1
   

The US Economy

 
 
timberlandko
 
  1  
Reply Fri 5 Dec, 2003 02:49 am
cicerone imposter wrote:
When we view the quarterly graph, it seems very chaotic without any clue about the cumulative long-term trend. It's really awesome to see both, and realize the ups and downs during the year is a 'natural' dynamic of our economy.


Glad you're beginning to see "The Dynamic", c.i. , and that chart isn't chaotic at all; it shows that periods of negative growth are brief, abberational, and are isolated between protracted periods of growth. That precisely is the dynamic.

Just for a little more fun with graphs, this one, from The Bureau of Labor Statistics, shows that the October '03 Total US Employed tally, 138,014,000, is the largest number of Americans ever employed.
US EMPLOYMENT HIGHEST EVER would be a perfectly valid headline

http://data.bls.gov/labjava/servlets/graphics/generated_graphs/LNS12000000_143615_1070612502555.gif
0 Replies
 
Brand X
 
  1  
Reply Fri 5 Dec, 2003 06:42 am
Hard to keep enough jobs with thousands per day coming across boarders. Interesting stat, timber.
0 Replies
 
timberlandko
 
  1  
Reply Fri 5 Dec, 2003 07:43 am
Well, the employment figures are out ... unemployment drops to 5.9%, but I'm sure that will be overshadowed by the lower than expected 57,000 job creation figure, and the markets will open down ... whaddaya wanna bet?

December 04 Preliminary Unemployment
0 Replies
 
Thomas
 
  1  
Reply Fri 5 Dec, 2003 08:21 am
A few days ago, when the news leaked out that Bush would scrap the steel tarrifs, I was conflicted. The fair, open minded part of me thought to myself: "Maybe my conservative friends on Able2Know are right: Maybe I ought to give Bush the benefit of the doubt more often, and start right now by assuming he's doing the right thing for a change." At the same time the cynic in me thought: "Okay, that was the bait. Where's the switch?" Today, the conflict has ended: the Wall Street Journal informs us what the switch is: (Subscription required for full article.)

The Wall Street Journal wrote:
To minimize the threat of another flood of cheap imports, however, the administration said it plans to require steel importers to obtain licenses in advance through a system that would give the Commerce Department prior notice of any surges. Trade lawyers and European Union officials said the license requirement for non-U.S. steel amounted to another illegal restriction on trade.

Mandatory registration of import licenses "isn't as bad as tariffs, but it's clearly a barrier to trade, and against WTO rules," said Francois Renard, a trade lawyer at the law firm Norton Rose in Brussels. Groups representing steel importers have criticized the license program but said in recent days that they would accept it if the tariffs were dropped because the cost of licensing is relatively minor.

Oh well ...................
0 Replies
 
dyslexia
 
  1  
Reply Fri 5 Dec, 2003 08:27 am
the devil is in the fine print, just like the medicare bill and the omnibus spending bill. icing can make any cake look good. I am guessing Bush learned this from the Dem's fiscal techniques and added the Repubs environmental techniques.
0 Replies
 
timberlandko
 
  1  
Reply Fri 5 Dec, 2003 09:10 am
Just a little piece of trivia here, for perspective: 18 years ago today, Dec 5, 1985, The Dow broke above $1500 for the first time ever.
0 Replies
 
Thomas
 
  1  
Reply Fri 5 Dec, 2003 09:12 am
timberlandko wrote:
Just a little piece of trivia here, for perspective: 18 years ago today, Dec 5, 1985, The Dow broke above $1500 for the first time ever.

