More Solid Economic Growth

Despite the increased price of oil, now pulling back from near record highs, and despite the toll taken by last year’s spate of killer hurricanes, the US economy is doing very nicely indeed.
As widely reported yesterday, the US economy grew at a robust 4.8% annual rate during the first quarter of 2006. Since the summer of 2003, the economy has grown at an average rate 4%, while creating over 5 million new jobs, according to Congressional testimony by Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke earlier this week.
Even the NYT was forced to note yesterday that despite recent rate hikes by the Federal Reserve,

“The average rate on a 30-year conventional mortgage was 6.3 percent last month, lower than at any point in the 1970′s, 1980′s or 1990′s, according to the Fed.”

Economist and former Reagan advisor Larry Kudlow quotes from a WSJ story that a deal is in place on extending the tax cuts on investment income.

Look for a two-year extension for dividends and capital gains at the current 15 percent marginal rate.

This is critically important because for the first time in history, more than half of all American households own stocks in some fashion, be it IRA’s, 401-K’s, mutual funds, individual equity holdings, or some combination, according to a recent survey. Extending those tax cuts will increase the wealth of more than half of US households.
So while the torrid pace of economic expansion is expected to subside somewhat, and interest rates will rise a bit more, there is little indication of inflation, and no sign of the recession that Democrat pessimists had been hoping for just a few short months ago when the yield curve was briefly inverted.
The economy is doing very well indeed. Tax cuts work.

Tags:


«
»
  • http://www.freerepublicans.com/ FreeRepublicans.com

    Marx predicted the collapse of capitalist economies due to debt back in the nineteenth century.

    Marx said societies would go thru capitalism before getting to communism.

    In his view it was more Evolutionary than Revolutionary.  It was his followers that brought the Revolutionary aspects into being. 

  • robert108

    Whatever your name is:  Another lie.  You have stated over and over again in almost every thread you visit how much you hate the President.  You began by calling him "Dufus" I believe.  Just one example of your juvenile namecalling.  By your reasoning, the others on this blog have a "right" to criticize you for your many faults and failures, as well, but that doesn’t stop you from whining about it and claiming victimhood for it.  Double standard.

  • diane

    Went to bed, got some sleep and woke up with a couple things I’ll share before another day’s productivity.

    “Currrently our national debt is about 60% of our total GDP. That’s too high, obviously, and I’m not arguing anything otherwise.”

    LOL, could have sworn you were.

    Moving on, first myself and then FR pointed out to you the errors of your % of GDP ways.

    Troll or not, your pompous explanation to Robert of why you spent so much time trying to educate me will fall on deaf ears to anyone who has eyes and ears and lives in today’s economy.

    Actually, you are stuck in the past. Bush Sr. called it ‘the New World Order’ and Bush Jr. is pushing forward with the agenda of globalization.

    This is the new ‘countries without borders’ generation and my nephew’s recent degree from the London School of Economics will be much less useful than my other nephew’s ability to repair fighter jets in his new training at a base in Florida.

    Because the power elite of the world don’t care about you or me. They are about globalization. And that will require fighter jet mechanics. You and others here are believing you are being patriotic by backing Bush but, sorry folks… Bush wants open borders, offshore manufacturing and everything that makes most Americans uneasy and frightened about their future. That little man from East Coast schools and a prop Texas ranch is a first class power elite globalist. They don’t care about the United States, nationalism, the Constitution, or anything other than globalization….the New World Order, a thousand points of light.

    While you’re trying to give me an outdated economics lecture, the globalists are moving forward with their agenda to make this a global economy where, in my opinion, we may see a one world currency and a redistribution of wealth the likes of which the world has never experienced.

    And if you think the ‘oil crisis’ is just about heating oil and gasoline and refineries, take a look at the petroleum-based products within a 5-foot radius of your computer screen….actually, look at your computer screen itself. And think about what the increased price of gasoline does to retail prices of goods, starting with the increased cost of transporting them.

    Now, if normal people want to jump over the outdated blabbering by Carrick and Robert and face the future, you will have to understand that both parties are, as my husband says, ‘shucking and jiving’ you, playing games with your heads and love all the quibbling between members of the parties, because it takes attention away from what they’re really doing.

    Realitybasedbob is reading Confessions of an Economic Hit man, as am I. It’s required for anyone who still doesn’t understand the way the world power and wealth elite work.

    Carrick can demean me in any way he wants, but his writings speak for himself and he was called on the ridiculous basis of his whole argument concerning the national debt.

    What he knows is that the debt isn’t backed by much of anything and what he should know but apparently doesn’t is that the politicians who have any role at all in the power elite/globalization set could care less about the national debt, truth be told.

    And, for both Carrick and Robert and their salvation of the national debt would be decreased social services:
    Quote Robert: We, as taxpayers, need to decide we don’t want the govt to do so much in terms of social engineering, and the debt will go away in time. The truth is, social programs don’t pay for themselves in any way whatsoever. If they improved society in any way, they would get smaller every year, but instead they grow ever larger. We need to tell the political class what we want it to do and what we don’t want it to do, and accept that level of expense.”

    We have Baby Boomers about to enter the social programs/aka SS ‘market’. What’s the solution there, guys? As someone once said: “Houston, we have a problem.”

    Meanwhile, the globalists are moving forward with their agenda of controlling areas where much of the oil resources of the world lie and that’s the guts of the reason for the Iraq invasion; to think differently is naive and short-sighted. I know you think it’s to fight terrorism, but that’s called ‘a diversion’.

    There’s more on the subject, but I’ve got to get going so let’s see the response to this.

    Have a great ‘globalized’ week all. And remember, names like troll don’t change the truth.

  • diane

    To be quite honest Diane, I have not read most of this thread, I usually just jump in randomly and refute someone’s point which either gets me labeled a Socialist or a biggot of some sort.

    FreeRepublicans.com on May 1, 2006 at 12:47 AM Well, it’s really only fair to read (jumping over all the junk Bobby108 posts) before insulting me.It sounds like perhaps you and I could be polite to eachother in future since we’ve both been ‘labeled’?  I’m up for it.

  • diane

    Did you mean "I wasn’t really insulting you, just the manner in which you seem to argue", etc.?

    Yes, I’m typing and spelling challenged.  Someday the ADA will cover me and I will be able to sue someone for something, I don’t yet know what.

    LOL.  Oh, oh….there goes Carrick getting all creeped out again.  I used to refuse to use the internet abbreviations, but when I began to run into morbid stupidity on political boards, I just couldn’t think of a better way to respond with less time or effort.

     If so, I’m in a quandry.  If I state my own opinion, I’m told it’s just my opinion (or close), if I link, I’m told the source is a socialist (or somesuch)….well, you get the picture, or should.

    I get called a Socialist on nearly a daily basis.  Sometime I wonder if they even know what the work means.

    FreeRepublicans.com on May 1, 2006 at 1:17 AM Probably not but I’m betting they’re intimately familiar with the others they dish out at me:  Whore, slut.

  • diane

    Carrick: What’s behind all this blather is the absolute denial that the President’s economic policies are good. 

    You finally got it right.

     Whatever its name is just can’t admit that, due to its hatred of the President.

    I just admitted it.  And I don’t hate the President, I just can’t stand the way he’s running things.  And that’s my right and privilege and why I didn’t vote for him in 2004.  Certainly no reason for you to get so worked up, Bobby.  One man, one vote and all that there.

    I think he’s doing an absolutely MISERABLE job.  And guess what….so does approximately one-half of the entire country..and the numbers are growing.

    Nightie-night.

  • diane

    P.S. Carrick….since I’m familiar with the real estate bust of the late ’80′s, I’m really quite familiar with the real estate boom of the mid 90′s…but good try!!!   If you were speaking of another cause for the spike, I’d really like to find out…honest.

     

     

    Free Republic: GDP argument is a tired one Carrick.  Not that she understands why it is really a problem or would be able to fully articulate that thought, but it is a problem.

    She does understand.  And she articulated much, much better than you (have not even tried to do).

     

    Robert:

    Shhhhhh

     

    Carrick:

    whore, as have been said to me

    You can drop that canard as well. I’ve not called you any names, so stop with the martyred saint act, if you don’t mind.

    I mind.  It’s why I do my best to be irritating, and don’t take it so personally and ignore the LOL’s if they bother you.  You’re a big enough boy to figure that out.

    and find it creepy as well to see someone like yourself defending a massive federal deficit by tying it to the GDP.

    That’s your problem.  I can lead you to the facts, but I can’t make you reason.

    The facts are we have a massive federal deficit which you apparently have no way to pay off as you have demurred on the question of how to do it now a number of times.

    Now show us the facts on how consumer credit scores are at an all-time low.  I’m still waitting. 

    Show me where I said consumer credit scores were at an all time low.

    How about this:

    If you’re not aware of the problem with many people in this country having bad credit, you are just living in some kind of parallel universe.

    LOUSY.  So far off from saying what you said I said, you should be ashamed.

    I’m just asking you to justify the statement using objective data.  It need not be consumer credit scores, but it needs to been objectively obtained.

    Why should I not be able to make the statement above without havinge to justify it with objective data??  Many people in this country have bad credit.  As objective as I’m going to be is this:  Google credit repair and see what comes up.  The term ‘many’, though subjective, is fair.

     

  • http://www.freerepublicans.com/ FreeRepublicans.com

    Carrick,

    And actually the Real GNP is a more accurate indicator of how American interests are doing. 

  • Carrick

    Diane:

    I may be Chicken Little but you’re Alice in Wonderland.

    No.  I’m a realist.  I don’t dismiss numbers because they don’t conform to my preconceptions.  But the numbers are meaningless if they are either taken out of context, or are not put in a meaningful reference frame.

    For example, take your example of rising interest rates:

    The interest rate was driven down below historical averages by the federal reserve to stimulate the economy and bring it out of an economic slump.  If interest rates are kept low, the fear is that this will generate inflation.

    The fact that interest rates are returning to their historical averages is an indication that the federal reserve believes that the economy has recovered and is in an economic boom.

    It would be a problem if interest rates were sky-rocketing, because that would only happen to control inflation. The current very mild adjustments to interest rates are intended to control inflation while not throttling the economy.

    This is an example of putting a number or fact in context.  Simply stating the fact neither demonstrates or proves anything.

    By the way, Carrick, going on % of the GDP is a lousy way to talk about the deficit.  The question is, how will it be paid?

    You need some lessons in finance if you think this assertion is true.  It’s the only meaningful way to discuss it.

    When you have a personal debt,  there is never a good thing.  However, the fraction of debt to your current earning capacity is a measure of whether that debt is serious or not.

    You have painted it (using current dollars, a completely meaningless metric when comparing against historical data) as  very grave thing.  It is not.  Indeed, measured against GDP ("earning capacity" of the economy), it is a relatively minor debt.

    As to how do we pay the debt: That is a bit tricky. 

    The reason for the debt is the rapid growth in entitlement programs in the last 20 years, rather than "Bush’s war debt" as you insinuated. As a percentage of our federal budget, entitlement spending has gone from under 50% of the budget to more than two thirds of the total budget in just the last 20 years, while the percentage spent on military as diminished as has non-defense discretionary spending.  In 2001, the last Clinton budget, non-defense discretionary spending (aka "pork") grew by 17%.  Under Bush, by year, it was 6%, 5%, 4%, 1%, and this year -1%.  That clearly is not the problem.

    If we don’t fix entitlement spending (driven primarily by rising health care costs and care for the aged population), then we have a real problem on our hands, unless the economy can grow more rapidly than the increase in entitlement spending.

    Got any ideas?  Tax people out of their minds?  Bush wants tax cuts so where is the money coming from?

    The last round of tax cuts stimulated our economy and created more long-term revenue than was lost.  That was just sensible economic policy.  The leftie solution of increasing taxes will likely have the opposite long-term effect of slowing economic growth and reducing total receipts.

    The answer is obvious: fiscal restraint combined with a growing GDP and commensurate federal receipts will in time reduce the current federal deficit to zero  You just have to keep the increase in outlays below the increase in receipts.   Then it will fix itself.

    If you’re not aware of the problem with many people in this country having bad credit, you are just living in some kind of parallel universe.

    Another example of a rootless statement.  It is rootless because it is tied to emotional word choices while being totally devoid of any supporting facts or documentation.  Just how big of a problem is "bad credit", Diane?  You talk the talk, now walk the walk. 

    Show us in your own words, and not in those of some pandering leftie economist.  How big is this problem, and how does it compare to historical numbers?  In real numbers, not in hand gestures or the trading of gone-flat insults.

     

     

  • robert108

    Yes, and you are targeting the truth with your lies.

  • diane

    Why do I still read them?

      You cut and paste an article by a socialist using the old rant about US debt that has been a lie since the 19th century and can furnish no line of reasoning to back up your claims of gloom.  Debt is necessary for the production of wealth.  Not personal debt, of course, but that is an individual responsibility problem, not a national one.  If I could generate the wealth the US does with as small an investment, I would do it every day.  The return to capital of our economy is truly staggering, even with the misallocation for social engineering purposes.  The productivity of our economy overall is truly amazing, and it is all due to free people making free choices.

    robert108 on April 30, 2006 at 11:39 PM Dr. Ron Paul a socialist, debt is good, (oh, but not personal debt….which, by the way, Bobby, can be good depending on the circumstances, such as debt on an appreciating asset and being able to manage that debt), etc., etc., Oh Bobby, your stupidity is only matched by your unintended humor.

  • http://www.freerepublicans.com/ FreeRepublicans.com

    To be quite honest Diane, I have not read most of this thread, I usually just jump in randomly and refute someone’s point which either gets me labeled a Socialist or a biggot of some sort.

  • diane

    Our discussion here centers around the state of the economy and the federal deficit.  I think we have both made our points and I think yours are extremely weak.

    Well it’s not like I really care what you think, in any case.  So that’s fine.

    Ditto. 

    I doubt you can prove that it is not a problem.  What %, what number would make it a problem, Carrick.  Give me a solid reason for that number and I’ll see what I can find out.  Of course, personal credit information is just that.  But I’ll give it a shot once you make your case for a number.

    I’ll make it extremely easy for you… just show us that there is a net negative trend in personal credit information, as measured by a quantiative means, and give us a review of its performance over the last 20 years.  You’ll need to focus on the period 1994-95, when there was a sudden rapid increase in consumer debt.  I won’t spoil your fun by explaining where that spike came from.

    Let’s turn it around.  You do the research (it’s apparently at your fingertips) and show where there has been a net negative increase in personal credit scores.  And be sure to measure it by a quantitative means!!!!  I won’t even make you focus on the mid 90′s…how’s that?  I’d like you to focus rather in the late ’80′s and 2004 to the latest.  And I won’t spoil your fun by telling you what I think caused a mid 90′s spike. 

