Let the Congressional/Presidential profiteering begin!

[LunarRay]

Originally posted by: Ornery
The social side of our country is, in part, created by...

...things like the minimum wage laws. Ugh! :frown:

I would agree with you if it were not for the history that we all know about. The Molly Maguires of today are much more peacefull but greed is equally powerfull. The almighty buck use to be made off the back of the "unfortunate" today we have moved to robotics and such but I'd hate to go to McDonalds and have a steel android to argue with about my order.... no fun in that.

 

[Ornery]

Homeless to Harvard

• Two years ago, Liz Murray was homeless and rummaging through garbage in the Bronx. Today, she's a published writer for The New York Times and is currently attending Harvard University.

 

[Napalm]

Democrats want to line the pockets of their welfare constituents. GOP wants to line the pockets of their business owning constituents. Difference is, the GOP constituents create jobs.

LOL. How do people get away with posting this crap. Do me a favour - look up U.S. monthly unemployment stats for the last 15 years. What you will see is a trend that increases every year Bush Sr. was in power, then a decreasing trend every year Clinton was in power, and then an increase for each year Bush Lite has been in power. This does not look like the GOP creating jobs to me. For the fun of it, why don't you also look at the actual numbers for national deficit and compare democrats to republicans - then come back here and tell us that it is the democrats that are for big-spending/big-government....

N

 

[LunarRay]

Originally posted by: Ornery
Homeless to Harvard

• Two years ago, Liz Murray was homeless and rummaging through garbage in the Bronx. Today, she's a published writer for The New York Times and is currently attending Harvard University.

Thanks for the link

Liz has the drive to achieve regardless of her situation. The parents are the leaches. I'd support their rehabilitation efforts but not the notion of continuing the status quo. But, if you don't support their proclivitive existence they would simply steal it from you and end in jail and have three hots and a cot and tv so what do you do. I suggest we find ways to rid the nation of the cause.
Now if she went to Stanford I'd think she really made it...

 

[Ornery]

Originally posted by: Napalm

Democrats want to line the pockets of their welfare constituents. GOP wants to line the pockets of their business owning constituents. Difference is, the GOP constituents create jobs.

LOL. How do people get away with posting this crap. Do me a favour - look up U.S. monthly unemployment stats for the last 15 years. What you will see is a trend that increases every year Bush Sr. was in power, then a decreasing trend every year Clinton was in power, and then an increase for each year Bush Lite has been in power. This does not look like the GOP creating jobs to me. For the fun of it, why don't you also look at the actual numbers for national deficit and compare democrats to republicans - then come back here and tell us that it is the democrats that are for big-spending/big-government....

N

No, the Dems are the epitome of thrift! The economy was coming out of it's slow down, BEFORE Clinton was elected. It was going into a slow down BEFORE he left office. The economy has EVERYTHING to do with unemployment, deficits et al. This cycle will end. With any luck, ole' George will get to enjoy the ride just as Clinton did.

No welfare recipient is going to create jobs, that's a FACT. It was the Dems that brought us Social Security and the lame, broken welfare system in the first place! No, the Dems aren't for big spending/big government at all...

 

[jaeger66]

Originally posted by: Ornery


No welfare recipient is going to create jobs, that's a FACT. It was the Dems that brought us Social Security and the lame, broken welfare system in the first place! No, the Dems aren't for big spending/big government at all...

Sure, the Dems have nothing in common with these guys.

 

[Napalm]

Don't be a wanker Ornery. The unemployment rate rose for the first year that Clinton was in power and then decreased every single year he was in power when his policies began to take effect. When Bush came to power, unemployment continued to decline for the first year he was in power and then rose sharply about a year into his term.

I'd have more respect for you if you admitted this fact and blamed the increase in unemployment during Bush Lite's term on 9/11. The only problem with this theory is that there was no 9/11 that explained Bush Sr.'s numbers as he ran the nation's economy into the toilet.

In any event - I don't mean to bother you with facts, I see that your mind is made up...

N

 

[LunarRay]

quote

No, the Dems are the epitome of thrift! The economy was coming out of it's slow down, BEFORE Clinton was elected. It was going into a slow down BEFORE he left office. The economy has EVERYTHING to do with unemployment, deficits et al. This cycle will end. With any luck, ole' George will get to enjoy the ride just as Clinton did.

No welfare recipient is going to create jobs, that's a FACT. It was the Dems that brought us Social Security and the lame, broken welfare system in the first place! No, the Dems aren't for big spending/big government at all...

[/quote]


First some parameters... wealthy folks spend what they spend and would not likely spend more if they were taxed less. Poor folks spend all they have or get.

Ok. Lets stop all "freebees" no more welfare, SS, unemployment etc. Then give the savings to the wealthy and middle class. Every one cheer... Now then. All the dollars not spent by the poor go to the banks and stock market... but wait... the market starts to fall because what use to be revenue dollars to companies is now in the bank or market... wait companies are laying off people... no tax revenue from theim... none from the company that is loosing money oops there goes another million jobs... and on and on. Soon all that is left is the farmer trading pigs for cotton and corn for beets and frozen orange juice.
Ok granted this is a gross example... but it is the way it works. What some call tax dollars going to waste is really tax dollars at work demanding commodities and this and that..

 

[Ornery]

WTF are you tying the unemployment to anyway? Policies? Good Lord!

