The American Spectator

Bob| 3.11.09 @ 2:30PM

Ferrara, the non-economist lawyer policy extremist, continues to spew nonsense. He claims that this recession should not last more than 16 months yet the Great Depression lasted more than 10 years. Most economists on both sides of the political spectrum indicate this is the worst recession in 80 years. This time around, you don't have monetary policy to help as we are already at an historically low fed funds rate.

He talks about tax increases but they don't go into effect until 2011. In fact, there are tax cuts at present. And that tripe about increased deficit spending hurting a recovery makes absolutely no sense at all. Increased debt will hurt our children, but it can only help a recovery. Does he want to rail against the huge debt created by Reagan?

No oil drilling is being shut down off shore. Please provide some evidence that is occurring. In fact, there are millions of acres available for drilling. The U.S. only has about 3% of world reserves so this is just another canard. Nuclear energy is in no different situation now than it was under the Bush administration. We should clearly do it, but even if we started today you wouldn't have a new nuclear plant for years. Another stupid statement on Ferrara's part.

Interest rates will have to rise -- the Fed Funds rate is near zero. Furthermore, the dollar is strengthening. Can anyone really see interest rates rising significantly while we are still in recession? Not on your life.

I could go on to all of the misstatements made in this piece, but this is enough. Most economists have been saying for a while now that we won't see a turnaround until at least the end of this year and the turnaround will be slow because we don't have a monetary tool and the supply of unsold homes is still at about 15 months.

What Ferrara is trying to do is set up the premise that this recession is no worse than any other so that he can come back in a month and say that Obama is failing. This is the logic of a political hack, not grounded individual schooled in economics.

Personally, as I've said many times, the debt that Obama (and for that matter Bush and Reagan) is creating is immoral. We should not have had the bailouts, we should have let the auto companies file bankruptcy, we should be waiting on many of the new programs being sought by Obama. But none of those things will make the recession last longer. In fact, they should slightly shorten the recession.

If Ferrara wants to hold down spending and issue more tax cuts, we know from history that it will not stimulate the economy -- it never has -- and will make the recession last longer.

Jeremy Newman| 3.11.09 @ 3:12PM

While I think I agree with basic sentiment of the post, Mr. Ferrara gets quite a bit wrong. For starters, I'm growing tired of the criticism of Bush from the right. Bush put forward large tax cuts that, to a large extent, were quite effective. And, to be fair, there were also large spending increases during the Bush years. Fine to criticize the spending, but let's not forget that this playbook very much mirrors the Reagan years. Reagan was great, but it's revisionist history to suggest that he was effective on spending and deficits. My other quibble is that deficit spending is precisely what should be done in a recession. Tax cuts and smart infrastructure spending is probably the best bet. Obama's mistake was to talk about tax increases now, and Republicans are wrong to start worrying about spending all of the sudden. They should have worried about spending during the boom years.

frost| 3.11.09 @ 3:29PM

I doubt if you'll see it any place but Drudge, and, I strongly doubt if Obama will pay any attention, BUT, the Chinese government cut taxes on some cars - sales were up 25%...... moral?
No Nation Ever Taxed Its Way To Prosperity.
Lesson learned? I doubt it.....
And, oh -- Jimmy Carter's economy was in much worse shape than things are presently. Yet, given his sorry agenda, I wouldn't be surprised if Obama transcends even Jimmy Carter eventually as the All Time Worse Ever....
He cares not for recovery -- only socialist Power and Control. Period.

Michael Tomlinson| 3.11.09 @ 4:44PM

When did the classical definition of a recession (2 quarters of negative growth) get replaced with the pronouncements of liberal National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER)? Until Barack Obama and Democrats seized total control of the government we were not in recession based on the correct and historic description of a recession. If we are to blindly follow the NBER then we need to start talking about the Obama/Democrat Depression to accurately describe Obama’s destruction of the US economy.

As for a recovery it wasn’t until 10 years after the death of another demagogue (FDR) that the US stock market returned to 1929 levels – there will only be a real recovery the next time Republicans control the White House and Congress. Then we can get back to economic growth of 3-5% annually as we had under W and the Republican Congress.

