Gas prices going up, here we go again...

[Slobrain]

Well, I wonder why the gas prices are going up? :mad:

Looks like price gouging by the big oil companies again but no excuses this time like Oh, a hurricane caused this or a storm caused that or what!

It’s getting damn ridiculous that they keep getting away with this crap.

I know I'll get flames by the Bush lovers here but damn these repubs always looking to help big companies like the oil industry. I bet if gas goes up too hi there will be a recession this year from this crap.

When does this shit ever end any more???


My rant for today!!!

SLO

[bulldogguitars]

Man Im with ya. I can barely afford to fill my car anymore let alone pay the bills and keep a roof over our head and keep my family fed.

[Satamax]

He Slo, comme over here and you'll see, 1€08 for a liter (3.79 liters to the US galon!) of diesel, which is the cheapest fuel besides LPG over here! And i'm not talking about housing or rent prices! 380sqft cost me 432 euros a month, with no heating water or electricity included! In a litle mountain village where there's not many jobs going around!

[TD_Madden]

actually it's the jerks on wall-street driving the prices up on oil-futures....then taking big profits, with the cycle starting over...

[spiffpeters]

No single answer to the rising cost of fuel (oil). Many reasons.

Whenever some rightie or anti-government type starts complaining about gas prices, I simply re-introduce them to their 'free-market' economic model. Get's 'em sputterin' every time.

Not much I can do about the price of gas. Pump prices are more or less a function of supply/demand. The oil companies are greedy, and I know that someone will pipe up that they only have a 10% margin. Weak argument. 10% margin on tubes or amp kits is one thing, 10% margin on a fundamental commodity of which the global economy is dependent is all together another matter. Ever seen a poor or suffering oil company?

The oil company's have a captive market, they know it, we know. All we can do as individuals is to limit our dependence on their product. I drive less, purchase the most energy efficient appliances I can get, turn off unused lights.....

[Slobrain]

$2.50 at the pump today and rising :mad:

Greenspan says possible recession and the hi gas prices coupled with sub prime loans problem? Hmmmmm Where is this going???


BTW, did anyone watch dateline tonight? It was about Identity theft.

Looks like it’s coming from a lot of other countries hitting us here in the good ol USA. And these sneaky bastards are suckering in lonely folks here on these date chat forums to get them to send items bought on stolen CC's to Africa and some other countries. Some of these lonely folks are really stupid to fall into that trap. They are the ones that are going to do jail time, not the real thieves.

I just wonder why a show like Dateline can catch up to some of these thieves but our Law enforcement can't?

My opinion is, if you get caught stealing some ones identity you should be strung up and hanged!

[spiffpeters]

I was watching Dateline last week and Hansen went over to England to track down those "Nigerian's" that need American bank accounts to stash their millions of dollars.

He met up with a couple of them, but was not able to arrest them even though they were caught red handed.

The only way this new breed of thief will be brought to justice is when the corporations decide to focus their lobbying efforts on this issue, both here and abroad.

[Slobrain]

I was watching Dateline last week and Hansen went over to England to track down those "Nigerian's" that need American bank accounts to stash their millions of dollars.

He met up with a couple of them, but was not able to arrest them even though they were caught red handed.

The only way this new breed of thief will be brought to justice is when the corporations decide to focus their lobbying efforts on this issue, both here and abroad.

Spiff, I agree with ya totally. Man, the only thing the damn Nigerians are doing is hurting Americans and the CC companies don't give a shit. They just pass on the extra charges to us who use CC. Its sickening to say the least. It seems the most ID theft is coming from Africa.

I wonder why the FBI doesn't do anything either instead of wire tapping phones illegally on folks. They should be chasing the bad guys down and rockin their world, but are they???

I still blame the PIP, ever since Bush has been in power the country is going to SHIT!!! Big time. Everything right has gone ass backards :(

My rant.

[spiffpeters]

Sarcasm ON ---

I'm guessing here, but perhaps if we want to pursue international ID thiefs, we need the co-operation of other nations. Oh wait, we don't really care what other country's think of us, nor do we care if they want to co-operate with us. We are the premier super power, we do not need anyone's permission or help.

--- Sarcasm OFF

As for Bush being a failure (I'm still waiting for someone to point out any policy of his that has produced positive affects, intentionally or otherwise), I think we are seeing the beginning of the end of his regime. He claimed many things in 2000 and 2004. But the one thing he said that I'll never forget is that he would be bring honor and dignity back to the white house.

There's ample evidence to support the contrary to that claim. Male prostitutes and Abramoff are simply the tip of the iceberg.

Or how our CIC reacted when these words were whispered in his ear: "Sir, the country's under attack."

How could the CIC of the worlds only super power sit in a elementary school classroom for seven minutes, reading a childrens book, after being told the country is under attack? Remember, he wasn't told of the nature of the attack, just that the country was under attack. He had no way of knowing what kind of attack, the scale or scope of the attack or anything. Anyone in the right mind would have excused themselves right there and start acting like a leader.

Just my opinion. But that's what happens when you get a corporate schill in the white house.

[Earl Norton]

"Consistency has never been a mark of stupidity. If the diplomats who have mishandled our relations with Russia were merely stupid, they would occasionally make a mistake in our favor." - James Forrestal, Secretary of Defense 1949

I don't think any of the current administration is stupid.

[TD_Madden]

look out for the EEEEVIIIIILLLLL BOOOOOSH....

[bob p]

The oil companies are greedy, and I know that someone will pipe up that they only have a 10% margin. Weak argument. 10% margin on tubes or amp kits is one thing, 10% margin on a fundamental commodity of which the global economy is dependent is all together another matter.
What's the difference?

[jaxbeachrick]

bobp please check your pm's.

[Slobrain]

"Consistency has never been a mark of stupidity. If the diplomats who have mishandled our relations with Russia were merely stupid, they would occasionally make a mistake in our favor." - James Forrestal, Secretary of Defense 1949

I don't think any of the current administration is stupid.

So Bush is smart? when did that happen??? :confused:

[spiffpeters]

Volume. That's the difference. That and without oil, the entire global economy would implode. Tubes or tube amps are not a vital component in the scheme of global commerce.

[bob p]

Volume. That's the difference. That and without oil, the entire global economy would implode. Tubes or tube amps are not a vital component in the scheme of global commerce.
do i understand this correctly, that the profitability of manufacturing an item should be based upon whether it is a discretionary item or a necessity?

[spiffpeters]

"...that the profitability of manufacturing an item should be based upon whether it is a discretionary item or a necessity?"

Your words not mine. I merely said that I find it ironic that some of the loudest protestors about gas prices and oil company profits are often times major proponents of free market.

Many folks will defend the oil industry by saying their margin is only 10%, at best. Well heck, I'd take a 10% margin on anything that the entire globe is dependent on. I wouldn't call it a monopoly, but you won't find to many upstarts of new oil companies coming around. The opposite seems to be the case however.

I say let the oil companies charge $5/gallon if it'll make them happy. I don't really care. My lifestyle and choices are not limited or compromised by the cost gasoline.

[bob p]

your words not mine.

not really my words at all. i thought that you had clearly suggested that was the case when you made this comment:

10% margin on tubes or amp kits is one thing, 10% margin on a fundamental commodity of which the global economy is dependent is all together another matter.

i thought that statement clearly suggested that a "fundamental commodity" should have a lower profit margin solely because people depend on it. maybe i over-interpreted your words, but i thought the intended meaning was clear enough.

personally, i don't think that it should matter one way or the other whether someone has a 10% markup or a 100% markup on an item, regardless of whether or not it is a luxury item or a necessity. market pricing will ultimately trump artificial attempts at margin control. besides, the commission-based cost +10% model may be great for merchandise that gets drop shipped, but it isn't very applicable for any item that has cost associated with development and/or maintaining in inventory. if businesses had to live according to such artificial standards, a lot of business would go out of business. but then i'm digressing into what should really be a lecture in Econ 101.:p

[spiffpeters]

I used a poor selection of words.

It has been stated that oil companies only enjoy about a 10% margin. I am in no position to dispute this figure.

I'll take 10% margin of a fundemental commodity over 100% margin on a luxury item any day. And twice on Sunday!

I don't believe that markets are self-regulating. Perhaps in the purest, or most academic models they are. But greed tends to interrupt the normally amoral market place. And then a regulatory body needs to intervene and usually over corrects. And the cycle gones on and on.

