Where is the US economy headed?

@realjohnboy,

Did you know most of the road damage is from 18-wheelers and heavy thrucks? The trucking companies are not paying enough for the road damage. Every summer roads have to be resurfaced or pot holes filled and the cost is tremendous not including the inconvenience to motorists who are stuck, re-routed or delayed.

1 Reply

@ican711nm,

It was George Bush who started the New World Order - part of the Bilderberg Group.

0 Replies

@georgeob1,

georgeob1 wrote:

Neither of us has a perfect record in our predictions and I don't think either of us has claimed infallability. I'm not forecasting an Obama defeat in 2012 - only indicating that if some recent trends in public perceptions continue to grow he very likely will be defeated.

Maybe, but I would point out that the 'recent trends' haven't touched him at all. One of the better parts about Obama taking a hands-off approach is that his approval numbers have stayed very high, even through all the hullabaloo of the elections; and he's still listed as the most trusted person in Washington on nearly every issue.

Even if things do get worse for Obama, the Republicans are going to have to come up with a really good candidate to beat him - campaigning is, after all, a strong suit of his. Right now I don't see who that person is going to be. That, as a Dem, is comforting.

Quote:

My bet is the Congress and the administration will agree on a limited extention of the current tax rates. (If they don't it will cost me a bundle when I do sell my company stock. I purchased it based on a calculation that the costs/risks were OK with a Capital gains tax of 15% on the return: not so good if it turns out to be closer to 40% - an example of how uncertainty can affect investment decisions that affect economic growth.)

They may indeed extend the tax rates for a limited time. My guess would be that Obama and the other Dems conspire to let the Bush tax cuts EXPIRE, and if anything gets passed, it will be a round of Obama tax cuts. No use in letting the other guys name stay on it.

Re: the change in tax rates and your investment. This might cause a little bit of short-term uncertainty, but once the new tax scheme is in place, you'll adjust and then move forward into the future accordingly. I don't perceive much of an overall problem with changes of this nature and how they affect projections; I mean, surely when you purchased these, you KNEW the tax cuts had an expiry date on them, and took that into account, right? It's always been the plan for them to sunset in 2011; the Republicans wrote the bills that way.

Hard to blame the Dems if they then allow the bills to do what they were originally written by the Republicans to do, wouldn't you agree? I'm actually surprised that you weren't operating under the assumption that the rates were going up to begin with.

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@plainoldme,

As usual, you do not provide one shred of evidence for what you said, but again resort to name calling. I hope you realize how revealing this is in regard to your character, pom.

1 Reply

@Cycloptichorn,

We shall see. Despite the poll data to which you refer, I believe Obama has been damaged, particularly among independent voters, and that his lofty campaign rhetoric won't have the same effect after four years of watching the reality of his behavior. I agree that I am projecting from recent trends, and that is risky. He will undoubtedly retain his appeal with core Democrat voters, though some on the extreme left appear disgruntled (but where else can they go?).

We went to a dinner with some friends in Mill Valley last week. It was a reenactment of one just over two years ago, with the same guests - all to discuss the then perceived wonderfulness of candidate Obama (it is a circle of fairly typical Marin County liberals). Back then I had to bite my tongue severely to avoid giving offense to that adoring crowd of claques. This year the tone was remarkably different with half wondering how they could have been so foolish and the other half still trying to hang on, but only half-heartedly.

You are right that I made my bet on the stock with the expectation of a continued 15% rate (a bet I still think I'll win). I raised the point only to illustrate an important economic effect of the uncertainty and anti business rhetoric coming from this administration. I believe that is an important part of the slow economic recovery we are experiencing. It is noteworthy that the Federal reserve just today lowered its forecast for economic growth in the next year.

1 Reply

@realjohnboy,

Trains have some advantages over trucks, nobody doubts that.
However, there arent train tracks going to every business in the country, so trucks are satill needed.
Also, I can go from the San Joaquin valley in Ca to the Hunts Point market in NYC in 4 days.
A train takes over a week to make the same trip.
Trains haul more, but trucks do it faster.

0 Replies

@talk72000,

Quote:

Did you know most of the road damage is from 18-wheelers and heavy thrucks?

Thats debatable.
While trucks are heavier, there are many more cars on the road then trucks.
You can confirm that by looking at rush hour traffic in any major city in the country.
So over the long run, its probably safe to say that the effect from cars is just as bed as trucks, it just takes longer to get there.

Quote:

The trucking companies are not paying enough for the road damage.

