Possible recession in the making?

[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 in 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 supers ions 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 cir vent 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 , 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/...yieldcurve.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/...yieldcurve.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 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 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.