     

    Wrong. Equity is fluid. Equity can actually diminish in a down real estate market. That’s fairly basic, Carrick. If my home is worth 100K today, and my mortgage is 80K, I have 20K equity. However, if the home drops to 80K, I have 0 equity. Your secured debt is dependent on what is securing it and what that is worth at any given time.

    Well said, but this is a second order correction, since we are discussing national composite numbers, not single families. Also, since real estate values tend to increase nationally over time, this correction just helps my case. As I said, you can’t simply assume that there is $0 in equity on secured loans when you make the computation for consumer debt, at least as it pertains to federal fiscal policy.  That’s just crackers.

    What do you assume re: equity when you make the computation for consumer debt? 

     

    Again, your happy talk about the huge deficit being no problem because of its % to GDP is naive, simplistic and overly optimistic.

    And you, frankly, simply don’t know what you’re talking about. Though that’s your problem, not mine. 

    And since you don’t either and can’t explain how we’re going to pay off our record (#’s) deficit, I guess we’re even.

  • diane

    Diane,

    I was really insulting you, just the manor in which you seem to argue.  I like original thinking.  Linking me to what someone else said doesn’t prove you understand the topic.  It only means you agree with that person.

    Did you mean "I wasn’t really insulting you, just the manner in which you seem to argue", etc.?  If so, I’m in a quandry.  If I state my own opinion, I’m told it’s just my opinion (or close), if I link, I’m told the source is a socialist (or somesuch)….well, you get the picture, or should.

     The problem is that a Service Economy has nothing to do with Value, it’s all Costs.

     Just because I can charge $1000 to build a website, doesnt mean it’s worth that, it just means that everyone else is charging too much as well.

    Thats a poor base for an economy.

    You can say that about anything.  Things are worth what someone is willing to pay.  The first place I sold, before I was married, was a little dump.  But someone was willing to pay what I was asking.  Was it ‘worth’ that….by what standard?  Your website building is worth whatever someone will pay you.  I have trade secrets for a food business we’re starting.  Those are worth something and someday someone may pay for them…simply how to put ingredients together.  Is that a poor base for an economy?   It might be.  But there can also be some pluses.  However, I tend to agree that manufacturing is/was a ‘better’? base.  However, look how it was able to be displaced.  It’s harder to displace ideas/trade secrets/brain-based product possibly?

    That does for the economy where I live which seems to be based on Retail Sales and Fast food as a new place is opening every week.  Thats fine in the short term, but it can’t sustain itself. 

    FreeRepublicans.com on May 1, 2006 at 12:54 AM Interesting conclusion but I’d like to hear your reasoning, please.

  • carrick

    Diane:

    Are you saying that having bad credit doesn’t ultimately affect the economy?

    Of course not.  Though it may not play a significant role. 

    Or are you saying that there aren’t enough Americans with poor credit to be a problem?

    You are claiming (apparently) that it is a problem.  Can you demonstrate this factually?  That is exactly what I’m looking for, not personal accounts, not appeals to my emotions.

    Now, Carrick, give us a pep talk about how the federal debt is nothing to worry about in comparison to % of GDP.  I’m sure some people will believe you.

    It’s not currently a problem, as can be factually demonstrated.  It will become a problem if the root causes of entitlement program runaway are not fixed.  The point of my comments is not just to start a partisan war with you, but to point out that we need to identify the root causes of problems with our economy and our economic and federal fiscal policies if we are to fix the real problems and avert worse problems in the future.

    It’s false to say that our problems with the current budget deficit are the result of military or discretionary ("pork barrel" spending).  As I pointed out, we are already decreasing our annual discretionary spending… dramatically since the pork-barrel days of Bill Clinton. (We have cut our discretionary spending by a third while increasing our R&D investment by 50%.)  Cutting military spending will reduce the effectiveness of our already-stretched-thin military, but will not solve long-term the budget deficit problem.  The only solution that will work is to address the root causes of the rapid growth in entitlement spending.

    If the above wasn’t what you were looking for, nor was my personal opinion on why consumer debt in this country is important, and why personal credit is important, I guess I’ll just have to try again.

    Consumer debt is a very different thing than public debt (which measures how much total debt the nation has)… remember how you linked the article comparing the US economy to Europes?  Guess which country has the bigger public debt, the US or Germany?

    The correct answer is Germany with 69% of GDP, the US comes in second with 60%.  The largest US public debt since records was 120% GDP in 1946.  The second highest peak was in 1995 with a public debt near 70% GDP.  Seen in a historical context there is no new looming threat to our economy from either the budget deficit or from public debt, nor does comparisons with other countries portray us as being particularly inrresponsible compared to other countries fiscal policies.

    When you talk about consumer debt you have to separate out secured debt (for which there is equity and hence usually a net positive wealth) and unsecured debt.  It is a mistake to lump mortgage debt in with non-secured debt, unless you first subtract off the equity used as security.

    With the rapid increase in the number of Americans with home mortgages, it is no surprise that consumer debt figures that include mortages show an increase in consumer debt.  These numbers paint a false picture, regardless of who is providing them.  (If something is wrong, it is wrong regardless of the source.)

    Current nonmortgage consumer debt runs about about 3% of GDP, compared to 7% of GDP for mortgage consumer debt.  As a percentage of household debt and GDP it has actually fallen since the 1986 tax reform act, which eliminated a tax deduction for consumer credit and added a credit for interest payments on mortages.

    There are some kinks in this oversimplified picture, but they occurred around 1994-95, and are obviously unconnected with your "gloom and doom" viewpoint on the US economy.

    However, some people who live and work out there in the real world will probably know the truth without either of us having to say a thing because alot of people they know are in serious trouble, either from lay-offs or losing their job to India or China, or to debt or credit problems personally, or from losing a pension due to gov’t allowing megacorps to bleep them, or from having a family member who just lost a home to foreclosure, etc.  Most people don’t live in glass bubbles like some of you here.

    More supposition.  The fact is that consumer confidence is very high, 109.6   The American population does not agree with you.

  • diane

    FreeRepublic: Hey, even though you were just insulting to me although I can’t remember being insulting to you, this was pretty good:

    Carrick,

    What gets lost in this argument is – what is being used as collateral in this debt?
    I firmly believe that the reasons things like the Ports debackle occur is because in return for them buy our debt, we have to give them rock bottom deals on our national assets.

    (Read what I posted from Ron Paul)

    My personal life right now is built on revolving credit.  But at some poit I’ve got to either pay it off or default.   And if my costs outpace my income every year, its just a matter of time before I default.

    You and a honst of other Americans.

    Now, back to the GDP.  Your comparing apples to oranges because historically we provided the world with goods that were tangible.  

    We now have a service economy whose number can not be compared to those of the past. 

    That’s fine as long as we have services/or something of value/perceived value investors/people want.  What it is doesn’t matter as long as it’s of value.   The question is, will be have services people want, because it is most certainly not a manufacturing economy any mo’.  Unless Carrick has something on that score.  Well, let’s say that it is becoming a service economy, or perhaps R&D and services replacing manufacturing.

    I’m through for tonight…I think, unless someone quickly comes up with something interesting.

  • diane

      Was it ‘worth’ that….by what standard?

    Oh heck, before someone else pounds on this:  Market value

  • http://www.freerepublicans.com/ FreeRepublicans.com

    Diane,

    I was really insulting you, just the manor in which you seem to argue.  I like original thinking.  Linking me to what someone else said doesn’t prove you understand the topic.  It only means you agree with that person.

     The problem is that a Service Economy has nothing to do with Value, it’s all Costs.

     Just because I can charge $1000 to build a website, doesnt mean it’s worth that, it just means that everyone else is charging too much as well.

    Thats a poor base for an economy.

    That does for the economy where I live which seems to be based on Retail Sales and Fast food as a new place is opening every week.  Thats fine in the short term, but it can’t sustain itself. 

  • http://www.freerepublicans.com/ FreeRepublicans.com

    Are you kidding?  We are 25% of the world’s total GDP (with only 5% of it’s population), with the percentage increasing over time, not decreasing, and you think we are just a service industry?  Have you lost your mind???

    GDP is Goods AND Services. 

    The Goods portion has been falling steadily since the 1970s. 

  • diane

    e:

    Let’s turn it around.  You do the research (it’s apparently at your fingertips) and show where there has been a net negative increase in personal credit scores.

    How about, let’s not.  You made the claim.  Now you can substantiate it, or just be a laughing stock for making a bogus claim that you couldn’t back up.  It’s your choice.

    Well, then, Carrick, I"ll take the risk.  I said that many people in this country were in debt and I stand by it…without doing a 20-year analysis of the personal credit trends.  Since most people on this ‘blog’ consider me a laughstock and call me whore, bitch, and slut anyway, I could care less.  You weren’t able to back up that there aren’t many people with credit problems, so there you have it.  Now back to your dusty Economics 101 textbooks and I’ll keep slugging it out in ‘real life’.

    What do you assume re: equity when you make the computation for consumer debt?

    Take the original home equity, and adjust it by the average change in regional real estate value since the closing date of the mortgage.

    Thanks for the info.

    And since you don’t either and can’t explain how we’re going to pay off our record (#’s) deficit, I guess we’re even.

    It’s only a record if you use a meaningless statistic to measure it.  But in fact, I did give an explanation:

    No, it’s not meaningless at all.  It is real debt that really is owed.

    [F]iscal restraint combined with a growing GDP and commensurate federal receipts will in time reduce the current federal deficit to zero

     

     Get ready to be creeped out.    LOLOLOL.  The GDP may not continue to grow, there is no fiscal restraint, and where are these federal receipts coming from? 

    You just have to keep the increase in outlays below the increase in receipts.   Then it will fix itself.

    In other words, make more than you spend.   LOL  We could have saved alot of time here.

  • diane

    The federal budget deficit, whether measured in raw dollars, or the more meaningful % of GDP, which both Rogert108 and Carrick were discussing, is not the same thing as the personal debt of Americans, which you have talking about with your little speech on mortages and personal credit histories. Not the same thing at all.

    Okay, Batty, and just where did I confuse them or, rather, where did you get confused that I confused them?

    LOL

  • diane

    oh, and Bobby…

    shhhhhhhhhhhh.

  • robert108

    Carrick: I was using debt in the most general way;  the way it is defined in double entry bookkeeping.  If I charge $200 on a credit card, I have exchanged that debt for some product or service I consider to be worth at least $200.  That would be personal debt.  If I invest $200 in a business venture, I plan to get more than $200 back, but I have still incurred a debt for the present time.  A personal debt is almost always an expense, while investment debt usually produces enough income to pay for itself and then some. 

    The flaw in the reasoning about personal debt in the US is that it is owned by someone, usually in exchange for products/services.  What might be a personal debt to me is a profit for a business, so it isn’t an overall negative thing for the country.  Investment financing is technically debt, but since it produces wealth, it has a net positive effect on the economy.  The "national debt" is largely an artifact of bookkeeping. The current blather about "paying it off" is a lot like the old meme about a "gold-backed currency" that was popular a few decades ago.  It is based on old thinking about the creation of value.  The reality of the national debt is that it is the expense to the taxpayers of running the govt at the present level.  We, as taxpayers, need to decide we don’t want the govt to do so much in terms of social engineering, and the debt will go away in time.  The truth is, social programs don’t pay for themselves in any way whatsoever. If they improved society in any way, they would get smaller every year, but instead they grow ever larger.  We need to tell the political class what we want it to do and what we don’t want it to do, and accept that level of expense.  The same crowd that bitches about the national debt also bitches about "windfall profits".  What does that tell you?

  • robert108

    Whatever your name is(victim):  Yes, it’s just a big conspiracy, we are all victims of big business, freedom doesn’t really exist, blah, blah, blah.  We should all just surrender to Marxism while we still have a chance.  We aren’t smart enough to know what is really going on, so we should swallow whatever commies like you tell us, and just be obedient proletariat.  Not bloody likely!

    As long as we continue to be free people making free choices, we will continue to become more wealthy and more powerful.  The only way the lefties can destroy us is to destroy our freedom by balkanizing us into little special interest groups vying with each other for their limited pie. 

  • robert108

    Whatever your name is:  You have nothing but personal insults going for you.  You cut and paste an article by a socialist using the old rant about US debt that has been a lie since the 19th century and can furnish no line of reasoning to back up your claims of gloom.  Debt is necessary for the production of wealth.  Not personal debt, of course, but that is an individual responsibility problem, not a national one.  If I could generate the wealth the US does with as small an investment, I would do it every day.  The return to capital of our economy is truly staggering, even with the misallocation for social engineering purposes.  The productivity of our economy overall is truly amazing, and it is all due to free people making free choices.

  • robert108

    Carrick: What’s behind all this blather is the absolute denial that the President’s economic policies are good.  Whatever its name is just can’t admit that, due to its hatred of the President.

  • http://unspunblog.com/ CV Rick

    Don’t lecture me, you amateur.

  • diane

    Diane:

    Okay, Batty, and just where did I confuse them or, rather, where did you get confused that I confused them?

    LOL

    Seem my last comment.  It’s quite obvious that you got them confused.  Or confused them in your reply at least.

    Why don’t you just paste my comments that show I confused them?

    And your constant laughing… it’s starting to get a bit creepy.

    I’m just sayin’… 

    Then ignore it.  I find it much more creepy to use foul terms like bitch and slut and whore, as have been said to me, and find it creepy as well to see someone like yourself defending a massive federal deficit by tying it to the GDP.  Little things like LOL shouldn’t throw someone who does that.

    Now show us the facts on how consumer credit scores are at an all-time low.  I’m still waitting. 

    Show me where I said consumer credit scores were at an all time low.

    I don’t recall saying it and I’d like to see it pasted here if I did. 

  • diane

    An appropriate way to end this thread.

  • diane

    Diane:

    Comparing the size of our manufacturing sector to the economies of other countries isn’t the point. 

    Actually it is important, but let’s leave that discussion for another day.

    It may be important but it’s not the point.

    The point is that it has been falling and most likely will continue in that trend.   Unless you are truly saying that isn’t a negative thing???

    Thought for the day… what constitutes a product in the 21st century.  Is a process a product?  How about a program, or an algorithm?  I suppose you are assuming that the $8.5 trillion of the service sector is in  flipping burgers?  In any case, this sounds like another discussion for another day.

    Apparently you didn’t read my post to FR.  Sigh.  Here it is:

    FR:

    The problem is that a Service Economy has nothing to do with Value, it’s all Costs.

     Just because I can charge $1000 to build a website, doesnt mean it’s worth that, it just means that everyone else is charging too much as well.

    Thats a poor base for an economy.

