It's The Economy, Stupid - He Got The Message
- Thread starter nbcrusader
- Start date
The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
in a recovering economy, jobs are always the last thing to come around... the economy has been turning around for a while now... the jobs will come in due time.
wolfwill23
War Child
Damn that Bush and his tax cuts!
MrsSpringsteen
Blue Crack Addict
Personally I don't see things improving 
How much of that "buying spree" is on credit that people don't have the $ to pay for (tax cut or no tax cut)? I'm not trying at all to be argumentative, just my worthless .02...that btw has nothing to do w/ my feelings about the President
I think it also depends upon where you live
How much of that "buying spree" is on credit that people don't have the $ to pay for (tax cut or no tax cut)? I'm not trying at all to be argumentative, just my worthless .02...that btw has nothing to do w/ my feelings about the President
I think it also depends upon where you live
pax
ONE love, blood, life
OP
OP
nbcrusader
Blue Crack Addict
Business capital spending is the real news, not just the personal spending.
Slate
Slate
Right now, it looks good for numbers. Take note that government spending is also included in GDP, and, for last quarter, at least, most of the growth was fuelled by defense spending. To be fair, it is also noted that government spending wasn't as dramatic this quarter, so that makes the prospect for economic recovery all the more optimistic.
I am cautious, because this might be growth on a one-time deal. There are no more tax rebate checks on the horizon, aside from the standard rebates that come every tax season. Some other cautious optimism is being fuelled by Bank of America's upcoming mega-merger with Fleet (my employer, actually), although "cautious" is the key word. While Fleet's stock jumped, BoA's stock took a dive on investor concern that BoA is going to pay too much for Fleet.
There should also be cautious optimism on the job market, because it is true: job growth does come last. There are concerns, however, that much of the job expansion for U.S. companies are going to come from overseas labor, and, thus, there are many jobs that are permanently lost.
Tax cuts are only the band-aid on a wound; if we cannot replace the jobs that were lost, we are in trouble. Even if America is turning more into a "creative" economy, as many have suggested, it doesn't change the fact that it is the spending habits of the blue-collar and lower white-collar "uneducated" working class that still makes or breaks our economy. If they remain unemployed, then prospects for good economic recovery is questionable.
That is, unless, the banks start lowering their credit requirements.
Melon
I am cautious, because this might be growth on a one-time deal. There are no more tax rebate checks on the horizon, aside from the standard rebates that come every tax season. Some other cautious optimism is being fuelled by Bank of America's upcoming mega-merger with Fleet (my employer, actually), although "cautious" is the key word. While Fleet's stock jumped, BoA's stock took a dive on investor concern that BoA is going to pay too much for Fleet.
There should also be cautious optimism on the job market, because it is true: job growth does come last. There are concerns, however, that much of the job expansion for U.S. companies are going to come from overseas labor, and, thus, there are many jobs that are permanently lost.
Tax cuts are only the band-aid on a wound; if we cannot replace the jobs that were lost, we are in trouble. Even if America is turning more into a "creative" economy, as many have suggested, it doesn't change the fact that it is the spending habits of the blue-collar and lower white-collar "uneducated" working class that still makes or breaks our economy. If they remain unemployed, then prospects for good economic recovery is questionable.
That is, unless, the banks start lowering their credit requirements.
Melon
theSoulfulMofo
Rock n' Roll Doggie Band-aid
- Joined
- Aug 13, 2001
- Messages
- 4,490
the rich only gets richer
and the poor... well, you know.
If companies have been downsizing over the past few years and can still operate efficiently without hiring more people... then companies can make greater profit than paying off more employees.
So what if the economy is said to get better... we've been hearing that for years. No one's really winning in this country, except the CEOs and other multi-millionaires.
and the poor... well, you know.
If companies have been downsizing over the past few years and can still operate efficiently without hiring more people... then companies can make greater profit than paying off more employees.
So what if the economy is said to get better... we've been hearing that for years. No one's really winning in this country, except the CEOs and other multi-millionaires.
The unemployment rate is only 6.1% at the moment in the USA. This is not a very high rate of unemployment and is about the same as the first years of the Clinton administration. Steady consistent GDP growth will eventually lead to more job growth and a reduction in the unemployment numbers. If the growth continues, companies should start to hire significant numbers of workers in about 6 to 9 months. If Bush can reduce the unemployment rate from 6.1% to around 5% by November 2004, the Democrats will not be able to retake the White House. Problem is, if significant job growth does not begin until 6 to 9 months from now, that will only allow about a 3 to 6 month period of reduction in unemployment, to small a time perhaps to reduce the unemployment rate to 5%.
