Possible recession in the making?

[RandomGuy]

Heh, I bet THAT got your attention. I will get to that in a bit.

Some recent stuff I read got my attention as well.

Inflation is about to rear it's ugly head in non-energy sectors as businesses can no longer absorb higher fuel costs.

AND

The bond yield curve recently "inverted", (long term rates lower than short term rates), a general indicator of possible recession.

Granted there are other things that an inverted yield curve could portend, such as a weakened Federal Reserve, as CNN points out:
http://money.cnn.com/2005/07/12/markets/bondcenter/bond_yields/

But I see this as likely a combination of the two. A weaker Fed and a very negative economic development.


http://www.investopedia.com/terms/i/invertedyieldcurve.asp
Historically, inversions of the yield curve have preceded many of the U.S. recessions. Due to this historical correlation, the yield curve is often seen as an accurate forecast of the turning points of the business cycle. A recent example is when the U.S. Treasury yield curve inverted in 2000 just before the U.S. equity markets collapsed. An inverse yield curve predicts lower interest rates in the future as longer-term bonds are being demanded, sending the yields down.

[RandomGuy]

I'd like to see THIS blamed on Clinton, har.

[gtownspur]

Well high gas prices would be the cause in this scenario along with rise in prices of goods and services that require trasportation... and that's pretty much everything.

But being an accounting major or master, you'd think you'd know about the buisiness cycle and how everything has it's ups and downs.

But since you brought up inflation caused by energy prices. If you had a Democrat, do you think he'd raise taxes to their normal level and then not plan to drill for oil in Anwar while boosting funding for alternative fuel technology? Don't think so. That would only complicate things for the short term of 4 yrs.

According to Inc. magazine, entreprenuership is booming since people are willing to invest in this period of economic boom. Yes, the economy is doing fine even though the fry cook is not getting paid 12 bucks an hr, and your "Roger and me" expectations of an economy based on the worker rather than the product, is not met. To make a long story short, your alternatives of boosting workers wages and repealing the tax cuts wouldn't do a damn thing.

If you have inflation and then congress were to raise the minimun wage to 8$/hr you'd have a catastrophe. Low income Workers increased wages would drive the product prices up which would destroy the buying power of the middle and upper class. The effects would be catastrophic. Buisinesses would then have to lay off their employees and you can say bye bye to cheap labor. We'd then inherit a 12% unemployment statistic like the other economies that are worker based socialist utopias like france and germany.

So what's your point. Recession or not. If clinton served 3 terms eventually he'd get a recession. Maybe not in your world where democrat administrations cannot do any harm, but in the real world and in your feild of study, it's upside down for you. Sadly you know better, but you let your partisan views cloud your reason.

Tell me O wise one, what should Bush do? Pull out of Iraq? as if that news would boost the stock market. Should he raise taxes. Should he cut capital gains?

I know what your gonna say already. That this is bUsh's mess and that he got us into Iraq and if he this, if he that, and if he didnt choke on that pretzel...etc. Your only strong argument would be a what if.

[Vashner]

Clinton didn't so shit for the 90's boom. That was Cisco routers, Microsoft and Intel / AMD and the general advent of a network connected office to ethernet instead of green screen / serial communications. Also massive Y2k spending fueled stock boom.

Clinton was getting a bj... he would not know what a computer one if it walked buy it one day....

Bush is doing excellent considering all the disasters and 9/11 impact on the economy. More people own homes now and the general quality of living his higher. GDP is looking good..

Sorry man.... as much as you democrats would love to bring down the economy it's not going to happen for a while...

Like I said .. ya'll some sick motherfuckers.... (wanting to loose a war and blow the economy it's like a social suicide)... Quit your own job and move to Canada.. I am tired of the fucking complaining... It's the hard working people that make this economy grow.. stop wishing bad things on everyone. That's not going to win elections.. dumb fuckers.

PS AL Gore is not going to give you a smoking hot economy and reduce use of fossil fuel.. right now you can't have one without the other... "it's the economy stupids"..

[SWC Bonfire]

What'll really blow your mind is that the economy does this no matter who's in the White House at the time...all they can attempt to do is mitigate or lessen the blow in downtime, or expediate and encourage the economy in uptimes.

[SWC Bonfire]

You know, sometimes inflation isn't a bad thing to some people. Look at the Graingers at the end of the 19th century. Farmers owing less and less dollar value on their land, getting more for their crops, and getting higher equity in their operations without any additional cash outlay is pretty damn convenient. The same could be said for small business owners, homeowners, etc., as long as wages somewhat keep up with inflation.

