114
   

Where is the US economy headed?

 
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Mon 26 Feb, 2007 04:26 pm
okie wrote:
Cycloptichorn wrote:

Getting fatter isn't a sign of health. It is a sign of poor health. You can get fat and starve to death, or more accurately suffer great health problems due to malnutrition, at the same time.

Surprising to me that you're still pushing this ridiculous line.

Define 'poorhouse.'

Cycloptichorn


cyclops, I find your statement that you can be fat and starve to death rather humorous.


I guess I'm sad to hear that you find death humorous. It is a real fact of life however that fat Not Equal healthy, and fat people cannot be considered to be healthy people.

Quote:
About poorhouses, look them up, as they used to be government supported places where people could go and live if they simply could not figure out how to make it on their own. They were usually farms with living quarters for a number of people where they could work and then receive the necessary food and clothing necessary to survive pretty well, of course without luxuries.


I mean, it sounds crappy, but if there is no other option for you in life - due to your mistakes or others - would you want there to be a poorhouse, or not?

Keep in mind that I'd like to see Welfare done away with and the WPA brought back; I like the idea of paying people to do something over paying them to do nothing. In such a scenario, the 'poorhouse' isn't a terrible thing.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
Thomas
 
  1  
Reply Mon 26 Feb, 2007 04:43 pm
Cycloptichorn wrote:
Surprising to me that you're still pushing this ridiculous line.

Well, how many people are starving to death in the United States these days?
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Mon 26 Feb, 2007 04:46 pm
Thomas wrote:
Cycloptichorn wrote:
Surprising to me that you're still pushing this ridiculous line.

Well, how many people are starving to death in the United States these days?


To death? Some. I wouldn't say that it is a great percentage or anything.

Though, of course, if you asked the Feds', these folks are merely suffering from 'poor food security.'

I suppose a more pertinent question would be: how many folks are ill, or die prematurely, from a poor diet? We wouldn't say that they starved to death, but their diets don't help.

I am willing to admit that there aren't many starving to death in America right now and that Okie has a good point that fewer people starve than used to.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Mon 26 Feb, 2007 04:48 pm
In other thread-related news,

Quote:
Greenspan Warns of Likely U.S. Recession
Alan Greenspan Warns That U.S. Economy May Slip Into Recession by End of Year
The Associated Press

HONG KONG - Former U.S. Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan warned Monday that the American economy might slip into recession by year's end.

He said the U.S. economy has been expanding since 2001 and that there are signs the current economic cycle is coming to an end.

"When you get this far away from a recession invariably forces build up for the next recession, and indeed we are beginning to see that sign," Greenspan said via satellite link to a business conference in Hong Kong. "For example in the U.S., profit margins ... have begun to stabilize, which is an early sign we are in the later stages of a cycle."

"While, yes, it is possible we can get a recession in the latter months of 2007, most forecasters are not making that judgment and indeed are projecting forward into 2008 ... with some slowdown," he said.

Greenspan said that while it would be "very precarious" to try to forecast that far into the future, he could not rule out the possibility of a recession late this year.

The U.S. economy grew at a surprisingly strong 3.5 percent rate in the fourth quarter of 2006, up from a 2 percent rate in the third quarter. A survey released Monday by the National Association for Business Economics showed that experts predict economic growth of 2.7 percent this year, the slowest rate since a 1.6 percent rise in 2002.

Greenspan also warned that the U.S. budget deficit, which for 2006 fell to $247.7 billion, the lowest in four years, remains a concern.

"The American budget deficit is clearly a very significant concern for all of us that are trying to evaluate both the American economy's immediate future and that of the rest of the world," he said via satellite at the VeryGC Global Business Insights 2007 Conference.

Greenspan also said he has seen no economic spillover effects from the slowdown in the U.S. housing market.

"We are now well into the contraction period and so far we have not had any major, significant spillover effects on the American economy from the contraction in housing," he said.

Copyright 2007 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

Copyright © 2007 ABC News Internet Ventures


Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
Thomas
 
  1  
Reply Mon 26 Feb, 2007 04:52 pm
Cycloptichorn wrote:
I suppose a more pertinent question would be: how many folks are ill, or die prematurely, from a poor diet?