Bob| 3.11.09 @ 4:46PM

frost -- you should know a couple of things about China. First, taxes were reduced from 10% to 5% and then only on the smallest cars with less than 1.6 liters. Larger cars are still taxed at 10%. Next, you should know that this was done to move already produced inventory through the system. From what I understand, as soon as they match production with demand the tax will go back up. We do the same thing in the U.S. but we call that "promotion" -- i.e., you get dollars off when you buy a car. So, in fact, this was not a real tax cut but a sales promotion item. It was done this way because their auto company is owned by the government and it is easier to administer with tax cuts than promotion.

Therefore, your point about tax cuts and economic stimulus is wrong. Tax cuts did not significantly raise GDP under Reagan or Bush and GDP grew faster under the tax increases of Clinton than either one.

You are right about taxes not leading to prosperity, but wrong about tax cuts being stimulative.

Bob| 3.11.09 @ 5:06PM

Michael, please use accurate numbers. Here's a chart of GDP:

http://www.data360.org/dsg.aspx?Data_Set_Group_Id=230

Please note that in real dollars (to take out inflation), you see little difference in economic growth no matter who is President. In fact, given this last year, GDP declined at an annual rate of 6.2% in the fourth quarter. You should also realize that GDP is adjusted when the real information becomes available, sometimes 6-9 months later. In the case of the current recession, it was not called until the end of the third quarter of last year when they found that GDP turned negative at the end of 2007. So the definition of "recession" has not changed.

By the way, the greatest economic growth came under Clinton, not Reagan or Bush. Please learn how to look at economic data.

The problem with both Reagan and Bush was that they created huge deficits and debt. So if you are going to make an economic argument, you should be talking about Clinton if you really want to be accurate (which I doubt).

Again, it is the private sector that creates growth, not government. Tax cuts and stimulus have a minimal effect. Monetary policy has a greater effect which is why Reagan was better than Bush since Volcker lowered the fed funds rate significantly. Clinton was better because of the dotcom bubble, not his policies. Under Reagan, we went through corporate computerization (mainframes and minis) that resulted in significant productivity increases which had little to do with Reagan. W was doing OK as long as the housing bubble was there but that had little to do with him.

Do I want fiscal conservatism? You betcha! But I don't want a dumb Republican party that can't look at factual data and then dump it for ideological lies. In any recovery program, the first thing you do is recognize the truth. The sooner Republicans do that, the sooner we can come up with an integrated plan that makes real, not ideological, sense. That means stressing spending restraint and not tax cuts. That means paying for what we spend just like you do with your family. That mean restructuring social security and medicare. That means choosing to fund programs because they're needed not because they will give jobs in specific places. That means leaving earmarks to state governments. That means actually grading spending alternatives and then rating them on the basis of their returns, not the seniority of their senators.

Robert Rosencrans| 3.11.09 @ 5:32PM

Bob: You twisted Mr. Ferrara's words around about the length of recessions versus depressions. We can read, and he was simply pointing out the lengths of previous recessions. He was quoting the NBER who published those figures.

When you misquote like that, which you do constantly, you come off as an ADD economist wannabe.

Personally, I would like to see how much some of these clowns spend on medications.

frost| 3.11.09 @ 6:07PM

Bob, your misstatements are pathetic. Reagan cut taxes (and I was no longer having well over 50% withheld by IRS alone) and income to the national treasury doubled. But, for every new dollar of revenue, Tip O'Neill and his demented friends spent $1.87.
Stop the snow-job, please. No more smoke'n'mirrors. No more Pabulum Puke either.
I'm gone -- don't need any more crap today, thank you.....

Bob| 3.11.09 @ 6:14PM

Robert, I've read many of your responses and I know you are smarter than that. Ferrara's point was that this recession should only last one month more and that if it lasts longer then Obama is at fault. You KNOW that is wrong as even very conservative economists have said we will not see any recovery for the rest of this year. So, Robert, I did not twist his words. Why quote anything if you don't want to make a point.

Ferrara is CLEARLY NOT an economist -- not even a wannabe. If I'm wrong, please tell me what conclusion he was making by pointing out the lengths of those recessions. And don't embarrass yourself by saying he was just quoting numbers for no reason. He went to Harvard Law -- he was making a case.

