http://www.marketwatch.com/story/egan-j … 2012-09-14
I am sorry folks.
All this just ain't working.
And four more years of the same thing will just mean more downgrades.
It's inevitable because of the debt. Obama has reduced spending by 2.6% but really while recovering from a crisis when already in massive debt it's inevitable that there will be downgrades while if you cut spending the economy won't grow. Typical catch 22. Nothing to be done about it really.
If you don't believe me name a single period of American economic growth in the last 40 years or so that was not accompanied by spending increases.
Not sure where you got the 2.6% number from but here are the acual dollars spent by Obama in his first year and last year. It seems to be a larger number, not a smaller number
2009 3,518 Trillion Dollars
2011 3,601 Trillion Dollars
This is why we need a more educated public.
Have you heard of inflation? It's this thing we have which reduces the value of money by about 1.5% a year (which is a very moderate inflation rate) that's why a dollar used to be a large amount of money a hundred years ago so while the nominal number is yes rising when inflation is accounted for it's 2.6% less.
Don't be condescending toward people when facts aren't on your side... just a tip.
Table 1-3, you can look at spending in constant(2005) dollars, which accounts for inflation.
These are the actual budgets, adjusted for inflation:
2008 - 2,703.8
2009 - 3,173.4
2010 - 3,081.0
2011 - 3,126.3
The 2011 budget is 1.5% lower than Bush's last budget. Not adjusted for inflation(the common way of looking at numbers) it is 2.4% higher than Bush's last budget.
But wait! The 2011 budget had $3.6 trillion in spending, but Obama asked for 3.688 trillion in spending. So if Obama's budget had been passed, he would have increased spending from 2009 - 2011 by 0.3%, adjusted for inflation.
So, in reality, Obama has increased spending(never mind that comparing 2011 to 2009 doesn't even take into account the huge expenditures that were supposed to be one-time expenditures) 2.4%. The standard is to not adjust for inflation while discussing current figures.
Also, in reality, even adjusting for inflation, you are wrong.
You too Jaxson? The 2009 Budget is Bush's so recalculate. It's from 2009 and not 2008 The sitting president creates the next years budget as you should know.
Taking inflation into account or using real dollars is the only way of accurately comparing figures over a time lapse as you know after all that money lost value so to do it an other way is incorrect.
The budget would have been different if certain things had passed but that's not the question
I apologize for sounding condescending but it gets exhausting dealing with the same ignorance of the very basic and crucial facts. I can't tell you how often people say Obama has "massively increased spending" when really it's been reduced.
Q: Have you heard about McDonald's' new Obama Value Meal?
A: Order anything you like and the guy behind you has to pay for
it. (from Conan O'Brien)
Just a little humor to lighen the mood. Let's try and keep it civil.
I do know that. I was just including a little more context, to show what is meant by the one-time expenditures.
2008 - 2,703.8
2009 - 3,173.4
2010 - 3,081.0
2011 - 3,126.3
3,173.4 - 3,126.3 = 47.1
47.1 / 3,173.4 = 1.48%.
2009 - 2011 = 1.48% reduction.
No, it is not the only correct way. People know inflation exists, but the normal way of discussing figures doesn't include adjusting for inflation. You said "Obama has reduced spending by 2.6%", you didn't qualify that as adjusted for inflation. When you want to talk about figures adjusted for inflation, it is proper to qualify your statements as so.
Interestingly, you didn't even acknowledge that you were wrong when inflation is accounted for.
Don't criticize others for being ignorant of very basic and crucial facts when your own facts were wrong.
As to the spending... consider this:
Your personal budget is $40k. Every year you grow it by 3%. This year though, you had to, in addition to your budget, pay for surgery, so you really spent $90k.
If the next year you spend $89,000, would you claim that you had reduced your budget? Or, would it be better to go back to the $40k + inflation?
I see the problem, I am including this years budget as well which has further reduction that's the discrepancy in figures accounted for (this year should be calculated for right? it's already budgeted).
So I stand by the original figures I gave.
http://articles.marketwatch.com/2012-05 … ken-sailor
If one does not include inflation the figures are misrepresentation the fact of the matter is that in terms of value spent it has fallen quite significantly. I am pretty sure I did state it was taking inflation into account just above that comment and it was part of the same discussion so I did not reiterate... I could be wrong.
