Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Thrawn on October 19, 2004, 04:14:29 PM
-
Bearish on Uncle Sam?
As Foreign Investment Shows Decline, Economists Keep Watch
By Jonathan Weisman and Ben White
Washington Post Staff Writers
Tuesday, October 19, 2004; Page E01
NEW YORK -- On Sept. 9, as it must frequently do, the U.S. government turned to Wall Street to raise a little cash, and Paul Calvetti bet that demand for $9 billion worth of long-term Treasury bonds would be "huge."
But at 1 p.m., as the auction opened and the numbers began streaming across his flat-panel screens, the head of Treasury trading at Barclays Capital Inc. slumped in his chair. Foreign investors, who had been voraciously buying Treasury bonds, failed to show up. Bond prices cascaded downward, interest rates rose, and in five minutes, Calvetti, 38, who makes money by bidding on bonds at one price and hoping market demand lets him quickly resell them at a profit, had lost $1.5 million.
"It's amazing," he gasped, after the Treasury Department announced that Wall Street traders, not foreigners, had been left to buy virtually the entire auction. "I don't think I've ever seen this before."
The most recent auction of 10-year Treasury notes may have been a fluke, a momentary downturn in one aspect of the massive world market for U.S. government and private-sector bonds, stocks and other securities -- a market so large and diverse that it has long been the world's safe haven. But a rash of new data, including Treasury Department figures released yesterday showing a net sell-off by foreigners of U.S. bonds in August, has stoked debate over whether overseas investors -- private individuals, institutions and government central banks -- are growing dangerously bearish on the U.S. economy.
It is a portentous issue. Foreign governments and individuals hold about half of the $3.7 trillion in outstanding U.S. Treasury bonds, for example, and the government has been heavily dependent on continued overseas bond purchases to finance the roughly $1 billion a day it has to borrow to pay its bills. Foreign lending and investment are also needed to finance the country's roughly $50 billion monthly trade deficit, while foreign capital has been a key prop to U.S. stock prices.
A turn in overseas attitudes toward the United States could ripple deeply through the economy, depressing the market, raising interest rates and pushing down the value of the dollar.
In August, foreign private investors actually sold $4.4 billion more in Treasury bonds and notes than they bought that month, the Treasury Department said yesterday -- the first time in a year that net foreign purchases were negative. That followed a 20 percent decline in July that shrunk net foreign purchases to $18.3 billion.
Bond purchases by foreign central banks also dropped sharply in July, falling 76 percent, to $4.1 billion. A rebound in August brought them back to $19.1 billion. The recovery was timely: Without it, the dollar may have taken a serious hit, said Ashraf Laidi, chief currency analyst at MG Financial Group in New York, who headlined yesterday's client newsletter, "Foreign Central Banks Save Dollar From Disaster."
Foreign purchases of stocks are off as well, going from net purchases of $9.7 billion in July to a net sell-off of $2.1 billion in August. Over the past 12 months, private foreign investors have purchased a net of $17 billion in U.S. stocks, compared with $30 billion in the 12 months before that.
Measuring the combined purchase of stocks, corporate bonds and government debt, overall capital flows into the United States fell in August for the sixth straight month.
Treasury officials said such data should not be overanalyzed. Net purchases of U.S. government securities may have been low in August, at $14 billion, for example. But foreigners still bought more than $807 billion in Treasury bonds, while selling $793 billion, in a month that is usually a slow one in financial markets, said Treasury spokesman Tony Fratto.
"These movements are taking place in a huge market," he said.
But the downward trend in capital coming to the United States is nevertheless worrying, some economists argue, with particular implications for U.S. government debt.
Foreign central banks and individuals rushed to finance U.S. government budget deficits over the past three years, buying $19.2 billion in Treasury bonds in 2001, $118 billion in 2002, and $279 billion in 2003. Lending from foreign governments in particular exploded last year -- to $109 billion, up from $7.1 billion in 2002.
The fear among economists is that those foreign lenders may grow concerned that their portfolios are too swollen with dollar-denominated assets.
The Chinese -- whose Treasury holdings have tripled since 2000, to $172 billion -- have already begun buying more euro-denominated assets, said Rebecca Patterson, a senior currency strategist at J.P. Morgan Chase & Co.
Earlier this year, both China and India diverted tens of billions of their dollar holdings to domestic projects, with China pumping $45 billion into its banks and India devoting $15 billion to infrastructure projects.
"China and India are no longer committed to open-ended dollar buying," Stephen S. Roach, chief economist at Morgan Stanley, warned clients yesterday. "At the margin this shift is negative for the dollar and for U.S. real interest rates."
As the big players begin to invest dollars domestically, the U.S. government is becoming more dependent on smaller nations, like Singapore and Korea, which may be quicker to sell off Treasurys and could demand higher interest rates, said Sung Won Sohn, chief economic officer at Wells Fargo Bank.
"The U.S. government will always be able to raise money -- well, at least in the foreseeable future," he said. "The question is, what will you have to pay and who will you get it from?"
The U.S. dependence on foreign capital concerns economists on both ends of the political spectrum. In a speech this March, Lawrence H. Summers, a Treasury secretary in the Clinton administration and now the president of Harvard University, warned of "a kind of global balance of financial terror," in which the economic well-being of the United States depends on the actions of foreign governments.
"There is surely something off about the world's greatest power being the world's greatest debtor," he said. "In order to finance prevailing levels of consumption and investment, must the United States be as dependent as it is on the discretionary acts of what are inevitably political entities in other countries?"
Desmond Lachman, an international economist at the American Enterprise Institute, writing for the conservative Web site Tech Central Station, cautioned that foreign central banks "now have considerable ability to disrupt U.S. financial markets by simply deciding to refrain from buying further U.S. government paper."
Patterson said that is not likely, comparing the situation to "a Texas standoff with two cowboys. . . . If Asia stops buying, the market will get wind of it very quickly, and they will rush out the door. And Asia will be hurt very badly."
