REAL WORLD EVENT DISCUSSIONS

Hoo yeah! The economy's ON FIRE!

POSTED BY: SIGNYM
UPDATED: Wednesday, July 2, 2008 09:01
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 4762
PAGE 1 of 2

Wednesday, November 7, 2007 11:35 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


But not in a good way.

Big selloff on Wall Street
Dow, down 360 pts.
http://money.cnn.com/2007/11/07/markets/markets_405/index.htm

Dollar hits new lows, lashed by China reserves view
www.reuters.com/article/hotStocksNews/idUSKIM17880720071107

Biggest Slump in US Housing in the Last 40 Years
www.rgemonitor.com/blog/roubini/142759

We have eight years of Bush's aggressive "trickle down" economics to thank.

THANKS, MR. BUSH!



---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, November 7, 2007 11:41 AM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!


How many quarters of positive growth you overlook, and 1 bad day, it's all Bush's fault ?

Trickle down works. Always has, always will. But there will always be bumps in the road. Lots of forces impact the market.

Adjustments happen, and only the foolhardy will make this out to be more than it really is.



"Hillary tried to get a million dollars for the Woodstock museum. I understand it was a major cultural and pharmaceutical event. I couldn't attend. I was tied up at the time." - John McCain

It is not those who use the term "Islamo-Fascism" who are sullying the name of Islam; it is the Islamo-Fascists. - Dennis Prager

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, November 7, 2007 11:54 AM

CHRISISALL


The economy hasn't been right for years now, despite the happy happy official numbers...unless you were well off to start, that is. It's been great for billionaires, a whole new crop of 'em have appeared!
But we working class stiffs (non-millionaires, that is) are continuing to lose. (You too, AU)
The numbers are just getting bad enough now that they can't hide the recession we are spiraling toward. And this won't be a short one.

So yeah, THANKS Bush, I'm sure your friends appreciate how you've managed to dump cash in their coffers, as well as American bodies in coffins.

The last angry Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, November 7, 2007 12:10 PM

CITIZEN


Trickle down doesn't work, never has never will. Rich people getting richer, doesn't make everyone richer, it concentrates wealth in the hands of the elite. It's backed by the evidence, where you have tax havens, you have widening gaps between rich and poor, you also have lower social mobility.

In responce proponents of 'trickle down' respond with some vague hand waving about the rich spending more. But if they're getting richer they're spending a lower percentage of what they're makng, it's simple math.



More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, November 7, 2007 12:14 PM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!


"1 bad day"

By my calculation, the stock market has been in the hole (in constant dollars) the entire Bush - what shall I call it - regime. Today it went even further down.

When it hasn't been your day, your week, your month, or even your year ...

... or seven.


***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, November 7, 2007 12:18 PM

CHRISISALL


Oh, but Rue LOOK!>>> 6

That's an official number, and it just told me our economy is fine!

Must re-evaluate Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, November 7, 2007 12:24 PM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!


I ... see, I think .........

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, November 7, 2007 12:35 PM

CHRISISALL


Quote:

Originally posted by rue:
I ... see, I think .........


That's okay, official numbers often befuddle folks...

Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, November 7, 2007 3:12 PM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Quote:

How many quarters of positive growth you overlook, and 1 bad day, it's all Bush's fault ?
Didn't we go thru this b4? That "growth of federal revenues" which was really in decline for so many years when adjusted for inflation, which JUST came back up to Y2000 revenues? (Bet THAT goes into the toilet soon, too! )

Also, you don't get to the "worst housing market in 40 years" and "historic lows for the dollar" in "one bad day". But that's what comes when you lack sounds economic theory... everything's a surprise! (I'll betcha dollar to doughnuts you were shocked... SHOCKED, I tell you!... by 9-11 too. That's what comes of not having a sound view of world politics either.)


---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, November 7, 2007 4:33 PM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!


Quote:

chrisisall contradicts himself : despite the happy happy official numbers...unless you were well off to start, that is. It's been great for billionaires, a whole new crop of 'em have appeared.


If no one did well, then how come there are so many NEW billionaires ? Explain.

The economy has been doing great, and there's nothing a rational person can say that changes that. Why did Bush's tax cuts work for so long, but just NOW aren't ? I'll tell you why...the markets fear the Democrats taking over, raising taxes and stunting the steady, healhty growth that has been going on under Bush's 2 terms.



