Is Capitalism Good or Bad?

JLN's quote, "They don't really need freedom, they only want economic freedom." What amazes me most is that even our "economic freedom" is being sacrificed in the guise of security. When this administration 'gave' contracts for reconstruction in Iraq to Haliburton and Bechtel worth billions without bids, some of our economic freedom disappeared. Since most Americans think that doesn't affect them, they remain ignorant and uncaring. We still haven't seen that job growth that GWBush talked about when he talked to the country last year about cutting taxes. I wonder when we'll begin to see more job created than we are losing to China and India?

0 Replies

cicerone imposter wrote:

We still haven't seen that job growth that GWBush talked about when he talked to the country last year about cutting taxes. I wonder when we'll begin to see more job created than we are losing to China and India?

I know you don't want to accept the prediction that real job growth won't become evident until late in the second quarter of 2004, but in any recovery, job growth lags the stock market recovery by 6 months. Why don't you wait before screaming about no job growth. BTW----- have your stocks recovered----- remember now in 2000(the last year of the Clinton administration) the stock market lost 6% of it's value. This proves Bush inherited an economy in a tailspin.

0 Replies

Frank Apisa wrote:

perception wrote:
Frank

Your denial won't change the fact that Howard Dean fits your description of "pond scum" completely. Have a nice day----what's left of it

You have a nice day too, Perception.

Come back tomorrow and explain this post to me, because it makes even less sense than your last one.

I especially want to know where I described pond scum.

Hey Frank;

I'm back------where have you described pond scum? It's simple Frank---through deductive reasoning using the statements you have made about Bush I was able to deduce your description of "pond scum". Laughing

0 Replies

perception, Presidents do not have that much influence on our economy. If you look at the long term trend of the American economy, it's always been upwards no matter who sat in the white house. I'm only sharing what GWBush said during his state of the union address last year; that his tax cuts would create jobs. Lag time, shmag time. You can stretch your thesis about job growth, but this citizen ain't buying what you're selling. FYI, the stock market has been in a growth mode for longer than six months. The p/e ratios are still too high, so the market's growth is based upon "expectations." I still haven't seen too many financial pundits that's been accurate in their prognostications about our stock market or economy. A recent San Jose Mercury News financial article reported on how a group that picked stocks from a hat got better results than the so-called "experts." As for our retirement investments, we'd had increases every year for the past three years - unlike most investors, so what we have gained has nothing to do with Clinton or GWBush.

0 Replies

truth
C.I., I agree with you that political actions of office holders have little effect on the long term economy and the stock market. Economists--who I never understand--argue that it's the "fundamentals", not the expectations that create REAL growth. Nevertheless, I am shaken by the dire prognostications for the economy by Robert Rubin (arguably the most effective secretary of the treasury since Hamilton) and Princeton economist, Paul Krugman, due to Bush's record breaking budget deficit.

0 Replies

JLN, What surprises me most about GWBush's spending spree is that republicans are supposed to be for small government, and less deficit spending. I also read that Rubin article, and the growth of the federal deficit is definitely a big concern for the future of our economy especially at a time when our high tech jobs are being exported to China and India, and high tech is the future of our economy (and the world's). Job growth in the service sector is now slowing down, although factory jobs seems to be on a upward trend. With the US currency's devaluation, I think that will be a boost to our economy. I'm not sure how German made cars (and most other products) are going to survive in the world markets when consumers must pay 20 to 30 percent more than US made. Will be interesting to watch. The one saving grace of the American economy is that we have always been the leader in R&D. However, our schools are beginning to fail our children in providing the education they need in the sciences. It's going to be a tough road ahead for our current and future generation looking to keep our economy humming at the top of the mountain. The huge deficit by both consumers and our government is going to impact inflation in the near future. There's just to much dollars floating without it producing the goods and services to support it.

0 Replies

Just released by Reuters. "
After the market's blazing rally in the last year, some Wall Street experts are beginning to worry that shares have gotten a little expensive relative to corporate America's growth prospects.

At current levels, the companies in the Standard & Poor's 500 index (^SPX - news) are trading at 18.2 times 2004 earnings, modestly above the historical average of around 15 times earnings, according to earnings tracking company Thomson First Call.

The current price-to-earnings ratio (P/E) is well off the 26.2 level it hit in March 2000, when the index peaked, and down even further from the recent peak of 27.7 it hit in the first half of 2001, when earnings began to crumble. When the S&P 500 index plunged to a 5-1/2 year low in October 2002, its P/E ratio fell to 15.3, Thomson First Call said."

0 Replies

perception wrote:

Frank Apisa wrote:
perception wrote:
Frank

Your denial won't change the fact that Howard Dean fits your description of "pond scum" completely. Have a nice day----what's left of it

You have a nice day too, Perception.