I would absolutely agree with your analogy. We should increase spending in a crisis and reduce it after the crisis is over. But as every American knows our crisis isn't over yet and our economy still needs careful guidance (people disagree on how but that's not the point) so if the crisis was over and everything was back to normal I would agree our spending should have dropped more but we are still in recovery.
Do you think we owe less money to China if we adjust for inflation? Do you think they will take less money when we tell them that? In fact I just might start that tactic immediately. I'm going to adjust my mortgage payment for inflation and start sending them less money.
I'm curious, you and Jaxson are using numbers, from the link provided above, of the "budget". Could you please cite the source or the Bill number where Congress has passed and approved a budget over the last three years. Which of course begs the question since we all know there has been no budgets for the last years, where these numbers Whitehouse.gov coming from?
This is a prime example of how you can play with numbers to get a fake results. Using numbers from the "on budget" section, when in reality it does not account for the total spending. For example for the year 2011 the "on budget"number being used is $500 billion less than the actual money spent to pay our all our bills. Leaving $500 billion out of the equation will obvious lower the percentage you claim Obama is spending.
This is why we Have an educated public, to see through the games. What can you expect from somebody who claims to be a numbers man, that agreed with Ralph Deeds that the market closed up 250 points while it is there for the world to see it only closed 53.51 points higher.
Sorry, pal, the market did close up 200+ points on the day Bernanke announced the new program and another 50+ the day after which was the day I made my completely accurate comment. Yesterday it went up another 53 points or so bringing the total increase, post-Bernanke to around 300 points. This amounts to a clear sign of approval from Wall Street.
Sorry Ralph, nice try. The chart in the link below shows the gains of the day. It clearly shows the day was in positive territory and climbed all day. Upon the announcement arround 2 pm, the market dropped, recovered slighltly, the had another small drop before closing. Most if not all the gains were before the announcement.
https://www.google.com/finance?client=o … DEXDJX:DJI
http://www.latimes.com/business/money/l … 3628.story
I repeat, the Dow is up 300 points in anticipation of and due to Bernanke's announcement. It closed yesterday at 13,593.37, the highest since 2007. And mortgage rates are under 3% which should help the housing market. Did you ever hear the Wall Street maxim "don't fight the Fed?" Wall Street clearly believes that Bernanke's move is positive. [I should have added the words "in anticipation of." The market went up 200 points or so because investors anticipated Bernanke's announcement.
http://finance.yahoo.com/echarts?s=^DJI … undefined;
Ralph you know as should anyone that all you need is something happening in a foreign market and you lose 500 points overnight. You want to impress me?
Get the employment numbers up. And I mean some way other than just people falling off the rolls because they give up.
Four years ago there were people making worship videos on YouTube to Barack Obama. Literally. I had some saved and they have been taken down. They make an awfully tough case that it should be much better than what it is. Funny when Republicans are in power they are the problem and when they aren't in power they are the problem. Does the Democrat party have any power at all. Even when they supposedly have a filibuster proof majority?
I think they enjoy portraying themselves as put upon and hope to get back in office that way. Then of course four years from now the same problems will exist which are the fault of Conservatives even though they can't do crap. Of course you will have to elect whoever the Progressive savior is. People are starting to see all this.
Bernanke is doing everything within his power to "get the employment numbers up," but what's really needed to reduce unemployment is more government stimulative spending and/or tax cuts.
Bernanke doesn't get the employment numbers up. He is the money guy.
The guy who is supposed to be President claimed he had that all taken care of.
Shovel ready manure and all.......
It would be a big mistake to drive the economy off the cliff in January and allow the tax relief to middle income and poor citizens expire. They spend whatever they get more quickly than rich people like the Romneys.
Ralph you are a big proponent of Republican presidents are responsible for everything and Democrat presidents are not responsible FOR anything.
You can't have it both ways. If they are all useless why do we have the office at all?
Not Republican presidents currently--the Tea Partiers who have taken control of the GOP and are unwilling to discuss and reach solutions to tax and expenditure issues in the public interest. Bush did preside over many of the errors that got us into the mess we are in. Now the Tea Party is preventing measures that would help get us out.