The economy I think is going to rebound over the next 2 years. The only question is will it do so in time for the election?
The economy I think is going to rebound over the next 2 years. The only question is will it do so in time for the election?
Zoocoustic
War Child
theSoulfulMofo said:
Or, you can choose to BELIEVE IN YOURSELF and make yourself rich! That is the beauty of America - you can do it if you believe it.
Naysayers like yourself are the anomaly. YOU will never "win" as you put it, becuase you don't believe it's possible.
Most of the millionaires wouldn't exist if they had your attitude.
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
Zoocoustic said:
This infomercial on "How to get rich", brought to you by Zoocoustic!
diamond
ONE love, blood, life
or more importantly, some have define rich or wealthy in a different way...
OP
OP
nbcrusader
Blue Crack Addict
Zoocoustic said:
Actually, there is something to this statement. Most millionaires are not people born into money, or people who graduated at the top of their classes. They are people who have the will and the drive to get it done.
joyfulgirl
Blue Crack Addict
- Joined
- Apr 11, 2001
- Messages
- 16,690
"...their wallets fattened by tax cuts..."
Uh, not at my house. I'm single with no kids. I therefore do not exist.
Uh, not at my house. I'm single with no kids. I therefore do not exist.
diamond
ONE love, blood, life
joyful-joyfulgirl said:
Maybe you'll get a larger refund at tax time next year enabling you to spend your money the way you deem fit..
DB9
sue4u2
Rock n' Roll Doggie VIP PASS
diamond said:
joyful-
Maybe you'll get a larger refund at tax time next year enabling you to spend your money the way you deem fit..
DB9
I hope your're right, diamond. I could use a tax break too.
and in regards to the statement about companies getting by with less employees, etc. I'm currently in a position at work that has always been a higher paying job, (at least for the almost 6 yrs I've been there) but because of cut backs no one has been hired and I have had to "fill in", if you will. Now I have to wonder if there I will even be compensated when my evaluation comes up, simply because I'm already doing the extra work, so why not just let me continue. THis along with my regular duties, that of course I'm backed up on. but you know, If I don't like it, well I can just go and find another job. Oh, and we had a wage freeze last fiscal year(ended Oct.). Guess I'll find out in Dec. if my efforts are raise worthy. It's maddening.
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
Consumer spending dips
Driver of two-thirds of the total economy fell in September, ending 3Q boom, as incomes rose.
October 31, 2003: 9:34 AM EST
NEW YORK (CNN/Money) - Personal income rose, but spending fell in September, the government said Friday, as a robust third quarter ended with a whimper.
http://money.cnn.com/2003/10/31/news/economy/personal_income/index.htm
I guess those tax cuts wore off...
Driver of two-thirds of the total economy fell in September, ending 3Q boom, as incomes rose.
October 31, 2003: 9:34 AM EST
NEW YORK (CNN/Money) - Personal income rose, but spending fell in September, the government said Friday, as a robust third quarter ended with a whimper.
http://money.cnn.com/2003/10/31/news/economy/personal_income/index.htm
I guess those tax cuts wore off...
BonoVoxSupastar,
"NEW YORK (CNN/Money) - Personal income rose, but spending fell in September, the government said Friday, as a robust third quarter ended with a whimper"
If Santa is not nice this year, the Democrats will have even more to be happy about.
"NEW YORK (CNN/Money) - Personal income rose, but spending fell in September, the government said Friday, as a robust third quarter ended with a whimper"
If Santa is not nice this year, the Democrats will have even more to be happy about.
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
STING2 said:
Hey look Santa's a hard working man who doesn't play sides, let's not bring him into this.
Well, I was speaking more about the "little Santa's" Parents, relatives, friends, who through their consumption of goods in order to give gifts usually make the 4th Qt of every year the best in terms of economic growth. So once again, if the "little Santa's" are not nice, the Democrats will have even more to be happy about.
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
STING2 said:
Wait a second...Santa's not real? This blows.
Scarletwine
New Yorker
Grossly Distorted Picture
Jonathan Tasini is the national director of American Rights At Work.
