economic progress...

[bishop]

in recent years, we've seen our economy grow faster than expected while growth has not translated into substantial job creation or widespread prosperity.

according to the textbooks, economies are either oriented around agriculture, manufacturing and services. in many respects, the u.s. created the notion of a service economy.
since we are seen as a service economy, it's natural that those jobs are seen as being the most valuable to our economic health. lately i've been wondering if we're slowly morphing into a different sort of economy. one that's primarily centered around investment, rather than agriculture, manufacturing and services. something that people have dubbed - the new economy.

is it possible that increased global economic integration and the information revolution have created a fourth type of economy, or is this simply a strengthened service economy?

something relavent: http://www.businessweek.com/1997/46/b3553084.htm

[Technosoul]

That was the prediction of someone, that our next export product would be to sell information. Information about technology and other things. But not sure if that can produce the same kinds of backbone jobs that a production factory making normal products.

But self-help books on every topic are flying off the shelf, and as more so-called 3rd world nations inter the 2nd world status (assuming we have such a thing) they will need those "how too" books or information.

I was even thinking about a new book "how to become rich by writting a book about how to become rich".

A lot of people are looking into investments as a way to make money without doing anything productive. Trying to turn a nickle into a dime before you spend the nickle. That also has become one the lastest addictions which is simular the addiction of gambling.
However the recent con jobs by fat cat CEOs and the downfall of "on paper only" dot com companies has put a damper on some of the excitment about the field of investorism.

I think one of the hotest tickets today is entertainment. Music and movies seem to have become one of our best export items. The movies and music in turn create popular role models who then add to what is called the "American look". Everyone wants to dress and look like their movie and music idols. Such products that can get into that area seem to go big until another fad is generated.

I was trying to sell one company on the idea of producing malfuntional dresses like the one Miss Jackson wore during half time, but so far they are too stupid to buy that idea, oh well, their loss.

Well, I am just telling funny stories as a joke, which is not what anyone is interested in hearing, so I will move on to another topic.

[bishop]

the more advanced a country's economy becomes, the higher the need for well-educated labor. this is clearly why service jobs generally pay higher than "blue-collar" jobs, and why investment jobs typically pay higher than general service jobs.
when spoke about investments, i didn't exactly mean individual investors. while i agree that more people have moved into the "investor class", i don't believe that that in itself is enough to change the economy. imo, institutional investment is what is changing it - as it evolves in an increasingly global economy. the recent wave of bank mergers is one good example.. our banks are the most solid in the world, and they invest heavily in the global economy. other funds, from hedges to mutual funds are increasingly incorporating foreign assets into their portfolios. and, there is a lot of demand for workers with those sorts of skills.

i'm wondering if the aspect of a global investment perspective will eventually become incorporated to a broader array of businesses. could private colleges begin to invest their assets in the market? hospitals, etc.? as it is, the government and states have been doing this a lot over the past several years.

[Technosoul]

As a side note, what about the plan to allow people to invest their social security savings with the incentive or hope they will end up with more cash in the bank come retirement day?

Is that a plot to encouage people to shift their savings into the hands of the wealthy few who own most companies that are worthwhile to invest in? To help them to have more money to play with so they can buy out smaller companies and gain a greater monoply control over our economic system?

Would the rising cost of living make to non-effect the little percentage of earnings that might be realized via such investing?

Often people who can afford it will invest their money in art of some tangable thing that is sure to rise in value due to time. If you buy a painting that already has a high demand value that seems a safe bet, and also such an investment can be classified as your hobby and thus not subject to the same taxes as other incomes gained from investing.

I am sorry to report I do not know much about big companies or such identities investing in other companies or oppertunities. Then we have the case of Martha Stewart who invested in other companies and ended up in hot water for knowing too much (we are told). It would seem banks would have lots of insider knowledge because they can montior deposits made by different companies and their expendatures - which gives them a leg up in the art of speculating on trends.

Just some things that came to mind at this moment, you might wish to add your expert opinions. Technosoul.

[bishop]

heh.. definitely no expert here. i wish!

good thinking with social security..

