View Full Version : Horrible Economy Part 2
sq764
03-06-2005, 03:24 AM
http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20050304/ap_on_bi_st_ma_re/wall_street_21
kenwoodallpromos
03-06-2005, 12:38 PM
The "horrible" economy must be doing great since you have nothing to say about it.
sq764
03-06-2005, 01:00 PM
Just waiting to see how Sec tries to twist this into bad news..
Equineer
03-06-2005, 02:38 PM
Just waiting to see how Sec tries to twist this into bad news.."Started, the bad news was, when he opened this thread," murmured Yoda to Secretariat. :)
Secretariat
03-06-2005, 09:14 PM
Just waiting to see how Sec tries to twist this into bad news..
Trying to bait me I guess? I'm glad when there is good news because it helps my portfolio as well as yours. I was confused by something in the article you posted and perhaps you could clarify. It said this:
“The nation's unemployment rate ticked up to 5.4 percent, from 5.2 percent in January. And hourly earnings were surprisingly flat, which means workers' paychecks aren't growing and that businesses may have a hard time raising prices. “
Not quite sure how that is good for the working man. Add in the cost of crude hovering around 55 a barrel in early March and Greenspan saying this Wedneday before the House Budget Committee "that today's federal deficits are "unsustainable," menace the economic future and must be curbed by spending cuts and higher taxes. “
Overall, the market has been flat this year and wages have been stagnant as the article you posted states. I guess I see it is as temporary boon for the markets, but if oil continues to grow hope you have diversified.
sq764
03-06-2005, 09:17 PM
Just wanted to make sure you didn't give any credit to the economy under Bush..
Thanks for staying true to form..
Secretariat
03-06-2005, 09:48 PM
No, thank you for clarifying the question i posed from the article.
sq764
03-06-2005, 10:02 PM
No, thank you for clarifying the question i posed from the article.
You don't see how companies not raising prices is good for the consumer?
You're kidding, right?
Secretariat
03-06-2005, 10:19 PM
You don't see how companies not raising prices is good for the consumer?
You're kidding, right?
You missed the whole quote.
“The nation's unemployment rate ticked up to 5.4 percent, from 5.2 percent in January. And hourly earnings were surprisingly flat, which means workers' paychecks aren't growing and that businesses may have a hard time raising prices. “
According to your article unemployment increased two tenths, and wages were flat. While that may help keep prices down on consumer goods, it doesn't do anything for workers dealaing with increases due to energy inflation.
As I said I'm glad the market went up, but I tend to look more long term. Here's a good perspective by Warren Buffet. Perhaps you might be interested since it is a billionaire, and not me.
http://biz.yahoo.com/ft/050306/56aaaad4_8e6b_11d9_8aae_00000e2511c8_1.html
sq764
03-06-2005, 11:09 PM
You missed the whole quote.
“The nation's unemployment rate ticked up to 5.4 percent, from 5.2 percent in January. And hourly earnings were surprisingly flat, which means workers' paychecks aren't growing and that businesses may have a hard time raising prices. “
According to your article unemployment increased two tenths, and wages were flat. While that may help keep prices down on consumer goods, it doesn't do anything for workers dealaing with increases due to energy inflation.
As I said I'm glad the market went up, but I tend to look more long term. Here's a good perspective by Warren Buffet. Perhaps you might be interested since it is a billionaire, and not me.
http://biz.yahoo.com/ft/050306/56aaaad4_8e6b_11d9_8aae_00000e2511c8_1.html
So unemployment is at one of hte lowest rates in decades, the stock market iis at it's highest point in 4 years and you still find ways to bitch about the economy..
I think the problem with you people is you have no idea what you want..
lsbets
03-06-2005, 11:52 PM
Sec, I'm glad to hear that your portfolio went up in value. Too bad you think millions of working men are too stupid to manage a portfolio of investments. They would probably have benefitted also.
Time to start raisnig taxes on Sec....damn rich sob needs to be paying more! :lol:
Secretariat
03-07-2005, 09:25 PM
Sec, I'm glad to hear that your portfolio went up in value. Too bad you think millions of working men are too stupid to manage a portfolio of investments. They would probably have benefitted also.