The only time I need medication is when I'm reading something by Ferrara or Quin. However, Ferrara bothers me more because he should know better. Quin is a misguided true believer.

jack| 3.11.09 @ 6:17PM

buy gold,canned goods,guns,and most important,register as a Democrat. This is the new world order. Fear Panic Obama. Please someone find this morons college transcripts. There is no way this guy could have graduated from any institution of higher learning. Maybe he is right the problem is education.
Never ever forget the real tell of Obamas intelligence and grasp of the obvious,he really beleived proper tire inflation could replace offshore drilling. The man is a stone cold imbecile

Bob| 3.11.09 @ 6:30PM

frost -- where do you get your data? Federal revenues did not double but grew normally. 1981 receipts were 599,272 and 1988 were 909,303 for an increase of 51.7%. Clinton receipts were 1,154,471 for 1993 and 2,025,457 for 2000 for an increase of 75.4%. This is taken directly from the BLS. I use data. You've been the recipient of a very large snow job.

Truth to Power | 3.11.09 @ 8:00PM

Bob,
You need medication more than you think. You apparently believe you are a brilliant economist and you bore and insult those that have the misfortune of coming into contact with you. These are not healthy signs. You really are insufferable. Your slip is still showing by the way. You have many tells. It is time to come out of the closet. We can accept you for who you are.

Robert Rosencrans| 3.11.09 @ 9:41PM

Bob: That isn't what you stated in your first response at all. In addition to all your other dubious qualifications you're also a liar.

Bill Hussein O'Stalin| 3.11.09 @ 9:51PM

Here's somebody who isn't an economist, but is rated the richest guy in the world, who wants Obama to succeed, yet feels if he follows through on his plans he will fail. It isn't Bob Buffet, but Warren Buffet. He feels Obama's plans may be disastrous if followed through on, and he's no lawyer even. Well. Isn't that interesting?

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2009/03/obama_supporter_buffett_strong.html
You no doubt recall that whenever anyone who voted for George Bush came out against him, it was a three day story and the individual appeared on every cable show, was feted at parties, and usually got a book deal. In the media universe today, we are all happy, happy Obamabots who love our Dear Leader and would never say anything to criticize him.

But Buffett let Obama have it (via Mickey Kaus ):

BUFFETT: Absolutely. And I think that the--I think that the Republicans have an obligation to regard this as an economic war and to realize you need one leader and, in general, support of that. But I think that the--I think that the Democrats--and I voted for Obama and I strongly support him, and I think he's the right guy--but I think they should not use this--when they're calling for unity on a question this important, they should not use it to roll the Republicans all.

JOE: Hm.

BUFFETT: I think--I think a lot of things should be--job one is to win the war, job--the economic war, job two is to win the economic war, and job three. And you can't expect people to unite behind you if you're trying to jam a whole bunch of things down their throat. So I would--I would absolutely say for the--for the interim, till we get this one solved, I would not be pushing a lot of things that are--you know are contentious, and I also--I also would do no finger-pointing whatsoever. I would--you know, I would not say, you know, `George'--`the previous administration got us into this.' Forget it. I mean, you know, the Navy made a mistake at Pearl Harbor and had too many ships there. But the idea that we'd spend our time after that, you know, pointing fingers at the Navy, we needed the Navy. So I would--I would--I would--no finger-pointing, no vengeance, none of that stuff. Just look forward. ..[snip] ...

BUFFETT: Well, I was going to mention to Joe that you've heard this comment recently from some Democrats recently that a `crisis is a terrible thing to waste.'

BECKY: Yeah.

BUFFETT: Now, just rephrase that and since it's, in my view, it's an economic war, and--I don't think anybody on December 7th would have said a `war is a terrible thing to waste, and therefore we're going to try and ram through a whole bunch of things and--but we expect to--expect the other party to unite behind us on the--on the big problem.' It's just a mistake, I think, when you've got one overriding objective, to try and muddle it up with a bunch of other things.

I am beginning to think that their statements about a crisis being an "opportunity" are going to come back to haunt them when people realize that we are only at the beginning of this effort to remake the country and that many of his advisors are already telling him he has to go back to Congress for more, that the stimulus bill wasn't big enough.

The reason it wasn't big enough is because it was loaded up with other things not germane to economic recovery but very germane to remaking the United States. And for that, I think people will eventually judge him harshly and all this talk about "opportunity" will be seen as playing politics with the recovery.

Buffett isn't totally lost to Obama yet. But he is definitely tipping away from him. It would be a pretty big deal if he eventually comes out against him - especially in the business community.