    My response to FR:

    You can say that about anything.  Things are worth what someone is willing to pay.  The first place I sold, before I was married, was a little dump.  But someone was willing to pay what I was asking.  Was it ‘worth’ that….by what standard?  Your website building is worth whatever someone will pay you.  I have trade secrets for a food business we’re starting.  Those are worth something and someday someone may pay for them…simply how to put ingredients together.  Is that a poor base for an economy?   It might be.  But there can also be some pluses.  However, I tend to agree that manufacturing is/was a ‘better’? base.  However, look how it was able to be displaced.  It’s harder to displace ideas/trade secrets/brain-based product possibly?

    Sigh.  It creeps me out when people don’t read things before commenting.

    How incredibly stupid of you to give me the choice.  Or were you just being insincere when you did?

    Exactly how is it stupid for me to give you the choice to either back up your assertions or just look totally lame-assed?  Knowing that you wouldn’t be able to back up your assertions with objective facts, it sounds pretty smart to me.

    Pretty stupid for you to do that, especially when I did back them up.  Saying there are alot of people with poor credit in this country is really a no-brainer, even for you.  I told you to Google credit repair and see how many pages you get.  I think that’s as objective as I need to be.  If I had given specific and precise numbers of people, your request might have been plausible. 

    If the GDP quits growing, we have a lot worse problems than a federal deficit.

    Yes, and…? 

    So your original point was just plain dumb.  I thought that was friggin’ obvious.

    Actually, I thought your plan to pay off debt was friggin’ obvious and dumb as well…impossible to be exact, given the government/politicians.

      1. I’ve got a plan too, but I doubt it will be followed either, so your plan and mine are useless.  And you’ve wasted your time talking about yours.
    1. Pure drivel.  In any case, "my" plan isn’t my plan, it’s the one that is generally adopted by the US government to cover its long-term debts.
    2. And one they don’t follow and I thought you stated it was your answer….shame on you!  At any rate, pure drivel because it’s not going to happen.  I’d like money to fall from the sky…it just isn’t going to happen. 
    3. Entitlement growth isn’t the only problem.

      It’s the elephant in the tea room.  And not fixable by fiscal restraint.  Name some other real problems, not just anti-Bush talking points, and I’ll be impressed.

      Carrick on May 1, 2006 at 1:49 AM After listening to you for far too long tonight, I’m not much worried about whether or not you’re impressed with me.  I know I’m not with you.Goodnight…as you said, more discussion is for another time. 

  • robert108

    Carrick: The ultimate result of trying to hold a conversation with a parrot:  Limited entertainment value, no original ideas, and crap all over the place.

  • http://www.freerepublicans.com/ FreeRepublicans.com

    What’s my role this is "reality denying" conspiracy?

  • diane@hotmail.com

    Your role, FR, is the ‘someone who doesn’t toe the NeoCON Bush line’ and that sets you up for a number of things.

    The truth is, Carrick has nothing but tables and charts and a ‘plan’ to save the world which is dust.

    The truth is that there are cycles and booms and busts and prices rise an fall, but the scary thing here is that we now are in a country in which there are a number of factors coming together that can spell disaster, and Carrick and his ilk are in complete and total denial, even though half of the country ‘gets it’ and laughs (or cries) when these jokers tell them how good things are, because they live in the real world.

    Carrick, calling me troll, whatever……I’ve danced circles around you because you are a book-speak useless economist wanna be.

    The worse the names get, the more I know you’re just spitting mad because I’ve hit the nail right on the head and that’s just the easiest way to fight back….demoralize the oponent.  However, it’s impossible to feel demoralized by people like you.  Actually, it’s empowering to know you despise me.   You despise me because you want Bush to be right.  You despise me because you have an umbilical cord attached to a party line and I’m free of one. 

    Nightie night.

  • diane

    http://www.builderonline.com/industry-news.asp?sectionID=30&articleID=283030

    http://www.bigbuilderonline.com/

    Every time the rates tick up just a fraction, less people can qualify or can qualify for less than what they want to buy.

     http://www.usatoday.com/money/perfi/housing/2006-04-03-arms-cover-usat_x.htm

    merica’s five-year real estate boom was fueled partly by a tempting array of cut-rate mortgages that helped millions of Americans qualify for home or refinance loans. To afford soaring home prices, many turned to adjustable-rate and other, riskier loans with low initial payments. The homeownership rate hit a record 70%.

    Now, the real estate market is cooling, interest rates are rising and tens of thousands more Americans are starting to have trouble paying their mortgages. Nearly 25% of mortgages — 10 million — carry adjustable interest rates. And most of them went to people with subpar credit ratings who accepted higher interest rates, according to the Mortgage Bankers Association.

    "Within the last year, I would say 60% to 70% of calls to our hotlines are issues related to ARM (adjustable-rate mortgage) loans," says Chris Krehmeyer, executive director of Beyond Housing, a non-profit group that offers homeownership support services in St. Louis. "That’s significantly higher than in years past, because the ARMs are coming home to roost."

    Last week, the Federal Reserve raised interest rates for the 15th time since June 2004 and signaled that at least one more increase is likely. That trend is ominous for borrowers who were seduced by adjustable-rate loans that offered interest-only payment options or teaser rates below 2% or that let the borrower pay less than the interest owed. They will face bigger payment shock once their loans reset to higher rates.

    The number of borrowers in trouble will rise this year and peak in 2007 and 2008 as the largest number of mortgages reset to higher rates, according to First American Real Estate Solutions, a real estate data provider

    https://login.live.com/login.srf?lc=1033&id=6528&ru=http%3a%2f%2frealestate.msn.com%2fbuying%2fArticlenewhome.aspx%3fcp-documentid%3d340866&tw=1800&kv=7&ct=1146449327&ems=1&ver=2.1.6000.1&tpf=f61e352d8534cbc0f1d103fcbe718742

    Foreclosure rates across the U.S.

    U.S. foreclosures jumped 45% year over year in January 2006. Texas, Florida and California had the largest total number of foreclosures, but Georgia, Nevada and Colorado lead the pack on a per capita basis.

    There was one new foreclosure for every 1,117 U.S. households in January 2006 compared to the same period a year earlier, according to RealtyTrac. Many economists and industry observers expect the pace of foreclosures to accelerate this year.

    Job losses were to blame in states such as Colorado and Georgia, which saw spikes in foreclosure rates of  196% and 144%, respectively, compared to December 2005. Those states topped the list at No. 3 and No. 1 for highest foreclosure rates on a per capita basis. Nevada came in at No. 2.

    Risky borrowing practices also have left many homeowners exposed to rising interest rates. Frank Nothaft, chief economist with government-chartered mortgage giant Freddie Mac, estimates one out of every three loans issued in 2005 was an adjustable rate mortgage. He expects $500 billion in such mortgages to reset sometime this year, leaving many with a payment they can no longer afford.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/04/business/04sales.html?ex=1301803200&en=87693798dbe21000&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss

     

     

    Now, Carrick, give us a pep talk about how the federal debt is nothing to worry about in comparison to % of GDP.  I’m sure some people will believe you.  If the above wasn’t what you were looking for, nor was my personal opinion on why consumer debt in this country is important, and why personal credit is important, I guess I’ll just have to try again.

    However, some people who live and work out there in the real world will probably know the truth without either of us having to say a thing because alot of people they know are in serious trouble, either from lay-offs or losing their job to India or China, or to debt or credit problems personally, or from losing a pension due to gov’t allowing megacorps to bleep them, or from having a family member who just lost a home to foreclosure, etc.  Most people don’t live in glass bubbles like some of you here.

  • diane

     You have stated over and over again in almost every thread you visit how much you hate the President. 

    That is an absolute and totally inaccurate statement and I CHALLENGE you to paste one single time I ever said I hated the President.

    Of course you won’t, because I didn’t.  You never do when asked to justify your immature and insipid comments.   You just blather on in your dream world.

  • diane

    Carrick, I was responding to Bobby.  However, your post is another dance around the May pole.   

    Our discussion here centers around the state of the economy and the federal deficit.  I think we have both made our points and I think yours are extremely weak.

    Or are you saying that there aren’t enough Americans with poor credit to be a problem?

    You are claiming (apparently) that it is a problem.  Can you demonstrate this factually?  That is exactly what I’m looking for, not personal accounts, not appeals to my emotions.

    I doubt you can prove that it is not a problem.  What %, what number would make it a problem, Carrick.  Give me a solid reason for that number and I’ll see what I can find out.  Of course, personal credit information is just that.  But I’ll give it a shot once you make your case for a number.

    Now, Carrick, give us a pep talk about how the federal debt is nothing to worry about in comparison to % of GDP.  I’m sure some people will believe you.

    It’s not currently a problem, as can be factually demonstrated.  It will become a problem if the root causes of entitlement program runaway are not fixed.  The point of my comments is not just to start a partisan war with you, but to point out that we need to identify the root causes of problems with our economy and our economic and federal fiscal policies if we are to fix the real problems and avert worse problems in the future.

    I’m glad you don’t want to start a partisan war because I’m not partisan.  I’m logical.  I’m glad you admit it will become a problem, although I believe it already is.  Any debt, personal or governmental IS a problem if there is nothing to repay it with.  So, what will this debt be repayed with (I think I already asked you that and don’t remember you answering).

    When you talk about consumer debt you have to separate out secured debt (for which there is equity and hence usually a net positive wealth) and unsecured debt.  It is a mistake to lump mortgage debt in with non-secured debt, unless you first subtract off the equity used as security.

    Wrong.  Equity is fluid.  Equity can actually diminish in a down real estate market.   That’s fairly basic, Carrick.  If my home is worth 100K today, and my mortgage is 80K, I have 20K equity.  However, if the home drops to 80K, I have 0 equity.  Your secured debt is dependent on what is securing it and what that is worth at any given time.

    With the rapid increase in the number of Americans with home mortgages, it is no surprise that consumer debt figures that include mortages show an increase in consumer debt.  These numbers paint a false picture, regardless of who is providing them.  (If something is wrong, it is wrong regardless of the source.)  …Current nonmortgage consumer debt runs about about 3% of GDP, compared to 7% of GDP for mortgage consumer debt.  As a percentage of household debt and GDP it has actually fallen since the 1986 tax reform act, which eliminated a tax deduction for consumer credit and added a credit for interest payments on mortages.

    There are some kinks in this oversimplified picture, but they occurred around 1994-95, and are obviously unconnected with your "gloom and doom" viewpoint on the US economy.

    Yes, there certainly are kinks, and they should be unkinked by reading some of the links I posted above, or simply doing some reading on your own.

    Again, your happy talk about the huge deficit being no problem because of its % to GDP is naive, simplistic and overly optimistic.  It is a problem.

     

  • robert108

    Whatever your name is:  Your lack of politeness is showing again.

    You claimed that housing inventories are growing, but the article says that supply dropped.  Which is it?  You still draw no meaningful conclusions based on any demonstrable economic knowledge.  

    The report stated that MSNBC reported the good news as bad news.  What else is new?  They reported a strong housing market as being in trouble.  What does subjectivity have to do with all of this?  If you maintain the housing market is weak, show us the numbers.  The numbers that Carrick and I have shows that the housing market is strong.  Show us some reasoning, not mindless insults.  You claim to be capable of politeness, but haven’t demonstrated it yet. 

  • Bat One

    "Now, Carrick, give us a pep talk about how the federal debt is nothing to worry about in comparison to % of GDP.  I’m sure some people will believe you.  If the above wasn’t what you were looking for, nor was my personal opinion on why consumer debt in this country is important, and why personal credit is important, I guess I’ll just have to try again."

    Okay, Diane, ready to try again?

    The federal budget deficit, whether measured in raw dollars, or the more meaningful % of GDP, which both Rogert108 and Carrick were discussing, is not the same thing as the personal debt of Americans, which you have talking about with your little speech on mortages and personal credit histories.  Not the same thing at all. 

    Its highly unlikely that anyone who actually knows anything about either subject… or both… is going to take you seriously if you can’t distinguish between the two on your own. 

  • diane

     I was speaking for your leftie rant. 

    Oh…I had no idea.  LOL

    Well, my ‘leftie rant’ is right on target, Bobby.

  • http://unspunblog.com/ CV Rick

    So now Wikipedia is the source of all knowledge, Robert?  Amateur Robert. Playing at expertise you don’t possess.

    I have to get going – busy evening and long work week ahead.  You go lick your wounds and try and forget about this little beating – just when you’re back on your imaginary high horse, I’ll be back to bitch-slap some sense into you again.

     Later.

  • diane

    Oh, and Bobby:

    Stop being annoying.

  • diane

    Despite the strong housing market, MSNBC still found time to quote USA Today as saying that the "strong housing market is slipping."

    Not a subjective term at all, eh Bobby?  Have any links/facts to objectivize that subjectivity?  Other than they looked a little better than the bad outlook predicted?  That’s ‘strong’ all right.  LOL

  • The housing bust continues to track the elusive Afghan Winter, as existing home sales rose slightly, when they were expected to decline
  • This was offset somewhat by a decline in mortgage applications
  • Or maybe you meant THIS:

    New home sales soared 13.8% in March, even as prices moderated and supply dropped

    Do you have any idea why that might be?  Builders often offer very attractive financing to avoid sitting on inventories.

     

     

  • diane

    Hey Bobby….shut up.

    We who at least have basic understanding of financing and the economy will duke this out.

    Just sit on the sidelines with your mouth shut, learn something and stop being a annoyance, will you?

  • http://www.freerepublicans.com/ FreeRepublicans.com

    The GDP argument is a tired one Carrick.  Not that she understands why it is really a problem or would be able to fully articulate that thought, but it is a problem.

  • robert108

    Whatever your name is:  As usual, you have nothing besides a feeble personal attack.  You seem obsessed with getting attention.

    Ron Paul’s contentions are simply wrong.  Marx predicted the collapse of capitalist economies due to debt back in the nineteenth century.  It hasn’t happened.  Those who don’t understand return to capital just don’t get it.

    The only way to eliminate most of the federal debt is to further cut taxes and eliminate 90% of entitlement spending.  That would produce economic growth and stability that would be unprecedented since before FDR.

    Since you lack basic understanding of real economics, none of this will penetrate, but there it is. 

  • diane

    LOL

  • diane

    I went back through the posts, panning up through all of Bobby’s annoying whining and insults and reposting of my comments and here was what you may be referring to?

    You want commentary?  Here goes:

    Foreclosures are up

    Personal/family debt is staggering

    Bankruptcies abound

    GM is in trouble

    Airlines are in trouble

    Inventories of homes on the market are growing

    The value of the dollar is declining

    Interest rates will continue to climb

    Oil Prices are up (hits tourism, airlines, consumer good prices)

    We have a record federal deficit

    Nothing there about consumer credit scores being at an all time low.

    And nothing yet from you about how we should/can pay get rid of the federal deficit? 