To John Williamson, a senior fellow at the Institute for International Economics, that is cold comfort. The Chinese and Japanese central banks may maintain their huge reserves for defensive reasons, he said, but a smaller player, like Brazil or Singapore, could try to unload its dollar reserves, triggering a global sell-off. Like a mouse in a circus, even a bit player could cause the elephants to stampede.
"It's absolutely true that it wouldn't be in the interest of the world to do it, but any one country might think, 'I'll beat the crowd and diversify first,' " he warned. "I think that's the more likely scenario."
Not that this should really be news to anyone. Not that I think that Bush or Kerry would help the situation. But I bet those wacky libertarians could.
-
The average joe in this country could probably care less. Not that this article isnt something that a rich person wouldn't be interested in...But as an Average Joe....Makes me no difference.
I'm trying to find out who Heinz-Kerry's accountant is so that I can pay less in taxes. especially since last year I paid more percentage wise than she did. And , dare I say she made just a TAD BIT MORE than I did.
Sorry friggin loud mouthed wench.
-
Originally posted by RedTop
The average joe in this country could probably care less. Not that this article isnt something that a rich person wouldn't be interested in...But as an Average Joe....Makes me no difference.
Geez, they should. It's going to affect them more than the Bushes and Kerrys of the US.
-
I could be speaking out of turn. Maybe more would care. :)
-
we could be in real trouble if instead of buying new ones (so we can use it to pay the bills and pay off the ones that come due), they instead start cashing them in. could trash our whole economy (I mean more so than it has been for the last 4 years or so).
-
I hear this "Trashed Economy" everyday. Yet , I see that it is getting better and yet the Doomsdayers keep saying its so bad.
I over the last 4 years have bought my first home...Got a second new car , and am making more money than I ever have. Thats not to imply in any way that I am even remotley close to being wealthy either. Between my wife and I we make less than a 100k a year. Isnt this the middle class that is doing so bad?
I and my wife have had raises and are doing fine. Our savings is good.....Our jobs are secure. We can go out and have dinner 3 or 4 times a month. We have 2 car payments and a house payment a month. We owe nothing more than that. But , to hear the left we should be doing terrible. We should be losing our butts.
We have insurance...a Home..and a decent life. We feel safe with Bush.
Because the rich can't get alll that much richer , or the Poor don't get to have a bigger welfare check doesn't concern me.
My families saftey and my families well being is my concern and since Bush has been in office , we feel better about it.
All I hearis "The Administration" is at fault. Hmmmm...I thought that THE WHOLE CONGRESS was the administraton. Since we voted em all in. Since they ALL have a say of how money goes.
Bush or Kerry IMHO won't make the differnce in the economy.
Greenspan will
:(
-
Well Thrawn, we'll just have to ask for those BILLIONS in loans be paid in full...NOW. That should clear up any foreign investment problems. :)
-
Originally posted by Ripsnort
Well Thrawn, we'll just have to ask for those BILLIONS in loans be paid in full...NOW. That should clear up any foreign investment problems. :)
1. Billions loaned to who?
2. Which is more, billions or trillions?
-
Originally posted by RedTop
I hear this "Trashed Economy" everyday. Yet , I see that it is getting better and yet the Doomsdayers keep saying its so bad.
I over the last 4 years have bought my first home...Got a second new car , and am making more money than I ever have. Thats not to imply in any way that I am even remotley close to being wealthy either. Between my wife and I we make less than a 100k a year. Isnt this the middle class that is doing so bad?
I and my wife have had raises and are doing fine. Our savings is good.....Our jobs are secure. We can go out and have dinner 3 or 4 times a month. We have 2 car payments and a house payment a month. We owe nothing more than that. But , to hear the left we should be doing terrible. We should be losing our butts.
We have insurance...a Home..and a decent life. We feel safe with Bush.
Because the rich can't get alll that much richer , or the Poor don't get to have a bigger welfare check doesn't concern me.
My families saftey and my families well being is my concern and since Bush has been in office , we feel better about it.
All I hearis "The Administration" is at fault. Hmmmm...I thought that THE WHOLE CONGRESS was the administraton. Since we voted em all in. Since they ALL have a say of how money goes.
Bush or Kerry IMHO won't make the differnce in the economy.
Greenspan will
:(
loss of 1.6 million private sector jobs
decline in the median family income by $1,535.00 annually. while prices continued to go up- health care 50%, college tuition up 35%, gas up 30%
increase in health care premiums of $2,630 per family.
4 million more Americans below the poverty level.
5 million more Americans without health insurance.
those who found new jobs to replace those lost did so at an average of $8-16k per year less than the job they had in 2000.
the economy isn't fine. it seems fine if you are one of the lucky ones that held your job. then the lower interest rates make things seem better.
these are averages, some people are doing better some worse. if you aren't doing quite as bad as the average $1,535,00 per year less, then your lucky. but for every dollar you're making above the $1,535,00 less, there's some other guy who's not so lucky- he's down the $1,535,00 plus however much better than the average you're doing.
-
Originally posted by Thrawn
Not that I think that Bush or Kerry would help the situation. .
Kerry would help stop the orgy of Republican pork that is helping to drive our debt. Bush has never vetoed a spending bill.
-
Perhaps gridlock would work -MZ-, but I have plenty of faith that Kerry and a Republican congress wouls still find a way to spend hundreds of billions over budget.
-
don't worry people , john heinz-kerry has a "plan", when he is prez he will cut military spending, raise taxes, balance the budget, pay off the national debt. Treasury bonds will so rare they will be sold on e-bay as collectables.
BTW you can not "cash in" treasury notes/bills/bonds, you can wait for them to mature or resell them on the secondary market.
-
Originally posted by capt. apathy
loss of 1.6 million private sector jobs
decline in the median family income by $1,535.00 annually. while prices continued to go up- health care 50%, college tuition up 35%, gas up 30%
increase in health care premiums of $2,630 per family.
4 million more Americans below the poverty level.
