114
   

Where is the US economy headed?

 
 
Miller
 
  1  
Reply Fri 2 Nov, 2007 09:16 am
CI QUOTE:

Quote:
Our past three year average increase has been over ten percent - even after our spending


You've repeated this comment many, many times on A2K. Did you know that a Index500 fund from a company like Vanguard would also pay you, on average, about 10%/year?

Why belabour this 10% result, when it's so easy to come by.
0 Replies
 
Miller
 
  1  
Reply Fri 2 Nov, 2007 09:18 am
au1929 wrote:
cicerone imposter wrote:
Halfback, I have read articles on the very subject of 401k's and how the market will react when the baby-boomers begin to retire and begin withdrawing their investments. It's a whole new ballgame when that begins to happen, and 401k investments begin to shrink.

The real problem may show up when those institutions do not have enough cash flow to pay off those withdrawals; more cash going out than coming in.

I'll probably be gone from this world when that begins to happen.


You are basing your assumptions it would seem that as these people retire the flow of $'s into 401 K's will abruptly cease. Nonsence, it will continue with the nexrt generation of "baby boomers" or whatever they are called. In fact as companies continue to drop pension plans it will IMO increase.


Don't forget that Boomers are big spenders and in fact, that a good amount of what's withdrawn will be re-invested...

Dark clouds overhead?? No way, Jose'...
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Fri 2 Nov, 2007 10:40 am
Miller is correct: the baby-boomers 401k withdrawals will not have a huge effect on the stock market. There are several reasons for this; the first being that baby-boomers do not have a material amount in the market to affect it; the average investment is $50,000. There have been reductions in 401k plans for several years, and rather than an increase in investments, there have been a decrease. Another reason is that most funds now are international funds; not strictly based on US companies. Finally, the GAO have done studies to show that the macro-economics of the effect from baby-boomers will not be material enough to affect equity prices.

My mistake; I depended on my "gut feelings" to post my previous opinions on this topic.
0 Replies
 
xingu
 
  1  
Reply Mon 5 Nov, 2007 05:22 am
Sinking Currency, Sinking Country
Fri Nov 2, 3:00 AM ET

The euro, worth 83 cents in the early George W. Bush years, is at $1.45.

The British pound is back up over $2, the highest level since the Carter era. The Canadian dollar, which used to be worth 65 cents, is worth more than the U.S. dollar for the first time in half a century.

Oil is over $90 a barrel. Gold, down to $260 an ounce not so long ago, has hit $800.

Have gold, silver, oil, the euro, the pound and the Canadian dollar all suddenly soared in value in just a few years?

Nope. The dollar has plummeted in value, more so in Bush's term than during any comparable period of U.S. history. Indeed, Bush is presiding over a worldwide abandonment of the American dollar.

Is it all Bush's fault? Nope.

The dollar is plunging because America has been living beyond her means, borrowing $2 billion a day from foreign nations to maintain her standard of living and to sustain the American Imperium.

The prime suspect in the death of the dollar is the massive trade deficits America has run up, some $5 trillion in total since the passage of NAFTA and the creation of the World Trade Organization in 1994.

In 2006, that U.S. trade deficit hit $764 billion. The current account deficit, which includes the trade deficit, plus the net outflow of interest, dividends, capital gains and foreign aid, hit $857 billion, 6.5 percent of GDP. As some of us have been writing for years, such deficits are unsustainable and must lead to a decline of the dollar.

A sinking dollar means a poorer nation, and a sinking currency has historically been the mark of a sinking country. And a superpower with a sinking currency is a contradiction in terms.

What does this mean for America and Americans?

As nations realize that the dollars they are being paid for their products cannot buy in the world markets what they once did, they will demand more dollars for those goods. This will mean rising prices for the imports on which America has become more dependent than we have been since before the Civil War.

U.S. tourists traveling to the countries whence their ancestors came will find that the money they saved up does not go as far as they thought.

U.S. soldiers stationed overseas will find the cost of rent, gasoline, food, clothing and dining out takes larger and larger bites out of their paychecks. The people those U.S. soldiers defend will be demanding more and more of their money.

U.S. diplomats stationed overseas, students and businessmen are already facing tougher times.

U.S. foreign aid does not go as far as it did. And there is an element of comedy in seeing the United States going to Beijing to borrow dollars, thus putting our children deeper in debt, to send still more foreign aid to African despots who routinely vote the Chinese line at the United Nations.

The Chinese, whose currency is tied to the dollar, and Japan will continue, as long as they can, to keep their currencies low against the dollar. For the Asians think long term, and their goals are strategic.

China ?- growing at 10 percent a year for two decades and now growing at close to 12 percent ?- is willing to take losses in the value of the dollars it holds to keep the U.S. technology, factories and jobs pouring in, as their exports capture America's markets from U.S. producers.

The Japanese will take some loss in the value of their dollar hoard to take down Chrysler, Ford and GM, and capture the U.S. auto market as they captured our TV, camera and computer chip markets.

Asians understand that what is important is not who consumes the apples, but who owns the orchard.

