Doom & Gloom seems a little more like reality

[Thump553]

Originally posted by: Skoorb

Originally posted by: TheSlamma

Originally posted by: MooseNSquirrel
Oh and can we give up the idea that thet stock market is any reflection of reality?

Don't companies that are invested in use that money to employ more people though and other things that allow them to contribute to the economy?

Yes, they do, it's more than simply a trading game. They issue stock and the higher its current price, the more money they can get for any particular piece of stock.

Actually no in almost all circumstances. The only money the company gets off the stock is when the issue it. Sometimes companies hold their own stock with the intention/ability to resell it to the public, that is fairly uncommon though.

However, yes in a couple of regards: (1) the CEO and other bigwigs often get a fair amount of their compensation in stock, or stock options. The better the stock does the happier they are-and the less out of pocket dollar costs to the company to pay them and (2) the value of the stock/shareholder equity is extremely important in certain regards, like loan requirements or, for banks and insurers-complying with minimum capital regulations.

All in all the stock market is at best a distorted reflection of the economy. For example, in the past six months many, many huge companies have lost (or gained) 10-50% of their value in a single trading day. This big contraction in the GDP is a whole lot more significant to me than where the Dow is. And Obama and most technocrats are right-we are in a world of hurt, bascially unprecedented in all of our lifetimes.

 

[miketheidiot]

Originally posted by: eleison

Originally posted by: dphantom

Originally posted by: Hacp

Originally posted by: Skoorb
Link

The government says the economy shrank at a staggering 6.2 percent pace at the end of 2008, the worst showing in a quarter-century. Consumers and businesses ratcheted back spending, plunging the country deeper into recession.

The Commerce Department figure shows the economy sinking much faster than the 3.8 percent annualized drop for the October-December quarter first estimated by the government last month.

It also was a considerably weaker performance than the 5.4 percent annualized decline economists expected.

Futures are down sharply as we see the market ultimately heading to a sub-7k.

So Obama ran the country for less than two months and we already have a 6% reduction in gdp? I can't wait to see what happens after 12 months of running this country. We might as well kiss the US economy goodbye.

The affects of any Obama/Congress policy won't start to show up for until the third qtr this year. However, it is my opinion the stock market has been reacting to both this and the Obama plans since the November election.

Yea, that's the general consensus from people that I've talked to... On this forum, not so much... but then most people on this forum are libs who probably haven't taken a shower in a few days

IMHO its going to get a lot worse. Heck, the country probably needs it to show them how ignorant liberal policies are. Look at Jimmy carter.. The US pop could only handle one term. Afterward, it was pretty much center policies or right of center for a few decades...

what was wrong with carter again?

 

[StageLeft]

Originally posted by: Thump553

Originally posted by: Skoorb

Originally posted by: TheSlamma

Originally posted by: MooseNSquirrel
Oh and can we give up the idea that thet stock market is any reflection of reality?

Don't companies that are invested in use that money to employ more people though and other things that allow them to contribute to the economy?

Yes, they do, it's more than simply a trading game. They issue stock and the higher its current price, the more money they can get for any particular piece of stock.

Actually no in almost all circumstances. The only money the company gets off the stock is when the issue it. Sometimes companies hold their own stock with the intention/ability to resell it to the public, that is fairly uncommon though.

However, yes in a couple of regards: (1) the CEO and other bigwigs often get a fair amount of their compensation in stock, or stock options. The better the stock does the happier they are-and the less out of pocket dollar costs to the company to pay them and (2) the value of the stock/shareholder equity is extremely important in certain regards, like loan requirements or, for banks and insurers-complying with minimum capital regulations.

All in all the stock market is at best a distorted reflection of the economy. For example, in the past six months many, many huge companies have lost (or gained) 10-50% of their value in a single trading day. This big contraction in the GDP is a whole lot more significant to me than where the Dow is. And Obama and most technocrats are right-we are in a world of hurt, bascially unprecedented in all of our lifetimes.

Thanks!

