Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Ripsnort on December 23, 2003, 08:18:19 AM
-
Best in 20 years as a matter of fact...
http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2&cid=668&u=/ap/20031223/ap_on_bi_go_ec_fi/economy_5&printer=1
-
Mistatement and a half rip. Learn the meaning of the word "rate" please. Air always rushes back into a vacuum.
MiniD
-
mini, you do better argueing with strippers... :rofl :rofl :rofl
Growth means spending, spending fuels economy.
Also, retail sales are doing good:
With the number of shopping days before Christmas beginning to dwindle, U.S. consumers stepped up their spending during the week ending December 13, ShopperTrak reported in its National Retail Sales Estimate (NRSE). Week-over-week sales jumped by an impressive 17.0 percent from the week ending December 6, marking the second straight week of strong sales in this category, while year-over-year sales gained 3.9 percent from the same week in 2002.
http://retailindustry.about.com/library/holiday/blholidayspending03.htm
-
when the total shopping numbers include online purchases, they are going to skyrocket
internet shopping is huge this year, the totals have not been added to the reported numbers yet
-
Originally posted by Ripsnort
mini, you do better argueing with strippers...
sig material....
:rofl :rofl
-
Good God, Rip, you are deluded if you think this economy is anything close to what we had under Clinton. That's like looking at the Vikings' 45-20 victory over the Chiefs and pronouncing them as good as the '85 Bears.
-
The U.S. economy, propelled by tax cuts and low interest rates, roared ahead at an 8.2 percent annual rate in the third quarter, the best showing in nearly 20 years, while Americans' incomes and spending both showed healthy gains in November.
it didn't catch up, it's increasing at a faster rate. big difference.
with the same type of logic- a man could start out making $5 per hour, and recieve a 25cent pay raise every year for 20 years. at the end of the 20 years he would be making $10.
at that point someone else takes over the running of his company, and his pay falls to $2 per hour. over the next 2 years he gets a $1 raise per year. now he's making $4 per hour and his new boss is telling him that financially he's doing the better than he has in the last 20 years because he's increasing at a higher rate.
-
Originally posted by Eagler
when the total shopping numbers include online purchases, they are going to skyrocket
internet shopping is huge this year, the totals have not been added to the reported numbers yet
Good point, I think I did 95 pct of my shopping this year via the 'net, but that may slow down when they start hitting me with local and state sales taxes.
-
Ripsnort..
Dont you remember the difference in spending real money as opposed to borrowing the money and spending it? These are two big differences..
If the economy is the greatest in 20 years, I'd suspect all those folks that were laid off have gone back to work? O wait, best in 20 years?? That means all those peps that lost jobs have better higher paying jobs now... All those other peps that had no jobs before all have jobs now?? That must mean the unemployment level must be lower than 4%??
Best economy in 20 years? That must mean the Bush administration has balanced the budget? No deficit this year? How much did the administration decide to pay on national debt? Must be a large sum w/ such a good economy....
Rip, why dont you try to look at the larger picture. Best in 20 years? Perhaps it was the best month in 20 years? lol Come'on man... I'm not saying its all gloom and doom, but to say the economy is better now than anytime during Clinton's administration is a testament to williness of some to back an ignorant and failing economic plan by our president.. Sure, this month might in some areas indicate a strong recovery, but if you take into account the ever out of control national debt, short term means very little....
-
US National Debt (http://www.brillig.com/debt_clock/)
US Balance of trade since 74 (http://www.kiplingerforecasts.com/kbftables/usecon/trade/trade_balance_annual.htm)
Record US balance of trade deficit (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/3313759.stm)
Shrub has prompted spending when the US BoT can't afford it.
Why?
Well because there is an election coming...
Successive US elections have fueled poor economic strategm over years. Its a big nation with a big ecomomy but the writing is on the wall if no attempt is made to correct it.
Economic flywheels (like real ones) dont stop unless they break.
The US will not be able to "tarrif" its way out if it does not do some basic national book keeping. (ie balance them)
Like pa said............... read my lips
and
If you want those folk who were laid off back at work you better stop buying the imports. Because thats what the US boom is doing.
-
the best yardstick to measure the economy is the help wanted job listings in the local newspaper.
-
Well I like it that anything from the USA is cheaper than it has been for years thanks to the £1.00 = $1.76 exchange rate - keep up the fantastic work guys!! My AH sub is only £8 per month and some change these days...a total bargain!!
-
Originally posted by Ripsnort
mini, you do better argueing with strippers... :rofl :rofl :rofl
Growth means spending, spending fuels economy.
Also, retail sales are doing good:
Rip... your ignorance abounds.