Is that a plot to encouage people to shift their savings into the hands of the wealthy few who own most companies that are worthwhile to invest in? To help them to have more money to play with so they can buy out smaller companies and gain a greater monoply control over our economic system?

i don't think that's the case necessarily. as you know, social security faces huge shortfalls in coming years. while republican/libertarian think tanks had been calling for ss's privatization for a while, clinton was the first to adopt that idea into national policy. in his second term, he began drafting a proposal for limited privatization of ss.. i suppose there are a couple rationalizations for that.. on one hand, social security will go bankrupt under its current structure.. on another hand, we had huge surplusses and i think they intended to use those surplusses to buy back debt (bonds) using social security funds. personally, i think that was their reasoning against complete privatization of ss.

i like the notion of being able to manage my own social security funds. regardless of if it's fully or partially privatized, however, that in itself is insufficient to fund one's retirement in today's world.

i'm having some difficulty explaining what i mean about this economic change.. basically, everything's becoming much more integrated at a global level and it's being driven through increased trade and investment. there's also looming currency reforms in china and india (which has already moved to a mixed-bag float-rate regime) which will create a boon for currency investing. the effects of such increased investment will greatly affect the global economy. this isn't a unique idea at all - how increased economic interdependence will eventually form one global economy. at the center of this economy, the driving force will be global (not solely american) investment. and, the major investing institutions will become extremely powerful - especially as they consolidate.

[Compugasm]

By Kerry threatening to punish companies who outsource, isn't he forcing people to outsource before he's possibly elected? This Forbes story talks about Reuters moving a few jobs to India.

I can't imagine news organizations in a money crunch at the moment, given all the war hype to report. This is only 20 jobs, but it got me thinking... If you were going to outsource, now would be the time to do it because:
1. If you wait, kerry will penalize you.
2. If you do it "just in time" the media might report it and you'd suffer a temporary backlash.
3. Kerry will be able to point at the outsources since his announcement under the "I told you so" argument.

[droque]

Does anyone here believe that the economy would progress if the goverment were to stop managing the economy?

Would like to know who here believes that it will!

[bishop]

By Kerry threatening to punish companies who outsource, isn't he forcing people to outsource before he's possibly elected? This Forbes story talks about Reuters moving a few jobs to India.

what's the difference? if you get 4 more years of bush, he'll make it easier and easier for companies to outsource. if we want to make the tax code simpler, we should get rid of the loopholes and collect taxes that are due to us. and if we don't want those taxes, then cut them, but don't use some shady assed loophole scheme to pass them through under the public's nose.

outsourcing isn't something that we can truly stop. it wouldn't be good for our economy to start a trade war, and it'd cost us jobs in the long-run. but one thing kerry has offered were tax incentives for companies to set up shop here, in america. if you check his site, he explains these incentives in detail. i look at bush's site and he offers no plan on creating incentives for companies to set up shop in america.

Does anyone here believe that the economy would progress if the goverment were to stop managing the economy? Would like to know who here believes that it will!

it depends on what they're trying to manage. for instance, i support a minimum wage and child labor act - two examples of government "managing the economy". their mercantalist policies should end however.

[Compugasm]

Originally posted by bishop,+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (bishop,)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>what's the difference?[/b]

This article mentions 20 jobs, pretty small. It isn't about stopping outsourcing dead. I'm thinking small/midsize companies would consider it a no-brainer to do it, before being penalized, rather than hold onto the jobs.

<!--QuoteBegin-bishop,
i look at bush's site and he offers no plan on creating incentives for companies to set up shop in america.[/quote]
The first article I clicked on the Economy page, sounds like GWB's strategy is entreprenuership, and workplace flexibility, rather than sell assets to foreign investors.

[bishop]

that article speaks nothing to the subject of job creation and outsourcing. flex-time and whatnot are completely different topics. i've followed his bilateral trade deals with china and india - he has given companies incentives to outsource.

now, i believe that outsourcing is fine so long as it happens naturally. but companies should never be given incentives to send jobs overseas. and when he tried direct intervention (the steel tariffs), he only ended up costing people more jobs, as well as some $2 billion in surcharges passed on to the consumer.

kerry's idea to offer companies tax incentives to set up shop here just makes sense. why hasn't bush bothered to offer such a proposal in his years in office?

[Samildanach]

I thought outsourcing was pretty much what America was about. Free market economies and all that. Cheapest goods and services etc. Seeing as we are a global market whoever can provide those services cheapest should win the contract assuming similar quality of course.
I'm afraid I'm against Kerry on this one.

[droque]

DJR: Does anyone here believe that the economy would progress if the
goverment were to stop managing the economy?

Would like to know who here believes that it will!

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Bishop: it depends on what they're trying to manage. for instance,
i support a minimum wage and child labor act - two examples of
government "managing the economy". their mercantalist policies
should end however.

++++++++++++++++++++++

DJR: Do you believe that if governments that is managing the economy
with its mometary and supply side policies ended--the economy would
collapse?