 

[winnar111]

Originally posted by: miketheidiot

Originally posted by: eleison

Originally posted by: dphantom

Originally posted by: Hacp

Originally posted by: Skoorb
Link

The government says the economy shrank at a staggering 6.2 percent pace at the end of 2008, the worst showing in a quarter-century. Consumers and businesses ratcheted back spending, plunging the country deeper into recession.

The Commerce Department figure shows the economy sinking much faster than the 3.8 percent annualized drop for the October-December quarter first estimated by the government last month.

It also was a considerably weaker performance than the 5.4 percent annualized decline economists expected.

Futures are down sharply as we see the market ultimately heading to a sub-7k.

So Obama ran the country for less than two months and we already have a 6% reduction in gdp? I can't wait to see what happens after 12 months of running this country. We might as well kiss the US economy goodbye.

The affects of any Obama/Congress policy won't start to show up for until the third qtr this year. However, it is my opinion the stock market has been reacting to both this and the Obama plans since the November election.

Yea, that's the general consensus from people that I've talked to... On this forum, not so much... but then most people on this forum are libs who probably haven't taken a shower in a few days

IMHO its going to get a lot worse. Heck, the country probably needs it to show them how ignorant liberal policies are. Look at Jimmy carter.. The US pop could only handle one term. Afterward, it was pretty much center policies or right of center for a few decades...

what was wrong with carter again?

Inflation, unemployment, Iranians, and his green bullshit.

 

[MovingTarget]

Originally posted by: winnar111

Originally posted by: miketheidiot
[

/snip

what was wrong with carter again?

Inflation, unemployment, Iranians, and his green bullshit.

You may be right on the first three, but if we had listened to his 'green bullshit', we would definitely be better off today. Funny how things come full-circle sometimes.


Edit: Removed nesting quote hell...

 

[Carmen813]

The difference between a pessimist and an optimist?

The pessimist says things cannot possibly get any worse. The optimist says, oh yes it can.

 

[Thump553]

Interesting, blaming Carter for inflation-seeing as how it really started ramping up in '67 and frustrated the best efforts of LBJ, Nixon (wage and price freezes) and Ford (remember his silly WIN buttons-Whip Inflation Now) to control it. Carter actually started to get the monster of our megainflation under control-but paid the cost for doing so.

Iran was a problem festering since the CIA put the Shah in place in 1954. As the Shah began dying of cancer and his power slipping, the Iranian revolution and the long pent up anti-American backlash was inevitable.

If only we really followed Carter's "green bullshit" thirty years ago. Perhaps much of the false prosperity since then would have been tempered, but we'd certainly be better off, environmentally and economically, since then.

Carter was a far better and far more capable man than most who have occupied the White House in the past fifty years. The fatal flaw in his Administration was his propensity to micromanage everything and getting bogged down in the details. A President with Carter's ability and Reagan's management skills would have been awesome.

 

[ProfJohn]

I don't think you can call Carter 'green' in the same sense that the word is used today.

All Carter wanted was less energy use and more energy independence, not much different than what most people in Washington have been 'claiming' to want for 30+ years.

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: Thump553
Interesting, blaming Carter for inflation-seeing as how it really started ramping up in '67 and frustrated the best efforts of LBJ, Nixon (wage and price freezes) and Ford (remember his silly WIN buttons-Whip Inflation Now) to control it. Carter actually started to get the monster of our megainflation under control-but paid the cost for doing so.

Iran was a problem festering since the CIA put the Shah in place in 1954. As the Shah began dying of cancer and his power slipping, the Iranian revolution and the long pent up anti-American backlash was inevitable.

If only we really followed Carter's "green bullshit" thirty years ago. Perhaps much of the false prosperity since then would have been tempered, but we'd certainly be better off, environmentally and economically, since then.

Carter was a far better and far more capable man than most who have occupied the White House in the past fifty years. The fatal flaw in his Administration was his propensity to micromanage everything and getting bogged down in the details. A President with Carter's ability and Reagan's management skills would have been awesome.