[2centsworth]

per bloomberg the yield curve looks normal to me.

http://www.bloomberg.com/markets/rates/index.html

[DarkReign]

You know, sometimes inflation isn't a bad thing to some people. Look at the Graingers at the end of the 19th century. Farmers owing less and less dollar value on their land, getting more for their crops, and getting higher equity in their operations without any additional cash outlay is pretty damn convenient. The same could be said for small business owners, homeowners, etc., as long as wages somewhat keep up with inflation.

Therein lies the problem. I am no economist and wont even begin to comment on such matters.

The way I hear it, the country as whole is really doing quite well. I was very surprised to hear that because I am from Michigan, in the auto industry (supplier). To say these last 6 years have sucked would be an understatement.

Do I blame Bush? Absolutely not. How could a rational person blame an Administration for economic ups and downs? To an extent people can, but really, the Government doesnt control who spends and who saves. Anyway, I am getting into an area that I would have a very short-fall before I hit the ground.

Michigan's economy has been broken since 1999. It had started slowly, but the auto companies are slowly folding. If they fold, I fold....personally and professionally.

Worker wages are the crux of my argument. It is my uneducated opinion that the cost of living in this area (maybe country) is just, plain and simple, too high. These union schmucks who made $60k a year with no HS diploma have ruined the auto companies, which in turn will ruin businesses like mine.

My question then,

How is "cost of living" calculated? How is it controlled? Is there a control? What can be done to NOT eliminate the middle class?

It seems to me that we will have a 'morlock' and 'eloi' situation sooner rather than later. If things go the way I think they are going to go (strictly speaking personally here, a Mich. standpoint), then this area is going to wiped out completely of the auto companies. Leaving a vaccum of unemployed with not enough McDonald's hats to go around.

Can one of you folks explain this? What are the options? I realize that if you had all the answers, you would be very very rich and very very famous, but I just wanted a perspective. Put yourself in Michigan's economy, then compare it to the rest of the country (in a way). It just seems to me that lving here costs too friggin much...plain and simple. I dont want to live in the ghetto, but I would have no choice if I made $9 an hour. Youre either making boo-koo cash ($150k+), just making it here (below $60k), or totally screwed poor (under $30k).

Whats the number one reason it costs so much to live, is my question. If I added all my personal bills together, I think I woud cry for weeks.

[SWC Bonfire]

Can one of you folks explain this? What are the options? I realize that if you had all the answers, you would be very very rich and very very famous, but I just wanted a perspective. Put yourself in Michigan's economy, then compare it to the rest of the country (in a way). It just seems to me that lving here costs too friggin much...plain and simple. I dont want to live in the ghetto, but I would have no choice if I made $9 an hour. Youre either making boo-koo cash ($150k+), just making it here (below $60k), or totally screwed poor (under $30k).

Move to Texas, hell, everybody else is doing it.

From a distance, it looks like the unions have screwed the US auto industry, and this is pretty evident with all the plants being built outside of Michigan and the Midwest. Too many people want too much money for a simple job, and like you said, higher wages only inflated prices for everybody. But there are probably a lot more contributing factors to the downturn of the iron belt economy that from a distance are not so obvious, so who knows?

[RandomGuy]

[snarky comment on gtowns post omitted for civility's sake, with apologies from rg]


[further insulting picture removed by author, also for civlity's sake--rg]

[RandomGuy]

per bloomberg the yield curve looks normal to me.

http://www.bloomberg.com/markets/rates/index.html


The term inverted yield curve means that long term debt pays LESS than short term debt. The opposite is normally true. It's a bit like dogs and cats living together. It happens on occasion but it's a sign of some bad mojo nearby...

[RandomGuy]

Clinton didn't so shit for the 90's boom. That was Cisco routers, Microsoft and Intel / AMD and the general advent of a network connected office to ethernet instead of green screen / serial communications. Also massive Y2k spending fueled stock boom.

Clinton was getting a bj... he would not know what a computer one if it walked buy it one day....

Bush is doing excellent considering all the disasters and 9/11 impact on the economy. More people own homes now and the general quality of living his higher. GDP is looking good..

Sorry man.... as much as you democrats would love to bring down the economy it's not going to happen for a while...

Like I said .. ya'll some sick motherfuckers.... (wanting to loose a war and blow the economy it's like a social suicide)... Quit your own job and move to Canada.. I am tired of the fucking complaining... It's the hard working people that make this economy grow.. stop wishing bad things on everyone. That's not going to win elections.. dumb fuckers.

PS AL Gore is not going to give you a smoking hot economy and reduce use of fossil fuel.. right now you can't have one without the other... "it's the economy stupids"..


http://www.trephination.net/gallery/macros/will_be_funny.jpg

[RandomGuy]

Therein lies the problem. I am no economist and wont even begin to comment on such matters.

The way I hear it, the country as whole is really doing quite well. I was very surprised to hear that because I am from Michigan, in the auto industry (supplier). To say these last 6 years have sucked would be an understatement.