Come back tomorrow and explain this post to me, because it makes even less sense than your last one.

I especially want to know where I described pond scum.

Hey Frank;

I'm back------where have you described pond scum? It's simple Frank---through deductive reasoning using the statements you have made about Bush I was able to deduce your description of "pond scum".

Lay off the deductive reasoning, Perception. You apparently are not very good at it if it leads you to think that my "description" of pond scum would include Dean.

0 Replies

Frank

Try this one then:

All politicians are liars

All liars are pond scum

Howard Dean is a liar

Howard Dean is pond scum

0 Replies

C.I.

From your pessimistic view, the best thing for you do is to sell your stock, put the money in a can in your back yard and go fishing-----or ------stop whining.

0 Replies

perception wrote:

Frank

Try this one then:

All politicians are liars

All liars are pond scum

Howard Dean is a liar

Howard Dean is pond scum

If that is how you feel...fine.

But don't try to pin it on me, because I did not come close to saying any of that.

As an aside, your attempt at a syllogism was not especially good.

Let me help you work this out -- but keep in mind that I am only helping you deal with syllogistic phrasing and do not agree with any of your premises -- which are not establishable in any case. (Each premise of a syllogism must be established for the thing to work!)

What follows is not truly syllogistic either, but it is a lot closer to it -- and it has the benefit of being logical.

All politicians are liars;

Howard Dean is a politician;

therefore Howard Dean is a liar.

And from there you can go to:

All liars are pond scum;

Howard Dean is a liar;

therefore Howard Dean is pond scum.

Do you follow?

0 Replies

perc, I'm not whining; I said our retirement investments went UP during the past three years. You must learn how to read, and understand what you read.

0 Replies

Frank Apisa wrote:

All liars are pond scum;

Howard Dean is a liar;

therefore Howard Dean is pond scum.

Thanks Frank-----what was that about keeping someone talking long enough and you prove my point?????? :wink:

0 Replies

truth
Perception, too many steps. Don't you mean:
All politicians are liars
All liars are pond scum
H.Dean is a POLITICIAN
ergo, Dean is a liar and pond scum.

BTW, C.I., I am considering moving my tax deferred equity investments into safer funds (within the same general deferred fund). But I have to consider the tax implications and the relative advantages of bond funds and money market funds. The P-E ratios are scary...and the budget deficit...

0 Replies

JLN, Depending on your age and tolerance for risk, you should still keep some in equities. Since last year was good for equities, our allocation changed a little bit in favor of equities. I'm going to keep it that way, because it's still 36 percent of our total investments, I feel comfortable with that. Most indicators are that our economy is on the mends, but I don't expect any miracle for the rest of this year. When we begin to see real job growth, I'll feel more comfortable about our economy.

0 Replies

truth
C.I., yes, I would always keep a good portion (at least 25%) in growth funds because of the guarantee of long-term inflation. Thanks.

0 Replies

Our long-term bonds are doing pretty good today, so it balances the loss in our mutual funds.

0 Replies

perception wrote:

Frank Apisa wrote:
All liars are pond scum;

Howard Dean is a liar;

therefore Howard Dean is pond scum.

Thanks Frank-----what was that about keeping someone talking long enough and you prove my point?????? :wink:

Clever, Perception.

But be careful, now. If you start with that "quoting out of context" thing...people will start to lose trust in you.

Just so that everyone remembers, I wrote:

Quote:

Let me help you work this out -- but keep in mind that I am only helping you deal with syllogistic phrasing and do not agree with any of your premises -- which are not establishable in any case. (Each premise of a syllogism must be established for the thing to work!)

And I will raise you one wink! :wink: :wink:

0 Replies

truth
C.I., I don't want to change the topic of this thread to Finances, but I do want to note that I am generally not concerned with what happens to the market in the short run, only the long run really counts for much. At the same time, I'm getting old enough that MY long run is someone else's short run. My concern is not that I might run out of money before I (and my wife) die, but that we will die WITH money. We have no needy heirs. We need to start spending more money but can't make up our minds to do it, without feeling like spend thrifts. This is not to claim that we are rich (that's relative), only that we are not sure whether we have enough or more than enough. I suspect this is a problem for many "seniors."

0 Replies

JLN, We're in the same "boat," but I doubt it's a problem of not having enough. The equity in our home is worth about 3/4 million, so my wife should be secure no matter when I meet my "maker." I'm really not a "spend thrift," and enjoy my world travel at-will. To show how old habits die hard, I still clip coupons, and buy most of my clothes on sale. I recently purchased a Panasonic 32" LCD tv on the web, and saved a couple hundred. I don't think we need to penny-pinch, but I don't worry too much about our spending habits, because we'll always be a little bit on the conservative side. Wink

0 Replies

Is Capitalism Good or Bad?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know