Is The Worst Over? Most Economists Say Yes

[alchemize]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: alchemize
Great news - when the economy falls into a gutter, it does hit bottom!

~ 10% unemployment for the next year or so. Several million foreclosures to go. Debt not seen since WW2.

Mission accomplished!

Continuing Thank yous to Republicans, Bush and his supporters

Heck of a job

Dave, do you concur that the democrats now have full control of our government?

 

[BoberFett]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: blackangst1
I dont see the difference between what Reagan envisioned as trickle down (from the top of the private sector down) and what Obama is creating (from the top of the government down). The worse part about Obama's plan is the dependancy on the fed will increase, and as others have already stated, once the government grows, it wont shrink back. It hasnt since 1932, and it sure as hell isnt going to happen under Obama.

IMO in the end it isnt much different. Trickle down assumes when the rich save more of their income it is put back into the business or into the market and used for expansion. Which then employs people and the money flows down. This new keynsian idea is the same idea but more proactive. They give the money to the rich and hope they create jobs and trickle the money down. So far we have plowed billions into this and have shed millions of jobs while the rich are making out pretty well.

One problem with the new keynsian approach is the broken glass falacy.

Precisely. The Democrats don't believe in trickle down economics. Unless it's taxes that trickle down. They're just replacing one aristocracy with another. They worship government and want everything to trickle down from massive bureaucracy.

Good luck with that.

 

[LegendKiller]

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: blackangst1
I dont see the difference between what Reagan envisioned as trickle down (from the top of the private sector down) and what Obama is creating (from the top of the government down). The worse part about Obama's plan is the dependancy on the fed will increase, and as others have already stated, once the government grows, it wont shrink back. It hasnt since 1932, and it sure as hell isnt going to happen under Obama.

IMO in the end it isnt much different. Trickle down assumes when the rich save more of their income it is put back into the business or into the market and used for expansion. Which then employs people and the money flows down. This new keynsian idea is the same idea but more proactive. They give the money to the rich and hope they create jobs and trickle the money down. So far we have plowed billions into this and have shed millions of jobs while the rich are making out pretty well.

One problem with the new keynsian approach is the broken glass falacy.

Precisely. The Democrats don't believe in trickle down economics. Unless it's taxes that trickle down. They're just replacing one aristocracy with another. They worship government and want everything to trickle down from massive bureaucracy.

Good luck with that.

As opposed to worshiping social control and the military, resulting in a closed-minded society forever indebted to defense contractors and private mercenaries like Blackwater? But hey, we have some cool guns and GI Joes running around!

 

[First]

Originally posted by: LegendKiller

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: bamacre
Senseamp, how do you explain Harding's cutting spending and cutting taxes to get us out of a recession in 1920-21?

You are assuming that was what got us out of that recession, when it was the end of government war spending that got us into that recession in the first place.

LOL, yeah, but shouldn't Harding have increased gov't spending?

Seems odd that a president facing a recession would do something so unpatriotic as to cut gov't spending and taxes in the face of a recession, and tell people to cut back, too. Good thing Hoover didn't take Harding's advice, huh?

Even a broken clock is "right" twice a day. There were still a lot of economic aftershocks of WWI, so economic swings were likely unrelated to anything Harding did or didn't do.

When it comes down to it, bamacre read this whole Harding thing on mises.org and this is now his "big thing". He'll prattle on and on about it in thread after thread, pretending he's some massive genius, just like he did with the whole Fed/Interest Rate thing, until I shut him down.

Just like BansheeX did with the "inflation" no "deflation" no "inflation" no "deflation" flipfloppopottimus bullshit from the last 24 months.

Or, kinda like how that moron that these guys always quote (that one guy who lost a shit-ton of money for his clients in his massively bad calls about the dollar and foreign investments being "delinked").

These guys are like a drowning man in a sea of knowledge, clinging to any flotsam floating by to stop from drowning, even if it's a fishing net that'll entangle them instead of just
realizing things on their own they cling to the trash.

The dollar is dead, the dollar is dead!

