My thoughts on the economy,agree/disagree?

[BrianJB]

I've always had my own theory on the US economy.


I think that even if 9/11 would not have happened that the US economy was going to crash either way. And yes, I do think that 9/11 and the wars that followed didn't help matters I don't think they were the end all be all of the crash.


I always have thought that advances in technology, while great for us in the early to late 90's led to a decline of middle class jobs. For example, I work in the printing industry, the place I am at used to have 8 printing presses, always printing multimedia. Now we have 3 presses that hardly have work anymore. (That's just one example) I remember when things were great in the US (around 1996) one of President Clintons financial advisers addressing when jobs were leaving the US by saying something along the lines of "We don't need those jobs, we dont WANT those jobs"


I think that developing countries using more resources (food,oil..etc..) has caused many of our commonly used things to rise in price. Therefore taking more money out of our pockets.


And with all of the baby boomers retiring it is putting a great pressure on our financial system (this had been talked about since the 1980s). And now it is finally happening.


Thats just a few of my thoughts.

Agree/Disagree?

 

[jefboyardee]

I think the USA, maybe the entire world, is being hoodwinked. Even though stocks have climbed to a new high, nothing is really better in the real world, at least since ‘06 or so. I therefore believe Wall Street is due for a sudden and enormous correction.

 

[Speed Daemon]

I've always had my own theory on the US economy.

I think that even if 9/11 would not have happened that the US economy was going to crash either way. And yes, I do think that 9/11 and the wars that followed didn't help matters I don't think they were the end all be all of the crash.

As a matter of fact, during the Presidential primaries of 2000, Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan ordered an increase in the prime lending rate, ostensibly "to slow down the economy". This came on the heels of a lot of capital spending by businesses in order to prevent any problems caused by the "Y2K bug", and the economy was slowing by itself. After five or six interest rate boosts, we had a pretty significant stock market crash here in the US as a result of Greenspan's meddling.

I find it hard to believe that anyone with Greenspan's knowledge, experience and resources could have sabotaged the US economy by accident. Because this was a Presidential election year, the most reasonable explanation is that it was done for political purposes. No matter what the motive, the fact is that Greenspan crashed the economy and burst the tech bubble on purpose. There's no evidence that it would have had to crash if Greenspan had not interfered.

The unfunded Vietnam-style wars and the tax give-away under the Bush/Cheney administration did take their toll because all of it was done with borrowed money. Even if there had been no attack on 9-11-2001, the massive sovereign debt that resulted from these colossal spending programs would have still done what they did. But again, these were deliberate acts, not market forces that caused the damage.

I always have thought that advances in technology, while great for us in the early to late 90's led to a decline of middle class jobs.

That idea is unfounded. Although a few jobs were lost to the advance of technology (which has been going on for millennia), the jobs lost in the '90s were more than made up by the many more (and better) jobs created by the IT industry at that time. In the '90s the net result was many more jobs.

For example, I work in the printing industry, the place I am at used to have 8 printing presses, always printing multimedia. Now we have 3 presses that hardly have work anymore. (That's just one example)

Yes, that's just one example. And one example does not a rule make.

While offset printing lost business, the boom in laser printing actually saved the printing industry in a big way. Also, I know scads of graphic designers who used to be old-tech printers. They retrained and moved up to better jobs.

I think that developing countries using more resources (food,oil..etc..) has caused many of our commonly used things to rise in price. Therefore taking more money out of our pockets.

The thing that created the demand for more "food,oil..etc.." was because of the growing production of goods overseas at prices much lower than we in the US could have produced them for. So you have it backwards. We actually saved money due to cheaper consumer goods.

Agree/Disagree?

You can't rightly call these thoughts theories. They don't have any factual basis, and instead appear to be relying solely on a leap of faith to reach those conclusions. As you can see, the facts pretty much disprove your suppositions. Sorry.

 

[ElasticNinja]

I've always had my own theory on the US economy.

I always have thought that advances in technology, while great for us in the early to late 90's led to a decline of middle class jobs. For example, I work in the printing industry, the place I am at used to have 8 printing presses, always printing multimedia. Now we have 3 presses that hardly have work anymore. (That's just one example) I remember when things were great in the US (around 1996) one of President Clintons financial advisers addressing when jobs were leaving the US by saying something along the lines of "We don't need those jobs, we dont WANT those jobs"

Well in other parts of the world middle class jobs have been kept despite more innovation, its working class ones which are vanishing. Technology means that people should work less hours, the government should ensure hours are brought down instead of more unemployment.