Do I blame Bush? Absolutely not. How could a rational person blame an Administration for economic ups and downs? To an extent people can, but really, the Government doesnt control who spends and who saves. Anyway, I am getting into an area that I would have a very short-fall before I hit the ground.

Michigan's economy has been broken since 1999. It had started slowly, but the auto companies are slowly folding. If they fold, I fold....personally and professionally.

Worker wages are the crux of my argument. It is my uneducated opinion that the cost of living in this area (maybe country) is just, plain and simple, too high. These union schmucks who made $60k a year with no HS diploma have ruined the auto companies, which in turn will ruin businesses like mine.

My question then,

How is "cost of living" calculated? How is it controlled? Is there a control? What can be done to NOT eliminate the middle class?

It seems to me that we will have a 'morlock' and 'eloi' situation sooner rather than later. If things go the way I think they are going to go (strictly speaking personally here, a Mich. standpoint), then this area is going to wiped out completely of the auto companies. Leaving a vaccum of unemployed with not enough McDonald's hats to go around.

Can one of you folks explain this? What are the options? I realize that if you had all the answers, you would be very very rich and very very famous, but I just wanted a perspective. Put yourself in Michigan's economy, then compare it to the rest of the country (in a way). It just seems to me that lving here costs too friggin much...plain and simple. I dont want to live in the ghetto, but I would have no choice if I made $9 an hour. Youre either making boo-koo cash ($150k+), just making it here (below $60k), or totally screwed poor (under $30k).

Whats the number one reason it costs so much to live, is my question. If I added all my personal bills together, I think I woud cry for weeks.


The economy as a whole is doing OK, but not great. There are some signs of strength, but mostly it seems to be fueled by borrowing.

Real wages have been flat or declining for a while. We are kind of in a twilight zone at the moment that we have never quite seen in our history.

Wages are stagnant, and the "standard of living" that vashner is blathering ignorantly on about is not quite all it's cracked up to be. Generally inflation is measured by a "basket" of commonly purchased goods, like a loaf of bread, a gallon of gas, a unit of electricity, etc.

A couple of things that aren't on that list, such as the cost of higher education and the cost of health care/insurance have been rising much faster than inflation. Both of these are more dangerous to our "standard of living" than anything.

Good jobs go to those who are educated anymore. If you can't afford that education, yer screwed.

God help you if you get sick.

The long-term economic costs of these things will catch up to us. I may very well move to Canada and take my expensive education and earnings potential with me. I would love to watch the arrogant consrevatives take over this country and stew in their own short-sighted policies.

[gtownspur]

Go ahead and move to Canada. It wont stop your bitchin once you find that the canadians just leveled a tax cuts on capital gains and federal income taxes accross the board. You'll find your canuck utopia to be filled with below standard medical care, with watered down weak prescriptions, and cheap viagra that'll make your petey turn to a linguini.

But back here in the US. we will enjoy more economic growth. The dow jones right now topped 10777 points high. That is close to it was when we had a fake dotcom boom under the late 90's. The real estate boom might be declining, but only on the west coast and east coast markets. My real estate instructor who is an experienced broker and succesful buisinessman said that the Central texas market is on the rise. Californian investors are coming and taking bus tours to purchase properties downtown just as if they were purchasing toilet paper. THey dont even step out an go through standard procedures, they just buying em off the lott instantaneously.Some purchase 11 on a venture day. Pheonix's real estate market is still gonna be strong for this decade. And more blue state high income earners are leaving their states to follow their jobs and move to the virgin red states. Expect the south to see a housing boom go on for a while. Also Cafta was signed into law, and the republicans seem like their gonna pass the 54 million dollar budget cuts along with slashing pork barrell spending. Cafta will bring along free trade and cheaper products so that we dont rely on a trade imbalance with CHina. It was a brilliant move.

The internet boom is making a comeback as Google, Yahoo, and other search engines and auction websites are acquiring new services and are getting more ad revenue. Dell and microsoft are moving into your living room and taking it over. Dell is releasing new entertainment systems that will cut at the Japanese monopoly of Dvds, and flat screens. Microsofts new 360 will do more than revolutionize the gaming industry. later models will come with more features that will make owning other accessories like stereo, dvd players, obsolete. The same software and hardware will be used but the 360 will be a 10 in 1 home system. Even if this product doesnt succeed. The tea leafs are indicating that microsoft is making a push to take over a larger market and incorporate new ones. GM will declare bankruptcy, but now Gm will be free of their pension plan, and beuracratic administration that dragged GM into the ground. GM after the smoke, clear its mistakes and will be a well oiled machine. The US will top Canada on a rainyday hands down.

...did i forget to mention that gas prices are on the decline.

You're only seeing the world through one dimension.

But i expect nothing more than lame photoshop material and jingoistic phrases designed to make the resident moonbats cartwheel and run the aisles.

