Thats right! You heard it here first, folks.
Consumer Confidence Up as Gas Prices Fall
U.S. Economy: Reports Show Stronger Consumer, Business Demand
Sales of New Homes Up 13 Percent in Oct.
Gold strikes above 500 dollars for first time since 1987
Economy booming
Moderator: EG Members
-
ucrzymofo87
- This is my new home
- Posts: 288
- Joined: Mon Jul 04, 2005 9:53 am
- Location: Phoenix, Arizona
Economy booming
"Living for the future is more important than trying to avenge the past...i guess." -Puck
A recession is defined as when the GDP falls for two consecutive quarters. This happened back in 2001. In fact, we've been in the growth cycle since November 2001. So, I file this thread under "old news."
Unless you want to define it by the unemployment rate, in which case the recession ended in late 2003/early 2004 (depending on what you consider a healthy unemployment). Again though, old news.
Unless you want to define it by the unemployment rate, in which case the recession ended in late 2003/early 2004 (depending on what you consider a healthy unemployment). Again though, old news.
-
Killfile
- Flexing spam muscles
- Posts: 587
- Joined: Thu Jun 23, 2005 8:54 pm
- Location: St. Petersburg - 1917
- Contact:
The real question is - what does the rising price of gold mean?
Gold prices go up as confidence in the currency you're buying the gold in goes down. Rising gold prices aren't a symptom of a strong ecnonmy, but a symptom of a failing currency.
The other question is - what happens if China actually decides to float its currency for real? Now that we've stuck it to China yet AGAIN at the WTO, what incentive do they have to refrain from hiting us back by floating their currency?
Gold prices go up as confidence in the currency you're buying the gold in goes down. Rising gold prices aren't a symptom of a strong ecnonmy, but a symptom of a failing currency.
The other question is - what happens if China actually decides to float its currency for real? Now that we've stuck it to China yet AGAIN at the WTO, what incentive do they have to refrain from hiting us back by floating their currency?
-
ucrzymofo87
- This is my new home
- Posts: 288
- Joined: Mon Jul 04, 2005 9:53 am
- Location: Phoenix, Arizona
My economics professor said that when the price of gold goes up it was because more people are investing in hard currency versus the soft paper money like the dollar. The fact that gold is not taxable makes owning it have far more benefits than owning paper money.Killfile wrote:The real question is - what does the rising price of gold mean?
Gold prices go up as confidence in the currency you're buying the gold in goes down. Rising gold prices aren't a symptom of a strong ecnonmy, but a symptom of a failing currency.
The other question is - what happens if China actually decides to float its currency for real? Now that we've stuck it to China yet AGAIN at the WTO, what incentive do they have to refrain from hiting us back by floating their currency?
There will still be plenty of money. There will be plenty produced, since the economy w be free from debt, free from over-burdensome government regulations, free from excessive taxation. There will be plenty produced and prosperity will follow because gold and silver are more efficient at promoting trade than the dollar that is generally over-valued and excessively-taxed. But that's just an opinion.
source
Gold prices may continue to be on the rise, feel traders, as the dollar holds strong against the rupee.A higher dollar globally causes a drop in gold price. However, at the end of the day, the gold price in India would depend on the extent that this drop in price is offset by a higher import cost.
The US currency gained 2.1% over an 18-month period, against the euro. The dollar climbed after the Federal Reserve this week raised its benchmark interest rate for the 12th consecutive time to 4%, while the European Central Bank (ECB) kept its rate unchanged at 2%.
In India, a dozen banks and a few designated bullion traders import gold to meet local consumption demands. With the rupee trading at Rs 45.50 to the dollar, gold was trading at above Rs 6,800 per 10 gm on Saturday. The hallmarked one-kg gold bar carries a higher price tag, at Rs 7,200 per 10 gm.
Some of the gold now available with banks was imported when the gold price and the rupee-dollar exchange rate were both favourable.
Apart from a strong dollar, the demand for gold internationally was also affected due to a low level of inflation in major economies. According to a recent study by the World Gold Council, gold is used as a hedge against inflation, just as it is considered to be a hedge against the dollar price.