I think the USA, maybe the entire world, is being hoodwinked. Even though stocks have climbed to a new high, nothing is really better in the real world, at least since

 

[BrianJB]

As a matter of fact, during the Presidential primaries of 2000, Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan ordered an increase in the prime lending rate, ostensibly "to slow down the economy". This came on the heels of a lot of capital spending by businesses in order to prevent any problems caused by the "Y2K bug", and the economy was slowing by itself. After five or six interest rate boosts, we had a pretty significant stock market crash here in the US as a result of Greenspan's meddling.

I find it hard to believe that anyone with Greenspan's knowledge, experience and resources could have sabotaged the US economy by accident. Because this was a Presidential election year, the most reasonable explanation is that it was done for political purposes. No matter what the motive, the fact is that Greenspan crashed the economy and burst the tech bubble on purpose. There's no evidence that it would have had to crash if Greenspan had not interfered.

The unfunded Vietnam-style wars and the tax give-away under the Bush/Cheney administration did take their toll because all of it was done with borrowed money. Even if there had been no attack on 9-11-2001, the massive sovereign debt that resulted from these colossal spending programs would have still done what they did. But again, these were deliberate acts, not market forces that caused the damage.

That idea is unfounded. Although a few jobs were lost to the advance of technology (which has been going on for millennia), the jobs lost in the '90s were more than made up by the many more (and better) jobs created by the IT industry at that time. In the '90s the net result was many more jobs.

Yes, that's just one example. And one example does not a rule make.

While offset printing lost business, the boom in laser printing actually saved the printing industry in a big way. Also, I know scads of graphic designers who used to be old-tech printers. They retrained and moved up to better jobs.

The thing that created the demand for more "food,oil..etc.." was because of the growing production of goods overseas at prices much lower than we in the US could have produced them for. So you have it backwards. We actually saved money due to cheaper consumer goods.

You can't rightly call these thoughts theories. They don't have any factual basis, and instead appear to be relying solely on a leap of faith to reach those conclusions. As you can see, the facts pretty much disprove your suppositions. Sorry.

I should have kept the discussion in the realm of "my thoughts", that was a bad choice of words on my part. So really it is just one mans thought, I'm not trying to go on FBN and apply it to everyone.

But I don't think we actually money due to consumer goods being produced overseas, because while we may be able to purchase a toy for our kid that would be $15 if produced in america, but is only $5 since it is made in China. We more than make up for that difference with other consumer items costing more money as each year goes on.

And while we know that many things go up in price as years go on we have ran into stagnant wages that have not gone up to combat inflation.


And I can say as far as laser printing is concerned it is not a fully developed technology as of yet. Currently most printers are unsure as to how to move on at the moment, while it could produce more jobs in the future as of now things are in a holding pattern throughout most of the industry.

 

[ElasticNinja]

I should have kept the discussion in the realm of "my thoughts", that was a bad choice of words on my part. So really it is just one mans thought, I'm not trying to go on FBN and apply it to everyone.

But I don't think we actually money due to consumer goods being produced overseas, because while we may be able to purchase a toy for our kid that would be $15 if produced in america, but is only $5 since it is made in China. We more than make up for that difference with other consumer items costing more money as each year goes on.

And while we know that many things go up in price as years go on we have ran into stagnant wages that have not gone up to combat inflation.


And I can say as far as laser printing is concerned it is not a fully developed technology as of yet. Currently most printers are unsure as to how to move on at the moment, while it could produce more jobs in the future as of now things are in a holding pattern throughout most of the industry.

The problem is that in the US government's are not willing to do any level of economic planning. Post War Europe had plans put upon it by the US to great effect (Marshall Plan condition).

The rhetoric in the US is about protectionism instead of changing and competing. The one area I agree with Republicans more than Democrats is with regards to Free Trade agreements - Obama has negotiated no fresh ones, and the US is far far behind Europe with regards to FTAs.

And unfortunately when competitiveness is debated the rhetoric is about keeping the poor poor. Wages should be kept somewhat low. But people still need to have good, no, excellent quality of life. The US cannot simply produce low quality goods. It has to focus on things requiring innovation and University educated workers. Eight out of ten people need to be finishing third level, and they shouldnt have to financially suffer to do so.

Put in place a plan. Set targets. Set out funding and how you will pay for it. Legislate so that every state has to do this or they suffer.

 

[BrianJB]

The problem is that in the US government's are not willing to do any level of economic planning. Post War Europe had plans put upon it by the US to great effect (Marshall Plan condition).