I'm not arguing about whether or not the economy is growing (A word you did not use in the first post btw). The reason for accelerated growth is because there's so much room for it. There's no growth at the peak of the economy... negative growth on the downslide and positive growth on the upswing. This just means there's alot of upswing needed.
It's good news that there is growth. To say the economy surpasses that of the clinton era is a complete lie.
MiniD
-
Originally posted by Ripsnort
Growth means spending, spending fuels economy.
Only if you smoke big crack rocks. Growth means investment, and using that investment to increase production.
-
Just dont let them tax Internet sales!!
(http://www.coxandforkum.com/archives/plunder.gov-X.gif)
-
Ripsnort: Growth means spending,
You say "spending" while the quote you cite refers specifically to "consumer spending".
Increase in consumption can only be the result of:
- prior increase in production, prior growth, so to speak;
- slower accumulation of capital or even the net consumption of capital - which reduces future growth or even reverses it.
- inflow of foreign goods in exchange for US dollars flowing abroad. Huge amounts of the stuff the consumers are buying are "Made in Elsewhere". Basically, this consumption can be viewed as borrowed consumption. Even if we intend to default on our debts, it only increases our current standard of living but does not grow anything.
Growth means increase in usefull productive capacity.
spending fuels economy.
Only capital spending - investment - causes the economy to grow and causes increase in future production - and potential consumption.
Consumption always detracts resources from investment production - often it detracts resources from maintaining the current levels of production through replacement of used-up capital.
miko
-
Weve been in and out of debt for 200+ years. Last gigantic debt was erased in a year and no one even noticed.
Doom and gloom?
-
Yeager: Weve been in and out of debt for 200+ years. Last gigantic debt was erased in a year and no one even noticed.
What event do you mean by that?
miko
-
Originally posted by Thrawn
Only if you smoke big crack rocks. Growth means investment, and using that investment to increase production.
You're so wrong it's laughable....no increased capital investment in the US this past year?
If that was a fact, I would be in serious financial trouble.
Put the shovel down.
-
You can spin it anyway you want, but an 8.2 percent growth in GDP for the third quarter, the third straight quarter of solid growth, is a good general indicator of economic health.
Interestingly, an appreciable percentage of retail sales this holiday season have been in the form of gift certificates, which retailers don't report as sales until they're redeamed. So the reported retail sales are artificially lower than reality, due to internet and gift certificate sales.
It's okay to be optimistic regarding the economy. Optimism is what built this country, and is still a central part of the American (i.e. USA) culture.
-
problem lies in the fact they are sitting around with their thumbs on their "SHORT" buttons waiting for a terrorist fart ....
-
Rude: You're so wrong it's laughable....no increased capital investment in the US this past year?
If that was a fact, I would be in serious financial trouble.
Do you really believe that all capital investment in US comes though your hands? Or that you would have recognsed it if it bit yoy on the ass?
I am trying not to make comment's on people's intelligence but you are making it exeedingly hard on me.
I mean, you can lie all you want and offend people, and make wild unexplained assertions about global phenomena in terms of your personal experience but could you at least come up with a BS that takes more than a few seconds on the web to dispell? Please? Just to make it more of a challenge?
Care to check this chart of commercial and industrial loans at commercial banks (http://research.stlouisfed.org/publications/mt/page14.pdf) at the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis site? This statistic went negative in mid-2001, and it has yet to recover. It fell throughout the first half of 2002 to a negative 8% or thereabouts, then "recovered" to negative 5%, briefly, in mid-2003. Since then, it has fallen back to negative 7%?
As you can see, bank credit is up but the borrowing by bisinesses is down. So people are borrowing more to consume but businesses are not borrowing more to invest.
If there any investment into capital going on, the economicst know the source very well - it's the foreign savings that come in as the capital account surplus. Even that is down recently and cannot compansate for the increasing current account deficit - so the dollar has been falling over the last few monthe.
Sabre: but an 8.2 percent growth in GDP for the third quarter, the third straight quarter of solid growth, is a good general indicator of economic health
Ever heard of the business cycle? Or do you have reasons to believe that we will not have a recession that would wipe out part of the gains? I presume by solid you ment "sustainable", right?
Was the growth of the 1990s solid in your opinion?
I believe Greenspan sh#t his pants when he saw that the "growth" got away from his target of 3-4% - because it increases the chance of the required monetary tightening and ensuing recession before the 2004 elections.
miko
-
Eagler: problem lies in the fact they are sitting around with their thumbs on their "SHORT" buttons waiting for a terrorist fart ....