"Hillary tried to get a million dollars for the Woodstock museum. I understand it was a major cultural and pharmaceutical event. I couldn't attend. I was tied up at the time." - John McCain

It is not those who use the term "Islamo-Fascism" who are sullying the name of Islam; it is the Islamo-Fascists. - Dennis Prager

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, November 7, 2007 4:38 PM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!


"stunting the steady, healhty growth that has been going on under Bush's 2 terms"

Then why has the stock market been behind inflation all these years ?
Why has China announced it will decrease its dollar holdings ?
Why are there more poor and uninsured after Bush than before ?
Why did the Federal deficit - just beginning to be paid down under Clinton - turn into a record deficit under Bush ?


***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, November 7, 2007 4:40 PM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!


Quote:

Originally posted by citizen:
Trickle down doesn't work, never has never will. Rich people getting richer, doesn't make everyone richer, it concentrates wealth in the hands of the elite. It's backed by the evidence, where you have tax havens, you have widening gaps between rich and poor, you also have lower social mobility.



Wrong. As usual. The rich keep doing what made them rich in the first place, and that's make smart choices w/ their money. No one has EVER gotten rich by accepting Gov't hand outs and subsidies. Ever.

Quote:


In responce proponents of 'trickle down' respond with some vague hand waving about the rich spending more. But if they're getting richer they're spending a lower percentage of what they're makng, it's simple math.




No, they're investing it more, as they anticipate grown to occur, and lo and behold..we have growth! Instead of 'playing it safe', as is the case when there's no or little growth expected, they see the signs and are willing to losen up their purse strings, invest in growing areas of the economy, and SOMEHOW those who had some $$ before now have MORE $$$ !! What a nutty concept! Except that it works, every single time. And the crap about 'only' the rich making more $$? That's more socialist bullshit. More $$ for investment means more people can start a new business of their own. That means folks who DON'T have the capital can borrow it, earn money, pay back the capital + interest, which gets their businesses started and gives a healthy return to those who risked investing in the 1st place. It's called a WIN/WIN situation.

Trickle Down 101 is now concluded. Thank you for attending.

"Hillary tried to get a million dollars for the Woodstock museum. I understand it was a major cultural and pharmaceutical event. I couldn't attend. I was tied up at the time." - John McCain

It is not those who use the term "Islamo-Fascism" who are sullying the name of Islam; it is the Islamo-Fascists. - Dennis Prager

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, November 7, 2007 4:44 PM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!


Quote:

Originally posted by rue:
"stunting the steady, healhty growth that has been going on under Bush's 2 terms"

Then why has the stock market been behind inflation all these years ?
Why has China announced it will decrease its dollar holdings ?
Why are there more poor and uninsured after Bush than before ?
Why did the Federal deficit - just beginning to be paid down under Clinton - turn into a record deficit under Bush ?




it hasn't.
dunno
ask the insurance companies
the budget is scheduled to be balanced soon,provided the tax cuts remain. If the Dems raise taxes, then it's on them.

"Hillary tried to get a million dollars for the Woodstock museum. I understand it was a major cultural and pharmaceutical event. I couldn't attend. I was tied up at the time." - John McCain

It is not those who use the term "Islamo-Fascism" who are sullying the name of Islam; it is the Islamo-Fascists. - Dennis Prager

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, November 7, 2007 5:00 PM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!


1)
year --- DOW close --- inflation adjusted value for 2000
_________________________________________________________
2000 --- 10734.90 ----- 10734.90
2001 --- 10189.13 ----- 11040.36
2002 --- 9226.43 ------ 11214.92
2003 --- 8993.59 ------ 11470.51
2004 --- 10317.39 ----- 11775.97
2005 --- 10547.67 ----- 12174.95
2006 --- 11408.67 ----- 12567.69
In other words (if you can't figure out what the numbers mean) the DOW NEVER closed above the inflation adjusted value for 2000.

2)
Could it be the dollar is sinking ?
http://www.x-rates.com

3) See figure 9 - look at the years 2000 - 2005. After dropping 1993 - 2000 (ie Clinton), POVERTY rates increase 2000 - 2005 (ie Bush).
http://www.naspaa.org/about_naspaa/about/presidential_address/Kathy_Ne
wcomer.pdf


4) "the budget is scheduled to be balanced soon"
Is that with or without the cost of the Iraq war factored in ? B/c the Bush administration has never put it in the regular budget. He chooses to fund it under 'emergency spending' bills, which aren't totaled into the budget statistics.