The rhetoric in the US is about protectionism instead of changing and competing. The one area I agree with Republicans more than Democrats is with regards to Free Trade agreements - Obama has negotiated no fresh ones, and the US is far far behind Europe with regards to FTAs.

And unfortunately when competitiveness is debated the rhetoric is about keeping the poor poor. Wages should be kept somewhat low. But people still need to have good, no, excellent quality of life. The US cannot simply produce low quality goods. It has to focus on things requiring innovation and University educated workers. Eight out of ten people need to be finishing third level, and they shouldnt have to financially suffer to do so.

Put in place a plan. Set targets. Set out funding and how you will pay for it. Legislate so that every state has to do this or they suffer.

You are 100% correct. I don't remember if it was Steve Jobs or someone else higher in the tech industry basically saying that those jobs in China aren't coming back, because they were never here to begin with and they will never be here.

We need higher education. Heck my brother in law and his wife just both went through 4 years of college, they have a combined $375K of education related debt. He cannot get a job in the field he went to college for (he went in late 07/early 08 for construction foreman)...obviously we know how that has turned out. So he sells insurance at the moment.

And his wife is now a dentist, but she has to work under another dentist for at least 2 years. But guess what?, no dentists in their town have any openings for her, so she has to drive 70 miles (140 miles round trip) to work at a place that only allows her to work 3 days a week, so after paying for gas and other expenses she isn't making a dent in her loans.


Its a bad cycle america is in at the moment.

 

[jefboyardee]

I therefore believe Wall Street is due for a sudden and enormous correction.

And I don

 

[Speed Daemon]

I should have kept the discussion in the realm of "my thoughts", that was a bad choice of words on my part. So really it is just one mans thought, I'm not trying to go on FBN and apply it to everyone.

No matter how they're named, the important thing to recognize is that these notions aren't true. They're political talking points that were made up to serve the agenda of one political party, but don't edify any of us.

I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but the fact is that the heyday of the old-fashioned print shop has passed forever. Offset printing isn't poised to make a comeback. There will be a niche market for specialty printing jobs, but as a whole, old school printing technology is being abandoned in favor of online publishing.

 

[Davdi]

As Speed Daemon implies, printer not always required (Kindle/Kobo/Nook/Google Books etc.)
My sub for Scientific American is for the pdf version which I read on my N7. I have a number of other magazines on digital subscription and a couple of print ones with a free digital version included in the sub.

 

[dibblebill]

I have to admit, I almost snorted at a few comments in here.

Speed Daemon's called most of it accurately, so I'll just say I'm throwing in with his post.

As far as guaranteeing hours... At who's expense? Shall we be like the (poorly managed) Twinkie company where bakers chose to lose jobs entirely rather than a pay cut, then?

As far as 'economic planning', that always works about as far as one can throw the entirety of a government... That is, it always comes to a head and begins to tumble down around itself, like we're seeing now in Europe and the US. Our modern problems were predicted quite accurately by several economics works in the 1900's, especially the problems of mixed economies like the United States.

 

[Davdi]

Much less Govt. intervention in everything. In the UK it's getting beyond silly. Gay marriage seems to be more important than fixing the economy or cutting back/out the ruinous foreign aid to half the world's corrupt regimes.

Even the gay community doesn't seem that bothered, they've got civil partnerships which give them effectively the same legal standing as marriage. Thr Church of England and the Roman Catholic Church are vehemently opposed and at least 100 of the Conservative party (the main party in the coalition) are poised to vote agains the bill. If it gets passed it'll be because the opposition support it regarless of whether they agree or not.

 

[dibblebill]

Much less Govt. intervention in everything. In the UK it's getting beyond silly. Gay marriage seems to be more important than fixing the economy or cutting back/out the ruinous foreign aid to half the world's corrupt regimes.

Even the gay community doesn't seem that bothered, they've got civil partnerships which give them effectively the same legal standing as marriage. Thr Church of England and the Roman Catholic Church are vehemently opposed and at least 100 of the Conservative party (the main party in the coalition) are poised to vote agains the bill. If it gets passed it'll be because the opposition support it regarless of whether they agree or not.

This man gets it. I'd say, remove marriage from government entirely and stop letting it be an issue to distract the public with. Let the people and churches decide for themselves who to or not to marry, and stop discriminating against single people or people without kids via taxation.

 

[ElasticNinja]

As far as 'economic planning', that always works about as far as one can throw the entirety of a government... That is, it always comes to a head and begins to tumble down around itself, like we're seeing now in Europe and the US. Our modern problems were predicted quite accurately by several economics works in the 1900's, especially the problems of mixed economies like the United States.