Not if the question came up about a point you made, and that point was about "starving to death".
0 Replies
 
dyslexia
 
  1  
Reply Mon 26 Feb, 2007 04:57 pm
Thomas wrote:
Cycloptichorn wrote:
I suppose a more pertinent question would be: how many folks are ill, or die prematurely, from a poor diet?

Not if the question came up about a point you made, and that point was about "starving to death".

Quote:
In the United States, 60 percent of Americans are overweight or obese, and 39 percent say they do no physical activity in their leisure time. The U.S. Centers for Disease Control estimates that obesity will kill about 112,000 Americans in 2005
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Mon 26 Feb, 2007 04:58 pm
Thomas wrote:
Cycloptichorn wrote:
I suppose a more pertinent question would be: how many folks are ill, or die prematurely, from a poor diet?

Not if the question came up about a point you made, and that point was about "starving to death".


You're right - a review of the thread refreshes my memory.

Still that's probably a more pertinent issue, which I should have focused on

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
okie
 
  1  
Reply Mon 26 Feb, 2007 06:03 pm
Cycloptichorn wrote:
Quote:

cyclops, I find your statement that you can be fat and starve to death rather humorous.


I guess I'm sad to hear that you find death humorous. It is a real fact of life however that fat Not Equal healthy, and fat people cannot be considered to be healthy people.

It wouldn't be humorous if people were dying like flies here due to starvation, but I have not heard of any for a good long time. You can bet that if there was even one that the press could pin on George Bush, it would be front page news for a month.

Quote:
Quote:
About poorhouses, look them up, as they used to be government supported places where people could go and live if they simply could not figure out how to make it on their own. They were usually farms with living quarters for a number of people where they could work and then receive the necessary food and clothing necessary to survive pretty well, of course without luxuries.


I mean, it sounds crappy, but if there is no other option for you in life - due to your mistakes or others - would you want there to be a poorhouse, or not?

Keep in mind that I'd like to see Welfare done away with and the WPA brought back; I like the idea of paying people to do something over paying them to do nothing. In such a scenario, the 'poorhouse' isn't a terrible thing.

Cycloptichorn

I agree with you in theory. But you are walking on thin ice here with your Democrat friends. I remember when Gingrich pushed through welfare reform, and one stipulation was that the recipients must show up in person and go through a personal review and interview, and in response to this I still remember the accusations of cruelty. Well, the result was that a significant percentage did not show up because the names were either fictitious, or duplicates, or they had died or something, but someone was still receiving benefits. Needless to say, Gingrich did something with government I could have sworn nobody could ever do, and that is actually do something about waste and corruption in the welfare system. But if you suggest welfare recipients actually have to work, cyclops, you are in big trouble with liberals.

I suggested poorhouses to my mother as maybe a valid idea to bring back again, and she protested vehemently, oh no, never bring those back. She remembered them, and knew people that had to live in them. So anyway, perhaps they are not practical now, I am not sure, but I am also in favor of work for able bodied welfare recipients.
0 Replies
 
okie
 
  1  
Reply Mon 26 Feb, 2007 06:09 pm
One other point, cyclops, obesity or a poor diet is not a product of not having enough money for food. It is rather a case of eating junk food, which I would think is far more expensive. Things like chips, pop, doughnuts, pizza, and the like is quite expensive, as opposed to eating a balanced diet of fruit, vegetables, rice, potatoes, beans, etc. In fact the people that are the healthiest and live the longest generally do not overeat at all, so less money can translate into a healthier diet.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Mon 26 Feb, 2007 06:12 pm
Quote:
But if you suggest welfare recipients actually have to work, cyclops, you are in big trouble with liberals.


They can bring it on, then. I've never heard a good argument for why a healthy and able-bodied person can't do work.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
realjohnboy
 
  1  
Reply Mon 26 Feb, 2007 08:39 pm
[/quote]

They can bring it on, then. I've never heard a good argument for why a healthy and able-bodied person can't do work.
[/quote]

The devil is in the details. For every x-mumber of folks working to earn their dole, there would have to be y-number of supervisors. Who is going to pay for them? And the unemployed are going to have to be transported to the jobsites? Who is going to pay for that? And insurance, both for the workers and for the public who might get injured by something the worker does. Who is going to pay for that? And what do you say to the Streetsweepers' Union when you deploy these people to sweep streets? And, well, you get the idea.
The WPA in the Depressiion was, I think, a great program. But I am not sure that it is a model that we can use today. I wish we could.