Yup. Reagan was complete BS compared to Carter. People's Self-Centered reality fails to see it though. His problem was that he was willing to break from the mould and tackle Longterm Issues that were looming large. People seem to need the Drama of a Crisis before acting though.

 

[ProfJohn]

Originally posted by: Thump553
Interesting, blaming Carter for inflation-seeing as how it really started ramping up in '67 and frustrated the best efforts of LBJ, Nixon (wage and price freezes) and Ford (remember his silly WIN buttons-Whip Inflation Now) to control it. Carter actually started to get the monster of our megainflation under control-but paid the cost for doing so.

Iran was a problem festering since the CIA put the Shah in place in 1954. As the Shah began dying of cancer and his power slipping, the Iranian revolution and the long pent up anti-American backlash was inevitable.

If only we really followed Carter's "green bullshit" thirty years ago. Perhaps much of the false prosperity since then would have been tempered, but we'd certainly be better off, environmentally and economically, since then.

Carter was a far better and far more capable man than most who have occupied the White House in the past fifty years. The fatal flaw in his Administration was his propensity to micromanage everything and getting bogged down in the details. A President with Carter's ability and Reagan's management skills would have been awesome.

Which is why he ranks lower than any President after him, expect for W.

Please name for me one great success under Carter.

 

[dphantom]

Originally posted by: Hacp

Originally posted by: dphantom

Originally posted by: Hacp

Originally posted by: Skoorb
Link

The government says the economy shrank at a staggering 6.2 percent pace at the end of 2008, the worst showing in a quarter-century. Consumers and businesses ratcheted back spending, plunging the country deeper into recession.

The Commerce Department figure shows the economy sinking much faster than the 3.8 percent annualized drop for the October-December quarter first estimated by the government last month.

It also was a considerably weaker performance than the 5.4 percent annualized decline economists expected.

Futures are down sharply as we see the market ultimately heading to a sub-7k.

So Obama ran the country for less than two months and we already have a 6% reduction in gdp? I can't wait to see what happens after 12 months of running this country. We might as well kiss the US economy goodbye.

The affects of any Obama/Congress policy won't start to show up for until the third qtr this year. However, it is my opinion the stock market has been reacting to both this and the Obama plans since the November election.

Its effects, not affects. You are immediately discredited.

Nooooo :Q

You are correct, ach and it is one of my pet peeves the misuse of affect and effect.

 

[dphantom]

Originally posted by: miketheidiot

Originally posted by: eleison

Originally posted by: dphantom

Originally posted by: Hacp

Originally posted by: Skoorb
Link

The government says the economy shrank at a staggering 6.2 percent pace at the end of 2008, the worst showing in a quarter-century. Consumers and businesses ratcheted back spending, plunging the country deeper into recession.

The Commerce Department figure shows the economy sinking much faster than the 3.8 percent annualized drop for the October-December quarter first estimated by the government last month.

It also was a considerably weaker performance than the 5.4 percent annualized decline economists expected.

Futures are down sharply as we see the market ultimately heading to a sub-7k.

So Obama ran the country for less than two months and we already have a 6% reduction in gdp? I can't wait to see what happens after 12 months of running this country. We might as well kiss the US economy goodbye.

The affects of any Obama/Congress policy won't start to show up for until the third qtr this year. However, it is my opinion the stock market has been reacting to both this and the Obama plans since the November election.

Yea, that's the general consensus from people that I've talked to... On this forum, not so much... but then most people on this forum are libs who probably haven't taken a shower in a few days

IMHO its going to get a lot worse. Heck, the country probably needs it to show them how ignorant liberal policies are. Look at Jimmy carter.. The US pop could only handle one term. Afterward, it was pretty much center policies or right of center for a few decades...

what was wrong with carter again?

He was a pea-nut?

 

[winnar111]

Originally posted by: Thump553
Interesting, blaming Carter for inflation-seeing as how it really started ramping up in '67 and frustrated the best efforts of LBJ, Nixon (wage and price freezes) and Ford (remember his silly WIN buttons-Whip Inflation Now) to control it. Carter actually started to get the monster of our megainflation under control-but paid the cost for doing so.