Was there a connection between the October 31 blaring front-page headline in The New York Times trumpeting the latest Gross Domestic Product numbers?and the story on page five that same day about lemmings? Well, sort of. The new scientific data shows that the notion that lemmings commit mass suicide is a hoax, perpetuated by myth and an unwillingness to look at real-life experience. The same could be said of the economic data and the reporters who regurgitate the information like, well, lemmings.
In a column just a few weeks ago, I argued that our focus on the GDP is dangerous and, increasingly, does not reflect what average Americans are experiencing. The GDP tells us that dollars are flowing somewhere but sheds little light on who is benefiting from the economic activity. It treats every economic transaction as a good thing. GDP was never meant to be such a central factor in describing economic growth but it has evolved, over the years, into a central barometer, mainly for political reasons. Remember, the criticism often leveled at companies that focused on quarterly earnings just to boost share prices? The GDP is the government equivalent of the short-term focus on the economy.
Indeed, it's a sad fact that some of the very dire circumstances faced by real people boost the Gross Domestic Product statistic. Sick people with no insurance run up the costs of health care?which is rung up as economic activity. As for debt, according to the Consumer Federation of America, credit card companies mailed five billion solicitations?nearly 50 per U.S. household?trying to dole out $3 trillion in unused lines of credit in just one year. That works out to about $30,000 per household?and, when that money is spent just to make ends meet, that credit card debt is chalked up to GDP activity, even if that activity sinks more families into economic despair.
In particular, this GDP rise is misleading. As the Economic Policy Institute correctly points out, the causes "underlying this growth are temporary: one-time tax cuts lifted disposable income; mortgage refinancing increased household spending; and a decline in inventories contributed to a lower trade deficit." Translation: the GDP this quarter was on a one-time economic steroid shot, juiced up by short-term political bribes (tax cuts) that can't be repeated, home owners cashing in on low interest rates and a temporary change in lower imports.
And, yet, the media blindly embraces the GDP. Reuters gushed that, "The U.S. economy rocketed ahead at its fastest pace in more than 19 years in the third quarter of 2003 as consumers, their wallets fattened by tax cuts, went on a buying spree, an unexpectedly strong government report showed on Thursday." You think there is a connection between the distrust of the media and such a pronouncement, which was echoed by most of the major traditional media outlets? Why would millions of workers, who are mired in extremely difficult economic circumstances, trust press organs that seem out of touch with workers' lives?
The problem is that there is no long-term coherent economic plan that deals with peoples' real life struggles and an economy that is quite troubled. In the richest country in the world, more than 34.6 million people (including 12.1 million children) live below what the government says is the "poverty line." But, what about those who live above the "poverty line" of $18,244 for a family of four? How does a family of four earning the enormous sum of, say, $25,000 clothe, feed, house and educate themselves?
The unofficial unemployment rate of 6.1 percent does not tell us how many millions of people are employed in part-time jobs but who would gladly accept full-time work. More than 2.5 million manufacturing jobs have been lost since the current administration took office?56,000 disappeared in June alone. Those were good-paying jobs. In the richest country in the world, 43.6 million people do not have health insurance?more than 15 percent of our families, friends and neighbors have no protection for themselves when they fall ill. A record number of bankruptcies?an estimated 1.7 million?is forecast for 2003.
The Center for American Progress nailed some other trends: declining consumer confidence, wage income down, a disastrous financial picture for the states, and a tax cut bill that will cost $550 billion in 2013.
So, next time you see the report on the GDP, remember that, in the way it is being manipulated, it really stands for Grossly Distorted Picture?an abstract number that means very little to the average working American and says more about the absence of a true long-term economic plan.
Jonathan Tasini is the national director of American Rights At Work.
Was there a connection between the October 31 blaring front-page headline in The New York Times trumpeting the latest Gross Domestic Product numbers?and the story on page five that same day about lemmings? Well, sort of. The new scientific data shows that the notion that lemmings commit mass suicide is a hoax, perpetuated by myth and an unwillingness to look at real-life experience. The same could be said of the economic data and the reporters who regurgitate the information like, well, lemmings.
In a column just a few weeks ago, I argued that our focus on the GDP is dangerous and, increasingly, does not reflect what average Americans are experiencing. The GDP tells us that dollars are flowing somewhere but sheds little light on who is benefiting from the economic activity. It treats every economic transaction as a good thing. GDP was never meant to be such a central factor in describing economic growth but it has evolved, over the years, into a central barometer, mainly for political reasons. Remember, the criticism often leveled at companies that focused on quarterly earnings just to boost share prices? The GDP is the government equivalent of the short-term focus on the economy.