Other nations that have kept cash reserves in U.S. Treasury bonds and T-bills are watching the value of these assets sink. Not fools, they will begin, as many already have, to divest and diversify, taking in fewer dollars and more euros and yen. As more nations abandon the dollar, its decline will continue.

The oil-producing and exporting nations, with trade surpluses, like China, have also begun to take the stash of dollars they have and stuff them into sovereign wealth funds, and use these immense and growing funds to buy up real assets in the United States ?- investment banks and American companies.

Nor is there any end in sight to the sinking of the dollar. For, as foreigners demand more dollars for the oil and goods they sell us, the trade deficit will not fall. And as the U.S. government prints more and more dollars to cover the budget deficits that stretch out ?- with the coming retirement of the baby boomers ?- all the way to the horizon, the value of the dollar will fall. And as Ben Bernanke at the Fed tries to keep interest rates low, to keep the U.S. economy from sputtering out in the credit crunch, the value of the dollar will fall.

The chickens of free trade are coming home to roost.

To find out more about Patrick Buchanan, and read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate web page at www.creators.com.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/uc/20071102/cm_uc_crpbux/op_334275;_ylt=AsJdS722KuSKgrtVD5JHz92s0NUE
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Mon 5 Nov, 2007 10:43 am
xingu, Excellent post, but most Bush supporters will miss the meaning and content of it. Sad isn't it? They are blind to the realities of what Bush has wrought on the American Public, and 27 percent still think he's god.
0 Replies
 
Jim
 
  1  
Reply Mon 5 Nov, 2007 03:00 pm
I agree that Bush is one of the people responsible for the sinking Dollar. But please don't forget the Constitution gives Congress the responsibility to set spending and taxation.

We're supposed to have a balance of powers among the three branches of government. Not two branches of rubber stamping.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Mon 5 Nov, 2007 03:09 pm
Jim wrote:
I agree that Bush is one of the people responsible for the sinking Dollar. But please don't forget the Constitution gives Congress the responsibility to set spending and taxation.

We're supposed to have a balance of powers among the three branches of government. Not two branches of rubber stamping.


Sure, but please remember that you have the Republicans in Congress to blame for this.

The Dems can be blamed for being unable to overcome opposition; they have been weak in their efforts to undo some of the damage the Republicans and Bush did. Some of them are complicit in pushing it, the big-business bastards. But let's not kid ourselves.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Mon 5 Nov, 2007 03:11 pm
Miller wrote:
CI QUOTE:

Quote:
Our past three year average increase has been over ten percent - even after our spending


You've repeated this comment many, many times on A2K. Did you know that a Index500 fund from a company like Vanguard would also pay you, on average, about 10%/year?

Why belabour this 10% result, when it's so easy to come by.


Show me by evidence that the majority of investors are gaining on average ten percent/year?
0 Replies
 
Halfback
 
  1  
Reply Mon 5 Nov, 2007 03:11 pm
Baby Boomers are 79 million strong. The last generation where children per family was somewhat above "parent replacement rate".

You say that the money going out of 401's will be replaced by "incoming" from next generation. I say no.

1) Generation "X" (I believe that was the term in vogue) is not nearly so numerous as "Boomers" (as a "block"). (Exactly why the Social Security fund is going to go "bust")

2) Middle income jobs are shrinking rapidly. It is those who are above poverty level who are most likely to invest in 401Ks.

The stock market, fueled by many factors, now just coming into troubled times, is due for a serious adjustment. The great majority of Americans have been living on borrowed money as has our Government. Real estate has been inflated, stocks have been inflated, cost of living has been inflated. The only thing that has not been inflated recently is the value of the US Dollar.

Now, toss in a nice tax raise by the next Administration, KA-BOOM! Our little "Bubble" is gonna burst. Hopefully we won't be left with too much sticky residue on our collective faces.

Halfback
0 Replies
 
Jim
 
  1  
Reply Mon 5 Nov, 2007 03:13 pm
This goes beyond party politics. They are ALL responsible for this. BOTH Republicans AND Democrats.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Mon 5 Nov, 2007 03:14 pm
cicerone imposter wrote:
Miller wrote:
CI QUOTE:

Quote:
Our past three year average increase has been over ten percent - even after our spending


You've repeated this comment many, many times on A2K. Did you know that a Index500 fund from a company like Vanguard would also pay you, on average, about 10%/year?

Why belabour this 10% result, when it's so easy to come by.


Show me by evidence that the majority of investors are gaining on average ten percent/year?


Not to mention the fact you said +10% AFTER SPENDING. Little part that Miller didn't take into the equation.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Mon 5 Nov, 2007 03:23 pm
Miller, How do you respond to this? It's the cumulative growth rate of stocks since 2000? According to their calculations, $1 in 2000 is now worth .96c in 2006.

