Economic stimulus naysaysers!

fscrig75 said:
They are only different in how they spin it to fit their own agenda. Used car sales men all of them.
Click to expand...

So none of them are selling new cars, just used ones eh?
LOL
:laugh3:
 
fscrig75 said:
You know what I mean. :laugh:
Click to expand...

God I love the English language, it is more fun than a barrel of monkeys!

For those who did not get the joke, I see about 3-4 new car commercials lately during the Spin breaks on TV news by the "used car salesmen" (news media) as fscrig75 calls them.:laugh3:
 
You'd be surprised how many of the German networks run the same thing as the U.S. majors. It's gotten worse since the Dems took over, most all of it is canned and follows the (liberal) party line a little too closely for my tastes. At least they used to disagree with the Republöican slant on occasion, but even then almost always bought into the established bi polar arguemnt. My guess is the independent editorial is dead.
Every once in a while they miss a memo and screw it up, then an hour later they are right back on track with the rest of the world (kind of a blatant tipoff much of the worlds news is from the same sources).
One reason I enjoy BBC is that some of there stuff is obviously canned, some of it is a fresh look at the topics of the day. They sometimes don't feel the need to buy into the established bi polar arguments and sometimes look at the problem from a different perspective without being radical about it.
 
The question remains Mike, how is this sustainable? One can not have an acutal "recovery" until the changes are made that the bottom brings with it. We are short circuiting the system to avoid a bottom, prolonging and possibly deepening the negative effects.

businesses with poor business models must fail
A country that buys more than it produces must fail
a household that spends more than it earns must fail

If we continue to prop up things that are unsustainable, the thing we use to prop them up will be what collapses, and that will hurt much more than %20 unemployment.

Look at the 100 year chart of the DOW and try again to convince me that we've made it through a complete recession in 1 year.
 
Originally Posted by Ecomike View Post
So none of them are selling new cars, just used ones eh?
There are no used ones to sell. They've all been 'clunkered'.
And I just spent about a grand sprucing up my '92. I've been stimulating Quadratec, Maaco, and Harry's U Pull It. Maybe I should have sold it to Maobama, and taken on a loan that I might default on, as I work as an electrician, mostly new construction (which has unfortunately given me the time lately to work on my obsession).
I only halfheartedly agree with Ecomike and his stimulating theories. Roosevelt overspent in war times, and it shocked the economy into solvency. Yes, it takes money to make money, but we're gonna be on the hook for a lot, especially to China. To whom did we owe money after WW2? Aren't there European powers that still owe us for saving their asses? If France and Germany are starting to round the corner, will they throw us a life preserver? The only reason for aggression across borders is for economic gain, resources, etc., not counting the current mess in Iraq and Afganistan. Looks like China may be the ultimate economic victor here. And, if all the 'takeover' crap from the Kremlin on the Potomic gets rammed through, we'll even have their favorite smell about us!
 
And just last night, I was at the monthly meeting at the union hall, where, when it comes to politics, many members just follow the Democrat line. When the topic turned to healthcare, which is provided as part of our package, the fellow speaking let slip with something on the order of 'whether or not you agree with healthcare reform'. WOW- even the lockstep unions are having doubts about what's coming out of Washington!
 
Last edited:
I'd rather watch a maveric than a non-stop Obama commercial on MSNBC. I especially enjoyed Sen. Spector getting his ass handed to him at the town hall meetings.
 
goodburbon said:
T

Look at the 100 year chart of the DOW and try again to convince me that we've made it through a complete recession in 1 year.
Click to expand...


This recession is already officially 19 months old, 1 month older than the longest recession since before WWII. Check the wire services on that, I have seen it in several news items this week.

You said: " A country that buys more than it produces must fail"

That statement is way too simplistic, simplicity is the problem with what most of you guys are hanging your hats on here. They have the attractiveness of simplicity, understandability, and the sound of reality, but they leave out many other important factors (variables). The reality is that the G-8, G-12, and others have been exporting things like inflation and currency, circulating them around the world, and using currency values and local labor rates to play one economy off of another.

A country that as you say "buys more than it produces", is measured in surplus currency in the country with the so called "extra" exports. The surplus is based on currency exchange rates, which are flexible. If that continues, it results in changes in the relative value of the currencies of the 2 countries, but usually what happens, is the country exporting currency for hard product is propping up the other countries markets while they are depressed (from a recession in the country trading hard products for another countries currency), and the country that is exporting currency gets a good deal on products for a while. Eventually when the economy falters in the currency exporting country, and or the currency value drops in that country (or both), and the country that was importing currency in exchange for goods (like China), they (like the US) become more competitive as the local currency is devalued (that making their labor rates look lower), and they start building more products, exporting more goods, and exporting less currency. Keep in mind the numbers are relative, and the absolute numbers are not always as important as the directions and rates. Now complicate that game with 80 countries and 80 currencies, and you end up with 160 variables all interacting with each other. So it is just not that simple. Then you tack on the military aspect where we continue to force the world to trade and price in oil in terms of US Dollars, which makes the dollar a hard currency, worth its weight in oil so to speak. Unfortunetly, it also ties us to OPEC, in some times unpleasant ways, but it does create a world wide demand for dollars, as long as oil is traded for dollars.