"Living for the future is more important than trying to avenge the past...i guess." -Puck
My investor buddy told me that gold would be going up alot in the future... but more because the chinese economy will be rolling. I think what you are looking for is the Gold Standard. As for the economy, i think it is decieving,
The Outstanding Public Debt as of 30 Nov 2005 at 09:09:16 PM GMT is:
$ 8,105,331,701,685.49
Geez, i can't afford that. There is more to read on the article, but it is basically just attacks at bush here. http://www.madison.com/tct/opinion/inde ... 72&ntpid=1Capital Times wrote: A few days ago when I checked the national debt clock, Sandy and I each owed $26,702 as our pieces of the national debt.
So did our two grown children, their spouses and each of our three grandkids. The immediate family, therefore, is in hock on behalf of our government to the tune of $240,318. That's about five times more than the mortgage on the house we bought back in 1975.
Of course, each of us 297,288,861 American citizens owes that $26,702 for a total now of just slightly less than $8 trillion. And since the debt is increasing by $1.54 billion each day - that's right, each day - we'll be over the $8 trillion mark in no time.
Those are sobering facts considering that someday, somehow, Americans are going to have to pay off all that debt.
A lot of people in this country - both Republicans and Democrats - tried to warn George Bush and his economic advisers early on in his administration that the tax cuts they were proposing could endanger the budget surplus that the Clinton administration had handed them.
For those who don't remember, Clinton in 1999 proposed paying off the entire national debt by 2015 because surpluses were running much more than expected. He added that in addition to paying down the debt, the surpluses could be used to add decades of solvency to Social Security and Medicare.
The Outstanding Public Debt as of 30 Nov 2005 at 09:09:16 PM GMT is:
$ 8,105,331,701,685.49
-
Killfile
- Flexing spam muscles
- Posts: 587
- Joined: Thu Jun 23, 2005 8:54 pm
- Location: St. Petersburg - 1917
- Contact:
Ok, I've been trying to get my wife to post here no success since this thread would appeal to her. Since she doesn’t (apparently) want to have anything to do with you guys I'll relate her thoughts on the matter.
For the record: the reason you should listen to her on this is as follows. My wife is a master’s student in International Political Economics at Virginia Tech. She studies under Professor Edward Weisband, one of the chief consultants to the International Monetary Fund, the World Bank, and the World Trade Organization. She teaches a class on the World Economy.
This will be long, so I'll separate sections. Skip the stuff you already know.
How currency exchange works
Soft Currencies as ucrymofo87 calls them (at some point someone is going to have to explain the 87 part of that to me) or Fiat currencies as the rest of the world calls them - are currencies that aren't tied to the value of anything in particular, but are guaranteed by the government that issues them. The US has had a fiat currency since we went off of the Gold Standard in the 1970s (Gold Standard being that you could exchange US dollars for a fixed amount of Gold).
Fiat currencies float against other currencies most of the time, and float against Gold as well. This is where currency exchange rates come from. If the US economy is seen as likely to gain strength against the European, more people will buy dollars with their Euros. With a fixed amount of dollars available to buy, the price of each dollar goes up (in Euros) thus the dollar goes up against the Euro.
Why you don't have to pay off the national debt
The national debt is money we owe anyone who has treasury bills. You probably own a treasury bill, maybe several. A good chunk of the US debt is held in these bills. It has been a staple of US monetary policy since the days of Alexander Hamilton that it's a good idea to have some debt in the public hands. T-bills have -=very=- low interest rates, and the money the government is borrowing by selling those T-bills is (usually) put back into the economy through entitlement programs and other stuff. That money then grows, and can be re-borrowed (to pay off the original T-bills) by selling more T-bills. This works really well as long as you're not consistently short on cash. Borrowing to cover your debts is actually good monetary policy for the country. It is unsustainable spending like we saw under Reagan and George W. Bush that is bad in the long run... mostly because it is unsustainable.