Does the Democratic congress get any blame? They are the ones who passed laws and budgets...
Nope....Democrats are N E V E R to blame for anything. Even when they have a filibuster proof majority that they crow about from the highest rooftops.
Then do nothing.
You miss the point. The market would have closed over 200 points anyway that day, it was in positive territory due to a good market overseas .When the report came out, the market went down.
As for mortgage rates, the rate is 3.5%, not under 3 %. Perhaps if you pay 5 or 6 points at closing , you can get under 3 %. Arms though are under 3 %
The big move in the market is mainly due to anticipation of and announcement of the Fed's action. The action in Europe toward solving their problems was also a factor.
That Was My Point, the markets major reaction was due to the good news from Europe. If they were putting that much stock in what the Fed was going to say why would drastically drop immediately after the Fed announcement? And yes Friday also went up another 53 points but again was another good day in Europe. It will be interesting to see how European and our markets handle the crisis in the Middle East as I expect it should take a a jump down. I also don't think the terrible unemployment numbers and inflation numbers that came out on Friday did not sink in but think that will also contribute to Monday.
Money is only a character on a piece of paper, it just represents an existent value, every year inflation causes the dollar to be worth about 1% to 1.5% less and yes that affects you all the way down to your personal economics, if you work your wages should be adjusted for inflation every few years, most wages are, you will notice that the price of things slowly rises, I don't know how old you are but money was worth a lot more when you were young right? etc. etc. so when you talk about a loan (like say in the case of China and the US) don't consider it in terms of how many dollars it is because that is just a guide so people can put it in perspective, what is actually being borrowed is value or wealth, while money can simply be printed value cannot so yes inflation has to be taken into account when comparing different figures because it means different amounts of value are being loaned, just the same way as you would make the conversion if the money had been loaned in a different currency.
AV it's really sad when you don't check even the most basic of facts, of course budgets have passed every year, if no budget is agreed on the government goes into gridlock emergency which is a big deal and has happened before, I don't know where you get this terrible information from but seriously stop using it as a source. The 2011 Budget for example is called the: Department of Defense and Full-Year Continuing Appropriations Act, 2011 and passed on April 15th 2011.
Budget spending we are using is the what was actually spent AV.
Ralph was right and I believe he already proved that so I won't do it too.
I have been really polite and explained everything with patience but seriously AV start reading unbiased sources and try to accumulate all the knowledge you can because a lot of what you believe is hopelessly wrong.
Wow, you did not disappoint, I was wondering how long it was going to take before you attacked and try to act superior as you always do when you are clearly wrong.
"Budget spending we are using is the what was actually spent AV."
So as to not take a lot of time or space I will just take one year. You used numbers under the "budget" that you claim existed and of course didn't since one was not voted on and you refuse to accept that, 2011 - 3,126.3 trillion dollars, when in reality actual numbers spent was 3.603 trillion dollars, a difference of around $600 billion. .
I'm so glad you asked, if I checked the basic of facts since it is obvious you do not. Since you say budgets I passed every year, please cite the three bills were Congress has passed the budget. You do know what the budget is? I have to ask this question because you cited the DOD and full year continuing appropriations act of 2011, do you think because of the name of the Bill that it created a total budget? From the Bill:
"Making appropriations for the Department of Defense and the other departments and agencies of the Government for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2011, and for other purposes."
Also from the bill:
"DIVISION B--FULL-YEAR CONTINUING APPROPRIATIONS, 2011
The following sums are hereby appropriated, out of any money in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, and out of applicable corporate or other revenues, receipts, and funds, for the several departments, agencies, corporations, and other organizational units of Government for fiscal year 2011, and for other purposes,
Notice it said "SEVERAL", not all. It then goes on to break down the agencies it was looking to fund. The Other Purpose mentioned in the bill was the funding of the scholarship fund.
If you took the time to read the bill you would have found that it was a massive appropriations bill for the Department of Defense, including salary increases despite the fact this is salary freeze on federal employees. There were several other agencies for the breakdown of funding and how was to apply including the salaries of the legislatures. Yet is no budget but these clowns make sure they could get paid. This bill was not meant to be a fiscal budget, in reality it was no more than a stopgap spending bill.
Maybe you should try to accumulate all the knowledge you can because a lot of which you believe is hopelessly wrong.