Waiting? Have you checked the price of gold lately?
miko
-
it be the credit card bubble economy
-
gold...reflation expectation...
-
Maybe the economy is doing good, but what about the deficit? Under Clinton we had a surplus. Figure the difference between the two and then ask yourself if we're doing better.
The unfortunate thing is that because people think we're doing good and that we caught Saddam, Bush will probably get re-elected again.
:(
-
The Clinton's surplus was as fake as Bush's economy doing good without an increase in investment borrowing.
For a short time they did not need to borrow money from towards the official governmental debt. But they kept borrowing money from the Social Security Trust Fund which consists of the government bonds but is not counted as a government debt.
miko
-
Dont tell miko that the economy is improving, it will destroy his "sky is falling" conviction.
dago
-
Hey Miko2d I got a question,
I don’t have the link right now but remember the actual amount of cash on hand was 330 billion the last day Clinton was in office. Bush’s three years as President he’s managed to create a 400 billion dollar deficit. Now isn’t that 3/4 of a trillion freaking dollars?.
Please don’t tell me George Bush somehow misplaced 3/4 of a trillion dollars.
What sort of interest rates are we talking here in the next couple of years?.. Big tickets items like a new car or new house.. I hope it’s not 18% like when Reagan was President.
One thing I haven’t heard much about lately is the national debt. It was 5 billion a year in interest back in Clinton’s term, bet it’s 15 billion by now.
-
National debt stands at
(http://www.brillig.com/debt_clock/debtc.gif)
at 5% interest, the annual payment is about 347 billion.
It has been the largest piece of the budgetary pie except maybe for national defense for a more than a decade.
The monthly payment though is only 28.936 Billion.
-
Thx Holden didn't know that.
Miko, Here’s another great article by Paul Krugman
The Death of Horatio Alger (http://truthout.org/docs_03/122303F.shtml)
Put it this way: Suppose that you actually liked a caste society, and you were seeking ways to use your control of the government to further entrench the advantages of the haves against the have-nots. What would you do?
One thing you would definitely do is get rid of the estate tax, so that large fortunes can be passed on to the next generation. More broadly, you would seek to reduce tax rates both on corporate profits and on unearned income such as dividends and capital gains, so that those with large accumulated or inherited wealth could more easily accumulate even more. You'd also try to create tax shelters mainly useful for the rich. And more broadly still, you'd try to reduce tax rates on people with high incomes, shifting the burden to the payroll tax and other revenue sources that bear most heavily on people with lower incomes.
Meanwhile, on the spending side, you'd cut back on healthcare for the poor, on the quality of public education and on state aid for higher education. This would make it more difficult for people with low incomes to climb out of their difficulties and acquire the education essential to upward mobility in the modern economy.
And just to close off as many routes to upward mobility as possible, you'd do everything possible to break the power of unions, and you'd privatize government functions so that well-paid civil servants could be replaced with poorly paid private employees.
It all sounds sort of familiar, doesn't it?
-
Originally posted by 10Bears
Hey Miko2d I got a question,
I don’t have the link right now but remember the actual amount of cash on hand was 330 billion the last day Clinton was in office. Bush’s three years as President he’s managed to create a 400 billion dollar deficit. Now isn’t that 3/4 of a trillion freaking dollars?.
Please don’t tell me George Bush somehow misplaced 3/4 of a trillion dollars.
What sort of interest rates are we talking here in the next couple of years?.. Big tickets items like a new car or new house.. I hope it’s not 18% like when Reagan was President.
One thing I haven’t heard much about lately is the national debt. It was 5 billion a year in interest back in Clinton’s term, bet it’s 15 billion by now.
if there was 330 billion dollars cash on hand the last day Clinton was in office, slick would have been pulling a huge suitcase out the door of his oral office as he left town ....
it's all on paper tricks anyway - "surplus" "deficit" - what the heck is the diff to you or me? not a dang thing .. the sun will still rise in the morning and we will go to work ...
-
The monthly payment though is only 28.936 Billion.
====
Who, or what, is that payment made to?
-
Originally posted by Yeager
The monthly payment though is only 28.936 Billion.
====
Who, or what, is that payment made to?
I am, as a totally magnanimous public service and as a branch of HoldenMcG, LLC starting a public credit counseling service.
For only a 0.01% handling fee*, HoldenMcG LLC will administer voluntary and non-voluntary contributions of public minded citizens to reduce the federal public indebtedness to 3,425,628,321,866.89 in the next ten years.
*compounded continually, subject to other handing fees including but not limited to processing fees and delinquency fees. We reserve the right to suspend credit or to change credit term provided herein.All agreements subject to the laws of the States of Delaware, Nevada, Oregon, the sovereign nation of the Hopi, and the Nation of Seychelles.