Just letting the markets do their thing is all the ammo you need against these nutbags.

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: LegendKiller

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: blackangst1
I dont see the difference between what Reagan envisioned as trickle down (from the top of the private sector down) and what Obama is creating (from the top of the government down). The worse part about Obama's plan is the dependancy on the fed will increase, and as others have already stated, once the government grows, it wont shrink back. It hasnt since 1932, and it sure as hell isnt going to happen under Obama.

IMO in the end it isnt much different. Trickle down assumes when the rich save more of their income it is put back into the business or into the market and used for expansion. Which then employs people and the money flows down. This new keynsian idea is the same idea but more proactive. They give the money to the rich and hope they create jobs and trickle the money down. So far we have plowed billions into this and have shed millions of jobs while the rich are making out pretty well.

One problem with the new keynsian approach is the broken glass falacy.

Precisely. The Democrats don't believe in trickle down economics. Unless it's taxes that trickle down. They're just replacing one aristocracy with another. They worship government and want everything to trickle down from massive bureaucracy.

Good luck with that.

As opposed to worshiping social control and the military, resulting in a closed-minded society forever indebted to defense contractors and private mercenaries like Blackwater? But hey, we have some cool guns and GI Joes running around!

Plot the % of GDP and the budget we have spent on social programs vs the military for the past 50 years. I will give you a hint. The military is shrinking while the other is growing.

Social control goes for both parties. You have to blind to believe otherwise. One wants to push religion down your throat. The other a govt subsidy to gurantee a vote.

 

[LegendKiller]

Originally posted by: Genx87


Plot the % of GDP and the budget we have spent on social programs vs the military for the past 50 years. I will give you a hint. The military is shrinking while the other is growing.

Social control goes for both parties. You have to blind to believe otherwise. One wants to push religion down your throat. The other a govt subsidy to gurantee a vote.

There is a problem with that?

I've got no problem making sure we can have a healthy country that produces educated people to spur more longevity, efficiency, and innovation.

At least those people can then generate more GDP.

But then again, investing in killing people and starting unnecessary wars is always much more fun. That generates more defense GDP because then people hate us more, which starts more unnecessary wars, kills more people, and starts the cycle all over again.

 

[BoberFett]

Originally posted by: LegendKiller

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: blackangst1
I dont see the difference between what Reagan envisioned as trickle down (from the top of the private sector down) and what Obama is creating (from the top of the government down). The worse part about Obama's plan is the dependancy on the fed will increase, and as others have already stated, once the government grows, it wont shrink back. It hasnt since 1932, and it sure as hell isnt going to happen under Obama.

IMO in the end it isnt much different. Trickle down assumes when the rich save more of their income it is put back into the business or into the market and used for expansion. Which then employs people and the money flows down. This new keynsian idea is the same idea but more proactive. They give the money to the rich and hope they create jobs and trickle the money down. So far we have plowed billions into this and have shed millions of jobs while the rich are making out pretty well.

One problem with the new keynsian approach is the broken glass falacy.

Precisely. The Democrats don't believe in trickle down economics. Unless it's taxes that trickle down. They're just replacing one aristocracy with another. They worship government and want everything to trickle down from massive bureaucracy.

Good luck with that.

As opposed to worshiping social control and the military, resulting in a closed-minded society forever indebted to defense contractors and private mercenaries like Blackwater? But hey, we have some cool guns and GI Joes running around!

I'm sorry, did you have a point?

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: LegendKiller

Originally posted by: Genx87


Plot the % of GDP and the budget we have spent on social programs vs the military for the past 50 years. I will give you a hint. The military is shrinking while the other is growing.

Social control goes for both parties. You have to blind to believe otherwise. One wants to push religion down your throat. The other a govt subsidy to gurantee a vote.

There is a problem with that?

I've got no problem making sure we can have a healthy country that produces educated people to spur more longevity, efficiency, and innovation.