So - is THIS your steady growth, beneficial, 'trickle down' economy with a 'balanced budget'?
***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, November 7, 2007 5:34 PM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!


Also if you have a reply to this (above)?

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, November 7, 2007 6:42 PM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Auraptor: I know I asked you once upon a time what economic indicators you were using for your prognostication. You've been kind of bobbing and weaving over several possibilities: home prices, unemployment, Federal revenues, the stock market etc. Is your REAL indicator whether or not we have lots of billionaires and lots of poor people? Because by THAT standard Mexico, Rwanda, India, and any number of other third-word countries are doing "very well".

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, November 7, 2007 6:45 PM

ANTHONYT

Freedom is Important because People are Important


Hello,

I think we can blame the incredible deficit on Bush and his invasion of Iraq, which I now understand to have been unnecessary and detrimental. (You may disagree, but I can't see it any other way.)

We can thank Clinton for finally getting the deficit under control, and we can thank Bush for making the deficit into a monster again.

That having been said, I don't think we can blame Bush for the failing economy.

Business failures like Enron, and national insecurity after 9/11 combined to put the economy on weak footing. Interest rates were lowered to bolster the economy. This all happened at the onset of the Bush reign, and would have likely occurred whoever was in power.

The housing crisis developed because banks took advantage of the low rates to grant loans that could not previously be granted, and customers took advantage of the low rates to get loans they shouldn't have been able to get. This also probably would have happened regardless of who was in power.

The housing crunch has hit all financial institutions, and caused additional insecurity in the market.

I can blame Bush for the deficit, but a lot of the economical troubles outside of the deficit would probably have occurred no matter what. Hopefully, we've all learned from these incidents and won't make similar mistakes in the future... but the worst isn't over yet. I suspect the next president, whoever that is, will be eating these problems for their first term.

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, November 7, 2007 6:56 PM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!


What I have read is that b/c Clinton was addressing the Federal deficit (by raising taxes) businesses were reassured that bond and interest rates were going to stay stable (they wouldn't be competing w/ the Federal government for borrowed cash). Also, b/c he raised the minimum wage consumer confidence was high. Hence, an expansive, stable economy.

BTW Clinton ALSO had a major terrorist attack on the WTC early in his first term. But unlike Bush he didn't fear-monger (which itself dampened the economy under Bush) or derail the economy with reckless spending.

Some things really can be traced to Bush.

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, November 7, 2007 7:42 PM

ANTHONYT

Freedom is Important because People are Important


Rue,

I understand your comments, but please don't compare the first WTC attack to the second. The 'car bomb that couldn't' doesn't compare to a coordinated simultaneous attack on multiple targets by multiple planes, the destruction of several buildings, and the grounding of all air traffic for several days. They are not nearly in the same category in regards to impact.

As I've said, Bush IS responsible for reckless spending. That's where we agree.

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, November 7, 2007 9:19 PM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Quote:

That having been said, I don't think we can blame Bush for the failing economy. Business failures like Enron, and national insecurity after 9/11 combined to put the economy on weak footing.
Business failures like Enron were promoted by deregulation, which was directly traceable to Bush and friends (specifically Phil Gramm and his wife)
Quote:

Interest rates were lowered to bolster the economy. This all happened at the onset of the Bush reign, and would have likely occurred whoever was in power. The housing crisis developed because banks took advantage of the low rates to grant loans that could not previously be granted, and customers took advantage of the low rates to get loans they shouldn't have been able to get. This also probably would have happened regardless of who was in power.
Not true. The basis of a sound economy is the purchasing power of the vast majority, not the wealth of a tiny minority. For all of the things that Clinton did wrong, he did two things right: He raised the minimum wage, and reduced the Federal deficit. Bush did the exact opposite: He reduced the earning power of the vast majority, and went into hock in a big way by reducing taxes (mostly on the wealthy) and increasing govt spending.
Quote:

The housing crunch has hit all financial institutions, and caused additional insecurity in the market.
If you try and stimulate the economy by extending credit, the stimulous can only last so long. Eventually the bills come due. Again, this can only be corrected by raising the minimum wage.
Quote:

I can blame Bush for the deficit, but a lot of the economical troubles outside of the deficit would probably have occurred no matter what. Hopefully, we've all learned from these incidents and won't make similar mistakes in the future... but the worst isn't over yet. I suspect the next president, whoever that is, will be eating these problems for their first term.
I blame Bush for actively transferring wealth from the poor to the rich. That happened right before the Great Depression too.