5 million more Americans without health insurance.
those who found new jobs to replace those lost did so at an average of $8-16k per year less than the job they had in 2000.
the economy isn't fine. it seems fine if you are one of the lucky ones that held your job. then the lower interest rates make things seem better.
these are averages, some people are doing better some worse. if you aren't doing quite as bad as the average $1,535,00 per year less, then your lucky. but for every dollar you're making above the $1,535,00 less, there's some other guy who's not so lucky- he's down the $1,535,00 plus however much better than the average you're doing.
Ok...nice reply...now....
If we lost 1 million jobs directly because of 9-11 doesnt that make that number inflated.
Isn't the insurance companies responsible for higher rates. How is the president responsible for this. Its the lobbyists that cause this in congress...not president Bush or Kerry if Im not mistaken.
Oil prices may be up because of the war..That I'll give you. I honestly think it is bcause the fat cat arabs can. Why? Because the Libs. wont let a tree be cut down to make our own way to get away from oil from the other countries. Bush isn't responsible for that eother IN MY OPINION. They do it...because they are oppritunists and they can.
Law suits over any and everything are what drive health care costs up. Not president Bush or Kerry. Costs of insurance are up...This I know for a fact..but it's do to Lawyers getting richer and people being sue happy. AGAIN MY OPINION.
And the Job wage decrease....Hmmmmm....Heinz Kerry has a ton of jobs out of country. Yet claim that this is a bad thing and costing Americans jobs. Pot and Kettle. Noone I know will pay 59.00 for a toaster made in the USA when they can buy one for 19.99 made in China.
Companies cant afford to insure employees because of the above. IMO.
I work for the government and see Legislative sessions every 18 months. Believe me when I say...You can not imagine what is blamed on the President that he can't control. Same as is blamed on a Govenor.
Do they set an agenda? Yes...But its all comprimise. Kerry will fold in a minute. He can be run over IMO with little or no effort. A strong president will say NO...Thats not what we said we would do...Go back and draft it again. But ultimatley behind closed doors...they all negotiate and give and take...some take more than give.
It is perception. But the man in the Whitehouse catches the grief.
The President can take us to War...kiss and suck up to foreign leaders...try to get us help in certain undertakings...BUT..IMHO when it comes to domestic policies...The president is just a figure head.
Saftey and foreign affairs is what he is all about. IMO:)
-
Originally posted by Thrawn
1. Billions loaned to who?
2. Which is more, billions or trillions?
Surely you jest? Or just not as informed as you appear to be?
http://qesdb.cdie.org/gbk/countrynotes.html
-
Redtop--
By you own admission you're two cars and a house in debt...that is a LOT of debt if the stuff you bought was anywhere near typical in price.
You say that both you AND your wife are working to maintain your lifestyle.
What exactly is so great about that?
Two spouses working and deep in debt doesn't seem so great to me. Not when I can remember my mother not having to work at all, ever (the woman never even held a driver's license), and dad having no trouble whatsoever paying off the house (paid it off before they even owned it for 5 years) and buying a nice new car with cash every few years.
And we weren't rich. Dad worked at US Steel...the sort of job which has given way to minimum-wage Wal-Mart jobs in this "so good" economy we have nowdays.
J_A_B
-
Originally posted by Ripsnort
Surely you jest? Or just not as informed as you appear to be?
http://qesdb.cdie.org/gbk/countrynotes.html
Not as informed as I appear to be. Thanks for the link.
Outstanding load balance from 1946 to 2002 is just under 20 billion dollars. So would account for only 4.5 percent of this years deficit alone. Sorry, I don't think that should clear up any foreign investment problems.
-
J_A_B:)
1st thing is this isn't the 50's and 60's anymore. Progress , technology , prices , and times change. Everything goes in a different direction eventually.
Add millions of people to feed. The increase in everything.
My Debt , as far as I know , by todays standards is nothing really. I have 1 mortgage and 2 car payments. Everything in my house is paid for. No credit card debt at all. My wife and I don't even HAVE a credit card.
I remember when the husband got up and went off to work while Mom played Suzy home maker. Times change. The want for better things requires work.
I feel as though I do ok for someone with a high school education. I work in the computer field. I been at my job 13 years plus. I feel very secure. My wife is an office manager. Again High School education. Lucky? maybe.
But in todays world , unless one spouse makes a ton of money , then both usually have to work.
2000+ sqft home 3 years old and 2 Mazdas. Heak man...I feel fortunate compared to many that make more money than I who work more hours and have less of a life than I do.
I see how things look so bad to those that may have lost thier jobs. I totally understand it. I have been there when I didn't have enough money to buy milk for my kids. I remember making 200.00 a week working 60 hours and not having money for anything.
I didn't blame the president of the U.S. for my trials. I didn't ask for welfare or food stamps. I simply did without and made sure my kids had. I worked hard for what I have. I continue to try to be smart in saving.
I don't and didn't blame the government for anything that has happened to me. It is my doing , hard work , a making due with what I had and what I may have in the future.
I would love to come home to my slippers and cigar and paper and recliner. My TV Remote and wife with Dinner ready saying.."Hi Honey how was your day" This aint happy days and those days are long gone.
We live in a world that is Violent. We live in a world that is very competitive. You must change with it or be past by it.
I see your point. Those days would be great. But , I must say , they wont be back ever. No matter who or what party is in the white house.
For anyone to think differently IMO is simply not being realistic.
Once again I say that saftey of our country and the way of life we have is all that the president is for. IMO. He won't make me more money. He wont feed me. He wont pay my mortgage , car payments. He won't prevent me or my wife from becoming ill and being put in financial straits due to that.
Congress can help the people. Government making decisions that make SENSE based on logic and good research and genuine heart felt feelings is what will help this country. Not laying down and rolling over for money. Being re-elected at all costs so that they can do nothing for their constituants.
IMO if people would think about the politics of congress and quit worrying so much on who is president based on domestic issues , then this country would begin to pull together in one direction no matter what side they are on.
People should Quit trying to make the word GOD so bad and worry that your kid is learning what he should in school.
People should Quit worrying what Suzy Slut does about getting an abortion and worry that thier daughter is properly edcucated on BOTH sides of an issue and taught values that may prevent it from happening to them.