2006 12.80
2005 3.01
2004 9.00
2003 26.39
2002 -23.37
2001 -13.04
2000 -10.14
0 Replies
 
Halfback
 
  1  
Reply Mon 5 Nov, 2007 03:29 pm
CI: Relying on "Gut feeling" is exactly what the market depends on. It is all dependent on "Consumer Confidence". In troubled times it does not take much to shake that confidence. GAO would be the last entity on earth that would do anything to "shake" that confidence. :wink:

Oh well. "Don't mean nothin'". I'm retired, virtually no debt left and my family could get by on 40% of our current take home, push come to shove. About the only thing that could possibly irritate me is if our Government "bails out" all those folks who are beginning to feel the pinch for living above their means. Financial responsibility not being a strong suit in your average consumer (or your average Congressperson, for that matter). Rolling Eyes

Halfback
0 Replies
 
Halfback
 
  1  
Reply Mon 5 Nov, 2007 03:47 pm
Three major factors for fall of US$:

1) Gross trade imbalance. (We GOTTA have those relatively cheap imported toys!)

2) Import of OIL!

3) Government deficit spending.

All political parties are to blame and the US consumers are also to blame.

It's time we dropped our illusions of grandeur and started to get our house in order and the first item on that agenda is to explore a viable alternate energy source. The second is to balance the Government budget and to begin to reduce the National Debt. The third is to revamp our mass transportation methods away from the internal combustion engines.

That is probably too tall an order for the average American to "buy into", but it is essential.

Halfback

P.S. I suggest heavy invention and investment into geothermal means of electricity generation, as a start.
0 Replies
 
au1929
 
  1  
Reply Mon 5 Nov, 2007 03:48 pm
Halfback
How do you feel about the Government bailing out victims of hurricanes, floods and fires. Particularly when the rebuild in vulnerable areas time and time again?
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Mon 5 Nov, 2007 03:50 pm
Halfback wrote:
Three major factors for fall of US$:

1) Gross trade imbalance. (We GOTTA have those relatively cheap imported toys!)

2) Import of OIL!

3) Government deficit spending.

All political parties are to blame and the US consumers are also to blame.

It's time we dropped our illusions of grandeur and started to get our house in order and the first item on that agenda is to explore a viable alternate energy source. The second is to balance the Government budget and to begin to reduce the National Debt. The third is to revamp our mass transportation methods away from the internal combustion engines.

That is probably too tall an order for the average American to "buy into", but it is essential.

Halfback

P.S. I suggest heavy invention and investment into geothermal means of electricity generation, as a start.


Geothermal is good, but the real limiting factor is in battery storage technology and electrical grid technology.

Here's an article on Ultracapacitors - sort of a mix betwixt capacitors and batteries. Has great potential and really represents the tip of the iceberg when it comes to upcoming technologies.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  0  
Reply Mon 5 Nov, 2007 04:00 pm
Halfback and Cyclo, The problem with our negative balance of trade is simply that all those countries are now buying American assets on the cheap, because our currency has lost value against most major currencies. Not only our realty, but they're buying up our companies.

Thanks all to George W Bush.
0 Replies
 
Halfback
 
  1  
Reply Mon 5 Nov, 2007 04:19 pm
I have no problem with various levels of Government responding with temporary food, shelter, medical, etc., for victims of nature's vagarities. However, I DO draw the line at rebuilding their homes and businesses for them. There are perfectly good insurance companies in existance exactly for that purpose.

If it turns out that the victims are unable to afford the insurance for their beachside home afterwards, they should consider "downsizing" or relocating. (Folks on the Outer Banks of NC are, even now, paying greatly increased insurance premiums for the Katrina aftermath.)

Sorry to be such a "hard ass" but the Government absolutely cannot keep all it's citizens insulated from the little downturns of life. Lord knows we all have them. (Well, most of us, anyway.)

I don't know where the general American soul got the idea that once one acheived a certain level of comfort in life the Government is expected to insure that you stay at that level. Not very realistic. Question

Halfback
0 Replies
 
Halfback
 
  1  
Reply Mon 5 Nov, 2007 04:23 pm
We have a "Nationwide" electrical grid now.

Battery tech needs work, but how about, having abundant electricity from geo source, we use "golf cart" vehicles for trips under 10 miles.

Would that reduce motor vehicle use about 30%? A good start on both the OIL problem AND global warming (should that be a major consideration in the equation).

Halfback
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Mon 5 Nov, 2007 04:30 pm
Halfback wrote:
We have a "Nationwide" electrical grid now.

Battery tech needs work, but how about, having abundant electricity from geo source, we use "golf cart" vehicles for trips under 10 miles.

Would that reduce motor vehicle use about 30%? A good start on both the OIL problem AND global warming (should that be a major consideration in the equation).

Halfback


With better storage technology, you could go a hell of a lot further then 10 miles off of geothermal power. Honest.

When I say 'electrical grid' I'm not talking about our national grid, but the home itself! Most people's homes are not wired to input power from a variety of sources - solar, wind, as well as from the wall - and aren't robust enough to handle small amounts of charge. Increasing our home electrical grid technology will be a big step towards energy independence.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
 

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 © 2026 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.09 seconds on 03/06/2026 at 01:10:11