Iran was a problem festering since the CIA put the Shah in place in 1954. As the Shah began dying of cancer and his power slipping, the Iranian revolution and the long pent up anti-American backlash was inevitable.

If only we really followed Carter's "green bullshit" thirty years ago. Perhaps much of the false prosperity since then would have been tempered, but we'd certainly be better off, environmentally and economically, since then.

Carter was a far better and far more capable man than most who have occupied the White House in the past fifty years. The fatal flaw in his Administration was his propensity to micromanage everything and getting bogged down in the details. A President with Carter's ability and Reagan's management skills would have been awesome.

CPI disagrees with you. Inflation was about 11% in the last year of his term, and both inflation and unemployment went UP during his time.

http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/data/CPIAUCSL.txt

We have the same showboat president this time, only now he's black. Definition of insanity and all...

 

[winnar111]

Originally posted by: MovingTarget

Originally posted by: winnar111

Originally posted by: miketheidiot
[

/snip

what was wrong with carter again?

Inflation, unemployment, Iranians, and his green bullshit.

You may be right on the first three, but if we had listened to his 'green bullshit', we would definitely be better off today. Funny how things come full-circle sometimes.


Edit: Removed nesting quote hell...

Based on what?

If we had listened to W about fannie and freddie reform, where would we be today?

 

[MovingTarget]

Originally posted by: winnar111

Originally posted by: MovingTarget

Originally posted by: winnar111

Originally posted by: miketheidiot
[

/snip

what was wrong with carter again?

Inflation, unemployment, Iranians, and his green bullshit.

You may be right on the first three, but if we had listened to his 'green bullshit', we would definitely be better off today. Funny how things come full-circle sometimes.


Edit: Removed nesting quote hell...

Based on what?

The moves to remove our dependence on fossil fuels is a big one. It is only now that mainstream America is picking up on this. Had we made the improvements in say, fuel efficiency, that Carter advocated, we wouldn't have been affected by the rise in fuel prices that we experienced the last year or two than we were. It really put the brakes on a lot of economic growth. It is only now that we are pushing for heavier use of renewable sources of power generation, but what if we had already done so 30 years ago? The environment and our wallets would be healthier over the long run. Why do you think people are advocating those same things today that he did decades ago? Because he was right....

 

[Ausm]

Originally posted by: Hacp

Originally posted by: Skoorb
Link

The government says the economy shrank at a staggering 6.2 percent pace at the end of 2008, the worst showing in a quarter-century. Consumers and businesses ratcheted back spending, plunging the country deeper into recession.

The Commerce Department figure shows the economy sinking much faster than the 3.8 percent annualized drop for the October-December quarter first estimated by the government last month.

It also was a considerably weaker performance than the 5.4 percent annualized decline economists expected.

Futures are down sharply as we see the market ultimately heading to a sub-7k.

So Obama ran the country for less than two months and we already have a 6% reduction in gdp? I can't wait to see what happens after 12 months of running this country. We might as well kiss the US economy goodbye.

It took 8+ years to get in this mess do you really think it will turn around in 2 months...my guess is you are not a member of Mensa.

 

[Chunkee]

Originally posted by: Ausm

Originally posted by: Hacp

Originally posted by: Skoorb
Link

The government says the economy shrank at a staggering 6.2 percent pace at the end of 2008, the worst showing in a quarter-century. Consumers and businesses ratcheted back spending, plunging the country deeper into recession.

The Commerce Department figure shows the economy sinking much faster than the 3.8 percent annualized drop for the October-December quarter first estimated by the government last month.

It also was a considerably weaker performance than the 5.4 percent annualized decline economists expected.

Futures are down sharply as we see the market ultimately heading to a sub-7k.

So Obama ran the country for less than two months and we already have a 6% reduction in gdp? I can't wait to see what happens after 12 months of running this country. We might as well kiss the US economy goodbye.