Really? Sigh, so your stance here is the 3.63 trillion dollar bill was a pay raise for the Department of defence and Scholarships? Do you know what happens if government fails to pass a budget before the deadline? It's called a government shut down, I imagine you were alive for the last one mid 90s everything stops except the basics and it's a really big deal. A budget has passed every single year. It's really pointless to continue talking when you don't get the basics.
Not if they pass continuing resolutions which they have been.
That was done six or seven ties in 2001 while the budget was being worked out before it passed in April.
If Josak would take the time to read the entire bill, it won't take won't just a couple of hours, I know I read it now to refresh myself and a red in April when it was proposed, he would see that he was wrong. But he will not read it nor will he admit he is wrong. That builds not fully fund the entire budget, It was addressed to several departments in order to give an okay to spend more than they did the previous year. Nothing more nothing less
You are the only person that I know of that claims that that bill was a budget for 2011. I guess you're wiser than all the economists, Wall Street people, and all of Washington including Democrats who say there've been no budget for the last three years. Do you think the Democrats would allow Republicans to say there was no budget in 2011 if there was one? you know damn well they would've been all over the airwaves dreaming that the Republicans were lying.
Wall Street liked the latest Fed move--up 250 points. They are too smart to be conned by the advocates of austerity in the middle of a recession.
Tea Party brinkmanship and lack of leadership in the House caused the downgrade. Along with tax cuts, medicare part D and two (off the books) wars. That's what we don't need more of.
Someday, and it may take many years from now, people open their eyes. I just hope I'm alive what happens so to see their reactions
The idea is if they say the same things over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over then people will think its the truth.
You're blaming the Democrats even though he was appointed by Bush / Rove? Or simply want Bernanke out of there?
Let's get this straight. If it was a bad idea that was put in place by George Bush why did not Barack Obama remove it?
Secondly why is any disagreement always supposed to mean support for a president who is out of office and will never serve again?
Agreed. It's very difficult to get people to defend the economic practices on their own terms rather than in comparison to the previous administration. Everything is Bush V Obama V Romney, instead of principles V principles.
Yet you didn't respond to the real answer. Which is the basic laws of economics dictate this is inevitable. We can either have lower spending (Obama has already reduced it somewhat) or economic growth (our GDP growth is up at 2.4% which is pretty darned good now) in the long term economic growth is better but it does result in more debt in the short term which in turn causes downgrades that;s just how it goes.
Let's don't forget you can't print print print print print money.
It's not about printing money, printing money does nothing because the numerical increase is offset by the increased inflation, the money comes from loans not printing it.
If your business is struggling you don't fire most of your staff, close down parts of the store and stop advertising because if you do even if you can get by you will be limping and stagnating forever and won't recover. What you do is increase advertising make the store look better and get new products so that you increase your clientele and can become profitable.
Super simplistic analogy but it sort of covers it.
Wrong. Not indefinitely, but for the time being the Fed is the only weapon in our quiver thanks to the Ryans and Cantors and other ideologues and ignoramuses in the HOuse of Representatives. What is really needed is another $500 billion of fiscal stimulus.
let's see....and after that another trillion....print print print.
Becoming more and more worthless daily.......
*SIGH* not print borrow, printing creates inflation borrowing does not.
The Fed has two duties prescribed by law--controlling inflation and keeping unemployment down to a reasonable level. Inflation isn't an issue for now, but unemployment is too high. Bernanke is doing exactly what he should be doing under the law. All but one of the twelve Fed governors supported the latest move.
Have you not looked at some of the key signs of inflation? Food prices have sky-rocketed and look like they will continue to do so, especially since Bernanke ordered another round of QE. Inflation definitely looks like a problem, the Fed just doesn't want to admit it.
See if you let things get better now you won;t be able to blame Bush and equate Romney with him and breed the fear you need to insure re-election and hopefully gain the House back.
Then once Barack is re-elected you can get busy trying to repeal that silly amendment about term limits for the President.