If people want top put blame on government then blame thier state politicians that they put in Washington. THEY are the ones that are making decisions that affect them. President Bush or whoever is president isn't going to make thier life great.
Taking control of thier OWN lives will make their lives better.:)
-
well fellas, all I can tell you is when the timing belt breaks, you will know it. Until then, press on.
-
"No matter who or what party is in the white house. "
I agree. I don't play the "blame one party only" game. It's too pointless.
J_A_B
-
Originally posted by RedTop
Ok...nice reply...now....
If we lost 1 million jobs directly because of 9-11 doesnt that make that number inflated.
Isn't the insurance companies responsible for higher rates. How is the president responsible for this. Its the lobbyists that cause this in congress...not president Bush or Kerry if Im not mistaken.
Oil prices may be up because of the war..That I'll give you. I honestly think it is bcause the fat cat arabs can. Why? Because the Libs. wont let a tree be cut down to make our own way to get away from oil from the other countries. Bush isn't responsible for that eother IN MY OPINION. They do it...because they are oppritunists and they can.
Law suits over any and everything are what drive health care costs up. Not president Bush or Kerry. Costs of insurance are up...This I know for a fact..but it's do to Lawyers getting richer and people being sue happy. AGAIN MY OPINION.
And the Job wage decrease....Hmmmmm....Heinz Kerry has a ton of jobs out of country. Yet claim that this is a bad thing and costing Americans jobs. Pot and Kettle. Noone I know will pay 59.00 for a toaster made in the USA when they can buy one for 19.99 made in China.
Companies cant afford to insure employees because of the above. IMO.
I work for the government and see Legislative sessions every 18 months. Believe me when I say...You can not imagine what is blamed on the President that he can't control. Same as is blamed on a Govenor.
Do they set an agenda? Yes...But its all comprimise. Kerry will fold in a minute. He can be run over IMO with little or no effort. A strong president will say NO...Thats not what we said we would do...Go back and draft it again. But ultimatley behind closed doors...they all negotiate and give and take...some take more than give.
It is perception. But the man in the Whitehouse catches the grief.
The President can take us to War...kiss and suck up to foreign leaders...try to get us help in certain undertakings...BUT..IMHO when it comes to domestic policies...The president is just a figure head.
Saftey and foreign affairs is what he is all about. IMO:)
first. where did I say who or what was at fault?
you said the economy seemed fine to you, I showed you a few reasons why many people think it's not so great.
as to the presidents job being basically war and foreign affairs, that plus the ability to veto any bill, and presidential orders (like knocked down workplace safety standards) would pretty much cover it.
so how does Bush check out on those activities?
most of the world hates us. (I don't much care what most of them think anyway, but that sums up foreign affairs aptitude)
war in Iraq. rushed into without full exploiting cheaper and safer methods. as some predicted, and history proved out, he sent our guys in with too few troops to secure the country after winning the major targets. and on top of all of that it turns out (big surprise :rolleyes: ) all of the reasons he gave for costing us these lives and money turned out to be BS.
safety. we already mentioned how he's operated on workplace safety.
how about the other one, national security? he has underfunded homeland security at seaports railways and chemical plants. for the 170mi of the south Oregon coast there is 1 state trooper as our sole enforcer of that border. he says he gets to any given piece of road maybe once or twice a week.
he has done wonders for the recruiting departments of anti-American groups around the world.
-
We, have more important things to worry about. All those homosexual couples are eroding our "family values" and our grand institution of marriage. We need to do all we can to promote a "culture of life" and a "SAFE America." How can we be bothered with the value of bonds when there are euphemisms and abstracts that need tending! Who is confusing politics with reality?
Democratic potato
Republican potato
Take your pick and feel good.
-
Originally posted by capt. apathy
first. where did I say who or what was at fault?
you said the economy seemed fine to you, I showed you a few reasons why many people think it's not so great.
:) You didn't lay blame. I was just giving opinions.
as to the presidents job being basically war and foreign affairs, that plus the ability to veto any bill, and presidential orders (like knocked down workplace safety standards) would pretty much cover it.
He Veto's things yes. But It is basically all compromised and done when it gets there. At least most times. And the Safety I was referring to was the saftey of our nation. Workplace saftey being controlled by the president isn't something I could speak of.
so how does Bush check out on those activities?
most of the world hates us. (I don't much care what most of them think anyway, but that sums up foreign affairs aptitude)
war in Iraq. rushed into without full exploiting cheaper and safer methods. as some predicted, and history proved out, he sent our guys in with too few troops to secure the country after winning the major targets. and on top of all of that it turns out (big surprise :rolleyes: ) all of the reasons he gave for costing us these lives and money turned out to be BS.
Hindsight is ALWAYS 20/20. Info very well may have been wrong , but I don't believe he lied to the American people just to go to war. John Kerry was all for taking Saddam out until the political winds changed and it became not so popular to be that way. He then goes on a tear of we were wrong and yadda yadda yadda while saying we were right in the same breath. He's a moron fast talking lawyer. IMO
safety. we already mentioned how he's operated on workplace safety.
Again..cant speak on this one...sorry Bud :)
how about the other one, national security? he has underfunded homeland security at seaports railways and chemical plants. for the 170mi of the south Oregon coast there is 1 state trooper as our sole enforcer of that border. he says he gets to any given piece of road maybe once or twice a week.
he has done wonders for the recruiting departments of anti-American groups around the world.
SO...your saying that Bush is to blame for the Anti American sentiment that is global? I find that hard to believe. We have progressed and they hated us clear back to the 80's. I hardly think President Bush is responsible for the world hating us. Now did he help it? No. But I don't think he is doing anymore for the hatred of America than any other president. IMO:)
-
What exactly is so great about that?
Well then let's use me as an example. I was in an industry that was hard hit by Clinton's recession. I started a small business, then opportunity knocked and I started a second. I was profitable in my second month..... yes, the second month.
I own 5 vehicles, not counting boats, all but one are paid for.
My main business is recession proof. All of this accomplsished in the current economy. Seems pretty great to me.
Next!
