Where is the US economy headed?

okie wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:

You must be an Obama fan, then, as he has been telling crowds - especially heavily AA ones - all over America that they need to take some responsibility for their kid's education, and stop blaming the schools.

Cycloptichorn

Obama says some logical things from time to time, and on this point, I agree with him. We may disagree on how we solve the problem, but at least he is recognizing the problem, and that is the first step in solving it. We need more intact families and we need to overhaul the educational system by placing more competition into them, changing the emphasis of the education, and by making the local communities and parents more directly responsible and therefore more involved. One of the ways to do that is to empower the parents choice of what kind of school and which school to send their children.

Anyway, the subject has strayed, but when I noticed the news item this morning about the very dismal high school graduation rates in large cites, here we are discussing the economy, my point is if you don't educate yourself in this highly technical world, how can you expect to get very far in any economy? So in my opinion, the cultural influence on the economy is very important and I think it is commonly ignored.

One of my frustrations is that a search on the web can turn up almost anything, but if you search the web for things like historical graphs of percentage rates of children growing up in one parent families, the information is hidden in pages of figures or obfuscated somehow. I don't think it is a conspiracy, but there seems to be no interest in organizations like the Census Bureau to publish the information in easily understood graphs, which I think would be quite striking. I have found them before, but can't find good ones now, its as if nobody cares about one the biggest problems in this country.

Yeah, it's a damn shame when the government won't publish data in terms that Okie understands and then have to read NIMH who is damn near a communist in order to have it translated into terms okie can understand. Life's bummer when you want less government and then have to complain that the government doesn't do what you want it to. See Dick and Jane and Spot run.

0 Replies

dyslexia wrote:

Yeah, it's a damn shame when the government won't publish data in terms that Okie understands and then have to read NIMH who is damn near a communist in order to have it translated into terms okie can understand. Life's bummer when you want less government and then have to complain that the government doesn't do what you want it to. See Dick and Jane and Spot run.

I have more than earned the right to complain about government not doing what I would like, by virtue of voting and paying taxes. The Census Bureau can send me a brochure the size of a small book to fill out with threats of prosecution if I don't, and publish everything from A to Z, but politically incorrect information is somehow conveniently avoided in their statistics. Just something I've noticed, dys. But if you can find a nice historical graph showing the percentage of children living in one parent families since maybe around 1950, or whatever you can find, I would love to see it. I think it is highly pertinent information, and could help us understand some of the problems, including economic, so that we can address the problems with real solutions, perhaps you do not think it matters?

0 Replies

okie wrote:

dyslexia wrote:
Yeah, it's a damn shame when the government won't publish data in terms that Okie understands and then have to read NIMH who is damn near a communist in order to have it translated into terms okie can understand. Life's bummer when you want less government and then have to complain that the government doesn't do what you want it to. See Dick and Jane and Spot run.

I have more than earned the right to complain about government not doing what I would like, by virtue of voting and paying taxes. The Census Bureau can send me a brochure the size of a small book to fill out with threats of prosecution if I don't, and publish everything from A to Z, but politically incorrect information is somehow conveniently avoided in their statistics. Just something I've noticed, dys. But if you can find a nice historical graph showing the percentage of children living in one parent families since maybe around 1950, or whatever you can find, I would love to see it.

I can only assume you live in a county that has a Planning Dept. You could check with them and/or your local library (assuming you know where your library is) and check their copies of the US Census which does indeed contain data on households with single parents (although often times a flawed datum because many/most people do not reveal if they are single parents or not). A question such as "marital status" of the householder doesn't really give all that much information but I'm quite sure that you and many others (such as myself) would find that more personal information about my or your living situation would be deemed overly-burdensome and an invasion of my rights of privacy. Do you suggest that census takers be armed and invade/search each household and determine (men's shoes found in closet of reported single female head of house hold) such as was done until the 1960's for welfare recipients.

0 Replies

It is downright socialism when the government sets up programs to help needy people. It is, uh, something else when the government bails out Bear Stearns.

0 Replies

Advocate wrote:

It is downright socialism when the government sets up programs to help needy people. It is, uh, something else when the government bails out Bear Stearns.

okie probably owned some Bear Stern stock.