[bishop]

i look at it another way.. despite his rhetoric, kerry has voted for every free trade initiative that's come his way. the man clearly believes in free trade. offering tax incentives to companies in order to get them to establish plants in america is not protectionism. in fact, that is what china, india, and every other developing country does - they use the term "free trade zones". kerry seeks to compete with them.

we've all heard stories about sweatshops. such things are violations of international trade laws. subsidies and dumping are more violations of international trade laws. bush has been woefully slow in bringing cases to the wto for arbitration. there's the "super 301" report that details trade violations by a whole host of countries. free and fair trade need not be mutually exclusive, and we ought to utilize existing laws to the fullest for our national interests - rather than the interests of major corporations.

DJR: Do you believe that if governments that is managing the economy with its mometary and supply side policies ended--the economy would collapse?

monetary policy isn't controlled by the government.

but as far as government sponsored mercantalism, subsidies, barriers to free trade (ex. farmers can't sell produce to cuba), etc. - i think the economy would be much better off if it wasn't involved. i'm a fan of a free market - although not 100% (anti-dumping laws are necessary if you can't get universal worker rights).

the mission already exists in the wto.. the only thing is getting countries to choose to open their markets and end their protectionism.

supply side policies could work extremely well if they were coupled with a balanced budget policy. i won't write off any plan so simply, there are complexities that have to be taken into account. nothing's completely good or completely bad.

[droque]

DJR: Bishop do you believe that if governments that are managing the
economy with its momentary and supply side policies ended--the economy
would collapse?

Bishop: monetary policy isn't controlled by the government.

DJR: Is that what you want us to believe?

Monetary policy is managed by the Federal Reserve, the Fed is the
creation of the government. The government appoints its Chairman
of the Board.

You did not mention Supply Side Policy. Did you want to protect the
government from this policy also--that we support a "free market"?

[Compugasm]

Originally posted by bishop, that article speaks nothing to the subject of job creation and outsourcing.

My previous post is an adequate reply to your comment. It referred to incentives, and foreign companies investment in America.

[bishop]

Originally posted by Compugasm,+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Compugasm,)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin-bishop, that article speaks nothing to the subject of job creation and outsourcing.

My previous post is an adequate reply to your comment. It referred to incentives, and foreign companies investment in America.[/b][/quote]

both candidates are offering their own incentives for foreign investment.

the best incentive, however, is for us to have a strong dollar. the affect that would have would dwarf whatever tax incentives any candidate would provide. one of the two major candidates favors a strong dollar policy, one does not.

[johngatlt1234]

Economic progress = production.

I see services as an adjunct to production. In recent years the growth of our economy has been stimulated by debt. I read somewhere that the average family owes $ 6000 on credit cards. Debt is a claim on future production. To credit card debt we add home equity loans and you can see why the growth in the economy did not add good paying jobs. We also run a trade deficit which has resulted in jobs being created overseas.
We seem to confuse a lot of issues with regard to the economy. Yes we want a laissez faire economy but the Govt. should be involved in a few things. Therein lies the problem. Government historically has never been able to limit itself to a few things and its sphere of influence expands exponentially.
Laissez faire capitalism has been shown to be the best form of government. Hong Kong is a prime example, with no resources but free trade and lack of government intervention it became a driving force in the Far East. America at some point in time was that way.
Social programs result in decline in the standard of living, no matter where.

[bishop]

social programs have also eradicated poverty. case in point: sweden.

i hear that hong kong is ripe with poverty.

[droque]

Originally posted by bishop, social programs have also eradicated poverty. case in point: sweden. i hear that hong kong is ripe with poverty.

Bishop do you fear answering my following question that I had posted earlier?

DJR: Bishop do you believe that if governments that are managing the
economy with its momentary and supply side policies ended--the economy
would collapse?

Bishop: monetary policy isn't controlled by the government.

DJR: Is that what you want us to believe?

Monetary policy is managed by the Federal Reserve, the Fed is the
creation of the government. The government appoints its Chairman
of the Board.

You did not mention Supply Side Policy. Did you want to protect the
government from this policy also--that we support a "free market"?

[bishop]

Bishop do you fear answering my following question that I had posted earlier? DJR: Bishop do you believe that if governments that are managing the economy with its momentary and supply side policies ended--the economy would collapse?

yeah.. i'm afraid.. no, i don't think the economy would collapse, but it would be hindered.

You did not mention Supply Side Policy.

why should i? am i advocating or protecting it? nope.