Lloyd| 3.12.09 @ 12:10AM

Bob writes: "Ferrara's point was that this recession should only last one month more and that if it lasts longer then Obama is at fault. You KNOW that is wrong as even very conservative economists have said we will not see any recovery for the rest of this year."

In fact, there's nothing logically contradictory about Ferrara's statement and those economists' predictions: that prognosis is at least partially based on current economic policy (Obama's) and not on some immutable economic path unnaffected by government policy.

Also, Bob, on Ferrara's alleged lack of economic knowledge, I just laugh when you act as if Economists have some highly systematic, esoteric knowledge completely denied to ordinary folk. In truth, their knowledge is often spurious, abstract, and a slave to Fashion. Note the changes to Paul Samuelson's textbook over the years as alleged economic laws like the Phillips Curve were shown up for the claptrap they are.

Michael Tomlinson| 3.12.09 @ 12:27AM

Bob listen and learn. I'm sure you haven't actually looked at the data from the Commerce Department BEA, but it states "GDP growth fell to 2.2 percent in 2007 from 2.9 percent in 2006." That is not a negative GDP. The BEA has stated the GDP did drop last quarter for the first time so we have to wait for the report on this quarter to know if we're in a classical recession. Knowing Obama I’m sure with his audacious goal for change he’ll make it a depression.

The sector that did lose in 2007 was the Private Goods Producing Sector. The four areas that accounted for a 1/4 of GDP but 80% of the economic slow down were finance and insurance, construction, real estate and mining. Sectors Obama’s actions can only make worse.

As readers of TAS know it is amazing how one can find "facts and charts" on the Internet to bolster poorly reasoned and researched opinions. As for "Data 360" it appears to be the creation of an individual named Tom Paper so what. Rather than using individuals or liberal think tanks to determine what is actually happening in the economy we would be better served to stick with the traditional source for determining the nation’s GDP – the Commerce Department’s Bureau of Economic Analysis. That way we’re using a solid precedent instead of the arbitrary whim of liberals and the media for facts.

You might be mistaking the “great economic growth” under Clinton with the spike in Federal revenue that came under Clinton (before his recession) with his oppressive tax increases and bubble economy. That’s the same Clinton who placed Franklin Delano Raines (Obama’s dear friend) and Jamie Gorelick in charge of Fannie Mae where with creative book keeping they received tens of millions of dollars in bonuses while ignoring their fiduciary responsibilities that led to the current economic crisis – a crisis that would have been averted had Democrats not blocked President Bush’s calls to regulate and reform Fannie Mae in 2001, 2003 and 2005.

One reason Bob and others want to use non-traditional sources to bolster their poor arguments is they want to blame President Bush for the coming Obama depression. The problem is it might not work when people remember they actually had jobs and homes when Bush was President and only lost them once Obama came to power.

As for deficit spending the Obama spending and deficit plan is suggested to be a staggering 10% of GDP for this year and next (to be fair in January based on Obama’s and Democrat’s plans the CBO estimated the deficit would be 8% of GDP while CNN on March 3 said it would be 12%). That's a long way from the 2-3% historical norm (under Reagan it spiked to 5% in 1983 and Bush stayed in those margins). Even Obama’s minions are beginning to sound the alarm. “Vulture capitalist” Warren Buffett has stated Obama will increase the deficit and inflation. Paraphrasing Buffett – he praised Obama’s plan of burdening the future, because it was worth saving his and other rich liberal’s asses now.

Of course, Obama who lied about Caterpillar rehiring workers if his “stimulus” package was passed promised he actually wants to the “lower the deficit” while continuing to sign massive spending bills and raising taxes on all Americans (the hidden tax of inflation being his best weapon). This is the same Obama who said he was opposed to earmarks during the campaign, but just signed another massive spending bill laden with pork earmarks.

I could go on and on about the madness and silliness of the Obama administration like it doesn’t even know how to spend the $7 billion on broadband he had in his stimulus plan, but I’m sure some Democrat special interest, corrupt politician, liberal lobbyist or failed Obama Cabinet nominee would get their mitts on it. I wouldn’t be surprised if some Muslim extremists got a piece of the pie as a way of paying them back for the millions in campaign donations to Obama in 2008.

Bob you might want to actually do some real research yourself and quit relying on bloggers to do your thinking for you.