    Nor any comment on Ron Paul’s contentions.

     

  • diane

    The Goods portion has been falling steadily since the 1970s.

    No doubt, at least for durable goods.  But our manufacturing sector (about $2.2 trillion of our $13.4 trillion GDP) is largest than the entire economies of most of the other countries in the world.

    Carrick on May 1, 2006 at 1:13 AM Comparing the size of our manufacturing sector to the economies of other countries isn’t the point.  The point is that it has been falling and most likely will continue in that trend.   Unless you are truly saying that isn’t a negative thing???

    And actually the Real GNP is a more accurate indicator of how American interests are doing.

    No doubt.  But when you are dividing the budget deficit by the GDP, you are normalizing out the CPI correction… 

    Carrick on May 1, 2006 at 1:15 AM The facts are that the manufacturing sector is diminishing and it’s being replaced by something(s) which may not be able to compete with what the manufacturing sector has done in terms of $$.

    Diane:

    Well, then, Carrick, I"ll take the risk.

    That’s Diane for you.. when it came time to put up or shut up, she does neither!  How incredibly lame of you.

    How incredibly stupid of you to give me the choice.  Or were you just being insincere when you did?

    The GDP may not continue to grow,

    If the GDP quits growing, we have a lot worse problems than a federal deficit.

    Yes, and…? 

    there is no fiscal restraint, 

    That is a possibility, but you asked me if I had "an explanation" for how we could fix the deficit.  If the plan is not followed, then clearly it won’t work, will it?

    I’ve got a plan too, but I doubt it will be followed either, so your plan and mine are useless.  And you’ve wasted your time talking about yours.

    And as I’ve pointed out, the problem is not fiscal restraint, but entitlement growth.  Fiscal restraint won’t fix that.

    Carrick on May 1, 2006 at 1:25 AM Entitlement growth isn’t the only problem.

     

  • http://www.freerepublicans.com/ FreeRepublicans.com
    Entitlement growth isn’t the only problem.

    It’s the elephant in the tea room.  And not fixable by fiscal restraint.  Name some other real problems, not just anti-Bush talking points, and I’ll be impressed.

    Carrick’s right.

     Thought for the day… what constitutes a product in the 21st century.  Is a process a product?  How about a program, or an algorithm?  I suppose you are assuming that the $8.5 trillion of the service sector is in  flipping burgers?  In any case, this sounds like another discussion for another day.

    A process is a process as it has always been.

    A program is a product once it’s complete.  

    The "service sector" is anything that does not directly create a product.

    The ‘burger flipper’ is actually in manufacturing, whereas the waitress is in the service industry.   And the economists do disect it to that level.

     

    I’ve got a plan too, but I doubt it will be followed either, so your plan and mine are useless.  And you’ve wasted your time talking about yours.

    Pure drivel.  In any case, "my" plan isn’t my plan, it’s the one that is generally adopted by the US government to cover its long-term debts.

    Nothing anyone says here will ever be followed because the fact is the craziest person here is still more sane than the way our government functions. 

     

  • Carrick

    Diane:

    When people disagree with Bush and you, it doesn’t mean they are speaking against their country.

    Give that canard a rest: It is totally irrelevant to anything that I’ve said.  And give the "personal attacks" thing a rest, you are clearly looking for a fight, so it shouldn’t be surprising that you occasionally get one.

     I don’t think you are speaking against your country.   You are clearly anti-Bush and view everything that is happening in this country through that prism.

    We all have our personal biases that shades our worldviews, but I fix belief based on what I can establish of a factual nature, and not anecdote or appeals to emotion. 

  • http://www.freerepublicans.com/ FreeRepublicans.com

    Did you mean "I wasn’t really insulting you, just the manner in which you seem to argue", etc.?

    Yes, I’m typing and spelling challenged.  Someday the ADA will cover me and I will be able to sue someone for something, I don’t yet know what.

     

     If so, I’m in a quandry.  If I state my own opinion, I’m told it’s just my opinion (or close), if I link, I’m told the source is a socialist (or somesuch)….well, you get the picture, or should.

     

    I get called a Socialist on nearly a daily basis.  Sometime I wonder if they even know what the work means.

     

     

  • robert108

    You’re getting paid by stroking your own ego.  Otherwise you wouldn’t be snarking on this blog.

    "Macroeconomic theory" says it all.  In the free enterprise system, since it isn’t controlled by a central authority, the real macroeconomics is the aggregation of all the microeconomic decisions made by individuals.  In socialism, the individual decisions are controlled by a central authority, and thus macroeconomics is the prime mover, which is why it doesn’t work as well as the free enterprise system.  All govt can do in a free enterprise system is to limit the possibilities, either through regulation or taxation.  The premise that the govt can stimulate economic growth through confiscation and redistribution of wealth has been discredited, and for very good reason:  It doesn’t work. 

  • robert108

    Whatever your name is:  Carrick and I give numbers;  you give insults and rambling discourses that go nowhere.  When it comes to being polite, you lead the way.  Show us by your shining example, please.  Since you started it on this blog, you finish it.  You seem to confuse personal debt with the so-called "national debt".  They are not the same.  If a person has pursued financial activities that result in bad credit, that is their personal responsibility, not that of the President.

  • Carrick

    Diane:

    Carrick says:
    "Show us in your own words, and not in those of some pandering leftie economist. How big is this problem, and how does it compare to historical numbers"

    Which would you like Carrick, my own words or numbers by some pandering ‘rightie’ economist.

    I didn’t post the words of any pandering rightie economist.  My comments were derived from my own research.

    I take your failure to respond with an objective analysis of the relevance of the "problem of poor credit" as evidence of your incapacity to provide such an analysis.   In English, you simply have no idea whether it’s a problem or not, and are too intellectually dishonest to admit that publically.

    At some point, you need to put up or shut up.  Stop the slinging of insults or quasi-witticisms, and demonstrate for us that "the problem of poor credit" is anything other than a invention of the anti-Bush crowd.

     

  • diane

    Your worldview and your claims to be a savvy businessperson just don’t match. 

    In what way, BobbyBoy, using quotes from me on this forum, not from the little imaginary world that you play in?

  • diane

    Actually, Carrick and Bullwinkle, I began to invest in real estate in my 20′s, while I was building a business at the same time.  And, BullFoulMouth, I never asked this government or anyone for anything; I simply used the basic rules of investing and hard work and earned my own way. 

    When people disagree with Bush and you, it doesn’t mean they are speaking against their country.  It means they are speaking against AN ADMINISTRATION.   DO YOU UNDERSTAND THE DIFFERENCE?

    Obviously you don’t.

  • diane

    By the way, Carrick, going on % of the GDP is a lousy way to talk about the deficit.  The question is, how will it be paid? 

    Got any ideas?  Tax people out of their minds?  Bush wants tax cuts so where is the money coming from?

     

  • http://unspunblog.com/ CV Rick

    Robert, you should stick to subjects you know and understand . . . if there are any.

    You obviously haven’t the slightest grasp on Macroeconomic theory.  Keynesian economics is more closely associated with Reagan’s trickle down, Nixon’s deficit spending, and Bush’s tax cuts and deficit increases during economic downturns than by Clinton’s more classical economic approach.  You’d know that if you ever bothered to read a book. 

  • robert108

    From Wikipedia:

    "John Maynard Keynes, 1st Baron Keynes, CB (pronounced kānz / kAnze) (June 5, 1883 – April 21, 1946) was a British economist whose ideas had a major impact on modern economic and political theory as well as on many governments’ fiscal policies. See Keynesian economics for an outline of his theories. He is particularly remembered for advocating interventionist government policy, by which the government would use fiscal and monetary measures to aim to mitigate the adverse effects of economic recessions, depressions and booms. Economists consider him one of the main founders of modern theoretical macroeconomics. His popular expression "In the long run we are all dead" is still quoted."(Emphasis mine)

  • robert108

    Carrick: Some more facts:

    In Other, Minor, Unimportant Economic News Posted by Joshua Sharf on April 30, 2006 – 12:40.

    Among the news items that the MSM ignored last week in favor of $2.82 gas (source: Barron’s):

    • Retail store sales were up 4.1% year-over-year
    • Same-store sales were up 5.1% year-over-year
    • Consumer Confidence rose to 109.6, well above the consensus estimate range
    • The housing bust continues to track the elusive Afghan Winter, as existing home sales rose slightly, when they were expected to decline
    • This was offset somewhat by a decline in mortgage applications
    • Durable goods orders were up 6.1%
    • New home sales soared 13.8% in March, even as prices moderated and supply dropped
    • Jobless claims sat pretty much where they have been for the last 2 years
    • Employment cost index was up 2.8% y/y, but we’ll need to evaluate that in terms of the productivity index, due out this week
    • The GDP boomed, oncusmer sentiment (a different survey from consumer confidence) held, and the Purchasing Managers’ index showed continued strong growth.

    Despite the strong housing market, MSNBC still found time to quote USA Today as saying that the "strong housing market is slipping."

     

  • http://unspunblog.com/ CV Rick

    Robert,

    I’m not getting paid to give you a lesson in economic theory.  Please read the General Theory of Unemployment, Interest and Money.  It’ll enlighten you on the errors of your characterizations.  The writings of Stiglitz would also be beneficial.  

    In understanding Keynesian Macroeconomic Theory, you’re no better than a toddler explaining algebra. 

  • robert108

    We don’t trust anything you say either, diane.  It’s all about you, isn’t it?  Your worldview and your claims to be a savvy businessperson just don’t match.  Your juvenile namecalling in place of factual information continues, as it has from the beginning.

  • diane

    Here’s a clue for you, BobbyBoy: 

    If the attacks and accusations weren’t so personal, perhaps the responses wouldn’t be.

    But, on this ‘blog’, people prefer personal attacks to intelligent debate and they’ve set the rules, not me.

    Any time you’d like to change them, I’m ready.

  • diane

    I didn’t post the words of any pandering rightie economist.  My comments were derived from my own research.

    Whose numbers were YOU using?  We can all use numbers, but they come from someone else’s research, not really our own.  Unless you can prove yours do. 

    I take your failure to respond with an objective analysis of the relevance of the "problem of poor credit" as evidence of your incapacity to provide such an analysis.   In English, you simply have no idea whether it’s a problem or not, and are too intellectually dishonest to admit that publically.

    In English, I have a very good idea that it (poor credit) is a problem and having good credit is extremely relevant, not only for personal reasons but for the overall health of the economy.  Shall I speak from personal experience as an ex loan rep and real estate broker or do you want someone else’s experience?  If you want to get a loan or at least a decent loan to purchase or refinance a home, credit affects that.  Ditto with automobile financing. Ditto with other major purchases.  It can affect your ability to get a job with some employers who require good credit  What exactly are you looking for?  Are you saying that having bad credit doesn’t ultimately affect the economy? Or are you saying that there aren’t enough Americans with poor credit to be a problem?

    At some point, you need to put up or shut up.  Stop the slinging of insults or quasi-witticisms, and demonstrate for us that "the problem of poor credit" is anything other than a invention of the anti-Bush crowd.

    My reaction here has been to rudeness like ‘put up or shut up’.  Anytime you or anyone else speaks to me politely, they get the same in return.  I even apologize, as I did to the poster named Chief.  You set the pace; I’ll follow.  You were here first and the welcome I got has determined which direction I have gone.  I think I have demonstrated adequately that the ‘anti-Bush crowd’ did not invent the problem of poor credit.  People who have overspent (like the government) without the means to repay (like the government unless they raise taxes or play other tricks) did it to themselves.  We had nothing to do with it.

    The canard you want me to give a rest re: not speaking against the country but against Bush was an accusation from the Moose, if I remember correctly.  Some numbskull here who equates my dislike of the Bush Administration with disloyalty to the country.  If he gives it a rest, I’ll give it a rest; otherwise, it’s a signal to me that he/whoever equates the two….which is certainly way, way offbase. 

  • diane

    But since you brought up the federal debt again, here’s an EXCELLENT article by Ron Paul on same (it’s from 2004 but it’s still good, like most of  what Ron Paul has to say about things):

    The federal government issues U.S. Treasury bonds to finance its deficit spending. The largest holders of those Treasury notes – our largest creditors – are foreign governments and foreign individuals. Asian central banks and investors in particular, especially China, have been happy to buy U.S. dollars over the past decade. But foreign governments will not prop up our spending habits forever. Already, Asian central banks are favoring Euro-denominated assets over U.S. dollars, reflecting their belief that the American economy is headed for trouble. It’s akin to a credit-card company cutting off a borrower who has exceeded his credit limit one too many times.

    Debt destroys U.S. sovereignty, because the American economy now depends on the actions of foreign governments. While we brag about our role as world superpower in international affairs, we are in truth the world’s greatest debtor. Like all debtors, we are not truly free. China and other foreign government creditors could in essence wage economic war against us simply by dumping their huge holdings of U.S. dollars, driving the value of those dollars sharply downward and severely damaging our economy. Desmond Lachman, an economist at the American Enterprise Institute, states that foreign central banks, "Now have considerable ability to disrupt U.S. financial markets by simply deciding to refrain from buying further U.S. government paper." Former Treasury secretary Lawrence Summers warns about "a kind of global balance of financial terror," noting our dependency on "the discretionary acts of what are inevitably political entities in other countries."

    Ultimately, debt is slavery. Every dollar the federal government borrows makes us less secure as a nation, by making America beholden to interests outside our borders. So when you hear a politician saying America will do "whatever it takes" to fight terrorism or rebuild Iraq or end poverty or provide health care for all, what they really mean is they are willing to sink America even deeper into debt. We’re told that foreign wars and expanded entitlements will somehow make America more secure, but insolvency is hardly the foundation for security. Only when we stop trying to remake the world in our image, and reject the entitlement state at home, will we begin to create a more secure America that is not a financial slave to foreign creditors.

    http://www.antiwar.com/paul/?articleid=3851

    Now let’s see who can argue with such sound logic.  I’m sure someone will, though.

  • robert108

    Clinton "economics" was discredited Keynesianism, with plenty of smoke and mirrors.  He brought us Enron and the dot com bubble, plus the retroactive tax increases that were records for peacetime.  He also gutted the military to make his voodoo accounting look good.  George Bush rescued us from the Clinton debacle.

  • diane

    diane: I guess I have to tell you that because you don’t know the difference between a specific statement and a general statement.  I made a specific one, and you morphed it into a general one.  You "refuted" a statement I never made.  Get it now? Those voices must be getting really loud.

    robert108 on April 30, 2006 at 12:18 PM No, but keep trying.  If it makes sense to you, give yourself a cookie and be happy.

  • robert108

    Keynesian economics posits that the govt can be a player in economic growth.  Clinton’s Keynesianism was evidenced by his continuing reference to tax increases as "investments".  Keynesians actually think "tax and spend" produces prosperity.  It is just another form of socialism, where the economic system is made used as a vehicle for social engineering.