0 Replies

Bush was able to rescue us from the ongoing Clinton recession and our economy has been fairly stable since then.

I think the future of our countries economy is bright as long as the Democrats do not win the White House.

0 Replies

cicerone imposter wrote:

Advocate wrote:
It is downright socialism when the government sets up programs to help needy people. It is, uh, something else when the government bails out Bear Stearns.

okie probably owned some Bear Stern stock.

Wrong, and show me where I ever advocated the government bail out any company. Quit making up stuff, ci.

0 Replies

Advocate wrote:

It is downright socialism when the government sets up programs to help needy people. It is, uh, something else when the government bails out Bear Stearns.

You are twisting the argument. Programs that help needy people are fine, if there are strings attached, like if I give you a fish, perhaps it is appropriate if you at least hold the fishing pole and do some fishing yourself. And it makes absolutely no sense for people that live responsibly to constantly bail out people that do not. I am simply saying we need to talk about and demand more responsibility. Its called citizenship. For example, if you drop out of school in the 9th grade and take up a life of drugs and couch potatoism, while having a half dozen kids, it is not my job to support that kind of lifestyle.

Neither is it the job of government to bail out irresponsible businesses.

0 Replies

dyslexia wrote:

A question such as "marital status" of the householder doesn't really give all that much information but I'm quite sure that you and many others (such as myself) would find that more personal information about my or your living situation would be deemed overly-burdensome and an invasion of my rights of privacy.

They ask everything else that is more invasive in my opinion, such as how much do you make, or what color am I, or any one of countless other questions, which is none of their business in my opinion.

Quote:

Do you suggest that census takers be armed and invade/search each household and determine (men's shoes found in closet of reported single female head of house hold) such as was done until the 1960's for welfare recipients.

Why not? Leave the guns out of it, dys, but other than that, why aren't a few questions appropriate, such as do you actually need the money? If Janet Reno can take Elian Gonzales at gunpoint, why can't the government determine if somebody really actually needs something before they hand over the bank? If I am not asking somebody for something, then my business is not their business, but if I am asking somebody for something day in and day out, then my business becomes their business. If somebody comes to you and asks for $1000, are you going to ask what for or are you going to hand over the money? Especially if they might be driving an Escalade or something? If they want to use the money to buy a new car, I suppose you would hand over the money without asking what kind of car they have now, or would you simply assume it is none of your business and fork over the cash?

0 Replies

okie wrote:

cicerone imposter wrote:
Advocate wrote:
It is downright socialism when the government sets up programs to help needy people. It is, uh, something else when the government bails out Bear Stearns.

okie probably owned some Bear Stern stock.

Wrong, and show me where I ever advocated the government bail out any company. Quit making up stuff, ci.

okie, You would't understand a snide remark if your life depended on it.

0 Replies

cicerone imposter wrote:

okie, You would't understand a snide remark if your life depended on it.

Wrong again. I plead quilty to making a few myself.

0 Replies

Quilty? Does that mean quilt-like?

0 Replies

Maybe its time to also talk about the dim bulbs in congress grilling oil companies about the price of oil and gasoline. Duh. If you won't let them drill for more oil, what do they expect to happen? Curtail the manufacture of widgets and then blame the widget manufacturers for the high price of widgets. Yes, Congress is a bunch of dolts. Besides, I thought high prices were desireable so that alternatives would become economical? I know these are all very tough questions for Democrats, and even John McCain, all clueless.

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

Quilty? Does that mean quilt-like?

I plead "guilty" to a typo. I made fun of dys's spelling, so I'm wondering how long before I catch it here?

0 Replies

Busting someone for spelling is a cheap trick, if you're trying to discredit what they say--i ought to know, i do it all the time.

Busting someone's spelling for no other purpose than amusement, however, is harmless enough.

0 Replies

okie wrote:

Maybe its time to also talk about the dim bulbs in congress grilling oil companies about the price of oil and gasoline. Duh. If you won't let them drill for more oil, what do they expect to happen? Curtail the manufacture of widgets and then blame the widget manufacturers for the high price of widgets. Yes, Congress is a bunch of dolts. Besides, I thought high prices were desireable so that alternatives would become economical? I know these are all very tough questions for Democrats, and even John McCain, all clueless.

