114
   

Where is the US economy headed?

 
 
cicerone imposter
 
  2  
Reply Thu 3 Mar, 2011 07:37 am
@Cycloptichorn,
What I also find interesting is the fact that conservatives love to claim taxation is a transfer of wealth from the rich to the poor. The fact of the matter is that during the past 30-odd years, there was a wealth transfer with the rich getting richer, and the middle class and poor remaining stagnant to losing purchasing power. During all this time, conservatives always tell us that cutting taxes will create jobs, but we haven't seen their claim come to fruition. All the while, the rich pay less and less of their wealth in taxes even while they get richer and richer.

There's something wrong with this picture; and it isn't that the rich isn't paying too much taxes, it's that they pay too little. They have the wealth to pay taxes, but the conservatives don't want to hear about it; they'd rather see our country sink in a flood of debt.
plainoldme
 
  1  
Reply Thu 3 Mar, 2011 07:44 am
@cicerone imposter,
I started watching Wall Street Week when my ex husband was on a month long business trip to China during November 1980. WSW and Washington Week in Review then became the family habit for the remainder of our marriage.

At that time, the talking heads on WSW played the same theme. They talked -- what seemed at the time, continuously -- about the coming service economy in which there would be jobs for all. My ex-husband and my father both said a service economy is not an economy in which people are paid well.

Frankly, with the benefit of hindsight, I do not believe these statements were "predictions" anymore than I believe in the writings of Merlin. I believe it was a script designed to lull a nation into the acceptance of these low paying jobs and the acceptance of the rich becoming undeservedly and disproportionately rich.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Thu 3 Mar, 2011 10:54 am
http://i2.cdn.turner.com/money/2011/03/03/news/economy/initial_claims/chart_jobless_claims.top.gif

Jobless claims fall to a three-year low.

Slow but sure recovery

Cycloptichorn
H2O MAN
 
  0  
Reply Thu 3 Mar, 2011 11:50 am
@Cycloptichorn,

Masses of people have given up looking for a job... the number of unemployed Americans continues to grow.

There is no real world recovery in progress at this time.
parados
 
  1  
Reply Thu 3 Mar, 2011 12:00 pm
@H2O MAN,
I corrected your statement squirt, so it at least makes some sense.
H2O MAN wrote:


There is no real world at this time.
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Thu 3 Mar, 2011 12:19 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
Cyclo, Don't let that chart fool you; we're still going to be seeing tens of thousands of government (middle class) workers layoff during the next few years - until a real recovery takes hold. When that will be is anyone's guess, but my guesstimate is over six years from now - if at all.
0 Replies
 
realjohnboy
 
  1  
Reply Thu 3 Mar, 2011 02:08 pm
@H2O MAN,
H2O MAN wrote:

Masses of people have given up looking for a job... the number of unemployed Americans continues to grow.
There is no real world recovery in progress at this time.


BLS numbers re unemployment will be out Friday morning at 8:30 ET. The Dow is up 2% as of 3 pm. What do you make, H2O, of the latest economic news from Germany? A fluke?
0 Replies
 
realjohnboy
 
  1  
Reply Thu 3 Mar, 2011 05:47 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
Cycloptichorn wrote:

2. Reduce the tax code’s bias towards debt financing. The current corporate tax code encourages corporations to finance their investments with debt (e.g., by issuing bonds) rather than equity (e.g., by selling stock). This encourages corporations to rely excessively on debt, which, as the recent financial crisis demonstrated, poses risks for both the firms and the broader economy. The tax code should be more even-handed in treating these two types of financing.


I agree with pretty much all of that.

Cycloptichorn


That makes little sense to me. But that was a discussion from a day or two ago. No longer pertinent.
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Thu 3 Mar, 2011 05:58 pm
@realjohnboy,
realjohnboy wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:

2. Reduce the tax code’s bias towards debt financing. The current corporate tax code encourages corporations to finance their investments with debt (e.g., by issuing bonds) rather than equity (e.g., by selling stock). This encourages corporations to rely excessively on debt, which, as the recent financial crisis demonstrated, poses risks for both the firms and the broader economy. The tax code should be more even-handed in treating these two types of financing.


I agree with pretty much all of that.

Cycloptichorn


That makes little sense to me. But that was a discussion from a day or two ago. No longer pertinent.


Yeah, it is pertinent!

BONDS basically give a corp a pile of free money now, in exchange for a higher rate of return years down the road. Because offering bonds gives corps. a bigger tax break than offering stock, when it comes time to raise money for a new project or event, our tax code pushes them into taking on larger and larger amounts of bond sales, IE, debt.