As long as you're using GDP as a measure of a country's welfare you're going to be consistently at sea. Even Simon Kuznets, the guy who came up with GDP, never recommended using it to establish the welfare of a nation (or how good the economy is in general). Since part of GDP's formula is government spending, of course government spending is going to increase GDP. Building the pyramids probably increased Egypt's GDP by quite a bit, and created hella lotta jobs, but was ultimately useless for the people of the country. In the same vein, government spending for the sake of spending will show a spike in GDP, but not every cent spent by government is good investment, believe it or not.
Carrying this over to your business analogy - if you've been consistently over-spending and spending incorrectly, putting even more money into it is counter-productive. You might have more turnover for a while, but you're just going to exacerbate the real problem when it bites you in the backside later.
Oh now you must follow Keynes mustn't you??????
No I musn't. I'm reading an interesting article about Keynes, incidentally.
I recommend it.
No argument that not every cent is well spent.
However let's examine the process you are talking about.
The government injects money into the economy therefore
People have more money therefore
people spend more money therefore
businesses make more money therefore
more businesses open therefore
demand for goods increases therefore
new factories, mines. industries etc. open to meet that demand therefore
the economy grows therefore
consumer and investor confidence rises therefore
Investors create new businesses therefore
the economy continues to grow
Of course it matters who the money is given to or how it is injected, generally it's better to give it to the the poor as they spend the money immediately thus increasing circulation.
Well that's the theory, but you're not mentioning the side-effects, or the unintended consequences. When you're creating money out of thin air, as the Fed does, the value of the money is decreased and naturally prices increase - this is reducing those people's spending power. In fact, it's not only a side-effect, it's doing exactly the opposite of what is supposedly intended. It may give the appearance of an upturn in the economy simply because there is more money moving around, but that's exactly what it is doing, moving around - it is not providing anything for the populace.
But if you believe that there are no side-effects or downsides, why isn't the Fed perpetually injecting money into the economy? Why wait for more QE?
Well it's not really a theory it's a proven fact experimentally as well as in theory.
The Fed should not be and generally is not "creating money out of thin air" that does indeed cause inflation that money is backed by foreign loans which does have the side effect of having to pay interest but prevents inflation and thus our inflation remains quite low.
As I explained in the figure I gave you that illusion creates real growth for two reasons. #1 Demand fro products increase so new things open (like mines and industry that do provide real wealth) #2 investor confidence goes up which means people feel more comfortable creating mines and factories etc which again produce wealth. Thus real value is created.
Then I have to ask you again, if it's so wonderful and has no side effects, why not do it all the time? Why not hand out $10 million to every household and put it on the treasury bill? Spending will increase, but it's fairly obvious that consumption is not what makes a good economy.
Capital spending, i.e. spending that is backed by real assets rather than debt, is what provides a strong and lasting economy. Once these mines and industry are built, or even being built, investors are going to realise that it has become far too expensive, and there's going to be another contraction - just like when the home owners realised that they couldn't afford the properties they were handed by the Fed. Unfortunately, what you advocate is going to bring about a rather big crash, since the Fed has been doing the wrong thing for nearly 100 years. And what you'll do is probably say "we didn't go far enough!".
Giving more heroin to the addict might relieve his withdrawal symptoms, but at some point he's going to have an overdose.
The first point is just silly. Lot's of things are good but bad if overdone excessive debt spending creates A) excessive debt B) inflation it's about finding a balance and using spending only when the economy needs boosting (like it does now) it's no coincidence that the greatest economic periods of the US coincide with increased spending.
There is no relevance between unsecured loans being packaged and stimulus spending which is recommended by every international body. It does not in anyway create a bubble at all. If you want to claim it does you have to demonstrate how it does in the same way I demonstrated how it grows the economy.
Not only is the heroin analogy completely irrelevant even in that case we use methadone to wean people off heroin because withdrawal kills.
The Treasury is selling bonds faster than they can print them and the intense demand is keeping interest rates for these bonds at historic lows. That is the complete opposite of downgraded credit. The analysts and what-not keep downgrading the credit rating by running their big, fat mouths. The people putting big bucks on the line are expressing an entirely different sentiment, with their money.
Actions speak louder than words.
You miss the point Josak, the private sector is on its butt and Obama and attempting to drive the economy on government spending. That is the problem with the downgrade. Get government off the backs of small business, stabilize the five year picture, and see where the revenue flow into the government goes....upward. That is what the lending markets are looking for....not a choice on whether the government decides to spend money to achieve a dismisal GDP. Your views of economics assumes that all things are government driven....and they are when the government is as out of control as this one. ~WB
As I said provide an example of recent economic growth without an increase in spending.
