The Economy is Booming Really?

[tilefish]

I realize the stock market is growing the DOW and NASDAQ are growing the jobs are growing. I see it a little differently!

1) Yeah the corporations are seeing higher profits but the real good paying jobs in manufacturing have been outsourced overseas to China, India, Mexico, etc.Unless you have a substantial stock portfolio it won't help you one bit.

2) The job base is increasing. True but I see people who were laid off from the manufacturing sector biting the bullet and returning to the job market taking meanile jobs working for minimum wage service industry jobs. Sorry a $6/hour job doesn't cut it today.

3) Right now I am watching former white house chief Andrew Card on C-Span spewing propaganda about the booming economy and crediting the tax cuts. BS!

BTW I am self employed and making a good living in the food service industry. I am sick and tired of watching the average worker get screwed by this administration.

[xyzer]

I don't see any evidence that the poor workers are getting screwed..there are more jobs and as many are being created as were during the boom years of the Clinton Administration..Outsourcing is not that extensive when compared to our total work force and if the companies who outsource a service can save money and charge us less for their products many more of us are helped than hurt by outsourcing.
Tax cuts do help all of us because they free up investment dollars and thereby stimulate job growth to fill the increasing growth of business and entrepreneurial growth. Thats a fact and not conjecture. If taxes are not cut where are they going to go...UP!! And when they go up the government begins to take over more of our lives. Check tax rates in the socialist countries and you' will see rates of up to 50 %.
Remember private industry hires most of the work force in this country not big government! I don't want socialism, do you?

[tilefish]

Quote by: xyzer I don't see any evidence that the poor workers are getting screwed..there are more jobs and as many are being created as were during the boom years of the Clinton Administration..Outsourcing is not that extensive when compared to our total work force and if the companies who outsource a service can save money and charge us less for their products many more of us are helped than hurt by outsourcing. Tax cuts do help all of us because they free up investment dollars and thereby stimulate job growth to fill the increasing growth of business and entrepreneurial growth. Thats a fact and not conjecture. If taxes are not cut where are they going to go...UP!! And when they go up the government begins to take over more of our lives. Check tax rates in the socialist countries and you' will see rates of up to 50 %. Remember private industry hires most of the work force in this country not big government! I don't want socialism, do you?

WOW! You are either blind or extremely well healed or probably both! Here in Massachusetts Lucent Technologies once hired over 10.000 emplyees in there Andover Massachesetts plant with high tech well paying jobs today the same plant has a skeletoin crew of less than 500 workers. The list goes on Digital Equipment, Wang, Enron, GM. Ford............. Get your head out of your ass! This has nothing to do with socialism this has to do with our future generations. We were once a super power sadly we have handed the baton to communist China! For what ...short term profits!

[shield772]

Quote by: tilefish I realize the stock market is growing the DOW and NASDAQ are growing the jobs are growing. I see it a little differently! 1) Yeah the corporations are seeing higher profits but the real good paying jobs in manufacturing have been outsourced overseas to China, India, Mexico, etc.Unless you have a substantial stock portfolio it won't help you one bit. 2) The job base is increasing. True but I see people who were laid off from the manufacturing sector biting the bullet and returning to the job market taking meanile jobs working for minimum wage service industry jobs. Sorry a $6/hour job doesn't cut it today. 3) Right now I am watching former white house chief Andrew Card on C-Span spewing propaganda about the booming economy and crediting the tax cuts. BS! BTW I am self employed and making a good living in the food service industry. I am sick and tired of watching the average worker get screwed by this administration.

Well I would say then that perhaps we should change the way in which we measure economies, because the things you mentioned are how it's done all over and by the way Andrew Card is still White House Chief of Staff and min wage is $5.15 not $6.00

[RVonse]

I agree with tilefish.

I would also add that I do not put any faith in the stats coming from our government, expecially in an election year.

The only thing I can trust is that the stock market does appear to be doing well for the time being so that is at least something.

[grandpa]

I haven't seen a sterling economy.
If I opened a business where live it could be a quick death.

Grandpa h.

[SteveA]

Though production overseas might be doing ok so imports haven risen significantly versus pay, consider industries subject to operating inside the U.S. - healthcare, housing, the U.S. automanufactures, airlines and even electronics. I think we're still ok in engineering but manufacturing in the U.S. is and has been dying for a long time.

If the economy was growing, resources would be less expensive versus pay and it would seem people should be able to afford basics like housing. I haven't checked any statistics but my guess is that we have a smaller % of housing that's fully paid off and more that's mortgaged instead. People owe more now and save less. This is not only because of problems like inflation, that discourage people from saving but many forms of investment have burdens on them that tend to encourage people to simply consume whatever excess they have.