What all this means for the price of Gold
The more money the US owes, the weaker our economy is perceived to be. This drives the price of Gold up and the price of the US dollar down on the international market. A weaker dollar means that imports to the US are more expensive and exports from the US are less expensive. Falling export prices tend to benefit US corporations, particularly agri-business - while falling import prices tend to benefit the middle and lower classes - specifically (and I'm not joking here) Wal-Mart shoppers.
Gold is the only stable metric in all of this. By seeing how currencies behave against Gold we can see them in absolute terms. If Gold is sneaking up against the dollar but the Euro is sliding down, it means that the US economy is thought to be weakening slowly while the European economy is seen as sinking faster.
What does all that mean for me?
That depends on what you do for a living. If you run a major US export operation like Phillip Morris USA or something like that, it rocks to be you. If you need to buy a lot of imported goods or rely upon imported goods for your job (like, say you have to put gas in your car or you work at Wal-Mart) it sucks to be you. A falling dollar hurts your bottom line because it either makes the goods you buy more expensive or it makes the businesses you work for pay more to acquire their inventory (leaving less left over for you – the employee).
What the hell! Who should I blame/credit?
While it sounds trite coming from me, the falling dollar really is mostly George W. Bush’s fault/accomplishment. Bush has, for specific economic reasons, tried to weaken the dollar. He believes that this will stimulate the American manufacturing economy and create bigger markets for US goods overseas. He might be right or he might be wrong. Personally, I think he’s wrong – mostly because manufacturing is simply cheaper elsewhere in the world. The United States has higher wages and stricter environmental controls than most of the former third and second world, so it costs more to make stuff here. Bush’s strategy might work better if he could convince those countries to impose mandatory minimum wages and some real environmental regulations – and they have offered to do that – if we will stop paying out agricultural subsidies.
Of course, we’ve told most of the world where to shove that idea. Agricultural subsidies used to be about helping small farmers, and to a certain extent that remains true in Europe. The United States simply has so MUCH farmland that farming it efficiently is impossible when its broken up into small chunks – so most farming is done by massive agri-businesses, like the aforementioned Phillip Morris USA (which doesn’t just make tobacco by the way – they own Kraft foods for starters). See where this goes? Weak dollar helps these companies while at the same time, the refusal to eliminate agricultural subsidies helps them even more. This one-two combo is also driving the price of many foods so low in other portions of the world that it is literally impossible to make a living farming.
That’s a lot of text – what’s the short version?
Weak dollar means expensive imports and cheep exports for the USA.
This helps a few US corporations, (especially big farming corporations) and screws over the lower and middle classes.
The rising price of Gold means that the dollar is getting weaker.
This is all very much intentional and is the official economic policy of the Bush administration.
Bush thinks this is good for the economy, but Killfile disagrees with him.
Bush, however, is president, and Killfile is some guy that posts on this forum – so what I think doesn’t change a hell of a lot.
One sentence version
Someone has to get screwed when it comes to monetary decisions; who it is depends on who you vote for.
For the record: the reason you should listen to her on this is as follows. My wife is a master’s student in International Political Economics at Virginia Tech. She studies under Professor Edward Weisband, one of the chief consultants to the International Monetary Fund, the World Bank, and the World Trade Organization. She teaches a class on the World Economy.
This will be long, so I'll separate sections. Skip the stuff you already know.
How currency exchange works
Soft Currencies as ucrymofo87 calls them (at some point someone is going to have to explain the 87 part of that to me) or Fiat currencies as the rest of the world calls them - are currencies that aren't tied to the value of anything in particular, but are guaranteed by the government that issues them. The US has had a fiat currency since we went off of the Gold Standard in the 1970s (Gold Standard being that you could exchange US dollars for a fixed amount of Gold).
Fiat currencies float against other currencies most of the time, and float against Gold as well. This is where currency exchange rates come from. If the US economy is seen as likely to gain strength against the European, more people will buy dollars with their Euros. With a fixed amount of dollars available to buy, the price of each dollar goes up (in Euros) thus the dollar goes up against the Euro.