Actually, most companies pay between $1000 and $2000 per year, per truck, in highway use taxes.
Even if they are not registered in that state.
That money is supposed to go for road repairs and maintenance.
Many states divert some or all of that money to the states general fund.

Quote:

Every summer roads have to be resurfaced or pot holes filled and the cost is tremendous not including the inconvenience to motorists who are stuck, re-routed or delayed.

Of course, ice and snow and spring rains have quite a bit to do with that also.

1 Reply

@georgeob1,

georgeob1 wrote:

We went to a dinner with some friends in Mill Valley last week. It was a reenactment of one just over two years ago, with the same guests - all to discuss the then perceived wonderfulness of candidate Obama (it is a circle of fairly typical Marin County liberals). Back then I had to bite my tongue severely to avoid giving offense to that adoring crowd of claques. This year the tone was remarkably different with half wondering how they could have been so foolish and the other half still trying to hang on, but only half-heartedly.

Haha, I've been to that same dinner party, for sure.

Obama has a two-fold problem with people who supported him in 08 - first, that many of them got more wrapped up in the rhetoric than the situation called for, regarding his ability to get stuff done in Congress; unless you follow politics closely, it's difficult to understand just how effective the Republicans were using tricks and delays to slow down legislation. It just looks like the guy 'didn't get anything done.' You have to have a deeper understanding of the machinations of the House and Senate, and have followed them regularly throughout the year, to understand the true situation. And it's difficult to explain to people, because if they were interested, they'd already be following politics themselves.

Second, you gotta understand that Obama really is a lot more centrist than you guys give him credit for. To a lot of Marin liberals, he should have been FAR more confrontational with the banks during TARP; should have fought much harder for the Public Option; and he should have used the bully pulpit to get DADT repeal passed. His successes, from the Liberal point of view, have only been lukewarm. At the same time the Republican media machine has been very effective at attacking him over the last two years, painting him as weak or unready for the job.

Personally, I think Obama's biggest mistake or problem was appointing Geithner and Bernake. He cozied up to Wall Street and Goldman and made decisions which ensured that the rich power players in the financial industry didn't take any sort of haircut for their idiocy with AIG. In retrospect it was a complete mistake and it has allowed our bad financial situation to drag on, as everyone knows the banks are still basically insolvent and larded up with tons of mortgages that are still dropping in price. We didn't actually fix the underlying problem which led to the crash, we just delayed the impact. Pisses me off. And I'm as big an Obama supporter as they come.

Overall though, like you say, I would bet that 95% of those who were at that party will end up voting for his re-election. I don't think he's in much danger of losing his base, and unless the Republicans can field a real winner of a candidate - who has yet to emerge from the woodwork - he won't even seriously be challenged for the independents who went his way.

Quote:

You are right that I made my bet on the stock with the expectation of a continued 15% rate (a bet I still think I'll win). I raised the point only to illustrate an important economic effect of the uncertainty and anti business rhetoric coming from this administration. I believe that is an important part of the slow economic recovery we are experiencing. It is noteworthy that the Federal reserve just today lowered its forecast for economic growth in the next year.

At the same time, our GDP for the last quarter was revised upward significantly.

I don't understand what's important about your example. You are worrying that if the tax rates expire, you'll tax a bigger tax hit on your investments than you will if they don't. So what? Why should I care? You aren't going to be able to hold on to them forever and eventually will sell them no matter what; and what more, unless you are holding up the beginning of some other new business or enterprise with that money, why should anyone care?

Corporations are recording some of their highest profits ever currently. The wealthy rode out the last two years with minimal to any loss in stature. I don't find the 'uncertainty' argument to be compelling in the slightest, for it is so nebulous as to be used for whatever purpose you wish.

Not only that, but if 'certainty' in the business environment is really something that you or others believe is necessary for growth and moving forward, how do you countenance your own party's pledge to not raise the debt ceiling this year? To allow a government shutdown rather than pay for HCR? Surely you would agree that these actions present much more significant risks to 'certainty' than tax rates going up?

Cycloptichorn

3 Replies

@mysteryman,

Good points, mm, especially about the much higher taxes paid by truckers. I do remember however talking to a man in the Idaho DOT, who told me about the tremendous beating on parts of the interstate system by trucks, such as I-84 through Boise. One only needs to drive some other major transcontinental routes, such as I-80 across southern Wyoming or I-40 through Albuquerque to see the trucks. A few years ago, I drove on I-40 and was noticing the high truck volume, so I decided to count trucks vs cars between Grants, NM into Albuquerque, and the count was very very close to 50/50. That is how heavy the truck traffic is on it. In contrast, I-25 from Albuquerque into Colorado seems to have hardly any truck traffic. I think there is another U.S. Highway designated as a primary truck route coming north from Mexico, through New Mexico into Denver.

