Our Economy

[Jason Tate]

Unemployment on the rise, stock market tanking daily, weak dollar ... our economy is in pretty dire straits at the moment.

What do you think this says for the future of our country? How does this personally impact you as many of you begin to make money, hopefully save for retirement, and so forth.

[aminorthreat55]

Not that the current situation has a lot to do with it, other than demonstrating Congress is incapable of solving problems (old news), but basically we're all screwed thanks to the ticking time bomb the government has created for us over the last few decades.
Recommended reading/viewing: an 18-page powerpoint from the GAO
http://www.gao.gov/cghome/d08241cg.pdf

[GuitarR0cker1]

Not that the current situation has a lot to do with it, other than demonstrating Congress is incapable of solving problems (old news), but basically we're all screwed thanks to the ticking time bomb the government has created for us over the last few decades.
Recommended reading/viewing: an 18-page powerpoint from the GAO
http://www.gao.gov/cghome/d08241cg.pdf
old news website. No shit it is expensive to pay for medicare and social security which is why we should repeal the Bush Tax Cuts and cut defense spending.

[shit stroll]

old news website. No shit it is expensive to pay for medicare and social security which is why we should repeal the Bush Tax Cuts and cut defense spending.
rly?

[Machu505]

Ya rly

[saysmydoctor]

rly?
I hope you are fucking joking.

[aminorthreat55]

old news website. No shit it is expensive to pay for medicare and social security which is why we should repeal the Bush Tax Cuts and cut defense spending.
Old news/no shit is a fabulous response considering your failure to actually understand that that is neither the point nor a legitimate solution.

[Nevuk]

The age gap is going to eventually come to violence. It is unfeasible to continue in our current manner of SS/medicaid, but with that said, much of the problem comes from the greedy corporatism of pharmeceuticals, and other sources. Any measures we can take to prevent the inevitable blow up are contrary to corporate interests and thus, will not occur in this country. (Yes, I'm aware that this sounds a little nutty). But social security has always seemed a somewhat flawed idea.

[Dan Hollister]

We'll get out of it. This is not at all close to the magnitude of economic crises we have had in the past.

I would also like to point out that what we think is "expensive gas" would be considered dirt-cheap to countries like those in Europe. In addition, the global economy is down -- not just ours.

Not that I don't understand the severity, but I am just not an alarmist. I don't want to be apart of the people like my grandmother who read on TV that we're in the next depression and start hoarding canned goods. The economy sucks, and as always, we will find our way out of it.

[GuitarR0cker1]

Old news/no shit is a fabulous response considering your failure to actually understand that that is neither the point nor a legitimate solution.
So what is your grand proposal? Get rid of that and just let America go without social security and medicaid? That is a real great solution...

[shit stroll]

I hope you are fucking joking.
nah, i was being serious ;-)

[Steve Henderson]

The tanking economy has killed GE stock, which could end up paying off if I buy a bunch of it now under my 401k, and it returns to healthy levels. Shit, even the international fund is losing money, when that was always a good bet before with the shittiness of the dollar.

[Steve Henderson]

I will also say the Fed needs to raise rates pronto. Fuck Wall Street signaling - we need a boost now.

[Jason Tate]

The tanking economy has killed GE stock, which could end up paying off if I buy a bunch of it now under my 401k, and it returns to healthy levels. Shit, even the international fund is losing money, when that was always a good bet before with the shittiness of the dollar.
Yeah ... I'm hoping that it all works out seeing as this is the one portion of my life I have some money to invest -- so I hope that investing low, I can sell high, and make some $ in the next 20 years.

We'll see.

[TK]

So what is your grand proposal? Get rid of that and just let America go without social security and medicaid? That is a real great solution...

We do need to get rid of it, it's a flawed program.

I personally think we should draw an age line. At this moment, anyone 50 years or older will continue to receive social security for the next twenty years and after that it will cease. We will then take the social security out, and replace it with personal accounts.
It is a harsh move, and very unfair to a lot of people, but I think we should focus on the future instead of keep digging our hole farther and farther down hoping to come out on the other side.

I suppose I'm going to be called an idiot or moron repeatedly now.

[Dan Hollister]

Yeah ... I'm hoping that it all works out seeing as this is the one portion of my life I have some money to invest -- so I hope that investing low, I can sell high, and make some $ in the next 20 years.

Exactly. For those hoping to sell off their assets right now and retire, it's no fun. But for us younger folks, now is actually a perfect opportunity to invest.

The depression was horrible, but anyone who held onto a single share of Coca Cola stock from that decade would be worth at least $12 million today. ;) Now's the time to buy, fellas.

[Jason Tate]

We do need to get rid of it, it's a flawed program.

I personally think we should draw an age line. At this moment, anyone 50 years or older will continue to receive social security for the next twenty years and after that it will cease. We will then take the social security out, and replace it with personal accounts.
It is a harsh move, and very unfair to a lot of people, but I think we should focus on the future instead of keep digging our hole farther and farther down hoping to come out on the other side.

I suppose I'm going to be called an idiot or moron repeatedly now.
Personal accounts are wildly unpopular.

Personal retirement already exists.

[Jason Tate]

Exactly. For those hoping to sell off their assets right now and retire, it's no fun. But for us younger folks, now is actually a perfect opportunity to invest.

The depression was horrible, but anyone who held onto a single share of Coca Cola stock from that decade would be worth at least $12 million today. ;) Now's the time to buy, fellas.
Even investing on the worst days of all time in the stock market, over time (>10 years) you will have a damn good ROI (better than CDs, etc.)

[TK]

Personal accounts are wildly unpopular.

Personal retirement already exists.

I am not at all the most politically educated, so care to enlighten the difference?

I understand they are very unpopular, but I definitely feel it's fairer by a long shot. I'm not sure why people are so against it.

[Wildness774]

Michigans econ isnt very good
buts its better not to be negative ya know

[Jason Tate]

I am not at all the most politically educated, so care to enlighten the difference?

I understand they are very unpopular, but I definitely feel it's fairer by a long shot. I'm not sure why people are so against it.
Well, here's one site (http://www.ncpssm.org/news/archive/PRAstatement/) dedicated to hating the privatization of social security. I don't have as much a problem with it -- but it's always soundly defeated in the government. There was a lot about it in the news a little while back.

And when I said personal retirement exists, I meant in the form of IRAs, 401ks, etc.

[lfdfforever]

we're fucked

[GuitarR0cker1]

we're fucked
Not really but it certainly seems like that.

[GuitarR0cker1]

Well anyways I agree that we need to push the age limit on social security up but the fact is we cannot go without it as our society is going through a lot of changes, we cannot do without it or risk one segment of society to live for long periods of time, while the other does not.

[anamericangod]

Once we stop pumping 14 billion dollars a month into Iraq, things will start to improve.

[GuitarR0cker1]

Once we stop pumping 14 billion dollars a month into Iraq, things will start to improve.
Well it will help to balance our budget and shift money but honestly the Iraq War has absolutley nothing to do with the recession except that it is a distraction and waste of money.

[Steve Henderson]

Well it will help to balance our budget and shift money but honestly the Iraq War has absolutley nothing to do with the recession except that it is a distraction and waste of money.
Disagree. That is money that could go into government programs, assist in job creation, fund further tax rebates, etc etc etc.

