Honda, Nissan, Volkswagen, to name just some of the important ones that also make economical cars, cars fit for Mexicans and cars easy to export to the U.S. Nissan apparently will build the all electric car in Mexico. Think of Guadalajara, a city of 5 million stuck in a bowl of pollution, having the option of going electric car for an economic price. Volkswagen plans to make the diesel hatchback Golf in Mexico, a major top rated vehicle that may or may not make it into the U.S. because of air standards.
I am not sure I would blame NAFTA for long term job loss in the U.S. NAFTA was just a stepping stone in getting Mexico's manufacturing base to expand, and it would have happened anyway based on foreign companies wanting purely logistical access to the U.S. end markets. The manufacturing/trade agreements between Mexico and Brazil are incredible economic forces.
Anyway, the more Mexico can employ its own people, the better. Most of the job losses in electronics (20% of the U.S. economy) were the result of moving operations to Asia, eastern Europe, Brazil, and least of all, Mexico.
No, I do not feel better about the country in the last six years, but the decline started in earnest under his predecessor. Anyone who relied on a housing bubble to drive the economy ought to have been impeached and/or fired (Dubya and Greenspan). What does a housing bubble produce? Answer: Only what you mentioned, individual net worth expanding but the country's economy put under fake prosperity as a result.
I don't believe in Keynesian b.s. for the most part, so you and I are not far apart as individuals. The problem with the country is summed up in Wall Street vs. Main Street, and not for all the greed that is Wall Street, but for the purposes each stand for: money for money sake and artificiality vs. productivity for productivity sake at each individual's responsibility level.
factually not true about the debt. Look up specifically the Clinton years, then Dubya. Even Holy Reagan was a huge spender and builder of deficits, despite his other economic policies that worked and people could identify with. This is public information so nothing to debate.
Middle class expanded under Clinton, contracted under Dubya. What planet are you living on, sk?
The suppositions about fiscal responsibility of the recent Republican presidents are not factual.
Not that the Dems spend the money in the right places, I will give you that. The Dems are hopeless and wouldn't know personal responsibility if it bit 'em in _______.
Rightwing sentiment blinds conservatives to the truth about managing a country's treasury and human capital. The numbers do not lie, and a liberal did not get the U.S. into a war with Iraq. For some reason, the rightwing thinks more wars are better. Certainly McCain thinks the U.S. war machine is the answer to almost every conflict anywhere. Anyone can see that the war in Iraq really produced only more instability in the region, and more wars will be fought in the future in that hell-hole of hatreds. Is America the one to pay for all those wars in human cost and treasury?
This info below is from the 2013 update on the cost of war in Iraq. Keep the numbers separate from the war in Afghanistan, which did have direct justifications (imo).
Just because you don't like a person's politics does not mean he ultimately is not making the best decision for the country, despite your warmongering conservative jingo American attitudes.
The U.S. war in Iraq has cost $1.7 trillion with an additional $490 billion in benefits owed to war veterans, expenses that could grow to more than $6 trillion over the next four decades counting interest, a study released on Thursday said.
The war has killed at least 134,000 Iraqi civilians and may have contributed to the deaths of as many as four times that number, according to the Costs of War Project by the Watson Institute for International Studies at Brown University.
When security forces, insurgents, journalists and humanitarian workers were included, the war's death toll rose to an estimated 176,000 to 189,000, the study said.
Or, dbr is wrong once again, eagerly attempting to match the current state of the world to her templates of historical financial disasters.
Instead of just seeing the past two weeks for what it was -- an emotional market blip in an otherwise steady economy filled with the usual worries -- dbr rather loves to invoke her doomsday spiels.
Recall dbr when she thought 2G was good enough for 95% of the world's cellphone population. After all, a phone is just a phone to make phone calls to talk to people, according to dbr's keen insight into world trends.
The following information is from the Aug 21, 2014 Marvell CC. Apparently, Asia 3G has been weak ongoing for several months now and projected to continue through October by Marvell.
For Q3, we expect our mobile and wireless and market to grow modestly on a sequential basis. Similar to Q2 we expect continued strength in 4G LTE and connectivity to be partially offset by ongoing challenges in 3G at the major Asian customers.
From an article today that indicates Intel has a baseband version in the Note 4 which probably means Rfmd ET and mm PA also are in that Note 4 version:
At the Mobile World Congress in February this year, Intel introduced its next-generation LTE cellular modem and Atom chipsets for mobile devices - XMM 7260. The company claims that it is winning large designs in its LTE communication products. Samsung recently chose Intel's 7260 LTE modem (Intel is one of the only two companies shipping the Cat 6 LTE modems at present) for Galaxy Alpha and Galaxy Note 4. Intel claims that it has several other design wins in the works.
China smartphones are selling at a rate over 100m per qtr.
Domestic China suppliers ship about 75% share of the China market.
LTE (4G) China phones are expected to exceed 100m units this year, the 2H14 period probably amounting to 75m LTE handsets, and 125m 3G.
The 75m LTE handsets represents an increase of say, $3 or $4 up to $12 per phone over 3G. This upside of China TAM of $300m to $500m in Sept and December quarters over 1H quarters will help RF suppliers ride the storm out.
The catch will be if China handset demand softens and then the questions becomes whether the demand fall-off will be LTE or 3G. If LTE demand stays strong in China, the 2H14 revenues should be fine. If smartphone demand slows by 20% but LTE stays on its growth curve, the $300 to $500m TAM growth numbers will drop by half. The China story appears to be the major factor potentially affecting 2H revenues.
The second major factor is Apple's i6 sales, what appears to be a 20m unit build upside, benefiting Rfmd with greater than $40m in revenue upside for December quarter.
The third factor is Samsung's new hardware rollout response to poor share of smartphones. If RF Fusion is in some of the Samsung mid-tier and low-tier phones, then that could serve as an unexpected move-in of future production builds.
Once the free associations start flowing unabated, dbr's med allocations get put on high alert.
Somebody call Walgreens in Big Bear and execute the orders.
Meanwhile, throw up the padlocks on the gate to her timeshare, call the parish priest, toss the meds over onto the porch, and pray she'll ride this one out.
Big Bear has years of expertise the CDC can use: quarantining dbr.