Standard oil, AT&T, Enron and so on.

[bob p]

i'm not sure that greed is so bad for the markets. honest greed isn't a bad thing -- greed on both sides of a transaction is what makes honest markets efficient. OTOH lack of transparency leads to dishonest greed -- now that's something that causes a real problem.

[spiffpeters]

"honest greed isn't a bad thing -- greed on both sides of a transaction is what makes honest markets efficient."

I agree 99%. I don't believe that greed is or should be a component in needs based transactions. Consumers have an obligation to limit their dependency on needs based consumables to a sustainable level. In essence, their consumption should be limited to their capacity to pay for these goods/services. Historically, people were not able to live beyond their means. But with the advent of equity loans and sub-prime mortages, the natural barrier to greed has deterioted or been diminished substantially.

But I digress.

Essentially, I make a distinction between my own wants and needs. My needs are not driven by greed and when possible I chose to not conduct any needs based transactions where the other side of the equation has a gross or greed based profit motivation.

When purchasing a household appliance, a car, a tool, an instrument or amp, etc..., I am perfectly comfortable, and expect the market to dictate the going price.

But monopolies are anti-free market. Monopolies are pure greed and some form of government regulation is neccessary to ensure that consumers are not put over the barrel, so to speak.

[madialex]

So Bush is smart? when did that happen??? :confused:

Hi Slo, I think what he is saying is none of them are stupid, all this crap they want us to beleive is a mistake or stupid is really well thought out and planned. If they were really stupid they would actually do at least 1 thing right by mistake but so far everything is screwed up.. By design? I think so!

[madialex]

But monopolies are anti-free market. Monopolies are pure greed and some form of government regulation is neccessary to ensure that consumers are not put over the barrel, so to speak.

But are not the oil companies a monopoly. The big 4 got bought out by BP now 1 very large one. I'd say thats as close to a monopoly as you get. Now Cable, thats a monopoly..........

[hasserl]

As for Bush being a failure (I'm still waiting for someone to point out any policy of his that has produced positive affects, intentionally or otherwise),

Dude, you're living in one of the best economies of all time. Bush inherited a failing economy from the previous administration, and very early on the economy suffered greatly from the terrorist attacks of 9-11; the bursting of the tech bubble, the near colapse of the airline industry, and yet unemployment in the states is down in the low 4% range, and the economy is buzzing along fantastically. Is this just coincidence? Of course not, it's mostly due to the fantastic tax cuts that the Bush admin was able to get passed.

What about the fact that we have not suffered a single terrorist attack on our soil since the attacks of 9-11? Did anyone expect this would be the case on 9-12? Is this just coincidence too? Of course not!

Another "positive affect" (sic) of Bush policy is the benefit to us all on numerous levels of the Bush Admin's steadfast refusal to fall under the control of chicken little global warming hierarchists and egalitarians.

Just a few positive affects.

So Bush is smart? when did that happen???

Graduated from Yale and an MBA from Harvard Business School, licensed to fly jet fighter's. And you?

I'll take 10% margin of a fundemental commodity over 100% margin on a luxury item any day. And twice on Sunday!

What does this even mean? You'll take??? You show incredible ignorance of economics, I recommend a heavy dose of Dr. Walter Williams:

http://www.gmu.edu/departments/economics/wew/

I don't believe that markets are self-regulating. Perhaps in the purest, or most academic models they are. But greed tends to interrupt the normally amoral market place. And then a regulatory body needs to intervene and usually over corrects.

I suppose you might have a point, IF YOU COULD FIND A REGULATORY BODY THAT WASN'T AS CONTROLLED BY GREED AS ANY BUSINESS!!!!!!

The big 4 got bought out by BP now 1 very large one. I'd say thats as close to a monopoly as you get.

That is not correct, Exxon Mobile is the largest oil company in the world, quite a bit larger than the next largest oil company, which is probably Royal Dutch Shell, followed by BP. BP is a very large company, but it is not the largest oil company, and is very far from being a monopoly. Consider that Exxon Mobile controls only about 3% of the world's petroleum reserve. If the largest oil company in the world controls only 3% of the reserves, how can the 3rd largest be considered a monopoly? The small percent of control Exxon Mobile has refutes the idea that the oil companies control the price of oil, none of them, nor all of them together are not a monopoly (all of them together could not be a monopoly anyway).

[bob p]

Dude, you're living in one of the best economies of all time. Bush inherited a failing economy from the previous administration, and very early on the economy suffered greatly from the terrorist attacks of 9-11; the bursting of the tech bubble, the near colapse of the airline industry, and yet unemployment in the states is down in the low 4% range, and the economy is buzzing along fantastically. Is this just coincidence? Of course not, it's mostly due to the fantastic tax cuts that the Bush admin was able to get passed.

Good point. I agree that the "Bush" tax cuts had a positive impact, but I think that their overall effect on the economy has been overshadowed by the Federal Reserve's rather permissive stance on monetary policy. Understanding this point involves only a few minutes of attention span, which might make the point incomprehensible for people who only like to chew on sound bites and are inclined to disagree with what hasserl has already said.

Going into Y2K, the Fed provided liquidity that was far in excess of what was actually needed -- they did this primarily out of the fear of economic collapse if the Y2K catastrophe turned out to be real rather than imagined.

The extent Great Depression was tremendously exacerbated by overly tight monetary policy in the 1930s. We learned a lession about the evils of tight monetary policy from the Great Depression, and the Greenspan Fed wanted to assure that we would not revisit those circumstances if Y2K turned out to be a true cataclysmic event.

A downside of this excessive liquidity going into Y2K was tech stock speculation ("irrational exuberance") and rampant asset price inflation. The Fed responded by gradually raising interest rates, which put a damper on the economy.

The first bubble to be burst was stock market speculation, and we had the tech collapse of the late 1990s. Like the 1920s, market speculation was so widespread and excessive that a crash had the potential to cause extreme and widespread economic hardship, so the Fed loosened monetary policy again.

The problem though, was that the Fed loosened prematurely -- they loosened policy soon enough that the economy achieved the proverbial "soft landing," and averted widespread economic hardship. This premature loosening, however, took away all of the corrective forces that had been in play to put a damper on asset price inflation. As a result, asset price inflation continued to go unchecked, which has led to absolutely absurd price increases in the housing markets. Almost all of this happened on the Clinton watch, but to be fair, we have to blame Greenspan for this, not Clinton. The Greenspan time constants were always too long to be truly effective. He always hesitated and acted late.

The Republican tax cuts helped to stimulate the economy, but to be fair, we have to temper our enthusiasm about how much a $500 trickle-down tax cut really helps to bolster consumer confidence. Rampant increases in housing appraisals, combined with cash-out-equity refinancing (and equity theft) during periods of excessive liquidity have done more to boost consumer spending than any other measurable metric. The great boost to our economy (from the consumer perspective) has been financed by borrowing against inflated home values. The average consumer has taken on a lifetime of debt to finance today's spending habits. Its a truly ugly way to survive, and to ingore this mode of consumer finance tends to allow economists to paint an overly rosy picture of the economy.

For these reasons, I would disagree that we live in the best economy ever. Personal savings rates are at an all time low, and consumer debt is at an all time high. This is BAD for the consumer, but it is very GOOD for the corporations that supply consumer goods. Whether or not anyone considers this to be the best economy of all time depends entirely upon which side of the fence they're sitting.
What about the fact that we have not suffered a single terrorist attack on our soil since the attacks of 9-11? Did anyone expect this would be the case on 9-12? Is this just coincidence too? Of course not!
...
Graduated from Yale and an MBA from Harvard Business School, licensed to fly jet fighter's.
Damn good points.

That is not correct, Exxon Mobile is the largest oil company in the world, quite a bit larger than the next largest oil company, which is probably Royal Dutch Shell, followed by BP. BP is a very large company, but it is not the largest oil company, and is very far from being a monopoly.
Who is defined as the "biggest" of the supermajors depends upon how how you define "biggest." You can rate them based on market capitalization, on per-annum barrel production, on annual profits, etc. The last time I crunched these numbers, the the "biggest" title could go to either XOM or BP, depending upon whether you defined "Biggest" in terms of market cap or produciton volume. Technically speaking, you might both be right on this one.


