Where is the US economy headed?

cyclo wrote :

Quote:

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! I agree with Rjb. If people want to buy lottery tickets, let 'em.

and why discourage people from smoking , doing drugs , speeding ...
NANNY STATE , i say ! Shocked

if people want to kill themselves , that's THEIR business , not mine !
hbg

0 Replies

hamburger wrote:

cyclo wrote :

Quote:
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! I agree with Rjb. If people want to buy lottery tickets, let 'em.

and why discourage people from smoking , doing drugs , speeding ...
NANNY STATE , i say !
if people want to kill themselves , that's THEIR business , not mine !
hbg

It's the difference between active harm and passive harm - towards others.. I believe that the gov't has a responsibility to discourage behaviors which actively harm others - speeding, smoking in bars, drunk driving. Stuff like that leads to people's deaths.

I don't think the gov't should discourage people from doing drugs or smoking. It has nothing to do with any function of gov't.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

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

I'm only talking about the government doing it, sheesh. It is not the business of government in my opinion to run gambling rackets. We aren't even talking about the government discouraging people from buying lottery tickets, its about the government selling them or not selling them.

And cyclops, be serious, you don't think its the job of government to warn people about hazardous materials? Why do we have the Public Health bureaucracies and why have EPA, for starters?

0 Replies

okie wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:
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

I'm only talking about the government doing it, sheesh. It is not the business of government in my opinion to run gambling rackets. We aren't even talking about the government discouraging people from buying lottery tickets, its about the government selling them or not selling them.

And cyclops, be serious, you don't think its the job of government to warn people about hazardous materials? Why do we have the Public Health bureaucracies and why have EPA, for starters?

See my above. There's a difference between actions which may be harmful to oneself, and actions which are directly harmful to others.

I'm not big on state lotteries, but they aren't illegal. I was under the impression that the official Republican position was that legality was the arbiter of whether an aciton was right or wrong?

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Where do you get those cocamany ideas? Why even inspect meat products, let people buy them if they want to and die if they wish, after all, it won't hurt anyone but the people that choose to buy it and eat it?

I suspect you have a double standard because this steps on your hot button, smoking pot.

I don't judge morality by laws, although they should be a guideline. Even though abortion is legal, it is a mortal sin in my opinion, just one example.

0 Replies

okie wrote:

Where do you get those cocamany ideas? Why even inspect meat products, let people buy them if they want to and die if they wish, after all, it won't hurt anyone but the people that choose to buy it and eat it?

I suspect you have a double standard because this steps on your hot button, smoking pot.

I don't judge morality by laws, although they should be a guideline. Even though abortion is legal, it is a mortal sin in my opinion, just one example.

Inspecting meat products keeps people from performing actions which lead to the direct harm of others, ie, selling rotten meat as new and fresh meat.

Buying a lottery ticket, on the other hand, brings no direct material harm upon anyone. The gov't has no business or interest in keeping people from wasting their money...

There's no double standard. The measurement in pretty much every case is the same: what harm is done? If the harm cannot be shown, or if it is indirect at best, then it shouldn't be illegal.

Happy Holidays, Okie

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

okie wrote:

Where do you get those cocamany ideas? Why even inspect meat products, let people buy them if they want to and die if they wish, after all, it won't hurt anyone but the people that choose to buy it and eat it?

I suspect you have a double standard because this steps on your hot button, smoking pot.

I don't judge morality by laws, although they should be a guideline. Even though abortion is legal, it is a mortal sin in my opinion, just one example.

So I take it you support "nanny" government?

0 Replies

cyclo wrote :

Quote:

Buying a lottery ticket, on the other hand, brings no direct material harm upon anyone.

buying a single ticket , will likely bring no harm to anyone , but i do know of cases where a mother or father has gambled away EVERYTHING !
that certainly has caused harm families !

i particularly object to the FALSE advertising showing happy winners buying the riches of the world - strangely enough , they never show the losers , why not , i wonder !
hbg

0 Replies

hamburger wrote:

cyclo wrote :

Quote:
Buying a lottery ticket, on the other hand, brings no direct material harm upon anyone.

buying a single ticket , will likely bring no harm to anyone , but i do know of cases where a mother or father has gambled away EVERYTHING !
that certainly has caused harm families !

i particularly object to the FALSE advertising showing happy winners buying the riches of the world - strangely enough , they never show the losers , why not , i wonder !
hbg

Don't get me wrong - I'm not a big fan of gambling. But like I said before, it ain't illegal.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

I don't think for a moment that our government makes laws that are always good for all the people. There are some things in life that we must leave for the individual to choose if it doesn't harm others.

California just established laws that one cannot smoke in their car if they have children inside, and they cannot use their cell phones while moving.

Some of the better laws, IMHO.

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

hamburger wrote:
cyclo wrote :

Quote:
Buying a lottery ticket, on the other hand, brings no direct material harm upon anyone.

buying a single ticket , will likely bring no harm to anyone , but i do know of cases where a mother or father has gambled away EVERYTHING !
that certainly has caused harm families !

i particularly object to the FALSE advertising showing happy winners buying the riches of the world - strangely enough , they never show the losers , why not , i wonder !
hbg

Don't get me wrong - I'm not a big fan of gambling. But like I said before, it ain't illegal.