[Nbadan]

http://www.cagle.com/news/PulitzerPrize2005/images/nick6.jpg

[Dos]

meanwhile we prosper... lol

Report says area economy strong

Web Posted: 11/19/2005 12:00 AM CST


William Pack
Express-News Business Writer

The regional economy is strong and could be on the brink of even more impressive growth, despite flat employment numbers for October.

Record sales tax totals, a strong retail sector and an expanding jobs base has attracted the attention of major investors like never before, Greater San Antonio Chamber of Commerce officials said Friday in releasing the metropolitan area's third-quarter economic report.

If the momentum created by Toyota, Washington Mutual and the National Security Agency's building plans takes hold with those investment groups, the San Antonio economy could reach even loftier levels, officials said.

"We could see ourselves tipping into a period of fairly sustainable economic growth, fairly sustainable prosperity and sustainable good-paying jobs," said chamber President Joe Krier.

Texas economist Travis Tullos, chairman of the chamber panel that produces the quarterly report, said national investors are paying more attention to the region because of its overall economic diversity and health.

New investment would help San Antonio join Austin as "one of the most dynamic spots on earth," Tullos said.

The quarterly report was released the same day as the state issued employment totals for October.

It showed that the San Antonio area recorded the same number of nonfarm workers in October — 777,600 — that it did in September. Seasonal layoffs in the leisure and hospitality industry were counterbalanced primarily by increases in government work; education and health services; and the trade, transportation and utilities sectors.

Aaron Smith, a labor market expert with the area's work-force development agency, Alamo WorkSource, said there is nothing alarming in the job numbers.

Employment totals, he said, have declined every October since 2000, except in 2003 when the economy was rebounding from a recession. Last October, the job count fell by 2,900 positions.

The retail trade sector was the only troublesome area Smith detected in the work force. It added 500 jobs during October, considerably fewer than have been added the last two years and a smaller total than Smith had expected.

He believes the hiring slowdown could be the result of retail outlets retaining more of their staff through the summer but hopes to see retailers hire close to 2,000 people in November.

For the 12 months ending in October, the area economy has created 13,200 jobs, a 1.7 percent hike.

The area's unemployment rate, meanwhile, fell to 4.5 percent in October from 4.7 percent in September, a figure that had been revised downward from previous estimates.

The 4.5 percent rate was the second lowest among Texas' large cities, after Austin.

"I think the story we see is that the San Antonio economy is in a robust situation. No record levels (for jobs), but there is steady growth," said Trinity University economics Professor Jorge Gonzalez.

Statewide, October unemployment reached 5.2 percent on a seasonally adjusted basis, down from 5.3 percent in September.

Krier, in releasing the chamber's report, said the region has experienced economic expansion for the 13th consecutive quarter, a string unparalleled for at least 30 years.

Included in the numbers was a chart showing average monthly sales tax revenues climbing to almost $1.7 million through September, which is almost 53 percent more than last year's average.

Hotel occupancy so far this year increased to 71.5 percent, and retail vacancy levels fell to 10.3 percent in the third quarter from 12.9 percent a year earlier.

Officials said Hurricane Katrina boosted apartment occupancy rates in the area and brought in more conventions but is not likely to have a significant impact on the local economy.


[email protected]

[RandomGuy]

You're only seeing the world through one dimension.


I see both the strengths and the weaknesses. I think the negatives in the medium to long term are rather severe.

The main strengths of the US economy will continue to be there, namely a flexible, educated work-force with a good record of critical thinking and sound risk and reward system. Transparent accounting and somewhat meaningful "negative feedback" loops for government (if they do something bad, they are generally held accountable, and problems do get fixed).

The above offer some solide competitive advantages.

The drawbacks, that we both agree on, such as debt, I think will bite us very soundly in the ass at some point.

The drawbacks that I see as a problem but you don't, such as lack of accesss to preventive health care, are also dragging on the economy. I am not one to just shrug my shoulders and say "oh well, it sucks to be them". My neighbor's well being is in my interest as well, both from a moral perspective as well as an economic one.

I was mostly kidding when I said I would move to Canada. It was more an expression of frustration with short-sighted conservative policies that do little more than offer "feel-good" solutions at the expense of sound long-term policy.

I am not one to give up easily, and I love my country. I just wish it would see the wisdom in good progressive solutions to long-term problems, and stop raising taxes on my kids.

[RandomGuy]

meanwhile we prosper... lol

Report says area economy strong

Web Posted: 11/19/2005 12:00 AM CST



This is a good example of the myopia we deal with.

"Hey look, gas prices have gone down a little"

--from record highs, with oil being consumed faster than new reserves are being found. Long term problems are still there and haven't gone away. I say again: gas prices will rise faster than overall inflation for the next 10 years or so, and at multiples of inflation at that time or shortly thereafter.