    Netram: No, you are in a Marxist universe. 

  • robert108

    Clinging to old stuff(specifically an old immigration policy) is not the same as a generalized accusation of "clinging to the past".  Why do I have to tell you that?

  • Carrick

    Robert108, I’m pretty sure that CV Rick is a separate identity.

    I’m thinking that he read this analysis by that embarrasment of the left, Paul Krugman, as his basis of authority, which basically claims that the successful policies of Reagan are in fact Keynsian in origin, a nice leftie-styled twisting of "white is black" and "black is white".

    I particularly enjoyed this response to Krugman’s twistings of the truth.  It is what I so love about Krugman: He’s just so easy to beat up on:

    [Krugman claims that the Reagan recovery] “all played out just as ‘left-wing Keynesian economics’ predicted.”

    But to anyone who knows even the slightest thing about the history of economics, this statement is a laughable lie. The truth is that the “stagflation” of the 1970s — the combination of high inflation and low economic growth — utterly confounded the Keynesian orthodoxy, which would have predicted that such a combination was utterly impossible. Then in the 1980s the Keynesian model predicted that the combination of falling interest rates and Reagan’s tax cuts should have created a massive stimulus to aggregate demand that would send inflation even higher. Yet inflation fell dramatically over the 1990s.

    Read the whole article, my quote just doesn’t do it full justice.

    I’m now waiting for CV Rick to explain to us that he can resolve this for us, but "isn’t being paid to teach lessons in economics".   (No doubt this is because of a high school economics class he took, making him the expert.)  But this appeal to your own superior intellect, while leaving nothing but turd-droppings-styled insults on the board, is just the intellectual coward’s way out.

     

  • diane

    Oh wow…excitement on the blog!  Where to begin:

    Let’s start with Bobby:

    You have the Marxist hatred of profits and business, which tells me you lack economic knowledge.  So sad.

    That’s why I’ve been self-employed since I dropped out of college after one year (Bible college by the way but with all the usual fluffy activities like football games, dating, and sundry other timewasters).   Yeah, Bobby, I just hate profits and business.   LOL

     You have no facts, only hatred for the President and the country. 

    They are not one and the same, Bobby.  And, actually, I don’t even hate Bush; I hate what he has done to our country and to Iraq.

    It is just another troll.

    TwoHotel9 on April 29, 2006 at 7:58 PM Bed needs making….Room 110. Did someone say service industry??Yep…Bush et al.  And HotelBoy’s busy as a bee these days fetching ice and answer room calls. When your making $40,000/yr. how can you afford a $400,000 mortgage?  Answer: YOU CAN"T even at 6.3% interest rate.The loan to value ratio is insane now and you can get a home with ‘fancy financing’ that will make you the slave of the lender and then you can always roll that mess into an even bigger mess with some usurious on-the-edge-of-legality bunch who are out trolling for just such suckers.Some of that ‘where’s the compassion for poor old addicted Rush" comes from Batty:

    If you don’t like where you are in life, then get off your ass and do something about it yourself.  Stop pestering everyone else about it.  It’s not our problem.  It’s yours.! 

    Average Guy, these people are probably up to their eyeballs in debt like so many other Americans.  The saddest part about them is that they ARE average Americans who, despite seeing their lives falling in around them from all the tings you mentioned (health care, SS being dismantled one piece at a a time, jobs going overseas, etc., etc., etc., et., etc., ad infinitum), get their whole identity and feeling of worth from identifying with people born into wealth like their Main Man Bush, or people who have insulted and grossed and elbowed their way into it, like RushAddict.  It’s all they have left; that’s why they get so worked up and so down and dirty defending it; it they admit it’s over for them and their future is as unstable and scary as they know it really is, they’ll lose it.  Have pity on them, if you can.  In between laughing your head off at their lack of logic and their denial of things that are crystal clear to thinking people.

     

  • http://www.freerepublicans.com/ FreeRepublicans.com

    Carrick,

    What gets lost in this argument is – what is being used as collateral in this debt?

     
    I firmly believe that the reasons things like the Ports debackle occur is because in return for them buy our debt, we have to give them rock bottom deals on our national assets.

     

    My personal life right now is built on revolving credit.  But at some poit I’ve got to either pay it off or default.   And if my costs outpace my income every year, its just a matter of time before I default.

     

    Now, back to the GDP.  Your comparing apples to oranges because historically we provided the world with goods that were tangible.  

    We now have a service economy whose number can not be compared to those of the past. 

  • diane

    And am I correct in assuming that "LOLOLOL" sounds like an insane cackle? 

    Carrick on April 30, 2006 at 12:16 PM Only when I’m around this kind of off the wall insanity…in the upside down world of Republicon NeoCON economics or politics.By the way, the credit problem was aimed at your personally, since I have no idea what your situation is.  If you’re not aware of the problem with many people in this country having bad credit, you are just living in some kind of parallel universe.My credit scores run from Fair Isaak’s of 780+ to over 800.  That puts me in the Excellent credit category.However, it doesn’t preclude me from knowing that people in this country are overburdened with debt.  

  • robert108

    Carrick: Great analysis.  I suspect that we are dealing with one person who uses multiple names here.  There is way too much similarity in the ravings of diane, CV Rick, Epicurus, Michael and some others for it to be mere coincidence, or even leftie parroting.  There are some consistent threads here.  The ignorance of basic economic truth is one of them.  I suspect that Michael’s admission to being an auto didact is a key premise for all of the multiple identities.  I have my own personal method of "data mining", and it reveals number of common threads tying these "people" together, thematically.  For instance, they commonly tell us they "have to be going" instead of just not replying when it’s appropriate.  There are others, as well. 

  • Carrick

    CV Rick:

    I’m not getting paid to give you a lesson in economic theory.  Please read the General Theory of Unemployment, Interest and Money.  It’ll enlighten you on the errors of your characterizations.  The writings of Stiglitz would also be beneficial.  

    In understanding Keynesian Macroeconomic Theory, you’re no better than a toddler explaining algebra.

    I would say it’s a good thing that you aren’t getting paid to give people lessons on economic theory.  You simply have no  idea what you are talking about, and would have to eventually refund them their money.

    So now Wikipedia is the source of all knowledge, Robert? 

    If a thing is true, it is true regardless of its source.  If you think the Wikipedia entry is nonfactual, debunk it.

    Of course it’s not, which is why cowards like yourself have to resort to insults. 

  • robert108

    When it comes to economic insecurity, you’ve got to go for the Carter Administration.  Double digit inflation, double digit interest rates.  Leftie economics!

  • robert108

    Rick: You continue to be immune to the truth.  Continue with your auto-didactic fantasies;  they are all you have.

  • diane

    I never accused you of clinging to the past.  You made that up.  Guess those voices in your head are getting louder.

    robert108 on April 30, 2006 at 2:01 AM 

    *************

    Eighteenth and Nineteenth Century stuff. You still clinging to that old stuff?

    robert108 on April 29, 2006 at 3:42 PM

     

    PLEASE make it harder for me to make you look stupid.  This is boring.

  • diane

    I was speaking about Batty, trying to take credit for your ‘insights’, Carrick.  Please keep up.

    Let me get this straight:

    ‘Massive’ debt and almost no savings by Americans is a good thing.

    A record federal deficit (it’s tied to this and it’s during a war analysis) is a good thing.

    Rising interest rates AT THE SAME TIME housing is experiencing huge standing inventories is a good thing.

    The dollar declining against foreign currencies is a good thing.

    GM and US automakers in trouble is a good thing.

    A high rate of bankruptcies and foreclosures is a good thing.

     

    I may be Chicken Little but you’re Alice in Wonderland.

  • robert108

    Carrick: Great analysis.  I still see a lot of fundamental similarities in the various hate posters here.  I also include Wetback.  I think it is a sophisticated attempt to divert conservateive energy by continually focusing attention on the personality of the poster rather than on the ideas.  SA, through his(their) efforts, has become more like the WWF than a forum of ideas. 

    As far as Rick’s take on economics goes, it’s laughable, of course, as is the leftie contention that inflation is produced by demand, rather than govt interference in the market.  Only the govt can increase the price without increasing the value.  Ignorance dies hard.

    The other thing common to all of them is the morphing of a specific point into a baseless generalization.  My submission of a piece from Wikipedia becomes "So now Wikipedia is the source of all knowledge, Robert?"  His persistence with this ignorance bespeaks some deep emotional problems, IMO.  The rest of them practice this one all the time.  At the least, we are dealing with a point source origin in some way.

  • WETBACK

    The Dollar is doing real good, thats why Gold the other day was selling at $656.50. :)

  • Average Guy

     Diane, I love you!!  You are the voice of the majority of people in the country.  The hard working middle class!  We are hurting. The only people that don’t know it or don’t care are the ones who believe the economy is fine.  Well, it is for them and that’s all they care about. The stats don’t lie but the neo-cons are so drunk from Bush’s favoritism they would not know reality if it crashed into the back of their BMW.  Bat1 loves to spew forth numbers that make him and his associates bank account grow. But then he extrapolates that to represent everybody.  Sorry bud that’s some crazy s*** your smokin in that pipe dream of yours.

    I have some rebuttal with some of the figures you spewed forth…..

    "Since the summer of 2003, the economy has grown at an average rate 4%, while creating over 5 million new jobs"

    Between the outsourcing of high paying jobs and the minimum wage being stagnant for 10 years, I’m not sure how great those 5 million jobs are paying.  I’d rather have the high tech job that was shipped to India vs. working at McDonalds for $5.75/hr. any day. I bet if the Treasury Dept. broke that 5 million down, things would not sound so rosy. Did someone say service industry??

     “The average rate on a 30-year conventional mortgage was 6.3 percent last month, lower than at any point in the 1970′s, 1980′s or 1990′s, according to the Fed.”

    Dude, I don’t know where you live but in my neck of the woods home prices have tripled with the average home in Ft. Lauderdale selling for for close to 400,000.  Now that’s great for those who already own a home but what about the other half?  The only people buying are the wealthy for investment. No-brainer there.  The party is over for any middle class person who is not in the housing market aleady. Rent for life.  Sounds like a prison sentence.  When your making $40,000/yr. how can you afford a $400,000 mortgage?  Answer: YOU CAN"T even at 6.3% interest rate.

    "Look for a two-year extension for dividends and capital gains at the current 15 percent marginal rate."

    Come on.. most people in my neighborhood don’t even know what a dividend or a capital gain is.  Why? Because they don’t have money for investment when the rent just went up, gas prices are going thru the roof, college tuition up, insurance up(my health insurance is $600/mth and rising) and real wages…stagnant.  The answer to that equation is a negative number.

    "Extending those tax cuts(on investment income) will increase the wealth of more than half of US households."

    Now what half are we talkin about? This is like a broken record. Your wearing those blinders again.

    So when you talk about that 50%, why don’t you start mentioning the other 50% that don’t necessarily see it the way you do.  This seems like a party you guys are talking about. Too bad only certain people are invited. But I’m not surprised. Republican Bush loving Neocons (I assume that is the button you push in the voting booth) are self serving and self centered. What’s good for the goose is well good for the goose. Screw the gander!!!   PS Diane, Did I say I love you?

  • TwoHotel9

    It is just another troll.

  • diane

    Clinging to old stuff(specifically an old immigration policy) is not the same as a generalized accusation of "clinging to the past".  Why do I have to tell you that?

    robert108 on April 30, 2006 at 11:53 AM My guess is to try to cover up your mistake and embarassment?

  • robert108

    You continue to lie, having no facts at your disposal.  Social Insecurity has been a pyramid social engineering scheme since its inception.  Anyone who knows elementary econ knows that.  Your anecdotal "evidence" is nonsense.  You did say one thing revealing, though.  I quote:  "This economy and the numbers can be interpreted to make them look bad or good, depending on one’s agenda."  You are almost right.  The truth is that the economy is good, but you are trying very hard to make it look bad, according to your agenda.  Unfortunately for you, the truth is not on your side.

  • robert108

    I had to do business through it, and the Clinton retroactive tax increases. I never accused you of clinging to the past.  You made that up.  Guess those voices in your head are getting louder.

  • Bat One

    Robert108,

    For someone… anyone… who actually knows something about this stuff, as you clearly do, this isn’t merely shooting fish in a barrel.  It’s like having the fish drain the water first.  Have fun! 

  • diane

    Stick around, Bat.  Maybe Carrick will return and attempt to rebut my facts and wisdom/logic, and then you can take credit for having had all those thoughts and just not putting them down yourself again.  LOL

    Wanna bet on the price gas will go to this summer, Batty?

  • diane

      You did say one thing revealing, though.  I quote:  "This economy and the numbers can be interpreted to make them look bad or good, depending on one’s agenda."  You are almost right.  The truth is that the economy is good, but you are trying very hard to make it look bad, according to your agenda.  Unfortunately for you, the truth is not on your side.

    No, the truth is, you want to believe the economy is ‘good’…whatever that may mean to you.  But we shall see, Bobby…we shall see.  There are always cycles and smart people understand and interpret and time their actions to benefit from cycles and politics and the innocence of the masses.

  • robert108

    diane: As usual, you lie.

    Instead of "staggering", how about the real numbers.  We can then decide for ourselves what is "staggering".

    Same with "abound".  Numbers, if you have them.

    GM is paying out more money on healthcare for retired workers than they are for making cars.  This is about union demands for excessive compensation under the threat of strikes.

    The airlines have been in trouble since the sixties. No matter how much you hope for it, that’s not even making a dent in the economy.

    Fair enough.  How do you define "climbing"?  I define "inching up" as a quarter of a percent every few months.

    "Up" is not "down". You lied.

    The deficit is not due to our war on terrorism.  Two thirds of the Budget is for social engineering programs. In your continuing monomania to blame everything on the President, you lie again and again. 

  • robert108

    diane: I guess I have to tell you that because you don’t know the difference between a specific statement and a general statement.  I made a specific one, and you morphed it into a general one.  You "refuted" a statement I never made.  Get it now? Those voices must be getting really loud.

  • Netram

     Diane, I love you!!  You are the voice of the majority of people in the country.  The hard working middle class!  We are hurting. The only people that don’t know it or don’t care are the ones who believe the economy is fine.  Well, it is for them and that’s all they care about. The stats don’t lie but the neo-cons are so drunk from Bush’s favoritism they would not know reality if it crashed into the back of their BMW.  Bat1 loves to spew forth numbers that make him and his associates bank account grow. But then he extrapolates that to represent everybody.  Sorry bud that’s some crazy s*** your smokin in that pipe dream of yours.

    I have some rebuttal with some of the figures you spewed forth…..