---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, November 8, 2007 5:09 AM

ANTHONYT

Freedom is Important because People are Important


Hello,

Please enjoy this timeline:

1990's - Enron begins to perform shady accounting practices.
December 2000 - Deregulation legislation passed in CA. (Bush not in office yet)
January 20, 2001 Bush reign starts
August 2001 - Enron debacle goes public
September 11, 2001 - Planes hijacked and crashed into prominent structures
December 2, 2001 - Enron declares Bankruptcy

Deregulation happened before Bush. If you blame deregulation for Enron, then be aware that Enron would have taken place regardless. Little Miss Muffit could have been in the White House, to the same effect. Bush does not equal Enron.

I believe that any sitting president would have had to cope with the Sept 11 attacks as well. These two negative impacts to the economy would have occurred regardless of who was president.

The Federal bank would have likewise lowered interest rates in response to this negative impact, regardless of who was president.

And the lowered rates would have caused a heretofore unprecedented housing crisis, also regardless of who was president.

The deficit, meanwhile, is a problem because of reckless spending for a reckless war. The impact of tax breaks pales in comparison to the catastrophic error of pouring hundreds of billions into Iraq.

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, November 8, 2007 6:38 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Let's not forget Bush's other big contribution to our current downward sprial: transferring wealth to the wealthy.


I don't lay Enron entirely at Bush's feet, a lot of this happened on Clinton's watch. But the big players are Dick Cheney, and (early on) Phil and Wendy Gramm: supply-sider, "socialism for the rich", anti-regulation Republicans typical of the Bush/ Cheney philosophy. As such, she was in bed with industry from the start, trading "deregulation" for campaign contriubutions for hubby, and significant stake in income:
Quote:

Dr. Wendy Gramm, in her capacity as chairwoman of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC), exempted Enron's trading of futures contracts in response to a request for such an action by Enron in 1992. At the time, Enron was a significant source of campaign financing for Wendy Gramm's husband, U.S. Senator Phil Gramm.

Six days after she provided Enron the exemption it wanted, Wendy Gramm resigned her position at the CFTC. Five weeks after her resignation, Enron appointed her to its Board of Directors, where she served on the Board's Audit Committee. Her service on the Audit Committee made her responsible for verifying Enron's accounting procedures and other detailed financial information not available to outside analysts or shareholders.

Following Wendy Gramm's appointment to Enron's board, the company became a significant source of personal income for the Gramms. Enron paid her between $915,000 and $1.85 million in salary, attendance fees, stock option sales and dividends from 1993 to 2001. The value of Wendy Gramm's Enron stock options swelled from no more than $15,000 in 1995 to as much as $500,000 by 2000.


www.citizen.org/cmep/energy_enviro_nuclear/electricity/Enron/articles.
cfm?ID=7104


Apparently, Enron and Cheney had close dealings. So close, the WH shredded tons of evidence even AFTER Enron declared bankruptcy, when all documents should have been retained. Part of the case Enron made to Cheney (apparently successfully) was NOT to impose price caps while Enron was (illegally) taking plants offline to extort billions from California in a last-ditch effort to prevent collapse. But peopel speculate- as people do- that Cheney and Enron had bigger plans, and you could see their outline in Enron's "India deal".
www.thenation.com/doc/20020415/nichols


---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, November 8, 2007 8:11 AM

CITIZEN


Quote:

Originally posted by AURaptor:
Wrong. As usual. The rich keep doing what made them rich in the first place, and that's make smart choices w/ their money. No one has EVER gotten rich by accepting Gov't hand outs and subsidies. Ever.

Thanks for your strawman, but that's not what I said. You can tell by the fact those words don't appear in my post.
Quote:

No, they're investing it more, as they anticipate grown to occur, and lo and behold..we have growth! Instead of 'playing it safe', as is the case when there's no or little growth expected, they see the signs and are willing to losen up their purse strings, invest in growing areas of the economy, and SOMEHOW those who had some $$ before now have MORE $$$ !! What a nutty concept! Except that it works, every single time. And the crap about 'only' the rich making more $$? That's more socialist bullshit. More $$ for investment means more people can start a new business of their own. That means folks who DON'T have the capital can borrow it, earn money, pay back the capital + interest, which gets their businesses started and gives a healthy return to those who risked investing in the 1st place. It's called a WIN/WIN situation.