Lloyd| 3.12.09 @ 12:35AM

Bob writes: "He talks about tax increases but they don't go into effect until 2011".

This is one of those statements that suggests that Bob hasn't grasped some of the elementary truths of the subject he trumpets himself as expert in......

This elementary truth is that economic decision-making is always forward-looking to varying extents. People don't just react to what is happening right now but to what is likely to happen in the future. If we are told that some law will come into being two years hence some of us (generally the most forward-looking) are going to react NOW.........

But as 1986 Nobel-Prize in Economics winner James Buchanan writes: "Economics is elementary. Finally, and despite the attempts by modern scholars to cloak their own insecurity in complexity, the central principles of economics are elementary. We do not need the excess baggage of modern mathematics to grasp and to convey the basic wisdom that Adam Smith discovered and that his successors emphasized." ("What Should Economists Do?", Liberty Press, 1979, p 282).

And again on the state of Economics: "Instead of evidence of progress, however, I see a continuing erosion of the intellectual (and social) capital that was accumulated by "political economy" in its finest hours. I look at young colleagues trained to master regression routines who are totally uninterested in, and incompetent to examine, elementary economic propositions. The graduate schools attract and turn out dullards, and the exciting young minds turn increasingly to law, to philosophy, and to the commune." (ibid, pp 279-80).

Robert Rosencrans| 3.12.09 @ 10:54AM

Well. Here's a huge group of economists who seem to support Mr. Ferrara.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123671107124286261.html
U.S. President Barack Obama and Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner received failing grades for their efforts to revive the economy from participants in the latest Wall Street Journal forecasting survey.
video
Economists Give Obama an "F"
3:13

In striking contrast to President Obama's popularity with the public, a new Wall Street Journal survey of economists gives the president and his treasury secretary failing grades. WSJ's Phil Izzo and Kelly Evans discuss.

The economists' assessment stands in stark contrast with Mr. Obama's popularity with the public, with a recent Wall Street Journal/NBC poll giving him a 60% approval rating. A majority of the 49 economists polled said they were dissatisfied with the administration's economic policies.

On average, they gave the president a grade of 59 out of 100, and although there was a broad range of marks, 42% of respondents rated Mr. Obama below 60. Mr. Geithner received an average grade of 51. Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke scored better, with an average 71.
[forecast]
Charts and Full Results

* See forecasts for growth, unemployment, housing and more. Plus, views on the auto industry, ranking Fed chairmen, grading policymakers and more. Survey conducted March 6-10. (Or download all data as .xls)
* Real Time Econ: Economic news and analysis
* Complete Coverage: Forecasting Survey

The economists, many of whom have been continually surprised by the depth of the downturn, also pushed back yet again their forecasts for when a recovery would begin. On average, they expect the downturn to end in October. Last month, they said the bottom would arrive in August. They estimate that U.S. gross domestic product will continue to contract in the first half of this year, with slow growth returning in the third quarter.

Economists were divided over whether the $787 billion economic-stimulus package passed last month is enough. Some 43% said the U.S. will need another stimulus package on the order of nearly $500 billion. Others were skeptical of the need for stimulus at all.

However, economists' main criticism of the Obama team centered on delays in enacting key parts of plans to rescue banks. "They overpromised and underdelivered," said Stephen Stanley of RBS Greenwich Capital. "Secretary Geithner scheduled a big speech and came out with just a vague blueprint. The uncertainty is hanging over everyone's head."

Mr. Geithner unveiled the Obama administration's plans Feb. 10, but he offered few details, and stocks sank on the news. The Dow Jones Industrial Average is down almost 20% since the announcement, as multiple issues have weighed on investors' confidence. The Treasury secretary has since appeared before Congress and offered more specifics but has said action on key parts of the plan still is weeks away.

Bob| 3.12.09 @ 11:32AM

Lloyd, the forecasts of the recession ending at the end of 2009 existed months ago. The earliest I heard any economist talk about a turnaround was the 2nd half of this year. Believing something to be true doesn't make it true.

Michael Tomlinson -- I see you never studied economics. The BEA and NBER data is the same. The definition of recession is made using REAL GDP which contains the deflator calculated by the BEA. Please learn something about a subject before you make statements that are clearly wrong. Study up, and we'll have a discussion when you learn something.