You were implying Republicans want some kind of military state. Our govt has been cutting military as a % of GDP and the budget for the last 50 years. Regardless of who is in power. Bush increased spending to a whole ~4% of GDP during a two front war. That is about 1/3rd what we had 50 years ago when it sat at about 15% of GDP.

At least those people can then generate more GDP.

But then again, investing in killing people and starting unnecessary wars is always much more fun. That generates more defense GDP because then people hate us more, which starts more unnecessary wars, kills more people, and starts the cycle all over again.

Our recent wars in the past two decades has been about oil. We as a country 30 years ago decided to turn off the pump on our own shores. We are forced to fight wars to preserve our way of life. This is only going to get worse as our dependence on oil continues to grow snd China and India continue modernization.. And it will no matter how much Obama blows smoke up your ass. Alternative fuels just wont happen in our political climate. Corn ethanol is the govts program to ensure the midwest remains in politicians hands.

 

[alchemize]

Originally posted by: LegendKiller

Originally posted by: Genx87


Plot the % of GDP and the budget we have spent on social programs vs the military for the past 50 years. I will give you a hint. The military is shrinking while the other is growing.

Social control goes for both parties. You have to blind to believe otherwise. One wants to push religion down your throat. The other a govt subsidy to gurantee a vote.

There is a problem with that?

I've got no problem making sure we can have a healthy country that produces educated people to spur more longevity, efficiency, and innovation.

At least those people can then generate more GDP.

But then again, investing in killing people and starting unnecessary wars is always much more fun. That generates more defense GDP because then people hate us more, which starts more unnecessary wars, kills more people, and starts the cycle all over again.

So about this Afghanistan thing...

 

[Wreckem]

Originally posted by: jpeyton

Originally posted by: soccerballtux
Uh yeah that's great, it's most definitely not over yet

The worst is over.

and will not be over until at least 2012

We'll be well on our way to recovery by then, and Obama will be well on his way to getting re-elected.

Alot of economists predict 2.5% or less growth over the next several years. Not a recession but its still going to be a slow economy for the remainded of Obama's 4 years.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: alchemize

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: alchemize
Great news - when the economy falls into a gutter, it does hit bottom!

~ 10% unemployment for the next year or so. Several million foreclosures to go. Debt not seen since WW2.

Mission accomplished!

Continuing Thank yous to Republicans, Bush and his supporters

Heck of a job

Dave, do you concur that the democrats now have full control of our government?

Absolutely fucking NOT

7-5-200960 votes not so super for Obama, Senate Democrats

Congress returns for its midsummer session Monday with a Senate supermajority not super enough for President Barack Obama's top priorities to pass without Republican support.

The seating of Minnesota Sen. Al Franken will give Democrats the filibuster-proof 60-40 majority in the Senate, but only on paper.

Absences by two ailing senators mean the party can count only 58 votes, and then only if Majority Leader Harry Reid can herd two independents and the independent streaks of 55 others behind Obama's biggest initiatives: expanded health care coverage and cleaner but more expensive energy.

It's a fragile supermajority because Sens. Robert Byrd of West Virginia and Edward Kennedy of Massachusetts are ill and have not voted in weeks. It's unclear when or whether they might return to the Capitol.

Ill senators have voted by gurney and wheelchair in the past. But Democrats and Republicans said they don't foresee any votes in the coming week that would be close enough to warrant a trip to the Senate by either Byrd or Kennedy.
Byrd, 91, returned home this past week from a six-week hospital stay after a series of infections. Kennedy, 77, is battling brain cancer.

It's also a truism that it's often easier to get 80 votes and more than it is to get 60. Overwhelming support for legislation can become a persuasive force of its own. But if there's a chance of stopping or slowing a bill, other considerations factor in to a senator's calculus ? typically regional matters, ideology and plain self-interest as much as party loyalty.

 

[TheSkinsFan]

Originally posted by: Ackmed
So funny to see people with the American flag as their avatar, who seemingly want America to fail. And also that people dont understand that some things carry over, and take years to come to fruition. Just because deficits go up or down during a certain Presidents rein, doesnt mean that they are directly responsible either way. And that war costs a lot.