Consider that Exxon Mobile controls only about 3% of the world's petroleum reserve. If the largest oil company in the world controls only 3% of the reserves, how can the 3rd largest be considered a monopoly? The small percent of control Exxon Mobile has refutes the idea that the oil companies control the price of oil, none of them, nor all of them together are not a monopoly (all of them together could not be a monopoly anyway).
Another great point. The problem is that people who have adversarial opinions about oil companies often don't want to be confused with facts. :D

Playing the devils advocate on this one, the limit of their commodity control to 3% of the world's petroleum reserves may be a bit of a red herring as an anti-monopoly argument. Even though XOM only controls 3% of the world's proven reserves, they have huge market power (using the Sherman Act formula and definition) in the refining and distribution markets here in the USA. To the consumer, XOM, RD, and BP are effectively a tri-opoly. That's got to be one reason that so many people hate them. But I do have to agree that people who hate XOM, RD, and BP are displacing their aggression. They should be more concerned about the magnitude of the state and federal taxes on gasoline, and about the federalization/asset confiscation practices of dictators like Chavez in Venezuela. But that would require an attention span. <sigh>

[Satamax]

Dude, you're living in one of the best economies of all time. Bush inherited a failing economy from the previous administration, and very early on the economy suffered greatly from the terrorist attacks of 9-11; the bursting of the tech bubble, the near colapse of the airline industry, and yet unemployment in the states is down in the low 4% range, and the economy is buzzing along fantastically. Is this just coincidence? Of course not, it's mostly due to the fantastic tax cuts that the Bush admin was able to get passed.

What about the fact that we have not suffered a single terrorist attack on our soil since the attacks of 9-11? Did anyone expect this would be the case on 9-12? Is this just coincidence too? Of course not!


Well, Haserl, you're living in the country the most involved in debt in the world. And you say your economy is in good shape??? Your governement "commisioned" 9.11, since Carter funded talibans to fight against soviet union, and that led to al quaida attacks. You live in the biggest greenhouse gaz producing country and you don't give a shit! Well, i'm a offroader and don't like ecologists, but still, i'd rather run on vegie oil and care a litle than to be as irresponsible as you seem to act.

Bye.

Max.

[hasserl]

Well, Haserl, you're living in the country the most involved in debt in the world. And you say your economy is in good shape??? Your governement "commisioned" 9.11, since Carter funded talibans to fight against soviet union, and that led to al quaida attacks. You live in the biggest greenhouse gaz producing country and you don't give a shit! Well, i'm a offroader and don't like ecologists, but still, i'd rather run on vegie oil and care a litle than to be as irresponsible as you seem to act.

Bye.

Max.

That's quite harsh Max. Blaming America for the 9-11 attacks is blaming the victim for the acts of the criminal. I could list plenty of analogies for this, but that would be pointless. Your assertion is crude and offensive.

You make assumptions about what I don't give a shit about, and about my irresponsibilities. I find that also to be crude and offensive. If you have an argument to make go ahead and make it, but don't make ad hominem personal attacks against me. To do so shows an inability to fathom a reasonable argument, and the effect of those attacks destroys our ability to rationally discuss issues. If you want to discuss greenhouse gases that would be fine, but if your mind is already made up about global warming you may not like the information I would provide to that discussion. Regardless, please avoid the personal attacks so that we can discuss amps and other music topics with mutual respect.

[hasserl]

I would disagree that we live in the best economy ever

Ahh, but I didn't say it was the best ever, I said one of the best ever. Which I belive is true. Not that it couldn't be better, but that it is in remarkable condition, especially considering the negative forces against it that very easily could have resulted in an extended recession. I also think you underestimate the benefits of teh tax relief to business in this country, which results in increased benefits to us all, especially Federal revenues which have soared as a result of the improved economy.

[Satamax]

That's quite harsh Max. Blaming America for the 9-11 attacks is blaming the victim for the acts of the criminal. I could list plenty of analogies for this, but that would be pointless. Your assertion is crude and offensive.

You make assumptions about what I don't give a shit about, and about my irresponsibilities. I find that also to be crude and offensive. If you have an argument to make go ahead and make it, but don't make ad hominem personal attacks against me. To do so shows an inability to fathom a reasonable argument, and the effect of those attacks destroys our ability to rationally discuss issues. If you want to discuss greenhouse gases that would be fine, but if your mind is already made up about global warming you may not like the information I would provide to that discussion. Regardless, please avoid the personal attacks so that we can discuss amps and other music topics with mutual respect.

Well, Hasserl, sorry for being harsh, but there's one thing which is for sure, your country is the most involved in debt in the whole world, and you regard your economy as sound? http://www.brillig.com/debt_clock/

About global warming, we might agree that it's not as critical as we might all think, the planet warms and cools, and does this in periods, tho, human beings have an effect on it lately, no doubt about it. And it would be clever to cut our emisions. Remember that US is the biggest emiter of greenhouse gasses in the world so far, china becoming prominent. Well that sad, because your governement won't do anything about it, and also can't because they would criple your economy. But imho, it's a great shame. Global warming impedes with my job, as a chairlift atendant, the lack of snow makes me loose some money, so you'll understand my concerns with global warming.

That's all i say, as if you don't believe in it, do your own research. Remember i'm having hard time to argue in your language.

Bye.

Max.

[hasserl]

Well, Hasserl, sorry for being harsh, but there's one thing which is for sure, your country is the most involved in debt in the whole world, and you regard your economy as sound? http://www.brillig.com/debt_clock/

About global warming, we might agree that it's not as critical as we might all think, the planet warms and cools, and does this in periods, tho, human beings have an effect on it lately, no doubt about it. And it would be clever to cut our emisions. Remember that US is the biggest emiter of greenhouse gasses in the world so far, china becoming prominent. Well that sad, because your governement won't do anything about it, and also can't because they would criple your economy. But imho, it's a great shame. Global warming impedes with my job, as a chairlift atendant, the lack of snow makes me loose some money, so you'll understand my concerns with global warming.

That's all i say, as if you don't believe in it, do your own research. Remember i'm having hard time to argue in your language.

Bye.

Max.

Okay Max, we're cool. :cool:

As far as the debt goes, of course it is very important, but that is a different topic from the health of the economy, or what I mean by the level of economic activity. We are working, we have money to buy toys like Iphones, not to mention all the guitars and amps and musical toys we like to play with. In a bad economy with no jobs and no work we don't do these things. As I mentioned, the level of federal revenues is very healthy, that the feds then spend it all plus more is shameful, but that doesn't mean the economy is not healthy.

As for as the US the biggest emitter of greenhouse gases, China has surpassed the US in production of CO2. That was a quiet little news story a couple of weeks ago. http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2007/06/20/1996/

Have you considered the effects of forests on the global levels of CO2? And how the US has enormous levels of forested areas, much more so than Europe. The US having about 8% of the forest in the world, Europe have less than 2? China less than 2. In fact outside of the American Continent, Russia and Indonesia has the only significant levels of forest, and all the other countries in the world combined (including all of Europe & Africa and the Middle East and East) make up only 11% of the global forests. Europe has largely been deforested. The US has done much work to retain our forests, and through management I've heard there are more trees in this country now than when it was discovered by Columbus. That may or may not be true, but no doubt we work hard to manage and maintain our forests. Is it fair for Europe, which has largely decimated it's forests, to criticize the US regarding global CO2 levels? What is Europe doing to curb CO2 emissions, other than speaking negatively about the US?

Here's a nice article showing European rate of growth of greenhouse gas exceeded that of the US.
http://www.eea.europa.eu/pressroom/newsreleases/GHG2006-en

But I don't agree that there is no doubt that human beings have an effect on the warming and cooling cycles of the planet. If one really looks into the debate there is plenty of evidence to cause doubt. I tend to think this is more of a political control issue and less a scientific one.

[spiffpeters]

Actaully, Cheney's 'secret' energy policy group included the likes of Enron and big oil.

Bush says the surge is to provide the space or buffer the Iraqi government to get some business done and get on with the task of governing Iraq. He isn't kidding. He's dead serious.

That energy task force of Cheney's? Big oil didn't like the fact that Iraqi's oil reserves were closed to private industry. Their oil was nationalized. The surge is suppose to give the Iraq government time to resolve the oil revenue sharing program, which was designed by the US government. And big oil wants access to the second largest oil reserves in the world.

There's four factions fighting for oil revenues in Iraq. Shia, Sunni and Kurds are the three they talk about. They just don't bother to mention the fourth, Big Oil.