[asmolitor]

Now's the time to buy, fellas.

so I hope that investing low, I can sell high, and make some $ in the next 20 years.

bingo bango on both accounts. my plan is to try and make as much as i can this summer, between work/ebay/etc and start throwing that into some small cap based funds around august-ish. for all the doom and gloom i've heard over the last year about our economy, when there is positive news - it seems to point to a 2nd half of 2008 recovery. then again, for all the negatives, i'm still holding out to see how bad Q2 2008 GDP will be. or if by the grace of a higher power it still turns a sluggish positive on the backs of industrials (very slim chance, albeit).

and really, for our horrible economy, the market sure doesn't exactly show it. half of the country could be convinced that we're a day away from soup kitchens and bread lines, but the charts really don't show it. on a 10 year history showing the dow jones, nasdaq, and s&p 500, we're not even close to touching the 2000-2003 woes brought on by the dot-com implosion, 9/11, and a mild recession.

http://finance.yahoo.com/echarts?s=^DJI#chart3:symbol=^dji;r ange=19980623,20080616;compare=^ixi c+^gspc;indicator=volume;charttype= line;crosshair=on;ohlcvalues=0;logs cale=on;source=undefined

as interesting as it is to believe that we're falling into the next great depression, things just aren't that bad. here are some lovely graphs.

gas is at its highest level ever, but it has been pretty bad before (late 70's) and i'd like to believe we could overcome it again (although alternative energy is clearly the long-term solution). http://zfacts.com/p/35.html

unemployment did take a drastic 0.5% in the last month, but 5.5% isn't bad considering the rate's history, and the fact that we have a lower rate than 10, 20, 30 some years ago with a lot more people in the labor force. http://www.miseryindex.us/urbymonth.asp

other than that, a lot of people took out terrible loans on houses they couldn't afford even with a good loan. no chart, but it's really not all that bad. i'm not saying the current economy is rainbows and cookies, but our current climate doesn't even deserve to be in earshot of the depressing forecasts given by the media.

[asmolitor]

Well it will help to balance our budget and shift money but honestly the Iraq War has absolutley nothing to do with the recession except that it is a distraction and waste of money.

one of these is not like the others.

[saysmydoctor]

New politics forum rule: You can only say recession if you know what it is AND how it comes to fruition.

[asmolitor]

New politics forum rule: You can only say recession if you know what it is AND how it comes to fruition.

haha, that should go for a lot of other mediums as well.

[open mind]

The age gap is going to eventually come to violence. It is unfeasible to continue in our current manner of SS/medicaid, but with that said, much of the problem comes from the greedy corporatism of pharmeceuticals, and other sources. Any measures we can take to prevent the inevitable blow up are contrary to corporate interests and thus, will not occur in this country. (Yes, I'm aware that this sounds a little nutty). But social security has always seemed a somewhat flawed idea.

what's screwed up about the whole social security shortfall issue is that a huge chunk of it is the result of reagan, bush sr, and clinton virtually emptying the fund to pay off foreign debts and balance budgets........taking into account the money lost from potential interest we'd be close to sitting pretty in terms of it's funding if it had been left alone.

[aminorthreat55]

So what is your grand proposal? Get rid of that and just let America go without social security and medicaid? That is a real great solution...
You really are the king of deductive reasoning.

[timchoke]

The absolute first step needed to turn the economy around? Moving as far away from our fiat system as possible. And now.

[GuitarR0cker1]

Disagree. That is money that could go into government programs, assist in job creation, fund further tax rebates, etc etc etc.
That is what I meant with my post but it is not the cause of recession but rather a hindrance towards ending it.

[brentkid]

I'm glad I'm still in school for three more years. I'd be horrified if I graduated right now.

[saysmydoctor]

I need a job while at college. I'm fucked.

[AnarchyintheUS]

http://www.sanfranciscosentinel.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/09/war-with-iran.jpg

[Machu505]

http://www.sanfranciscosentinel.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/09/war-with-iran.jpg

Oh yay. You're back.

[se1046]

Even investing on the worst days of all time in the stock market, over time (>10 years) you will have a damn good ROI (better than CDs, etc.)

That's so true. Just because the stock market is tanking right now doesn't mean it will be forever. Over the summer it was at an all time high. The stock market fluctuates. It always has. Jason is right about this though.

[Nevuk]

That's so true. Just because the stock market is tanking right now doesn't mean it will be forever. Over the summer it was at an all time high. The stock market fluctuates. It always has. Jason is right about this though.
As long as you make sure to diversify and invest in more than 2 companies, which plenty of people forget to do.

[se1046]

As long as you make sure to diversify and invest in more than 2 companies, which plenty of people forget to do.

Good point as well. Keeping a diverse portfolio is always highly recommended by brokers. You invest in one company and they go under... bye bye money.

[GiggsOho]

I'd love to dive into this, but economy = math, which renders me damn close to a vegetative state. I think AnAmericanGod said it the best, get out of Iraq, and watch the economy flourish.

[Dan Hollister]

It is beyond naive to think that all of our economic woes are due to the war. Yes, we need to get out of the war, but the money being spent on it is pennies in comparison to the deficit that we are talking about.

The economic crisis is very complex, largely caused by variable-mortgage loans on houses. That's why housing has been the most impacted so far. But there are many factors, and the war is a very small one.

Not to mention that the defense contractors, who provide jobs for hundreds thousands of Americans, will be killing off a fair number of those once the war is over.

Before you jump all over me, I am NOT saying the war is good. I am just saying this is a complex economic situation and there is no right answer or single solution. There is an upside and a downside to every possible option.

[GiggsOho]

It is beyond naive to think that all of our economic woes are due to the war. Yes, we need to get out of the war, but the money being spent on it is pennies in comparison to the deficit that we are talking about.

The economic crisis is very complex, largely caused by variable-mortgage loans on houses. That's why housing has been the most impacted so far. But there are many factors, and the war is a very small one.

Not to mention that the defense contractors, who provide jobs for hundreds thousands of Americans, will be killing off a fair number of those once the war is over.

Before you jump all over me, I am NOT saying the war is good. I am just saying this is a complex economic situation and there is no right answer or single solution. There is an upside and a downside to every possible option.

While I also understand, it's a complex problem, I don't agree with the notion that $12 bil/month is somehow a drop-in-the-bucket.

[se1046]

While I also understand, it's a complex problem, I don't agree with the notion that $12 bil/month is somehow a drop-in-the-bucket.

I think I read somewhere that the U.S. national debt is something like 12 trillion bucks. Not too bad eh?

[nwptrl]

That's so true. Just because the stock market is tanking right now doesn't mean it will be forever. Over the summer it was at an all time high. The stock market fluctuates. It always has. Jason is right about this though.

Completely agree. When the market started to sank I had many co-workers who moved all of their money into ''safer'' stocks. I was trying to explain that if they sell low that they are just losing money. I ended up losing somewhere between 1-2 thousand dollars, but I'm not worried. Especially if you're young, you can afford to take risks. Selling low really isn't a smart idea. I've been buying more stock once after it sank. It's levelled out pretty good as of recent. I had a buddy who was a stock broker. His advice was diversify and don't touch it. If you follow that advice you should double your money every 5-10 years.

[micahistheballs]

New politics forum rule: You can only say recession if you know what it is AND how it comes to fruition.
Please clarify what it really is so I don't say something dumb haha.

[youkwalks]

I will also say the Fed needs to raise rates pronto. Fuck Wall Street signaling - we need a boost now.
Unfortunately its not that easy...