"Area economy is strong"

--some places in the country will always have stronger or weaker economies than others. This is nice if you live in the area with a good economy, and have a job that is in demand, but just because one room in a sinking ship stays dry doesn't mean that the hull shouldn't be repaired. This is a bit like someone sitting in their cabin in such a ship and saying "I don't see a problem, my room is pretty comfortable".

[boutons]

Not talking about SA in particular. The current wage stagnation and reduced job creation in a more or less healthy, expanding economy will be more dramatic in future up cycles.

Employer overheads for employees, medical/pension/benefits, will cause employees to be considered a evil expense to be reduced to minimum. ie, the last thing an employer wants to do is hire an employee. (Also, note big corps using bankruptcy as strategic financial tool for dumping their horribly underfunded pension plans on the taxpayers and to void unilaterally contracts with mid/low-level employees.)

There will be a hollowing out of the mid-level employees, continuing the trend of the hollowing out and reduction in living standard of the middle classes. The top people will always get theirs (that's why the organization exists), the mid-level work force will be reduced in qty. The remaining, minimum level of mid-level empoyees, essentially technical drones, will be horse-whipped into putting in longer hours and more work for same same pay with reduced benefits and no job security, laid-off after 50, and the cheapo, dispensable, low-end, preferably minimum wage and illegal, will be hired and fired randomly. Corps will be continously re-orged and downsized as new methods of organization. Computer systems such as ERP, CRM, etc will be expanded to reduce employee head count.

And the corps benefit another way: as the supply of good jobs shrinks, the competition for them will increase, keeping wages down, as the corps will be able to hire the very best people at the lowest wage and hold over them the threat of 2-weeks' notice so the "lucky" employees run faster and faster in their cubicle squirrel cages.

[RandomGuy]

I think that is a bit too cynical, but agree for the most part.

You might want to read http://www.epinet.org/ for some good data for anybody really interested in the nuts and bolts.

Some important highlights from October:

Simply put, job growth slowed throughout the country last month. While this slowdown was not directly a function of hurricane-induced job losses, it could be indirectly related. For example, by leading to higher energy prices, the hurricanes have contributed to the recent decline in real earnings, which could in turn dampen economic activity and hiring...

A bright spot in today's report is the increase in hourly wages, up eight cents, or 0.5%, the largest one-month gain since February 2003. Over the year, hourly wages are up 2.9%, an acceleration over recent yearly growth rates but still behind consumer inflation, which rose 4.7% in the latest annual reading. In keeping with weak labor demand across the industries, weekly hours were unchanged in October...

Long-term unemployment, however, still remains a problem. In October almost 20% of the unemployed were jobless for at least half-a-year, an unusually high level given the low unemployment rate. Historically, when unemployment is between 5.0% and 5.5%, this share has averaged 12.2%. Over the past year when unemployment has been in this range, the long-term average has been 20.2%, meaning 8% more of the unemployed are long-termers than would be expected given historical patterns...

n sum, today's report raises the concern that indirect effects from the hurricanes have at least temporarily reduced the pace of monthly job growth. While it is too soon to evaluate this possibility, it warrants close observation, because job growth in this expansion still remains far behind the historical record. Averaging over recoveries that have lasted at least as long as the current one (47 months), historically payrolls were up 11.9% at this point. In the current recovery, employment is up only 2.4%. In other words, just shy of four years into an expansion, the great American job machine has yet to shift into high gear...

http://www.epi.org/content.cfm/webfeatures_econindicators_jobspict_20051104

[RandomGuy]

randomguy, seriously, you're wasting your time trying to talk economics to these morons

it's a waste of your time calling them stupid, too. because they're too dumb to know they're dumb.

i mean, come one, gtownspur believes in the efficacy of REAGANOMICS

and vashner thinks an intelligent argument its "it's the economy, stupid"

but i enjoy your posts

I know, but I can only hope that maybe a bit of sense will creep in eventually. Maybe I can tilt a bit at the edges of the non-fanatics and change the mind of those who matter most in politics: the moderates.

Imagine you have three voters, voter A, voter B, and voter C, in a series of elections. Voter A votes one way and B almost always votes the opposite of A, who really makes the decisions? Liberals always vote one way, conservatives another. if 49.5% are liberals and 49.5% percent are conservatives, then the 1% of swing voters hold all the power.

[gtownspur]

randomguy, seriously, you're wasting your time trying to talk economics to these morons

it's a waste of your time calling them stupid, too. because they're too dumb to know they're dumb.

i mean, come one, gtownspur believes in the efficacy of REAGANOMICS

and vashner thinks an intelligent argument its "it's the economy, stupid"

but i enjoy your posts


I seriously doubt an elpimpo endorsement would mean one is on the right side of anything. It's the equivalence to a ditzy celebrity endorsing your plan to force the nation to run on tofu powered minivans.