Just because my portfolio went up doesn't mean everyone's has. In fact I know quite a few guys whose protfolio has gone the other way. Thankfully, it was not their only retirement savings.
Secretariat
03-07-2005, 09:26 PM
Time to start raisnig taxes on Sec....damn rich sob needs to be paying more! :lol:
I agree Tom, and when I hit the 200,00+ club I'll be glad to pay a lot more.
What is so magical about 200,000? Compared to most people on Earth, YOU are a rich man - why should YOU be allowed to have such a good life?
sq764
03-07-2005, 10:30 PM
Just because my portfolio went up doesn't mean everyone's has. In fact I know quite a few guys whose protfolio has gone the other way. Thankfully, it was not their only retirement savings.
So now you are blaming Bush for individual's bad investments?
Wow, is Global Warming Bush's fault too?
Secretariat
03-11-2005, 07:59 PM
No, i'm blaming Bush for bad fiscal policy, and btw..my portfolio is primarily profitable by short selling.
Here's another heart warming story of economic growth.
http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-jobless11mar11,0,1675228.story?coll=la-home-headlines
Kreed
03-11-2005, 08:49 PM
in my view, #43 is the WORST pres in money matters . I'm NOT going
to state my case in proof, because some 43 lovers will re-cast any "proof" as
partisan -- and so many here are too old to matter, confusing as they do,
THEIR bank balance with THE GENERAL public's. I'm typing this because I'm so
puking over this 43's views as sound ... as i typed b4, this Pres is totally
lame on monetary issues & history will give him 16 thumbs down. in a way,
he's like J. Conte advising LIGHT on how to wager or Keilan scolding Lefty on
his leather pants. like what u say Mr? anyways, as always, I will DEFEND
#43 because he's OUR president, but NOT because he makes any sense.
its NOT DEM vs CONS its just like "Wow babY where U comin from" anyways,
guys, have a great night & WE WILL SURVIVE even 43's idiocy, so who cares??
but i'm off to some HoT new restaurant downtown & then dancing so ...
Dancing King, full of LOve & only 27 ish .. hehehe .. have FuN ...
sq764
03-11-2005, 10:23 PM
No, i'm blaming Bush for bad fiscal policy, and btw..my portfolio is primarily profitable by short selling.
Here's another heart warming story of economic growth.
http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-jobless11mar11,0,1675228.story?coll=la-home-headlines
Good thing none of the outsourcing wheels were turning when Clinton was in office.. errr, were they..
Secretariat
03-11-2005, 11:35 PM
Good thing none of the outsourcing wheels were turning when Clinton was in office.. errr, were they..
Yes they were and it is something I adamantly disagreed with including NAFTA, but this President has embraced that and more, he's sped up the process of outsourcing making it easier to do so as Lou dobbs has pointed out more than once and as the article I posted illustrates the human tragedy of it.
sq764
03-11-2005, 11:50 PM
Yes they were and it is something I adamantly disagreed with including NAFTA, but this President has embraced that and more, he's sped up the process of outsourcing making it easier to do so as Lou dobbs has pointed out more than once and as the article I posted illustrates the human tragedy of it.
But this stuff has been going on for more than a decade.. You act as if Bush is the catalyst to all of this..
Yes, many presidents have allowed this to happen...but ONLY one is in a postion to do anyhting about it. And he refuses. He is the ONLY one we can balme going forward. His little howdy-doody smiles and jokes about what a good thing it is some lady has to work three jobs to make ends meet underline a basic stupidity that cannot be covered up any loger.
PaceAdvantage
03-12-2005, 12:51 PM
Tom, didn't you vote for Bush?
No. I voted against Kerry. I was left with Bush.
Now that he won, I am holding him to a high standard. He is failing.
sq764
03-12-2005, 01:34 PM
No. I voted against Kerry. I was left with Bush.
Now that he won, I am holding him to a high standard. He is failing.
Why didn't you vote independent then?