When I used to live in Denver, studded snow tires on cars were then legal there, and they were largely responsible for wearing distinct ruts into the interstates around there, until I think they finally outlawed them there, I think. I don't know if other areas around the country still allow them or not, but if so, they can really impact highways very seriously without a single truck ever driving on them. I think the impact of trucks versus cars on highways probably varies from area to area.

mm, you made another good point in another post, that trucks are very efficient for taking products from specific point to specific point, while rail lines can transport long distances, but still need trucks to haul regionally and locally. People also need to realize that everyone benefits from trucks, from the stuff they buy in grocery stores, to every other store, such as hardware stores, Walmart, etc. If truckers are made to pay more and more road use taxes, we all end up paying for it at some point, perhaps in the price of the products. Also, before raising use taxes, I think we should look into and demand that the current use taxes being collected are in fact being devoted to highway repair and maintenance. The same should apply to gasoline taxes that every motorist pays at the pump.

1 Reply

@Cycloptichorn,

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Overall though, like you say, I would bet that 95% of those who were at that party will end up voting for his re-election. I don't think he's in much danger of losing his base, and unless the Republicans can field a real winner of a candidate - who has yet to emerge from the woodwork - he won't even seriously be challenged for the independents who went his way.
Cycloptichorn

You seem awfully confident, cyclops, I think over confident, and your emotional investment in Obama is still greatly distorting your judgement of him. It will mostly depend upon the economy, but also on how much more bad news comes out about Obamacare, also the wars, terrorist situations, etc.

1 Reply

@okie,

This post is actually full of some very good points.

The one thing I will point out is this:

Quote:

If truckers are made to pay more and more road use taxes, we all end up paying for it at some point, perhaps in the price of the products.

I don't have a problem with this at all. One of the major problems with our consumer market is that consumers AREN'T forced to pay for the environmental damage that the creation of their products causes. Instead, those damages are carried by everybody else in society, whether they use the products or not. This is hardly fair. If one is willing to enjoy the benefits of a product, the correct thing to do is to own up to the downsides in creating it.

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@okie,

okie wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:
Overall though, like you say, I would bet that 95% of those who were at that party will end up voting for his re-election. I don't think he's in much danger of losing his base, and unless the Republicans can field a real winner of a candidate - who has yet to emerge from the woodwork - he won't even seriously be challenged for the independents who went his way.
Cycloptichorn

You seem awfully confident, cyclops, I think over confident, and your emotional investment in Obama is still greatly distorting your judgement of him. It will mostly depend upon the economy, but also on how much more bad news comes out about Obamacare, also the wars, terrorist situations, etc.

Events always will affect elections. But I tend to rely on numbers, and Obama's approval numbers are just fine - especially considering the destruction that your party seems bent on putting him through. Besides, we were already talking about a party full of people who supported him in 2008; not exactly the general public, but a bunch of Liberals to begin with.

Additionally, there are several negative factors that your prez candidate will have to contend with, the largest being the divide between what the 'tea party' wants and what moderates want. Your candidate will have a hard time defending what is going on in the House over the next two years. Like I said, it's going to take a special person to bridge that gap, appeal to your base AND to moderates, and to beat Obama in campaigning and in debates. I don't currently see anyone who can do that. If you do, perhaps you could let us know who that would be?

Re: Health Care, I think you are perfectly incorrect. Support for repealing it has dropped significantly and support for EXPANDING the program regularly polls evenly with repeal at this point. Support for expanding OR maintaining the program as is is regularly beating repeal at this point. The fact is that the more people learn about it, and the more effects that kick in which help people, the lower resistance to it gets; because a big chunk of that resistance was built on lies and distortions perpetrated by the Republican media and their allies in Congress.