It's tragic how deeply the dollar has fallen against the Dow since then, isn't it? Razz
0 Replies
 
dyslexia
 
  1  
Reply Fri 5 Dec, 2003 09:31 am
US dollar inflation 1985 to 2003 $1.00 = $1.71
0 Replies
 
yeahman
 
  1  
Reply Fri 5 Dec, 2003 09:33 am
Thomas wrote:
A few days ago, when the news leaked out that Bush would scrap the steel tarrifs, I was conflicted. The fair, open minded part of me thought to myself: "Maybe my conservative friends on Able2Know are right: Maybe I ought to give Bush the benefit of the doubt more often, and start right now by assuming he's doing the right thing for a change." At the same time the cynic in me thought: "Okay, that was the bait. Where's the switch?" Today, the conflict has ended: the Wall Street Journal informs us what the switch is: (Subscription required for full article.)

The Wall Street Journal wrote:
To minimize the threat of another flood of cheap imports, however, the administration said it plans to require steel importers to obtain licenses in advance through a system that would give the Commerce Department prior notice of any surges. Trade lawyers and European Union officials said the license requirement for non-U.S. steel amounted to another illegal restriction on trade.

Mandatory registration of import licenses "isn't as bad as tariffs, but it's clearly a barrier to trade, and against WTO rules," said Francois Renard, a trade lawyer at the law firm Norton Rose in Brussels. Groups representing steel importers have criticized the license program but said in recent days that they would accept it if the tariffs were dropped because the cost of licensing is relatively minor.

Oh well ...................

the licensing had been a part of of the tariffs that were imposed. it's nothing new. like the wall street jounral article said, it's a fairly minor non-tariff barrier to trade.

i'm no supporter of bush though. he not only did the right thing, he did the ONLY thing he could do. it was a no-brainer.
0 Replies
 
Thomas
 
  1  
Reply Fri 5 Dec, 2003 09:39 am
ye110man wrote:
like the wall street jounral article said, it's a fairly minor non-tariff barrier to trade.

Unless the authorities refuse to grant the license, the option of which is the reason for having licenses in the first place.
0 Replies
 
yeahman
 
  1  
Reply Fri 5 Dec, 2003 11:24 am
i really believe that there needs to be some measures to ensure that we aren't flooded with cheap subsidized steel. it's not fair trade to have to compete with foreign government subsidized products.
0 Replies
 
Thomas
 
  1  
Reply Fri 5 Dec, 2003 11:39 am
ye110man wrote:
i really believe that there needs to be some measures to ensure that we aren't flooded with cheap subsidized steel. it's not fair trade to have to compete with foreign government subsidized products.

Why? Cheap, subsidized steel may be bad for American steel producers. But it is good for America's steel consuming industries. Given that, why are barriers to cheap steel on net a good thing? I don't see that.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Fri 5 Dec, 2003 11:53 am
Our government continues to subsidize farmers. Japan has had protectionist tariffs on food products for decades. The Chinese government is subsidizing the building of new factories every day. It goes on and on, and that's not going to change.
0 Replies
 
Thomas
 
  1  
Reply Fri 5 Dec, 2003 11:57 am
cicerone imposter wrote:
It goes on and on, and that's not going to change.

Oh, but it did change dramatically over the last 50 years! I don't have the numbers ready to hand, but all developed countries slashed tariffs big time since World War II. Why not keep it going?
0 Replies
 
yeahman
 
  1  
Reply Fri 5 Dec, 2003 12:53 pm
i'm opposed to US farm subsidies as well so i would understand if other nationals wanted to erect trade barriers on US farm products.
0 Replies
 
timberlandko
 
  1  
Reply Fri 5 Dec, 2003 01:06 pm
Subsidies and tariffs are bandaids, not remedies. Treating a symptom does nothing to cure the disease. As with most politico-economic decisions, however, both are expedient, and both pander to voting blocks.
0 Replies
 
