Doom & Gloom seems a little more like reality

[StageLeft]

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

Unfortunately not the end of the credit card, though.

 

[Zebo]

All we can do is prepare for worst and hope for the best.

I think we have two main problems that's going to require a fundamental societal shift before we have a boom again.
1. Deadbeats top to bottom (can't have more hands out and crooks than productive)
2. Debt that needs to be deleveraged (which includes, selling assets and laying off which has a snowball effect)

 

[TheSlamma]

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?

That didn't come within a mile of answering my question, but then again what can you expect from losar000

 

[winnar111]

Originally posted by: MovingTarget

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.

So we might be better off for 2 years out of 30, at best, and worse for the remaining 28, because we dumped money into crap that doesnt compete with cheap gasoline. And Americans didn't want these vehicles. Sedans always the cheapest cars available. and people chose SUVs instead. Those hybrids that sold out the last 3 years? They needed a tax subsidy to be viable.

Never mind that the liberal GM autoworkers union can't profit on these cars.

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.

Or, we might be exactly where we are now, only with more bankrupt automakers, and every vehicle purchased over the last 30 years $1000 more to cover these research costs. There's no proof that this would be reality.

 

[winnar111]

Originally posted by: MovingTarget

Originally posted by: winnar111

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.

We dump our money into so called green technology, so China and India will go against their own interests and dump money into green technology? Good luck!

:laugh:

 

[MovingTarget]

Originally posted by: winnar111

Originally posted by: MovingTarget

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.

So we might be better off for 2 years out of 30, at best, and worse for the remaining 28, because we dumped money into crap that doesnt compete with cheap gasoline. And Americans didn't want these vehicles. Sedans always the cheapest cars available. and people chose SUVs instead. Those hybrids that sold out the last 3 years? They needed a tax subsidy to be viable.

Never mind that the liberal GM autoworkers union can't profit on these cars.

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.

Or, we might be exactly where we are now, only with more bankrupt automakers, and every vehicle purchased over the last 30 years $1000 more to cover these research costs. There's no proof that this would be reality.

2 years out of 30? No. Those were merely an example. If you think that cheap oil over the long run is going to be cheap, you are delusional. Besides, fuel efficiency is part of why the domestics lost a major share of the auto market to the imports. This is fact. If Carter had pushed fuel efficiency, then they might still be dominant and thus not hurting like they are now.

 

[nullzero]

We are in a major shit storm right now with the economy... I do not think we will ever be the same after the dust settles.

 

[MovingTarget]

Originally posted by: winnar111

Originally posted by: MovingTarget

Originally posted by: winnar111

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.

We dump our money into so called green technology, so China and India will go against their own interests and dump money into green technology? Good luck!

:laugh:

Leadership isn't always the easiest route to take, but in the long run it pays off. China and India are sacrificing their long-term interests for short term industrialization gains. We have a moral obligation to set the example. Besides, it isn't "so called" green technology. You act like it is vaporware, but it is proven technology that already exists....

 

[winnar111]

Originally posted by: MovingTarget

Leadership isn't always the easiest route to take, but in the long run it pays off. China and India are sacrificing their long-term interests for short term industrialization gains. We have a moral obligation to set the example. Besides, it isn't "so called" green technology. You act like it is vaporware, but it is proven technology that already exists....

It is essentially vaporware. 30 years after Carter pulled his solar panel stunt, it still isnt commerically viable without massive tax credits.

 

[TheSlamma]

Originally posted by: nullzero
We are in a major shit storm right now with the economy... I do not think we will ever be the same after the dust settles.

I wonder if people said that same thing in 1930, 1973 and 2001?

 

[MovingTarget]

Originally posted by: winnar111

Originally posted by: MovingTarget

Leadership isn't always the easiest route to take, but in the long run it pays off. China and India are sacrificing their long-term interests for short term industrialization gains. We have a moral obligation to set the example. Besides, it isn't "so called" green technology. You act like it is vaporware, but it is proven technology that already exists....

It is essentially vaporware. 30 years after Carter pulled his solar panel stunt, it still isnt commerically viable without massive tax credits.

And those panels are still running after thirty years, albeit somewhere else after Reagan removed them thinking "they sent the wrong message" or some crap like that. Have you been keeping up on how solar has developed over the past few years? The technology has vastly improved and is proving itself more and more everyday.

