The US Economy

ye, From what I can garner from the information on the growth of our GDP, it is from the higher productivity of American workers.

0 Replies

cicerone imposter wrote:

If it's nonsense, explain why.

I'm supposed to explain the weakness of your rhetoric? Why shouldn't you show us its strength instead?

The problem is that my point has two mutually exclusive prongs...

1) I don't think we are "mortgaging our kids futures", because I don't believe that the tax cuts necessarily mean huge future debts for the government. When you cut taxes and reduce the opportunity cost of doing business... it is possible to get more business being done and an increase (not decrease) over time in the amount of money flowing into government. So, in the first part I think it may be nonsense that the tax cuts will cost the government money and mean huge debts for our children. (As happened under Reagan, run-away spending may still do that, of course.)

2) If we are "mortgaging our kids futures", the measure of whether that is good or bad is what we are doing with the money. If I take a second on my house to blow on beer, that's a bad thing. If I do it to put my kids through college, it's a good thing. So, I also think the notion that "mortgaging" is automatically bad is nonsense.

So there it is. Nonsense squared, or nonsense either way you look at it. Now, your turn to tell us why your position has merit. Cool

0 Replies

I'm sure blatham won't mind if I use his quote from another forum. "For anyone who missed it, ex Sec of Finance, Rubin was interviewed on PBS newshour tonight. It should be online and available. He speaks a little about the present financial course and it's highly probably disastrous consequences. If you do check this out, note what he says about his recent conversation with Greenspan." I'll let Rubin speak for me concerning this issue.

0 Replies

Here's an article with some idea about "mortgaging our children's future." http://www.utne.com/web_special/web_specials_2003-05/articles/10576-1.html

0 Replies

BTW, it's not MY position.

0 Replies

Good news on the economy!

The unemployed are all gonna get restaurant jobs!

Sherri Day, leaping into the air, kicking her legs and thrusting her pom-poms and leading the cheers for Bush, in the NYT (that damn liberal rag), wrote:

The restaurant industry has gone on a hiring spree over the last four months, suggesting that broader gains in the job market could be on the way.

Since the beginning of August, the restaurant business, which includes everything from McDonald's to corner bars to four-star restaurants, has accounted for 18 percent of the 300,000 jobs created in the nation.

Some economists say that an increase in low-wage jobs, which include most restaurant work, indicates that the job market over all (sic) will soon bounce back.

Now doesn't that make you feel better?

0 Replies

ye110man wrote:

Why is it that GDP grows faster than the US population, naturally? Do exports grow even faster or something?

Technical progress allows the US to perpetually increase the quality and quantity of the products it makes for any given amount of labor, capital and land they put in. It's the same in other countries, but America's rate of technical progress is higher than in most other countries. Two reasons: 1) America spends a larger fraction of its income on research and development than most other countries; 2) America's labor market is freer than most other countries'. That makes it easier to cut jobs that have been obsoleted by technical innovations. This in turn gives these innovations a greater impact on productivity than it has in most other countries.

0 Replies

PDiddie wrote:

Good news on the economy! The unemployed are all gonna get restaurant jobs! Now doesn't that make you feel better?

As a matter of fact it does. It tells me that America's economy is making progress at shifting employment from the manufacturing sector to the service sector, and makes me confident that employment in higher-paid service jobs will catch up soon too.

0 Replies

PDiddie, almost by definition, restaurant meals are "discretionary spending". If more folks weren't out there spending more money at more restaurants, there would be no need for more food service workers. Folks not working aren't likely to be behind the upsurge in restaurant business which is driving the food service employment upsurge. More folks making more money=more folks eating at restaurants=more restaurant workers needed ... simple to see, to anyone not wearing Bush-Bashing Blinders.

Now if you want something for "Your Side" to crow about, look to the disappointing New Unemployment Claims figure released this morning. Of course, with retail sales showing unexpected strength, that loses a bit of impact. And, of course, for those into statistics, its interesting to note that overall employment is increasing at a stronger pace than the overall growth of the labor market, which is putting downward pressure on the unemployment rate. Then, there's the obvious accellerating strength of the stock market, fueled by stunning increases in productivity and corporate profitability, there is the continuing, and accellerating, expansion of capital investment, particularly as regards machine tool orders and commercial construction, the continuing increase in factory orders, the continuing increase in residential construction and in durable goods sales and orders ... but then, none of that matters to some folks ... mostly the folks who've already opted themselves out of reality, prefering instead to live in an ideologic fantasy world of imagined ills.

0 Replies

In hard economic times, any job is better than no job.

0 Replies

Yes, people who are unemployed and can't find a job like the one they had often take restaurant jobs.

This isn't a good sign; it's a sign people are getting more desperate for work.

When people get desperate enough, they seek jobs they otherwise wouldn't consider, such as waiting tables and shaking french (whoops, freedom) fries. The fact that in the most recent recovery the job market started picking up six months before restaurant jobs took off had more to do with the length of the recession than anything else; certainly the restaurant jobs didn't plant the seeds of the Internet boom.