[Satamax]

Hasserl, just check this :D

Done by US Department of Energy's Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center (CDIAC) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_dioxide_emissions_per_capita

[spiffpeters]

"As far as the debt goes, of course it is very important, but that is a different topic from the health of the economy, or what I mean by the level of economic activity."

As has been stated previously, consumer savings are at an all time low while consumer debt is at an all time high. The bulk of our economic activity is being funded by home equity theft. We can't continue cashing in the equity in our houses indefinitely. Eventually the housing market will regain normalcy and level out and correct itself. I don't know about the rest around here, but if I had to buy my house today, I'd be SOL. I don't know how we can expect young people fresh out of college with huge student loan debt to have enough capital to start up a family and buy a house. And even if they wait five or ten years before buying a house and starting a family, does anyone think that wages will keep up, much less catchup, will the housing market? Imagine housing costs ten years from now. If they continue to rise at present rate, many kids won't be able to buy a house. If the market corrects itself, as it likely will, college kids will be able to afford a house, but what happens to the folks that extracted the equity from their properties before the value declined? They'll get upside down on their mortgage and end up losing big time in the end. Not a very rosy picture either way.

One of the best economies of all time? Depends on who you are. Not for the average, middle class worker. May look like it, but something wicked this way comes. Baton down the hatches cause it's going to get rough.

[hasserl]

Max, check out this:

http://www.ace.mmu.ac.uk/Resources/Teaching_Packs/Key_Stage_4/Climate_Change/02p.html

Anthropogenic sources of CO2 account for just 4-5% of all CO2, the other 95-96% occuring naturally.

North american forests provide much of the global CO2 sinks. The US generates much CO2, but also sinks much of it in our forests. Europe contributes to global CO2 but does not provide much of a CO2 sink to absorb what they generate. IMO that leaves Europeans that belive anthropogenic CO2 generation as a problem with a moral dilemna. The US can absorb the CO2 it generates, Europe cannot. When pointing a finger at someone else you have three more pointing right back at yourself.

And EU generation of CO2 is increasing, not decreasing. So who is righteuous to blame someone else?

But this is all conjecture anyway. Tell me, is global temperature increase the result of increased CO2 levels, or the cause?

[hasserl]

"As far as the debt goes, of course it is very important, but that is a different topic from the health of the economy, or what I mean by the level of economic activity."

As has been stated previously, consumer savings are at an all time low while consumer debt is at an all time high. The bulk of our economic activity is being funded by home equity theft. We can't continue cashing in the equity in our houses indefinitely. Eventually the housing market will regain normalcy and level out and correct itself. I don't know about the rest around here, but if I had to buy my house today, I'd be SOL. I don't know how we can expect young people fresh out of college with huge student loan debt to have enough capital to start up a family. Something going to have to give.

The public dept and personal consumer debt are two very different things, though I suppose both are behavior driven. So is shirking personal responsibility and placing blame for one's personal problem onto others.

As for the housing market, it will eventually correct itself. The worse thing one could do is try to influence it with regulations, which tend to have unintended consequences worse than the issue they were intended to deal with. Much of the correction is already underway, it's a buyers market these days.

[bob p]

I agree that a correction in the housing market is underway, but I'm not confident that we're going to see things normalize any time soon. Houses across America jumped in value by what, 40% in the past few years? Its pretty hard to issue a 40% correction across the American housing market without inducing a great depression, as the typical American homeowner is heavily leveraged by their home mortgage. As we've discussed already in the thread that touched on equity theft, housing market corrections take place in two ways: a) subtle declines in bid prices, and b) drastic reductions in home values when they're repossessed and sold at a loss.

Market forces can apply small changes in value across a wide swath of houses via the first mechanism. The second mechanism performs dramatic resets in housing values on an individual house by house basis. What this means (to me at least) is that small and barely significant corrections can effect the wide market very quickly, while significant, dramatic price resetting corrections effect one home at a time on a drastic scale. This means that corrections effecting the whole market in a dramatic way will never be swift, and corrective forces that government finds "tolerable" will take forever to be effective.

Betting my own money on the housing market, I'm betting that the federal reserve won't have the guts to cripple billions of Americans financially, and that monetary policy will loosen again before the housing market experiences a true and complete correction. I think that the American homeowner is so leveraged that the Federal Reserve will never even consider pulling the rug out from under them, as this would destroy the American economy. Unfortunately, it looks as if overpriced housing is here to stay.

[TD_Madden]

At least in my area (Northern Virgina), there's a lot of consternation with folks being upside-down on their mortgages if they bought within the past couple of years......prices have fallen considerably (I read about someone whose home had lost $200K in value....)

I've also seen for-sale signs (that a year ago MIGHT stay up for a month) staying-up for over 6 months.....in some cases just taken down until the sellers won't have to take a loss when they do sell.

[bob p]

Spiff touched on an interesting point when he mentioned the Middle Class worker, though he never followed through on it: In our current economy, Corporate America has waged all-out war on the Middle Class, with the ultimate goal (whether intentional or not) to be one of class destruction.

Instead of having 3 classes of society in America (wealthy, middle class, impoverished), the frequency distribution of wealth in America is changing, so that the Middle Class is being eroded, and the majority of them that are being shifted downward; Some are shifted out of the middle class end up being shifted to impoverished status, rather than to wealthy status. That is a sign of an unhealthy economy.

In many respects, America is on the path to becoming a country of "haves" and "have-nots." Not that anyone really notices this -- Joe Sixpack and I have been trained to believe that our standard of living is better than that of our parents' and grandparents' generation, because we have two cars, cellular phones, iPods, and flatscreen HDTV with a cable hookup. In reality, the typcial "middle class" American family now has two working parents rather than one, is heavily laden with debt, and lives from check to check.

Sure, we have bought more "stuff" to fill our houses than our parents or grandparents ever dreamed of. Part of the reason that we do this is because our actual needs have been met (food, shelter, etc.) and Americans have been trained to indulge desires (HDTV, iPod, DVR, etc.) rather than to fill actual needs. Consumerism is rampant, and the cost of this can easily be measured by the number of families that have two working parents and children that are raised by Day Care workers.

People who are well versed in statistics will quote low unemployment figures, though the figures can be misleading if not interpreted properly.

Following NAFTA, good manufacturing jobs were exported out of the USA. Americans found new jobs, but a lot of the time they ended up finding jobs that didn't pay as well as their old jobs. Ross Perot was right -- we all heard "the great sucking sound."

Following the grant of MFN (most favored nation) trading status to China, there was a second exodus of jobs from North America. More jobs left the USA, and even the jobs that had been exported from the USA via NAFTA ended up being exported from Mexico to China. Even the Mexicans complained about the lack of jobs. So now they emigrate to the USA to take "jobs that nobody wants." [sic]

What's the result? Unemployment figures are low, but that statistic fails to account for the fact that people who lost good jobs in manufacturing had to take an inferior job to remain employed.

A very interesting argument took shape as the Immigration Bill was being debated in the Senate a few weeks ago. One American Senator from the East Cost (I can't remember who he was), was astute enough to make the following observation:

American companies argue that they need immigrant visas to be issued to that they can hire technically skilled computer workers because "American's aren't adequately trained to perform these sorts of technical jobs. [sic]"

At the same time, Corporate America argues that Mexican immigrant labor needs to be allowed into America because, "They are willing to do the jobs that Americans' don't want. [sic]"

So there you have it -- Corporate America speaks out of both sides of their mouth, telling American government that we need immigrant work force because American workers aren't educated enough to perform skilled technical jobs, and American workers aren't willing to perform manual labor. If that were the case, and we let in the immigrants to perform both skilled and unskilled labor, what kinds of jobs would be left for Americans?

The truth of the matter is that Corporate America doesn't want to pay Americans a suitable wage to work in America. Corporate America wants to pay third-world workers to come to America and work for peanuts. If you let them get away with it, the result will be a GREAT economy for Corporate Ameria and a HORRIBLE economy for the American working class.

Sorry that these posts always turn out to be so long. :eek:

[bob p]

At least in my area (Northern Virgina), there's a lot of consternation with folks being upside-down on their mortgages if they bought within the past couple of years......prices have fallen considerably (I read about someone whose home had lost $200K in value....)

I've also seen for-sale signs (that a year ago MIGHT stay up for a month) staying-up for over 6 months.....in some cases just taken down until the sellers won't have to take a loss when they do sell.