By the way, I've checked the data on the charts I use and they all trace back to government numbers. However, rather than just showing numbers, I prefer graphs because few people can visualize trends just looking at the numbers. Furthermore, just as REAL GDP is a calculated number, you must make many of these numbers normalized for things like inflation as that is not real growth. Do you understand the concept of inflation, Michael?

So, Michael, I am using government data and I've actually checked the charts I use to make sure that is true. In fact, many of the charts I use come from the Heritage Foundation. Are you saying they are wrong as well? Start using your head, Michael.

Michael Tomlinson| 3.15.09 @ 4:53PM

Bob stick with the facts from the BEA (the reports are quite detailed and do factor in inflation) and what they actually said about the GDP in 2007. I quoted them for you so you wouldn't have to strain yourself, but since you seem quite obtuse here is more detail.

In 2007 GDP as reported by the BEA was 2%, the private-services producing sector was 2.9% and private goods-producing sector was -0.7%.

Traditionally we have used that final BEA number of to tell us how the economy did during a given year. In fact, it is the number now being used to report that the the 3d and 4th quarters of 2008 had -0.5% and -6.2% GDP respectively (thus the nation was in a recession that started in the 3d quarter of 2008). It will be the institution that tells us we're out of a recession or the Obama depression too.

If you would take the time to look at the BEA's chart on Quarter to Quarter Growth in REAL GDP you will find that 2007 was a good year. As those of us in the stock market at the time can attest. A substantially different time from the Obama economy where a loss of 75% of one's savings is not uncommon as is the collapse of private sector jobs. (I'm guessing you haven't noticed that since Obama has been occupying the White House the stock market has collapsed and unemployment has skyrocketed).

In fact the REAL GDP for 2008 was 1% despite the beginning of the recession. A recession that Democrats talked the nation into and was made substantially worse just by electing Barack Obama (the stock market dropping over 2,000 points the day after he was elected a historic first for any President).

Democrats like to use numbers to hide behind when their policies destroy jobs and lives. During and after the horrible Carter years Democrats plied the nation with charts to prove things were just hunky dory during that failures occupation of the White House, but anyone can create a chart to promote a lie.

Actually, based on the BEA standard we've used to determine fomer recessions claiming this one began in 2007 is wrong. It is clear from Obama and his minions predictions they understand the recession begain in the 3d quarter of 2008 and if they're lucky will follow the historic trend (10 months) and end sometime later this year, but I wouldn't bet on it.

Like his shabby treatment of foreign leaders (Brown of the UK and da Silva of Brazil) Obama's economic incompetence and inexperience is only making things worse.

Stephanie| 3.30.09 @ 6:46PM

The article is a great analysis of Obama’s policies and I agree that Obama’s stimulus package won’t lead to an economic recovery. The stimulus package is only a huge spending bill. I read an interesting interview with the economic oracle, Med Yones, who predicted the economic crisis accurately in January 2007. The interview was published in CEO Magazine and states that Obama’s policies will only prolong the suffering and lead to more debts. It is important to enhance competitiveness of U.S. industries and to improve the business environment to attract more investment. For further information on the solutions suggested, please take a look at http://www.ceoqmagazine.com/2009Q1/economics/financialcrisis/index.htm

in SoCal| 5.7.09 @ 3:08PM

Obama proposes a budget of 3.6 Trillion. He also proposes budget cuts of 17 Billion. Those cuts are .47 percent of the budget. .47 percent of a dollar is less than half a cent. Is that savings?

Wedding Dresses| 9.10.09 @ 2:53AM

Anybody knows the numbers of in CA,Wedding Dresses
Designer Wedding Gowns
I need to call them and get my bag repaired.

groupshoes| 10.24.09 @ 2:58AM

Nice airtical, i would like to tell all of my friends about it. By the way, i would like to introduce everyone of you a very nice website, it offers cheap air max trainers for men and women. Such as Air max 1, air max 2, air max 90, nike air max 2009+, air max 2010 new, nike air max TN, nike air ltd trainers, air max 95. Dunk SB shoes, nike shox shoes. You can find almost all the nike series there, in huge collection and varies colorways. They have Latest style and classic style. Though their price are low, don't worry about it's quality. They are realll ones!!! I have bought from them for so many times, and very satisfied with the their goods and service. Come on, you'll love it.