-
Originally posted by capt. apathy
loss of 1.6 million private sector jobs
decline in the median family income by $1,535.00 annually. while prices continued to go up- health care 50%, college tuition up 35%, gas up 30%
increase in health care premiums of $2,630 per family.
4 million more Americans below the poverty level.
5 million more Americans without health insurance.
those who found new jobs to replace those lost did so at an average of $8-16k per year less than the job they had in 2000.
the economy isn't fine. it seems fine if you are one of the lucky ones that held your job. then the lower interest rates make things seem better.
these are averages, some people are doing better some worse. if you aren't doing quite as bad as the average $1,535,00 per year less, then your lucky. but for every dollar you're making above the $1,535,00 less, there's some other guy who's not so lucky- he's down the $1,535,00 plus however much better than the average you're doing.
your numbers are wrong
the "Lost Jobs" in particular
the actual number is around 800,000 not 1.6 million
Even the democratic party has backed off from that number
to the tune of 600,000 and now Claim not 1.6 million but 1 million which is also inaccurate but much closer to the truth
And in figuring that out no study to date has taken into account the 1 million + jobs lost due to 911.
They also changed the way they counted jobs and doesn't take into account jobs created such as Teachers.
People may be making less but that is because of the collapse of the high paying but over valued tech industry which was propped up by illusionary stock value also known as "the bubble" which began to collapse some 6 months prior to the last election. Greenspan himself can be quoted as saying "I'd like to stick a pin in this bubble" long before it popped on its own.
Hardly anything you could blame Bush for
the Poverty and health care issues while they include them in the numbers they also fail to take into account other circumstances such as they also fail to take into account other things like new immigrants legal and otherwise who have never worked or had health care in this country
All in all Even had Gore been elected our economy would still be pretty much in the exact same situation as it is now because the vast majority of the circumstances contributing to the economy were and are beyond the Presidents control and the solutions put in place (tax cuts) were really the only viable option. If you look back even the democrats were highly in favor of tax cuts. where they were at odds is how the cuts were done.
I contend the economy is doing fine. I didn't loose my job. I quit to start my own business and find myself doing better under Bush by Far then I ever did under Clinton.
I look all around the state where I live. A State that's touted as being one of the most expensive states to live in in the union and I see brand new houses going up everywhere. And not small or even moderate sized ones but HUGE houses going up everywhere. Most sold well before they are ever built. I couldn't tell you the last time I saw a junky car, most I see are well less then 10 years old.
Well this money has to be coming from somewhere
I'll tell you what I don't see.
I don't see people standing on street corners holding signs "Will work for food" that I saw in the first 4 years of Clinton's administration. In fact I haven't seen them SINCE the Clinton administration.
-
Originally posted by capt. apathy
first. where did I say who or what was at fault?
you said the economy seemed fine to you, I showed you a few reasons why many people think it's not so great.
as to the presidents job being basically war and foreign affairs, that plus the ability to veto any bill, and presidential orders (like knocked down workplace safety standards) would pretty much cover it.
so how does Bush check out on those activities?
most of the world hates us. (I don't much care what most of them think anyway, but that sums up foreign affairs aptitude)
war in Iraq. rushed into without full exploiting cheaper and safer methods. as some predicted, and history proved out, he sent our guys in with too few troops to secure the country after winning the major targets. and on top of all of that it turns out (big surprise :rolleyes: ) all of the reasons he gave for costing us these lives and money turned out to be BS.
safety. we already mentioned how he's operated on workplace safety.
how about the other one, national security? he has underfunded homeland security at seaports railways and chemical plants. for the 170mi of the south Oregon coast there is 1 state trooper as our sole enforcer of that border. he says he gets to any given piece of road maybe once or twice a week.
he has done wonders for the recruiting departments of anti-American groups around the world.
Man o Man Your rhetoric sounds remarkably identical to Kerry himself.
You sure you aint him?
If not congradualtions, your brainwashing is complete :aok
-
Originally posted by RedTop
Ok...nice reply...now....
Isn't the insurance companies responsible for higher rates.
Law suits over any and everything are what drive health care costs up. Not president Bush or Kerry. Costs of insurance are up...This I know for a fact..but it's do to Lawyers getting richer and people being sue happy. AGAIN MY OPINION.
Companies cant afford to insure employees because of the above. IMO.
. IMO:)
Read this
http://www.insurancejournal.com/news/national/2003/06/02/29436.htm?print=1
-
The whole pointing fingers at litigation stems from the desire to have an easily digestible answer to the problem; which, widly enough, has manifested itself in laughing at grandma for spilling coffee on herself, and the mock outrage for having to, in some small way, pay for such weakness.
Folks in the song writing business call that a hook. It's catchy. And for some inexplicable reason, your mind is singing "Grandma poured coffee on herself today" like it was looped... a song you can't get out of your head... even though you hate the tune.
-
huh?
-
I believe Nash is referring to a well-known case involving an older lady and a cup of McDonald's coffee. Most people (the ignorant ones) hold this case as a shining example of lawsuits gone mad.
People more familiar with the case will realize that spilling coffee on yourself shouldn't cause third-degree burns and require a week-long hospital stay including extensive skin grafting. More damaging to McDonald's was evidence shown that the corporation had seen injuries of that sort from their coffee hundreds of times before and consistetly covered it up through quiet settlemets--putting their drive for profits ahead of public safety.
I think Nash was pointing out the irony in the fact that the one case most often used as an example of "litigation run amok", is in all actuality a case which is uquestionably sound. I think he's saying that people always want to take the easy way out and blame the evil scum sucking lawyers, while in truth the issue is a whole lot more complex.
J_A_B
-
Go away j_a_b, you are making too much sense.
This is not the correct place to be sage.
;)
-
Originally posted by J_A_B
I believe Nash is referring to a well-known case involving an older lady and a cup of McDonald's coffee. Most people (the ignorant ones) hold this case as a shining example of lawsuits gone mad.
People more familiar with the case will realize that spilling coffee on yourself shouldn't cause third-degree burns and require a week-long hospital stay including extensive skin grafting. More damaging to McDonald's was evidence shown that the corporation had seen injuries of that sort from their coffee hundreds of times before and consistetly covered it up through quiet settlemets--putting their drive for profits ahead of public safety.