Why you don't have to pay off the national debt
The national debt is money we owe anyone who has treasury bills. You probably own a treasury bill, maybe several. A good chunk of the US debt is held in these bills. It has been a staple of US monetary policy since the days of Alexander Hamilton that it's a good idea to have some debt in the public hands. T-bills have -=very=- low interest rates, and the money the government is borrowing by selling those T-bills is (usually) put back into the economy through entitlement programs and other stuff. That money then grows, and can be re-borrowed (to pay off the original T-bills) by selling more T-bills. This works really well as long as you're not consistently short on cash. Borrowing to cover your debts is actually good monetary policy for the country. It is unsustainable spending like we saw under Reagan and George W. Bush that is bad in the long run... mostly because it is unsustainable.
What all this means for the price of Gold
The more money the US owes, the weaker our economy is perceived to be. This drives the price of Gold up and the price of the US dollar down on the international market. A weaker dollar means that imports to the US are more expensive and exports from the US are less expensive. Falling export prices tend to benefit US corporations, particularly agri-business - while falling import prices tend to benefit the middle and lower classes - specifically (and I'm not joking here) Wal-Mart shoppers.
Gold is the only stable metric in all of this. By seeing how currencies behave against Gold we can see them in absolute terms. If Gold is sneaking up against the dollar but the Euro is sliding down, it means that the US economy is thought to be weakening slowly while the European economy is seen as sinking faster.
What does all that mean for me?
That depends on what you do for a living. If you run a major US export operation like Phillip Morris USA or something like that, it rocks to be you. If you need to buy a lot of imported goods or rely upon imported goods for your job (like, say you have to put gas in your car or you work at Wal-Mart) it sucks to be you. A falling dollar hurts your bottom line because it either makes the goods you buy more expensive or it makes the businesses you work for pay more to acquire their inventory (leaving less left over for you – the employee).
What the hell! Who should I blame/credit?
While it sounds trite coming from me, the falling dollar really is mostly George W. Bush’s fault/accomplishment. Bush has, for specific economic reasons, tried to weaken the dollar. He believes that this will stimulate the American manufacturing economy and create bigger markets for US goods overseas. He might be right or he might be wrong. Personally, I think he’s wrong – mostly because manufacturing is simply cheaper elsewhere in the world. The United States has higher wages and stricter environmental controls than most of the former third and second world, so it costs more to make stuff here. Bush’s strategy might work better if he could convince those countries to impose mandatory minimum wages and some real environmental regulations – and they have offered to do that – if we will stop paying out agricultural subsidies.
Of course, we’ve told most of the world where to shove that idea. Agricultural subsidies used to be about helping small farmers, and to a certain extent that remains true in Europe. The United States simply has so MUCH farmland that farming it efficiently is impossible when its broken up into small chunks – so most farming is done by massive agri-businesses, like the aforementioned Phillip Morris USA (which doesn’t just make tobacco by the way – they own Kraft foods for starters). See where this goes? Weak dollar helps these companies while at the same time, the refusal to eliminate agricultural subsidies helps them even more. This one-two combo is also driving the price of many foods so low in other portions of the world that it is literally impossible to make a living farming.
That’s a lot of text – what’s the short version?
Weak dollar means expensive imports and cheep exports for the USA.
This helps a few US corporations, (especially big farming corporations) and screws over the lower and middle classes.
The rising price of Gold means that the dollar is getting weaker.
This is all very much intentional and is the official economic policy of the Bush administration.
Bush thinks this is good for the economy, but Killfile disagrees with him.
Bush, however, is president, and Killfile is some guy that posts on this forum – so what I think doesn’t change a hell of a lot.
One sentence version
Someone has to get screwed when it comes to monetary decisions; who it is depends on who you vote for.
It's not me, is it? It's Femto, isn't it?Killfile wrote:Ok, I've been trying to get my wife to post here no success since this thread would appeal to her. Since she doesn’t (apparently) want to have anything to do with you guys I'll relate her thoughts on the matter.
I don't think half the toilet seats in the world are as clean as I should like; and only half of those are half as clean as they deserve. - tsubaimomo, July 26, 2010 3:00 am
-
ucrzymofo87
- This is my new home
- Posts: 288
- Joined: Mon Jul 04, 2005 9:53 am
- Location: Phoenix, Arizona
Seriously, do your wife a favor and thank her for me. Thanks to you for the lesson also. I've been wondering exactly what it means but I'm not so good when it comes to economics and what not.