Obama is on pace to sign spending bills for more $$ than the total fiscal cost of both Afghanistan and Iraq combined, to date, during his first year in office alone.

The war has certainly been expensive, but it's pennies compared to the annual spending Obama has signed or his party has proposed for the years to come.

Military spending, as a % of GDP, has actually gone down over the last 50 years, and currently sits at only around 4%. If that's where you plan to make your major cuts, it won't do a damn thing to curb our real spending problems. So, not only would cuts in defense spending likely result in a weaker military (yay?); but, doing so would actually do nothing to aid our nation economically, so why bother?

 

[LTC8K6]

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/...01068&sid=ajQbZ.WrAVwQ

The economy is doing so well, and the first stimulus was such a roaring success, here comes stimulus 2...

 

[StageLeft]

The U.S. should consider drafting a second stimulus package focusing on infrastructure projects because the $787 billion approved in February was ?a bit too small

Well hell, wasn't the first supposed to go to infrastructure? Except most of it didn't. Instead it went to schools, Medicaid, repairing infrastructure, and helping the growing number of unemployed (<-doctorhousingbubble)

A very small amount of it actually went to the so-called shovel ready projects.

 

[TheSkinsFan]

Originally posted by: LTC8K6
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/...01068&sid=ajQbZ.WrAVwQ

The economy is doing so well, and the first stimulus was such a roaring success, here comes stimulus 2...

My guess is that Obama has decided to float the idea of yet-another-stimulus-package via his underlings just to see how the public would react. It's now up to every one of us to stand up and yell "FUCK NO!" at the top of our lungs...

 

[JeffreyLebowski]

Originally posted by: soccerballtux

Originally posted by: WhipperSnapper

The economy will not recover simply because the United States no longer has the basis for having an economy that's able to support a large and thriving middle class. This is the result of global labor arbitrage and population explosion. Applying basic principles of supply-and-demand relative to labor and capital tells us that the American standard of living must decrease until it is closer to third world standards of living (unless the U.S. imposes trade barriers and ends mass immigration).

I think you're over-simplifying it. My company buys motherboards made in China, but we employ about 20 engineers. The rest are salesman, project managers, HR folk; and we have a sizable portion of assemblers stateside as well.

Manufacturing is not a "basis for a thriving middle class" anymore. Engineering is. We can get China to build everything for us, what we need is more ideas worth selling and engineers that can make it happen.

We also need to win the IP battle with other countries. If they can just replicate our designs and entertainment at no charge then we are toast. I am opposed to copyright law stateside; but worldwide we and all other post-industrialized nations will not survive without.

Good luck getting China to follow laws like that. Why should they? They can take anyones idea's, copy them, and make money and not have to spend the money on R&D.
You need to build what you sell to make the money. IF labor costs are to high, you pay less. Sorry, but any idiot can work a mass production line. They should be making $10/hr tops. So that's what you offer. You'll get plenty of takers, especially in this economy.

 

[alchemize]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: alchemize

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: alchemize
Great news - when the economy falls into a gutter, it does hit bottom!

~ 10% unemployment for the next year or so. Several million foreclosures to go. Debt not seen since WW2.

Mission accomplished!

Continuing Thank yous to Republicans, Bush and his supporters

Heck of a job

Dave, do you concur that the democrats now have full control of our government?

Absolutely fucking NOT

7-5-200960 votes not so super for Obama, Senate Democrats

Congress returns for its midsummer session Monday with a Senate supermajority not super enough for President Barack Obama's top priorities to pass without Republican support.

The seating of Minnesota Sen. Al Franken will give Democrats the filibuster-proof 60-40 majority in the Senate, but only on paper.

Absences by two ailing senators mean the party can count only 58 votes, and then only if Majority Leader Harry Reid can herd two independents and the independent streaks of 55 others behind Obama's biggest initiatives: expanded health care coverage and cleaner but more expensive energy.

