114
   

Where is the US economy headed?

 
 
carloslebaron
 
  1  
Reply Thu 1 Jan, 2015 11:44 pm
@cicerone imposter,
Quote:
You're not making any sense. The private sector continues to hire more workers, and the unemployment rate continues to drop. The US economy is by far the strongest in the world. When considered from the fact that we represent only five percent of the world population, it's an amazing feat of sorts.

You gotta get your head out of that dark place. Holiday season sales increased by 3.8% over last year. More American consumers are feeling more confidence in our economy as nowhere else on this planet.


You don't get it.

The big corporations suck the people tax money when the government gives them contracts. These contracts are for millions and even billions of dollars. From here, several small business affiliated to the big companies have their "cut" as well.

Let me give you an example. While a private company might pay 20 million dollars for elevators in a building, the government pays three to four times for the same work. This is how companies "love" to make contracts with the government.

Now well, having the government broke, the big corporations lose their gold mine, so they created a false good economy where the government get into debt while they still sucking the money that the government acquires as "loans".

So, and again, which one of the two economies the question of this topic is about: the private sector's economy or the government's economy?
0 Replies
 
Builder
 
  1  
Reply Fri 2 Jan, 2015 12:05 am
@hawkeye10,
Quote:
China has about 10,000 miles of high speed rail, America has 28 (On the NEC, broken up into 2 stretches).


It just now occurred to me, Hawkeye; what could you possibly achieve from a high-speed train on fourteen miles of track?
roger
 
  1  
Reply Fri 2 Jan, 2015 12:12 am
@Builder,
Right. Actually, there are only a couple of routes in the US that make sense.
Builder
 
  1  
Reply Fri 2 Jan, 2015 12:16 am
@roger,
Meaning there's not enough distance between stops?
roger
 
  1  
Reply Fri 2 Jan, 2015 12:32 am
@Builder,
Yes, and there has to be enough traffic to pay out the costs of construction and rolling stock. These things do not run on old, rotten wooden cross ties. Also, consider getting to the train station. If you have to park in the middle of Boston and rent a car in the middle of NYC, it becomes less cost effective. Securing rights - of - way in another consideration, though the doctrine of emanate domain will come into play. Furthermore, high speed rail just doesn't work on the kind of curves you find in the mountains unless you just like to bore tunnels.

Now if you factor in national pride in having a longer railroad than someone else, cost analysis kind of goes out the window.
Builder
 
  1  
Reply Fri 2 Jan, 2015 12:42 am
@roger,
No, I'm not buying your excuses. Privatisation of bridges and tollways in the US has not resulted in better conditions for travel, and with the TSA fingering people using internal airways, I see a great incentive to build high-speed rail.

You have vast regions of flat nothingness, just like we do in Australia.

It seems to be no problem when building pipelines to transport crappy (no-profit) tar sands from Canada across massive distances.

hawkeye10
 
  1  
Reply Fri 2 Jan, 2015 01:19 am
@roger,
Quote:
If you have to park in the middle of Boston and rent a car in the middle of NYC, it becomes less cost effective


That was a big problem. Then UBER and ZIPCAR came along.
0 Replies
 
hawkeye10
 
  1  
Reply Fri 2 Jan, 2015 01:22 am
@Builder,
Builder wrote:

Quote:
China has about 10,000 miles of high speed rail, America has 28 (On the NEC, broken up into 2 stretches).


It just now occurred to me, Hawkeye; what could you possibly achieve from a high-speed train on fourteen miles of track?


You can say "Acela's top speed is 150MPH!, We have HSR!". And Americans are dumb enough to believe the story, leaving us to feel that we are behind in setting up HSR but we have it.

