114
   

Where is the US economy headed?

 
 
okie
 
  1  
Reply Tue 1 Jan, 2008 11:54 am
ci, you are as bad as the Clintons, always bragging about their investments. Laughing Yet, you and they think the economy is tanking. Whats going on with you guys?
0 Replies
 
Miller
 
  1  
Reply Tue 1 Jan, 2008 11:56 am
okie wrote:
ci, you are as bad as the Clintons, always bragging about their investments...

He's trying to be 'brave", when he knows the ship is sinking...

Crying or Very sad
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Tue 1 Jan, 2008 12:01 pm
okie wrote:
ci, you are as bad as the Clintons, always bragging about their investments. Laughing Yet, you and they think the economy is tanking. Whats going on with you guys?


okie, It's evident you haven't been keeping up with the news. Consumer confidence is down, home values are down, consumer debt is up, foreclosures are up, more Americans are losing their health insurance, and we're spending 2.7 billion in Iraq while our country's infrastructure deteriorates. That our personal financial situation looks better than the average doesn't speak well for the majority of Americans.
My wife and I planned for our retirement, and we are now reaping the benefits of it. It's more difficult today than when we worked and saved.
0 Replies
 
realjohnboy
 
  1  
Reply Tue 1 Jan, 2008 12:25 pm
Miller wrote:
Most Americans with internet access buy their gifts online. Why not? Laughing


I'll get to that in a bit, Miller.

So my little group of four retail stores turned out the lights for the day and for the year at around 2 pm yesterday. 32 employees went off to do whatever they wanted to do to close out 2007 and start 2008.

It looks like our holiday sales were up about 2% over last year. But if you factor in price increases, we were probably flat.

I enjoy the luxury of not having shareholders looking over my shoulder. If I did, I would point to this esoteric statistic: The money in the company's bank account as of 12/31 is a lot more than it was in, say, September.

Cash flow is the term. We didn't buy big for the season. We sold stuff we had. We didn't fill a few vacant jobs. Instead the remaining employees took up the slack and were rewarded with bonuses and pay raises. And the payroll cost was still lower than 2006.

All in all a decent year for us.

As for your point above, Miller. The brick and mortar stores in your community pay the business license fees and the utility taxes that pay for the schools and fire department. We collect the sales tax that funds our state and local governments. We hire your kid for a summer job: his/her first job. We work with Social Service agencies to try to find something for their clients to do to get them out of their houses.

And, I smile wanly at least once a week when folks come in and ask for a donation to their kid's school PTA silent auction. I do it, but sometimes I'll ask, do you ever shop here? Their chirpy response is, no, I buy everything on-line.

Happy New Year to everyone.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Tue 1 Jan, 2008 01:05 pm
rjb, It's good that you ended the year with a positive cash flow; it was not the easiest for retailers since a good percentage of their business is during the christmas season.

If we thought 2007 was a tough year, I believe 2008 and beyond will get tougher still. The housing market debacle is not going to disappear in one year.

We have to hope that the government cut-backs for lack of tax revenue will be "moderate." Many states and counties are looking at a long-term downturn in their income from property and sales taxes, and many have not prepared for a rainy day.

Layoffs will be the only solution.
0 Replies
 
hamburger
 
  1  
Reply Tue 1 Jan, 2008 01:10 pm
c.i. wrote :

Quote:
I also believe in a world free market place. Protectionism only ends up hurting the country that attempts to protect one product or industry. I've seen this happen to Japan and rice prices. They tried to protect their rice farmers, but everybody in Japan ended up paying more for rice.


i too believe in FREE TRADE , but i also believe that it must be FAIR TRADE !

just last week watched a program on CNN about the plight of the small mexican corn farmers . they are essentially being put out of business by SUBSIDIZED and therefore cheap american corn .
the result a/t to the report is that the small mexican farmers are being forced to leave their land since they can no longer feed their often large families . they usually move to the larger cities - such as mexico city - in the false hope of finding work there . when they cannot find work there , they often pull up stakes and try to cross the border into the UNITED STATES !
a/t the report , the ever increasing influx of illegal mexican migrants is at least partially a result of the misguided and heavy subsidy of american corn farmers - which often are not even small american farmers but farm corporations !