I know outsoucing hurts since that are jobs that aren't going to people here but is it because the dollar goes down or is it just because stuff doesn't cost as much in the United States anyway?
I'm not a business major or anything so I don't know what good Bush's economical strategy but looking at the stuff the guy did so far doesn't exactly make me have faith in it.
I know outsoucing hurts since that are jobs that aren't going to people here but is it because the dollar goes down or is it just because stuff doesn't cost as much in the United States anyway?
I'm not a business major or anything so I don't know what good Bush's economical strategy but looking at the stuff the guy did so far doesn't exactly make me have faith in it.
EG needs some help. Please feel free to contact us if you want to become a part of the staff.
Companies outsource their jobs from the US so they don't have to pay as much money to their outsourced employees. It's much cheaper to hire 10 people in India to do Tech Support full time, then hiring 10 US employees who have a higher standard of what they should be making per hour, and what benefits they should be receiving from their employer (ie. Dental, Medical).
Steeples scrape the sky, Praising God.
Everything here exists for God, is sacrificed to God.
For those who have nothing to sacrifice,
It can be a very heartless city indeed.
Everything here exists for God, is sacrificed to God.
For those who have nothing to sacrifice,
It can be a very heartless city indeed.
-
Killfile
- Flexing spam muscles
- Posts: 587
- Joined: Thu Jun 23, 2005 8:54 pm
- Location: St. Petersburg - 1917
- Contact:
Companies outsource for a number of reasons. It might because labor is cheaper (including benefits, pension, etc), environmental regulations are laxer or non existent (reducing overhead for certain industrial processes), or because it cuts back on shipping costs (why ship 12 components to the US for assembly when you can assemble and ship finished products for a fraction of the cost?)
It all depends on the business model of the company in question.
The arrow in the side of the resurgent economy that ucrzymofo is talking about is this -- while unemployment is down, the mean real income (average amount of money a family unit makes after adjusting for inflation) is only slightly up. It is not outpacing increases in the cost of living (which traditionally outpace inflation) nor has it recovered to the levels it was at before George W. Bush took office.
I'm not pinning this on W. As much as both sides like to blame whomever they don't like for a bad economy - there is no consistent relationship between the policies of the president and the state of the economy. Realistically, even the most powerful man in the world is but a single player in a massively complex game. In truth, foreign policy more than economic policy has a longer and more substantial impact on the fortunes of the United States in a post Gold Standard world.
Remember - the importance of the dollar on the world stage is directly tied to the fortunes of the United States. If the dollar fails, so also will the economy of the US. The dollar, in turn, is held up by nothing more than the belief that the United States government's guarantee of it's value is trustworthy. If perceptions of the US government turn sour, the dollar will fail - and with it the worlds largest economy.
This is one of the reasons why Bush's foreign policy has worried so many people on both sides of the aisle. The Republican Party in recent years has consisted of two primary groups - the very well educated rich and the poorly educated poor. This division has lead many political scientists to predict a rift in the party as the economic interests of the wealthy leverage the party's poor back to the Southern Democrats they were voting for 50 years ago. Ironically, the religiously conservative wing of the party has successfully defined and started to force out the previously unseen middle of the party - namely the wealthy individuals who stand to be hurt by a week dollar policy and failing impressions of the US overseas.
Bush's last years in office may well be a death knell for the GOP as we know it - only the 2008 primary will tell us for sure. If the Democrats can manage to run someone that won't be universally hated by the GOP, there is a real possibility that the GOP will split into two competing parties.
If it happens, you'll witness something that happens only once every few generations -- the fragmentation of an American Political Party.
Historically speaking - it's a hell of a show.
It all depends on the business model of the company in question.
The arrow in the side of the resurgent economy that ucrzymofo is talking about is this -- while unemployment is down, the mean real income (average amount of money a family unit makes after adjusting for inflation) is only slightly up. It is not outpacing increases in the cost of living (which traditionally outpace inflation) nor has it recovered to the levels it was at before George W. Bush took office.