The country is facing a couple problems: Recession and inflation. Recessionary policy calls for lowering interest rates to increase consumer spending/borrowing. However, inflationary policy says raise the interest rates to drop prices. Raise interest rates to curb inflation and you hurt consumers purchasing ability. Lower interest rates and inflation continues.

Stagflation is a bitch.

The unfortunate saving grace here is the weakening dollar. While it sucks right now, it increases foreign investment. America is still the worlds consumer and we have the infrastructure and capital that people want to invest in for the right price. As some have already said, this is the right time to invest. Everyone wants a piece of the United States and eventually the dollar will rise taking everything else with it....hopefully. Just hope banks and investors learned their lesson with sub primes....stupidest idea they've ever had.

[youkwalks]

Please clarify what it really is so I don't say something dumb haha.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recession
wiki is your friend.

If you dont feel like reading it, a recession is negative economic growth for two quarters back to back. Or, even easier, if GDP declines for a significant amount of time, recession.

The problem now is the economy is very sluggish, but not negatively growing which is why some say we're not in a recession. I haven't looked it up, but I remember hearing the economy actually grew last quarter, albeit by less than one percent and things are not looking to get better. I would say if were not in a recession right now, its looming.

[aminorthreat55]

Keeping your shares through a recession is an excellent idea if you are under forty. One of the keys to easy investment returns is automatically reinvesting dividends, which makes you tons of extra cash in the wake of a recession. So many companies view dropping dividend amounts as a signal of bad news, so they refuse to decrease them (relative to previous dividends) during a recession. By reinvesting those dividends at the lower price, you add more shares to your quantity held, and when the business cycle reverses towards expansion and growth, you have more shares at a lower average cost which will generate higher returns. Most people don't realize this and try to jump ship, wasting money on transaction fees and neglecting the potential earnings that will materialize in the wake of the recession, something which doesn't take incredibly long.

[youkwalks]

Keeping your shares through a recession is an excellent idea if you are under forty. One of the keys to easy investment returns is automatically reinvesting dividends, which makes you tons of extra cash in the wake of a recession. So many companies view dropping dividend amounts as a signal of bad news, so they refuse to decrease them (relative to previous dividends) during a recession. By reinvesting those dividends at the lower price, you add more shares to your quantity held, and when the business cycle reverses towards expansion and growth, you have more shares at a lower average cost which will generate higher returns. Most people don't realize this and try to jump ship, wasting money on transaction fees and neglecting the potential earnings that will materialize in the wake of the recession, something which doesn't take incredibly long.
This is the problem in generally with economics. People are too impatient to wait it out. Economies - especially ours- are slow moving and go through ups and downs. When people jump ship its like a domino effect. Thats what happened to Bear Stearns, a large investment bank. It showed a sign of weakness and even though they still had the liquidity and capital to pull themselves out, people ran for the door and it lead to their doom.

[asmolitor]

I think I read somewhere that the U.S. national debt is something like 12 trillion bucks. Not too bad eh?

what? zfacts.com has it at 9.3 trillion. it'll get to 12 trillion in time, just not yet.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recession
wiki is your friend.

If you dont feel like reading it, a recession is negative economic growth for two quarters back to back. Or, even easier, if GDP declines for a significant amount of time, recession.

The problem now is the economy is very sluggish, but not negatively growing which is why some say we're not in a recession. I haven't looked it up, but I remember hearing the economy actually grew last quarter, albeit by less than one percent and things are not looking to get better. I would say if were not in a recession right now, its looming.

2007 Q4 GDP growth = 0.6%
2008 Q1 GDP growth = 0.9%

Keeping your shares through a recession is an excellent idea if you are under forty.

i'd venture that holding through a recession is good at any age, given that the market usually takes less than 3-5 years to correct losses made by buying at peaks before economic troubles.

[saysmydoctor]

I think I read somewhere that the U.S. national debt is something like 12 trillion bucks. Not too bad eh?
It would be if we voted republican.

[youkwalks]

2008 Q1 GDP growth = 0.9%
not that it matters, but I thought they revised first quarter numbers and it was lower than .9%?

[breaking news!]

I heard a woman speaking on AM radio the other day about a curious idea...She was debating that our American government should control the gas prices, and that market as a whole.

So, with our dwindling economy and all of the issues with gas already, I have to ask if the negative consequences of this plan failing would outweigh the positives of it doing well.

Honestly this lady sounded like she was desperately trying to make her bullshitting sound legitimate. It may not be relevant to this thread--but I do think it has a point... People in our country are trying to make things better, but honestly have no idea where to start. I think that we need to figure out what are some issues that can have fairly easy solutions, and begin there. Because if things start to get better in any sense, it will open up more opportunities to get other things functioning more efficiently.

And then the war in Iraq...We really can't afford it anymore. I think that this country needs to re-think why we are there, and what progress we've made towards that cause. There is an absurd amount of money going into a cause that people who directly need it can't support...because of the dire attention needed in our economy, we need to invest our tax dollars where it's needed most.

If the economy does fail, then there would be no possibility in supporting another country. Some things need to change if we want to be able to raise the next generations in security.

[youkwalks]

Price ceiling is not the answer in reference to government controlled gas prices.

[breaking news!]

Price ceiling is not the answer in reference to government controlled gas prices.

No kidding, since that is a socialist action.

[boykosaurus]

I'm in Europe (not even Euro dominated, Switzerland still uses the Frank) and I am fucked financially.

[Nevuk]

No kidding, since that is a socialist action.
As are owning water companies and utilities?

[se1046]

It would be if we voted republican.

That's a ridiculous completely bias statement.

[Machu505]

That's a ridiculous completely bias statement.

But it's true, seeing as under the Bush administration, our federal surplus became a $9 trillion debt.

[asmolitor]

not that it matters, but I thought they revised first quarter numbers and it was lower than .9%?

from what i read, it was initially at 0.6% like in Q4 2007, but revised up to 0.9%.

[open mind]

That's a ridiculous completely bias statement.

find a republican president from the last 30-40 years who didn't bring on huge amounts in debt.

[se1046]

find a republican president from the last 30-40 years who didn't bring on huge amounts in debt.

find a democratic president that hasn't brought on debt. the democrats and republicans have both contributed to the debt of the u.s. The republicans rate of debt increase over the 34 years the party has held office was 9.7% annually. The democrats was just below at 8.3% annually. Not much of a difference.

Also if you want to complain about Bush why don't we take a look at the approval rate of our democrat majority congress.

[x togepi x]

i would think the reason the democratic majority has such a low rating is because they haven't really done anything but capitulate to bush on every key issue, which kind of feeds into the complaining about bush thing in the first place.

[Jason Tate]

i would think the reason the democratic majority has such a low rating is because they haven't really done anything but capitulate to bush on every key issue, which kind of feeds into the complaining about bush thing in the first place.
And the Republicans in congress have the same low rating. Americans are annoyed with the government as a whole -- it's not a partisan thing at the moment.

[x togepi x]

yes historically congress has lower ratings than the president, but usually not that low.

[se1046]

i would think the reason the democratic majority has such a low rating is because they haven't really done anything but capitulate to bush on every key issue, which kind of feeds into the complaining about bush thing in the first place.

I'm not a huge bush supporter, but I just think it's ridiculous that most of these people on here will bash bush all day long yet pay not attention to the fact that the approval rating of congress isn't much better than bush's.

[se1046]

And the Republicans in congress have the same low rating. Americans are annoyed with the government as a whole -- it's not a partisan thing at the moment.