to repeat : i am all for FREE TRADE but it also must be FAIR TRADE !

what many of the rich industrialized countries (not just the united states , but also canada and most of the western european nations ) are doing is to subsidize their unprofitable farm businesses in the hope of gaining their votes and preventing FRENCH STYLE mass demonstrations of the farmers .

that imo is sheer lunacy since in the end no one is being helped - except the government hoping for a few extra votes at election time ! Crying or Very sad

there is a link to a NYT article that appeared originally in 2003 . the lunatic farm subsidy program has been around for a long time and many articles about the problem can be found . unfortunately , successive governments particularly in the western world keep continuing these programs AT THE EXPENSE OF THE TAXPAYERS !
hbg

Quote:
U.S. Corn Subsidies Said to Damage Mexico
By ELIZABETH BECKER
The more than $10 billion that American taxpayers give corn farmers every year in agricultural subsidies has helped destroy the livelihoods of millions of small Mexican farmers, according to a report to be released on Wednesday.

Prepared in advance of critical trade talks next month, the report by Oxfam International argues that the subsidies given American corn farmers allow them to sell their grain at prices far below what it costs to produce. That has led to cheap American corn flooding the Mexican market and pushing the poorest Mexican farmers out of business, the report said.

''There is a direct link between government agricultural policies in the U.S. and rural misery in Mexico,'' according to the report entitled, ''Dumping Without Borders: How U.S. agricultural policies are destroying the livelihoods of Mexican corn farmers.''

Like many other nongovernmental groups, Oxfam is working to promote changes in international rules at the meeting of the World Trade Organization in Cancún, Mexico, next month.

Mary Kay Thatcher of the American Farm Bureau Federation said that while it was obvious that American corn farmers received subsidies unavailable to Mexican farmers, that did not mean Americans had an unfair advantage. ''In Mexico versus the U.S. it's a no-brainer,'' she said. ''The Mexicans have far lower labor costs, lower land costs, input costs. To say that our subsidies are hurting Mexican farmers is ridiculous. It's not true.''

Administration officials also rejected the idea that American exports to Mexico undermined farmers there. Julie Quick, a spokeswoman at the Agriculture Department, said that since most of the American corn exported to Mexico was used as animal feed for Mexico's rapidly expanding chicken and pork industries, it could not be undercutting small Mexican farmers who grow corn for human consumption.

''If we were dumping corn, then Mexico could file a complaint under the World Trade Organization, and Mexico has not,'' Ms. Quick said.

Trade and development experts at the World Bank say that reducing or eliminating the agricultural subsidies and tariffs of wealthy nations would help developing nations more than any other single action.

The World Trade Organization has put changes in farm practices and trading rules at the top of its agenda during the current round of talks, which are dedicated to the developing world.

Mexico, the birthplace of corn, opened its borders to American corn exports after signing the North American Free Trade Agreement in 1994. Within a year, corn imports from the United States doubled and today nearly one-third of the corn used in Mexico is imported from the United States. The United States is the biggest exporter of corn in the world and the biggest exporter of corn to Mexico.