What about all the wind turbines that have been popping up everywhere, not just in the US, but around the world? Those proven to be economically viable. For large scale solar, photovoltaics yield to solar thermal technologies which are much simpler, but require a lot of land. Solar towers are just now taking off. Any industry like this has a significant startup cost and has to compete with already entrenched industries that they augment or displace. By your argument, many in the US wouldn't have electricity and phone service because back when they were just getting started, the government had to subsidize them to extend their lines beyond inner cities because they said it "wasn't economically viable". But you know what, thankfully the government stepped in and looked forward, beyond the short term vision of the industrialists and bankers of the day, to wire America for the 20th century. For things of this scale, sometimes you have to give technologies a boost to get going. Once they do, however, they take off all by themselves.

 

[Infohawk]

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.

This is a very solid troll. Note how the perp leads in with a completely bogus claim and then follows up with a classic grammar troll and is not heard from again.

 

[miketheidiot]

Originally posted by: 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.

Text

i would say that that was a good thing.

 

[miketheidiot]

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?

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

the exact same place?

 

[StageLeft]

Originally posted by: TheSlamma

Originally posted by: nullzero
We are in a major shit storm right now with the economy... I do not think we will ever be the same after the dust settles.

I wonder if people said that same thing in 1930, 1973 and 2001?

Probably, but wouldn't they have been kind of right?

 

[wwswimming]

http://finance.yahoo.com/tech-...?tickers=ubs,cs,db,hbc

one of the financial journalists i like, John Mauldin, was featured at Yahoo's Tech Ticker. he talks about the
effect of Europe's economy on the US.

he's also been pretty good at explaining S&P 500 valuations. he basically manages investment managers,
and then writes about investing.

i know it's depressing because people are losing money. i don't particularly like worrying about my bank
failing. i had been with WaMu since 1975, and had to deal with that last year.

 

[IGBT]

..Doombama is your master. get used to it.

 

[rchiu]

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.

Heh, tell us something we don't know please. I don't need government to tell me the last 3 month of 2008 sucked. Just walk down my local malls I see 1/3 of the store empty or doing an out of business sales.

The important thing is how much longer this is gonna last. I hope the article is right that the economy will recover in 2nd half of 2009. But right now, I don't see any driver for an economy recovery anytime soon. Don't see much investments in US infrastructure in Obama's spending bill, just bunch of tax cut and health care related stuff and more bailout for failed companies.

Anyway, as someone with a stable job and some cash on the sideline waiting for the right opportunity, I will just wait and see how much worse this will go. Feel sorry for the hardworking middle class in the US who is gonna be badly affected by this though.

 

[theeedude]

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.

LOL, guy who can't read arguing with a guy who can't spell. This should be good.

 

[nullzero]

Originally posted by: TheSlamma

Originally posted by: nullzero
We are in a major shit storm right now with the economy... I do not think we will ever be the same after the dust settles.

I wonder if people said that same thing in 1930, 1973 and 2001?

Look at the major events that unfolded after.

1930s: The rise of dictators and fascism/communism worldwide, Start of WW2...

1973 to 1979: Pull out and end of Vietnam war, Worldwide crisis with oil, Start and rise of China on the world wide stage, Shah of Iran forced into exile and Iran taken over by religious rule. Nixon scandal and U.S. dollar policy being backed by gold is stopped and new agreement reached (Bretton Woods Accord).

2001: Global war on terror started, war in Afghanistan and war in Iraq started, interest rates and lending standards lowered to never before seen levels, privacy and civil rights eroded worldwide in the name of terrorism.

This global downturn looks more like a 1930s situation.... I do believe we will see some major changes worldwide like those seen after the start of the great depression.

 

[SirStev0]

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.

Damn I wish I had the ability to send this to your Grand Kids. Would love to see their expressions when they find out how much of a stubborn mindless moron their Grandpappy was. Though... I guess it would be pretty hard since by that time people will either be burning garbage to try to stay alive and it is really hard to see expressions by the light of a burning tire or science has woken up and found renewable resource.

We need renewable energy. Just because stubborn morons like yourself and pandering politicians refuse to acknowledge it doesn't make it an issue we should just cast into the wind.

 

[Ozoned]

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.

Is its effects? You sure? Heh.

 

[wwswimming]

Wow :Q

Australian & Japanese markets opened up down 3% on the other side
of the International date line.

http://money.cnn.com/data/world_markets/

most days (recently) the US, Asian, and European markets have 'tracked'
each other.

meanwhile the US economy becomes more & more of a "command economy"
(centralized government control.)

another $30 billion for AIG - its 4th cash infusion.

http://biz.yahoo.com/ap/090301/aig_rescue.html

 

[Moonbeam]

Remember that people who unconsciously hate themselves, and that would be you, have also an unconscious desire for catastrophe. It is in part the unconscious need to return to trauma, to finally feel something real, and to get what you actually feel you deserve. It is a way out of the mind deadness of suppression and denial. We always bring about our worst fears.