That's pretty much how I feel.

[open mind]

find a democratic president that hasn't brought on debt. the democrats and republicans have both contributed to the debt of the u.s. The republicans rate of debt increase over the 34 years the party has held office was 9.7% annually. The democrats was just below at 8.3% annually. Not much of a difference.

Also if you want to complain about Bush why don't we take a look at the approval rate of our democrat majority congress.

clinton got rid of the deficit (which would mean a lack of increasing debt....at least when you don't take into account the costs of inflation from previous debts)
were do you get these numbers?

[se1046]

clinton got rid of the deficit (which would mean a lack of increasing debt....at least when you don't take into account the costs of inflation from previous debts)
were do you get these numbers?

do a little research man.

[HashHolly]

do a little research man.

http://clinton5.nara.gov/WH/Accomplishments/eightyears-03.html

Largest Surplus Ever: The surplus in FY 2000 is $237 billion—the third consecutive surplus and the largest surplus ever.

Largest Three-Year Debt Pay-Down Ever: Between 1998-2000, the publicly held debt was reduced by $363 billion—the largest three-year pay-down in American history. Under Presidents Reagan and Bush, the debt held by the public quadrupled. Under the Clinton-Gore budget, we are on track to pay off the entire publicly held debt on a net basis by 2009.

Oh Rly..

[asmolitor]

http://clinton5.nara.gov/WH/Accomplishments/eightyears-03.html

Largest Surplus Ever: The surplus in FY 2000 is $237 billion—the third consecutive surplus and the largest surplus ever.

Largest Three-Year Debt Pay-Down Ever: Between 1998-2000, the publicly held debt was reduced by $363 billion—the largest three-year pay-down in American history. Under Presidents Reagan and Bush, the debt held by the public quadrupled. Under the Clinton-Gore budget, we are on track to pay off the entire publicly held debt on a net basis by 2009.

Oh Rly..

there's a difference between the public debt and the national debt. look at the two graphs at the top of the page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_public_debt and a) notice the difference, b) notice the "quadruple" part is bullshit (i'd say it's a multiplier of 2x-2.5x). i guess if you blatantly, blatantly ignore inflation, that 4x could be feasible. oh and c) notice the drastic rise in gross debt between, oh, say 1992 and 2000. kind of similar to the leap made post-2000.

however, i'd say the "pay off by 2009" part is actually feasible, if you think the surplus could grow by 10-15% for 8-10 years continuously. somewhat possible, considering there was about 3.5 trillion in public debt to pay off when clinton left office.

[open mind]

do a little research man.

no that's not how debates work.
if you're going to argue something you have to show and/or explain why you're arguing it. the impetus is not on me to supply your side of the debate.

[open mind]

there's a difference between the public debt and the national debt. look at the two graphs at the top of the page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_public_debt and a) notice the difference, b) notice the "quadruple" part is bullshit (i'd say it's a multiplier of 2x-2.5x). i guess if you blatantly, blatantly ignore inflation, that 4x could be feasible. oh and c) notice the drastic rise in gross debt between, oh, say 1992 and 2000. kind of similar to the leap made post-2000.

however, i'd say the "pay off by 2009" part is actually feasible, if you think the surplus could grow by 10-15% for 8-10 years continuously. somewhat possible, considering there was about 3.5 trillion in public debt to pay off when clinton left office.

i don't see a drastic rise in gross debt.......in fact the graphs show a decrease in the rate of debt growth during the latter clinton years......it would be silly to believe that he was responsible for the growing debt during his first term because it took a long while to make acceptable changes to the budget with his congress, and those changes didn't reap immediate benefits.
i'm not a big clinton fan, i think he needlessly sold out the left in order to concentrate on debt reduction.......but i can't say that he wasn't more fiscally responsible then his recent republican counterparts.

[asmolitor]

i don't see a drastic rise in gross debt.......in fact the graphs show a decrease in the rate of debt growth during the latter clinton years......it would be silly to believe that he was responsible for the growing debt during his first term because it took a long while to make acceptable changes to the budget with his congress, and those changes didn't reap immediate benefits.
i'm not a big clinton fan, i think he needlessly sold out the left in order to concentrate on debt reduction.......but i can't say that he wasn't more fiscally responsible then his recent republican counterparts.

fine, i'll concede the "drastic" part of the rise in gross debt. but if you look at the continuation of the linear growth from reagan's first term and on, clinton provided little more than a hiccup in trying to pay down the national debt. i'll also concede that any "hiccup" of that sort is quite an accomplishment; but not nearly the accomplishment he gets credited for. so he only added $1.5 trillion to the national gross debt during his term. not exactly something to hang your hat on, while villifying bush sr. for adding $1.5 trillion (albeit in only 4 years, but also taking into account a recession - of which had mostly reversed course GDP-wise by the time clinton took office), and reagan for adding about $2 trillion. i leave latest bush out because a) 2nd term hasn't ended, b) would weaken my point.

[open mind]

fine, i'll concede the "drastic" part of the rise in gross debt. but if you look at the continuation of the linear growth from reagan's first term and on, clinton provided little more than a hiccup in trying to pay down the national debt. i'll also concede that any "hiccup" of that sort is quite an accomplishment; but not nearly the accomplishment he gets credited for. so he only added $1.5 trillion to the national gross debt during his term. not exactly something to hang your hat on, while villifying bush sr. for adding $1.5 trillion (albeit in only 4 years, but also taking into account a recession - of which had mostly reversed course GDP-wise by the time clinton took office), and reagan for adding about $2 trillion. i leave latest bush out because a) 2nd term hasn't ended, b) would weaken my point.

it's not clintons fault that bush jr. decided to be fiscally irresponsible so arguing that it was just a hiccup has no real bearing on clintons performance.
i'd argue that it was bush sr. and his former bosses (reagan) policies that resulted in the countrys fall into that recession in the first place, so saying that the recession shouldn't count against him (and his party by extension) doesn't fly.
are these numbers adjusted for inflation?
leaving bush jr. out of the equation isn't fair.....he has been the president for nearly 8 years now.....which is almost a quarter of the time i'm talking about.

[saysmydoctor]

That's a ridiculous completely bias statement.
Which is completely true. Kthx.
find a democratic president that hasn't brought on debt. the democrats and republicans have both contributed to the debt of the u.s. The republicans rate of debt increase over the 34 years the party has held office was 9.7% annually. The democrats was just below at 8.3% annually. Not much of a difference.

Also if you want to complain about Bush why don't we take a look at the approval rate of our democrat majority congress.
Clinton.

And Congress would 50% more efficient without Nancy Pelosi.

[asmolitor]

it's not clintons fault that bush jr. decided to be fiscally irresponsible so arguing that it was just a hiccup has no real bearing on clintons performance.
i'd argue that it was bush sr. and his former bosses (reagan) policies that resulted in the countrys fall into that recession in the first place, so saying that the recession shouldn't count against him (and his party by extension) doesn't fly.
are these numbers adjusted for inflation?
leaving bush jr. out of the equation isn't fair.....he has been the president for nearly 8 years now.....which is almost a quarter of the time i'm talking about.

well, in absolute terms, clinton still did add $1.5 trillion to the national debt during his 8 years. and i'm saying that the recession, at least in GDP terms, had reversed itself before clinton took office - so as to defeat the possible argument that clinton's first 5 years of budget deficits were justified. and leaving bush jr. out of the question is somewhat fair, given that it's post-clinton and somewhat irrelevant given the clinton era being discussed at hand.

but mostly because, well, there's really nothing to argue. he will add (and already has) more in absolute terms to the national debt than any other president, i do believe. i mean, record budget deficits are one thing, but having multiple entries on the top 10 list of record budget deficits in history is another. and there's no way i can really argue the converse or play devil's advocate. the math just isn't feasibly there. bush jr. will add more to the national debt than his dad and reagan combined, if not along with many presidents also combined.

and yes, the graph from that wikipedia page is adjusted to display figures in 2000-adjusted dollars. if you click on the graphs, the next page has a raw printout of each year's data in the graph.