The report said the price of Mexican corn has fallen more than 70 percent since Nafta took effect, severely reducing the incomes of the 15 million Mexicans who depend on corn for their livelihood.





full article :
CORN SUBSIDIES
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Tue 1 Jan, 2008 01:13 pm
hbg, I believe that US farm subsidies is a crime; not only against US taxpayers, but for farmers in other countries. Unfortunately, nothing in this world is free of imperfections in the economici systems. Governments usually make matters worse rather than improving it for the majority.
0 Replies
 
hamburger
 
  1  
Reply Tue 1 Jan, 2008 01:21 pm
i have noted with interest that even the libertarian CATO INSTITUTE has pointed out that farm subsidies are little more than corporate welfare since large amounts of the subsidies IN ALL COUNTRIES do little to help the small farmer but are being gobbled up by farm corporations . of course , these large farm corporations can provide nifty payments to political parties and their functionaries . Crying or Very sad
hbg
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Tue 1 Jan, 2008 01:30 pm
And I see no end to this cycle of madness. We're at fault for allowing our representatives to continue this crime.
0 Replies
 
Ramafuchs
 
  1  
Reply Tue 1 Jan, 2008 02:17 pm
It is not exactly news that the Western world's fetishized "free market" is actually a mixed economy, combining cradle-to-the-grave socialism for the rich with ball-breaking, bomb's-away capitalism for everyone else. This truism was on naked display once again this week as the central banks of the United States, Britain, Switzerland, Canada and the Eurozone announced plans to provide almost $100 billion in taxpayer money to save their banking brethren from the consequences of their own greed and stupidity.

The bailout is, indirectly, a response to the mortgage crisis that has seen whole neighborhoods across America depopulated and abandoned as dodgy loans come home to roost. For years, the bankers shilled the "American Dream" of home ownership to people who couldn't really afford it, via a plethora of gussied-up con jobs which were then repackaged as various complex "financial instruments" and sold on down the line to other rubes. The financial elite made untold billions from shuffling this worthless paper around, touting it to pension funds, state investment funds, schools, small-scale investors, etc. It was a house of cards standing on a one-legged table, and it finally fell, as anyone except a highly educated, well-remunerated investment banker could have foreseen.

Now many of the world's most august financial houses are having to write off tens of billions of dollars in bad debt, with mountains more still lurking out there in the shadows. As a result, they have suddenly - and inevitably - turned on each other. Strapped for cash as they cover their losses - and mistrustful of how much bad paper their compadres might be holding - they have been choking off the inter-bank loans that lubricate the credit system. And so the Money Lords of the West have made an unprecedented collective intervention, proffering the $100 billion boodle to induce banks to start lending to one another again - "a move designed to prevent the worsening credit crunch [from] derailing the world economy," as the Guardian reports.

And indeed, the action has been widely touted as a bold, altruistic measure to save the common folk from the ravages of recession. But read a little further in the fine print, and you will find, as the New York Times notes, that "the move was intended to deal with specific problems in the interbank lending market and would not allay the biggest problems in the credit markets related to the weakening American housing market, where prices are falling and defaults and foreclosures are rising."

Now, if you or I had made a stupid investment, been reckless and greedy with our money, gambled it away in Vegas - or even just hit a patch of bad luck (ill health, unemployment, etc.) - and ended up in the red, that would just be our tough luck. It's a free market, right? You have to take responsibility for your actions; the Invisible Hand sorts everything out in the long run and gives people their just desserts. But if Big Money craps out playing craps with crap "instruments" they've concocted to squeeze a few more coins out of a few more suckers, they must be swaddled and coddled to cushion the blow.

And it is highly unlikely that this injection for the credit crunch will be the last ladling of public money for the gilded poltroons whose blind, rapacious greed has put multitudes at risk. (Indeed, the UK government has just pledged up to £40 billion in public money to bail out the upper-class crap-shooters at Northern Rock bank, after steep losses from the sub-prime orgy led to an honest-to-God, Depression-era run on the bank by customers trying to save their money from the crap-shooters' folly.) While there will certainly be consequences - dire consequences - from the growing bad debt crisis, they will not be borne by those responsible for the mess.

(And yes, I know the money on offer from the Central Banks are "loans," not cash guarantees like the Northern Rock deal; but when was the last time your friends ponied up $100 billion when you were a bit short for the rent? And where are the government-backed loans for, say, families whose finances have been devoured by catastrophic illness, or a PTSD-afflicted vet thrown out on the street by Pentagon "experts" who find that his suicidal, night-sweating dreams of Baghdad alleys are a "pre-existing condition"?)