I get people coming into my store and the conversation goes like this: "You don't have any job openings, do you?" "Correct, I don't." "Sign this form saying that I applied."
If I did offer them a job, I suspect that some of them would run like hell
0 Replies
 
okie
 
  1  
Reply Tue 27 Feb, 2007 10:33 am
realjohnboy wrote:
I get people coming into my store and the conversation goes like this: "You don't have any job openings, do you?" "Correct, I don't." "Sign this form saying that I applied."
If I did offer them a job, I suspect that some of them would run like hell


realjohnboy, thanks for the good laugh this morning.

I remember working for a farmer when a teenager. I worked every day for $6.00 per day plus room and board during the week in the summer. This was in the early 60's. I went home Saturday night for Sunday off, then went back to work Monday morning. Most of the time, I was plowing, or cultivating fields, not physically hard, but dirty and long hours, usually from about 7 or 7:30 in the morning to 7:30 or 8 in the evening. If harvesting, it would be later at night, sometimes midnight before we quit. We did not have air conditioned tractors with GPS, etc. in those days. Intermittently, our job was putting up hay. My boss continued paying me $6.00 per day, even though it was harder work.

Now, this is the interesting part I want to tell: When we put up hay, usually lasting 4 or 5 days at a time, we needed more help, so I would ride with my boss, drive into town to the unemployment office, where quite a few guys would be lollygagging around outside. The boss would ask anyone want work. There would not be an answer yes or no, but the first question from some would be "doing what?" "Putting up hay" would be the answer, at which time at least half or more would say they had a bad back, or they wanted no part of that. Second question by a couple of the remaining people would be "How much pay?" When the boss said $1.50 per hour, which was more than twice what I was making by the way, most of the remaining would say they had an appointment, or another job possibility, or something. Now, the possibilities would be down to maybe 6 guys out of maybe 2 dozen originally. A couple guys would have the third question "Can I get paid each day after work?" If the boss said no, I would rather pay after the 4 or 5 day job because he knew if he paid after the first day, nobody would show up the second day because they got drunk with the money. He might get 1 guy to agree to his offer to pay after the whole job, but usually he would have to agree to pay after the first day to get the 2 or 3 guys we usually needed. Sure enough, the second day, we would usually have to recruit at least 1, maybe 2 new ones, as maybe only 1 out of the 3 original would show up every day.

Another footnote to this, we had to have extra help, but 4 guys instead of 1 did not quadruple the rate of work, because they needed breaks twice as often, and of course the employment office stipulated that breaks were required, and usually this ended up sitting around and watch them smoke and look at their watch, to see how much time was left in the day. Breaks always stretched into 10 or 15 minutes longer than usual by the time the guys could get their cigarettes put away, 2nd and 3rd drinks of water, their gloves on, and everything else. Kind of like herding butterflies.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Tue 27 Feb, 2007 10:49 am
Where is the US economy going?

Here is a long post with a lot of graphs, but I feel it really really demonstrates our poor position as a nation:

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2007/2/27/71742/3815

Quote:
Central Banks Diversifying Away From the Dollar[/size]

by bonddad

Tue Feb 27, 2007 at 04:35:39 AM PST

From Bloomberg:

Quote:
Central banks are increasingly diversifying their reserves, including cutting holdings of dollars, according to a survey sponsored by Royal Bank of Scotland Group Plc, the U.K.'s second-largest bank.

Italy, Russia, Sweden and Switzerland have made ``major adjustments'' in foreign-exchange holdings favoring the euro and the British pound, according to the poll conducted by Central Banking Publications Ltd. between September and December. China also plans to manage its reserves more actively, the report said.

``Central banks are open to saying they've been diversifying to improve returns and reduce exposure to any single currency,'' said Sean Callow, senior currency strategist at Westpac Banking Corp. in Singapore. ``There's no doubt that when they say `diversification' they mean selling dollars.''