The problem isn't with foreign countries that have been growing for decades, but with the U.S. economy not remaining competitive. Foreign countries do capitalism better than the U.S. (When I say capitalism, I don't mean the merged corporate/government system we have now) There are entire cities in asia that have been specifically built to be relatively free and capitalistic to encourage growth there and it works, just like it can in the U.S. But people aren't hungry enough yet in the U.S.

[bishop]

you can't correlate market performance with the economy.. the job market was total crap in 2002, yet the market was roaring.

the economy's definitely slowing down, and will continue to do so this year as the effects of interest rates begin to matriculate into the economy. it generally takes a year before interest rates hikes/cuts impact the economy. we have yet to feel the effects of recent rate hikes. that's definitely going to so some damage to the economy.

there haven't been any tax cuts under bush's presidency, contrary to simple opinion. a tax cut is not a tax cut so long as it's based on deficit spending. when taxes are financed by borrowing, it's no different than putting more debt on your credit card (debt that you will have to repay with interest).. the only real tax cuts that we've had in recent years have been interest rate cuts - and those are all gone now.

as for the market, it's going to continue doing well until the fed stops cutting rates. at that point, they're all going to pause, look around and ask themselves "what's next?".. at that point, the impact of rate hikes are going to seize us, as well as our ridiculously irresponsible debt (thanks to bush and the gop), and the economy's going to head south once again.

[SteveA]

Quote by: bishop you can't correlate market performance with the economy.. the job market was total crap in 2002, yet the market was roaring.

In 2002, the Dow dropped about 20%. Overall, markets in the U.S. are still close to what they were 5 years ago when Bush came into office (yes, hint hint ... and the dollar is worth less on top of it, so the same dollar value in 2006 is worth less).

The Economy is Booming Really?

In May of 2001, the Dow hit 11,372.92. We still haven't even recovered from that yet. $11,373 dollars would buy much more of a home in 2001 than $11,012 would today.

Obviously the booming economy propoganda is bogus. If they say employment numbers are up, that simply means more people are working now. Likely because it's harder to earn a living. Employment figures are bogus anyway. They could drop unemployment benefits to 0 and claim their unemployment data says unemployment figures are also 0. (Who would sign up for unemployment if they received little for doing so?)

When you compare things with gold, oil, housing etc. It doesn't seem unrealistic to say that stocks in the U.S. have lost half their real buying power.

Quote by: Bishop the economy's definitely slowing down, and will continue to do so this year as the effects of interest rates begin to matriculate into the economy. it generally takes a year before interest rates hikes/cuts impact the economy. we have yet to feel the effects of recent rate hikes. that's definitely going to so some damage to the economy.

The damage is done either way. If they lower interest rates, it screws investors and savers. If they raise it, it screws borrowers. When they change it, it potentially screws everyone as well as provides opportunities for corruption as large amounts of money can be syphoned around by knowing ahead of time which way they're planning to change interest rates. If we really need a variable interest rate, then tie it to an inflation estimate (though estimating inflation itself is tough).

there haven't been any tax cuts under bush's presidency, contrary to simple opinion. a tax cut is not a tax cut so long as it's based on deficit spending. when taxes are financed by borrowing, it's no different than putting more debt on your credit card (debt that you will have to repay with interest).. the only real tax cuts that we've had in recent years have been interest rate cuts - and those are all gone now.

Agreed. In fact you could almost say he's supported tax increases (at least when you include indirect effects) because we'll be expected to not only pay for this deficit spending but they'll say we owe interest on it as well.

In many ways though the damage is already done. The paper/credit itself doesn't change anything but the control over resources that these effect is where the problems come from.

For example, we could shower down money all over the country by helicopters and other than the direct costs in manpower, printing presses (or data entry people to alter credit information) nothing would truly change immediately. The damage results from the confusion, resource reallocations and alterations

For example, if you wanted to destroy a country before invading, you could simply counterfeit a lot of their currency and "bomb" the country with money a couple weeks before invading. The chaos it would cause could literally destroy the economy and imagine the flow of resources into and out of an area. For example, after such an event would a farmer still want to ship his produce to the city for prices agreed upon prior to this occurance? Likely not as his fields could be left bare if he had to still sell for these prices. Stores would likely have to close up until the choas had settled and remark all their prices, or face having everything bought up and the shelves laid bare within a day (with the small compensation of having a lot of worthless paper in the registers).

Imagine as well that if this was done more subtly, you could change ownership of large parts of the economy within years. This would displace workers and owners and cause large drops in economic efficiency from the mismatching of skills and experience over these industries.

