114
   

Where is the US economy headed?

 
 
Richard Saunders
 
  1  
Reply Tue 15 May, 2007 04:37 pm
cicerone imposter wrote:
And the ideas they have and used have backfired on most Americans and Iraqis - now paying dearly in lives and treasure.


Treasure, argh.. pirate's treasure.
0 Replies
 
Avatar ADV
 
  1  
Reply Tue 15 May, 2007 04:41 pm
Far be it from me to point out that a representative government is somewhat in conflict with universalist principles. If you're going to operate from the position that any distinction between your citizens and non-citizens is inherently immoral, why bother with elections at all? Obviously the vast majority of the world is going to be disenfranchised in them, so they're not any more legitimate than a dictatorship or monarchy would be.

But if you're going to acknowledge that there is a fundamental difference between a citizen and a non-citizen in this respect, then it's only natural to expect government to be representative of the citizen. "Non-citizen" is specifically the set of people to which the government has no responsibility to be representative!

All that said, I'm hardly arguing that there's no moral imperative involved - i.e. we can't just murder civilians because they're not ours. But the government distinguishing between its citizenry and those who are not its citizens is, far from being immoral, one of the key principles of government.

But when it comes to government's effect on the market, you don't get to have it both ways. If you're really operating under the idea that the administration is responsible for the economic performance of the nation, you fundamentally misunderstand both the politics and the economics of the situation. If you -aren't-, then when you phrase statements as if you are, you're just being a rhetorical jerk.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Tue 15 May, 2007 04:50 pm
Quote:
you're just being a rhetorical jerk.


Which one of us? Laughing

Use the 'quote' function to specifically keep this from happening.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
woiyo
 
  1  
Reply Wed 16 May, 2007 05:53 am
Cycloptichorn wrote:
The Conservative mentality is predicated upon an Us vs. Them viewpoint. Without it, they are literally lost for ideas.

Cycloptichorn


You sheep who follow your Democratic and Republican heros share the charicteristic you describe above.

I hear the same words from Pols from both side..."WE NEED CHANGE. CHANGE THIS AND CHANGE THAT".

Nothing changes because you sheep follow.
0 Replies
 
okie
 
  1  
Reply Wed 16 May, 2007 08:30 am
dyslexia wrote:
...., Bill Clinton is a moderate/conservative (a republican) ....

Another illustration as to why I don't take anything you say as very serious or credible, dys.
0 Replies
 
okie
 
  1  
Reply Wed 16 May, 2007 08:31 am
Cycloptichorn wrote:
The Conservative mentality is predicated upon an Us vs. Them viewpoint. Without it, they are literally lost for ideas.

Cycloptichorn

The arrogance of libs constantly amaze me.

Any disagreement with libs is interpreted as divisive, an Us vs. Them. When they disagree with conservatives, it is only natural, wholesome, and just "what is." Because they are just always right by definition.

Pray tell, cyclops, what are the ideas of any of your Democrats, besides disagreeing with Bush?
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Wed 16 May, 2007 08:34 am
okie wrote:
Cycloptichorn wrote:
The Conservative mentality is predicated upon an Us vs. Them viewpoint. Without it, they are literally lost for ideas.

Cycloptichorn

The arrogance of libs constantly amaze me.


Surely you meant to write 'amazes.'

But, it's true. The 'outsider' mentality was desperately held onto by Conservatives the entire time they were running everything in Washington. They still presented themselves as some sort of underdog.

This is because Conservatism isn't a governing philosophy, it's a critique. It is reliant upon fearmongering and scare tactics to keep progressive ideas from gaining momentum in the populace, as they steadily have done for the last 250 years.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Wed 16 May, 2007 08:35 am
Quote:

Pray tell, cyclops, what are the ideas of any of your Democrats, besides disagreeing with Bush?