The socialist solidarity shown by the politburo of high finance in the face of the credit crisis was announced on the same day that George W. Bush vetoed legislation that would have extended medical insurance coverage for the children of working families - and on the same day that House Democrats announced their abject surrender to the much-despised popinjay in the White House, giving up their transparently bogus bid for more domestic spending while giving Bush billions more for the never-ending war crime in Iraq. (Glenn Greenwald has a good round-up on the latter story. For more background, see this recent post. )

Billions for billionaires, billions for carnage, chaos and death…and zilch for the health of the nation's children - all in one day. A clearer snapshot of the actual values of our society could hardly be imagined.

Unless of course we add this piece of "news analysis" from the New York Times: a story about how poor little CIA agents are being "whipsawed" by all this folderol about Bush's torture regime. They were just doing their job, damn it, and they had "legal cover" for everything they did! Now they are suffering from all kinds of wiggly anxieties over their "professional reputation." It's just not fair! (And these image woes are the full extent of their worries, by the way; as the story makes clear, they will never face any criminal charges for carrying out their Master's brutal commands.)

Now the picture is complete: socialism for the rich, bare-knuckle capitalism for the poor and weak, unlimited money for illegal war - and government officials evoking the Führer-prinzip, defending torture, and echoing precisely the Nazis in the dock at Nuremberg: "We were only following orders." Behind all the preening, self-righteous rhetoric about America's greatness that pours forth in a relentless stream from every direction of the political compass, this is the reality; this is what we are.
http://www.chris-floyd.com/Articles/Articles/Billionaire_Bailout%3A_Central_Bank_Socialism_and_America's_True_Values/
0 Replies
 
okie
 
  1  
Reply Tue 1 Jan, 2008 04:06 pm
cicerone imposter wrote:
okie wrote:
ci, you are as bad as the Clintons, always bragging about their investments. Laughing Yet, you and they think the economy is tanking. Whats going on with you guys?


okie, It's evident you haven't been keeping up with the news. Consumer confidence is down, home values are down, consumer debt is up, foreclosures are up, more Americans are losing their health insurance, and we're spending 2.7 billion in Iraq while our country's infrastructure deteriorates. That our personal financial situation looks better than the average doesn't speak well for the majority of Americans.
My wife and I planned for our retirement, and we are now reaping the benefits of it. It's more difficult today than when we worked and saved.

Most people live in opulence, ci, compared to decades ago. We live with an abundance never witnessed in the history of man, and you claim we are destitute. Sorry, I don't buy it, and I would suggest that for most people that are destitute, it is mostly due to poor life decisions coupled with irresponsible management of their finances.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Tue 1 Jan, 2008 04:18 pm
okie: Most people live in opulence, ci, compared to decades ago. We live with an abundance never witnessed in the history of man, and you claim we are destitute.

Show me where I said we were "destitute?"
0 Replies
 
okie
 
  1  
Reply Tue 1 Jan, 2008 04:42 pm
You didn't use the word, my apologies, but that was the translation I take from reading your consistently pessimistic predictions. I happen to think there are abundant opportunities for almost everyone in this country, and most of the personal financial problems are due to other factors, such as personal management and lifestyle, instead of the economic conditions in this country.

Example, I watched an elderly woman wait patiently in line with no merchandise in a convenience store, to finally purchase $40 worth of lottery tickets, then glanced over into her vehicle (it was next to mine when I got back in my car) to watch her draw on a cigarette and scratch the tickets, apparently a failure as she frowned. I see this type of thing every day, people basically wasting money on nothing, yet complain they have no health insurance, or whatever.