It's a fragile supermajority because Sens. Robert Byrd of West Virginia and Edward Kennedy of Massachusetts are ill and have not voted in weeks. It's unclear when or whether they might return to the Capitol.

Ill senators have voted by gurney and wheelchair in the past. But Democrats and Republicans said they don't foresee any votes in the coming week that would be close enough to warrant a trip to the Senate by either Byrd or Kennedy.
Byrd, 91, returned home this past week from a six-week hospital stay after a series of infections. Kennedy, 77, is battling brain cancer.

It's also a truism that it's often easier to get 80 votes and more than it is to get 60. Overwhelming support for legislation can become a persuasive force of its own. But if there's a chance of stopping or slowing a bill, other considerations factor in to a senator's calculus ? typically regional matters, ideology and plain self-interest as much as party loyalty.

Interesting. So your full control definition depends who is in power?


1/12/2006 10:37 PM

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Bahahahahahaha

never heard you complaining of radical right extremism when your heroes had full control.



The hypocracy is so thick since the election I can smell it.

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: alchemize
Interesting. So your full control definition depends who is in power?


1/12/2006 10:37 PM

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Bahahahahahaha

never heard you complaining of radical right extremism when your heroes had full control.



The hypocracy is so thick since the election I can smell it.

Of course. The republicans had full control during 8 years of Bush eventhough they only had real control of both houses for 4 of those years, and 2 of those were slim majorities. Democrats have the executive and filibuster proof majority in the senate and a very strong majority in the house and they dont have full control.

Makes sense when you put your mind into McMoran mode.

 

[BoberFett]

Who let DuhMcOwned back in here?

 

[dphantom]

Originally posted by: BoberFett
Who let DuhMcOwned back in here?

Evidently we needed more humor in P&N.

 

[Jaskalas]

Originally posted by: TheSkinsFan
Obama is on pace to sign spending bills for more $$ than the total fiscal cost of both Afghanistan and Iraq combined, to date, during his first year in office alone.

The war has certainly been expensive, but it's pennies compared to the annual spending Obama has signed or his party has proposed for the years to come.

Military spending, as a % of GDP, has actually gone down over the last 50 years, and currently sits at only around 4%. If that's where you plan to make your major cuts, it won't do a damn thing to curb our real spending problems. So, not only would cuts in defense spending likely result in a weaker military (yay?); but, doing so would actually do nothing to aid our nation economically, so why bother?

A penny saved is a penny earned, to buy a vote with.

 

[GuitarDaddy]

Define worst? If you mean the most significant decline in the stock market then yes we have probably already seen that.

If you define worst by highest unemployment or foreclosures and banckruptcies then no the worst is not over yet.

If you definition is based on consumer demand and confidence thats harder to predict but I say no we haven't seen the worst of that yet either. Until the economy starts creating jobs instead of losing them demand has to contine to decrease and will only decrease further as folks start to run out of unemployment bennies.

 

[GeezerMan]

LINK

The unemployment timebomb is quietly ticking

 

[StageLeft]

This thread is gently starting to hint of ownage like the one by profjohn from last year about no recession. No objective data right now is positive. It is all bad and most of it is in fact continuing to decline.

The data is all that matters. Ignore so-called pundits and politicians and their bullsh*t and look at the real numbers and indexes, from consumer confidence to unemployment, to wages, to foreclosure rates and consumer default rates, all of it is truly horrible.

Despite desperate efforts to prop up housing, it continues to sink.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: Skoorb
This thread is gently starting to hint of ownage like the one by profjohn from last year about no recession. No objective data right now is positive. It is all bad and most of it is in fact continuing to decline.

The data is all that matters. Ignore so-called pundits and politicians and their bullsh*t and look at the real numbers and indexes, from consumer confidence to unemployment, to wages, to foreclosure rates and consumer default rates, all of it is truly horrible.

Despite desperate efforts to prop up housing, it continues to sink.

At the very least it appears the worst is over. Leading indicators have been picking up.
Housing has bottomed and with any luck we wont reinflate that bubble.

linkage