The US Economy

timberlandko wrote:

OK, PDiddie, first, a member is a member ... is that clear enough for you?

Crystal.

timber wrote:

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.

It sounds to me like I'm being threatened with something here... Shocked

...and it don't sound like it's your basic member-to-member-type threat.

timber wrote:

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.

So that's a 'yes', then...yes? :wink:

0 Replies

What is the question????

Unemployment in the United States is among the lowest of the advanced economies in the world. It is also low by our own historical standards. Median incomes in the United States are higher than in any of the other G-7 nations. While we have a greater income disparity than do other G-7 economies, the lowest decile of incomes in the United States is also higher than the corresponding fraction in any of the other G-7 economies.

As Thomas has previously stated, our labor markets are generally more flexible and our investment in R&D is greater, enabling us to adapt to changing economic and market conditions a good deal more quickly than other nations. The flight of some manufacturing to other countries with lower labor costs is the chief mechanism whereby economic benefits are distributed to poorer regions. While the loss of these jobs in rich countries may be regrettable, they are usually far better able to replace lost jobs than would be the recipient nation if the flight of manufacturing was prevented by government action.

Certainly unemployment and poverty are regrettable wherever they are found. However overall economic conditions here are better than they are anywhere else, and it is folly to suggest otherwise.

0 Replies

The DOW closed today above ten thousand for the first time in a year and a half.

0 Replies

The article does not say the indicators will lag by six months, it says there it is not hopeful that a rise in employment will begin for six months. Six months after that (that's a year, you know) the "indicators" may show that we are on the way to recovery. I don't believe anyone would be so foolish to tie themselves to a "doom and gloom" economic platform. It's not that the recession was necessarily one of the deepest fallbacks, it is one of the more protracted and we may not see economic prosperity return for nearly two years. This may or may not mean it will be on the level of the best of the Reagan or Clinton years, Clintons being one of the most protracted of economic prosperity whether he had anything to do with it or not. It's called Presidential providence. (although some would say Clintons was PresidenTAIL providence).

0 Replies

No threat there at all, PDiddie, just a statement of fact. I have no desire to pick a fight with you, and I see nothing served by that. I do note a tendency of yours to become more intemperate than is common among the membership at large. I really think that's a bummer; I find the bulk of your interaction well thought and well presented, often informative and thought provoking. But, jeeez, guy ... :wink:

Now, lets just end this and get back on topic. Drop me a PM if ya wanna. No point boring other folks with it.

So anyhow ... the DOW closed up $86.3) to end at $1008.16. While $10,026.53 was hit, today's close above $10K is a more significant even, IMO. A short-term pullback ... profit taking, is possible tomorrow, but volume and price picked up today right at the close of trading ... fewer overall trades, but larger ones characterized the last half-hour of trading. This indicates to me a sentiment within the market's big players favorable to net acquisition, and I would anticipate the index will close the week still above $10K, is not much unchanged from today's close. By year-end, looking at underlying indicators, barring external shock, the index could close the year well established above $10K, and the NAS settling in above $2K. I really don't see any technical reason to fall back from this point; the across-the-board momentum clearly is upward, despite inconvenient weather and conflicting news. Again, I don't argue that the problem is solved, I merely point out the problem, severe as it is to those directly affected, affects a relatively smaller portion of the population, and that the inconvenmience to The Economy overall is of less significance than any post-war recession. A lot of conjectured mountains have turned out molehills, IMO. There's nothing in the way of continued, sustainable expansion that I can see.

0 Replies

Here's a couple of really sad pieces of unemployment news, from that renowned media outlet The Onion:

Quote:

According to the results of an intensive two-year study, Americans living below the poverty line are "pretty much f*cked," Center for Social and Economic Research executive director Jameson Park announced Monday.

"Although poor people have never had it particularly sweet, America has long been considered the land of opportunity, where upward class mobility is hard work's reward," Park said. "However, our study shows that limited access to quality education and a shortage of employment opportunities in depressed areas all but ensure that, once f*cked, an individual tends to stay f*cked."

According to U.S. Census Bureau statistics, 34.6 million Americans were living below the poverty line in 2002.

and this:

Quote:

0 Replies

georgeob1 wrote:

With all this discussion of supposedly dismal performance in the US economy, it is worth noting that the recession from which we are now emerging afflicts all the world's advanced economies, and relative to the other members of the G-7 we are doing quite well. [..] For those who wish to judge political leaders solely by current economic indicators, then it is Schroeder and Chirac who should be so shamed.

True true.

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?

Why not?

Its a job. You gotta work bloody hard at it. You make other people happy doing so. If those other people are spending money dining out it means they must be pretty happy (or confident) about something, too. Which is as good a sign for the economy (consumer confidence and all that) as it is a bit of much-needed luck for you, if as a result you got to find a job again, in those restaurants. I know I was damn happy to find a restaurant job when I needed the money.