I'm not pinning this on W. As much as both sides like to blame whomever they don't like for a bad economy - there is no consistent relationship between the policies of the president and the state of the economy. Realistically, even the most powerful man in the world is but a single player in a massively complex game. In truth, foreign policy more than economic policy has a longer and more substantial impact on the fortunes of the United States in a post Gold Standard world.
Remember - the importance of the dollar on the world stage is directly tied to the fortunes of the United States. If the dollar fails, so also will the economy of the US. The dollar, in turn, is held up by nothing more than the belief that the United States government's guarantee of it's value is trustworthy. If perceptions of the US government turn sour, the dollar will fail - and with it the worlds largest economy.
This is one of the reasons why Bush's foreign policy has worried so many people on both sides of the aisle. The Republican Party in recent years has consisted of two primary groups - the very well educated rich and the poorly educated poor. This division has lead many political scientists to predict a rift in the party as the economic interests of the wealthy leverage the party's poor back to the Southern Democrats they were voting for 50 years ago. Ironically, the religiously conservative wing of the party has successfully defined and started to force out the previously unseen middle of the party - namely the wealthy individuals who stand to be hurt by a week dollar policy and failing impressions of the US overseas.
Bush's last years in office may well be a death knell for the GOP as we know it - only the 2008 primary will tell us for sure. If the Democrats can manage to run someone that won't be universally hated by the GOP, there is a real possibility that the GOP will split into two competing parties.
If it happens, you'll witness something that happens only once every few generations -- the fragmentation of an American Political Party.
Historically speaking - it's a hell of a show.
-
ucrzymofo87
- This is my new home
- Posts: 288
- Joined: Mon Jul 04, 2005 9:53 am
- Location: Phoenix, Arizona
The last time there was a Republican split, such as the one in 1976, we got Ronald Reagan so let the split begin.Killfile wrote:Bush's last years in office may well be a death knell for the GOP as we know it - only the 2008 primary will tell us for sure. If the Democrats can manage to run someone that won't be universally hated by the GOP, there is a real possibility that the GOP will split into two competing parties.
As far as splitting into two separate parties, that may be a little extreme. Third parties have formed in previous presidential elections usually on the basis of one issue, one personality. For example, the Greenback Labor Party or the Bull Moose Party. Sentiments among Republicans are not moving toward secession in 2008. It is the Democrats who will have a tough job trying to proclaim their issues with a united voice. The Democrats have been divided over the war, taxes, and a host of other issues ranging from gun control to their attempting to discover their core values.
But, let us not speak of 2008 just yet. It is still very early to start placing bets.
"Living for the future is more important than trying to avenge the past...i guess." -Puck
-
Killfile
- Flexing spam muscles
- Posts: 587
- Joined: Thu Jun 23, 2005 8:54 pm
- Location: St. Petersburg - 1917
- Contact:
Um.... wasn't Jimmy Carter elected in 1976?
Reagan lost to Ford in the 1976 GOP primary race.
Admittedly, Reagan's landslide (electoral) victories in 1980 and 1984 were impressive. All the same, following W, even I'd be glad for a republican of Reagan's caliber.
The term RINO (Republican In Name Only) has come to represent those that vote Republican but aren't represented by the party anymore. A more moderate Republican (McCain or Gulianni) might be able to consolodate the GOP more towards the party center.
Reagan lost to Ford in the 1976 GOP primary race.
Admittedly, Reagan's landslide (electoral) victories in 1980 and 1984 were impressive. All the same, following W, even I'd be glad for a republican of Reagan's caliber.
The term RINO (Republican In Name Only) has come to represent those that vote Republican but aren't represented by the party anymore. A more moderate Republican (McCain or Gulianni) might be able to consolodate the GOP more towards the party center.
-
ucrzymofo87
- This is my new home
- Posts: 288
- Joined: Mon Jul 04, 2005 9:53 am
- Location: Phoenix, Arizona
If Guliani and McCain are on the GOP ticket as President or Vice President, the Republicans would be unstoppable. Arguably, such was the success of the Reagan-Bush ticket in 1980 and 1984. Reagan was a staunch conservative and Bush was more center-right.