[HashHolly]

there's a difference between the public debt and the national debt. look at the two graphs at the top of the page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_public_debt and a) notice the difference, b) notice the "quadruple" part is bullshit (i'd say it's a multiplier of 2x-2.5x). i guess if you blatantly, blatantly ignore inflation, that 4x could be feasible. oh and c) notice the drastic rise in gross debt between, oh, say 1992 and 2000. kind of similar to the leap made post-2000.

however, i'd say the "pay off by 2009" part is actually feasible, if you think the surplus could grow by 10-15% for 8-10 years continuously. somewhat possible, considering there was about 3.5 trillion in public debt to pay off when clinton left office.

um, i maybe mistaken but:

Largest Surplus Ever: The surplus in FY 2000 is $237 billion—the third consecutive surplus and the largest surplus ever.

Wouldn't that be the national surplus?

[youkwalks]

As are owning water companies and utilities?
There is a difference. Controlling gas prices when this country does not control production is a bad idea. Major Oil exporters can control supply and short us if we set a price ceiling. where as with water, the U.S. (local governments) controls the production and thus the supply.

[asmolitor]

um, i maybe mistaken but:

Largest Surplus Ever: The surplus in FY 2000 is $237 billion—the third consecutive surplus and the largest surplus ever.

Wouldn't that be the national surplus?

no, that'd be a budget surplus, separate from national debt alltogether.

which can be used to pay off portions of the gross national debt and the publicly held debt. but i guess when the paragraph before the quoted text talks solely about public debt, and the bullet point directly after the bullet point talks about public debt, there is that 1% of doubt for them not explicitly laying it out again inbetween.

[Bd_fallen]

obama FTW!!
U want our economy fixed?
Vote for change and progress -- democrat

[se1046]

obama FTW!!
U want our economy fixed?
Vote for change and progress -- democrat

I just don't see how socialist programs are going to fix the problem. Russia has gotten rid of their debt by getting away from their socialist agenda.

[Machu505]

I just don't see how socialist programs are going to fix the problem. Russia has gotten rid of their debt by getting away from their socialist agenda.

Universal healthcare, stopping NAFTA, and freeing up an extra $100 billion a year are not socialist ideas. What exactly is wrong with socialism in the first place anyway? I want a detailed answer.

[youkwalks]

Text Book Economic answer:
governments crowd out private enterprise....meaning less employment in the private sector where more money is to be had.

[Machu505]

Text Book Economic answer:
governments crowd out private enterprise....meaning less employment in the private sector where more money is to be had.

If this is an answer to my question, it was for se, seeing as socialist is a word he throws around a lot.

[Nevuk]

I just don't see how socialist programs are going to fix the problem. Russia has gotten rid of their debt by getting away from their socialist agenda.
Hello mafia!

[se1046]

Universal healthcare, stopping NAFTA, and freeing up an extra $100 billion a year are not socialist ideas. What exactly is wrong with socialism in the first place anyway? I want a detailed answer.

The first problem I have with socialism is the need for the entrepreneurial function to be eliminated. Socialism has always been about rewarding the unproductive and punishing the productive. That's why it fails. It is discrimination in a terrible way. When all are paid whether they work or not more choose to not work. That's a huge problem with our welfare system today.

Another reason it doesn't work is because of the problem of establishing the value of goods. The free market system establishes value by supply and demand---taught in every economics book. There is no formula for value in socialism because the value of production is based upon some nebulous number based on wants and needs that either produces shortages or excess of a product.

There are just too many instances in history where it has failed miserably and brought great poverty to nations. What makes you think this is the answer when we are clearly seeing China and Russia get out of their national debts by moving away from socialism or communism.

Socialism is just a very mild form of totalitarianism, and if you know anything about the principles this country was founded upon and what the people fought for to establish the United States, you'd understand why they wanted a country based on freedom and not complete government control.

[se1046]

Hello mafia!

Hello mafia with nuclear capabilities!

[Machu505]

The first problem I have with socialism is the need for the entrepreneurial function to be eliminated. Socialism has always been about rewarding the unproductive and punishing the productive. That's why it fails. It is discrimination in a terrible way. When all are paid whether they work or not more choose to not work. That's a huge problem with our welfare system today.

Another reason it doesn't work is because of the problem of establishing the value of goods. The free market system establishes value by supply and demand---taught in every economics book. There is no formula for value in socialism because the value of production is based upon some nebulous number based on wants and needs that either produces shortages or excess of a product.

There are just too many instances in history where it has failed miserably and brought great poverty to nations. What makes you think this is the answer when we are clearly seeing China and Russia get out of their national debts by moving away from socialism or communism.

Socialism is just a very mild form of totalitarianism, and if you know anything about the principles this country was founded upon and what the people fought for to establish the United States, you'd understand why they wanted a country based on freedom and not complete government control.


Thank you for following up. I'm not a socialist myself; I'm a social democrat. I just wanted you to show that you were actually knowledgeable on the subject.

[se1046]

Thank you for following up. I'm not a socialist myself; I'm a social democrat. I just wanted you to show that you were actually knowledgeable on the subject.

No problem. I needed to clear up my stance on that.

[Nevuk]

Hello mafia with nuclear capabilities!
Couldn't both countries pretty easily fall into this definition?

[se1046]

Couldn't both countries pretty easily fall into this definition?

Only if you include north korea, iran, and china.

[lauren<3s music]

And I'm sure our lovely stimulus package will fix everything :rolleyes:

if the government is so concerned about the economy, they should allow the fed to do their jobs and stay out of the monetary side of things. In addition, perhaps providing tax breaks to the middle class, as opposed to those who make millions, would also help. Proven fact, trickle down economics doesn't work.

[Machu505]

And I'm sure our lovely stimulus package will fix everything :rolleyes:

if the government is so concerned about the economy, they should allow the fed to do their jobs and stay out of the monetary side of things. In addition, perhaps providing tax breaks to the middle class, as opposed to those who make millions, would also help. Proven fact, trickle down economics doesn't work.

Removing the Bush Tax Cuts would most definitely be a good thing.

[lauren<3s music]

Removing the Bush Tax Cuts would most definitely be a good thing.

seriously our entire tax structure needs revamping

[Machu505]

seriously our entire tax structure needs revamping

The lady on last night's Colbert Report brought up an interesting fact: Taxes for the rich during the Eisenhower administration were 90% and the economy at the time was fine.

[asmolitor]

The lady on last night's Colbert Report brought up an interesting fact: Taxes for the rich during the Eisenhower administration were 90% and the economy at the time was fine.

he also rode out the post-war booming economy. and 90% is absolutely ridiculous regardless of class. absolutely ridiculous to entertain that anecdote as a potential solution.