I think Nash was pointing out the irony in the fact that the one case most often used as an example of "litigation run amok", is in all actuality a case which is uquestionably sound. I think he's saying that people always want to take the easy way out and blame the evil scum sucking lawyers, while in truth the issue is a whole lot more complex.
J_A_B
I am aware of the lady that spilled coffee on herself, then sued McDonalds. I was wondering what that had to do with healthcare costs going up due to litigation, since the lawsuit had nothing to do with healthcare.
The example he gave had nothing to do with healthcare, and his whole statement made no sense based on that.
-
"The example he gave had nothing to do with healthcare, and his whole statement made no sense based on that."
Well, it'll take Nash to answer that one for you; only he knows his intentions.
Personally I saw his comment as not even being strictly about healthcare per se, but rather about the often flawed nature of public perception in general.
J_A_B
-
Originally posted by Thrawn
Not as informed as I appear to be. Thanks for the link.
Outstanding load balance from 1946 to 2002 is just under 20 billion dollars. So would account for only 4.5 percent of this years deficit alone. Sorry, I don't think that should clear up any foreign investment problems.
Thrawn, Africa owes us 220 billion ALONE. Between foreign aid and loans, we'd have a surplus!
-
people by hot coffe and then when they spill it on themselves it is the fault of the place that sold it to them?
I never get coffee hot enough anywhere even fresh from the brewer... I have to put it in the microwave for half a minute or so. I do know tho.... that while I can drink it carefully.... I probly shouldn't spill it on myself. Why not sue the state for making it legal to drive with hot coffee?
How can yu sue a company for making a good product?
lazs
-
http://www.hitechcreations.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=94897
08-27-2003 02:31 PM
Originally posted by Mickey1992
There will come a time when the US budget problem will get so large, that we will be unable to sell our debt to generate financing. That's when we will all be screwed.
-
Originally posted by lazs2
people by hot coffe and then when they spill it on themselves it is the fault of the place that sold it to them?
I never get coffee hot enough anywhere even fresh from the brewer... I have to put it in the microwave for half a minute or so. I do know tho.... that while I can drink it carefully.... I probly shouldn't spill it on myself. Why not sue the state for making it legal to drive with hot coffee?
How can yu sue a company for making a good product?
lazs
Is that story true, I read about it, if it was the woman that got $$$$ for being clumsy enough to spill coffe on her legs or what it was ?
That is freaking increadable and just too plain stupid, coffe is supposed to be hot not cold.
-
Originally posted by lazs2
How can yu sue a company for making a good product?
Mc-Do does make a good product??? The world has gone mad...
-
Originally posted by Thrawn
Bearish on Uncle Sam?
As Foreign Investment Shows Decline, Economists Keep Watch
By Jonathan Weisman and Ben White
Washington Post Staff Writers
Tuesday, October 19, 2004; Page E01
NEW YORK -- On Sept. 9, as it must frequently do, the U.S. government turned to Wall Street to raise a little cash, and Paul Calvetti bet that demand for $9 billion worth of long-term Treasury bonds would be "huge."
But at 1 p.m., as the auction opened and the numbers began streaming across his flat-panel screens, the head of Treasury trading at Barclays Capital Inc. slumped in his chair. Foreign investors, who had been voraciously buying Treasury bonds, failed to show up. Bond prices cascaded downward, interest rates rose, and in five minutes, Calvetti, 38, who makes money by bidding on bonds at one price and hoping market demand lets him quickly resell them at a profit, had lost $1.5 million.
"It's amazing," he gasped, after the Treasury Department announced that Wall Street traders, not foreigners, had been left to buy virtually the entire auction. "I don't think I've ever seen this before."
The most recent auction of 10-year Treasury notes may have been a fluke, a momentary downturn in one aspect of the massive world market for U.S. government and private-sector bonds, stocks and other securities -- a market so large and diverse that it has long been the world's safe haven. But a rash of new data, including Treasury Department figures released yesterday showing a net sell-off by foreigners of U.S. bonds in August, has stoked debate over whether overseas investors -- private individuals, institutions and government central banks -- are growing dangerously bearish on the U.S. economy.
It is a portentous issue. Foreign governments and individuals hold about half of the $3.7 trillion in outstanding U.S. Treasury bonds, for example, and the government has been heavily dependent on continued overseas bond purchases to finance the roughly $1 billion a day it has to borrow to pay its bills. Foreign lending and investment are also needed to finance the country's roughly $50 billion monthly trade deficit, while foreign capital has been a key prop to U.S. stock prices.
A turn in overseas attitudes toward the United States could ripple deeply through the economy, depressing the market, raising interest rates and pushing down the value of the dollar.
In August, foreign private investors actually sold $4.4 billion more in Treasury bonds and notes than they bought that month, the Treasury Department said yesterday -- the first time in a year that net foreign purchases were negative. That followed a 20 percent decline in July that shrunk net foreign purchases to $18.3 billion.
Bond purchases by foreign central banks also dropped sharply in July, falling 76 percent, to $4.1 billion. A rebound in August brought them back to $19.1 billion. The recovery was timely: Without it, the dollar may have taken a serious hit, said Ashraf Laidi, chief currency analyst at MG Financial Group in New York, who headlined yesterday's client newsletter, "Foreign Central Banks Save Dollar From Disaster."
Foreign purchases of stocks are off as well, going from net purchases of $9.7 billion in July to a net sell-off of $2.1 billion in August. Over the past 12 months, private foreign investors have purchased a net of $17 billion in U.S. stocks, compared with $30 billion in the 12 months before that.
Measuring the combined purchase of stocks, corporate bonds and government debt, overall capital flows into the United States fell in August for the sixth straight month.
Treasury officials said such data should not be overanalyzed. Net purchases of U.S. government securities may have been low in August, at $14 billion, for example. But foreigners still bought more than $807 billion in Treasury bonds, while selling $793 billion, in a month that is usually a slow one in financial markets, said Treasury spokesman Tony Fratto.