TD, that observation fits well into "Bob's Model" of the housing market. :p

When the bid prices for houses become so low that the people who own the houses become upside-down, the house goes off the market because the seller would rather not sell than sell at a loss. That kind of decision typically leads to one of two outcomes:

a) The Homeowner can make payments. In that case, the homeowner remains saddled with debt on an overvalued house for the duration of the mortgage. The house could end up being an anchor around their neck for the rest of their lives. In this case, the home's value is not altered by a corrective force on the housing market. If the house does not sell or get refinanced, its not in the market.

b) The Homeowner cannot make payments. In that case, the homeowner holds onto the house, it gets repo'd, and they lose all of their equity. In this case the homeowner would have been better off selling the house at a loss if they could have extracted some equity from the transaction. If they have no equity to salvage, its in their best interest to draw out the process as long as they can so that the the bank takes the hit. The end result is that the house sells at a lower market price during a sherriff's sale.

for any market corrective force to be corrective, it has to effect houses that are actually involved in transactions within the market. If a seller would rather pull the house from the market than sell it at a loss, and he can afford to hold the property, then the corrective force has had zero effect on that house. That's why I considered the lowering of bid prices to be a weaker force on the market as a whole -- because many people can afford to reject a low bid. This makes the corrective process take a LONG, LONG time. In contrast, the correction that's provided by repossession and sherriff's sales is very potent, but it only effects a few houses at a time. The interesting statistic to watch for this sort of thing is the foreclosure rate. Around here its tripled in the past year. Not a good sign.

[hasserl]

Bob, you speak about Corporate America as if it is an entity, with a concieved plan of war it is activley pursuing. That is rediculous. There is no such entity, it is a complete figment.

What you observe is natural movement of the market place in response to conditions we as a society allow to occur.

We allow monopolization of education in this country (funny how those afraid of monopolies in business embrace the monopoly of education), by those that are ill equipped to perform it, and we end up with poorly educated population that cannot or will not perform the tasks that need to be done. So we end up importing much of our labor. I don't "blame" Corporate America for this. The desire for the import of low skilled low wage immigrant labor is shared as much by the left as it is by the right. The left sees in this immigrant labor force future voters, all they need to do is villify the right and persuade the immigrant population (with the help of mass media) to vote for them. They'll gladly exchange sovereignty for votes. Business, while it is not an entity, will definitely pursue reduced labor costs, why wouldn't it? Business too will exchange soveriegnty for cheap labor. Which is more insidious? I don't know. But as the left incites racial hatred and division and angst and strife I lean toward finding it the more repulsive.

The lesson to be learned by anyone considering all of these points is not to be reliant on Coporate America for your job or career stability. Rely on your own abilities. Remain vital, look for the opportunities and take them. If you don't, don't blame someone else for doing it. Entreprenuerialship is the best hedge against unemplyment. Opportunity exists everywhere, all one has to do is look for it.

I don't see the shifts in manufacturing to other markets as a cause of alarm. I think business in America can efectivley compete with business anywhere, no matter the differences in labor costs. But it does take people that want to work, that are willing to change the way they approach business. In my job I work with assisting business' to improve their maintenance practices and as a result reduce their cost per unit to produce their products (mostly aggregates; rock, sand & gravel). There is harldy a company I cannot go into and not find money laying all over the place, all they need to do is pick it up. It's a challenge getting people to acceot that the way they've been doing things forever is not the best way to do it, that there are better ways. But for those progressive enough to accept that and work with us, the results are incredible. And I just work on the maintenance end of business. There are just as many or more gains to be made in the manufacturing process and supply chain areas. American business can drive the costs down to competitive levels. And that's what they'll have to do to survive. Adapt and overcome, or go away. As time goes on people working to help business in western societies to improve efficiency and drive costs down will be more and more valuable and in demand. Someone holding on to a low skilled job in manufacturing, hoping they make it to retirement before the place closes, well, it's not a good place to be right now. But can you really blame someone, or a faceless non-entity like Coporate America for that? We put the politicians in place that set the playing field. Let's look at ourselves.

[spiffpeters]

The national debt is unrelated to personal debt. The American way seems to have become Buy Now, Pay Later. Our government does this and to many of our citizens this practice is quite normal therefore they see little problem with it.

We are absolutely hemoraging resources. We have a war that will cost over a trillion dollars (that's if it were to end today. Medical and equipment will be the two biggest items requiring financial resources in the future.) and we have a major budget deficit in addition to the war. They couldn't include the cost of the war in the defense budget because it would become VERY unpopular once people saw the true cost of this war. I'm not sure how the government can continue to consider funding of this war as an emergency. Should be interesting to see what they put in the Defense budget for this war.

Our government is borrowing money at an alarming rate, and as fast as its citizens. The federal government has borrowed more money in the past five years than in the previous 230+ years combined.

A lot of irresponsible behavior going on and those of us that live within our means will be hardest hit when the bill comes due.

[spiffpeters]

"you speak about Corporate America as if it is an entity"

It is. They have the same rights as any citizen in this country. In a court of law a corporation has every legal standing as that of a real live person.

And why wouldn't a corporation look after it's own best interests?

[hasserl]

"you speak about Corporate America as if it is an entity"

It is. They have the same rights as any citizen in this country. In a court of law a corporation has every legal standing as that of a real live person.

And why wouldn't a corporation look after it's own best interests?

A corporation is an entity, Corporate America is not.

[spiffpeters]

Technically correct. But don't we have ample evidence of corporations within the same industry trying to influence government for their own collective good?

Credit card companies got bankruptcy laws.

Oil companies helped shape our current energy policy.

Health insurance companies certainly don't want a universal health care system.

K Street isn't representing the blue collar American. They are representing Corporate America.

[hasserl]

Of course. That is called freedom of speech. We are free to lobby our elected representatives to legislate for our benefit. What we do not allow business to do is to conspire to that end, or any end. Communications between business are strictly regulated by the Sherman Act. The oil companies have been investigated numerous times for violation of this and have never been found guilty. The most recent time being just this year.

There certainly is no entity called Corporate America that has conspired and carried out a war against the workers of America to drive them down into a subclass. There are only markets acting with natural forces within a system of our making.

[spiffpeters]

We are free and so is the corporate entity. You and I are living, breathing life forms. How a corporation came to be given the same rights and privileges as a living, breathing, walking human I don't know.

Corporate interests are opposite that of consumer interests. Consumers want choice and low cost. Corporations want complete market share and high profits.

It's difficult to defend corporate America when CEO's and board members are making obscene piles of money. I know they can justify it to themselves and their peers, but their $400 million compensation package doesn't mean much to the average blue collar joe, especially when that corporation claims it can not afford to help pay for employee's health insurance.

I guess the climate these days favors the entrepreneur over the worker bee.

[bob p]

Bob, you speak about Corporate America as if it is an entity, with a concieved plan of war it is activley pursuing. That is rediculous. There is no such entity, it is a complete figment.

What you observe is natural movement of the market place in response to conditions we as a society allow to occur.

We allow monopolization of education in this country (funny how those afraid of monopolies in business embrace the monopoly of education) ...
I guess in a roundabout way, you're making my point. We have monopolization in education, and monopolization in education is a prime component of the philosophical uniformity among those people who run "Corporate America."

The majority of the CEOs that are at the helm of Fortune 500 companies have MBAs that were earned from Harvard, Duke, or Wharton. Each of these schools share a large degree of commonality in their curriculum. The fact that the boards that govern Corporate America hand-pick people with these educational backgrounds is not at all a coincidence. So my first point in support of the "Corporate America is an entity" hypothesis is the commonality in education among the educated people who are chosen to function as the "Corporate America" CEOs.

The Second argument would be that of the interlocking directorate. If you gather the annual reports and the Form 10-K for the Fortune 500 companies, you will find that most members who sit on the board of directors of a Fortune 500 company hold seats on the boards of more than one Fortune 500 company. The directorship of the Fortune 500 is comprised of a rather elite interwoven group of business people, each of whom has influence on corporate policy on more than one Fortune 500 company.

In addition to having CEOs that are hand-selected by an interwoven directorate, Corporate America routinely holds professional conclaves where CEOs and BOD members of the largest companies (both domestic and international) meet to further their own cooperative agenda. Sure, Corporate America may not exist as a singular entity, but to deny the existence of organization among Corporate America is an exercise in denial.