[open mind]

well, in absolute terms, clinton still did add $1.5 trillion to the national debt during his 8 years. and i'm saying that the recession, at least in GDP terms, had reversed itself before clinton took office - so as to defeat the possible argument that clinton's first 5 years of budget deficits were justified. and leaving bush jr. out of the question is somewhat fair, given that it's post-clinton and somewhat irrelevant given the clinton era being discussed at hand.

but mostly because, well, there's really nothing to argue. he will add (and already has) more in absolute terms to the national debt than any other president, i do believe. i mean, record budget deficits are one thing, but having multiple entries on the top 10 list of record budget deficits in history is another. and there's no way i can really argue the converse or play devil's advocate. the math just isn't feasibly there. bush jr. will add more to the national debt than his dad and reagan combined, if not along with many presidents also combined.

and yes, the graph from that wikipedia page is adjusted to display figures in 2000-adjusted dollars. if you click on the graphs, the next page has a raw printout of each year's data in the graph.

my point is that he himself didn't add anything to the debt. the debt did grow in his first term, but not because of anything he did.......shifts in the budget take alot of politicing and time to implement and during that time the debt continued to run up. since that was beyond his control to change quickly i think it's unfair to say clinton brought on that debt.
it's not the clinton era that's the discussion here.....i asked for someone to point to a republican president from the last 40 years that didn't pile on massive debts.

[lauren<3s music]

The lady on last night's Colbert Report brought up an interesting fact: Taxes for the rich during the Eisenhower administration were 90% and the economy at the time was fine.

but the economy was entirely different during that era.

[Until The Bombs]

The lady on last night's Colbert Report brought up an interesting fact: Taxes for the rich during the Eisenhower administration were 90% and the economy at the time was fine.

The rich still pay the vast majority of our taxes anyway. A 90% tax would just be ridiculous and unfair.

The latest data show that a big portion of the federal income tax burden is shoul&shy;dered by a small group of the very richest Americans. The wealthiest 1 percent of the population earn 19 per&shy;cent of the income but pay 37 percent of the income tax. The top 10 percent pay 68 percent of the tab. Meanwhile, the bottom 50 percent—those below the median income level—now earn 13 percent of the income but pay just 3 percent of the taxes. These are proportions of the income tax alone and don’t include payroll taxes for Social Security and Medicare.

Source:
http://www.american.com/archive/2007/november-december-magazine-contents/guess-who-really-pays-the-taxes

A 90% tax would be ridiculous and unfair. Also, take a look at the Laffer Curve, I don't really know too much about the concept, but the idea is that lower tax rates spur more investment, work, etc. which strengthens the economy, thus providing more taxable revenue, and leading to more taxes paid.




And on another note, yes, tax cuts need to go. Giving families a couple hundred dollars makes little to no difference, unless you are amongst the poorest of the poor. Might as well use all of that money combined to do something worthwhile.

[Hainzey X]

i just try to do my part by supporting small, local businesses ( ex. order from the local pizza joint instead of dominos , papa johns ect.) but not sure if that helps at all / what i can do to help.

[youkwalks]

And I'm sure our lovely stimulus package will fix everything :rolleyes:

if the government is so concerned about the economy, they should allow the fed to do their jobs and stay out of the monetary side of things. In addition, perhaps providing tax breaks to the middle class, as opposed to those who make millions, would also help. Proven fact, trickle down economics doesn't work.
This is not entirely true. There have been studies shown that the idea of trickle down economics, or ripple effect, does do what it says it will. However, if this is the best economic policy, who knows.

[Bd_fallen]

Universal healthcare, stopping NAFTA, and freeing up an extra $100 billion a year are not socialist ideas. What exactly is wrong with socialism in the first place anyway? I want a detailed answer.


i think socialism is a good concept =)

[Machu505]

i think socialism is a good concept =)

I do not. I am a proponent of social democracy though.

[shit stroll]

socialism is a democratic system; capitalism is not.

[se1046]

i think socialism is a good concept =)

why?

[shit stroll]

why?
why is a system that puts profit over people, animals and the environment a "good concept" ?

[se1046]

why is a system that puts profit over people, animals and the environment a "good concept" ?

Is that your best answer?

[shit stroll]

well, how is capitalism a good system?

[se1046]

well, how is capitalism a good system?

I'll take that as a "yes. that's the best i could do."

[aminorthreat55]

The rich still pay the vast majority of our taxes anyway. A 90% tax would just be ridiculous and unfair.



Source:
http://www.american.com/archive/2007/november-december-magazine-contents/guess-who-really-pays-the-taxes

A 90% tax would be ridiculous and unfair. Also, take a look at the Laffer Curve, I don't really know too much about the concept, but the idea is that lower tax rates spur more investment, work, etc. which strengthens the economy, thus providing more taxable revenue, and leading to more taxes paid.




And on another note, yes, tax cuts need to go. Giving families a couple hundred dollars makes little to no difference, unless you are amongst the poorest of the poor. Might as well use all of that money combined to do something worthwhile.
The Laffer curve is pretty much a farce.

[Machu505]

Capitalism is social darwinism.

[shit stroll]

I'll take that as a "yes. that's the best i could do."
the one value of free market capitalism is the maximization of profit. any system that allows for humans to have power over other people, animals, and the environment is an unjust system. im against hierarchy, domination, and exploitation; therefore i'm against capitalism.

now, tell me why you think capitalism is a good system

[se1046]

the one value of free market capitalism is the maximization of profit. any system that allows for humans to have power over other people, animals, and the environment is an unjust system. im against hierarchy, domination, and exploitation; therefore i'm against capitalism.

now, tell me why you think capitalism is a good system

The free market brings competition which determines prices.
It encourages people to work towards financial freedom.
It is supportive of human rights and freedom of speech.
It also encourages people that want to be entrepreneurial.

Is socialism not a system that gives people in our government the power of spending and budgeting over people, animals, and the environment? It very much is so. That's why it is a very mild form of totalitarianism. I'd think you would be against that.

[se1046]

Just to further what I was saying... I in no way think that capitalism is perfect. It is actually not. I just think the growth it inspires is a great thing.

[shit stroll]

The free market brings competition which determines prices.
It encourages people to work towards financial freedom.
It is supportive of human rights and freedom of speech.
It also encourages people that want to be entrepreneurial.

Is socialism not a system that gives people in our government the power of spending and budgeting over people, animals, and the environment? It very much is so. That's why it is a very mild form of totalitarianism. I'd think you would be against that.
lol @ "It (capitalism) is supportive of human rights and freedom of speech."

that is seriously one of the funniest things i've ever read on this site. it would take me a year to list all of the pro free market military dictatorships the united states has propped up over the years (of course over throwing democratically elected governments).

socialism has nothing to with governments; real socialism occurs when workers control and plan the economy. so, real socialism would not allow for people to have power over other people, because an economy planned by workers, in a stateless society would eliminate all forms of hierarchy and domination.

[se1046]

lol @ "It (capitalism) is supportive of human rights and freedom of speech."

that is seriously one of the funniest things i've ever read on this site. it would take me a year to list all of the pro free market military dictatorships the united states has propped up over the years (of course over throwing democratically elected governments).

socialism has nothing to with governments; real socialism occurs when workers control and plan the economy. so, real socialism would not allow for people to have power over other people, because an economy planned by workers, in a stateless society would eliminate all forms of hierarchy and domination.