It took 8+ years to get in this mess do you really think it will turn around in 2 months...my guess is you are not a member of Mensa.

Good one....

 

[BigDH01]

You guys need to cut Carter some slack. He was the one who had enough courage to pick Volcker, whom he knew would send interest rates to high levels. It was these Volcker shocks that brought inflation under control (although most here would credit Reagan). Carter knew that Volcker's monetary policy was going to be rough on the country economically in the short-term (in 80, the Fed Funds rate hit 20%) and ultimately tarnish his image in history and his chances for re-election. When the Volcker shocks finally brought inflation under control (in 83), Reagan got credit. Carter basically sacrificed his admin to solve this economic problem. So when you think about ending stagflation, you can thank Volcker, who was appointed by Carter.

 

[winnar111]

Originally posted by: MovingTarget

The moves to remove our dependence on fossil fuels is a big one. It is only now that mainstream America is picking up on this. Had we made the improvements in say, fuel efficiency, that Carter advocated, we wouldn't have been affected by the rise in fuel prices that we experienced the last year or two than we were. It really put the brakes on a lot of economic growth. It is only now that we are pushing for heavier use of renewable sources of power generation, but what if we had already done so 30 years ago? The environment and our wallets would be healthier over the long run. Why do you think people are advocating those same things today that he did decades ago? Because he was right....

Dampens growth? Growth in the 30 years since Carter has been signifiantly higher than the 30 years preceding him. We've had 3 recessions in that time, compared to 3 recessions in the 70s alone.

People wanted comfort and horsepower over gas mileage. They chose it. Driving a prius instead of a Suburban doesn't make you better off. It just means you can't haul as much shit in your car.

Nobody gives a damn about renewable energy except the Greenpeace crowd, especially when they have to pay for it. Which is why its a subsidy machine and always has been.

 

[StageLeft]

Originally posted by: dphantom
Nooooo :Q

You are correct, ach and it is one of my pet peeves the misuse of affect and effect.

Despite how that peeve may effect you, let's put it aside for a moment.

 

[TheSlamma]

Originally posted by: winnar111
Inflation, unemployment, Iranians, and his green bullshit.

It's amazing how bad republicans want to rape this planet.

So what is it anyway? Just that you want to be able to tell future generations what it was like to have a forest just so you have a story to tell? Is it that you want to force the apocalypse so you can prove your non-existent God really does exist?


Seriously what is the hardon for hating people that want to shut off the light switch when you are done in the room just to save a little coal?

 

[winnar111]

Originally posted by: TheSlamma

Originally posted by: winnar111
Inflation, unemployment, Iranians, and his green bullshit.

It's amazing how bad republicans want to rape this planet.

So what is it anyway? Just that you want to be able to tell future generations what it was like to have a forest just so you have a story to tell? Is it that you want to force the apocalypse so you can prove your non-existent God really does exist?


Seriously what is the hardon for hating people that want to shut off the light switch when you are done in the room just to save a little coal?

I'd rather rape it than sacrifice while China and India rapes it yeah. Our nation has earned that right.

Why don't you ask Al Gore that question?

 

[MovingTarget]

Originally posted by: winnar111

Originally posted by: MovingTarget

The moves to remove our dependence on fossil fuels is a big one. It is only now that mainstream America is picking up on this. Had we made the improvements in say, fuel efficiency, that Carter advocated, we wouldn't have been affected by the rise in fuel prices that we experienced the last year or two than we were. It really put the brakes on a lot of economic growth. It is only now that we are pushing for heavier use of renewable sources of power generation, but what if we had already done so 30 years ago? The environment and our wallets would be healthier over the long run. Why do you think people are advocating those same things today that he did decades ago? Because he was right....

Dampens growth? Growth in the 30 years since Carter has been signifiantly higher than the 30 years preceding him. We've had 3 recessions in that time, compared to 3 recessions in the 70s alone.

People wanted comfort and horsepower over gas mileage. They chose it. Driving a prius instead of a Suburban doesn't make you better off. It just means you can't haul as much shit in your car.

