114
   

Where is the US economy headed?

 
 
hawkeye10
 
  1  
Reply Sat 8 Feb, 2014 07:24 pm
@realjohnboy,
Quote:
As I recall you are in the restaurant business.


Yes. Last year the number of restaurants went up 1%, the inflation adjusted spending was down over 1%. It does not take a genius to know that this ain't good.

Quote:
What saddens me is that it seems like every new eatery that opens is a chain. Faux Italian, Indian or whatever.
Why is that?


Dinning habits are in massive flux and new players want the action. Eventually you will see a lot of the big boys of old massively shrinking the number of stores. You might have heard that Olive Garden and Red Lobster are in big trouble, but so are players like Denny's and Applebies. Huge square footage will be closing, and the new guys mostly have much smaller stores, so I am not sure that you will see square footage expanding long term.

If you want any more detailed info on the restaurant biz let me know, the shift in eating habits is a big story actually, as is the industry efforts to capture it (or in the case of Darden the not understanding the new landscape and thus eating dust)
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sat 8 Feb, 2014 07:33 pm
@hawkeye10,
We were recently in Hawaii - Oahu to be exact - and when we went out to eat, most of the restaurants were packed - including the luxury places like Roy's and Morimoto's.

The cost of living in Hawaii is atrocious, but people that work in these establishments seem to be happy providing their customers with good service and smiles.

hawkeye10
 
  1  
Reply Sat 8 Feb, 2014 07:47 pm
@cicerone imposter,
Quote:
We were recently in Hawaii - Oahu to be exact - and when we went out to eat, most of the restaurants were packed - including the luxury places like Roy's and Morimoto's.


that is on par with you saying that Silicon Valley is fine...it is a rarefied micro environment that does not reflect the nation. Hawaii has almost nothing to doing with the US economy, it is more closely tied to the Japanese economy. US military spending is a major part of the US tie, and it has nothing to do with the economy.
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sat 8 Feb, 2014 09:43 pm
@hawkeye10,
Here you go again, hawk, making stupid statements.

You wrote,
Quote:
Hawaii has almost nothing to doing with the US economy, it is more closely tied to the Japanese economy.


Here are the FACTS on Hawaii's economy.
Quote:
Hawaii - Economy

Tourism remains Hawaii's leading employer, revenue producer, and growth sector. However, agricultural diversification (including the cultivation of flowers and nursery products, papaya, and macadamia nuts), aquaculture, manganese nodule mining, and film and television production have broadened the state's economic base. The public sector has a greater presence in Hawaii's economy than in any other state, accounting for 21.5% of gross state product in 2001, compared to the state average of 12%. Economic growth was relatively sluggish in Hawaii at the end of the 20th century, accelerating only from 2.2% in 1998 to 3.3% in 1999 to 4.6% in 2000. The national recession of 2001 and the after-effects of 9/11 helped reduce the annual growth rate to 2.8% in 2001, mainly through the impact on tourism. By the third quarter of 2002, however, hotel revenue in Hawaii was showing an increase over 2001, in contrast to hotel revenues in other parts of the country. Payroll employment, after declining sharply in 2001, was also showing increases.

Hawaii's gross state product in 2001 was 39th in the nation at $43.7 billion, to which financial services contributed $10.1 billion; general services (including tourism), $10 billion; government, $9.4 billion; trade, $6.5 billion; transportation and public utilities, $4.1 billion, and manufacturing, $1.2 billion. -


From Hawaii Tourism.
Quote:
North America
North America continues to be Hawaii’s largest source market for visitors. This market includes visitors who travel to Hawaii from the U.S. West (defined as the 11 Pacific states west of the Rockies), U.S. East (all other states) and Canada.
Advocate
 
  1  
Reply Sat 8 Feb, 2014 10:00 pm
@cicerone imposter,
You proved Hawk's point.
0 Replies
 
MontereyJack
 
  1  
Reply Sat 8 Feb, 2014 11:17 pm
what makes you think that, advocate, considering the tourists are coming mostly from the US.
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sat 8 Feb, 2014 11:29 pm
@MontereyJack,
Advocate's brain is all twisted into a pretzel.
0 Replies
 
Romeo Fabulini
 
  1  
Reply Sun 9 Feb, 2014 12:17 am
I know absolutely zilch about economics, so can somebody tell me one thing-
Are the national debts of countries like the US and Britain caused by government incompetence and mismanagement, or just bad luck or whatever?
hawkeye10
 
  1  
Reply Sun 9 Feb, 2014 12:39 am
@Romeo Fabulini,
Quote:
Are the national debts of countries like the US and Britain caused by government incompetence and mismanagement, or just bad luck or whatever?


a combination of the inability to raise enough tax rev to pay for all the "free" crap that people demand and a delusional economic theory that being in debt to others, more than you can ever re pay, is not a problem.