Even worse, by focusing the flow of fiat money into starting conflicts, like a war with another nation or even internal conflicts, much worse could happen.

I can't remember who said it but there was an expression to the effect of basically, having control of a nation's currency is more powerful than any military or legislative position.

as for the market, it's going to continue doing well until the fed stops cutting rates. at that point, they're all going to pause, look around and ask themselves "what's next?".. at that point, the impact of rate hikes are going to seize us, as well as our ridiculously irresponsible debt (thanks to bush and the gop), and the economy's going to head south once again.

It doesn't matter whether they raise or lower interest rates. Leaving them low will continue to sap buying power from the dollar and could even spark panic over inflation which could easily lead to a crash of the dollar. Raising interest rates would increase the value of the dollar but requires more obvious payment. As long as we're using a currency that has little tangible value (even gold is less valuable than many people admit) we're going to see problems like this.

The real issue will continue to be, how much of a burden do we place on workers and whether or not we encourage people to work, save and invest in the future or whether we continue to rob them of their efforts. There are myriad ways these things happen. Our currency is a big one, but only one of the causes of a weak economy.

[tilefish]

Quote by: shield772 Well I would say then that perhaps we should change the way in which we measure economies, because the things you mentioned are how it's done all over and by the way Andrew Card is still White House Chief of Staff and min wage is $5.15 not $6.00

Sorry I meant to change the "former" part don't know what I was thinking must have gotten a bit of that Alito amnesia.

[RVonse]

Quote by: SteveA I can't remember who said it but there was an expression to the effect of basically, having control of a nation's currency is more powerful than any military or legislative position. .

from: http://users.cyberone.com.au/myers/money-masters.html

Jefferson put it this way:

"I sincerely believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies. Already they have raised up a money aristocracy that has set the government at defiance. The issuing power should be taken from the banks and restored to the people to whom it properly belongs."

[Zealot]

Quote by: RVonse from: http://users.cyberone.com.au/myers/money-masters.html Jefferson put it this way: "I sincerely believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies. Already they have raised up a money aristocracy that has set the government at defiance. The issuing power should be taken from the banks and restored to the people to whom it properly belongs."

Yes it is, thanks to George Bush. 5% unemployment average, better than Clinton days.

[SteveA]

Quote by: Zealot Yes it is, thanks to George Bush. 5% unemployment average, better than Clinton days.

I've got many ideas of how to drive unemployment to virtually 0% ... few of them would be beneficial. It's important to know why unemployment is low.

Having jobs available is great. Not only does working help the individual but it has indirect effects that help others as well. But I'd caution against blindly assuming that low unemployment means the economy is doing good. Unemployment numbers come from unemployment claims made to the government so consider some of the reasons why this value might be low:

Depending upon (1) cost of living expenses versus (2) unemployment benefits, some people might find unemployment benefits are no longer sufficient to allow them to continue looking for work. (That's not 100% negative but this would still indicate economic troubles and indebted government). So it could be that (3) current government spending doesn't leave enough resources to support the umemployment system as before.

It could also be (4) if a long economic slump occurs, people eventually fall out of the unemployment payroll, if it becomes chronic employment.

My guess is that unemployment is low because not a lot of people can afford to be unemployed currently. With inflation, prior savings is devalued which can push people back into work faster. Also with cost of living inceases, likely unemployment is less attractive.

Ultimately, we're better off having low unemployment but low unemployment, in itself, can easily be an indicator of current economic sluggishness and an overextended budget for government. The real indicator should be average income relative to cost of living. On the bright side, we can hope these low numbers will be able to help repair the economy.

10 Year DJIA (Bush should be embarrassed at least over the stock markets in America)
http://money.excite.com/jsp/ct/bigch...DU&chartdate=8

I think part of the initial flatlining of the stock markets was due to residual effects of events before Bush ever came into office. I've always said you can't really give much credit on economic issues to an election cycle until 1 1/2 or 2 years afterwards. It so happens, that view would put this adminstration (and Congressional supports of it) into a particularly bad light. Remember, even though we had the 9/11 attacks, they alone would have had little impact on the economy. The economic effects were almost entirely in the response and it looks like we still haven't even recovered to the point at which Clinton left office, even when you ignore inflation.

[SteveA]

Iraq war could cost US over $2 trillion...
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story...681119,00.html

Now there's someone who's willing to consider not simply direct government spending with regard to the war in Iraq but secondary and indirect costs to government. When they talk about $300 billion or so, that's simply the government spending directly allocated to it but that doesn't include many other costs, including disabilities, deaths and increased military spending to restock.