Indeed, it's a sad fact that some of the very dire circumstances faced by real people boost the Gross Domestic Product statistic. Sick people with no insurance run up the costs of health care?which is rung up as economic activity. As for debt, according to the Consumer Federation of America, credit card companies mailed five billion solicitations?nearly 50 per U.S. household?trying to dole out $3 trillion in unused lines of credit in just one year. That works out to about $30,000 per household?and, when that money is spent just to make ends meet, that credit card debt is chalked up to GDP activity, even if that activity sinks more families into economic despair.
In particular, this GDP rise is misleading. As the Economic Policy Institute correctly points out, the causes "underlying this growth are temporary: one-time tax cuts lifted disposable income; mortgage refinancing increased household spending; and a decline in inventories contributed to a lower trade deficit." Translation: the GDP this quarter was on a one-time economic steroid shot, juiced up by short-term political bribes (tax cuts) that can't be repeated, home owners cashing in on low interest rates and a temporary change in lower imports.
And, yet, the media blindly embraces the GDP. Reuters gushed that, "The U.S. economy rocketed ahead at its fastest pace in more than 19 years in the third quarter of 2003 as consumers, their wallets fattened by tax cuts, went on a buying spree, an unexpectedly strong government report showed on Thursday." You think there is a connection between the distrust of the media and such a pronouncement, which was echoed by most of the major traditional media outlets? Why would millions of workers, who are mired in extremely difficult economic circumstances, trust press organs that seem out of touch with workers' lives?
The problem is that there is no long-term coherent economic plan that deals with peoples' real life struggles and an economy that is quite troubled. In the richest country in the world, more than 34.6 million people (including 12.1 million children) live below what the government says is the "poverty line." But, what about those who live above the "poverty line" of $18,244 for a family of four? How does a family of four earning the enormous sum of, say, $25,000 clothe, feed, house and educate themselves?
The unofficial unemployment rate of 6.1 percent does not tell us how many millions of people are employed in part-time jobs but who would gladly accept full-time work. More than 2.5 million manufacturing jobs have been lost since the current administration took office?56,000 disappeared in June alone. Those were good-paying jobs. In the richest country in the world, 43.6 million people do not have health insurance?more than 15 percent of our families, friends and neighbors have no protection for themselves when they fall ill. A record number of bankruptcies?an estimated 1.7 million?is forecast for 2003.
The Center for American Progress nailed some other trends: declining consumer confidence, wage income down, a disastrous financial picture for the states, and a tax cut bill that will cost $550 billion in 2013.
So, next time you see the report on the GDP, remember that, in the way it is being manipulated, it really stands for Grossly Distorted Picture?an abstract number that means very little to the average working American and says more about the absence of a true long-term economic plan.
OP
OP
nbcrusader
Blue Crack Addict
Mr. Tasini seems to be involved in his own brand of distortion. The GDP is only valid as a measure of the economy over time. It has meaning. If Mr. Tasini wants to address other issues, he should address those directly.
Salome
you are what you is
I'm a bit bemused with this entire thread
(except for the part that in the end the 3rd quarter results were nowhere near as good as mentioned in the first article posted here, since I don't believe in economic fairytales)
being a public accountant and all I tend to be led by economic thinking in many areas
but it is still beyond me how anyone can see tax cuts as a goal
1. I tend to believe it's a farce to present tax cuts as a motor for you economy in the long run
when companies start selling more products their first reaction will be to increase their prizes so they'll get (/can offer their shareholder) better results with the same capacity of labor etc
should the growth somehow be so dramatic that companies do indeed need more capacity then there's no doubt in my ming that Melon was right when he posted that "much of the job expansion for U.S. companies are going to come from overseas labor"
2. in Holland we pay such a shitload of taxes that some of you might need immediately surgical assistance if you had to pay them
but it's not as if we pay these taxes because we're afraid that we would get bored sitting on a mountain of money if we wouldn't
the government is actually able to spend some of that money wisely (a point I think is sort of proven by the fact that the standard of living is higher than in the US)
I think the influence the government has over the economy is grossly overestimated anyways
the big companies are the ones who decide what happens and no one else
the few things a government actually can do is to help those who really have nothing and keep an eye on things like health care, education and infrastructure
(except for the part that in the end the 3rd quarter results were nowhere near as good as mentioned in the first article posted here, since I don't believe in economic fairytales)
being a public accountant and all I tend to be led by economic thinking in many areas
but it is still beyond me how anyone can see tax cuts as a goal
1. I tend to believe it's a farce to present tax cuts as a motor for you economy in the long run
when companies start selling more products their first reaction will be to increase their prizes so they'll get (/can offer their shareholder) better results with the same capacity of labor etc
should the growth somehow be so dramatic that companies do indeed need more capacity then there's no doubt in my ming that Melon was right when he posted that "much of the job expansion for U.S. companies are going to come from overseas labor"
2. in Holland we pay such a shitload of taxes that some of you might need immediately surgical assistance if you had to pay them
but it's not as if we pay these taxes because we're afraid that we would get bored sitting on a mountain of money if we wouldn't
the government is actually able to spend some of that money wisely (a point I think is sort of proven by the fact that the standard of living is higher than in the US)
I think the influence the government has over the economy is grossly overestimated anyways
the big companies are the ones who decide what happens and no one else
the few things a government actually can do is to help those who really have nothing and keep an eye on things like health care, education and infrastructure
Angela Harlem
Jesus Online
You should balance your country's budget Slomey.