If the Republicans nominated someone like Romney or Rice for President and McCain or Guiliani for Vice President, that would be a good match. Who do you think the Democrats will put up Killfile?
P.S. I know I said we should not talk about this issue so early, but it is simply too tempting.
P.S.S. the 87 at the end of my name is an anagram for the year I was born, 1987. Now, I hope that age old question has been answered.
If the Republicans nominated someone like Romney or Rice for President and McCain or Guiliani for Vice President, that would be a good match. Who do you think the Democrats will put up Killfile?
P.S. I know I said we should not talk about this issue so early, but it is simply too tempting.
P.S.S. the 87 at the end of my name is an anagram for the year I was born, 1987. Now, I hope that age old question has been answered.
"Living for the future is more important than trying to avenge the past...i guess." -Puck
-
Killfile
- Flexing spam muscles
- Posts: 587
- Joined: Thu Jun 23, 2005 8:54 pm
- Location: St. Petersburg - 1917
- Contact:
Against a McCain Guliani Ticket?
Probably a white flag.
Seriously - if the Republicans manage to secure a ticket that strong, or it looks like the ticket is going to be that strong - the smart Democratic hopefulls will drop out.
The likes of Warner, H. Clinton, and Feingold will probably hang back for a better shot - particularly so given their comparitive youth.
That said, I seriously doubt we'll see that happen. The Christian Right has far to tight a hold of the GOP to let such social moderates as Guliani and McCain take charge. Moreover, McCain in particular has not gone out of his way to make friends with this administration - which will exercise a great deal of control over who gets the Republican nomination.
My bet is the GOP tries to "out minority" the Democrats -- Condi will be up for something, be it VP or otherwise. It'll take a major image workover to make her electable though - she comes off as far too cold for a Presidential campaign.
Probably a white flag.
Seriously - if the Republicans manage to secure a ticket that strong, or it looks like the ticket is going to be that strong - the smart Democratic hopefulls will drop out.
The likes of Warner, H. Clinton, and Feingold will probably hang back for a better shot - particularly so given their comparitive youth.
That said, I seriously doubt we'll see that happen. The Christian Right has far to tight a hold of the GOP to let such social moderates as Guliani and McCain take charge. Moreover, McCain in particular has not gone out of his way to make friends with this administration - which will exercise a great deal of control over who gets the Republican nomination.
My bet is the GOP tries to "out minority" the Democrats -- Condi will be up for something, be it VP or otherwise. It'll take a major image workover to make her electable though - she comes off as far too cold for a Presidential campaign.
-
ucrzymofo87
- This is my new home
- Posts: 288
- Joined: Mon Jul 04, 2005 9:53 am
- Location: Phoenix, Arizona
More good news on the economy...will Bush get the credit? No, however, he will get the credit of the economy spirals into recession.
Dollar Rises as U.S. Economy Creates More Jobs Than Forecast
US data raise hopes Dow will break fresh ground
U.S. Economy Expanded at a 4.3% Pace in Third Quarter (Update2)
Economy Grows Despite Katrina, Rising Gas Prices
Dollar Rises as U.S. Economy Creates More Jobs Than Forecast
US data raise hopes Dow will break fresh ground
U.S. Economy Expanded at a 4.3% Pace in Third Quarter (Update2)
Economy Grows Despite Katrina, Rising Gas Prices
"Living for the future is more important than trying to avenge the past...i guess." -Puck
-
Killfile
- Flexing spam muscles
- Posts: 587
- Joined: Thu Jun 23, 2005 8:54 pm
- Location: St. Petersburg - 1917
- Contact:
The question is how good are those jobs, and are they being created fast enough.
I'm glad the economy is doing better than predicted, but a better question might be - would the predictions be higher if we didn't have someone in in office with such a lese-fair outlook on the lower and middle classes?
Unemployment is still around 5% this month (with about 3% being full employment).
Things certainly aren't as bad as they were in late 2001, but we're not out of the dark yet. The road to economic recovery will be a long one - and it's way to early to point to Bush or anyone else as the economic savior.