    "Since the summer of 2003, the economy has grown at an average rate 4%, while creating over 5 million new jobs"

    Between the outsourcing of high paying jobs and the minimum wage being stagnant for 10 years, I’m not sure how great those 5 million jobs are paying.  I’d rather have the high tech job that was shipped to India vs. working at McDonalds for $5.75/hr. any day. I bet if the Treasury Dept. broke that 5 million down, things would not sound so rosy. Did someone say service industry??

     “The average rate on a 30-year conventional mortgage was 6.3 percent last month, lower than at any point in the 1970′s, 1980′s or 1990′s, according to the Fed.”

    Dude, I don’t know where you live but in my neck of the woods home prices have tripled with the average home in Ft. Lauderdale selling for for close to 400,000.  Now that’s great for those who already own a home but what about the other half?  The only people buying are the wealthy for investment. No-brainer there.  The party is over for any middle class person who is not in the housing market aleady. Rent for life.  Sounds like a prison sentence.  When your making $40,000/yr. how can you afford a $400,000 mortgage?  Answer: YOU CAN"T even at 6.3% interest rate.

    "Look for a two-year extension for dividends and capital gains at the current 15 percent marginal rate."

    Come on.. most people in my neighborhood don’t even know what a dividend or a capital gain is.  Why? Because they don’t have money for investment when the rent just went up, gas prices are going thru the roof, college tuition up, insurance up(my health insurance is $600/mth and rising) and real wages…stagnant.  The answer to that equation is a negative number.

    "Extending those tax cuts(on investment income) will increase the wealth of more than half of US households."

    Now what half are we talkin about? This is like a broken record. Your wearing those blinders again.

    So when you talk about that 50%, why don’t you start mentioning the other 50% that don’t necessarily see it the way you do.  This seems like a party you guys are talking about. Too bad only certain people are invited. But I’m not surprised. Republican Bush loving Neocons (I assume that is the button you push in the voting booth) are self serving and self centered. What’s good for the goose is well good for the goose. Screw the gander!!!   PS Diane, Did I say I love you?

  • robert108

    More nonsense from you.  You have no facts, only hatred for the President and the country.  You have the Marxist hatred of profits and business, which tells me you lack economic knowledge.  So sad.

  • Bat One

    Dear Average Netram,

    First, stop bitching and complaining!  At least long enough to learn something.

    Next, get over the ridiculous idea that everyone else owes you something.  We don’t.  Aside from that childish chip on your shoulder, your problem seems to be that you aren’t making enough money.  Why not?  Other people are.  Why not you?  If what you are doing isn’t worth any more than $40,000 per year, whose fault is that?  Not mine, certainly.  And not those people who CAN afford that $400,000 house.  They didn’t take anything away from you.  So the problem isn’t them.  It’s you.

    How come they have money for investments and you don’t?  How is it that they can afford the house that you can’t?  Why are they not worried about $3.00 gas and you are?  It’s because what they do is worth more than what you do.  That’s why.  And once you do something about that… instead of expecting someone else to do it for you… then you too will have a $400,000 house, investments, a nice car or two, and no real concern if gas goes to even $4.00 per gallon. 

    If you don’t like where you are in life, then get off your ass and do something about it yourself.  Stop pestering everyone else about it.  It’s not our problem.  It’s yours.! 

  • diane

    When it comes to economic insecurity, you’ve got to go for the Carter Administration.  Double digit inflation, double digit interest rates.  Leftie economics!

    LOL…and you accuse me of cilnging to the past.  Couldn’t find anything bad about Clinton economics, Bobby..had to dig this deep?     LOLOLOL

  • robert108

    "staggering"?  a subjective term

    "abound"? again, not precise, but emotion-based

    GM is in trouble because of socialism in the form of unions.

    "Airlines are in trouble"  What else is new?

     "Inventories of homes…are growing."  What’s the bad part?

    The Euro is on its last legs.

    Interest rates are not climbing;  they are inching up.

    Oil prices are down.  Check the market lately?

    Our "deficit"(the amount the political class owes the rest of the country) is a smaller percentage of GDP.

    Try the truth. 

  • robert108

    Carrick: Nothing like the facts, eh?

  • robert108

    "When the Superior Man hears the Truth, he immediately puts it into practice;  when the middling man hears the Truth, he wants to know more about it;  when the fool hears the Truth, he laughs;  if he did not laugh, it wouldn’t be the Truth."

    With apologies to Lao Tzu.

  • robert108

    Carrick: Nothing like an injection of the truth.

  • diane

    Since using numbers here doesn’t work, I’ll just keep throwing around adjectives like ‘staggering’ and let it go at that.

    Bobby, I’m sorry that somewhere along the way in your education, you were never taught about the cause and effect, supply and demand principles of economics. 

    Right now the part of the economy doing well are tied into the war machine/war economy.  That’s as the President and his men planned it.  When they are ready, they will say/do things that will shift things around again.

    People like you and I are victims of these movers of markets and global economies.  The best we can do is cover our you know what’s personally and use as many of their bags of tricks, the write-offs, etc., they provide for themselves to try to keep our own economic health intact.

    This economy and the numbers can be interpreted to make them look bad or good, depending on one’s agenda.  When I drive by a local new car dealership here in So. Calif., and see "DO YOU NEED A CAR??? 1/2 PRICE!!"….in an upper middle class area where the economy is not nearly as bad as in, say, Detroit, then I don’t need to try to play with numbers to know that that’s not something I really want to be seeing in a healthy economy.  I could give numerous examples, but they would go right over the top of your baseball cap, so why bother?

    When/if GM goes Chapter 11, it’s not just ‘GM’ that goes down; it’s owners of their dealerships, it’s the salesmen they employ, and a ripple effect begins. 

    So live in your dream world.  The economy is gangbusters, SS will be there for your children, we’re winning the war, and all the other talking points and be happy.

  • diane

    Getting through all that cut and paste drivel you posted was easy.  That’s part of how I make my money. 

    What an odd way to make $$.  But then, what an odd man, so I guess it makes sense.

  • diane

    LOL, Bat takes Carrick’s analysis of the articles I posted and then expects us to believe he got the same thing from them!!  I wouldn’t do that, Bat.  It’s bad enough Carrick is trying to explain away a faltering economy.

    You want commentary?  Here goes:

    Foreclosures are up

    Personal/family debt is staggering

    Bankruptcies abound

    GM is in trouble

    Airlines are in trouble

    Inventories of homes on the market are growing

    The value of the dollar is declining

    Interest rates will continue to climb

    Oil Prices are up (hits tourism, airlines, consumer good prices)

    We have a record federal deficit

    …I won’t go on because I’d like to know how anyone is naive enough to base their ‘insightful’ rosy analysis on something this weak:

    2.2% ???

    How are we ever going to be able to withstand such a huge CPI??!!!

    We clearly are in big trouble.

    And then for the leader of the ladies’ who lunch knitting circle to want to take credit for having thought the same thoughts?

     LOL…you guys are certainly financial whizzes.

  • http://SayAnythingBlog.com The_Whistler_ofnd

    Why are they paying the unemployment folks to sit at home?  There’s trash to be picked up alongside the roads.  We should get something for our money.

  • Netram

     Bat1, Oh you hurt me so bad!!  I didn’t expect much from your retort.  Your response did not exceed my low expectations. I’m not looking for sympathy, maybe a little understanding about what’s really going on in this country. But your Neocon Republican brain is thick and hard. Just like our selected leader.  Same old same old from a Bushy lover who sees nothing more then what makes his own bank account grow.  In this blog your the director and your preachen to your own choir in a glass bubble.  The real world is out there somewhere but you haven’t found it yet. (Not that your even looking) Keep driving your Hummer and paying those illegal aliens to clean your toilet. Just stay on your side of the wall you built to keep out the "peasants." Your a perfect example of why a class war is inevitable.  Hey Diane where are you from?  These guys are in a parallel universe!

  • Bat One

    Getting through all that cut and paste drivel you posted was easy.  That’s part of how I make my money.  The difficult part was your in-depth analysis.

  • diane

    Like you said in another thread just now, the whole package!!

    :)

  • robert108

    What a combo;  monomania and megalomania, with a dash of codependency!

  • diane

    Interesting posts.  If you need someone to sit down and explain what all that "stuff" you cut and pasted actually means, one of the grownups will be glad to help you in the morning.

    Excellent, because there certainly don’t seem to be any around tonight.

  • carrick

    Diane:

    Okay, Batty, and just where did I confuse them or, rather, where did you get confused that I confused them?

    LOL

    Seem my last comment.  It’s quite obvious that you got them confused.  Or confused them in your reply at least.

    And your constant laughing… it’s starting to get a bit creepy.

    I’m just sayin’… 

    Now show us the facts on how consumer credit scores are at an all-time low.  I’m still waitting. 

  • Bat One

    Interesting posts.  If you need someone to sit down and explain what all that "stuff" you cut and pasted actually means, one of the grownups will be glad to help you in the morning.

  • carrick

    Our discussion here centers around the state of the economy and the federal deficit.  I think we have both made our points and I think yours are extremely weak.

    Well it’s not like I really care what you think, in any case.  So that’s fine.

    I doubt you can prove that it is not a problem.  What %, what number would make it a problem, Carrick.  Give me a solid reason for that number and I’ll see what I can find out.  Of course, personal credit information is just that.  But I’ll give it a shot once you make your case for a number.

    I’ll make it extremely easy for you… just show us that there is a net negative trend in personal credit information, as measured by a quantiative means, and give us a review of its performance over the last 20 years.  You’ll need to focus on the period 1994-95, when there was a sudden rapid increase in consumer debt.  I won’t spoil your fun by explaining where that spike came from.

    Wrong. Equity is fluid. Equity can actually diminish in a down real estate market. That’s fairly basic, Carrick. If my home is worth 100K today, and my mortgage is 80K, I have 20K equity. However, if the home drops to 80K, I have 0 equity. Your secured debt is dependent on what is securing it and what that is worth at any given time.

    Well said, but this is a second order correction, since we are discussing national composite numbers, not single families. Also, since real estate values tend to increase nationally over time, this correction just helps my case. As I said, you can’t simply assume that there is $0 in equity on secured loans when you make the computation for consumer debt, at least as it pertains to federal fiscal policy.  That’s just crackers.

    Yes, there certainly are kinks, and they should be unkinked by reading some of the links I posted above, or simply doing some reading on your own.

    The kinks are related to a spike in consumer debt that occurred between 1994 and 1996.  I seriously doubt it’s anything that you were even aware of.

    Again, your happy talk about the huge deficit being no problem because of its % to GDP is naive, simplistic and overly optimistic.

    And you, frankly, simply don’t know what you’re talking about. Though that’s your problem, not mine. 

  • TwoHotel9

    I first heard about this when two ladies I know, who work in county unemployment offices, were complaining that they did not get laid off because they have too many years seniority. They wanted to ride their unemployment benefits through the summer. I asked what the deal was and they were happy to explain. I had a hell of a time not busting out laughing right there and then. Apparently the newer, younger people were getting the"vacation" these ladies wanted.

  • diane

    The next time you hear about someone railing against "Big Oil" or some other big industry, remember that over 50% of American families have invested in those industries.

    Okay then…but over 50% of American families may get burned again.  The Wall Street guys are already licking their chops.

    MAY 1, 2006

    FINANCE

    A High-Risk Diet For Investors Why a portfolio full of commodities may not be the best hedge against inflation

    The commodities markets are booming. The Dow Jones (DJ ) AIG Commodity Index has gained 18% over the past year (chart). Oil and copper prices are at all-time highs, while gold and silver are at 20-year peaks. Investors will add roughly $30 billion to commodity index funds this year, estimates Barclays Capital, about what they put in U.S. domestic stock funds in 2005.

    Wall Street firms, of course, flog trends like this for all they’re worth. They have recently launched a slew of financial products, from exchange-traded funds that track the prices of gold and oil to mini futures contracts that don’t require big sums of capital to get in.

    The Street’s marketing machine is pitching the products to two kinds of investors: momentum traders, and more conservative investors looking to diversify their portfolios with alternative assets and to protect against inflation. Both groups might be in for disappointment.

    The conventional wisdom holds that because commodities are physical assets, they’re the best way to hedge against rising prices, which eat into the real returns of purely financial instruments such as stocks and bonds.

    Trouble is, the conventional wisdom seems to be wrong. Commodities have not kept up with inflation over the past 36 years, according to UBS Global Asset Management (UBS ). And while it seems logical to assume that inflation travels in tandem with commodity prices, the correlation is weak. Moves in the Goldman Sachs (GS ) Commodity Index over three-year periods going back to the 1970s have swung from an almost perfect mirror of the consumer price index to the opposite. (A better way to hedge: Treasury inflation-protected securities, which guarantee a real return.)

    There’s more truth to the argument that diversifying a portfolio with commodities increases returns. From 1969 to 2004, the Goldman Sachs Commodity Index gained 12.2% a year, beating the 11.2% return in the Standard & Poor’s 500-stock index and walloping the 8.6% gain for bonds. A portfolio of half stocks and half commodities performed best, returning 12.5% a year with less volatility.

    "FOOLED BY THE PAST" 
    But commodities are also highly cyclical, and they won’t rally forever. "Don’t be fooled by the past," says Campbell Harvey, a professor at Duke University’s Fuqua School of Business and co-author of a paper examining commodity returns. "There’s no…theoretical reason why these returns will continue."

    Like most investment booms, this one will likely end up a victim of its own success. Commodity index funds don’t buy gold bars or barrels of oil — they buy futures contracts traded on exchanges. Each month, as contracts expire, funds roll over their positions to new contracts. Peculiarities in the futures market have made those rollovers profitable in the past. Prices of longer-dated commodity contracts tend to be lower than shorter-dated ones, because there are usually more sellers eager to lock in future prices than buyers willing to speculate on them. As a result of this imbalance, commodities funds, buying lower and selling higher, have added about five percentage points a year to their returns over the past three decades, says Edwin Denson, an asset allocation analyst at UBS.

    But now, with speculators piling in, the rollover opportunity is disappearing in many commodities. "That market inefficiency has gone away as it drew more attention," says Denson. Subtract five percentage points a year, and commodities wouldn’t have beaten stocks or bonds.

    The bulls say it’s different this time. The market is being driven by fundamental forces such as demand from China and India and supply shortages stemming from decades of underinvestment. "Companies have been cutting back on exploration, development, and manpower since the 1980s," says Kevin Norrish, a director in the commodities research team at Barclays Capital. But such conditions have preceded other rallies, which have petered out when supplies caught up. This time, speculators who go all in might end up wishing they had spread their chips around the table.