Nobody gives a damn about renewable energy except the Greenpeace crowd.

Wow, are you that out of touch? Even Republicans are coming around to the idea that we need to reduce our dependence on fossil fuels via renewables and nuclear energy. Nobody gives a damn? That used to be the case, but people are finally waking up and reading the writing on teh wall.

We didn't have our economy grow because we abandoned Carter's warnings about dependence on oil. It grew in spite of that. Remember in the 70s all that crap with OPEC having us over a barrel? Yeah... Fact is, if we had a more efficient infrastructure, we would be far better off should the supply of oil be restricted or become expensive like it so recently did. If you cannot see that, then you are truly blind.

As far as the comfort vs. gas mileage thing, some people are short-sighted when it comes to their auto purchases. Driving a prius instead of a Suburban makes you better off if you don't have to haul anything that requires something as big as a Suburban. A big part of this is misconception that Americans don't want these vehicles. They do, but at a reasonable price.

Besides, it seems that people don't have enough faith in our engineers. For any one class of vehicle, performance and efficiency do not have to be sacrificed as much as you think. We are pretty damn good at building electric motors, which have their torque fully available at the beginning of their rpm curve. This is excellent for towing. Same with hydraulic motors. The problem is the energy storage/generation. I for one think that if we had kept up the R&D with this goal in mind for the past 30 years as an imperative, then we would have it. That is the beauty of mandating higher Cafe standards...it forces innovation to keep up whereas the market will ignore efficiency until a crisis happens. Government pressure does have a role to play here. A fully electric Suburban would be pretty awesome....and we should have it by now... If Carter had gotten his way and we would've kept up since then, then this would be reality.

 

[MovingTarget]

Originally posted by: winnar111

Originally posted by: TheSlamma

Originally posted by: winnar111
Inflation, unemployment, Iranians, and his green bullshit.

It's amazing how bad republicans want to rape this planet.

So what is it anyway? Just that you want to be able to tell future generations what it was like to have a forest just so you have a story to tell? Is it that you want to force the apocalypse so you can prove your non-existent God really does exist?


Seriously what is the hardon for hating people that want to shut off the light switch when you are done in the room just to save a little coal?

I'd rather rape it than sacrifice while China and India rapes it yeah. Our nation has earned that right.

Why don't you ask Al Gore that question?

Way to invoke the Gore boogeyman. "Everybody else is doing it!" is not a valid reason to ignore what we know is the right thing to do. China and India are doing a bad job at environmental stewardship.....so.....I dunno....maybe we can show some......whats the word......LEADERSHIP. We should set the example...it is who we are as a people.

 

[MooseNSquirrel]

Originally posted by: winnar111

Originally posted by: MovingTarget

The moves to remove our dependence on fossil fuels is a big one. It is only now that mainstream America is picking up on this. Had we made the improvements in say, fuel efficiency, that Carter advocated, we wouldn't have been affected by the rise in fuel prices that we experienced the last year or two than we were. It really put the brakes on a lot of economic growth. It is only now that we are pushing for heavier use of renewable sources of power generation, but what if we had already done so 30 years ago? The environment and our wallets would be healthier over the long run. Why do you think people are advocating those same things today that he did decades ago? Because he was right....

Dampens growth? Growth in the 30 years since Carter has been signifiantly higher than the 30 years preceding him. We've had 3 recessions in that time, compared to 3 recessions in the 70s alone.

People wanted comfort and horsepower over gas mileage. They chose it. Driving a prius instead of a Suburban doesn't make you better off. It just means you can't haul as much shit in your car.

Nobody gives a damn about renewable energy except the Greenpeace crowd, especially when they have to pay for it. Which is why its a subsidy machine and always has been.

Except now we know how it played out.

Reagan showed up with his credit card, told Americans to party, and they continued the sham for 30 years. Now we face the denouement.

Carter told people to face reality and they sent him packing.

EDIT: Let me add, is it no surprise then that with Obama we are seeing the death of Reaganism?

S&M