Why are they doing this? Simple. If a currency's underlying fundamentals are strong, you buy buy the currency. If a currency's fundamentals are weak, you sell or diversify away from the currency. The US' fundamentals are not that solid from a currency perspective.

First, we have a record trade deficit:

http://i17.photobucket.com/albums/b84/bonddad/tradedeficit.png

Because we have no national savings:

http://i17.photobucket.com/albums/b84/bonddad/26Januarysavings.png

Foreigners have increased their share of US debt holdings:

http://i17.photobucket.com/albums/b84/bonddad/dec26foreigndebt.png

The federal budget deficit is nowhere near under control (on the chart, notice the receipts scale is lower than the expenditures scale).

http://i17.photobucket.com/albums/b84/bonddad/25JanReceiptsandoutlays.png

This increases US Gross Federal Debt at a strong and steady rate:

http://i17.photobucket.com/albums/b84/bonddad/25JanGrossFederalDebt.png

(NOte that the above graph only goes to '05. You don't even want to think about where that number is here in '07.)

The amount of interest we have to pay on our debt is increasing. Here is a chart of the year-over-year change in the amount of interest we have to pay:

http://i17.photobucket.com/albums/b84/bonddad/25janPercentInterestchange.png

Quote:
Nineteen of 47 central banks surveyed had cut their share of dollars, while 10 said they had increased holdings. Twenty-one respondents said they had increased their reserves of euros, compared with seven who said they had reduced their holdings of the single currency. The 47 respondents in the survey hold a total of $1.5 trillion in reserve assets.


The short version is simple: The US is borrowing today hoping the growth rate will be fast enough to help us pay down the debt. However, there is nothing extraordinary about the current US growth rate compared to other expansions. Our current growth rate is on par with the growth rate of the last 25 years. Here is a chart of the year over year percent change in GNP:

http://i17.photobucket.com/albums/b84/bonddad/GNPchange.png

In short, we are borrowing to achieve the same growth rate we have always had during an expansion.



Dow's off 150 today on the news, China dropped 9%.

Can anyone honestly say that they believe that the US economy is strong? Robust? Doing well? I would invite them to discuss why they believe this, in face of the numbers.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
au1929
 
  1  
Reply Tue 27 Feb, 2007 11:30 am
How one views the economy depends on ones vantage point. For the wealthy it could not be better. For the middle class being squeezed from every side it is on the fast track to nowhere. IMO if the trend continues and the jobs continue to flow offshore. The US will begin to resemble a third world world economy, rich and poor and a very small middle class.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Tue 27 Feb, 2007 12:02 pm
Cyclo, Good graphs, but unfortunately many don't know how to translate those graphs into the "realtiy." As au stated, the economy depends on ones vantage point; ignorant.

As for the stock market, it'll yo-yo all during the year. There's always an over-reaction by the market to bad news.

With our portfolio with a good mix of bonds, the past several days of the down market didn't hurt us all that much. With bond prices going up relative to the market downturn today, it will shield our portfolio from large swings in value. If you like, I can post a net change today after 3PM.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Tue 27 Feb, 2007 12:11 pm
Quote:
If you like, I can post a net change today after 3PM.


I like...

My gold has been doing better lately, which is nice. Of course, I bought a bunch of it back four years ago, so I have no complaints on that count.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Tue 27 Feb, 2007 02:51 pm
Dow's down 380 now. Hell of a bad day for the market

Of course, this is the sort of thing that happens when you've been sticking your fingers in your ears for the last several years to avoid the bad news...

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Tue 27 Feb, 2007 02:58 pm
It was down 500 at one point in today's trading. It'll make up some of the loss by the end of the trading day, because buyers are looking for good deals.
0 Replies
 
au1929
 
  1  
Reply Tue 27 Feb, 2007 03:03 pm
Mr. Greenspan's prediction of the possibility of a recession by years end I am sure had a hand in the sharp market drop. When Greenspan speaks the market reacts.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Tue 27 Feb, 2007 06:48 pm
Here's the numbers for today's market: Dow down 416 pts or 3.3%, and the Nasdaq down 97 pts or 3.9%. Our funds lost 1.5% or less than half of the major market indeces, because bond prices went up.
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 0.11 seconds on 01/10/2025 at 08:48:37