No, actually we dont, and we are not likely to get it because we have no money and the courts here make it almost impossible to build big projects like this. The cost of complying with court orders is astronomical, and there is always one more party itching to throw the enterprise into the courts for 5 or ten years over something or another.
Builder
 
  1  
Reply Fri 2 Jan, 2015 01:38 am
@hawkeye10,
Quote:
No, actually we dont, and we are not likely to get it because we have no money and the courts here make it almost impossible to build big projects like this. The cost of complying with court orders is astronomical, and there is always one more party itching to throw the enterprise into the courts for 5 or ten years over something or another.


Sounds like you're stitched up, or given up.

How can an empire so powerful globally, not be interested in sharing the hype locally?

I've read about the 0.001%ers who own most of the US infrastructure not caring about the place, because they don't have to drive on the roads, or use the airports.

roger
 
  1  
Reply Fri 2 Jan, 2015 01:54 am
@Builder,
Okay, you dismiss reasons as excuses and don't address a single point. I leave you.
Builder
 
  1  
Reply Fri 2 Jan, 2015 02:00 am
@roger,
Quote:
Okay, you dismiss reasons as excuses and don't address a single point. I leave you.


When confronted with facts, you absent yourself. Goodbye.

You might like to address the reality of "investing" literally trillions of dollars in the military industrial complex, but that would be too hard, right?

Best to kick the debt can further down the road, and let your great grand children worry about that.
0 Replies
 
hawkeye10
 
  1  
Reply Fri 2 Jan, 2015 02:22 am
@Builder,
we have spent so far $1.55 billion to raise the speed of the 284 miles of rail between Chicago and St Louis. That is $5.5 million per mile. We started in sep 2010. The hope is to get trains to 110 mph. Trains are currently scheduled to run an average of between 50 and 53 mph, and almost half the time the trains dont make it to their destination within 10 minutes of the schedule so in reality these trains average substantially less that 50 mph. Better speeds are always just around the corner we are told.

http://cleantechnica.com/2014/09/07/illinois-boosts-chicago-st-louis-high-speed-train-funding/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lincoln_Service

http://www.amtrak.com/illinois-services-train&mode=perf&overrideDefaultTemplate=OTPPageVerticalRouteOverview

http://www.amtrak.com/servlet/Satellite?c=AM_Content_C&cid=1241245662251&pagename=am%2FPopup

America used to be the can do nation. No more. How are we supposed to have a banging economy when we cant do infrastructure, when we spend a ton and get little in return (GEE, where have we seen that before?)
hawkeye10
 
  1  
Reply Fri 2 Jan, 2015 02:32 am
@hawkeye10,
in other news we just spent over 10 years and $175 million designing a bridge to go over the columbia river between portland and Vancouver wa that would have cost between $3.5 and 10 billion to build, which is now dead because Washington decided after all that work that we actually were not willing to spend that kind of money.

$175 million gone with nothing to show for it, any why the **** does it cost so many billions of dollars for one river crossing?

http://www.oregonlive.com/business/index.ssf/2013/07/columbia_river_crossing_spends.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interstate_Bridge

America used to be the can do nation. No more.
hawkeye10
 
  1  
Reply Fri 2 Jan, 2015 02:37 am
@hawkeye10,
NASA Spends $349 Million On Tower, Closes It The Day It Is Finished Never To Be Used

December 16, 2014

Quote:
In what can only be described as a prime example of government waste, NASA spent $349 million on a tower in Mississippi that they never even used. The worst part about the project is that Congress and NASA knew that the tower would never be used four years before the project finished. Instead of scrapping the rest of the tower project and saving hundreds of millions of dollars, Congress demanded that the project be seen to completion. The icing on the cake — it will cost tax payers $700,000 a year to maintain the empty, unused tower.

The Washington Post reported the failed project, noting that the tower is what happens to a big bureaucracy after its sense of mission starts to fade. NASA is the big bureaucracy the report speaks to, as it seems that the agency no longer has a firm mission. With projects constantly being scrapped and government bodies constantly at ends on exactly where the agency should be spending its time and effort, NASA seems to no longer know what mission will actually make it to the table.

Instead, the Post reports NASA is being used by Congress for infusing money into their communities.