Cycloptichorn

Its legal but I don't think the government should participate in it any more than I think they should sell cigarettes.

And cyclops, I think you are being very inconsistent to say the government should not warn people about the hazards of cigarettes when you are all in favor of the government doing all kinds of other programs to prevent harm to people. Actually in my opinion, if the government wanted to be consistent, they would simply outlaw cigarettes, which is probably the number 1 health hazard ahead of lots of other things that are regulated.

And there is no doubt that playing the lottery is harmful to low income families, this should be obvious, so if the government cared about people, about children, and about families, they would not sponsor an activity that is so harmful to financially strapped families.

I find it amazing that there are so many things that are glaringly obvious that could be fixed, yet they receive no press or importance by politicians. Instead we skirt around an issue and don't admit to the real problems that face our society. Example, poverty, we fail to admit the underlying causes of poverty and instead pretend to fix it with solutions that do not address the underlying causes.

0 Replies

In a word the government should do what it was elected to do and they should stay out of things that are none of their business. If people want to gamble it is their prerogative and the government has no right to interfere.
Were the government choose to outlaw gambling it would be as effective as prohibition. I remenber even during the great depression the local bookie always made a good living.

It should be noted everytime there is a big prize winner the government becomes your partner by virtue of federal, state and local taxes. They are not likely to kill the goose that lays the golden egg.

0 Replies

i do like my freedoms and luckily have never been bitten by the GAMBLING BUG - i just find it boring (though i have been to atlantic city twice , i've left not a dime at gambling - we actually bought ourselves dinner with the money we received coming off the bus Laughing

) .
imo GAMBLING and LOTTERIES are really a tax on the poor !
at my stage in life i figure that if people want to gamble their money away , there is little i can do about it . i probably benefit from other people's gambling through lower taxes - so i better stop complaining !

btw in ontario , the govenment has decided in its wisdom that going to the casino is NOT GAMBLING - IT"S GAMING :wink: . so the commission that oversees casinos and lotteries is called THE ONTARIO GAMING COMMISSION !
hbg

TAXING THE POOR

0 Replies

If you have nothing else to worry about. The cost of a barrel of oil hit $100 today.

0 Replies

au wrote :

Quote:

The cost of a barrel of oil hit $100 today.

let me try some SIMPLE math - that's all i can manage !

a year ago ONE-HUNDRED U.S. $ cost me appr. CANADIAN $ ONE-HUNDRED-AND-FIFTY .

in december 2007 U.S. $ 100 cost me CAN $ 95 !

so the value of the U.S. $ when compared to the CAN $ - and many other currencies - has dropped by about 30 % .

seems to me the VALUE received by the oil -producers is only about
U.S. $ 70 in the OLD U.S. $ .

since producers are not likely willing to give their oil - or other commodities - away , the price of $100 per barrel of oil doesn't seem out of line ?
(and that doesn't even take into account the risk assumed by the seller taking the U.S. $ of a possible further drop in the exchange rate)
hbg
hbg

0 Replies

Hamburger
Your math is impecable. However for the American consumer it is a kick in the wallet. Since wages are basically stagnant and the cost of oil related products are on the rise.

0 Replies

Hbg, remember that the human mind never indexes for inflation Laughing

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

So the Dow was down 220 points today (slightly less than 2%) NASDAQ down by about an equal percentage. Oil hit $100 briefly. An inauspicious start to the new year.

I am not as pessimistic as CI is about 2008. But, he may be right.

I, realjohnboy, managed to drive the market down one day last week! Really. The Richmond Federal Reserve released the "flash" economic survey for the region for December and the number that caught Wall Street's eye was the prediction by retailers for retail sales in the next six months. Decidely not enthusiastic.

I readily concede that a survey of 108 businesses is not statistically valid, as does the Richmond Federal Reserve. But I have been participating in this since 2/07 and, as an amateur economist, I am seeing some correlation between this "flash" report and subsequent harder results.

Finally, I got a holiday greeting card from the Federal Reserve Bank, and none of you did. Ha.

0 Replies

RJB wrote

Quote:

Finally, I got a holiday greeting card from the Federal Reserve Bank, and none of you did. Ha.

If I can't spend it I don't want it. Razz

0 Replies

au wrote :

Quote:

Hamburger
Your math is impecable. However for the American consumer it is a kick in the wallet. Since wages are basically stagnant and the cost of oil related products are on the rise.

from personal experience :
when we arrived in canada in 1956 the CAN $ was roughly at parity with the U.S. $ - it rose briefly above parity in the late 60's and started a LOOOONG slide !
at one point the IMF had canada on the WATCHLIST - other nations hardly wanted to touch the CAN $ .
it wasn't until the 90's that the CAN $ started to rise gradually - higher taxes , lower government benefits and expenditures - eventually brought the canadian dollar back to life . the increased commodity prices helped too !
sure did not feel good to see the canadian dollar falling , falling ...
it definetely took some severe belt tightening !

the saying at that time was :
when your neighbour loses his job it's an economic adjustment ,
when you lose your job it's a disaster !
hbg

0 Replies

Where is the US economy headed?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know