Where is the US economy headed?

@okie,

All those polls are done by Republicans controlled media.

0 Replies

@okie,

okie wrote:

Why would he want to listen to something as biased and liberal as NPR? And on top of that, the ultimate insult is that such garbage is tax supported, thanks to the losers in Washington.

I listen to Neal Boortz, Rush Limbauh and Shan Hannity, Do you?

1 Reply

@reasoning logic,

Sometimes I do, yes. At least those three have some common sense. Also if you don't like them, you don't have to be insulted by being taxed to support them, as NPR is. Not only do I think NPR is virtually worthless, I have to pay for the crap.

2 Replies

@okie,

Why don't you show us the bumps on your head from those days you didn't wear your helmet when you played football or got hit by a golf ball.

0 Replies

@okie,

Do you think that if I only listen to npr's view point that I would be molded into that way of thinking? filled with bias propaganda?

1 Reply

@reasoning logic,

Possibly, if you swallow it hook line and sinker. That would also depend upon what your philosophy was before listening on a regular basis.

0 Replies

@reasoning logic,

Reasoning logic, yes, I occasionally do listen to NPR!

Why do you ask?

2 Replies

@okie,

Which economic policies of the right are you talking about? The one GW Bush created and ran this economy into no-man's land? Loss of jobs and homes are still increasing at a rate that looks dismal for Americans as a whole. This all started with GW Bush policies during his two terms in the oval office, and most expert economists date the beginning of this Great Recession in late 2007. This was the beginning of this disaster created by the conservatives.

This disaster will last for many decades and much longer if the "conservatives" take over our government(s).

You can bet your life on it.

0 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

There are various devices Cyclo for reducing the official unemployment rate besides creating jobs.

Are you defining stay-at-home moms as unemployed because if you are not then working moms are moonlighting. That's simple logic I think. And that bringing the little monsters up is not a job to compare to, say, smiling at the passengers as they board the airplane and taking a tray of toffies round after take off for any whose ears are popping, are just dry-mouthed with fear, are unable to refuse anything free or simply have a sweet tooth. Non-stop smiling all the way. Face-packs at night to ease the aching smiling muscles. There are a lot of muscles involved in smiling. Like with body-building they strengthen with repetition. A stay-at-home mom has 40,000 different facial expressions in the course of an average day in the summer holidays and so no particular one set can get out of hand. From an evolutionary perspective, which I know most of you like to think you adhere to, we might be said to be inventing, sorry, evolving, the Bimbo woman. Ms Barbie. On the way to Huxley's Pneumatic Woman in Brave New World. He grew her in a bottle to save him describing the actual process as doing so might have undermined his literary integrity with him being an enthusiastic supporter of the trend which he must have noticed in order to extrapolate his fiction. My notion of the woman in the 6th century After Ford is nothing like Huxley's subjective stab at it.

If a large proportion of moms are doing two jobs then no wonder it is difficult to create enough jobs when there isn't a lot more work to be done than could be done by the men and those ladies who are pre-mom or after-mom and who are not off sick, on holiday, on Facebook, making sheep's eyes at visitors and hotties among their colleagues, and generally causing various levels of mayhem (see thread on kissing the boss's son for medium/low), consternation and downright useless tormentation. Underworld is the trade name of the knicker factory in Coronation Street. It gives an idea of it all. A mild one. I once held a senior, executive, management position, on the technical side, with crushing responsibilities, in an establisment employing over two hundred ladies in a variety of conditions. It is mild.

Unemployment is an extremely complex matter. Not so much though if you look at it as a scientific evolutionist like Darwin would. It only gets fiendish when sentiment comes in and that is unknown in evolution.

1 Reply

@ican711nm,

I am studying the brain and how people learn what they call knowledge and how they come to the conclusion that they have obtained it!

1 Reply

@spendius,

Your knowledge of economics is zilch. Quit wasting cyberspace.

0 Replies

@reasoning logic,

Quote:

I am studying the brain and how people learn what they call knowledge and how they come to the conclusion that they have obtained it!