“Its congressional overseers tended to view NASA first as a means to deliver pork back home, and second as a means to deliver Americans into space.”

The Mississippi tower project exemplifies the problems within pork barrel spending and inconsistent goals. The tower broke ground back in 2007. However, in 2010, the rocket that was to be tested at the site was scrapped. Therefore, the specialized tower, called the A-3 test stand, was no longer needed. However, instead of stopping the project in 2010 when Congress and NASA realized the tower would no longer be needed, Congress did something that seems almost insane — they demanded the project continue. Millions of dollars to be washed down the drain building a tower they knew would not be used, but the demand ensured the infusion of money into Mississippi as promised.

The employees working on the project as contractors also felt betrayed. David Forshee, a general foreman who spent 18 months helping build the tower, said it “is heartbreaking” to find out something like this when you thought you were “doing something good.” Forshee says he had no idea the project would be scrapped upon completion. Though Forshee was paid for his time working on the project, it didn’t stop him from having some harsh words to those who insisted the project continue even after it wasn’t needed.


Read more at http://www.inquisitr.com/1684371/nasa-spends-349-million-on-tower-closes-it-the-day-it-is-finished-never-to-be-used/#zCVkeYsYxih6vm7L.99


America used to be the can do nation. No more.
hawkeye10
 
  1  
Reply Fri 2 Jan, 2015 02:43 am
@hawkeye10,
America started to try to figure out what to do with our nuclear waste in the 1970's. By 1987 we decided Yucca Mountain was the spot. Obama killed the program in 09 after $12 billion had been spent to build it. We still have no plan for our used nuclear power cores, which are currently sitting at power plants in temp pools, all waiting to pull another Fukushima .

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yucca_Mountain_nuclear_waste_repository

America used to be the can do nation. No more.
Builder
 
  1  
Reply Fri 2 Jan, 2015 02:45 am
@hawkeye10,
Did you mention outsourcing, Hawkeye?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/china/8602786/New-San-Francisco-bridge-built-in-China-to-be-shipped-to-US.html
0 Replies
 
hawkeye10
 
  1  
Reply Fri 2 Jan, 2015 02:59 am
@hawkeye10,
NYC water tunnel #3, projected to be 60 miles long, was authorized in 1954, started construction in 1970, and at this point they will be pretty happy if it gets finished by 2030.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_City_Water_Tunnel_No._3

America used to be the can do nation. No more.
Builder
 
  1  
Reply Fri 2 Jan, 2015 03:22 am
@hawkeye10,
Quote:
America used to be the can do nation. No more.


And yet your focus is upon retail sales.

The story goes deep, but not so deep that it can't be explained in layman's terms.
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  1  
Reply Fri 2 Jan, 2015 09:53 am
@Builder,
Bulider wrote:
Debunked, totally. Try some site with an .org suffix.

Builder wrote:

WORLDSRICHESTCOUNTRIES.COM - Whois Information


If you want to be an ass Builder, you are more than welcome, but you might want to be more careful since it only shows you are an ass.
parados
 
  2  
Reply Fri 2 Jan, 2015 09:58 am
@Builder,
Quote:

You have evidence to back this claim? China surpassed the USA, even for standard of living, back in October from memory.


Quote:
Standard of living is generally measured by standards such as real (i.e. inflation adjusted) income per person and poverty rate. Other measures such as access and quality of health care, income growth inequality, Disposable Energy (people's disposable income's ability to buy energy) and educational standards are also used. Examples are access to certain goods (such as number of refrigerators per 1000 people), or measures of health such as life expectancy. It is the ease by which people living in a time or place are able to satisfy their needs and/or wants.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_of_living

By no measure does China have a higher standard of living than the US since standard of living uses per capita for it's calculation.

China has 1.4 billion people. The US has less than 400 million. China as a whole may have a higher GDP but that doesn't equate to a higher standard of living.
 

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 0.11 seconds on 12/27/2024 at 12:47:08