Doesn't this beg the question of whether people struggling in a bad economy have to take on extra jobs of the type offered by the restaurant industry: low-wage, no-benefit, high-turnover, part-time, late-shift? I know two (highly skilled) people who've been job-hunting in their respective fields for more than a year and in the meantime are juggling three McJobs each to support their families.

This "positive" news about restaurant jobs would count their work as employment for six people, right?

The gap I see between real life and these gushing Rovian press releases about the economy simply puzzles me. In the long term, it's not clear to me that America can survive on retail alone. Can we actually run an economy merely by selling food and other stuff to each other?

Doesn't someone, you know, have to make something?

0 Replies

PDiddie wrote:

In the long term, it's not clear to me that America can survive on retail alone. Can we actually run an economy merely by selling food and other stuff to each other?

Doesn't someone, you know, have to make something?

Yeah. I usually refer to this as gettin' rich by taking in each other's laundry.

0 Replies

PDiddie wrote:

Doesn't someone, you know, have to make something?

Ahhhh, ferchrissakes ... OK, here ya go, PDiddie, from a source you trust:

Quote:

Last Updated: Monday, 1 December, 2003, 16:44 GMT
US factories hit 20-year record
US factory output is at its fastest pace in 20 years, a survey suggests, in the latest proof of concerted recovery in the world's biggest economy.

The purchasing managers' index (PMI), a complex but usually accurate measure of current manufacturing, has hit its highest level since mid-1983 ...

Read THE NEWS, not your favorite pundits.

0 Replies

Ferchrissakes, timber, we're discussing employment and the lack thereof and you keep crowing about productivity and the stock market.

From your link:

Quote:

The main worry over the US economic upturn is that those lost jobs may not be replaced, since there is still no definite indication that companies are starting to hire again in significant numbers.

There's nothing in that link that mentions increasing employment in the manufacturing sector. Increasing productivity has a lot to do with the outsourcing of jobs overseas that American corporations have embraced more warmly than a tax cut.

Now, I have to point something else out that disturbs me about your recent posts.

Your talons have been scraping awfully close to some ad hominem against the political opposition, with comments like this:

Quote:

simple to see, to anyone not wearing Bush-Bashing Blinders

and this:

Quote:

Now if you want something for "Your Side" to crow about

and this:

Quote:

but then, none of that matters to some folks ... mostly the folks who've already opted themselves out of reality, prefering instead to live in an ideologic fantasy world of imagined ills.

I find this recent trend of moderators slinging insults, veiled or obvious, of late quite troubling.

Do I simply make the mistake of thinking that you guys should act better than the rest of us?

0 Replies

I thought that only "Moderator" was a moderator...everyone was just another user...Am I wrong in that thought?

0 Replies

From the BBC, two days ago:

Quote:

Presidents Harry Truman and Lyndon Johnson were both incumbent presidents who stumbled in wars (in Korea and Vietnam respectively) and then stepped down rather than face the prospect of electoral defeat.

A healthy economy doesn't guarantee a seat in the Oval Office.

Economy turning for Bush

0 Replies

PDiddie, what you mistake is that a viewpoint not congruent with your own is therefor objectionable. If you perceive the comments of mine which you singled out above to be insults, so be it. If the shoe fits, wear it. If it doesn't, don't. Jobs recovery is underway, along with general economic recovery both domestic and global. It is my firm conviction that by Q2 '04 not just recovery but robust expansion of the US Economy clearly and unambiguously will be evident. I could be wrong, and if I am, then certainly, I'll admit that ... I'm on record here several times as having said just that already.

I take issue with folks who seem persistently to seek and promote negative commentary over and above demonstrated statistical trending and established accomplishments. On the other hand, I do delight ibn the apparent fact that The Opposition has chained itself to economic gloom. I figure that just makes the prospects for the continuation and consolidation of The Current Administration all the more certainm. I could be wrong, there, too. We'll know about that next November 3rd, won't we?

0 Replies

McGentrix wrote:

I thought that only "Moderator" was a moderator...everyone was just another user...Am I wrong in that thought?

No, you are not wrong in that thought. Most folks understand that, though, of course, there always will be some who don't.

0 Replies

timber dodged the question I wrote:

Do I simply make the mistake of thinking that you guys should act better than the rest of us?

So, is that a 'yes'?

0 Replies

OK, PDiddie, first, a member is a member ... is that clear enough for you?
Next, among a small number of similarly credentialled others, you yourself have been the occasion of a disproportionate number of member complaints concerning both individual posts and your overall style of interaction, and have been the subject of considerable Administrative discussion. You're not alone in that, but you're there, and its a small club. I'll freely admit I sometimes respond sharply. I understand that bothers some folks, obviously you among them. Maintaining civil discourse does not oblige one to conceqal one's displeasure or disapproval; it is merely necessary that one not express that displeasure or disapproval inappropriately. As to "dodging the question", I submit my earlier post was in fact a direct and substantive response to your querry. It may not have been the answer you wanted, but it was the answer. The subsequent exchange with McG should clear it up for you if that's still needed. Read what's written, not what you'd like to assume was meant.

0 Replies

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know