Originally posted by Krusher
>Well of course it's my opinion, that's why I posted it.
well at least this time you put something behind it other than this statement.
>Say Canada inceases employment by 10 gazillion jobs. Looks great right? >But what if 5 gazillion jobs are for digging a hole, and the other is 5 is >filling it in. Hardly good for the economy.
BTW
Monster.com disagrees (job survey), the feds disagree (labor report) and the majority of the employment stats disagree, but you are entitled to your opinion.
What do they disagree with? I'm not saying that there aren't more jobs. I'm saying that more employment in and of it self isn't necessarily good for the economy. The Canadian government could tax the hell out of current taxpayers (or go into debt) and hire all the unemployed people to dig holes and fill them in. Great Canada has a 0% unemployment rate. I wouldn't then state that economy is in a boom.
I hired 18 people for my projects last year, this year I have hired 8 so far. All of them pay well and have benifits. SO in my opinion 100 percent of the jobs created are great.
100% of jobs you and your business created are good. And even that is only true if you recieve a return on your invest that is greater than what you spent on that labour. But there is no gaurantee that that will be the case on all or even most of new hires in 2005.
>It doesn't matter if previous governments did it or not.
As stated deficits are not new. The GPD has been the gold standard of economic indicators for years. I understand it is popular to redefine its worth in todays economy, but there is very little history to prove it wrong.
What do you mean there is little "history" to prove it wrong. We can look at the forumal right here.
GDP = consumption + investment + government expenditures + exports - imports
For the time being I'll ignore the arugement the questions how spending money on consumables causes economic growth and just look at government expendatures. Every time a government spends a dollar the GDP goes up by a dollar. The government spending money will cause less growth than if a taxpayer because they will spend it or invest it only where they have a demand. If a government goes in debt to spend that dollar then they are only going to have any growth if they recieve a return on investment which is greater than the lending rate they are paying on it.
And that's why I think that GDP out of context is has very little meaning and one can't sit there and look at it and "Economic boom!".
>Perhaps they are just in target markets, but even if that is the case they >are still having an effect on the overall aggregate.
Perhaps but its a small. Until it pops your speculating more than the investors.
Not so, I can look at the changes in price versus supply and the demand and conclude that demand isn't driving the increase in price. I don't have to wait for it to fall appart for it to happen.
>Alot of homeowners are tapping into the equitity they have in their >present homes to buy another or spend on consumer goods.
Some are some are not, most are just refinancing to get a better rate.
That graph I posted doesn't reflect that.
>And it seems to me that alot of people don't have the money to buy >these homes.
This may be true, there have always had people who buy more house than they can afford, the majority don't.
Sure there have always been people that do it, but the interesting thing is that it inceased by 43% (!). That's increase in the number of people who are pissing away wealth on homes they can't afford.
>All good things....
Detroit, Pheonix, Florida, Orange County
2 cities, a county and a state that are part of the targeted markets that may have problems. They are still a very small portion of the market.
Sure, but those are articles I found on one site that were written in the past week, there are certainly others.
>I don't think it's any longer a question of if (or even when) it's going to >pop, it is popping.
The sky is falling !!!!
The experts have been saying it was going to pop for 3 years now. If I was going to call the weather I would be right sooner or later. The savings and loan crissis in the mid 80's was much worse for the housing market and our economy survived and grew.
Right it survived and grew
in spite of the issue, but the crisis certainly didn't help the economy (or cause it to boom).
You can disagree if you care to but you only make the origional posters argument.
the facts are: (see above)
Unemployment is at 4.8 percent
Payrolls are going up. The average weekly earnings rose 3.5%
The GDP is expected to be 3% for all of 2006
2 million new jobs were created last year
$350 billion was added the gross domestic product
household financial assets added 2 trillion in value
Indeed, those are the facts. But those facts don't necessarily mean that the economy is booming.