THe classic pointless elpimpo post:
"I mean come on, Gtown believes in Reagonomics! I have no fuckin clue about reagonomics myself, but come on its reagonomics! Can you believe that. Its reaganomics people. This guy.. who is so insistent.. believes in reaganomics."


Random Guy is no greater. It's like the guy who studies medicine who still believes age old superstitions like that masturbation will actually cause you to go blind.

If random guy is so right, why does he then retract from his original point, changes his argument midcourse while abandoning 50 percent of his talking points, and then admits he's just too cynical to agree with anything positive. Does anyone notice a trend.Bet you anything if random guy was around for the past five years, every year he'd post about how we're nearing the "Dust bowl" and black tuesday.

Classical RG post, in cause and effect sequence:

Cause:"Meteor about to strike earth in the coming days, killing all life forms. Scientist are making preperations to circumvent impact..."

Effect: Someone then brings sanity into the thread.

Cause: Rg responds by inserting with idiotic web images and half baked hyperbole to lend credibility to his bs.

image....
"har har har, theres no point arguing with you, you believe that the earth is the center of the universe."

Effect: More people call Rg's bs.

Cause: HE then retracts and adds a garnish of irony.

"well, i'll admit. I didnt check my sources, civilization will live on. But the universe is so vast, just by chance earth will someday be destroyed by an asteroid. I'm just here to post facts. i'm a moderate and i'm non partisan. I just wish all conservatives would vanish of the face of the earth by a meteor."

Effect: Even more people call him on his dishonesty.

Spiraling down effect: El pimpo then post huge man crush endorsement of RG's supreme intellect.

[2centsworth]

The term inverted yield curve means that long term debt pays LESS than short term debt. The opposite is normally true. It's a bit like dogs and cats living together. It happens on occasion but it's a sign of some bad mojo nearby...
Obviously you don't know what it means. I provided a link to show you the curve is normal and not inverted. If you don't understand that last sentence then stay out of any sort of economic discussions.

[Guru of Nothing]

This will fix everything once and for all!

http://growabrain.typepad.com/photos/uncategorized/printing_money.jpg

[gtownspur]

gtownspur,

remember when you said the dalai lama couldn't run a 7-11?

The dalai lama is just a buddhist. Its the hindu's who are the majority when it comes to running convenience stores, not the the buddhist. Just becuase many hindus(and some buddhist) run convenience stores doesnt mean that all hindus have the knack for it. The dalai lama's easy going and ultra-benevolence would contradict with the impersonal way of running a store chain. The funny thing is cleary, that you stereotyped the DL because he has a dot on his fore head, which he doesn't. But that's your own ignorance. But this is all idiotic and pointless to argue with you. Its as if i were to say that jesus can't run a prison facility, and you all would chastise me of the fact that christians do run prison facilities. Clearly logic and rational was not wired into a liberal's brain at birth.


I have something to say about the idiotic person that posted an image of a printer copying a bunch of dollar notes. You lost me. How the hell can tax cuts be portrayed as a handout, if its the private citizen's money in the first place. If theres anyone duping another its the government. Even when one gets back all their money through tax refunds at the end of the year, the goverment took your money with out paying any interest and used it. Quit acting like we're borrowing from the government when it comes to tax cuts. That money is ours, they're borrowing from us.

[RandomGuy]

I seriously doubt an elpimpo endorsement would mean one is on the right side of anything. It's the equivalence to a ditzy celebrity endorsing your plan to force the nation to run on tofu powered minivans.

THe classic pointless elpimpo post:
"I mean come on, Gtown believes in Reagonomics! I have no fuckin clue about reagonomics myself, but come on its reagonomics! Can you believe that. Its reaganomics people. This guy.. who is so insistent.. believes in reaganomics."


Random Guy is no greater. It's like the guy who studies medicine who still believes age old superstitions like that masturbation will actually cause you to go blind.

If random guy is so right, why does he then retract from his original point, changes his argument midcourse while abandoning 50 percent of his talking points, and then admits he's just too cynical to agree with anything positive. Does anyone notice a trend.Bet you anything if random guy was around for the past five years, every year he'd post about how we're nearing the "Dust bowl" and black tuesday.

Classical RG post, in cause and effect sequence:

Cause:"Meteor about to strike earth in the coming days, killing all life forms. Scientist are making preperations to circumvent impact..."

Effect: Someone then brings sanity into the thread.

Cause: Rg responds by inserting with idiotic web images and half baked hyperbole to lend credibility to his bs.

image....
"har har har, theres no point arguing with you, you believe that the earth is the center of the universe."

Effect: More people call Rg's bs.

Cause: HE then retracts and adds a garnish of irony.