They come to the conclusion they have obtained it because it satisfies them and that is pleasureable. I'm not sure how one would come to a conclusion without having obtained it.

It is pleasureable to come to a satisfying conclusion. It is also pleasureable to have the conclusion confirmed by others who have come to the same conclusion and also found it satisfying. And as we search out pleasure with avidity they search out such people and mix with them and read their articles and books and set their reminders so they don't miss seeing them on TV or speaking at a local auditorium. And every time the conclusion is ratified by one or other of these self-chosen inputs a frisson of pleasure suffuses their system from top to bottom and confirms that the conclusion they had obtained was the right one and thus empirical evidence existed that they are superior forms of being to those engaged in the general madness.

It's straightforward, simple Pavlovian science which trainers of circus animals use routinely. The whip method had collapsed in a pile of dust. How could a sophisticated Roman of the Golden Era ever have imagined that would happen?

Is that any good rl?

1 Reply

@okie,

The entire 'uncertainty' line that you are pulling is bullshit. When has the business environment EVER been certain? It never has or is. The entire point of investment business is risk and the taking of risk. You would have us believe that it is imperative that we set things up to minimize the amount of risk that businesses have to take. This is a foolish way to look at the economy and the way we should be treating fiscal policy.

It's basically just a way for you to pretend that the market hates Democrats. It's a total lie; historically the markets have done as well or better under Democrats than they have under Republicans. The last Dem president saw a gigantic explosion in profits and business for Americans. The last two Republican presidents saw much lower growth in every single area except for deficits and the size of government - across the board.

Your analysis of the 2008 market is simplistic and false. We didn't see hundreds of billions of dollars of investment evaporate because of anyone's concerns over Dems being elected, but in fact it was due to the financial crisis brought about by poor Republican leadership. There are NO economists or historians who agree with your theory, Okie, none; because it doesn't make even the slightest bit of sense.

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@spendius,

spendius wrote:

Quote:
I am studying the brain and how people learn what they call knowledge and how they come to the conclusion that they have obtained it!

They come to the conclusion they have obtained it because it satisfies them and that is pleasureable. I'm not sure how one would come to a conclusion without having obtained it.

It is pleasureable to come to a satisfying conclusion. It is also pleasureable to have the conclusion confirmed by others who have come to the same conclusion and also found it satisfying. And as we search out pleasure with avidity they search out such people and mix with them and read their articles and books and set their reminders so they don't miss seeing them on TV or speaking at a local auditorium. And every time the conclusion is ratified by one or other of these self-chosen inputs a frisson of pleasure suffuses their system from top to bottom and confirms that the conclusion they had obtained was the right one and thus empirical evidence existed that they are superior forms of being to those engaged in the general madness.

It's straightforward, simple Pavlovian science which trainers of circus animals use routinely. The whip method had collapsed in a pile of dust. How could a sophisticated Roman of the Golden Era ever have imagined that would happen?

Is that any good rl?

Yes I thought that it was very good, one might even say Great!

I think that this may be where we get it wrong often. Your quote:[And every time the conclusion is ratified by one or other of these self-chosen inputs a frisson of pleasure suffuses their system from top to bottom and confirms that the conclusion they had obtained was the right one and thus empirical evidence existed that they are superior forms of being to those engaged in the general madness.

Do not get me wrong as I think that you may be correct, it is just that at this stage that we can call anything empirical if we have others to agree with us that it is emperical to them as well! Some of us do not need others to be delusional by themselves. I am sure that we are all able to be delusional by ourselves. Thanks Spendius

0 Replies

@reasoning logic,

okie finds NPR too left of center . . . although I find it to be what Fox falsely claims to be, that is, fair and unbiased . . . so, I imagine that ican feels the same.

0 Replies

How can there be consumer confidence in American corporations that are stealing water around the world; putting carcinogens like phthalates into baby toys, perfume, nail polish, hair dye, kitchen utensils; creating frankenvegetables and worse crimes against humanity?