"These movements are taking place in a huge market," he said.
But the downward trend in capital coming to the United States is nevertheless worrying, some economists argue, with particular implications for U.S. government debt.
Foreign central banks and individuals rushed to finance U.S. government budget deficits over the past three years, buying $19.2 billion in Treasury bonds in 2001, $118 billion in 2002, and $279 billion in 2003. Lending from foreign governments in particular exploded last year -- to $109 billion, up from $7.1 billion in 2002.
The fear among economists is that those foreign lenders may grow concerned that their portfolios are too swollen with dollar-denominated assets.
The Chinese -- whose Treasury holdings have tripled since 2000, to $172 billion -- have already begun buying more euro-denominated assets, said Rebecca Patterson, a senior currency strategist at J.P. Morgan Chase & Co.
Earlier this year, both China and India diverted tens of billions of their dollar holdings to domestic projects, with China pumping $45 billion into its banks and India devoting $15 billion to infrastructure projects.
"China and India are no longer committed to open-ended dollar buying," Stephen S. Roach, chief economist at Morgan Stanley, warned clients yesterday. "At the margin this shift is negative for the dollar and for U.S. real interest rates."
As the big players begin to invest dollars domestically, the U.S. government is becoming more dependent on smaller nations, like Singapore and Korea, which may be quicker to sell off Treasurys and could demand higher interest rates, said Sung Won Sohn, chief economic officer at Wells Fargo Bank.
"The U.S. government will always be able to raise money -- well, at least in the foreseeable future," he said. "The question is, what will you have to pay and who will you get it from?"
The U.S. dependence on foreign capital concerns economists on both ends of the political spectrum. In a speech this March, Lawrence H. Summers, a Treasury secretary in the Clinton administration and now the president of Harvard University, warned of "a kind of global balance of financial terror," in which the economic well-being of the United States depends on the actions of foreign governments.
"There is surely something off about the world's greatest power being the world's greatest debtor," he said. "In order to finance prevailing levels of consumption and investment, must the United States be as dependent as it is on the discretionary acts of what are inevitably political entities in other countries?"
Desmond Lachman, an international economist at the American Enterprise Institute, writing for the conservative Web site Tech Central Station, cautioned that foreign central banks "now have considerable ability to disrupt U.S. financial markets by simply deciding to refrain from buying further U.S. government paper."
Patterson said that is not likely, comparing the situation to "a Texas standoff with two cowboys. . . . If Asia stops buying, the market will get wind of it very quickly, and they will rush out the door. And Asia will be hurt very badly."
To John Williamson, a senior fellow at the Institute for International Economics, that is cold comfort. The Chinese and Japanese central banks may maintain their huge reserves for defensive reasons, he said, but a smaller player, like Brazil or Singapore, could try to unload its dollar reserves, triggering a global sell-off. Like a mouse in a circus, even a bit player could cause the elephants to stampede.
"It's absolutely true that it wouldn't be in the interest of the world to do it, but any one country might think, 'I'll beat the crowd and diversify first,' " he warned. "I think that's the more likely scenario."
Not that this should really be news to anyone. Not that I think that Bush or Kerry would help the situation. But I bet those wacky libertarians could.
I read the title. Sorry, I'm an American. I can careless what other people think of me.
Karaya
-
It's 'I can't (or I couldn't) care less'...
-
deselys.... only the part about "hot" in hot coffee is the "good product" part.
If you order hot coffee and it is at least hot then it is at least half a truthfully advertised product. If you order hot coffe and get lukewarm drek then it is a bad product and false advertising.
Oh.... and when one person worked we had cars that needed tuneups every 7 thou and lube jobs every 2 and only about 10% had airconditioning or a stereo (or even a radio)
nobody had cable TV or cell phones or computers and a 60 amp service in a home was more than enough to power all your toys.... We drank water right out of the tap that was worse than comes out now.
lazs
-
Lazs...I was just making cheap humor.
I wasn't trying to insult you by implying that you were truly enjoying Mc-Do 'food' ;)
-
Originally posted by J_A_B
Redtop--
By you own admission you're two cars and a house in debt...that is a LOT of debt if the stuff you bought was anywhere near typical in price.
You say that both you AND your wife are working to maintain your lifestyle.
What exactly is so great about that?
Two spouses working and deep in debt doesn't seem so great to me. Not when I can remember my mother not having to work at all, ever (the woman never even held a driver's license), and dad having no trouble whatsoever paying off the house (paid it off before they even owned it for 5 years) and buying a nice new car with cash every few years.
And we weren't rich. Dad worked at US Steel...the sort of job which has given way to minimum-wage Wal-Mart jobs in this "so good" economy we have nowdays.
J_A_B
So, you should vote democrat. Maybe they can set up a cushy subsidy fund to make it so youy do not have to work either...
:rolleyes:
-
"How can yu sue a company for making a good product? "\
Good product huh?
Do you know what third degree burns are? Also known as full-thickness burns, or basically burning the skin off.
You think it's acceptable to have that happen to you and require SKIN GRAFTING just because of a spilled cup of coffee? Have you seen photos of that woman's injury? It was BAD. You think it's normal to spend a week or more in the hospital because of a spilled cup of coffee? Have any of you suffered third-degree burns before? Those of you who have know how indredibly painful and serious such an injury is.
No, that's not "good product". That's a dangerous problem.
If you feel that suffering those sorts of injuries over a spilled cup of coffee is normal or acceptable....then well, that only proves Nash's point.
Bodhi--
Thanks for calling me a liberal. It's a nice change from being called a conservative since the latter is what people usually call me.
J_A_B
-
Lazs--while none of that stuff was around in 1960...
Consider that 100 years ago, people routinely worked 14 to 16-hour days....childen as young as 12 often held factory jobs.
For what?
Horse-and-buggy, no electricity, usually no refrigeration, horrible pollution, 0 job security, and no medical care to speak of.
Your argument can go both ways Lazs.
J_A_B
-
granny's lawyer should have sued the car company for not providing a cup holder, thereby forcing her to place the cup dangerously between her legs, where's nader when you need him?