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@Cycloptichorn,

Cycloptichorn wrote:

I don't have a problem with this at all. One of the major problems with our consumer market is that consumers AREN'T forced to pay for the environmental damage that the creation of their products causes. Instead, those damages are carried by everybody else in society, whether they use the products or not. This is hardly fair. If one is willing to enjoy the benefits of a product, the correct thing to do is to own up to the downsides in creating it.Cycloptichorn

If one could actually determine beyond a shadow of a doubt that something is being actually damaged, I might agree with you, but I don't think one man's environmental damage is the same as another man's. For example, Ted Kennedy did not even like the visual impact of a wind turbine where he owned property, but I think most of us would not care. In fact, I think wind turbines are rather pretty, and I happen to like the idea of using them. I also like the idea of solar panels, and I would not mind seeing hundreds of acres of them, maybe thousands of acres, but what about the tree huggers that could come out of the woodwork claiming that some desert environment was being forever altered, and that some species of plants and animals could or would disappear? I think the problem is being able to actually establish what effects are good and what effects are bad, and then what degree or dollar value is the "bad?"

In my opinion, the environmentalist movement has gotten so extreme, that I would not believe half of what they might claim about so-called damage of some things that are done in our economy, and so we would have a very tough time coming up with a dollar value of it, and then who should pay for it.

1 Reply

@okie,

okie wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:
I don't have a problem with this at all. One of the major problems with our consumer market is that consumers AREN'T forced to pay for the environmental damage that the creation of their products causes. Instead, those damages are carried by everybody else in society, whether they use the products or not. This is hardly fair. If one is willing to enjoy the benefits of a product, the correct thing to do is to own up to the downsides in creating it.Cycloptichorn

If one could actually determine beyond a shadow of a doubt that something is being actually damaged, I might agree with you, but I don't think one man's environmental damage is the same as another man's.

It's quantifiable in many cases. We all know that exhaust from coal plants, exhaust from refineries and factories and exhaust from trucks and diesel trains are bad for the environment. There's not even a question that this is true. Not only that, but it isn't difficult to figure out how much of this exhaust (or solid or liquid waste) is emitted by these groups when they are producing or transporting a good. It won't be that difficult to determine how much emissions a given product's creation and transport creates, and that can be directly charged to the manufacturer; who then can pass the cost along in the cost of the product.

It's the only fair way of doing it. Imagine if I moved in next door to you and started a home business recycling computer parts. There's a lot of 'slag' from this, and no matter how I tried, some of it ends up on YOUR property. It's toxic stuff and it's bad for your land, animals, and people who encounter it. You gain no benefit whatsoever from me doing this; I keep all the profits. Does this sound fair to you? It's how you advocate our entire nation works.

Quote:

In my opinion, the environmentalist movement has gotten so extreme, that I would not believe half of what they might claim about so-called damage of some things that are done in our economy, and so we would have a very tough time coming up with a dollar value of it, and then who should pay for it.

Your belief isn't required, Okie. The facts are clear and the data as to the cost of cleaning up a lot of this mess is equally clear. And it's easy to determine who should pay, as well - those who end up using the products and those who profit off of their production. These are not complicated issues.

Cycloptichorn

2 Replies

Here's a great article describing how Germany's economy is doing so well right now. Derided for years by Right-wingers in America, they have retained a large manufacturing base and stability in ways the US and UK did not:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/11/23/AR2010112306280.html

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Additionally, there are several negative factors that your prez candidate will have to contend with, the largest being the divide between what the 'tea party' wants and what moderates want. Your candidate will have a hard time defending what is going on in the House over the next two years. Like I said, it's going to take a special person to bridge that gap, appeal to your base AND to moderates, and to beat Obama in campaigning and in debates. I don't currently see anyone who can do that. If you do, perhaps you could let us know who that would be?Cycloptichorn

I forgot to mention one huge, and perhaps pivotal point, that being the mainstream press. If they continue to support Obama, it could be worth 15 points. If they become apathetic or even critical of Obama, that 15 point boost could be reduced to 10 or 5. I would never predict however, that the mainstream press will be supportive of, or even fair to the Republicans or Tea Party movement. The best that we conservatives can hope for in regard to the mainstream press is that they will be a little more objective in regard to Obama, rather than their virtual worship of the man during the last presidential election.

0 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

Cyclo's arguments are sound as far as they go. However, he hasn't addressed fundamental contradictions in the applications of the principles he cites. For example, generators of nuclear power have long paid a tax based on their output to pay for the long term storage of the nuclear waste they generate. In addition each nuclear plant must fund a trust that will pay for its eventual demolition and cleanup and both are paid for out of current operating revenues. In effect they are already paying far more than the equivalent of a carbon tax on their product. Even with this significant cost, nuclear power is a significantly cheaper source of electrical power than coal, which in turn ia a bit cheaper than abundant natural gass - while all three are cheaper than renewables (and expected to remain so for the forseeable future) by a factor of about three. Nuclear power emits almost zero carbon into the environment; natural gas about half what coal does per unit of energy produced.