-
I hope it’s not 18% like when Reagan was President.
Better than the 20+% under Jimmy Carter, and I believe it only got better under Reagan.
dago
-
Originally posted by Rude
You're so wrong it's laughable....no increased capital investment in the US this past year?
If that was a fact, I would be in serious financial trouble.
Put the shovel down.
Good thing I didn't say that then. :eek:
-
10Bears: Hey Miko2d I got a question,
I don’t have the link right now but remember the actual amount of cash on hand was 330 billion the last day Clinton was in office. Bush’s three years as President he’s managed to create a 400 billion dollar deficit. Now isn’t that 3/4 of a trillion freaking dollars?
For starters, both numbers as well as the GDP number and its "growth" are total, meaningless BS.
There is a difference between value and money and what I am saying is our capital may be decumulating while the numbers show whatever the economicsts want them to show.
Remembering the previous paragraph, I am willing to engage into academic speculation why some meaningless numbers on Clinton's budget looked the way they did.
The Clinton's administration saw a huge spike in corporate taxes and capital gain taxes and projected such obviously unsustainable trends into the futre.
When people were selling at $400 what they bought at $4 - that was not a tax of $396 new value created. The value of the underlying company proved to be zero or negative later.
S&P was growing 30% a year but nobody would claim that the economy was growing as fast, so the increased taxes were not a share of profit but confiscation of capital for consumption purposes.
Confiscation of capital has a negative effect on future production.
It is only natural that Clinton's budget at the peak of the huge bubble was different than Bush's budget even without the recession he inerited.
There is very little of Clinton's of Bushe's falt or merit to what has happened to the budget or economy.
What sort of interest rates are we talking here in the next couple of years?.. Big tickets items like a new car or new house.. I hope it’s not 18% like when Reagan was President.
Greenspan controls the interest in conjunction with the foreign Central Banks accumulating our currency holdings.
Which is also a fake number because it does not reflect the natural interest rate which would have been much greater. considering a very high degree of time preference in our society.
Why do you care that an interest rate may quadrouple but not that the price would quadrouple, like it did with the houses and financial assets and some other stuff? Attempt to artificlally lower interest rate is an attempt to get something out of nothing - which ends up in waste, not gain.
One thing I haven’t heard much about lately is the national debt. It was 5 billion a year in interest back in Clinton’s term, bet it’s 15 billion by now.
That's also a BS number. It does not include the bond holdings of the SSA and does not include the discounted value of SSA, Medicaire and other entitlement obligations. According to the GAO the real debt is about $50 trillion. http://www.gao.gov/cghome/npc917.pdf
As for Krugman's article, his fundamantal premises are so false that it does not make sense to address the specific claims. The guy does not recongize private property or the origin of value. What can one say untill one addresses those issues?
We may as well listen to Marx who made the similar errors - he was more consistent and would not make a distinction between Clinton and Bush like keynesian Krugman does.
The government system we have is socialist and corrupt but criticizing it does not make Krugman's fallacious economics or philosophy right.
Reducing tax burden on the rich would benefit poor more than it would benefit rich. Rich people's fortunes were accumulated dollar by dollar by finding ways to provide consumers with ceaaper and better goods. For every dollar the consumer got the value he valued more than that dollar.
Also, most of those fortunes are not consumption goods but capital - the stuff that is nominally owned by rich but is producing what is demanded by customers. The rich are just managing it for everybody's benefit.
The only way to provide more consumption is to have more prduction and for that we neet to encourage the formation of capital, not discourage it like Krugman suggests.
He suggests confiscating the current capital and using it for consumption - which will surely increase the consumption temporarily but will cause it to drop in the future.
The guy is so blind and or politically dishonest that he does not see that this process is going on anyway under Bush's government as well as under any other - and that is the problem I am referring to constantly. That we are decumulating the capital or not accumulating is as fast as we could.
miko
-
Originally posted by Yeager
Who, or what, is that payment made to?
On June 30, the federal debt was $6.685 trillion, $1.355 trillion of this was held by foreign & international investors. So an estimated 20% of the interest payments that American taxes are paying on the debt are going overseas.
-
Originally posted by Mickey1992
On June 30, the federal debt was $6.685 trillion, $1.355 trillion of this was held by foreign & international investors. So an estimated 20% of the interest payments that American taxes are paying on the debt are going overseas.
Those damn foreigners. Imagine....the U.S. borrowed their money and they actually expect to be repaid!!!!! With interest!!!!!
:)