Economic planning has worked quite well for Europe. The problem has been when we have forgotten to plan.

Europe right now has a lower budget deficit than the US, no trade deficit (Despite having no natural resources unlike the US which runs massive trade deficits), has better quality of life, strong modern manufacturing, much lower carbon intensity than the rest of the world etc. The main problem we have is unemployment.

Governments shouldn't be setting targets for x amount of washing machines to be produced. But governments should be planning ahead.

Much less Govt. intervention in everything. In the UK it's getting beyond silly. Gay marriage seems to be more important than fixing the economy or cutting back/out the ruinous foreign aid to half the world's corrupt regimes.

The UK has one of the smallest governments in Europe. Between Thatcher, Major, Blair and Brown the state shrunk to nothingness. In fact Osbourne is leading the UK towards having lower government expenditure than the US (!) by 2020.

Gay marriage is important. Do you think life stops because of an economic crisis? Good god.

Foreign aid is not ruinous. One needs only look at how well so much of Africa is doing these days, now that we are learning how to do aid properly.

Even the gay community doesn't seem that bothered, they've got civil partnerships which give them effectively the same legal standing as marriage. Thr Church of England and the Roman Catholic Church are vehemently opposed and at least 100 of the Conservative party (the main party in the coalition) are poised to vote agains the bill. If it gets passed it'll be because the opposition support it regarless of whether they agree or not.

If the Roman Catholic church are opposed it probably is a good idea.

This man gets it. I'd say, remove marriage from government entirely and stop letting it be an issue to distract the public with. Let the people and churches decide for themselves who to or not to marry, and stop discriminating against single people or people without kids via taxation.

Marriage is a bedrock of society imo.

Childless people should be 'discriminated' against, as they are now. There is nothing wrong with not having kids but there certainly must be indirect income transfers to those with young children and teenagers.

I would like to see an increase in income taxation in exchange for higher child benefit and more third level spending.

 

[jefboyardee]

Gay marriage is important. Do you think life stops because of an economic crisis?

Certainly not... it stops with the advent of gay marriage.

 

[jefboyardee]

So allowing a small minority of the population to wed someone of the same gender will cause humans to become extinct?

I doubt it, but it is a step in that direction, more so than a financial crisis is.

 

[stusue]

Go to YouTube and watch George carlin who controls America. Or any bill hicks video related to politics or economy. They didn't mean to be funny. They were telling the truth just presenting it in a numerous way to make it more palatable. But all accurate and true.

 

[jefboyardee]

But if you were married to someone of your own gender, you wouldn’t have any chance of having that cute avatar. That’s all I’m trying to say.

 

[jefboyardee]

They did not choose their sexual orientation

So who did, God? On purpose? By mistake?

 

[BrianJB]

No matter how they're named, the important thing to recognize is that these notions aren't true. They're political talking points that were made up to serve the agenda of one political party, but don't edify any of us.

I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but the fact is that the heyday of the old-fashioned print shop has passed forever. Offset printing isn't poised to make a comeback. There will be a niche market for specialty printing jobs, but as a whole, old school printing technology is being abandoned in favor of online publishing.

Well, I hope that no one on fox news or msnbc uses my thoughts as their nightly news. If I was trying to state things as facts I would've provided links and stated that they were facts...hince the title of the thread "agree/disagree?".


And as far as offset printing goes, thats what I was saying earlier in the thread, as online publishing and digital downloads came to be it costs many their jobs. And the new technologies didn't correlate into new jobs for many of the people. Thats where I was making my connection with as technology moves forward, while it does give some new jobs it doesn't create even half as many as it takes.

 

[ElasticNinja]

So who did, God? On purpose? By mistake?

A god didn't choose anything. However these people did not have a choice in their sexual orientation, just as you did not.

When did you choose to be straight?

 

[copestag]

the same time you chose not to be an alligator

you dont choose natural order........ you choose to deviate from it

 

[jefboyardee]

A god didn't choose anything. However these people did not have a choice in their sexual orientation, just as you did not.

So if my sexual preference wasn

 

[ElasticNinja]

So if my sexual preference wasn

 

[kool kat2]

the same time you chose not to be an alligator

you dont choose natural order........ you choose to deviate from it

Gay people don't just wake up every day and choose from a buffet of orientation. And if they did, i cant imagine them choosing the one thats going to get them discriminated against or potentially killed every time. I certainly can't just flip a switch and decide to be gay. I didn't choose to be straight. It just happened. Lucky me, i have one less thing to worry about in the world. I don't need laws passed to be treated as an equal to others.