Because there was no way anyone but Bush or Kerry would win. Betting against both might have helped Kerry win.
sq764
03-12-2005, 03:18 PM
Because there was no way anyone but Bush or Kerry would win. Betting against both might have helped Kerry win.
Well a third party will never gain momentun with that attitude
Secretariat
03-12-2005, 04:12 PM
Tom and i disagree on a lot, but just becasue he voted for Bush doesn't mean he has to support every thing he does or says. Bush is simply wrong as Clinton was wrong on NAFTA and now on this CAFTA crap.
PaceAdvantage
03-13-2005, 04:21 AM
That's your opinion, and just because you say it, doesn't make it so.
BTW, you're starting to sound like a cult recruiter who thinks he's made another score....
Secretariat
03-13-2005, 07:16 AM
My opinion? That because Tom voted for Bush he dos not has to support everyone of his decisions, or my views on NAFTA and CAFTA?
I thought we were all offering our opinions here.
sq764
03-13-2005, 10:38 AM
Tom and i disagree on a lot, but just becasue he voted for Bush doesn't mean he has to support every thing he does or says. Bush is simply wrong as Clinton was wrong on NAFTA and now on this CAFTA crap.
Because you didn't vote for Bush, does that mean you have to disagree with everything he says or does?
All I ever see from you is complaints about Bush's fiscal policy, his disdain for the common man, how he keeps the poor down, and all articles you post are negative.
What ever happened to fair reporting? Or are you from the Rather school of journalism?
PA, my car will not a make "a sharp left turn." :D
It would take more drugs and alcohol than I could afford to buy recruitment crap from the dark side. :eek:
Secretariat
03-13-2005, 04:59 PM
Because you didn't vote for Bush, does that mean you have to disagree with everything he says or does?
All I ever see from you is complaints about Bush's fiscal policy, his disdain for the common man, how he keeps the poor down, and all articles you post are negative.
What ever happened to fair reporting? Or are you from the Rather school of journalism?
I posted a few threads back things I did like that GW has done. As a matter of fact, I then asked you to post some positive things Clinton had done. You never did.
Of course i have strong differences with the Bush admin. I think he's leading this country to a fiscal nightmare. My post on the number one issue I look for in a sound economy is the control of deficits. I am also very concerned about the environment and good paying jobs. I just don't see any of those issues addressed by this administration.
Beleive me, I'd love to post some more positive things about Bush like his initial No Child Left Behind program effort or the speech about reducing aids in Africa or his promise to work with others.
SQ,-I probably dislike Bush's policies about the same as you did Clintons. That's what makes America great - the ability to freely voice your opinion without conforming to what another political party would like you to say.
PaceAdvantage
03-13-2005, 07:27 PM
I'm curious. This country has faced large deficits in past administrations. What have been the consequences of those deficits, and how did we pull out of them?
Secretariat
03-13-2005, 08:53 PM
I'm curious. This country has faced large deficits in past administrations. What have been the consequences of those deficits, and how did we pull out of them?
Good question. First, past deificits are nothing in terms of the amounts of deficits we are now confronting, and with a foreign policy that is hell bent in creating democracy throughut the middle east and continuing the war on terror, and replenishing the military after Iraq and making the tax cut permanent there is no immediate way to reduce the debt.
One simply cannot reduce the debt without increased federal revenues, unless massive economic growth occurs within our economy. And herein lies the rub. The Reagan deficits were reduced during the Clinton adminstration by the expansion of our technololgy particularly in the opening up of the intenent and the expansion of the computer.
The problem now compared to the early 90's is the computer field was wide open for expansion of a new technology. Today, the US has reduced it's manufacturing sector and outsourced many of our products to be made abroad. Hence, we are in much more technological competition with other nations than we were in the early 90s.
Add in that the dollar has weakened signficantly against the Euro and the energy consumption among nations is becoming more competitive driving the costs of fuel upward.
This makes reducing the deficits much harder. Greenspan offered some insight into this when he said that America must lead in new technologies. However, when pressed what those technolgies might be he was unable to speculate simply saying that the US has come up with innovation in the past and we will do so again. In my opinion that is great, but what if new innovation wanes. What if another nation steps forward with this new innovation prior to us? We are in a very vulnerable position to compete.