It's utterly tied to the economy, and that tanked when the market finally puked. Market prices were ludicrous, it was bound to tank and take the economy with it. Unemployment will drop when the economy picks up. Uh, what "policies" do you geniuses think will turn this around? Yeah, that's what I thought.

 

[Napalm]

Ornery - I thought I asked you not to be a wanker... Please re-read your last post.

N

 

[Ornery]

Good answer f-tard.

Edit:

Stocks And Jobs

• ...Also, in Mr Phelps?s view, firms have to invest in their workers (through training and in other ways) in order to create functioning employees. A highly valued stockmarket says either that the profits from this investment (as from investment of every kind) have gone up, or that the market value of those profits has gone up, or both. Firms will hire more workers - again, at any given level of aggregate demand.
  
  All this could help to explain America?s apparently miraculous achievement in combining very low unemployment with very low inflation.
  
  But there is an obvious snag: what happens if or when the stockmarket tumbles?
  
  Not only would demand then fall because of the ordinary ?wealth effect?, but the supply side of the economy would deteriorate too, causing lower employment at every given level of demand.
  
  Unemployment might then rise surprisingly fast...

 

[LunarRay]

Originally posted by: Ornery
WTF are you tying the unemployment to anyway? Policies? Good Lord!

It's utterly tied to the economy, and that tanked when the market finally puked. Market prices were ludicrous, it was bound to tank and take the economy with it. Unemployment will drop when the economy picks up. Uh, what "policies" do you geniuses think will turn this around? Yeah, that's what I thought.

Unemployment is tied directly to the needs of the employer which is tied to the demand for that product or service which is tied to the buying habits of the consumer which is tied to the amount of money the consumer has which is tied to their employment status. The Taxing policies of the Congress affects the amount who has. The social expenditure policies of Congress puts more here or less there etc. All this Congressional action is tied to policy. It is a big circle... break the circle and all you have left is lines...

A policy that brings Mfg. to the US.... more jobs... more demand... more jobs... less taxes... more jobs... less taxes... Utopia..

Again gross examples but...

 

[Ornery]

It's the market that effects everything else, not the other way around. What "policies" can effect the market to any significant degree? Raising or lowering the prime? Meh, temporarily. <shrug>

When the market turns around, businesses will buy, build and hire. There's nothing W can do to speed that up. If another 9-11 did occur, that would put a damper on it. His "policies" to thwart that could then effect a recovery in a round about way. We've got no choice but to suck it up, and stay the course.

 

[LunarRay]

Originally posted by: Ornery
It's the market that effects everything else, not the other way around. What "policies" can effect the market to any significant degree? Raising or lowering the prime? Meh, temporarily. <shrug>

When the market turns around, businesses will buy, build and hire. There's nothing W can do to speed that up. If another 9-11 did occur, that would put a damper on it. His "policies" to thwart that could then effect a recovery in a round about way. We've got no choice but to suck it up, and stay the course.

Well... the stock market value displays the expectations of the investors out to perhaps 18 months but, really about 4 to 8 months. It gets its warm and fuzzies from the current events... tax policy, FED policy, variance to anticapated indicators (unemployment expected to be 5.3 and turned out to be 5.2 etc.) You invest in the market with the notion that the company or group of companies will do well because in the future X or Y will occur. The FED lowering the discount rate or buying securities gives the companies the incentive to supply side action but ya gotta have the demand side too.... remember the elasticity of demand vs supply etc.

 

[MadRat]

Nobody understands the stock market, so lets not try and start to give it concrete rationalizations.

 

[LunarRay]

Originally posted by: MadRat
Nobody understands the stock market, so lets not try and start to give it concrete rationalizations.

You understand it or your broker does if you in any manner invest in it.

The price of a stock today always is based on a what willing buyer and seller agree is the sales price. If you are a buyer you gamble the stock price will increase because earnings of the company you invested in will increase. (In general) It use to be a rule of thumb to look at historical trends and price of stock divided by earnings (PE ratio) but not anymore. If you buy stock because you think it will go down well... So..... It is a barometer of investor expectation.

 

[LunarRay]

This really is the wrong forum for all this but,

If you don't agree that the people who are the specialists in the market (the ones that make a market in a stock that has no sellers or buyers and one or the other wishes to trade) brokers, etc. are pretty good at reading the world activity and translating it into how it will affect the market then so be it.
If an investor wishes for income (dividends) then they invest in stable dividends and care little about the swings but they get burned when the income of the company dries up (low sales = low profit) and dividends are not paid and because of that the value of the stock goes in the toilet. The risk taker cares little about dividends but looks to growth in the stock price (Enron) because they, if they're smart will sell it to someone in the future. If it tanks like the dot com and even CISCO or INTEL or SUN etc. then they lost big bucks because if they held it they thought the future was rosey and it wasn't... surprise. What happened to make those stocks go down so much? If you answer that then you know the market.

 

[MadRat]

I reject your claims based on the real world performance of all real world stock market analysts to predict the big declines that we've seen this past 18 months. There is no way that these people can know the inner working of the stock market being that the mobility of the money is on a scale far too varied for any supercomputer to predict. Good stocks fail to produce every day and nobody can outright predict the reaction of investors on the news of day to day events. If it could be done it would have been done a long time ago - there is too much money in it not to do it.