It's not just here but all around the world government controls are essential to healthy economies to regulate and encourage them which is why every country which has attempted austerity has had horrible growth results.
You can't escape the basic facts and results WB the government provides for greater money in flux creating greater growth when it spends and that growth int urn produces confidence which in turn creates further growth.
On the other hand if the government doesn't spend then there is less money in flux so confidence remains low so the economy stagnates or shrinks. It's incredibly basic.
Don't take my word for the IMF (International Monetary Fund) is saying the exact same thing as are pretty much all the experts but of course conservatives know better than the experts.
Perhaps you should show us some data or source material from the IMF, since you are so good at backing up your arguments. (Remember your GDP estimates on Scandinavian countries? I know I do...what, you overestimated them on average about 2 points, right?)
And, what happens when a government does not have the money to spend, but borrows it or prints more money. Obama's line about spending money used to fund the Iraq war on domestic items is bogus, since this is borrowed money and would not be spent elsewhere, i.e. it would remain "un-borrowed."
Of course, we could revisit another of your beloved "controlled" economies, Argentina. Here is a good look at the results of government spending:
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/08/ … 2G20120810
Of course, the eggheads at the IMF must have seen this coming, right? I am sure Argentinians are loving the government controls that have led to their healthy economy. I mean, it is incredibly basic, right?
Spending increases inflation rates is also incredibly basic Argentina has grown about 60% in recent years and that in itself will create inflation so a slow down is inevitable the worst economic projection for Argentina is that it will shrink 1% before going back into economic growth which when compared with 60% growth is a massive success simple as that.
As for the IMF here is one article but I am sure you can find plenty more. I have their economic advisory report in solid form but I am not sure if it's online, I guess it probably is.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/econ … turns.html
You just can't give up on Keynes, can you? You should provide more sources to back up your comments on Argentina. Also, government spending is never sustainable and has serious detrimental effects on an economy, unless you are okay with 30% inflation. And government spending does not necessarily spur long-lasting growth; it is only an injection to grease the skids of the economy, per Keynes. Of course, as Keynes said brilliantly, "in the long run, we are all dead." So why worry about the future, eh?
And, you are already off to a terrible start factually. (What a surprise) You:
"which is why every country which has attempted austerity has had horrible growth results."
"IMF advises delaying austerity until growth returns"
So, the IMF believes that once growth returns, it will continue, regardless of the austerity cuts, since the cuts were likely present prior to a slowdown in growth. Which means that growth occurred even with austerity in place, even if you believe it to be "horrible", compared to your precious controlled governments.
But, keep going with Keynes, your precious economic hero.
Argentina has been growing at around 8 to 9 percent for about 7 to 8 years which is actually well known. The worst economic predictions are small shrink before of 1% before return to growth, most don't think that there will be negative growth period at all just a slow down. Very profitable overall.
Not actually Keynesian just basic economics.
Growth without stimulus can definitely occur no one is debating that but it's slower and in a recession and the recovery from it will be slow or non existent if hampered by austerity. I have no problem with cuts in spending in fact I believe they are necessary but not in this economic climate.
As for small businesses Obama has reduced taxes on 80% of them and increased taxes on just over 3% of them so the government is in no way inordinately restricting them the problem small businesses faces is no money being in flux so the businesses collapse.
Here's a good reason why we don't need de-regulators like Romney and Ryan in the White House:
"The New York Stock Exchange's parent company agreed to pay $5 million to settle allegations it delivered valuable trading data to some customers ahead of others, submitting to the first fine ever levied against an exchange by the top U.S. securities regulator.
"The Securities and Exchange Commission said Friday it found that the NYSE had delivered stock-price quotes and other data to subscribers of two so-called proprietary data feeds as much as several seconds before the information was transmitted to the broader market...."
Also, a good reason why picking stocks is a loser's game for ordinary investors!
http://professional.wsj.com/article/SB1 … Collection
I'm shocked you can even think that Romney or Ryan are deregulators or spending cutters.