My suggestion is (a) revoke the permanent tax cut. That begins the process of bringing in more revenue. (b) revoke NAFTA and CAFTA - if passed. Not only are jobs lost overseas due to these decisions, the tax revenue that would be paid by American workers is lost. That brings in more revenue, and brings a pride in American made goods and services. (c) Return to a freign policy of capturing Al Quaida, and get out of the mid-east democracy business. This gets to the point of getting those responsbile for 911 and reduces the cost of both military expenditures and the consumption of gas in the mid-east. (d) Build additional refineries. The amount of supply is not the only problem, the problem lies in refining. (e) A controversial one - Begin an Office of Innovation - which pulls in the smartest minds from our country to find collectively new ways that america can compete more effectively in the world with new products. (f) Stop the offshore accounts practices for businesses such as Halliburton. (g) A BIG ONE - Passage of a balanced budget amendment. (h) ANOTHER BIG ONE -Passage of a Debt Reduction act that enforces that a percentage of all reveneues collected must be applied to debt reduction (i) Elimination of discretionary spending except for natural disasters and an act of war. In the event of needed discrectionary spending the Debt Reduction Act would adjust to reduce discretionary spending that occurred over a measured time frame. (j) Elimination of the Capital Gains Tax Cut
I'm sure some or all of these could help. I think G and H are the most important along with A, B and C secondarily.
E. You want innovation? Mandate non-fossil fuel engines in all cars by 2010. No exceptions.
F. How does this help?
D. I think liberal enviromentalist wackos have been a road block to new refineries, power plants etc.
I don't see anything about tapping into our own oil reserves in Alaska.
PaceAdvantage
03-13-2005, 11:19 PM
Good question. First, past deificits are nothing in terms of the amounts of deficits we are now confronting, and with a foreign policy that is hell bent in creating democracy throughut the middle east and continuing the war on terror, and replenishing the military after Iraq and making the tax cut permanent there is no immediate way to reduce the debt.
Your response was all well and good, but it did little to answer my question. In fact, deficits HAVE been this large in the past, if the graphs that you guys post every now and then have any merit to them.
Plus, I asked what the CONSEQUENCES of large deficits have been in the past. I don't believe you listed any, which leads me to believe that running a large deficit is not as grave as you are making it out to be....
I also asked how we PULLED OUT OF PAST DEFICITS. I believe you went on to offer suggestions on how we can pull out of the present deficit. You also offered that technology pulled us out of the Reagan deficit....surely there are more examples to cite....where are those graphs again that you guys post showing how large the deficit is compared to prior administrations?
sq764
03-13-2005, 11:19 PM
That's what makes America great - the ability to freely voice your opinion without conforming to what another political party would like you to say.
You are absolutely right. I finally agree with you 100%.
PaceAdvantage
03-13-2005, 11:35 PM
Careful SQ, LJB will come on here and wrongly criticize you for posting something that is one line, and wise-ass-like.
I am simply pre-empting LJB's inevitable WISE ASS comment, by saying that SQ's post is not wise-ass-like, even though it may be one line.
I pride myself in making things crystal clear before action is taken, so that there are no misunderstandings down the road.....
Secretariat
03-14-2005, 08:03 AM
Your response was all well and good, but it did little to answer my question. In fact, deficits HAVE been this large in the past, if the graphs that you guys post every now and then have any merit to them.
Plus, I asked what the CONSEQUENCES of large deficits have been in the past. I don't believe you listed any, which leads me to believe that running a large deficit is not as grave as you are making it out to be....
I also asked how we PULLED OUT OF PAST DEFICITS. I believe you went on to offer suggestions on how we can pull out of the present deficit. You also offered that technology pulled us out of the Reagan deficit....surely there are more examples to cite....where are those graphs again that you guys post showing how large the deficit is compared to prior administrations?