These are all facts that are in common knowledge, and they are facts that are not under dispute. As a stockholder and investor in "Corporate America" I am not naive enough to say that Corporate America does not favor a shared master plan. Anyone who takes a moment to review any of the federal laws that have been passed in recent years could come to the rather obvious conclusion that the bills submitted before Congress and the Senate were not penned by the politicians who introduced them -- they were penned by Corporate America, and introduced by their paid lackeys in government. To say that Corporate America does not exist, or that it is not following a master plan seems to be equivalent to the ostrich sticking his head into the sand. Personally, I don't believe that corporations in America are only following the same path through an economic minefield solely as a matter of coincidence.


On a bigger scale, world corporate leaders regularly meet in Davos, Switzerland under military guard to put forth their global agenda. The fact that the meetings take place is no secret -- the meetings are regularly covered by CNBC. The contents of the meetings are highly secretive though. Keeping an open eye on corporate behavior and the trend toward globalization of the markets, its not at all difficult to infer what's taking place at those meetings: exchange of national sovereignty for corporate profit.

The blueprints for the global war on national sovereignty and the war on American worker have been in print for decades. The oldest writing I have heard of that favored this master plan was proffered by the Fabian Society, a pro-communist think tank. (Coincidentally, the Fabian Society was the first proponent of a graduated income tax as a gradual method of implementing their communist goals.)

I have to admit, I first encountered the "corporate america agenda" concept by reading some of the whacked-out "conspiracy theorist" writings back in the 1970s. Different authors will cite influences by the Bilderberg Group, the Trilateral Commission, or the Council on Foreign Relations. These "conspiracy theorist" writings predicted everything that's happened "by accident" and by "market forces" in the past 30 years. Granted, this could all be coincidence, and the predictive validity of these writings may be no more valid than retrospective interpretation of the prophecies of Nostrodamus. If the concept of the New World Order (coincidentally I heard President Bush use that term on TV yesterday!) or the conspiracy theorist writings seem too radical, read the writings of the American statesmen Zbigniew Brezenski or Henry Kissinger. They tell the same story, as seen through the eyes of men who at the time were US National Security Advisors to Presidents Carter and Nixon, respectively. Perhaps their writings are more valid.

Alternatively, consider the political agenda of these groups that were formed 30+ years ago using as a frame of reference the political actions exhibited by their founders since the groups were formed. The founding members of the Trilateral Commission were Council on Foreign Relations members David Rockefeller, Alan Greenspan, Paul Volcker and Zbignew Brezenski. Each of these men could easily be called the fathers of modern globalism. Going one step further, consider some of the current corporate members of the Council on Foreign Relations; the membership roster reads like the Who's Who of Corporate America. Some of the current corporate members include: Alcoa, AIG, Bank of America, Bloomberg, Boeing, BP. Chevron, Citigroup, ExxonMobil, Ford, GE, Goldman Sachs, Halliburton, IBM, JPMorgan Chase, Lockheed-Martin, McGraw-Hill, Merck, Merrill Lynch, News Corp, Shell Oil, Time Warner, and Toyota.

Your point about being educated and self-reliant is excellent advice. I followed that advice, and by researching these companies and their objectives, I invested long ago in companies that were poised to profit from the NWO agenda. I set aside my first paychecks when I was a young buck, and continued to invest regularly. Things went well, and I was lucky enough to become independent by the time I turned 30. Now my full time job is to read and to continue to educate myself. I honestly can't say with any degree of certainty whether or not the conspiracy theories are true -- I can only say that I profited by reading the propaganda. For the record, I don't believe that fluoridated water is a communist conspiracy to poison us, that crop circles are messages from aliens, or that the Amish secretly control the world traffic in narcotics. :p But I do like to build amps and play guitar, and now I have time to indulge my interests in a number of other hobbies.

Make no mistake about it -- the trend toward globalization is nothing short of a purposeful all-out economic war on the American worker. Wealth can neither be created nor destroyed, it can only be transferred. For the globalist agenda to work, someone has to give up so that others may gain. It should come as no surprise then that the global agenda is to eliminate the asymmetric distribution of wealth in the world that is imposed by "artificial" national boundaries, so that corporations can gain an incremental profit off of the life of every human being. To accomplish this task, the first step is to pick the low-hanging fruit: the standard of living for Middle Class America will be eroded in order to raise the status of people in Central Europe, Eastern Europe, Asia, China and eventually Africa.

One thing that may seem truly ironic about me talking about this is that I've profited immensely by from exactly the same agenda that I'm warning others about now. Market globalization and the exchange of national sovereignty for corporate profits are coming at us like a freight train, and there's nothing that we can do as individuals to stop it. All that we can do is educate ourselves so that we can understand the game well enough to try to exploit it so that it works in our favor.

[hasserl]

Corporate interests are opposite that of consumer interests. Consumers want choice and low cost. Corporations want complete market share and high profits.

Of course, and that is a beautiful thing. The two forces work to serve each other, both benefit from this arrangement.

t's difficult to defend corporate America when CEO's and board members are making obscene piles of money. I know they can justify it to themselves and their peers, but their $400 million compensation package doesn't mean much to the average blue collar joe, especially when that corporation claims it can not afford to help pay for employee's health insurance.

No justification is needed, except the board of directors to the stock holders. If a coporation wants to pay it's employees a large salary, that is its business, no one elses. Maybe it's time the average Joe starts taking care of his own health care and not look to his employer for it. This whole employer provided health care situation started as an income tax avoidance scheme. Now it's become looked at as an entitlement.

[spiffpeters]

Great post Bob.

"Wealth can neither be created nor destroyed, it can only be transferred."

Many people hold on to the notion that through hard work and a little bit of luck they too can become a Rockefeller or DuPont. This in part explains their anti-populist stance. Should they strike it rich they don't want to have to share any of it. These are the neauvo riche. Comfortable, but their wealth isn't likely to extended beyond a few generations. They don't realize that we're all just fighting over table scraps.

However, those that have true wealth, and by extension power, have rigged the system to their advantage. They are several steps and years ahead of the average person. Their advantage is insurmountable. All that can happen to negatively influence their wealth would be a series of misjudgements and/or unforseen circumstances. The old money society is not interested in transferring any of their wealth outside their class.

Free markets are amoral in theory only. There exists an elite class of people, as you asserted, that possess a multi-generational sense of entitlement. Anyone can join the neauvo riche society. But you have to be born or married into old money. And old money calls the shots on this planet.

[Mark Ingram]

Dude, you're living in one of the best economies of all time. Bush inherited a failing economy from the previous administration, and very early on the economy suffered greatly from the terrorist attacks of 9-11; the bursting of the tech bubble, the near colapse of the airline industry, and yet unemployment in the states is down in the low 4% range, and the economy is buzzing along fantastically. Is this just coincidence? Of course not, it's mostly due to the fantastic tax cuts that the Bush admin was able to get passed.

What about the fact that we have not suffered a single terrorist attack on our soil since the attacks of 9-11? Did anyone expect this would be the case on 9-12? Is this just coincidence too? Of course not!

Another "positive affect" (sic) of Bush policy is the benefit to us all on numerous levels of the Bush Admin's steadfast refusal to fall under the control of chicken little global warming hierarchists and egalitarians.

Just a few positive affects.



Graduated from Yale and an MBA from Harvard Business School, licensed to fly jet fighter's. And you?



What does this even mean? You'll take??? You show incredible ignorance of economics, I recommend a heavy dose of Dr. Walter Williams:

http://www.gmu.edu/departments/economics/wew/



I suppose you might have a point, IF YOU COULD FIND A REGULATORY BODY THAT WASN'T AS CONTROLLED BY GREED AS ANY BUSINESS!!!!!!



That is not correct, Exxon Mobile is the largest oil company in the world, quite a bit larger than the next largest oil company, which is probably Royal Dutch Shell, followed by BP. BP is a very large company, but it is not the largest oil company, and is very far from being a monopoly. Consider that Exxon Mobile controls only about 3% of the world's petroleum reserve. If the largest oil company in the world controls only 3% of the reserves, how can the 3rd largest be considered a monopoly? The small percent of control Exxon Mobile has refutes the idea that the oil companies control the price of oil, none of them, nor all of them together are not a monopoly (all of them together could not be a monopoly anyway).


AAAaaaugghh!!!!