In other words greed and stupidity.
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Sun 9 Feb, 2014 04:35 am
@hawkeye10,
They don't come from nowhere hawk. Even if they are inherent in the human condition they can be inhibited or exaggerated and rewarded.

The debt ceiling is a flimsy structure.
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sun 9 Feb, 2014 11:05 am
@spendius,
It happened when GW Bush granted the rich and famous tax breaks while starting two wars he never paid for. Anyone capable of simple math would know that spending more than revenue will increase debt. GW Bush doubled the national debt, and the GOP is now trying to blame Obama for it. TNCFS
Advocate
 
  1  
Reply Sun 9 Feb, 2014 11:22 am
@cicerone imposter,
Where are your cites to material supporting this. No, for once I agree with you.

It is amazing that the Reps never learn this lesson.
parados
 
  1  
Reply Sun 9 Feb, 2014 01:43 pm
@Advocate,
http://www.skymachines.com/US-National-Debt-Per-Capita-Percent-of-GDP-and-by-Presidental-Term.htm

Not quite doubled by Bush but pretty close.

It's an interesting chart because it also shows how much the interest on debt is costing us each year.
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sun 9 Feb, 2014 02:02 pm
@parados,
That log on deficits by presidents tells the whole story. The republicans accumulated over $8 trillion of the deficit, and left two wars started by GW Bush to be paid by Obama.

Both wars were estimated to cost over $6 trillion dollars. The GOP now wants to blame Obama for the high deficit, and refuse to approve the debt ceiling that cost our country over $50 billion the last time. TNCFS

http://thegooddemocrat.files.wordpress.com/2008/09/deficit7-11-07.gif
hawkeye10
 
  1  
Reply Sun 9 Feb, 2014 02:14 pm
@cicerone imposter,
I am not seeing were the debt problem is a D/R issue, we go deeper into debt no matter who is running things.

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-fZWOPE0Z2ww/TbzTANX2JcI/AAAAAAAACvI/d35COuw0HEo/s1600/Total%2BDebt.jpg
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sun 9 Feb, 2014 02:19 pm
@hawkeye10,
That's because spending continues to increase; inflation is all part of life in the real world. Wars such as in Iraq and Afghanistan was not paid for; those debts continued to increase under Obama. Current budgets must be approved by congress; they have control of the purse strings. When they don't approve the debt ceiling to pay for what they budget, it only shows they don't know what they are doing. The GOP tries to blame Obama, but Obama doesn't approve the spending - congress does.
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sun 9 Feb, 2014 02:21 pm
@hawkeye10,
That's because spending continues to increase; inflation is all part of life in the real world. Wars such as in Iraq and Afghanistan was not paid for; those debts continued to increase under Obama. Current budgets must be approved by congress; they have control of the purse strings. When they don't approve the debt ceiling to pay for what they budget, it only shows they don't know what they are doing. The GOP tries to blame Obama, but Obama doesn't approve the spending - congress does.

Another point you seem to not comprehend. The deficit is measured against GDP - not the cumulative number. That's the reason Clinton showed a surplus.
0 Replies
 
hawkeye10
 
  1  
Reply Sun 9 Feb, 2014 02:26 pm
@cicerone imposter,
Neither the D's or the R's give a fig about debt, if they cared they would have been squawking about federal debt and would have pushed for policies that incentivize savings. Both parties have gone the other way, they have actively incentivized spending. Making debt part of the never ending mostly useless D/R skirmish is a pointless diversion,
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sun 9 Feb, 2014 02:28 pm
@hawkeye10,
That's your personal opinion - which is usually based on ignorance.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/78/US_Debt_Trend.svg/260px-US_Debt_Trend.svg.png
hawkeye10
 
  1  
Reply Sun 9 Feb, 2014 02:43 pm
@cicerone imposter,
http://thegreatrecession.info/blog/wp-content/uploads/Federal_Debt_1901-2010.png

I dont see much correlation between debt and colors . Congress controls spending, but maybe you have forgotten this.
 

Related Topics

The States Need Help - Discussion by Robert Gentel
Fiscal Cliff - Question by JPB
Let GM go Bankrupt - Discussion by Woiyo9
Sovereign debt - Question by JohnJD
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.21 seconds on 11/16/2024 at 06:30:46