They want to cut $1 trillion over 40 years AFTER SPENDING $1 TRILLION MORE THAN OBAMA THEIR FIRST YEAR IN OFFICE.
Obama, Romney. They're the same and you've been fooled.
It is like a family when the household is broke because of divorce etc, the main household head needs still to take care of the family - provide food and shelter. He/she can't tell his/her children to stop eating first until the problem is solved. Social security needs to continue, it is humanitarian and people earned it, just like the children in the household.
Isn't all of this QE or money printing hurting the majority of America. This practice makes the dollar that the little people who don't have money in the market,,,, worth-less. Commodities go up, (you know, those pesky necessities) the market takes off, great,for investors. Were not still stuck on that trickle Down Fallacy,,,,Are We? The economy is consumer driven not investor driven. If the majority of American's have less disposable income,guess what they're not buying?
If they want to help the economy by printing money, rebuild this countries crumbling infrastructure. Pay for it with those funds instead of giving it to the Too Big to Fail banks to sit on. Good paying jobs.(not the 8.50 an hour jobs that corporations tell us they are doing us a favor with),top to bottom with the mandate,,,Only US made materials and equipment. Let the investors invest in factories and equipment and let the banks do their job and lend to the others that want to get in the game.
Oh sure it is and to be fir it started in the Bush years and continues now because the Progressive movement has control. As much as the Progressives here hate this Bush is and was one of them.
Spend, spend, sped, print print print.
Oh by the way it's the fault of Conservatives who don't want to do that.
Now how it's their fault when they CAN'T implement their ideas is anyone's guess but all this is their fault.
Markets fluctuate based on investors' perceptions of events they deem significant. Wall Street clearly liked the Fed's latest announcement.
The funny thing is, the markets are so inter-mingled that there really is very little information you can get by which way they move. One market can go up, which causes an international market to go down, which drives down the price of some commodities, which changes the balance of import/export profits, which changes international currency, which reflects on national markets...
When I was a trader, I learned not to try to equate any market with the 'health' of an economy.
The only reason the United States' ratings aren't lower is because they have a massive army.
THEY will NOT repay their debts.
Any individuals still borrowing money from those United States are only doing so out of fear of reprisal.
Anyone have any better ideas on what is going on.
http://occupycorporatism.com/bernankes- … us-dollar/
Austrian Economics explains this all perfectly. I've been talking about it for years.
If you'd like to learn what's happening, begin your journey here:
by Steven Dison 8 years ago
Should there be more cuts to budget in the short term, even with the threat of austerity looming?
by AnnCee 10 years ago
Former Minnesota governor Tim Pawlenty turned out a blockbuster economic-growth plan this past week, including deep cuts in taxes, spending, and regulations. It's really the first Reaganesque supply-side growth plan from any of the GOP presidential contenders. And he caps it all off with a defense...
by uncorrectedvision 9 years ago
What was my title? I thought about it and decided that Paul Krugman was the real point of this forum. I do know something about economics, politics and Paul Krugman. I know very little about the products of Summer's Eve. Krugman is a partisan, a warrior for one side and no...
by fishskinfreak2008 11 years ago
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20100122/ts_nm/us_obama"Let me dispel this notion that we were somehow focused on that (healthcare) and so as a consequence not focused on the economy. First of all, all I think about is how are we going to create jobs in this area".Well, healthcare is indeed...
by Ralph Deeds 8 years ago
" ...The defining economic policy of the last decade, of course, was the Bush tax cuts. President George W. Bush and Congress, including Mr. Ryan, passed a large tax cut in 2001, sped up its implementation in 2003 and predicted that prosperity would follow.The economic growth that actually...
by Scott Belford 9 years ago
Who has done better in economic growth, Bush II or Obama? Think carefully before answering.Using 4th Q 2009 through 1st Q 2012 GDP figures, after things stabilized somewhat from the debacle of the 2008 recessions, as a baseline for Obama, and comparing to the 6 similarly long periods from...
Copyright © 2021 Maven Media Brands, LLC and respective content providers on this website. HubPages® is a registered trademark of Maven Coalition, Inc. Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners. Maven Media Brands, LLC and respective content providers to this website may receive compensation for some links to products and services on this website.
|HubPages Device ID||This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel||This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.|
|Remarketing Pixels||We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels||We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.|