Stop confusing me with the facts! ;)

[Slobrain]

[QUOTE=hasserl;26235]Dude, you're living in one of the best economies of all time. Bush inherited a failing economy from the previous administration. QUOTE]

That’s about the most insane thing I've read here yet. The economy wasn't doing badly when Clinton was President. It was a hell of allot cheaper to live back in the 90's. Clinton wasn't perfect but 100 times better of a president than Bush could even wish to be! I would rather have a skirt chaser for pres than a warmonger that looks out for his corporate bedfellows.

BTW, who flew Bin Laden family out of America right after 9-11? Shows whom he's looking out for!

Since Bush got in office the greed started running rampant in corporate America due to the fact that the corporations had him in their pockets as well as other politicians in his administration. He pulled so much federal funding away from the states on top of that causing state tax increases when federal dollars should have been paying for the increases. Why do you think we get taxed so damn much up the ass for anyway on the purchases we make daily?


Why the hell are so many Americans pissed off these days? So many folks are suffering these hi living costs that some are forced to work up to three jobs just to make ends meet. And don't tell me its these folks not getting good education, I know folks with bachelors that are getting kicked in the ass because good jobs are going out of the country when they should be keeping them here.

You call that the best economy of all? You may need to re-educate yourself on economies bro.

My two cents worth.

[TD_Madden]

2% unemployment in northern VA. 4% nationwide.

[spiffpeters]

The state of the economy depends on your perspective. Possibly your station in this society.

if you are a small business, or especially are large coporation, then the economy looks pretty good. These types of people would thrive in most economies, it's in their nature to see the world in business terms. Musicians relate to the world from an artistic perspective. Workers filter the world from a workers POV.

Statistics can be brought forth to support any claim.

Currently, it seems to me that the worker class is taking a pretty good beating. How many 50 year old men do you think can retrain for a high tech job? Who would hire a retrained 50 year old when you could get some kid right out of college for half the cost?

It's a transitional period for the work force and some folks are just going to get chewed up and spat out. And it isn't because they're lazy, stupid or unwilling.

The credit card companies wrote their bankruptcy bill, got it through congress and signed into law (I'm sure there was no presidential signing statement on that bill). Would a relatively small constiuentcy of modest funds have been able to get their bill passed and signed into law? Freedom of speech sure, but not free.

So credit lenders abandoned their conservative standards (remember how hard it use to be to get a credit card?) and engaged in predatory lending habits. Then, when they are making all-time record profits, they get a law on the books so that anyone that files bankruptcy can potentially become an endentured servent.

Over 80% of the bankruptcy filings are due to one of three conditions: catastrohic illness, divorce or death of a parent/spouse. As for the other 20%, can't speak to their reasons, but I'm only concerned about the families that have a legitimate reason for filing bankruptcy. Despite what the pundits and ad campaigns may dictate, these people are not bums, careless or shifty.

I'd say the pharmacuticals and credit lenders got a pretty sweet deal.

So, depending on the circle you travel in, your station or lot in life, the class you associate with, the economy is anywhere from poor to outstanding.

As for me, I hope for the best, but expect the worst. Consumer debt is at a all time high, savings at an all time low. Anyone else see the perfect storm brewing? I know the folks with an eye for business sure do.

[Mark Ingram]

Currently, it seems to me that the worker class is taking a pretty good beating. How many 50 year old men do you think can retrain for a high tech job? Who would hire a retrained 50 year old when you could get some kid right out of college for half the cost?

I'm 45 (not that far from 50) and I just finished a bachelor's degree in computer programming. I also found a job in my degree field. Yes, some of my supervisors are younger than me.

So what?

My choice is to re-educate, re-train, do whatever it takes to survive. Whining is not part of the plan. Neither is bitching, kvetching, complaining, or (fill in the blank).

A business owner would be insane to pay more to get a job done based on the age of the worker. If I want more money I must either do the jobs that get paid more or become the business owner. The only other alternative is socialism/communism. And that hasn't worked out too well in eastern Europe, China, or Cuba, has it?

As for who the laws favor, refer to the golden rule: "He who has the gold makes the rules".

So if I want to get in on making the rules I need to get more gold. That requires effort on my part. I may not make it in my lifetime, but my son will have it better than I did because of my efforts. It may be, ultimately, an exercise in futility but complaining about a marketplace that changed and left me behind is the very definition of futility.

[spiffpeters]

Wasn't complaining. Simply stating that "He who has the gold makes the rules" is changing the rules that the last few generations grew up under.

As for age, I think you entirely discount the value of life experience and work experience. From personal experience, I have found that my older workers do not require anywhere near the amount of attention or resources that the 20 something crowd requires. This older group of workers know the job needs to be done, and just get it done. The 20 somethings have their heads in the clouds half the time. Generally, as a group, older workers have a superior work ethic compared to the younger work group. You're experience may differ, I can only speak of the thirty five people I have managed for the past ten years.

Again, some classes are doing better than others. The traditional blue coller class is in the midst of a correction. Sorry if you felt this was a complaint.

[hasserl]

[QUOTE=hasserl;26235]Dude, you're living in one of the best economies of all time. Bush inherited a failing economy from the previous administration. QUOTE]

That’s about the most insane thing I've read here yet. The economy wasn't doing badly when Clinton was President. It was a hell of allot cheaper to live back in the 90's. Clinton wasn't perfect but 100 times better of a president than Bush could even wish to be! I would rather have a skirt chaser for pres than a warmonger that looks out for his corporate bedfellows.

BTW, who flew Bin Laden family out of America right after 9-11? Shows whom he's looking out for!

Since Bush got in office the greed started running rampant in corporate America due to the fact that the corporations had him in their pockets as well as other politicians in his administration. He pulled so much federal funding away from the states on top of that causing state tax increases when federal dollars should have been paying for the increases. Why do you think we get taxed so damn much up the ass for anyway on the purchases we make daily?


Why the hell are so many Americans pissed off these days? So many folks are suffering these hi living costs that some are forced to work up to three jobs just to make ends meet. And don't tell me its these folks not getting good education, I know folks with bachelors that are getting kicked in the ass because good jobs are going out of the country when they should be keeping them here.

You call that the best economy of all? You may need to re-educate yourself on economies bro.

My two cents worth.

Slo, the economy during the 90's was great, but there were signs of it slowing even before the election in 2000. It was even part of the Bush campaign, they warned of the impending slow down in the economy and it was indeed slowing. Check out this headline from Jan 11, 2001:

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/economy/jan-june01/solman_1-11.html

"ECONOMIC FORECAST

January 11, 2001

How serious is the U.S. economic slowdown? The nation's top economists look to the financial future."

Bush hadn't even taken office yet. If you would get away from the partisan propaganda you must be hooked on and into the real world you might see some of these things.

I never said it was the best economy, I said it was ONE of the best, which it is. There are always hard times for some people, and there are always people having to make transitions. This is nothing new. And whatever the causes are they were put into motion long before Bush took office and are the result of both Republicans and Democrats efforts. Again, you'd be wise to get away from the partisan politics and the hatred that is clouding your thinking. Stop listening to NPR, or Air America, stop reading Mother Jones or Huffington Post or whatever it is where you are getting all the crap you are getting.

The truth is most American's are sick and tired of the partisan bullshit from both sides. Both Dem's and Rep's suck and are deserving of our contempt. You think Bush's approval ratings are low, look at the Congress' ratings, even lower. When you make judgments about issues and public statements about them please stop offering up regurgitated leftists talking points, they suck. Seriously think about the issue and offer up intelligent observations, not the twisted partisan Democrat logic you've posted here.

[bob p]

2% unemployment in northern VA. 4% nationwide.
Is the lower than average figure related to the Northern VA defense industry?

[bob p]

I'm 45 (not that far from 50) and I just finished a bachelor's degree in computer programming. I also found a job in my degree field. Yes, some of my supervisors are younger than me.

So what?

My choice is to re-educate, re-train, do whatever it takes to survive. Whining is not part of the plan. Neither is bitching, kvetching, complaining, or (fill in the blank).
My hat is off to you, Mark. While some people talk-the-talk about maintaining their competitive edge in society, you're walking-the-walk. Retraining for a new career takes lots of hard work, and its something that most people are not at all eager to do. My congratulations to you.

[bob p]

Dude, you're living in one of the best economies of all time. Bush inherited a failing economy from the previous administration. (Quote Repair by Bob P.)