Main Entry:so·cial·ism http://www.merriam-webster.com/images/audio.gif (javascript:popWin('/cgi-bin/audio.pl?social02.wav=socialism'))P ronunciation: \ˈsō-shə-ˌli-zəm\ Function:noun Date:1837 1: any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods
2 a: a system of society or group living in which there is no private property b: a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state
3: a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done

[Until The Bombs]

The Laffer curve is pretty much a farce.

Please explain.

[lauren<3s music]

This is not entirely true. There have been studies shown that the idea of trickle down economics, or ripple effect, does do what it says it will. However, if this is the best economic policy, who knows.

Lets revisit the 1980s shall we

[shit stroll]

Main Entry:so·cial·ism http://www.merriam-webster.com/images/audio.gif (javascript:popWin('/cgi-bin/audio.pl?social02.wav=socialism'))P ronunciation: \ˈsō-shə-ˌli-zəm\ Function:noun Date:1837 1: any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods
2 a: a system of society or group living in which there is no private property b: a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state
3: a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done
http://libcom.org/library/stateless-socialism-anarchism-mikhail-bakunin

[somers1581]

I am from Youngstown, Ohio which has pretty much been in a recession since 1977. I liked the points about reinvesting dividends. I do this but I make sure that reinvesting the dividends and other capital gains/losses don't make an individual stock much larger than I want it to be.

On a side note, if any of us work for public companies and we end up with a large amount of our company's stock I hope that we are all smart enough to sell some of it. I have family that work for regional banks and it isn't pretty.


What do you think is the cause for the high oil prices? Just supply/demand? The weak dollar? Speculators? A combination of all of them?

[se1046]

http://libcom.org/library/stateless-socialism-anarchism-mikhail-bakunin

you couldn't put that in your own words... geez lol

[Until The Bombs]

I am from Youngstown, Ohio which has pretty much been in a recession since 1977. I liked the points about reinvesting dividends. I do this but I make sure that reinvesting the dividends and other capital gains/losses don't make an individual stock much larger than I want it to be.

On a side note, if any of us work for public companies and we end up with a large amount of our company's stock I hope that we are all smart enough to sell some of it. I have family that work for regional banks and it isn't pretty.


What do you think is the cause for the high oil prices? Just supply/demand? The weak dollar? Speculators? A combination of all of them?

A huge increase in the number of drivers worldwide over the last couple years.

[ActionActionFan]

The media exaggerates how bad the economy which makes people worried. This results in people not spending money and not buying houses and so on and that just makes the economy spiral down.

[aminorthreat55]

Please explain.
http://www.tnr.com/columnists/story.html?id=880f4273-e2d6-4914-b15b-ffcce401155a&p=1

He doesn't cover all of the issues, but gets enough of them. The political part is irrelevant, but the story of how this guy became important is pretty ridiculous.

[shit stroll]

you couldn't put that in your own words... geez lol
are you fucking serious? you didn't respond to my last post, you copied and pasted definitions of socialism, probably taken from some right wing website. you did the same fucking thing that you're criticizing me of doing.

[somers1581]

A huge increase in the number of drivers worldwide over the last couple years.

I read earlier this week that China will be raising their gas prices 16 percent. So it will be interesting to see how this affects the global demand as other governments begin to do the same thing.

[se1046]

are you fucking serious? you didn't respond to my last post, you copied and pasted definitions of socialism, probably taken from some right wing website. you did the same fucking thing that you're criticizing me of doing.

It's a joke... hence the lol... my response was 20 paragraphs long either. It was a definition to show you what socialism is since you said it has nothing to do with the government. Don't get your panties in a wad.

[se1046]

The media exaggerates how bad the economy which makes people worried. This results in people not spending money and not buying houses and so on and that just makes the economy spiral down.

No one is buying houses because of all of the lenders loaning money out to people who had no right to get that money. Hence people having their houses foreclosed, banks making it harder to get a mortgage, etc...

[Nevuk]

Capitalism is social darwinism.
Yes, this is correct. It relies heavily on Kant's theory of nature, which is an absurd idea - Humanity survived thousands of years before the advent of States, and its not like it was every man for himself at that time. I've always liked Graebar's comment that social darwinism died the second it was proved that cooperative species are the most successful.

[Until The Bombs]

I read earlier this week that China will be raising their gas prices 16 percent. So it will be interesting to see how this affects the global demand as other governments begin to do the same thing.

I'd imagine that could actually decrease demand in China, which would free up more oil for other countries. Unless of course they just do what we are currently doing and just take a hit at the pump.

[aminorthreat55]

I'd imagine that could actually decrease demand in China, which would free up more oil for other countries. Unless of course they just do what we are currently doing and just take a hit at the pump.
American demand for gasoline is highly inelastic (not very sensitive to changes in price) and I'm pretty sure that is also the case with China and just about every other country out there, so I wouldn't expect much to happen.

[Until The Bombs]

http://www.tnr.com/columnists/story.html?id=880f4273-e2d6-4914-b15b-ffcce401155a&p=1

He doesn't cover all of the issues, but gets enough of them. The political part is irrelevant, but the story of how this guy became important is pretty ridiculous.

Thanks. Should provide something interesting to read.

[Biliard]

I work at a credit union and over the past week I have noticed a lot of the credit card cash advance checks being deposited. How does overspending on credit cards affect the economy? I know it would have an adverse effect, but was hoping for an explanation of how.

[youkwalks]

Lets revisit the 1980s shall we
Reganomics was overall unsuccessful not because it was a bad policy but because there were other factors that inhibited the economy to grow.

The idea of trickle-down effect is always in our economy. When the economy expands or grows so does business and skilled labor (and usually starts it off). This means there is more money and employment opportunities in these sectors. This then "trickles" down to low skilled and unskilled labor and creates more employment opportunities for people in this labor pool. More employment, more disposable income.

Like I said, this may not be the best policy to grow and sustain the economy, but its also not ineffective.

[lauren<3s music]

Reganomics was overall unsuccessful not because it was a bad policy but because there were other factors that inhibited the economy to grow.

The idea of trickle-down effect is always in our economy. When the economy expands or grows so does business and skilled labor (and usually starts it off). This means there is more money and employment opportunities in these sectors. This then "trickles" down to low skilled and unskilled labor and creates more employment opportunities for people in this labor pool. More employment, more disposable income.

Like I said, this may not be the best policy to grow and sustain the economy, but its also not ineffective.

the intent of trickledown economics was to revive the economy after the savings and loan crisis which it did not. sure if the rich are spending money that helps the economy but this should not be our only stimuli for the economy. if it is you see what we have now; a sluggish GDP with a greater gap between the middle class

[lauren<3s music]

The Laffer curve is pretty much a farce.

:appl:

[se1046]

Did Clinton really pay off the national debt and have a big surplus?

um... nope.

http://www.letxa.com/articles/16


but the left would love for you to believe he did.

[asmolitor]

Did Clinton really pay off the national debt and have a big surplus?

um... nope.

http://www.letxa.com/articles/16


but the left would love for you to believe he did.

there's a difference between the public debt and the national debt.

bingo bango.

[saysmydoctor]

bingo bango.
:appl:

[Love As Arson]

Main Entry:so·cial·ism http://www.merriam-webster.com/images/audio.gif (javascript:popWin('/cgi-bin/audio.pl?social02.wav=socialism'))P ronunciation: \ˈsō-shə-ˌli-zəm\ Function:noun Date:1837 1: any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods
2 a: a system of society or group living in which there is no private property b: a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state
3: a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done
Relying on a dictionary does not actually prove one's point, especially if they're unfamiliar with Marxist theory. Without getting into specifics, government, as it manifests itself today, would be transformed with a shift in the economic system - namely, it would rely on, and be oriented towards, worker's power. In other words, it would not be the Socialist party administering policy, it would be individuals like you and I. Furthermore, socialism is authoritarian, insofar as it represses bourgeois rights; that is, the right to exploit the majority in favor of the minority.

