Where is the US economy headed?

The dangers to the stability of the EURO derive from low economic growth and low labor productivity in the troubled Eurozone countries; generally high levels of national debt relative to GDP; and overregulated labor and capital markets which inhibit the creation of new enterprises and the rallocation of capital to them. These are precisely the policies our idiot president is attempting to apply here.

The many economists who don't agree with Obama's claque Krugman have spelled out their arguments in great detail. You just don't read them.

Right, and how well is their enforced austerity program working for them over there, exactly? You don't seem to realize that the EU isn't listening to the Krug in the slightest - and the results are pretty much exactly what he and other Keneysians have predicted: contraction and further necessitated borrowing.

Cycloptichorn

I understand most of what you are saying, but none-the-less, they are in the pickle for all those reasons and more.

However, to say " These are precisely the policies our idiot president is attempting to apply here" is blaming the Great Recession on Obama. Most of the stim bill was to provide the middle class with tax breaks and extend unemployment insurance - needed from the Great Recession. Those were "necessary" solutions to help Americans over wars and reconstruction in other countries. FACTS you are overlooking: GW Bush doubled the national debt, and is responsible for the Great Recession (it happened under his watch).

Are you essentially saying it's okay to fund wars and reconstructions in other countries, but it's wrong to help the American people?


Actually, I do read Krugman and agree with most of what he posits. The austerity program in Europe will on exacerbate and bad problem into a bigger one; that's been proven over the years.

In the US, our infrastructure is not being maintained, we are not funding our schools sufficiently, and we spend more money on defense than the other top ten countries combined.

That's the problem; not that we're spending too much on social and economic needs for the US.

Have you heard about Paul Ryan's investment strategy?

What's RT got to say about Pussy Riot?

I am not sure but I did hear something about it.

This reporter did not shine a positive light on the matter but I have seen others who have.

What do you think about this matter?

Now this is interesting...
http://news.investors.com/article/622168/201208141740/gm-costs-taxpayers-25-billion-dollars.htm

I thought the govt was making money on the auto bailout?
Now it seems the taxpayers could lose billions of dollars, just on GM alone.
How is that possible?

That was never the entire rationale of the bailout. The rationale was that letting Detroit go bankrupt would send a ripple of bankruptcies throughout the entire industry, resulting in much bigger losses to the American economy.

I realize that Investors.com is claiming that the bailout failed on that front, too. But they cite no independent economic research on this claim. All they rely on is the Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank with a political ax to grind in this matter. I see no reason to take it seriously.

We need another world war 2.

You don't like the source so that negates the facts?

It's not about me liking them, it's about their being cranks. And no, when a crank says that something is true, that doesn't prove it's false, and I didn't say it is. All it means is there's no reason to accept the factual claim they're making.

Let's look at that silly article MM.

Paragraph 2. Why does it equate the recall of 38,000 vehicles with the health of the company? That is a minor recall in an industry that every company has recalls in. It is an attempt to poison the well before the article even starts.

The next part of the article if even more silly. It equates losses to stock price on ONE day. As of today, the stock price was $22 negating the one claim in the article.

As for the UAW claim. It is unsubstantiated. One could easily argue that the UAW would have not got as much from GM but the amount from the government would have probably been HIGHER because the government is the one that ends up rescuing retirement plans when companies fail to live up to their responsibilities. Without the Heritage report, there is nothing to argue about since there are no facts there.

That is just stupid. Do you seriously believe that GM had fewer than 131,000 workers overseas in 2008? If you believe that then I have a bridge you can buy cheap.

Braino on my part when I said, "when a crank says that something is true, that doesn't prove it's false, and I didn't say it is". Please substitute "does" for "is".

The continuing need for further borrowing in the affected European countries has a great deal to do with the continuing unfolding of previously undetected debt and deficits, in many cases among local and regional governments. The collapsing construction and real poroperty bubbles that drove the European recession were fueled by high levels of government borrowing on their way up. The party ended when lenders (and national banks) could no longer endure the growing risks attendant to the bonds of overleveraged governments. While borrowing more to fuel a sclerotic economy burdened by regulatory inflexibility may appear to be a sensible solution to you, the fact is no one will lend them money or buy their bonds at an affordable rate. It's easy to say "let the Germans provide the credit for everyone else", however the taxpayers of Germany have a rightful voice in that decision.

It's because people like mm suffers from myopia. The auto industry is not only manufacturing. It's also sales, parts sales, repairs and maintenance, creditors, roads and bridges, and fuel processing and sales.

As is the economy a world one, no industry survives in isolation.

Those 131,000 working in foreign plants also brings profit into the company, and in turn, they buy American products and services.

That's how competitive economies are supposed to work.

It's because the system works on the basis of taxpayers losing billions of dollars on a permanent basis.

If those 131,000 are working overseas in foreign plants, exactly what makes you think they are buying US goods and services?

Roads and bridges are part of the auto industry?
Only if you are using a very lose definition of auto industry.

By earning income, it provides the necessary means for them to purchase US goods and services.

It seems you are ignorant about many things.

Here's the trade numbers between the US and Europe.
http://ec.europa.eu/trade/creating-opportunities/bilateral-relations/countries/united-states/

FYI those numbers are in the billions of dollars.