-
jab.... you make no sense... even if the coffee was boiling and bubbling away.... It's friggin hot coffee... if you are dumb enough to order hot coffee and then drive around with it then maybe you DESERVE third degree burns. If the woman at the window working for mc donalds took your order and then threw the boiling coffee in your face or lap and it was mcdonalds policy to do so then... yeah... you got a case... otherwise... don't order hot things if you don't have any sense. Never ever will you convince me that a company deserves to be sued for making a product that is exacly what they told you it was.
As for the money thing.... I am saying that with a simpler lifestyle we today could probly cut our costs in half and still have more luxury than we had in the 60's.... most of our debt is because of our penchant for new toys and keeping up with the jones's.
lazs
-
She wasn't driving the car.
McDonald's screwed up when they didn't settle for $800 when they had the chance.
-
If coffee was hot enough to cause 3rd degree burns to your skin, what would happen if you actually tried to drink it? Wouldn't be pretty I'd imagine. Hell, nuke'd pizza rolls have burned the roof of my mouth pretty bad before.
Then again, McDonald's coffee isn't nearly as hot as it used to be :( iirc, they put in lower temp regulators in all their coffee makers after that incident.
-
If you put a hot cup of coffe between your legs weather your driving the car or not,you dont have any way NEAR a right to sue when said "hot" liquid burns you to the bone.
Whats next?Some kid sues Micky D's cause the ice cream gave him an ice cream headache? The loss of personal responsability in this country is absurb.
Take the famous Beavis and Butthead issue.Parents hire babysitter.Babysitter goes to a bar.Kids play with lighter and burn house and 2 siblings down.They blame B and B for showing Beavis playing with a lighter.B and B go off the air.Great.They found a patsy and THATS what this simple minded old crone did.She found a patsy to cover her idiocy.
-
Originally posted by Ripsnort
Thrawn, Africa owes us 220 billion ALONE. Between foreign aid and loans, we'd have a surplus!
Surely you jest? Or just not as informed as you appear to be?
http://qesdb.cdie.org/gbk/countrynotes.html
-
So, how many of you who are self-righteously proclaiming that "she deserved it" have actually seen photos of her injuries?
Sorry, but a spilled cup of coffee should not cause third-degree burns. I won't argue that her means of holding it wasn't particularly smart...but still, the damage done is utterly excessive. Some redness and maybe blistering is one thing (first or even second degree burns)--and is to be expected from a coffee burn. Full thickness burns are an entirely different, much more severe kind of injury. Those kinds of injuries are usually experienced by fire victims, not by a friggin drink.
Being a food product, it's supposed to be served hot, but safe (relatively). There is utterly no need to serve a drink at insanely high temperature; a "hot" drink to most people will be in the 120 to 140 degree range. As you approach temperatures near the boiling point the product is no longer reasonably safe and is certainly undrinkable (unless you want severe internal injuries).
J_A_B
-
with all due respect jab.... I don't care what her injuries looked like... justice is suppossed to be blind.
A friend in a momentary lapse of judgement ran a cutting torch across his arm... It did not occur to either of us to sue the equipment manufacturer..
So what is your point? Hot coffe should be illegal in this country? how bout tea and other beverages? hot food at mexican resteraunts? Got a really good burn from some melted cheese..
are yu saying that because this brainless twit can't figure out that driving with hot coffee in your lap idiotic... that I can't have hot coffee now or.... are you simply saying that only mcdonalds can't serve hot coffee?
have you ever noticed the glowing red elements on your stove?
lazs
-
Bush's isolationist attitude is worse for America than 9/11 was.
-
Originally posted by spitfiremkv
Bush's isolationist attitude is worse for America than 9/11 was.
:rofl
-
"I don't care what her injuries looked like... justice is suppossed to be blind. "
Oh come on, I don't think even you really mean that.
So if I punch you and give you a black eye, I deserve the same penalty as if I shot you half a dozen times (assume you survive)? After all, justice is blind and the injuries don't matter.
Or wait...no, you don't really feel that way....I've seen you repeatedly say that gun criminals need harsher sentences. So you DO feel that the item used and the severity of the injury matters. Hence...if someone burns himself with a blowtorch it's a different matter than if he burns himself with a drink.
Nope, no laws against hot food or drinks. Only laws against products that are supposed to have a reasonable level of safety, but don't.
In other words, you can order all the stupid-hot coffee you want if you specifically order it that way...but if you order it normally, then it sure better only cause normal injuries if you drop it in your lap (medium burns).
J_A_B
-
America only cares about what the British think nowadays so it seems.
-
A friend in a momentary lapse of judgement ran a cutting torch across his arm... It did not occur to either of us to sue the equipment manufacturer..
How about a gun analogy. Guns are dangerous if used improperly. If you buy a gun and put it to your head and pull the trigger -- it's operator error. If you clean it without making sure the chamber is clear and shoot yourself in the foot -- operator error. Guns are dangerous if excessively worn or improperly maintained.
But what if you buy a new gun and it blows up in your face using standard commercial ammunition because the manufacturer made decisions based on marketing vs. safety. Not a specific problem with an individual weapon, but a known design flaw with the model. Lets make it lighter, the market wants that, and worry if the design can handle standard usage later. Soon, there were known failures, but the spreadsheet of profits vs. liability outweighed the risks. The gun was selling great and no other competitor offered one as light, at the same price, in the same caliber.
The previous accidents were covered up, and there was no reasonable way for the customer to know the company's product was any more dangerous than any other weapon. The now-blind customer had fired many rounds through many pistols, and had no reason to expect this brand new gun from an otherwise reputable manufacturer would cause any problems.
In the McDonald’s case the temperature was well above established norms for you, I or any commercial business. Injuries had occurred. But, a "flavor consultant" was listened to and a decision was made on sales vs. safety. Coffee is hot, you expect to spill some and expect to get a red spot maybe, or even a blister on the inside of your mouth on occasion. You do not expect to have the same result with coffee as you would with a blowtorch.
Charon