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?

Heh. Yeh, thats always my instinctive take on it, too ...

But, I must add, in Holland, for example, only some 3% of the working population now works in agriculture, and a mere 20% or so in manufacturing - all the rest is in services (incl. a decreasing share of government workers). It never ceases to amaze me - basically, we're all keeping each other busy - but it doesnt seem to have done the country much harm - we're just getting richer and richer in the meantime.

0 Replies

We must remember when the Thai baht lost it's value, and the whole world felt the economic impact. The world's economy is tied to even the smaller countries, and it's impact can be severe. When the big boys gets hurt, everybody suffers. That's the reason why Japan, Germany, France, Italy, and all the rest of the world is watching how the US economy is fairing. If you watch their stock market, it pretty much follows what happens in the US.

0 Replies

timberlandko wrote:

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.

Oh Timber you really must be joking in seriously suggesting this as your answer to PDiddie's post.

First off, the administrators have again and again, I understand, formally agreed that should a user violate any of the standards of discourse A2K maintains, he should be called on it and possible action should be taken against him by personal communication and by personal communication only.

You are the only moderator who persistently continues to use a kind of abstract, on-board reprimanding, despite the objections of other moderators to this behaviour.

It is wrong because it involves no objective take or criteria. Either someone has crossed the limits, and the moderators agree to act against him - or they agree not to, because they think he hasnt. Thats clear and fair.

But you are the only moderator to then go beyond that and "reprimand" individual members publicly, on-thread - and do so in general terms, not specifying what they supposedly said wrong exactly where, just kinda showing your baton so to speak. Do so even though apparently, they didnt actually do anything yet that your fellow-moderators agreed required any formal action. (Ya haven't done it to me yet, but to enough others).

In short, you're the one crossing the line here, not PDiddie.

Thats particularly amazing considering the post you were responding to. Namely one in which he actually called you on your style of posting. Now its childish enough for any member to go "well-you-do-it-too-and-youre-worse"ing in reply to a complaint, but to insert the weight of "administrative discussion" to that for effect surely takes the biscuit.

But I'm being unfair - you did respond.

timberlandko wrote:

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.

Right - and I think that was exactly the point made - that you do it "inappropriately".

I for one - unsurprisingly to you I'm sure - agree wholeheartedly with PD that stuff like ..

Quote:

simple to see, to anyone not wearing Bush-Bashing Blinders [..]

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

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.

is not - how shall I say it ... exactly an example of "maintaining civil discourse".

Its all petty, resentful, patronising, disrespectful snides - of the kind that crop up in your post on a near-continuous basis.

Now its one thing to face, say, Scrat's sincere outrage once in a while (to name just a random poster) - we all get angry sometimes, and (s)he really seems to do it out of passion when (s)he feels strongly about something. But the matter-of-course way in which you sprinkle your every other post with your persistent patronising snides is perhaps one of the most single most unpleasant things to face on Able2Know. No - it is the single most unpalatable thing on A2K, post-Italgato - to me in any case. Thats why I'm going on about it.

For any poster to behave like that is bad enough - hey, whatever, some of us use the board to vent or act out our anger, its a free world, you dont have to always be nice. But you combine it as a matter of course with picking up your, "I'm the moderator speaking here" hat for some hearty "A2K administration" preaches to others on civil discourse. It's just rarely that one sees you do it in consecutive posts like this - and still, I'm absolutely sure, all in good faith and without even being aware of any inconsistency.

I mean, I'm actually somehow convinced that you really are not even aware that what you're doing is so rude. In fact, ironically, its your own particular brand of rudeness that would keep you unaware about it. After all, if any of us should complain about it (again), you'll just do your, 'aw shucks boss, I'm jus' trying to keep up a civil conversation here, you know I always try to be fair and balanced and objective -- and if any of you liberal bush-bashers are really too blind to see that, well ... i cant help that, really'.

<shakes head in exasperation, sighs, gives up - again>

0 Replies

Lightwizard wrote:

The article does not say the indicators will lag by six months, it says there it is not hopeful that a rise in employment will begin for six months. Six months after that (that's a year, you know) the "indicators" may show that we are on the way to recovery. I don't believe anyone would be so foolish to tie themselves to a "doom and gloom" economic platform. It's not that the recession was necessarily one of the deepest fallbacks, it is one of the more protracted and we may not see economic prosperity return for nearly two years. This may or may not mean it will be on the level of the best of the Reagan or Clinton years, Clintons being one of the most protracted of economic prosperity whether he had anything to do with it or not. It's called Presidential providence. (although some would say Clintons was PresidenTAIL providence).

I don't know what article you read but my article says this:

But Quinlan and other analysts do not expect steady monthly growth of 100,000 to 150,000 jobs until next spring, and that is considered the minimal level needed to absorb new entrants into the work force.