My misunderstanding. I thought you were asking what could be done to address the current deficit. Historically, deficits have been contained to an extent until this one. When Nixon moved us off the gold standard (rememeber the old Silver Certificate) it gave a license to begin printing paper money that we could not back up with tender. Deficits began expanding during the 70's, really grew in the 80's based on the supply side argument, in fact helped cause a recession in the early 90's under Bush I, and were brought slightly back down in the 90's due to very strong economic growth, and technolgoical innovation, the computer, American software, the internet, and telecoms such as the cell phone which America embraced. The size of deficits increases our reliance on foregin borrowing, and weakens the dollar abroad which is happening now. Getting out of it is not easy and anyone who says it is easy without pain has never been in debt. This administration has embarked on an attitude of wahtever it costs we weill bring democracy to the middle east. Well, wahtever it costs is manifest in ballonning deficits. Your perception of the consequence of deficit spending is evdient in the collapse of Enron which simply spent more than they had. The government is living on borrowed money. as long as the lenders look the other way it "feels" like it's ok, but if those lenders such as China now want something politcally, it places us in a very weak position, and if they ever adjust their currency it has widespread implications for our currency.
It often feels like you're OK when racking up debt on a credit card, until you hit the max, and then you're screwed.
A balanced budget amendment anda national debt control act would go a long way toward some fiscal responsiblity. I beleive defcits and debt are the gravest long term danger to our nation.
sq764
03-14-2005, 09:21 AM
The government is living on borrowed money. as long as the lenders look the other way it "feels" like it's ok, but if those lenders such as China now want something politcally, it places us in a very weak position, and if they ever adjust their currency it has widespread implications for our currency.
I don't think China will call in our debt, they still rely on us heavily for imports.. Wouldn't be fiscally sound for them to do so.
I am curious though how you would suggest eliminating or at least curbing outsourcing? I think this is possibly the biggest threat to our economy and status as a world power.. Just not sure how you stop the wheels from turning
Equineer
03-14-2005, 10:41 AM
I'm curious. This country has faced large deficits in past administrations. What have been the consequences of those deficits, and how did we pull out of them?The total national debt resulting from our deficits is so huge that the numbers are hard to comprehend.
Even the amount of interest paid each year is staggering.
In FY 2004, interest paid on the national debt exceeded $320-billion, or about three times the cost of operations in Afghanistan and Iraq.
These interest payments are our third largest federal budget expense, and our fourth largest federal expense, after income tax revenue redistribution, defense spending, and Social Security (SS) benefit payments.
To put it in common sense perspective, employees wince when they see SS payroll taxes in their paystubs, but the cost burden of these debt interest payments is greater than the employee share of SS taxes that appears in their paystubs.
Every so often publications like Time, Newsweek and Businessweek review taxation, spending, and our debt. What is astounding is the amount of untaxed income that is slipping through the cracks since the Small Business Sector really started driving our economic growth in the early 1970s.
For millions of cash-oriented small businesses, tax avoidance has become a national pastime. For example, Schedule-C taxpayers are sorely tempted to under-report their cash receipts because this enables them to cheat on both their income taxes and their SS taxes, which are taxed at the 12.4% self-employment rate. The fact that this diminishes their retirement benefits is not a sufficient deterrent to such tax evasion.
The street vendor who sells you hotdogs in front of the securities depository at 55 Water Street probably commutes in his Mercedes from his estate in Darien on account of tax avoidance (and the territory protection fees he pays in cash never get reported either). :)
Some years back, I think it was a Time Magazine study that focused on the underground cash economy and other tax avoidance issues. They estimated that a system which significantly eliminated tax avoidance would have also eliminated every federal deficit after the end of World War II.
The solutions which come the closest to solving our debt and tax problems are enacting a balanced budget amendment and totally replacing income taxation with a consumption tax system. By substantially eliminating income tax avoidance, credible studies of these measures indicate the tax burden on average "honest" Americans would actually decrease, despite scare-tactic propaganda from folks who oppose change.
PaceAdvantage
03-14-2005, 11:02 AM
My misunderstanding. I thought you were asking what could be done to address the current deficit.
That's odd. I thought I was quite clear in my request. Nevertheless, thanks for the reply.
vBulletin® v3.8.9, Copyright ©2000-2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.