    By Aaron Pressman

    http://businessweek.com/magazine/content/06_18/b3982070.htm

     

  • robert108

    Imagine what the economy would be doing without the steady drumbeat of bad spin from the MSM.  Try as they might, they have not been able to sell us the recession they predicted after 9/11.  It has been almost five years of steady growth.  If the MSM were even neutral, things would be even better than they are now.  It’s just the typical "Get the President" rant, but that dog still won’t hunt.  The proletariat just won’t listen to the leftie "masters".  Dang!

  • carrick

    Robert108:

    Carrick: What’s behind all this blather is the absolute denial that the President’s economic policies are good.  Whatever its name is just can’t admit that, due to its hatred of the President.

    I agree with you on this, in the main.  That is what is inspiring all of this reality denial that is coming from Diane, Average Guy, FR, CV. Rick etc.

    I’m not sure that "hatred of Bush" is an exact description.  My wife puts it like this… Liberals have a lot invested in their worldview being the only correct one (a a strange version of "tolerance of other ideas" if you think about it).  If they are out of power, yet the country is flourishing, this clearly threatens their worldview. 

    It is no surprise that under these circumstances, you see such a virulent form of  unreasoning from them. 

    If I am being patient with Diane, it is for ulterior motives only:

    There is no way I could diminish her reputation through my arguments on this blog any worse than she has by her own behavior.  Some of the titles that she flouts are earned by her own behavior.

    There is no way I or anyone else could ever reason with Diane.  That also is quite obvious.  She is eventually uninterested in anything I have to say, and has learned nothing of value from this series of exchanges.

    What I get out of it is a sharpening of my arguments and a foil to do something I love to do anyway:  research, looking up facts, performing analyses.   Diane has been the foil to work through some ideas and to get me to refresh myself on some facts. 

    The plain fact is that Diane is a troll with little original to offer, only unkind comments, slurs and insults to anybody who disagrees with her.  Her only value on this blog is to discredit the position she argues.  And for that, I thank her.

  • carrick

    Diane projects her poor life choices onto us:

    these people are probably up to their eyeballs in debt like so many other Americans.

    Speak for yourself.  I don’t even use a credit card, except for my American Express (which requires that I pay it off at the end of the month), and have a net positive worth.

    It is possible to live intelligently and make wise choices, just as Bat One pointed out.

  • diane

     The increase in the nation’s real GDP was close to market expectations of a gain of 4.9%, according to the survey of economists conducted by MarketWatch.

    But inflation moderated. The core consumer price index (excluding food and energy) retreated to a 2% annual rate from 2.4%, pushing the year-over-year gain down to 1.9%, just below the top of the Federal Reserve’s target range.

    *******

    The dollar further weakened after data showed consumer sentiment weakened slightly in late April.

    *******

    The U.S. dollar has been under fire in April, weighed down by a combination of factors including the record U.S. deficit, foreign central banks diversifying their reserves, and a more aggressive outlook for interest rates in the euro zone.

    "April has been a horrible month" for the dollar, said Marc Chandler, currency strategist at Brown Brothers Harriman, in a note. "The overriding factor is bearish dollar sentiment. Further dollar losses are likely."

    *************

     

  • robert108

    Bat: You go, boyyy!

  • diane

    Actually, I’m quite surprised you even bothered to try to get through them.  I was posting them for any adults who might happen by in the a.m.

    It just goes to show that no matter what I post, the only response I can expect here is absolute juvenile nothingness.

    Get on your jammies now like good little boys and run along to beddie bye, won’t you?  And no pillow fights!!!

  • diane

    "staggering"?  a subjective term

    What term/adjective isn’t subjective, BobbyBoy?  Shall we all quit using them here?  Okay, I’ll play along.

    "abound"? again, not precise, but emotion-based

    A more precise term you might prefer?

    GM is in trouble because of socialism in the form of unions.

    LOL.  Talk about emotional blather.  It’s in trouble because:

    1) They’re not building a product people are buying

    2) People aren’t buying because the cars don’t measure up to Japanese product

    3) Cost is too high

    4) People are in trouble financially (see my other comments)

    Shall I go on or is this logical enough for even you folks?

    "Airlines are in trouble"  What else is new?

    Just another one of a host of factors that combine to spell trouble for the economy at this point in history

     "Inventories of homes…are growing."  What’s the bad part?

    Shall I attempt this? When homes don’t sell,  it affects a number of other industries.  Shall I name them? 

    The Euro is on its last legs.

    And?

    Interest rates are not climbing;  they are inching up.

    Subjective term.

    Oil prices are down.  Check the market lately?

    You mean a day ago, two days ago, or shall we wait a week?  What did it cost you to fill your Hummer yesterday?  Want to make a prediction on gasoline prices this summer?  Come on, I’m game for a bet.

    Our "deficit"(the amount the political class owes the rest of the country) is a smaller percentage of GDP.

    It sucks money from the private sector to finance Bush’s war debt.  How do you lower taxes when you have to pay off ‘staggering’ (subjective of course) debt?  Where does the money to finance it come from?  But you are believing the government.  It’s called ‘social engineering’ and it works perfectly for herd mentality subscribers. 

    Try the truth. 

    Here?

  • TwoHotel9

    Another interesting point, Bravo1, here in west PA the price of gas is on the decline. 10 cents in 3 days in our local area. Guess that means our economy is doomed and we will all be in the soup lines by next week, according to our econ genius, Dhimi diane.

  • carrick

    I find it much more creepy to use foul terms like bitch and slut and whore, as have been said to me

    You can drop that canard as well. I’ve not called you any names, so stop with the martyred saint act, if you don’t mind.

    and find it creepy as well to see someone like yourself defending a massive federal deficit by tying it to the GDP.

    That’s your problem.  I can lead you to the facts, but I can’t make you reason.

    Now show us the facts on how consumer credit scores are at an all-time low.  I’m still waitting. 

    Show me where I said consumer credit scores were at an all time low.

    How about this:

    If you’re not aware of the problem with many people in this country having bad credit, you are just living in some kind of parallel universe.

    I’m just asking you to justify the statement using objective data.  It need not be consumer credit scores, but it needs to been objectively obtained.

     

  • diane

    http://www.iii.co.uk/news/?type=afxnews&articleid=5628606&action=article

    NEW YORK (AFX) — The dollar sank to an 11-month low against the euro and a three-month low against the yen on Friday, after economic data boosted speculation that the interest-rate differential between the U.S. and euro zone will narrow soon.

    U.S. first-quarter growth gross-domestic-product growth, employment costs, consumer sentiment and business activity in the Chicago area all came in below forecasts. The slew of economic reports added to evidence that the Federal Reserve is nearing the end of its interest-rate-tightening cycle.

    "In general, the market seems to be in a sell-dollar mode" after Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke’s testimony Thursday, said John McCarthy, director of foreign-exchange trading at ING Capital Markets. "We believe that the Fed is about to be finished raising rates for the time being, while in the rest of the world rates are going higher."

    In late New York trading, the euro was changing hands at $1.2631, up 0.8%, after touching $1.2639, the highest level since May 20, 2005. The dollar weakened to 113.63 yen, the lowest level since Jan. 12. It was last down 0.3% at 113.84 yen. The dollar also weakened to seven-month lows against the British pound and Swiss francs. Sterling last traded up 1.3% to $1.825, while the dollar was down 1.7% at 1.2383 Swiss francs.

    On the week, the greenback lost about 2.2% versus the euro and 2.4% versus the yen. In April, the dollar gave up 3.3% against the yen and 4.2% against the euro.

    "The market was just looking for an excuse to sell dollars," said Joel Ward, manager of the Joel Nathan ForexFund. "As a trend wears down, traders are looking for a definitive reason to change their positions. Once Bernanke confirmed the end of the rate cycle in the middle of a broad dollar sell-off, the flood gates opened."

    Comments from U.S. Treasury Secretary John Snow that the G-7 communique reflects fundamentals also weighed on the greenback. In television interviews, Snow said the U.S. wants to see greater flexibility in China’s currency, and Washington remains committed to a strong-dollar policy.

    It was more an understanding that "a weakening of the dollar would be very possible to be part of this adjustment process" of these large global imbalances, said David Solin, a partner at Foreign Exchange Analytics. "People are starting to climb on the weak-dollar bandwagon. There’s probably going to be more weakness."

    Data provide little support

    "The data, on balance, just reinforced dollar negativity at this point," said T.J. Marta, senior currency strategist at RBC Capital Markets.

    The U.S. economy snapped back in the first quarter, growing at an annual rate of 4.8%, the Commerce Department said Friday. The increase in the nation’s real GDP was close to market expectations of a gain of 4.9%, according to the survey of economists conducted by MarketWatch.

    But inflation moderated. The core consumer price index (excluding food and energy) retreated to a 2% annual rate from 2.4%, pushing the year-over-year gain down to 1.9%, just below the top of the Federal Reserve’s target range.

    Separately, a Labor Department report showed the employment-cost index, considered one of the best gauges for tracking labor-cost pressures, moderated in the first quarter to a 0.6% increase, down from a 0.8% pace in the last three months of 2005. Economists had been forecasting a 0.9% increase in employment costs in the first quarter.

    The inflation reports were "benign and supportive of rates not going higher," said ING’s McCarthy.

    The dollar further weakened after data showed consumer sentiment weakened slightly in late April. The University of Michigan consumer-sentiment index inched lower to 87.4 in late April from 89.2 earlier in the month, according to media reports Friday. The index was at 88.9 in March. Economists were expecting the index to inch lower to 89.

    Adding to the downward pressure, business activity in the Chicago region grew at a slower pace in April. The Chicago purchasing-managers index fell to 57.2% in April from 60.4% in March. Readings over 50% indicate most firms are expanding. Economists expected the index to fall to 58.7% in April.

    Further losses likely

    The U.S. dollar has been under fire in April, weighed down by a combination of factors including the record U.S. deficit, foreign central banks diversifying their reserves, and a more aggressive outlook for interest rates in the euro zone.

    The greenback’s downward trend accelerated this week after the Group of Seven leading industrial nations called for "vigorous action to address to address imbalances" and "greater exchange-rate flexibility" and after Bernanke said the Fed could pause in its interest rate-increase cycle even if inflation risks remain.

    "April has been a horrible month" for the dollar, said Marc Chandler, currency strategist at Brown Brothers Harriman, in a note. "The overriding factor is bearish dollar sentiment. Further dollar losses are likely."

    But he added that "while the weakness may carry into May, the pressures for a substantial correction are building, and the new month might not be as cruel."

    Joel Nathan ForexFund’s Ward said from a technical perspective, the market is "over-extended" and "some consolidation is expected at the start of the week while the market catches its breath."

    Swiss francs rallies on comments, safe-haven

    The Swiss franc was sharply higher after Swiss National Bank President Jean-Pierre Roth warned that further weakness in the Swiss currency would lead to further rate increases.

    News that Iran failed to meet its deadline to halt uranium enrichment also provided support for the currency, which often gains on its safe-haven reputation amid geopolitical uncertainty.

    Iran has failed to cooperate with U.N. inspectors, the BBC reported, and has done little to answer questions about its nuclear intentions. Friday marked the deadline for Tehran to halt uranium enrichment, which is a step toward creating nuclear energy or nuclear weapons.

    Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has said his country "does not give a damn" about U.N. resolutions that seek to stop it from enriching uranium because of fears the country is planning to develop nuclear weapons, the BBC reported.

    Upbeat euro-zone data

    The euro advanced against the dollar after a string of upbeat economic data reinforced the case for a rate rise in June from the European Central Bank.

    Consumer-price inflation rose 2.4% year over year in April from 2.2%, faster than forecast and above the ECB’s goal of CPI near to 2%.

    Separately, the money supply accelerated to 8.6% in March from 7.9%, well above the ECB’s preference for 4.5% growth.

    And finally, the European Commission’s measure of both consumer and industrial confidence unexpectedly rose.

    Adding to the euro’s strength was a report that Finland’s central bank boosted its euro holdings in its foreign-exchange reserves.

    ***********

     

  • carrick

    FR:

    And actually the Real GNP is a more accurate indicator of how American interests are doing.

    No doubt.  But when you are dividing the budget deficit by the GDP, you are normalizing out the CPI correction… 

  • carrick

    Robert108:

    Debt is necessary for the production of wealth.  Not personal debt, of course, but that is an individual responsibility problem, not a national one.  If I could generate the wealth the US does with as small an investment, I would do it every day.  The return to capital of our economy is truly staggering, even with the misallocation for social engineering purposes.

    Sorry, Robert.  I got hijacked paying attention to that troll, Diane.  I’ve fed it well, so hopefully it’ll shut up and go to bed.

    Coming back to this comment… pretty interesting.  Would you care to expand on it a bit, maybe with a link?

    As an individual, it’s possible to invest using what I call "found money".  That is money that I would not have earned had I not had the incentive (if you want to call it that) to later invest it on what I perceive as a future opportunity.

    So my question is, are you using "debt" a bit differently than us non-economists would?

    Thanks. 

  • http://sayanythingblog.com/ likwidshoe

    This is critically important because for the first time in history, more than half of all American households own stocks in some fashion, be it IRA’s, 401-K’s, mutual funds, individual equity holdings, or some combination…

    This is an important note. The next time you hear about someone railing against "Big Oil" or some other big industry, remember that over 50% of American families have invested in those industries.

  • realitybasedbob
  • carrick

    Robert108:

    If I invest $200 in a business venture, I plan to get more than $200 back, but I have still incurred a debt for the present time.

    I had a feeling it was something like that.

    The same crowd that bitches about the national debt also bitches about "windfall profits".  What does that tell you?

    That they have no bloody idea what they are talking about … 

    Thanks for the reply.  I was getting tired of chatting with that mean-spirited troll in any case.

  • carrick

    When it comes to economic insecurity, you’ve got to go for the Carter Administration.  Double digit inflation, double digit interest rates.  Leftie economics!

    LOL…and you accuse me of cilnging to the past.  Couldn’t find anything bad about Clinton economics, Bobby..had to dig this deep?     LOLOLOL

    You have to know the past to understand the present.  That’s very different than dwelling in the past.

    And am I correct in assuming that "LOLOLOL" sounds like an insane cackle? 

  • TwoHotel9

    Another sign of doom&gloom, seems unemployment offices across the state have been quietly laying off office staff. Appears they don’t have enough work to keep them all on. We are doomed, I tells ya, DOOOMMMEEDDD!

  • carrick

    Diane:

    Comparing the size of our manufacturing sector to the economies of other countries isn’t the point. 

    Actually it is important, but let’s leave that discussion for another day.

    The point is that it has been falling and most likely will continue in that trend.   Unless you are truly saying that isn’t a negative thing???

    Thought for the day… what constitutes a product in the 21st century.  Is a process a product?  How about a program, or an algorithm?  I suppose you are assuming that the $8.5 trillion of the service sector is in  flipping burgers?  In any case, this sounds like another discussion for another day.