We believe that all humans are deserving of the same rights and dignity, be they black, white, gay, straight, American or foreign. Period. Conservatives do not.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
okie
 
  1  
Reply Wed 16 May, 2007 08:44 am
Total ignorance and insults. I am losing interest in even debating you, cyclops. I once thought there was hope.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Wed 16 May, 2007 08:49 am
I'm not sure where I insulted you, or anyone, Okie. Or where I displayed ignorance.

It is perfectly true that a major difference between Liberals and Conservatives is that the Liberals have taken the position that those rights which we consider fundamental, should apply to all people, regardless of whether or not they are citizens of our country. Conservatives have consistently argued the opposite.

For example, I believe that those captured as a part of terrorism investigations have the right not to be tortured and the right to a fair trial. Conservatives have consistently argued against this.

Don't get pissy just because I've pointed out an accurate differernce.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
okie
 
  1  
Reply Wed 16 May, 2007 08:58 am
Cycloptichorn wrote:
I'm not sure where I insulted you, or anyone, Okie. Or where I displayed ignorance.

It is perfectly true that a major difference between Liberals and Conservatives is that the Liberals have taken the position that those rights which we consider fundamental, should apply to all people, regardless of whether or not they are citizens of our country. Conservatives have consistently argued the opposite.

For example, I believe that those captured as a part of terrorism investigations have the right not to be tortured and the right to a fair trial. Conservatives have consistently argued against this.

Don't get pissy just because I've pointed out an accurate differernce.

Cycloptichorn

Conservatives are not for human rights, cyclops? Get serious.

I suggest this thread go back to economics.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Wed 16 May, 2007 09:12 am
Okay, just answer this question for me then:

Do you believe that those captured as a part of terrorism investigations have the right not to be tortured and the right to a fair trial?

Or this one:

Do you believe that the basic rights granted by our Constitution apply to all people equally, or to American citizens above others?

Economically speaking, Liberals generally believe that we are all in this big thing called life together, and if we don't act that way, then we all suffer the consequences. Conservatives generally believe that it is every man for himself, economically speaking.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
okie
 
  1  
Reply Wed 16 May, 2007 09:59 am
Cycloptichorn wrote:
Okay, just answer this question for me then:

Do you believe that those captured as a part of terrorism investigations have the right not to be tortured and the right to a fair trial?

As I said, lets go back to economics after this.
Who said anyone was tortured, and if torture was discovered, it has been eliminated, so your question is pointless. If you call loud music or prolonged standing torture, then I don't see any way to discuss this further. To summarize, I don't believe in torture, except in a very, very strange and weird scenario, such as the nuclear bomb ticking away, with only one person having the password to disengage.
I have a question for you, have you stopped beating your wife, cyclops, yes or no.

Quote:
Or this one:

Do you believe that the basic rights granted by our Constitution apply to all people equally, or to American citizens above others?

Becoming a citizen does entitle you to the full rights as a citizen under the constitution. Non-citizens may have some rights, but not full rights.

Quote:
Economically speaking, Liberals generally believe that we are all in this big thing called life together, and if we don't act that way, then we all suffer the consequences. Conservatives generally believe that it is every man for himself, economically speaking.

Cycloptichorn

To rephrase what you said, liberals believe in socialism to varying degrees, at the expense of personal rights and responsibilities, whereas conservatives emphasize as much personal rights and responsibilities as is practical and specified by the constitution. That includes able bodied to work and take care of themselves and their own families. Its called freedom and the pursuit of happiness, not guaranteed happiness, cyclops. And it has resulted into the most prosperous nation on earth. So if you like socialism, move somewhere else instead of pushing more here. And if you don't know it, we already have plenty.

Now, back to the economy.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Wed 16 May, 2007 10:10 am
Quote:
I have a question for you, have you stopped beating your wife, cyclops, yes or no.


I'm not married.

Economically speaking, and getting back to a better line of discussion, I would challenge anyone to show me evidence that the average person in America is better off today than they were 7 years ago, in terms of wealth, wages, savings, or quality of life.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Wed 16 May, 2007 10:18 am
Can't be done; I've tried to find it. No reliable website can make the claim that most Americans are better off today than seven years ago.