Funny thing is, we haven't been letting them drill for oil for a long, long time. Yet, it is only recently that the prices have skyrocketed. Something about a war will do that to your markets...

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

The problem with the oil companies is their markups. For example, and generally speaking, should OPEC raise the price $10 a barrel, the oil companies add another $10 to the price (the markup), although they have not added value or anything else. Many businesses do similar, but it is particularly egregious when the markup is so high and the product is a commodity. The last time this happened, the profits were considered so outrageous that congress levied a windfall-profits tax.

0 Replies

Advocate wrote:

The problem with the oil companies is their markups. For example, and generally speaking, should OPEC raise the price $10 a barrel, the oil companies add another $10 to the price (the markup), although they have not added value or anything else. Many businesses do similar, but it is particularly egregious when the markup is so high and the product is a commodity. The last time this happened, the profits were considered so outrageous that congress levied a windfall-profits tax.

The greatest amount of profits in sheer dollars is occurring NOW. I'm not sure if it's also the greatest percentage as well. Congress is kicking it around again for re-enactment of windfall profits tax..but it'll fail to gather the momentum needed once again.

"In 1980, the windfall profit tax was enacted but since then (1988), the tax has not been re-enacted; however with gas prices once again reaching record levels there is renewed pressure on the U.S. government to bring back the tax."

Furthermore ...:

"Oil industry profits have quadrupled over the past six years, with ExxonMobil raking in more than $40 billion in profit last year ?- the greatest corporate profit in history. The average price of a gallon of gas reached an all-time high of $3.29 on Monday, with oil recently reaching a record-breaking $111 a barrel.

The House has already cracked down on the oil companies, voting last month to rescind $18 billion in tax breaks and move the money toward the development of solar, wind and other renewable energies. "

Further indication of the defiant attitude of big coporations and an arrogance and indifference toward consumers and the plight of the common man:

"Some lawmakers, though, accused the executives of ignoring the growing need for low-carbon fuel alternatives. And members of the committee chided Exxon for investing less that half a percent of its profits into clean energy and asked executives to consider investing at least 10 percent.

"Why are you not investing in renewables?" Markey demanded. "You made $40 billion last year. As these consumers are being tipped upside down at the pump, your message to them is that you can't do anything for them?"

"Mr. Chairman," responded Exxon's Simon, "just because you put money into something doesn't mean it's going to be successful."

"Does the oil fairy have to show up?" asked Rep. Jay Inslee (D-Wash.) "When are you going to put some real money into it?"

0 Replies

Ragman wrote:

"Why are you not investing in renewables?" Markey demanded. "You made $40 billion last year. As these consumers are being tipped upside down at the pump, your message to them is that you can't do anything for them?"

"Mr. Chairman," responded Exxon's Simon, "just because you put money into something doesn't mean it's going to be successful."

"Does the oil fairy have to show up?" asked Rep. Jay Inslee (D-Wash.) "When are you going to put some real money into it?"

Those dems really are idiots. Is any more proof needed? Nobody is holding a gun to anyone's head to buy oil or gas. If there is something out there better, then let them develop it, produce it, and sell it, and make their fortunes. Be our guests please. That is how the free market works. Maybe somebody should tell them. My suggestion. Require these dopes to take an Economics 101 class.

0 Replies

okie wrote :

Quote:

That is how the free market works

is there ever a really free market ? i don't believe so .
corporations will always plead : "but i am special because ... ... " .
oil companies claim they need the tax break for further exploration , farm corporations need subsidies to be able to feed the nation and so it goes and on - the only one not getting a special consideration is probably the independent corner store owner - and there aren't many of those left , i believe .
looking at the financial industry , it's the "government" (the taxpayer) that has to step in and provide "stability" .
the U.S. are not unique in that - it happens all over the world .

having a truly free market would likely create a great deal of turmoil and many corporations all around the world could go under in a truly "free market" - and no government and no country can afford that imo .

from what i recall from economics classes , there are different market systems - from the very rigid controlled to more lose economic systems , but i can't recall any one country ever having been able to claim that they have a true free market system .
perhaps i'm not quite up-to-date on the current situation .
hbg

0 Replies

Where is the US economy headed?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know