Despite this the current administration and its environmentalist allies want to use the proceeds from a carbon tax to subsidize the least efficient "green" sources of energy and not to address the environmental issues associated with existing ones or other far superior sources. Thus they fail to apply the very principles to their goals that Cyclo insists should be appplied to existing industrial sources.

1 Reply

@Cycloptichorn,

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Your belief isn't required, Okie. The facts are clear and the data as to the cost of cleaning up a lot of this mess is equally clear. Cycloptichorn

The "facts" are not at all clear, cyclops. For example, is CO2 a pollutant? That is not at all clear, and in fact that has been highly politicized from a scientific issue to a political one. It might be politically clear to you, but it is not scientifically clear, not at all. I hope cap and trade is a dead initiative.
I have cited to you before an example of how environmental whackoism can cost society unnecessary spending. I cited the example of trucking garbage from Wichita all the way into Oklahoma daily, all because of the NIMBY attitude. Not only was it a tremendous waste of energy, but it also caused much additional wear to roads and highways. Besides that, it cost the life of at least one driver. I might be in favor of paying for the extra cost if I thought the government was capable of doing it fairly, according to good science, and if would also apply to the government. How about the increased cost of electricity, because the government unduly thwarted nuclear power, and is still not doing what it should to expedite a relatively clean and safe form of electrical generation?

My conclusion for right now is that I am not at all in favor of industries paying more for something, when such taxes are unfair and unevenly applied to various industries and companies. I simply do not trust the government to be able to do that, without it being corrupt and mis-applied.

0 Replies

We had a discussion in the pub the other night about where the American economy is headed. The consensus was for the knacker-yard.

I was the lone exception. A minority opinion. I was asked to justify my confidence and I cited the Americans I am in daily contact with on a site on the Internet.

I maintained that I had met enough by now to have formed the opinion that they must be a fairly typical cross-section of the American public in the slice of the electoral cake that carries a bit of clout. And is not shy of its responsibilities. And that the whole slice could be assumed to have similar intelligence levels and that there was no chance that mass intelligence of the sort I experience will end up in the knacker-yard.

Maybe they watch Katie Courich, who even looks like the end of the world is nigh as well as sounding it. The Left-Wing's "come to Nana" touch. I watch the NFL and all the backgrounds in everything else. I see the helicopter shot of the stadium and its surroundings, a blazing beacon of light in a setting full of twinkling lesser stars. There's no knacker-yard in sight.

All the machines get more efficient every day don't they? The books temporarily not balancing has nothing to do with that.

That's my take on it. I don't see what there is to discuss. Unless it is to discuss whether that level of intelligence which feels the need to discuss where the US economy is headed is a necessary ingredient in the slowing down of the trip to the knacker-yard which we all recognise will inevitably come. Or otherwise.

0 Replies

@georgeob1,

georgeob1 wrote:

Cyclo's arguments are sound as far as they go. However, he hasn't addressed fundamental contradictions in the applications of the principles he cites. For example, generators of nuclear power have long paid a tax based on their output to pay for the long term storage of the nuclear waste they generate. In addition each nuclear plant must fund a trust that will pay for its eventual demolition and cleanup and both are paid for out of current operating revenues. In effect they are already paying far more than the equivalent of a carbon tax on their product. Even with this significant cost, nuclear power is a significantly cheaper source of electrical power than coal, which in turn ia a bit cheaper than abundant natural gas - while all three are cheaper than renewables (and expected to remain so for the forseeable future) by a factor of about three. Nuclear power emits almost zero carbon into the environment; natural gas about half what coal does per unit of energy produced.

Despite this the current administration and its environmentalist allies want to use the proceeds from a carbon tax to subsidize the least efficient "green" sources of energy and not to address the environmental issues associated with existing ones or other far superior sources. Thus they fail to apply the very principles to their goals that Cyclo insists should be appplied to existing industrial sources.

Well, you are of course aware that I am a proponent of Nuclear power generation and therefore have no problem with you pointing out the hypocrisy of this on the side of the Environmentalists. I've had many of these same arguments myself, often with people at the very sort of Marin party you describe. I think you will see this change over time, as younger generations just don't have the same visceral hate of nuclear power as the hippies did.

I am glad to see that you agree, though, that producers of products ought to be held liable for the pollution produced during the creation and transport of those products. Such things would provide perhaps the greatest pressure to do things cleaner that we could get as a society; it is truly a free-market solution to environmentalism.

Cycloptichorn

4 Replies

Where is the US economy headed?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know