Several of the major ones are: 1) More than six million more Americans are without health insurance, 2) More middle-class families dropped into poverty - and therefore their children too, 3) More Americans went into negative savings and higher debt, 4) the spread in wealth between the rich and all others have incrased, and 5) the US deficit has increased from a surplus. If some people see that as an improvement, their brains are hopelessly calcified.
0 Replies
 
woiyo
 
  1  
Reply Wed 16 May, 2007 10:36 am
cicerone imposter wrote:
Can't be done; I've tried to find it. No reliable website can make the claim that most Americans are better off today than seven years ago.

Several of the major ones are: 1) More than six million more Americans are without health insurance, 2) More middle-class families dropped into poverty - and therefore their children too, 3) More Americans went into negative savings and higher debt, 4) the spread in wealth between the rich and all others have incrased, and 5) the US deficit has increased from a surplus. If some people see that as an improvement, their brains are hopelessly calcified.


Sound bites from the ill-informed.

Do explain how a "DEFICIT" goes from a surplus to something else?

How many Americans self insure or have companies who self insure medical insurance which tips the analysis in the wrong way?

How does on do "negative savings"?

Debt is a self inflicted "wound" for people who want to live beyond their means.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Wed 16 May, 2007 10:42 am
Not intelligent posting, Woiyo. Not at all.

woiyo wrote:
cicerone imposter wrote:
Can't be done; I've tried to find it. No reliable website can make the claim that most Americans are better off today than seven years ago.

Several of the major ones are: 1) More than six million more Americans are without health insurance, 2) More middle-class families dropped into poverty - and therefore their children too, 3) More Americans went into negative savings and higher debt, 4) the spread in wealth between the rich and all others have incrased, and 5) the US deficit has increased from a surplus. If some people see that as an improvement, their brains are hopelessly calcified.


Sound bites from the ill-informed.

Do explain how a "DEFICIT" goes from a surplus to something else?


You are correct that CI didn't word this in the way that he intended it to be taken. What he meant to say was that we have transitioned from a period of big surpluses to one of big deficits. You are nitpicking his words while ignoring that which you know to be true.

Quote:
How many Americans self insure or have companies who self insure medical insurance which tips the analysis in the wrong way?


I suspect very, very few. You would need to present evidence that this is true before claiming that the statistics must be tipped because of it.

Quote:
How does on do "negative savings"?


It means that Americans are borrowing more than they are saving, ie, the savings rate for the country is at a net negative. In fact, the national savings rate is the lowest it's been since the Great Depression. This is a clear signal that the economy isn't doing well at all.

Quote:
Debt is a self inflicted "wound" for people who want to live beyond their means.


Yeah, right. Or people whose kid got cancer, or ones who have lost their jobs for various reasons, or those who made bad investment choices with the money they did have.

Rolling Eyes

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Wed 16 May, 2007 11:07 am
Thank you, Cyclo, for correcting my mistake.
0 Replies
 
Avatar ADV
 
  1  
Reply Wed 16 May, 2007 11:30 am
Cycloptichorn wrote:
Quote:
How does on do "negative savings"?


It means that Americans are borrowing more than they are saving, ie, the savings rate for the country is at a net negative. In fact, the national savings rate is the lowest it's been since the Great Depression. This is a clear signal that the economy isn't doing well at all.


A true observation, but it doesn't capture the entirety of the debt situation.

Fact is, credit is just plumb easier to get these days. Part of that reason is certainly because lenders are a lot looser with the purse strings, and individuals who probably should not be extended large amounts of credit can get it. That's, y'know, bad.

At the same time, it's also easier to get because of the introduction of modernity into the banking system. Time once was where you couldn't pass an out-of-town check at the grocery store. Nowadays, your credit records are easily available, so a bank doesn't have to have a long-standing relationship with you to determine whether you're a good credit risk or not. They can just pull up your credit record and play the numbers.