Firms get overloaded with debt and then can't manage shocks to their system when times get tough. If they financed new projects and expansions through the selling of new stock - equity - they get the money just like with the bonds, but without the debt. Of course, this brings with it a whole other set of considerations; but the article is correct that our tax code shouldn't push corps. towards offering bonds instead of shares of stock, when they need cash.

Cycloptichorn
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Thu 3 Mar, 2011 06:11 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
The "pertinence" could depend on how one views the latest action by the feds to buy back $600 billion in bonds. Looks like lower interest rates for borrowers and earners. Bad idea to circulate more cash in an environment where only the rich and famous has the means to borrow for speculation, and inflate assets. Not good; it's another bad decision by the feds.
0 Replies
 
realjohnboy
 
  0  
Reply Thu 3 Mar, 2011 06:11 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
Are you suggesting that businesses should have no access to new capital other than through the issuance of common stock?
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Thu 3 Mar, 2011 06:13 pm
@realjohnboy,
That would be a terrible idea!
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Thu 3 Mar, 2011 06:21 pm
@realjohnboy,
realjohnboy wrote:

Are you suggesting that businesses should have no access to new capital other than through the issuance of common stock?


Not at all. I'm saying that our tax code shouldn't reward companies who use Bonds instead of Equity to raise money.

It creates a perverse incentive for them to take on what have been revealed to be unsustainable levels of debt.

Cycloptichorn
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Thu 3 Mar, 2011 06:58 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
Cyclo, Are you implying there is no fear of bankruptcy if they borrow? It would seem the lender would scrutinize whatever loan amount they are seeking against future liabilities, profit and loss of the company.
H2O MAN
 
  -1  
Reply Fri 4 Mar, 2011 08:18 am
@parados,
You've never made any sense, why start now.
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  2  
Reply Fri 4 Mar, 2011 08:28 am
@cicerone imposter,
cicerone imposter wrote:

Cyclo, Are you implying there is no fear of bankruptcy if they borrow? It would seem the lender would scrutinize whatever loan amount they are seeking against future liabilities, profit and loss of the company.

It would seem the lenders would have done that for mortgages but we all know how that ended up.
H2O MAN
 
  -1  
Reply Fri 4 Mar, 2011 09:20 am
@parados,
It ended up the way democrats wanted it to end up.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Fri 4 Mar, 2011 10:23 am
@cicerone imposter,
cicerone imposter wrote:

Cyclo, Are you implying there is no fear of bankruptcy if they borrow? It would seem the lender would scrutinize whatever loan amount they are seeking against future liabilities, profit and loss of the company.


Um. If they raise capital by selling stock (equity in the company) rather than bonds (payments to be made later), there is no fear of bankruptcy.

I get the feeling we are talking about two different things here, man.

Cycloptichorn
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Fri 4 Mar, 2011 10:58 am
Quote:
The waiting game still is not over, but it may be soon.

The nation’s employers added 192,000 jobs on net in February, up from a gain of 63,000 jobs the previous month, the Labor Department reported on Friday.

While February’s number represented the fastest growth in nearly a year, it was partly the result of a bounce back from unusually depressed hiring in January, when winter weather shuttered offices and factories around the country. Taken together, the job growth for the first two months of the year has not been much better than it was last fall.

Still, economists are hopeful that the pace will soon pick up.

“Economic recoveries can be like a snowball rolling down a hill, in that it takes time to get some momentum,” said John Ryding, chief economist at RDQ Economics. “People hesitate until they feel that the recovery’s durable enough, and then they have a tendency to jump in. Maybe we’re finally getting to that jumping-in moment.”

The unemployment rate ticked down to 8.9 percent, falling below 9 percent for the first time in nearly two years. This rate, which comes from a separate survey and is based on the total number of Americans who want to work, has remained stubbornly high in the last year despite payroll growth. Altogether 13.7 million people are still out of work and actively looking.


Economists say the unemployment rate may rise temporarily in the next few months, as stronger job growth lures some discouraged workers back into the labor force. Right now the share of working-age population that is actively involved in the work force — that is, either in a job or actively looking for one — is at its lowest level in 25 years, an indication that many Americans are waiting for hiring to get better before resuming the job hunt.


http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/05/business/economy/05jobs.html?hp

Better, but needs to keep getting better faster.

From a political standpoint, Obama needs to get that number down as far as possible before the 2012 election. If the economy manages to recover enough for it to hit sub-8% unemployment, things will be a lot better for him than if it hovers around 9% for a whole 'nother year.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Fri 4 Mar, 2011 11:03 am
@Cycloptichorn,
I doubt it; you wrote,
Quote:
Not at all. I'm saying that our tax code shouldn't reward companies who use Bonds instead of Equity to raise money.

It creates a perverse incentive for them to take on what have been revealed to be unsustainable levels of debt.
 

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 11/03/2025 at 10:19:26