That’s about the most insane thing I've read here yet. The economy wasn't doing badly when Clinton was President. It was a hell of allot cheaper to live back in the 90's. Clinton wasn't perfect but 100 times better of a president than Bush could even wish to be! I would rather have a skirt chaser for pres than a warmonger that looks out for his corporate bedfellows.
Slo, I have to admit, this has to be one of the most disappointing posts I've seen you write yet. You originally made this point, and back on Page 2 of the thread several people spent a lot of their time (myself included on Post 25) explaining why your assertions were incorrect. Now here we are on Page 5, and you're repeating the same stuff that you were saying on Page 1. Its as if you didn't even bother to read the input that other people provided on Pages 2, 3, 4 and 5 (or the related thread about housing). In spite of being provided with impartial evidence that clarified why such claims were in error, you're holding onto your old arguments, and repeating yourself as if you're reciting a mantra.

It is well established that @hasserl was right -- the economy was headed downhill when the Presidency was passed from Clinton to "Little Bush." To anyone with even the most rudimentary appreciation of basic macro-economics, MONEY SUPPLY is a primary factor in determining the acceleration vs. deceleration of inflation in our economy. Money supply in the USA is something that is controlled by the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, not by the U.S. Treasurer, and not by any U.S. President.

To wit, any US President has less actual impact on the underlying US economy than most people care to admit; There are two reasons for this:

a) The Legislative Branch, not the Executive Branch, holds the Federal purse strings. At most, the President has the power to veto a bill that has minimal legislative strength. By himself, he cannot enact any legislation.

b) The purse strings of the average American are largely controlled by the Federal Reserve System, through their ability to control interest rates that they charge to banks that borrow from the Federal Reserve. These prices that banks pay to borrow money are then passed along to the end-user in the form of increased or decreased interest rates. Whether or not people are inclined to borrow money is determined primarily by how expensive money is to borrow.

I really wish that people would exhibit a more complete understanding of economics by not blaming whatever American president they don't like for America's troubles. To do that shows that someone is either ignorant of how the world really works, or they're being disingenuous for the purpose of furthering a political agenda. But then maybe this is just a problem where people who have short attention spans (or have already made up their minds) tend to shy away from reading long posts that discuss complex concepts.

In regard to the claim that large corporations are becoming stronger as a result of actions that are solely attributable to the Bush II administration, that's another fallacy. As has previously been noted, the most recent significant trade laws that have had a profound effect on American workers were enacted during the Bush I administration (NAFTA) and the Clinton administration (most favored nation trade status for China). The reason that we're seeing the effects during the Bush II administration is because the time constants for these types of economic events are longer than the term of a 4 year presidency! :eek: Its already been established that the forces that put these types of laws into play have been at work for several decades. Its too bad that the viewpoint of so many Americans is focused on right now, and fails to see more than a few years into the past and the future.

Just for reference, this isn't a Democratic vs. Republican issue. People who still believe that our fate is being determined by Democrats or Republicans, and that one is better than the other, are living in a delusional state. The Democrat and Republican parties are two faces of the same monster. Just for grins, I'd like someone to name an American President in the past 40 years who has not been a member of the business groups that I had mentioned previously. :D

[bob p]

Tired of paying so much for gas? Live off of the grid. This fellow uses solar panels to create hydrogen that fuels his pickup truck:

http://www.post-trib.com/news/467110,willoughby.article

[madialex]

Slo, I have to admit, this has to be one of the most disappointing posts I've seen you write yet. You originally made this point, and back on Page 2 of the thread several people spent a lot of their time (myself included on Post 25) explaining why your assertions were incorrect. Now here we are on Page 5, and you're repeating the same stuff that you were saying on Page 1. Its as if you didn't even bother to read the input that other people provided on Pages 2, 3, 4 and 5 (or the related thread about housing). In spite of being provided with impartial evidence that clarified why such claims were in error, you're holding onto your old arguments, and repeating yourself as if you're reciting a mantra.

It is well established that @hasserl was right -- the economy was headed downhill when the Presidency was passed from Clinton to "Little Bush." To anyone with even the most rudimentary appreciation of basic macro-economics, MONEY SUPPLY is a primary factor in determining the acceleration vs. deceleration of inflation in our economy. Money supply in the USA is something that is controlled by the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, not by the U.S. Treasurer, and not by any U.S. President.

To wit, any US President has less actual impact on the underlying US economy than most people care to admit; There are two reasons for this:

a) The Legislative Branch, not the Executive Branch, holds the Federal purse strings. At most, the President has the power to veto a bill that has minimal legislative strength. By himself, he cannot enact any legislation.

b) The purse strings of the average American are largely controlled by the Federal Reserve System, through their ability to control interest rates that they charge to banks that borrow from the Federal Reserve. These prices that banks pay to borrow money are then passed along to the end-user in the form of increased or decreased interest rates. Whether or not people are inclined to borrow money is determined primarily by how expensive money is to borrow.

I really wish that people would exhibit a more complete understanding of economics by not blaming whatever American president they don't like for America's troubles. To do that shows that someone is either ignorant of how the world really works, or they're being disingenuous for the purpose of furthering a political agenda. But then maybe this is just a problem where people who have short attention spans (or have already made up their minds) tend to shy away from reading long posts that discuss complex concepts.

In regard to the claim that large corporations are becoming stronger as a result of actions that are solely attributable to the Bush II administration, that's another fallacy. As has previously been noted, the most recent significant trade laws that have had a profound effect on American workers were enacted during the Bush I administration (NAFTA) and the Clinton administration (most favored nation trade status for China). The reason that we're seeing the effects during the Bush II administration is because the time constants for these types of economic events are longer than the term of a 4 year presidency! :eek: Its already been established that the forces that put these types of laws into play have been at work for several decades. Its too bad that the viewpoint of so many Americans is focused on right now, and fails to see more than a few years into the past and the future.

Just for reference, this isn't a Democratic vs. Republican issue. People who still believe that our fate is being determined by Democrats or Republicans, and that one is better than the other, are living in a delusional state. The Democrat and Republican parties are two faces of the same monster. Just for grins, I'd like someone to name an American President in the past 40 years who has not been a member of the business groups that I had mentioned previously. :D

Umm, May I ask, what you do for a living? I am willing to bet it is a job in corporate America Right? Just trying to make sure my ignorance is well founded..

[madialex]

Oh, and what are your thoughts on the bail out by our govt for the irresponsible mis management and big time party that the banks and mortgage companies were having until the bubble burst. How about the govt come bail me out, i'm in debt up to my ass. What? None for me, oh that's right I am supposed to be responsible in my financial affairs only corporate America can run amuck and have their asses saved by their good ol bud bush... He wanted to push through a bill for 700 billion with no strings attached until we the people raised hell and said no fuckin way will those mega salaried bastards keep getting their stock options and bonuses and huge salaries and we foot the bill for them to screw up again and retire in tahiti, but wait, your wonderful bush was all for it...... It's really a joke to hear the neocons rant on and on about what good that moron has done. If you are a giant company getting tax breaks and special treatment from DC then yeah, he's a great Prez. BUSH IS AN IDIOT PLAIN AND SIMPLE- A ROBOT OR PUPPET FOR BIG MONEY CORP////

Yall have a nice day now ya hear--------

[Slobrain]

Wow, forgot about this post since I have been really busy trying to be a responsible American...paying my share of taxes while working loooong hours to do so...


Let me retort to Bob and the rest, I know the President cannot be totally responsible for the economy, but when the Lobbyist, special interest groups and just plain old cronyism going on in Washington you wind up with a shit economy due to this kind of curruption!

Like I said before, when Clinton was in office, things were better. At least we didn't have so many corrupt Dems as opposed to the Repubs that are getting paid by the above groups and only looking out for themselves. Thus, we wind up with a sub prime mess and a failing economy due to greed on many levels because of the current administration.

Let’s also not forget who in Washington passed de-regulation of certain groups as well. What did Bush say, lets de-regulate and let the economy run wild, everyone will prosper. Yeah right like Wall Street and Big Oil...

The American people got raped financially by the current administrations corruptness and it’s pretty darn clear now. And you have seen the biggest transfer in wealth in American history while a big majority of people trying to retire will now have to work till they drop. What a damn shame… The American way right?

The worst thing about this is we are F#*ked because of these greedy bastards. Who knows how long it will take any President or Presidents to get us out of this mess??? :eek:

SLO