I'm not a fan of tax cuts. I prefer health and other services. My 32% tax pays that. Reduce tax and something suffers.
Simplistic innit?
I'm not a fan of tax cuts. I prefer health and other services. My 32% tax pays that. Reduce tax and something suffers.
Simplistic innit?
OP
OP
nbcrusader
Blue Crack Addict
Tax cuts, like interest rate drops, are not long term solutions, but needed to address economic trends.
The job news looks good as well:
Jobless Claims Plunge, Productivity Soars
The job news looks good as well:
Jobless Claims Plunge, Productivity Soars
Salome,
Most economist agree that tax cuts are a good idea when the economy is in recession.
"better results with the same capacity of labor etc
should the growth somehow be so dramatic that companies do indeed need more capacity then there's no doubt in my ming that Melon was right when he posted that "much of the job expansion for U.S. companies are going to come from overseas labor""
If thats the case, why were many US companies four years ago trying to get students in Europe to come and work in the USA? Not all jobs can or will be transfered overseas as the last economic boom showed. From 1999-2000, the labor market in the USA was so tight that inflation started to rise as companies competed to get the remaining available labor by paying higher wages and benefits.
Improvements in labor productivity and capacity do not normally coincide with economic booms. They usually come later or as the result of tight economic times as companies try and keep their profit margins up.
"the government is actually able to spend some of that money wisely (a point I think is sort of proven by the fact that the standard of living is higher than in the US)"
The standard of living in the Netherlands is higher slightly than the USA this year, but last year it was below the standard of living in the USA.
The Netherlands spends very little comparitively on its Military and benefits from the USA's larger military and ability to intervene in key area's of the world, vital to the health of the global economy.
"I think the influence the government has over the economy is grossly overestimated"
Take a look at a country where the Government controlled everything (Soviet Union, former East Bloc) and one can see that the bigger the role the government plays in the economy, the less efficient it is. China continues to privatize its industries and move the Government out of its economy. The results speak for themselves.
Most economist agree that tax cuts are a good idea when the economy is in recession.
"better results with the same capacity of labor etc
should the growth somehow be so dramatic that companies do indeed need more capacity then there's no doubt in my ming that Melon was right when he posted that "much of the job expansion for U.S. companies are going to come from overseas labor""
If thats the case, why were many US companies four years ago trying to get students in Europe to come and work in the USA? Not all jobs can or will be transfered overseas as the last economic boom showed. From 1999-2000, the labor market in the USA was so tight that inflation started to rise as companies competed to get the remaining available labor by paying higher wages and benefits.
Improvements in labor productivity and capacity do not normally coincide with economic booms. They usually come later or as the result of tight economic times as companies try and keep their profit margins up.
"the government is actually able to spend some of that money wisely (a point I think is sort of proven by the fact that the standard of living is higher than in the US)"
The standard of living in the Netherlands is higher slightly than the USA this year, but last year it was below the standard of living in the USA.
The Netherlands spends very little comparitively on its Military and benefits from the USA's larger military and ability to intervene in key area's of the world, vital to the health of the global economy.
"I think the influence the government has over the economy is grossly overestimated"
Take a look at a country where the Government controlled everything (Soviet Union, former East Bloc) and one can see that the bigger the role the government plays in the economy, the less efficient it is. China continues to privatize its industries and move the Government out of its economy. The results speak for themselves.
Similar threads