    How incredibly stupid of you to give me the choice.  Or were you just being insincere when you did?

    Exactly how is it stupid for me to give you the choice to either back up your assertions or just look totally lame-assed?  Knowing that you wouldn’t be able to back up your assertions with objective facts, it sounds pretty smart to me.

    If the GDP quits growing, we have a lot worse problems than a federal deficit.

    Yes, and…? 

    So your original point was just plain dumb.  I thought that was friggin’ obvious.

    I’ve got a plan too, but I doubt it will be followed either, so your plan and mine are useless.  And you’ve wasted your time talking about yours.

    Pure drivel.  In any case, "my" plan isn’t my plan, it’s the one that is generally adopted by the US government to cover its long-term debts.

    Entitlement growth isn’t the only problem.

    It’s the elephant in the tea room.  And not fixable by fiscal restraint.  Name some other real problems, not just anti-Bush talking points, and I’ll be impressed.

  • carrick

    Diane:

    Well, then, Carrick, I"ll take the risk.

    That’s Diane for you.. when it came time to put up or shut up, she does neither!  How incredibly lame of you.

    The GDP may not continue to grow,

    If the GDP quits growing, we have a lot worse problems than a federal deficit.

    there is no fiscal restraint, 

    That is a possibility, but you asked me if I had "an explanation" for how we could fix the deficit.  If the plan is not followed, then clearly it won’t work, will it?

    And as I’ve pointed out, the problem is not fiscal restraint, but entitlement growth.  Fiscal restraint won’t fix that.

  • carrick

    FreeRepublican:

    The GDP argument is a tired one Carrick.

    FR, I think it is a reasonable argument and the version I give is due only to me, so "tired" would not apply in any case (that would be like a tread-worn argument long since dismissed by practioners of reason).

    If you disagree, address this argument:

    When you have a personal debt,  [that] is never a good thing.  However, the fraction of debt to your current earning capacity is a measure of whether that debt is serious or not.

    You have painted [national debt] (using current dollars, a completely meaningless metric when comparing against historical data) as  very grave thing.  It is not.  Indeed, measured against GDP ("earning capacity" of the economy), it is a relatively minor debt.

    and explain to me the error of my ways, especially the emphasized text.

  • diane

    Wow!  Break out the noisemakers if you can afford the gas to drive to the party store and get them!!!  Of course, you can charge that liquid gold on your CREDIT CARD, which is what many Americans are doing for almost everything they purchase, at high % rates which plunge them deeper and deeper into DEBT.

    Not to break up your little happy fest, but here’s a reality check:

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/03/04/AR2006030400238.html

    Our Financial Failings
    Family Savings Look Scary Across the Board

    By Neil Irwin
    Washington Post Staff Writer
    Sunday, March 5, 2006; F01

     

    Meet the typical American family.

    It has about $3,800 in the bank. No one has a retirement account, and the neighbors who do only have about $35,000 in theirs. Mutual funds? Stocks? Bonds? Nope. The house is worth $160,000, but the family owes $95,000 on it to the bank. The breadwinners make more than $43,000 a year but can’t manage to pay off a $2,200 credit card balance.

    That is the portrait of the median American household as painted by the Federal Reserve Board’s Survey of Consumer Finances. The survey, which does not distinguish between sizes of families, nevertheless offers the most detailed look available of the balance sheet of U.S. households.

    The Post asked a half-dozen financial planners to review the Fed data about what different groups of Americans own and what they owe. We asked them what advice they would give someone confronting the financial situation faced by the average American, using median numbers, or the midpoint at which half of the population is above and half is below each indicator.

    They don’t like what they see.

    "This is awfully sobering," said Peter Speros, managing director of Sullivan, Bruyette, Speros & Blayney Inc., a wealth-management firm in McLean. "These numbers are just so much worse than I would have thought. It’s a real eye-opener."

    Specifically, Speros and the other planners said, if the average family walked into their offices, they would sit them down and give them some tough talk. Time to pare back expenses, the financial advisers would say, in order to build a cash reserve big enough to get everyone through a layoff or other unforeseen adversity. And the family would get an earful about saving more aggressively for retirement, so members could have some hope of retiring at a reasonable age and maintaining the standard of living they and their family are accustomed to. Only 49.7 percent of American families even had a retirement account in 2004.

    Those at the median are not the only Americans who need help. The planners had advice for the typical family headed by someone who is young, middle-aged, retired, and for the affluent and poor. The bad news: Each of these groups need to do some things differently. The good news: Their financial problems are not hopeless.

    ************************** 

    If you’d like more reality, let me know.  There’s plenty more where this came from.

     

  • diane

    freedumb is on the march

    What do you expect, bob, from people who live their lives inside of a little cardboard box with REPUBLICON NEOCON written on the outside and a set of talking points glued to their glasses written by the Deciderer and Mr. Pill Popper?

  • carrick

    FR:

    What’s my role this is "reality denying" conspiracy?

    You’ve done it in the past on other threads (to the point where Rob was hopping up and down mad at your obstinance).  In my opinion, anyway.

    That is of course a very different thing that the pure meaness that Diane exhibits to anybody who dares to disagree with her goofy nonsense.

    But it’s hardly a conspiracy, and in restrospect I shouldn’t have lumped you in with trolls such as Diane—at least with respect with the comments you have made about my posts, which have been entirely reasonable.

  • Bat One

    Carrick,

    Your analysis is precise.  But look at the money supply growth figures cited.  At nearly twice a target growth rate of 4.5%,  that 8% monetary growth rate far too high.  Without some really accelerated GDP growth or a severe central bank tightening, the EU is looking at some serious inflation down the road.   Which explains the EU’s "call for vigorous action to address imbalances" and "greater exchange-rate flexibility,"  all of which is trader code for the US to assume the financial burden of taking the EU’s inflation out of the monetary system so that the europeans can continue to inflate away their own lack of economic growth and their inability to pay for their own social largesse.

    My point in noting Diane’s tedious cut and paste with no commentary was just that.  She has no idea what all this stuff means, but if it looks bad for the US and the current administration, she cuts and pastes away. 

  • Bat One

    TwoHotelNiner,

    I love it, Sir!  I truly do.  State unemployment personnel being laid off for lack of work.  There is a certain poetic justice and even symmetry to to that which I find almost inspiring.  Thank you for sharing. 

  • carrick

    FR:

    A process is a process as it has always been.

    You can sell a process (or technically a description of a process).  Is it a good or a service? 

    A program is a product once it’s complete. 

    In my department, software is classified as a "contractual service" by the bean counters.

    The "service sector" is anything that does not directly create a product.

    Nice definition. 

    The ‘burger flipper’ is actually in manufacturing, whereas the waitress is in the service industry.   And the economists do disect it to that level.

    That’s a good point.  But I’ve heard debate among economists that not all goods and services have been properly categorized.  For example, if you syndicate a restaturant, is the syndication a good or a service? 

    Something you said earlier: 

    My personal life right now is built on revolving credit.  But at some poit I’ve got to either pay it off or default.   And if my costs outpace my income every year, its just a matter of time before I default.

    Well I hope that you are able to get past this phase in your life quickly, and I mean that.  I was in the same position at one point in my life (no longer, TBTG).  But, I suppose this is an analogy for the country? 

    Currrently our national debt is about 60% of our total GDP.  That’s too high, obviously, and I’m not arguing anything otherwise.  But there is no sign of emminent collapse, or even that things are getting worse.  The fact is overall they have been improving since the end of the last recession in 2002.

    The idea that there aren’t long-term problems that need addressing is a much different argument than Bush is doing a terrible job at running the economy.

    If you are a Bush hater, they are the same thing, but that demands a certain blindness to the underlying facts, as is so spectacularly exhibited by the Troll Diane. 

  • Bat One

    Carrick,

    Amen, my Brother!!!  One more reason why I take such delight in noting that we are not only ON the Right, but IN the Right as well. 

     

  • Carrick

    Diane is absolutely right!  From her article, it’s clat that we are in big trouble:

    Consumer-price inflation rose 2.4% year over year in April from 2.2%, faster than forecast and above the ECB’s goal of CPI near to 2%.

    2.2% ???

    How are we ever going to be able to withstand such a huge CPI??!!!

    We clearly are in big trouble.

    Upbeat euro-zone data

    Sounds like a request.  Ok here goes, current numbers: 

    Germany:  CPI 2.5% Unemployment rate 11.5%  GDP Growth 0.9%
    France: CPI  1.9% Unemployment 10% GDP Growth 1.6%
    United States CPI 2.2% Unemploymente rate 4.7% GDP Growth 4.8%

    Ha ha ha ha ha ha!!!  WABODFs!

    You’d have to be a complete retard to think that the US’s economy is tanking and the European economies are surging ahead…

    The only indicator that they are compariable to us in is CPI, but that’s because their economies have clearly stagnated.

  • Carrick

    BatOne:

    My point in noting Diane’s tedious cut and paste with no commentary was just that.  

    You are absolutely right.  I was just supporting that observation with some of my own analysis.

    Another good example is Reality-Challenged Bob’s link to the increased rate of foreclosures.  This is a perfect example of taking a single number in isolation, without considering the factors that led to this change.

    Diane and Reality-Based Bob are only continuing the stereotyping of their own side as liberal twits incapable of their own independent thinking, making it a complete hoot when they accuse us of just parroting the party talkign points…  How often is it that we’ve seen people like them appeal to outside authority, but seem incapable of bringing their own thinking to the board?  Entirely too frequently.

    Then there is the over reliance on MSM sources, who present the data in either a misleading or entirely wrong perspective.  "I just read the news and the edtiorial pages" might cut it for after-church justifications for a position.  But that just doesn’t cut it with independent thinkers with the ability to perform their own analyses.

  • carrick

    FR:

    Now, back to the GDP.  Your comparing apples to oranges because historically we provided the world with goods that were tangible.  

    We now have a service economy whose number can not be compared to those of the past.

    Are you kidding?  We are 25% of the world’s total GDP (with only 5% of it’s population), with the percentage increasing over time, not decreasing, and you think we are just a service industry?  Have you lost your mind???

    And address this issue:

    If I make $20,000/year job and have a $5,000 debt then is a more serious problem than if I have a $200,000/year job.

    That is the reason for normalizing to GDP (or gross receipts which is closely connected). 

     

     

  • carrick

    Diane:

    Let’s turn it around.  You do the research (it’s apparently at your fingertips) and show where there has been a net negative increase in personal credit scores.

    How about, let’s not.  You made the claim.  Now you can substantiate it, or just be a laughing stock for making a bogus claim that you couldn’t back up.  It’s your choice.

    What do you assume re: equity when you make the computation for consumer debt?

    Take the original home equity, and adjust it by the average change in regional real estate value since the closing date of the mortgage.

    And since you don’t either and can’t explain how we’re going to pay off our record (#’s) deficit, I guess we’re even.

    It’s only a record if you use a meaningless statistic to measure it.  But in fact, I did give an explanation:

    [F]iscal restraint combined with a growing GDP and commensurate federal receipts will in time reduce the current federal deficit to zero  You just have to keep the increase in outlays below the increase in receipts.   Then it will fix itself.

     

     

     

  • diane

    Robert, not only are you an economist wannabe moron, you are also one of those who, when they are beating beaten by logic and facts, resorts to the ‘multiple personality poster’ argument.
    What a woos you are, Robert.

    Carrick says:
    “Show us in your own words, and not in those of some pandering leftie economist. How big is this problem, and how does it compare to historical numbers”

    Which would you like Carrick, my own words or numbers by some pandering ‘rightie’ economist.

    Once you decide, I’ll give you an economics lesson you won’t soon forget, from the real world, not from people who push pencils and make numbers move at will.

    I’m glad that you at least admitted that paying off this deficit is a problem. Maybe that’s a starting point for some semi-intelligent discussion on this blog of right-wing sheep who only think as the Right tells them to think, even though most are probably in debt to their eyeballs.

    By the way, to Bullwinkle, who accuses me of taking advantage of or sucking off or whatever..this country..I’m probably the only one here who bought a home for cash in my 30′s, not to mention assuming a nice, low interest loan on a rental property and turning that in two years for a nice profit and continuing to reinvest.

    You see, I take whatever the morons in power, whichever party, throw me and study the trends and benefit from the imbecile’s greed and perks to their friends. And I’d strongly advise the rest of you to as well.

    How many of you can match an 800+ Fair Isaak. Never mind, I don’t trust a word you say anyway.

  • robert108

    Whatever its name is:  I was speaking for your leftie rant.  Conservatives are quite capable of functioning on their own, without the "assistance" of the leftie elite.  We support individual independence, not your insane conspiracy victimization spew.

  • carrick

    FR:

    The Goods portion has been falling steadily since the 1970s.

    No doubt, at least for durable goods.  But our manufacturing sector (about $2.2 trillion of our $13.4 trillion GDP) is largest than the entire economies of most of the other countries in the world.

  • carrick

    Diane:

    Maybe Carrick will return and attempt to rebut my facts and wisdom/logic,

    You keep using that word "facts".  I do not think that word means what you think it means.

    So far all you’ve done is post poorly-thought out opinions, such as this. Which is nothing but a list of your opinions and is completely devoid of any supportive facts or meaningful analysis.  For example this:

    Bankruptcies abound

    What the f**k is that?  A high-school creative writing exercise in alliteration?  How do bankruptcies compare now to historical trends?  

    Then take this one:

    We have a record federal deficit

    Not when measured in percentage of GDP, which is the only meaningful way to analyze the significance of that deficit:

    The largest deficit since such numbers have been tracked  occurred in 1943 and was around 30%.  We are in a war, but have a 1.8% deficit in terms of GDP.  The largest  deficit post  WWII was in 1983 at 6%.  Our peak deficit was 2.8% in 2003, which was a consequence of the tax cuts that have spirred our current economic growth.  It’s been getting better since then, not worse.

    Pay attention, Diane.  These are facts. 

    The value of the dollar is declining

    A true statement, but what is it’s significance, Ms. Chicken Little?

    Interest rates will continue to climb

    After being at near historic lows for a number of years.  DEFINITELY TIME TO
    PANIC!!!!!!!

    And then for the leader of the ladies’ who lunch knitting circle to want to take credit for having thought the same thoughts?

    I make the point that 2.2% CPI is nothing to panic about.  You respond with… gibbering nonsense.  Nice.

    You aren’t even worth bothering with.

  • diane

    "We aren’t smart enough to know what is really going on" ….Robert108

     

  • Create a SAB Readerblog


    Recent Comments

    Powered by Disqus

    Blog Advice and Support
    Installs and Upgrades
    Theme Modifications
    Custom Plugins
    Theme Design
    Conversions and Relocations
    Hacked Site Recovery
    Mobile Apps Development