"well, i'll admit. I didnt check my sources, civilization will live on. But the universe is so vast, just by chance earth will someday be destroyed by an asteroid. I'm just here to post facts. i'm a moderate and i'm non partisan. I just wish all conservatives would vanish of the face of the earth by a meteor."

Effect: Even more people call him on his dishonesty.

Spiraling down effect: El pimpo then post huge man crush endorsement of RG's supreme intellect.

I will get to this later.

Give me a concrete example of what you think is my intellectual dishonesty and post the link here.

I would be willing to bet a good chunk of change that, once again, you are 100% full of shit, and are talking without really thinking about what you are saying.

[RandomGuy]

Obviously you don't know what it means. I provided a link to show you the curve is normal and not inverted. If you don't understand that last sentence then stay out of any sort of economic discussions.

http://www.investopedia.com/terms/i/invertedyieldcurve.asp

I know exactly what an inverted yield curve is.

Ah, crap, I have to get to a test.

I will get back to this. Do me the favor of reading the article in the first post.

[gtownspur]

The begining of your thread is enough evidence. You implied that the recession is all bush's fault, along with your previous suggestions that democrats do better on economic issues, you attributed a normal buisiness cycle with recessions and recoveries as Bush's fault when you know better.

[2centsworth]

http://www.investopedia.com/terms/i/invertedyieldcurve.asp

I know exactly what an inverted yield curve is.

Ah, crap, I have to get to a test.

I will get back to this. Do me the favor of reading the article in the first post.If you do then you can look at current rates and see the curve in NORMAL. There's a difference between knowing the definition and being able to identify what it looks like.


Again go to bloomberg and see the DATA yourself.

As far as the article is concerned I'm talking economics with you. Don't be like the people who need others to talk for them. Leaves you open to manipulation because you don't know what you're talking about.

[gtownspur]

^<sarcasm>, are you stupid! He's an accountant. He very darn well knows Macro economics like an economist does. Be like me and shut up becuase he way too smart for all of us.

[RandomGuy]

If you do then you can look at current rates and see the curve in NORMAL. There's a difference between knowing the definition and being able to identify what it looks like.

Again go to bloomberg and see the DATA yourself.

As far as the article is concerned I'm talking economics with you. Don't be like the people who need others to talk for them. Leaves you open to manipulation because you don't know what you're talking about.

You have my word that I know what an inverted yield curve is, as well as how that relates to perceptions of future economic activity as reflected in interest rates. I came across the article while doing a search for something else, and thought it interesting given the current relatively flat yield curve.

I noted that the curve recently inverted, and you will note the article was from July, so the current bloomberg numbers will NOT reflect what happened in July. I should have stressed this a bit more in my initial posts to make this a bit more clear, my apologies.

[RandomGuy]

^<sarcasm>, are you stupid! He's an accountant. He very darn well knows Macro economics like an economist does. Be like me and shut up becuase he way too smart for all of us.

He seems to have a pretty good idea about such things, given his posts.

[RandomGuy]

The begining of your thread is enough evidence. You implied that the recession is all bush's fault, along with your previous suggestions that democrats do better on economic issues, you attributed a normal buisiness cycle with recessions and recoveries as Bush's fault when you know better.

(sighs heavily)

I didn't mention Bush's name once. True I don't hold much regard for his economic policies, but my second post was more satire on the fanatical Clinton haters than anything having to do with Bush.

Once again, you really should try to understand what you are reading and not jump to conclusions based on predjudice.

[gtownspur]

The long-term economic costs of these things will catch up to us. I may very well move to Canada and take my expensive education and earnings potential with me. I would love to watch the arrogant consrevatives take over this country and stew in their own short-sighted policies.


Guess you really didnt try hard to make your point non partisan. Even though you didn't type bush's name, people read between the lines. But i think you honestly probably didn't intentionally mean to do that.

[RandomGuy]

But being an accounting major or master, you'd think you'd know about the buisiness cycle and how everything has it's ups and downs.

Yes, I understand this, honest. Quite frankly I see a lot of mixed signals about the economy in the news I read. I worry about people's ability to pay bills over the long haul, and the effects of declining access to health care and higher education on the long-term viablity of our economy.


But since you brought up inflation caused by energy prices. If you had a Democrat, do you think he'd raise taxes to their normal level and then not plan to drill for oil in Anwar while boosting funding for alternative fuel technology? Don't think so. That would only complicate things for the short term of 4 yrs.

Not entirely sure what you are trying to say here. No offense, but your thought here is a bit incomplete and/or muddled. Please elucidate.



According to Inc. magazine, entreprenuership is booming since people are willing to invest in this period of economic boom. Yes, the economy is doing fine even though the fry cook is not getting paid 12 bucks an hr, and your "Roger and me" expectations of an economy based on the worker rather than the product, is not met. To make a long story short, your alternatives of boosting workers wages and repealing the tax cuts wouldn't do a damn thing.