The entire world government system is currently following the Keynesian model of spending money to prop up asset prices and labor rates, to turn the world economies around before they totally crash. So if they are printing money too, and prices are flat to lower world wide (deflation already took the price of oil down 50%, 75% earlier this year, so there is no inflation currently, even real estate and house prices are dropping, more evidence of no inflation, in fact we have been experiencing massive deflation, in spite of the record US deficits! Explain that one please!) How can that really hurt the value of the dollar right now? It is only a problem if the governments continue to spend at these rates once the economy starts growing again. Once that happens I am back in your camp, saying government should spend less of the GDP, and let private markets function as freely as possible. In my view it is all about timing of the spending, not a permanent view. I also see an advantage in the government spending money on infrastructure now, versus a few years from now, as we the tax payers will get cheaper (lower cost) infrastructure built right now, than during a real economic rebound.

You speak of how we should not be propping up things that are unsustainable, yet you promote the unsustainable exploration and depletion of fossil fuels leaving our kids with an even worse problem than we have, when we should be investing in renewable energy sources.

By the way, I think I told you before, that I use to make the same arguments you are making here today, only I made them 30 years ago.
 
Ecomike said:
Eventually when the economy falters in the currency exporting country, and or the currency value drops in that country (or both), and the country that was importing currency in exchange for goods (like China), they (like the US) become more competitive as the local currency is devalued (that making their labor rates look lower), and they start building more products, exporting more goods, and exporting less currency..
Click to expand...


1. Thank you for proving my point for me. It isn't sustainable, we must move to a more production oriented economy, the sooner we do so the lesser the negative impact on quality of life/ social structure.

As for oil. If the stimulus had been spent on the conversion of the failed GM factories being converted to produce solar panels and wind generators I could have gotten behind it, it did not. Instead we opted to spend money on silly things, and a few needed dollars on infrastructure. (I say silly things because I know personally of $14000 govt dollars being spent to shampoo the carpets in 3- 2 bedroom apartments. $25000 to replace celotex, sheetrock and rubber baseboards in 2-2bedroom apartments, and an offer was made to perform maintenance on another 2 units for $15000 but the government rep said the company had to take $16700. Keep in mind that the guys installing this stuff still make $15 an hour for a 1 day job, and the rest goes to the company owner.)


Producing more oil we already have is a stop-gap measure to ensure quality of life remains relatively constant while we transition to a new energy source. I don't propose that we drill our own oil and live on it forever.
 
urban yan said:
Fox understands news shouldn't be about journalism. They're mavericks, and mavericks are better anyone else.
Click to expand...

Your still just throwing things out there like a 3rd grader, man dad is better than your dad.

Since you don't like Fox, who would you say is the news source that we should get our news from? CNN/ABC/CBS/NBC/MSNBC

I haven't read anyone bashing one particular news site except for you.
 
I agree with much of what Goodburbon says, fewer money managers and more hands on types, is bound to help the productivity. Another solution would be to get back to basics and produce durable goods that last twenty years, re dominate parts of the world market we used to own. I recently had a pump go belly up that was exactly two weeks past the warranty period, that is what I call good engineering, for making a profit instead of a reputation.
Does anybody but me read between the lines. And/or purposely look places that should be, but aren't part of the "advertised" national discussion. The government is good at misdirection and apparently has variable successes with outright lies. You hear bits and pieces, but IMO the snippets you hear are often more important than advertised. I always tend to look at and investigate, what isn't said or maybe just given a single line in an hour long broadcast.
Sure their were multiple causes of the recession, one of which (few are talking about), is the Democrats coming to power and the likelihood the rules are going to change. If you had a billion dollars and a political system came to power with the pledge to tax the rich, what would you do?
I'd try to stash my money someplace where they couldn't get their hands on it. Switzerland is being pressured to open their books to U.S. scrutiny, as is Luxembourg and others. The offshore islands, hey wait, wasn't the Turks and Caicos islands government just suspended and taken over by Britain. Isn't that what they call a bloodless coup? They charged corruption and bad government as the reason, isn't that always the reason given. I bet they are after the money and they'd invade Switzerland if they thought they could get away with it. LOL A billion here and a billion there, it all adds up.
The Democrats are bound and determined to unstop the pipes and get the money flowing again (back home) so they can get their share.
Just the thought of upsetting the apple cart sent a whole bunch of capital offshore. The governments tactic for dealing with this is usually the same as with the Saudis, print more money and make the horded currency worth less (maybe we should exchange our dollars for Zimbabwean dollars as a hedge against inflation? LOL). They can't afford to weaken the dollar much more and are going after the stashed cash. IMO
 
Last edited:
8Mud said:
I agree with much of what Goodburbon says, fewer money managers and more hands on types, is bound to help the productivity. Another solution would be to get back to basics and produce durable goods that last twenty years, re dominate parts of the world market we used to own. I recently had a pump go belly up that was exactly two weeks past the warranty period, that is what I call good engineering, for making a profit instead of a reputation.
Click to expand...
It's called built in obsolescence. The term used to be synonymous with consumables like light bulbs, and printer cartridges (you know, cheap stuff). Now its made its way to big screen TVs, cars, and even homes. It would be nice if they made stuff to last, but that's not going to happen while corporations run the planet.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

TORX
Vegas to Reno 2018
Replies
2
Views
4K
paddlernate
P
lobsterdmb
Costs, benefits of NEPA reviews tough to pin down
Replies
0
Views
193
lobsterdmb
lobsterdmb
XJEEPER
Obama's ongoing relationship with known terrorist organizations
Replies
0
Views
360
XJEEPER
XJEEPER
Ecomike
Bears loose on Wall Street again
Replies
2
Views
396
JNickel101
JNickel101
Darky
Possible economic riots/Martial law
2 3 4
Replies
62
Views
3K
Darky
Darky
Back
Top