Trickle Down 101 is now concluded. Thank you for attending.

You forgot the real world example. You know, where it's actually happened, because all you've done is the vague handwaving I talked about earlier.

I mean you sound like the communists "It does work, here's the theory, ignore the real world! It works in theory, oh yes!"



More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, November 8, 2007 8:24 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Meanwhile, back in the real world:
Dow 13,138.99 161.03 (-1.21%) Just another bad day in paradise, eh?

Quote:

And the crap about 'only' the rich making more $$? That's more socialist bullshit.
Gosh Auraptor, I'd hate to see what's stuck to your facts, considering where you prolly pulled them from. But in reality-land
Quote:

Income inequality worst since 1920s, according to IRS data Nick Juliano
October 12, 2007

Half of US senators are millionaires

The superrich are gobbling up an ever larger piece of the economic pie, and the poor are seeing their share of earnings shrink new IRS data shows the top 1 percent of Americans are claiming a larger share of national income than at any time since before the Great Depression. The top percentile of wealthy Americans earned 21.2 percent of all income in 2005, up from 19 percent in 2004, according to new Internal Revenue Service data published in the Wall Street Journal Friday. Americans in the bottom 50 percent of wage earners saw their share of income shrink to 12.8 percent in 2005, down from 13.4 percent.... the IRS data show income for the median earner fell 2 percent between 2000 and 2005 to $30,881. Earnings for the top 1 percent grew to $364,657 -- a 3 percent uptick

I guess the WSJ publishes "bullshit, then?
http://rawstory.com/news/2007/Wealthy_grabbing_larger_share_of_US_1012
.html






---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, November 8, 2007 10:28 AM

CHRISISALL


Quote:

Originally posted by AURaptor:

If no one did well, then how come there are so many NEW billionaires ? Explain.


I didn't say "No one did well", I said the economy sucks. The FACT that there are more billionaires MEANS more $'s are concentrated in fewer hands (You weren't a good math student, I take it- ?)

It was said best in an I Dream Of Jeannie episode-
Major Nelson:
Can't you just make it rain in the Sahara?
Jeannie:
Yes Master, I could...but then another part of the world would suffer...


See, the billionares evolved by nefarious means, selling questionable loans and such.

Anyone doesn't see that there's something wrong with this economy is a dumb, felgercarb-eating biped!

Extra mean Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, November 8, 2007 10:32 AM

RAZZA


Quote:

Originally posted by rue:
year --- DOW close --- inflation adjusted value for 2000
_________________________________________________________
2000 --- 10734.90 ----- 10734.90
2001 --- 10189.13 ----- 11040.36
2002 --- 9226.43 ------ 11214.92
2003 --- 8993.59 ------ 11470.51
2004 --- 10317.39 ----- 11775.97
2005 --- 10547.67 ----- 12174.95
2006 --- 11408.67 ----- 12567.69
In other words (if you can't figure out what the numbers mean) the DOW NEVER closed above the inflation adjusted value for 2000.



Rue:

Just trying to figure out where you got your numbers, it's so hard to figure where you get stuff like this and how to calculate. Here is what I came up with using these two links to calculate the inflation rate adjustment and the Historical DJ close:

(Dow Close Link - Close as of Dec 31st of each year)
http://finance.yahoo.com/q/hp?s=%5EDJI
(Inflation Rate Adjustment Calculator based on Dec 2000 to Dec of each year)
http://inflationdata.com/Inflation/Inflation_Rate/Inflation_Rate_Calcu
lator.asp


I got these numbers. Not all that different, except for 2006 and 2007, still a little bit different picture.

year --- DOW close --- Adj Inf Rate --- inflation adjusted value for 2000 --- % Diff
_________________________________________________________
2000 --- 10373.54 ----- n/a --- 10373.54 --- n/a
2001 --- 9851.56 ------ 1.55 -- 10534.33 --- (-6.83)
2002 --- 8896.09 ------ 3.97 -- 10785.37 --- (-18.89)
2003 --- 9899.05 ------ 5.97 -- 10992.84 --- (-10.94)
2004 --- 10590.22 ----- 9.37 -- 11345.54 --- (-7.55)
2005 --- 10912.27 ----- 13.1 -- 11732.47 --- (-8.20)
2006 --- 12194.13 ----- 14.2 -- 11846.58 --- 3.48
2007 --- *13357.74 ---- *19.82 - 12429.58 --- 9.28