3% economic growth hardly counts as a "boom", but let's drive on.
These tax "cuts" are nothing more than disguised tax increases. The massive deficits have fueled a ballooning of the debt and that debt and the interest payments will have to be paid for with massive tax increases in the future. Bush has done nothing but give a short term boost at a huge long-term cost.

If you really want low taxes and LONG TERM growth, suck it up, raise taxes AND hold spending flat for about 10 years or so to pay down the national debt. This will increase private sector saving as interest rates rise and saving becomes a lot more attractive. I think we as a nation are dangerously "leveraged" in terms of borrowing over saving.


If you have inflation and then congress were to raise the minimun wage to 8$/hr you'd have a catastrophe. Low income Workers increased wages would drive the product prices up which would destroy the buying power of the middle and upper class. The effects would be catastrophic. Buisinesses would then have to lay off their employees and you can say bye bye to cheap labor. We'd then inherit a 12% unemployment statistic like the other economies that are worker based socialist utopias like france and germany.

The thing you miss in your assessment of increasing minimum wages are the benefits of doing so.
Increasing the minimum wage would hardly erode the buying power of the "middle and upper class". The top tiers of income earners in our country don't buy a whole lot of goods or services that pay minimum wage anyways.
Secondly increasing the buying power of those at the bottom end of the scale would end up increasing living standards a hell of a lot faster than tax cuts for the wealthy have or do.


So what's your point. Recession or not. If clinton served 3 terms eventually he'd get a recession. Maybe not in your world where democrat administrations cannot do any harm, but in the real world and in your feild of study, it's upside down for you. Sadly you know better, but you let your partisan views cloud your reason.

I am a fiscal conservative. I liked Clinton. I don't like Bush. Can a democrat do something stupid? Yup. Do they? Yup.
I think the rabid partisan hat fits your head a lot better than mine.


Tell me O wise one, what should Bush do?
Reduce reliance on deficit spending and pay down the debt by any means necessary. Tax increases included.
Increase the availability of preventive health care by any means necessary.
Increase the access to higher education by any means necessary.
Decrease our dependency on oil as fast as possible, and by any means necessary.
Encourage commercial development of space by any means necessary.
Discourage government pork by any means necessary.

All of the above have very positive long-term economic effects. Cost to benefit all the way.


[Should Bush pull] out of Iraq?

Not immediately. We need to double our efforts to get an effective Iraqi police and military put together. I am beginning to wonder if this can be done at all.

At some point the costs will outweigh the benefits of staying, and I think we are nearing that point rapidly.


Should he raise taxes?
Yes. Paying down the debt is the single most important policy issue that is facing us at the moment, in my opinion.
The trick is to NOT raise spending along with the increases. I doubt the current congress is capable of this kind of discipline. We need to fire the Republicans in the Congress or the White house to get some semblence of balance.


Should he cut capital gains?
Um, what? If you mean raise capital gains taxes, then no.


I know what your gonna say already. That this is bUsh's mess and that he got us into Iraq and if he this, if he that, and if he didnt choke on that pretzel...etc. Your only strong argument would be a what if.

The national debt IS Bush's mess, and the Congress is as much to blame as Bush.

The Iraq mess is also his. He wanted it, he pushed it, and he got it. Now we all have to deal with the consequences of his administration's fuck ups in Iraq.
If things work out well, more power to him, and good for the Iraqis.

You want a what if?

What if the administration KNEW what the f*** they were doing on ANYTHING?

I haven't seen much that has demonstrated that Bush is competant enough to run a 7-11 let alone the most powerful nation on the planet.

Is that strictly because he is a Republican? Nope. There are a few republicans that I feel would be WAAAY more competant than Bush, and would gladly vote for them in an election if I felt they were more competant than a Democrat, McCain for starters. I may not agree with McCain on everything and he is VERY conservative on a lot of issues, but the man can THINK.

Does this sound like a rabid partisan to anyone OTHER than gtown?

[gtownspur]

I said if you had a democrat in the whitehouse, do you think he'd only support alternative fuel technology without at the same time investing in finding other sources of oil, causing nothing to help our fuel problems for now? Do you think he'd advocate a tax hike, which will stunt our growth? I don't think so.

[RandomGuy]

I said if you had a democrat in the whitehouse, do you think he'd only support alternative fuel technology without at the same time investing in finding other sources of oil, causing nothing to help our fuel problems for now? Do you think he'd advocate a tax hike, which will stunt our growth? I don't think so.

I wouldn't presume to blindly predict what a Democrat would do without hearing what the person had to say first.

You do, and that is the difference. You accuse me of being some rabid partisan hack, and then go off and say things like this.