I said job growth would not begin in earnest until the second quarter of 2004.

0 Replies

perc's quote, "I said job growth would not begin in earnest until the second quarter of 2004." Can you define for us what you mean by "begin in earnest?" When 2Q/2004 arrives, I want to weigh your prognostication against actual.

0 Replies

CI

This is what I mean by "in earnest".

But Quinlan and other analysts do not expect steady monthly growth of 100,000 to 150,000 jobs until next spring, and that is considered the minimal level needed to absorb new entrants into the work force.

0 Replies

perc, Thanks for the clarification. You see, some analysts believe it will take 170,000 added jobs per month to stabilize our economic growth. I don't know who "Quinlan and other analysts" are, but I'm going to disagree with their "next spring." I don't see job growth of that magnitude for over one year - and maybe two or more. You see, I've not agreed with these financial analysts for many years, and I found that my guesses were better than theirs.

0 Replies

Obviously, nimh, you have an opinion of my style of interaction, and my "consistency". Not unsurprisngly, I disagree with that opinion. I don't mind a bit if you wish to carry on this particular discussion off-thread, and I suspect the other participants on this thread would appreciate that.

0 Replies

I think I've pretty much all I had to say. I would have said it off-thread in the first place, if I hadnt felt that this wasn't just about expressing my personal feeling about it to you, but also about rallying to PDiddie's defence after he was most unfairy treated - and very much on-thread so.

Now I know that I am not the only person who feels this way. And if I felt there was any way to make a difference, I would enter a private discussion about it. But I feel that you have rejected each criticism along this line, from different members, as something with which you'll just have to disagree - something you don't see yourself as doing. Well, we know you dont see it. And it's of course your right to lay aside personal criticisms which you dont recognize or think are unjust. But that means that, pretty much, I'm left to just vent about it every second month or so - nothing much else to do.

In the words of Setanta: "okbye".

Be back with a US Economy update soon.

0 Replies

Whoops - and I thought, just me and two others were thinking that way :wink:

(And obviously it isn't just only a European way of looking at it.)

But, back to business, ehem, economy.

0 Replies

Well, there you go.

0 Replies

Muttering...turning up my collar...pulling on the cold rain gear...a quick, wistful glace back at the tarty little blonde thing in bed...and out into the storm again...

timber

This discussion has to happen, and in a form transparent to the whole community.

These political discussions, and the moderation of them, are evolving in a manner which I believe diminishes what we have.

Those posts that nimh and PD note ("a few blind bush bashers") typify for me what's gone the wrong way. And a related part of this situation is reflected in your comment to PD regarding how many complaints you've received regarding his posts.

What is it we do have here that ought not to be diminished? Foremost, the structure that Craven has built and that folks like you help to maintain.

Above that, we have the wonderful agglomeration of unique humans from all over the world who tell bad jokes and drop sexy innuendos and scream into the night that their town football team was CHEATED and who give forth on their ideas of how the world ought to look and on who is responsible for it looking quite different than that.

Finally, we have the dim and rubbery rules of how we ought to talk with each other.

Now and again, the sky darkens, the thermometer falls, the wooden lady (carved in the likeness of Lola) frowns and throws her arm over her pert breasts against the growing swell, and then the **** storm hits. In, I'd guess, some 90 percent of cases, this happens on a politics thread.

And, I'd guess, in some 99 percent of those cases, the content is Bush/America..."they're good!" "no, they're bad!"..."you're blind!" "no, you're blind." Complaints, apparently, pour into the wheel house like a crowd of sharp pointy fingers. Something must be done! He broke the rules! She broke the rules! They are pissing on my flag!!

This whole 'sides' notion which underlies your posts which PD and nimh quote has become a very crippling impediment to open and potentially rewarding discussion. It IS a reflection of American polarity, as inevitably that is the context.

There are two different things going on here. There is discussion and ideas forwarded/read as a means to better comprehend the world. There is also the goal, held with varying degrees of seriousness, of trying to 'beat' the opposition. Again, the context here is American polarity.

The protest is rather common that the 'left' contributors outnumber those on the 'right'. As nimh and I have recently tried to suggest to george, it's only because we are aboard an American steamer here (out of the shipyard with tiller pre-welded at 45% starboard) that this seems so.

So perhaps the problem is less who is complained about, and moreso who is doing the complaining.

You ought to stop talking in such generalities. Each instance is effectively and ad hominem. And though Craven doesn't agree with me, I think a logical fallacy is a far worse crime than an impoliteness. Impolitenesses present themselves with honesty. Logical fallacies try to sneak in, pretending to be something good and common-sensical, when they are really something quite deceptive and dirty. They are like Satan getting into the underwear of a Catholic.

0 Replies

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know