0 Replies

@ican711nm,

ican711nm wrote:

Reasoning logic, yes, I occasionally do listen to NPR!

Why do you ask?

I also listen to it occasionally. One program comes to mind, Robert Siegel of All Things Considered. The guy almost makes me gag with his pretentious attitude of being so.....oooo intellectual and knowing.

I also listen to the Ed Shultz show occasionally as well, just to find out what the liberals are thinking, and I can only take it for a few minutes at a time, as the guy or a sit-in is absolutely clueless.

1 Reply

@Cycloptichorn,

Cycloptichorn wrote:

The entire 'uncertainty' line that you are pulling is bullshit. Cycloptichorn

That is the first hint you don't know what you are talking about, cyclops. That is one of the things my Edward Jones advisor tells me all the time, that the markets really dislike uncertainty. Yes, there is always uncertainty, but there is much more sometimes than other times. The guys at Edward Jones live and breathe markets daily, weekly, and so on, and any credible business person would tell you the same thing, cyclops.

Fact is, I have discussed with him the "Obama Effect" on the market, but since he was an Obama voter, he takes it with a grain of salt and tries to find other explanations. Of course, I think folks that work for Jones are taught not to be much political at all, so I can understand that. It is my view however that politics do impact markets more than many admit. After all, politicians make economic policy.

1 Reply

@okie,

I listen to Neal Boortz, Rush Limbauh and Shan Hannity, about 4 hours a day and I listen to npr about the same. You never answered the logical question that I asked! the question was!
Do you think that if I only listen to npr's view point that I would be molded into that way of thinking? filled with bias propaganda?

1 Reply

@okie,

okie wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:

The entire 'uncertainty' line that you are pulling is bullshit. Cycloptichorn

That is the first hint you don't know what you are talking about, cyclops. That is one of the things my Edward Jones advisor tells me all the time, that the markets really dislike uncertainty. Yes, there is always uncertainty, but there is much more sometimes than other times. The guys at Edward Jones live and breathe markets daily, weekly, and so on, and any credible business person would tell you the same thing, cyclops.

I'm sure that your financial adviser, who works in the financial industry, has no dog whatsoever in the hunt, do you think, Okie? Rolling Eyes

What he means is that HE doesn't like 'uncertainty.' People in his industry made a killing off of the period of the last several years, why should it be considered a bad thing if the market fears a return to sanity and away from false and inflated profits based on trickery and fraud?

The truth is that there is no greater uncertainty in the business world or markets right now than there usually is. There doesn't exist some steady-state situation, where everything ticks along great - but only as long as a REPUBLICAN is in charge! **** is up and down all the time.

Quote:

Fact is, I have discussed with him the "Obama Effect" on the market, but since he was an Obama voter, he takes it with a grain of salt and tries to find other explanations.

But wait! - you were just quoting him as a trusted source on the market. Now, you are saying that he doesn't know enough about it to tell you that you are full of ****. Which one is it?

Quote:

Of course, I think folks that work for Jones are taught not to be much political at all, so I can understand that. It is my view however that politics do impact markets more than many admit. After all, politicians make economic policy.

Your opinion isn't supported by a lot of historical data. I can't help but notice that there was a gigantic financial crisis in 2008 that was based on the collapse of the Credit Default Swap market and AIG. It seized up liquidity and all of a sudden a lot of people in the market were revealed to be more unstable than they originally seemed - by a lot. Major trading houses failed in the Spring of 2008 and then again in the Fall more did and we had a real crisis moment. This caused the market to drop precipitously and for a lot of investment money to be lost.

But YOU claim that all that was really going on was people who work in these companies getting scared that Obama was going to do... what? Raise marginal taxes to the levels they were in the 90's? You think that these guys started shitting their pants because of what amount to extremely low tax rates for individuals? Or what is it?

Your account simply isn't credible. It's based on you projecting your inner fear of Obama and the Dems running things onto the minds of a bunch of other people, and then ignoring all the actual events which moved the market around. There is no reason that anyone should believe it.

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

Where is the US economy headed?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know