Where is the US economy headed?

@okie,

okie, The sky is falling! All fear mongering and no solutions provided in your "piece" of **** from FOX News.

@cicerone imposter,

Quote:

okie, The sky is falling! All fear mongering and no solutions provided in your "piece" of **** from FOX News.

It is fact reporting...Much of the world and Europe in particular don't agree with signing up future generations for a boat load of debt with the purpose of fixing balance sheets of today's capitalists who made bad bets and bad choices. What Obama has yet to figure out is that the one-two punch of Bush's ignorant pursuit of "terrorists" and the failure of the US designed global economic system is that America is now taken much less seriously in the world of global opinion. Obama still thinks that he can jaw-bone and act like America knows what it is doing on fixing the crisis and that the rest of the world will meekly follow along. Not.

2 Replies

@cicerone imposter,

Watch this, ci, for a good old fashioned education, and what is said about Brown applies to Obama.

0 Replies

@hawkeye10,

Ignorant pursuit of terrorists, huh? Have you lost your mind? The world is asleep, hawkeye, and they will one day wake up to reality.

0 Replies

@hawkeye10,

It's not a matter of only "fixing the balance sheets" of the banks and finance companies. It's to save our economy. Without access to cash, no economy can survive; none. What are your solutions for the current crisis?

Please list your plan by dollar figures, and when you plan to implement them, and what effect you expect them to have.

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

As I have said before....unless we are going to move to socialized economics the thing to do is to let the markets work out their problems. Broken markets are part of capitalism, this rush to babysit the capitalists only weakens the capitalistic system. Until this mess gets sorted out governments role is to protect the citizens, which means to make sure they can earn enough money to feed their families and keep a roof over their heads. Except for rare exceptions the only extra spending government should be doing right now is jobs programs. It is every Americans right to work towards sustainment, it is not every Americans right to protect and keep the capital that he has collected. Let the wreckage of the economic system be composted so that the next system can be born. The old is dead no matter how hard you concentrate on pretending that it can be fixed by throwing your kids and grand kids money at it.

1 Reply

@hawkeye10,

hawkeye, What makes you think we're moving towards socialized economics?

If the government doesn't shore up our banks and financial institutions, what do you think will be the consequence of that?

2 Replies

@cicerone imposter,

Quote:

What makes you think we're moving towards socialized economics?

I said "if" we are not going to move towards socialized economics "then" we should not now play nanny to the capitalists.....no where in that statement are any words that indicate that I think that we are moving towards socialized economics.

I think that the consequences of taking apart zombie banks will be great. I also think that the failure to take apart zombie banks will be far worse. This is where real men need to agree to do what needs to be done, and do it as fast as possible, as delay only makes things worse. Take a big swig of whisky if you want, but get-er-done.

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

Quote:

If the government doesn't shore up our banks and financial institutions, what do you think will be the consequence of that?

Why are you suddenly into consequences ci. when you won't even consider them regarding atheism in schools?

1 Reply

@spendius,

spendi, Quit trying to comparing non-comparable issues.

0 Replies

@hawkeye10,

You must have a reason to even mention "if." So, explain to us why you think so? I'm completely baffled as to why you even consider it.

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

Quote:

You must have a reason to even mention "if." So, explain to us why you think so? I'm completely baffled as to why you even consider it.

most people would use the word "unless" I think, me being a socialist I use "if"....as in "if we are not going to do what I think makes the most sense, then...."

1 Reply

@hawkeye10,

Your follow-up statement was:

Quote:

As I have said before....unless we are going to move to socialized economics the thing to do is to let the markets work out their problems. Broken markets are part of capitalism, this rush to babysit the capitalists only weakens the capitalistic system.

You should know without question that "we are not moving towards socialized economics" with or without government intervention in the markets. Broken markets may be part of capitalism, but this financial crisis is not a typical damage that can repair itself, because banks and financial institutions ran out of money. As I've said often enough, without credit, no economy can survive. If the government did not intervene, our economy will continue its downward spiral into a depression. Money is what makes any economy work. Without credit, nobody will be able to buy homes, cars, and other high cost household goods. Small businesses will go out of business, because many rely on a line of credit to keep paying their expenses such as payroll and related taxes. Most farmers borrow money untili their crops are sold, and must borrow money to survive the winter months and growing seasons.

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

ci, too much credit is what caused this mess, in my opinion, so I disagree with your analysis. So much credit was extended, that the money was being loaned to unreliable borrowers, causing the law of unintended consequences to take over, housing prices that went up too fast, and all the rest of the problems either parallel with that or related to that.

The problem is a bit like an accordian, when it became extended so far, then it had to contract, at which point any business (and there were too many of them) relying upon too much credit could not pay other businesses, consumers could not pay off loans and houses, and defaults mounted, which drove more people and businesses to have to contract in size, cut back employees, people cut buying, etc. The problem would not have been as severe if the government had kept its nose out of the housing and property markets, just one example of what had a hand in stimulating this mess.

So continuing or expanding the policies that helped cause this mess is not going to solve the problem in the long run.

1 Reply

@okie,

Um. You are describing what amounts to about 10% of the problem. 90% of the problem is the unregulated Credit-Default swap argument and unregulated executive compensation on Wall Street. The housing crisis, while bad in itself, is nothing compared to the Credit crunch brought about by fraudulent behavior on the part of AIG and other companies.

Look at it this way: if it had not been for these 'innovative' credit-default swaps, the Dow never would have risen to the level it did and never would have been heavily affected by the inevitable housing contraction.

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@Cycloptichorn,

Quote:

unregulated executive compensation

Since when does the govt have the right to tell PRIVATE COMPANIES how much someone can be paid?
I acknowledge that they can set a MINIMUM WAGE, but they cannot tell anyone how much they can pay their executives.

1 Reply

@mysteryman,

mysteryman wrote:

Quote:
unregulated executive compensation

Since when does the govt have the right to tell PRIVATE COMPANIES how much someone can be paid?
I acknowledge that they can set a MINIMUM WAGE, but they cannot tell anyone how much they can pay their executives.

Sure they can. They just currently don't. But Executive compensation needs to be regulated, it's one of the major problems that led to this crisis.

When those private companies fail - and let's not kid ourselves, these companies would have ALL failed without our assistance - and come for a bailout, the sorta forfeit the right to bitch about the 'free market.'

Cycloptichorn

2 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Executive compensation needs to be regulated

Bull ****!

0 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

Quote:

Sure they can. They just currently don't. But Executive compensation needs to be regulated, it's one of the major problems that led to this crisis.

What constitutional authority do they have to decide how much a private citizen can get paid?
And are you willing to also say that they can decide what any private citizen can earn?

Quote:

When those private companies fail - and let's not kid ourselves, these companies would have ALL failed without our assistance - and come for a bailout, the sorta forfeit the right to bitch about the 'free market.'

If it was up to me, they would all be allowed to fail.
After all, if the govt is going to prop up the big companies, why wont they do the same for all of the little companies, the "mom and pop stores", the small diner, and any other business that needs it?

IMHO, if a company cant make a profit and survive, let it go under.

Or do you expect the govt to bailout the buggy whip makers also?

1 Reply

@mysteryman,

If the business environment lacks the common sense and logic not to reward failure, maybe capitalism has a chance to "survive."

Those auto maker CEOs riding in their private jets to Washington to ask for money, and AIG paying a bonus with taxpayer money is the ultimate in irresponsibility and stupidity; maybe they need to be controlled by some outside source. Without it, they are all a bunch of idiots rewarding themselves for failure.

1 Reply

Where is the US economy headed?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know