Lotteries are one of my pet peeves in this country, as it is a tax on the poor, mostly, because they are too dumb to know it, but in my opinion it should not be government that propagates this type of scam. I would be interested to see how many billions or trillions spent on lotteries and gambling in this country. I just heard Las Vegas was the most visited place this holiday season, with over 300,000 visitors, ci.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Tue 1 Jan, 2008 04:55 pm
1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005
Number in poverty (millions)

Poverty rate 16
(right scale)
Number in poverty
(left scale)
Poverty rate (percent of all people)
Source: Bureau of the Census, U.S. Department of Commerce.
Chart 1: Poverty was Substantially Higher
In 2006 than in 2000


Not all Americans - nor in most developed countries - are considered "destitute." However, what matters is that our economy which has been growing since 2000 has not benefited the average worker; most families have fallen behind, and many more have fallen into poverty. Your anecdotal observation of one lady buying lottery tickets has been going on before 2000, and will continue into the future. There's nothing new in that scenario. What is "new" is the simple fact that more families have fallen into poverty. Get it? (I doubt you ever will.)
0 Replies
 
hamburger
 
  1  
Reply Tue 1 Jan, 2008 05:07 pm
okie wrote :

Quote:
Example, I watched an elderly woman wait patiently in line with no merchandise in a convenience store, to finally purchase $40 worth of lottery tickets, then glanced over into her vehicle (it was next to mine when I got back in my car) to watch her draw on a cigarette and scratch the tickets, apparently a failure as she frowned. I see this type of thing every day, people basically wasting money on nothing, yet complain they have no health insurance, or whatever.


i do see those things also quite often and am quite disturbed by it .

i also see the ads pitched by unscrupulous lottery corporations (read : our various unscrupulous governments - they are the ones who license them !!!) .

we might as well sell pot and other drugs to the population - probably won't do any more harm than lottery tickets !

how governments that claim to be "responsible" governments can do the same things as the mafia (running a numbers game) is something i'll never understand - i'm getting too old and cranky to ever understand .
hbg
0 Replies
 
okie
 
  1  
Reply Tue 1 Jan, 2008 05:51 pm
I completely agree on this. It would be interesting to start a thread on this industry, to see just how much money it involves and who it is that it hurts the most. It has to be a huge drain on the marketplace that could be diverted into more healthy segments of the economy.
0 Replies
 
hamburger
 
  1  
Reply Tue 1 Jan, 2008 06:02 pm
okie wrote :

Quote:
I completely agree on this. It would be interesting to start a thread on this industry, to see just how much money it involves and who it is that it hurts the most. It has to be a huge drain on the marketplace that could be diverted into more healthy segments of the economy.


my guess is that any government trying to restrict gambling now - let alone outlaw gambling - would be about as popular at the next election as ..... (fill in your own words) .

OKIE : if you start a thread on it , let me know . we would have plenty to say about it , but will anybody want to listen ?
hbg
0 Replies
 
okie
 
  1  
Reply Tue 1 Jan, 2008 06:11 pm
To clarify, allowing casino gambling as Indian tribes do, or in Nevada, is bad enough, but perhaps is not going away right now given the mood of the culture, but it is still not the same as the government running their own lotteries and promoting the scams. I just don't think government is setting the right example and nor does it actually help the states where this happens, in my opinion. Lotteries for school funding or other things sound good, but why not tax the people with a progressive system instead of playing games with a very non-progressive tax like a lottery, where some of the proceeds are spent just to operate the system to begin with?

I would consider doing a thread, but I wonder if it would draw much interest anyway? I first would need to read up on the subject further to get the exact figures of what is happening.
0 Replies
 
realjohnboy
 
  1  
Reply Tue 1 Jan, 2008 06:24 pm
With all due respect to the self-rightous cluck clucking from on high here.
"They" are wasting their money on lottery tickets while "we" are spending money on cars, houses too big, and other crap.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Tue 1 Jan, 2008 06:27 pm
I agree with Rjb. If people want to buy lottery tickets, let 'em.

Are we going to get rid of everything which isn't 'good' for people? Talk about a nanny state!

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 © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.12 seconds on 07/17/2025 at 09:55:15