This still doesn't even include the costs to the general public in terms of lost liberties, a sluggish economy and inflation. Also, this article doesn't include any of the costs to Iraqies or other nations involved in this war.

[RickSp]

A lot of people have very good reasons to be nervous. Job group is up but still a bit anemic compared to past economic cycles. The econmic indicators don't mean much to those worried about losing their jobs.

Polls show that more than half of the public thinks the economy is in bad shape and that Bush is doing a poor job of managing it. In one recent survey, three in 10 participants said the country was in a recession, even though the economy has grown for the last 2½ years. Workers and consumers have reasons to be anxious. Although the economy as a whole is growing, many analysts attribute its progress in part to a far more competitive — and less secure — workplace. "This Darwinian economy has got people concerned," said John R. Stanek, chairman of ISR, a research firm in Chicago that conducts worker surveys. "If you feel there's a decent chance you may be laid off — and over a third of U.S. workers feel that could happen to them — you're not going to stop looking over your shoulder. You realize that the laying off of you may be part of the 'good things' that are happening to the overall economy."

With Consumers Wary, Bush Summons Cavalry

[Boetie]

Is there a surplus of workers? if so how is that beneficial to the workers being they have to compete with each other and the winner gets a job with lower pay and benefits.

If there is a surplus of jobs, then business will have to compete with each other to hire that worker and to get the worker, business will have to offer good pay and benefits.

Poverty increased due to many in the middle class losing their position in the middle class, in other words the middle class is shrinking resulting in an increase in poverty.

The indicator that the middle class is shrinking and poverty is rising says the economy sucks.

[Osborn F Enready]

Our current economy sucks, except for the people with money to burn.

[bishop]

it all depends on your education, skillset and where you live i think.

the situation in my case is better than it's been in a very long time. although, i can feel the noose tightening. i'm not all that optimistic for 2007.

and, the middle class is definitely shrinking.. 20 years ago, a family could be supported by a single bread winner.. now, both the husband and wife have to work in order to achieve a comparable standard of living. (being able to buy fancy tech gadgets and gas guzzling suv's does not constitute a meaningful increase in the standard of living imo.)

[grandpa]

Quote by: bishop it all depends on your education, skillset and where you live i think. the situation in my case is better than it's been in a very long time.

It is rather difficult to talk eceonomics, really. But plenty of places are going out of business where I live, which sucks because I applied to work in one of the places that went out of business.

Grandpa h.

[xyzer]

WOW! You are either blind or extremely well healed or probably both! Here in Massachusetts Lucent Technologies once hired over 10.000 emplyees in there Andover Massachesetts plant with high tech well paying jobs today the same plant has a skeletoin crew of less than 500 workers. The list goes on Digital Equipment, Wang, Enron, GM. Ford............. Get your head out of your ass! This has nothing to do with socialism this has to do with our future generations. We were once a super power sadly we have handed the baton to communist China! For what ...short term profits!

What absolute nonsense! It's illogical to generalize off one or two specifics. Just like everything else in this universe our economy and it components are dynamic!
Who says that a business has to live forever. There are many variables involved in the life of an employer are there not? Product is overtakren with new items which are cheaper and more effective? Bad management? Sales base moves to another area? etc. Remember your area used to be big in the clothing industry..No more.IBM used to be tops in computer industry! Not now!

When did you check the latest world ecomnomic figures. China may be a growing economic power now that the Communist government has allowed a measure of free enterprise, However it's economy pales in comparison to ours. We haven't handed a baton to China or anybody...Even the state of California has an economic impact as big as the top 10 world economies.
If anyone has his head up and locked its you tilefish. Get out and smell the roses and above all check the facts! Quit listening to the demagogues from the left!

This little tidbit says it all!

The econmic indicators don't mean much to those worried about losing their jobs.

WHAAAAT? I contend it would give such people hope rather than indifference.Do you suggest if I'm afraid of losing my job I would be pleased with falling economic indicators RickSP?

Another warped stretch...

Poverty increased due to many in the middle class losing their position in the middle class, in other words the middle class is shrinking resulting in an increase in poverty.

The facts show that the middle class shrinks because they move up into the richer economic classes in a thriving economy which we have now. Very few in the middle levels permanently sink in to the lower economic levels in this great country.

I think you guys need to take a college course in economics along with a course in logic! Above all check the facts and quit listening to the mantras of the Democrayt demagogues..e.g. tax cuts are only for the rich....outsourcing has a big impact on job growth...ad nauseam!. Don't you realize you are being conned by politicians who make their livings at your expense and bribe you with crap about how they are going to fix things for you....politicians do not create jobs!!!