[asmolitor]

bump for GDP updates...

http://biz.yahoo.com/ap/080828/wall_street.html

The Commerce Department's report that gross domestic product rose at an annual rate of 3.3 percent for the April-June period followed several economic readings this week that have left guarded investors somewhat optimistic. The weaker dollar helped boost U.S. exports, which pushed GDP growth beyond the government's initial estimate of 1.9 percent as well as economists' forecast of 2.7 percent.
It marked the economy's best performance since the third quarter of last year, when GDP rose at a 4.8 percent pace.
Investors are watching GDP, considered the best barometer of the economy's well-being, to look for signs that growth is picking up after being pounded by housing woes and a debilitating credit crisis. The economy grew at a weak rate of 0.9 percent in the first quarter after shrinking in the last three months of 2007.
Also Thursday, the Labor Department said the number of newly laid off people seeking jobless benefits fell for the third straight week. Claims dropped to a seasonally adjusted 425,000, down 10,000 from the previous week. That was slightly better than the 427,000 expected by analysts surveyed by Thomson/IFR.
But some economists consider claims above 400,000 an indicator of a slowing economy. Companies have cut jobs every month this year as they grapple with high energy costs and tighter credit.


perhaps a light at the end of the tunnel. though, it's fairly uncertain how much of this is due to the "stimulus" package/checks... and the fact that GDP can be revised up (or down). aside from that whole 'weaker dollar' clause, this could be a start to reversing the tide.

[CrenshawPunch]

3.3 increase in the GDP this quarter? MUST BE A RECESSION.

Lol.

[Jason Tate]

3.3 increase in the GDP this quarter? MUST BE A RECESSION.

Lol.
Pretty sure most people in this thread know what an actual recession is ... however, the GDP is most certainly not the only economic indicator.

[CrenshawPunch]

Pretty sure most people in this thread know what an actual recession is ... however, the GDP is most certainly not the only economic indicator.

I know I know. That wasn't meant to be a shot at anyone in particular. You guys definitely have your shit together. It just gave me a good laugh.

[Killadelphia]

what's screwed up about the whole social security shortfall issue is that a huge chunk of it is the result of reagan, bush sr, and clinton virtually emptying the fund to pay off foreign debts and balance budgets........taking into account the money lost from potential interest we'd be close to sitting pretty in terms of it's funding if it had been left alone.

what screwed up social security was the people who originally gained from it never put anything into it and the natural inflating dollar.

[Killadelphia]

3.3 increase in the GDP this quarter? MUST BE A RECESSION.

Lol.

what is it verse inflation?

[Killadelphia]

my point is that he himself didn't add anything to the debt. the debt did grow in his first term, but not because of anything he did.......shifts in the budget take alot of politicing and time to implement and during that time the debt continued to run up. since that was beyond his control to change quickly i think it's unfair to say clinton brought on that debt.
it's not the clinton era that's the discussion here.....i asked for someone to point to a republican president from the last 40 years that didn't pile on massive debts.

He didn't do anything to promote a prosperous economy either.

[CrenshawPunch]

what is it verse inflation?

About 1% a quarter for inflation.

[Killadelphia]

About 1% a quarter for inflation.

so actually rise was about 2.3%, not that great with regard to real gdp, unless that 3.3% was real gdp.

[CrenshawPunch]

so actually rise was about 2.3%, not that great with regard to real gdp, unless that 3.3% was real gdp.


Yeah, increases are generally bad. :rolleyes:

[Killadelphia]

Yeah, increases are generally bad. :rolleyes:

You're missing the point. The GDP has been increasing for a long time.

``Outside of trade, the economy is considerably weaker,'' said Carl Riccadonna, an economist at Deutsche Bank Securities Inc. in New York. ``When you look at the spending, it looks terrible for the second half of the year.''

The smallest trade deficit in eight years was the biggest contributor to growth last quarter. The trade gap narrowed to a $US376.6 billion annual pace and added 3.1%age points to growth, the most since 1980. Excluding trade, the economy would have expanded at a 0.2% pace after growing 0.1% in the first three months of the year.

http://business.theage.com.au/business/us-gdp-growth-revised-up-20080829-456l.html

GDP has grown for awhile. An increase in growth is good, but is our trade only increasing because of a weaker dollar or better products. Would importers be willing to buy our products at a higher price, probably not. Everything else is slumping and food prices continue to rise.

[saysmydoctor]

The growth in the GDP has been incredibly slight, the fears of recession were legitimate. The calls saying we were in one were not.

[Killadelphia]

Yeah, what might look like a recession is really just a stagnant economy. We're treading through mud, but still moving. There's way too much paper money in our system right now. Our Real GDP has not seen negative growth however.

[saysmydoctor]

Yeah, what might look like a recession is really just a stagnant economy. We're treading through mud, but still moving. There's way too much paper money in our system right now. Our Real GDP has not seen negative growth however.
It's not too much paper money, it's we don't have any money. 9 trillion debt, the Chinese hold all our treasury bonds, we borrow from the Chinese, and wage two wars, give shitloads of foreign aid, bloat budgets, and still continue to have deficits budget after budget after budget. I hate Newt Gingrich, but I wish it was the 90s again and he was balancing the budget. If paid back the money owed to ourselves and pulled out of Iraq, we'd stablize the dollar.

[Killadelphia]

It's not too much paper money, it's we don't have any money. 9 trillion debt, the Chinese hold all our treasury bonds, we borrow from the Chinese, and wage two wars, give shitloads of foreign aid, bloat budgets, and still continue to have deficits budget after budget after budget. I hate Newt Gingrich, but I wish it was the 90s again and he was balancing the budget. If paid back the money owed to ourselves and pulled out of Iraq, we'd stablize the dollar.

Personally, I think they've kept interest rates low to weaken the dollar and make our products more enticing to export. It's a theory with little backing or proof, but it is just one of those hunches I have. It's too easy to obtain loans and credit in a weak economy right now.

[saysmydoctor]

I thought the problem was you couldn't get a loan because banks are failing left and right and the big banks are scared shitless. I'm by no means an economist and I have only a marginal understanding of how it works.

[Killadelphia]

I thought the problem was you couldn't get a loan because banks are failing left and right and the big banks are scared shitless. I'm by no means an economist and I have only a marginal understanding of how it works.

It is in a sense harder to get loans because so many people are defaulting, but many of those people took out loans because of the lower interest rates. The lower interest rates also make it easier for smaller banks to borrow from the bigger banks, but they smaller banks wind up getting swallowed in the end.

[youkwalks]

Personally, I think they've kept interest rates low to weaken the dollar and make our products more enticing to export. It's a theory with little backing or proof, but it is just one of those hunches I have. It's too easy to obtain loans and credit in a weak economy right now.
I dont think this was the policy from the start, but its probably the policy now. The world economy caught up (and in some cases passed the U.S.) fast for a variety of reasons. Keeping the dollar low right now and making American goods more enticing is a way of getting back into the global economy after falling down for a few years. As American goods are demanded, the dollar will regain its value and find a balance.



sports forum invasion!