timberlandko
 
  1  
Reply Fri 5 Dec, 2003 03:05 pm
From The Department of The Treasury's Financial Management Service December '03 Bulletin (MS Word Document ... moderate download)
Quote:
... The Federal budget posted a deficit of $374 billion in fiscal 2003. That was $216 billion more than the deficit in fiscal 2002 and a record dollar-figure high. In relation to the U.S. economy, however, the deficit was a moderate 3.5 percent of GDP, well below the shares of the early 1990s and 1980s, when the deficit as a percent of GDP approached 5 percent and in one year hit 6.0 percent (in fiscal 1983).
Receipts in fiscal 2003 were $1.782 trillion. That was down $71 billion or 3.8 percent compared to the previous fiscal year. Net individual income taxes fell $65 billion (7.5 percent) and net corporate taxes fell $16 billion (12.3 percent). Other receipts such as those from social insurance and retirement rose. The decline in total receipts was the third in a row but less than the 6.9 percent decrease recorded in fiscal 2002. Erosion in the past 3 years primarily reflected economic weakness, although the tax cuts enacted to jump-start growth were also a factor. Receipts fell to16.6 percent as a share of GDP in fiscal 2003 from 17.9 percent in fiscal 2002 and a record high of 20.8 percent in fiscal 2000. The 2003 share was the lowest in 45 years.
Budget outlays in fiscal 2003 were $2.157 trillion, which was $146 billion or 7.2 percent higher than in the previous year. Growth was slower than the 7.9 percent increase recorded in the previous fiscal year, but brought outlays to a 20.1 percent share of GDP from 19.5 percent in the prior year. Outlays for national defense increased $55.6 billion or 16 percent. Other major functions posting large growth in percentage terms were health (including Medicaid), Medicare, and income security (chiefly for unemployment insurance). Net interest payments fell 10.6 percent, reflecting lower interest rates.
Debt held by the public was $3.9 trillion at the end of the fiscal year, up $374 billion from the previous year. The size of the publicly-held debt in relation to the economy was 36.4 percent. That was higher than a recent low of 33.1 percent in fiscal 2001 but less than the more than 40 percent share that prevailed from the late 1980s through the 1990s.


Odd, isn't it, that the opponents of The Current Administration pound on the record dollar-figure deficit totals, ignoring the relative, and imminently more relevant, percentages, yet simultaneously pound on employment percentages while ignoring the fact America has more people employed today than ever in history? No, not really odd. That's spin ... nothing odd there at all.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Fri 5 Dec, 2003 03:11 pm
timber, Those stats are fine, but don't translate current numbers to what can happen in the future. That's still an unknown, unless you have some crystal ball that lets you reconcile the changes in the world and US economy to current and future deficits.
0 Replies
 
Thomas
 
  1  
Reply Fri 5 Dec, 2003 03:22 pm
timberlandko wrote:
Odd, isn't it, that the opponents of The Current Administration pound on the record dollar-figure deficit totals, ignoring the relative, and imminently more relevant, percentages, yet simultaneously pound on employment percentages while ignoring the fact America has more people employed today than ever in history? No, not really odd. That's spin ... nothing odd there at all.

But that's not what the serious critics are saying. The serious criticism is not that America is in immediate danger of insolvency because of the current deficit. It's that the Bush tax cuts and spending increases are permanent, and that the permanence of the deficit will drive it into insolvency once the baby boomers hit Social Security and Medicare. Yes, other OECD countries have similar problems, but that doesn't make the particular fiscal policy we're talking about any more responsible. 30 wrongs, or whatever the number is, don't make a right.
0 Replies
 
timberlandko
 
  1  
Reply Fri 5 Dec, 2003 03:29 pm
c.i. , the simple, plain, no-spin facts are that current and even pessimistically projected deficit figures are comfortably within supportable percentage-of-GDP levels, as evidenced by the entire fiscal history of The US, and that The US Economy has been in, and will continue to be in, exponential expansion. The current "Fiscal Crisis" is a media event, convenient for use as a political football, but of no other substantive relevance. My "Crystal Ball" tells me a massive asteroid impact wiping out life as we know it is highly unlikely; therefore, I conclude things will pretty much go on as they have been.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
  1. Forums
  2. » The US Economy
  3. » Page 42
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 03/16/2025 at 06:19:56