This also means that a number of loans are made to less-than-worthy borrowers with the full knowledge that not all of 'em are going to be paid back. In a way, it kind of takes some of the stigma out of bankruptcy. Instead of being reflective of your personal failure to take responsibility for your finances, it's just you being one of the unlucky folks in the aggregate that the company already took into account...

So if we posit that (a) there was always more demand for consumer credit than supply, and the supply was largely limited by banks being unwilling to make loans with only partial information, and (b) that modern banking systems mean banks can get full information quickly, then you'd expect the result to be a general rise in the level of consumer borrowing.

Of course, that doesn't mean it's necessarily healthy in the aggregate - especially because it adds to inflationary risk; if everyone's a debtor, and there's very few lenders, there's a real temptation to just run up a lot of currency. Sure, there's some short-term disruption, but boom, your debts will be reduced to a fraction of their former value! (Not advocating this policy, obviously. But I don't advocate massive deficit spending either, and goodness knows that still happens...)

On the other topic, here's a question back at you, Cyc... Do people living in other countries have the right to vote for the US presidency? After all, it is the most powerful political position extant in the world. Do foreigners have the same rights as American citizens in this respect? (And if not, then why would they automatically have the same rights in other respects? Do explain, please.)
0 Replies
 
woiyo
 
  1  
Reply Wed 16 May, 2007 11:31 am
Cycloptichorn wrote:
Not intelligent posting, Woiyo. Not at all.

woiyo wrote:
cicerone imposter wrote:
Can't be done; I've tried to find it. No reliable website can make the claim that most Americans are better off today than seven years ago.

Several of the major ones are: 1) More than six million more Americans are without health insurance, 2) More middle-class families dropped into poverty - and therefore their children too, 3) More Americans went into negative savings and higher debt, 4) the spread in wealth between the rich and all others have incrased, and 5) the US deficit has increased from a surplus. If some people see that as an improvement, their brains are hopelessly calcified.


Sound bites from the ill-informed.

Do explain how a "DEFICIT" goes from a surplus to something else?


You are correct that CI didn't word this in the way that he intended it to be taken. What he meant to say was that we have transitioned from a period of big surpluses to one of big deficits. You are nitpicking his words while ignoring that which you know to be true.

Quote:
How many Americans self insure or have companies who self insure medical insurance which tips the analysis in the wrong way?


I suspect very, very few. You would need to present evidence that this is true before claiming that the statistics must be tipped because of it.

Quote:
How does on do "negative savings"?


It means that Americans are borrowing more than they are saving, ie, the savings rate for the country is at a net negative. In fact, the national savings rate is the lowest it's been since the Great Depression. This is a clear signal that the economy isn't doing well at all.

Quote:
Debt is a self inflicted "wound" for people who want to live beyond their means.


Yeah, right. Or people whose kid got cancer, or ones who have lost their jobs for various reasons, or those who made bad investment choices with the money they did have.

Rolling Eyes

Cycloptichorn


You are an apologist and find personal responsibility to be a burden to taxpayers.

Ask companies like GM, IBM and other comapnies who their "health insurance" company is.


http://www.insurancenewsnet.com/article.asp?a=top_lh&neid=200705141680.2_e2ce0051e4cd6bca

If people are saving, they would not need to borrow. Try to frame your thought properly so your comment has a chance to be sensable.

If you are suggesting people are saving less, that is more than likely because they live beyond their means. A perfect example are those people who got suckered into interest only mortgages a few years ago and now can not afford the payment. How is that my problem?

Also, you inaccurately state "savings rate" is lowest since the depression. More poeple invest in retirement account such as 401K/IRA/Roth IRA etc and minimize regular savings.

Your examples about debt being self inflicted are sad (illness) or self inflicted. If you lose your job, get another one. If you made bad investment decisions, not my problem.

You want a socialist form of govt so big brother can help everyone.
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 0.1 seconds on 01/15/2025 at 11:08:43