In fact, this brings up something that I often feel the need to yell at people about.
It is a common misperception in America that economic recovery is some individual's "accomplishment." Conservitives all over America are pointing to the (admittedly improving) economic stastics and trying to pile laurals on Bush.
They're not alone. The less astute members of the Left did the same thing during the .com bubble of the 1990s when Clinton was in office.
In reality, the economy is a lot like a tree. Its growth is slow, and requires almost zen-like care, pruning, and maintenece of conditions to ensure that it grows correctly. While it may take decades to grow, it can be chopped down in an afternoon.
Now, certain policies are better for the eocnomy in the long run - and as a student of economics I try to encourage my representives to implement those policies - but I would be remiss if I were to credit any individual with the success of the economy. With very few exceptions, economic recovery or prosparity is determined in the timescale of generations, not presidencies.
Economic collapse, however, is often the result of a very small confluence of affairs. As a consequence - it is long term security rather than short term gain that we should ask our government to persue.
--EDIT--
It looks like Mr. Greenspan agrees with me on the dangers of a rising deficit and the risks of a weak dollar policy. Ironic that someone apointed by Reagan would so fervently disagree with the economic policies of the the GOPs latest golden child.[source]
I'm glad the economy is doing better than predicted, but a better question might be - would the predictions be higher if we didn't have someone in in office with such a lese-fair outlook on the lower and middle classes?
Unemployment is still around 5% this month (with about 3% being full employment).
Things certainly aren't as bad as they were in late 2001, but we're not out of the dark yet. The road to economic recovery will be a long one - and it's way to early to point to Bush or anyone else as the economic savior.
In fact, this brings up something that I often feel the need to yell at people about.
It is a common misperception in America that economic recovery is some individual's "accomplishment." Conservitives all over America are pointing to the (admittedly improving) economic stastics and trying to pile laurals on Bush.
They're not alone. The less astute members of the Left did the same thing during the .com bubble of the 1990s when Clinton was in office.
In reality, the economy is a lot like a tree. Its growth is slow, and requires almost zen-like care, pruning, and maintenece of conditions to ensure that it grows correctly. While it may take decades to grow, it can be chopped down in an afternoon.
Now, certain policies are better for the eocnomy in the long run - and as a student of economics I try to encourage my representives to implement those policies - but I would be remiss if I were to credit any individual with the success of the economy. With very few exceptions, economic recovery or prosparity is determined in the timescale of generations, not presidencies.
Economic collapse, however, is often the result of a very small confluence of affairs. As a consequence - it is long term security rather than short term gain that we should ask our government to persue.
--EDIT--
It looks like Mr. Greenspan agrees with me on the dangers of a rising deficit and the risks of a weak dollar policy. Ironic that someone apointed by Reagan would so fervently disagree with the economic policies of the the GOPs latest golden child.[source]
That's all you needed to say man.Killfile wrote: One sentence version
Someone has to get screwed when it comes to monetary decisions; who it is depends on who you vote for.
Every extra dollar you earn is an extra dollar that someone else is not making. Your pay raises come from increased profit. This means that your business is sucking up someone else's business. That means their employees are getting laid off for you to get an extra car or get cell phone plans for the kids, while their families suffer.
It's distribution of wealth. Economics is an attempt to study, define, and predict trends of it's circulation.
Why? So they can find a spot where to jump in and load up. It's all evil, killfile.
-
ucrzymofo87
- This is my new home
- Posts: 288
- Joined: Mon Jul 04, 2005 9:53 am
- Location: Phoenix, Arizona
Bad news for the bears...Dow ends up past 11,000
"Living for the future is more important than trying to avenge the past...i guess." -Puck
-
ucrzymofo87
- This is my new home
- Posts: 288
- Joined: Mon Jul 04, 2005 9:53 am
- Location: Phoenix, Arizona
quoted for truthvtwahoo wrote:It's the ability of people to simplify extremely complex issues into three option multiple choice questions that has doomed the American education system, the American public, and America's global leadership.
If you're not part of the solution you're part of the problem. Way to go.
Bow to Golbez