*Close as of Sept 30, 2007, Inf Adj Rate based on Dec 2000 to Sep 2007

-----------------
"There is not such a cradle of democracy upon the earth as the Free Public Library, this republic of letters, where neither rank, office, nor wealth receives the slightest consideration."
---Andrew Carnegie

"Doing research on the Web is like using a library assembled piecemeal by pack rats and vandalized nightly."
---Roger Ebert

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, November 8, 2007 1:01 PM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!


when I don't include a link I include searchable data - unique text that can be found via google

as to the sources - no mystery -

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1ECO/is_2002_July/ai_90796775/p
g_12



and BLS inflation calculator (which doesn't have its own link but can be found on this page http://www.bls.gov/bls/inflation.htm)

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, November 8, 2007 1:09 PM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!


As to Bush and the economy - he shoulda followed the rule - if it ain't broke, don't fix it. But he's too smart for that.

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, November 8, 2007 1:42 PM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!


Quote:

Business failures like Enron were promoted by deregulation, which was directly traceable to Bush and friends (specifically Phil Gramm and his wife


Enron was more of Clinton's failures than Bush's. The corruption was occuring BEFORE Bush got into office.

OOPS!

"Hillary tried to get a million dollars for the Woodstock museum. I understand it was a major cultural and pharmaceutical event. I couldn't attend. I was tied up at the time." - John McCain

It is not those who use the term "Islamo-Fascism" who are sullying the name of Islam; it is the Islamo-Fascists. - Dennis Prager

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, November 8, 2007 3:53 PM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!


No response to all the negative economic results under Bush - the feeble DOW, increased poverty, devalued dollar, turning a Federal surplus into massive debt ?

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, November 8, 2007 4:02 PM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!


AnthonyT

"I understand your comments, but please don't compare the first WTC attack to the second."

To some extent the reason the first had a smaller impact was because of the way it was handled. So much so, that people completely forgot it happened. Even now people refer to 9/11 as 'the first terrorist attack on the US mainland'. It clearly wasn't.

The first attack really was the first. The US was unprepared and taken completely by surprise. Psychologically it could - and maybe should - have burst the bubble the US seems to live in. That it didn't is a testament to how well it was handled.


Compare that to how Bush handled #2, including the politically motivated jiggering of shades of orange even years after the fact. That had quite a lot to do with creating fear across the US, not a good basis for an economy which is 70% consumer spending.

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, November 8, 2007 4:50 PM

ANTHONYT

Freedom is Important because People are Important


Rue,

I understand what you are saying, but I just can't agree. The destruction of the WTC and the attack on the Pentagon couldn't be swept under the rug and forgotten the way that the firecracker in the garage was. For one thing, 9/11 featured successful catastrophic damage, whereas the original WTC attack failed to do what it was intended to do, and featured a much narrower target profile.

I honestly believe that the best response to the terrorist attack of 9/11 would have been to rebuild the WTC exactly as they stood before, fix the Pentagon, enact no new 'Patriot Act' laws, put an air marshall on every flight, go to war with Afghanistan, and STOP. I agree with you that a minimalist approach to the problem would have been best. But NO ONE wanted a minimalist approach at the time. If the president had said, "Eh, ignore them and they'll go away," he'd have been denounced. We needed to see the government doing things, and the government did things. They did too much, it turns out, but there were few enough naysayers in the early days after 9/11. It really wasn't until Iraq that some people (not nearly enough) started to look up and cry foul. And it isn't until recently that we have a popular consensus on the issue.

So, yeah, it might have been better to pretend it never happened, as they did after the first WTC attack. But no, it wouldn't have been possible. Too many people were affected, too many people were afraid, and everyone wanted to see the government doing something about it.

--Anthony


"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, November 9, 2007 12:12 AM

FREMDFIRMA


"No one has EVER gotten rich by accepting Gov't hand outs and subsidies. Ever."

Bullshit, and for the record, that's one of the stupidest things I've ever heard.

Corporate welfare is the BEST way to get rich, from the railroad barons to the savings and loan industry, and currently housing lenders, cause if you lose money, the government just gives it back, yay!
(after fucking over us mere peons for it at the paycheck.)

And the very finest form of corporate welfare there is ?
Why, wars, of course.

http://www.lexrex.com/enlightened/articles/warisaracket.htm
=================================
The normal profits of a business concern in the United States are six, eight, ten, and sometimes twelve percent. But war-time profits – ah! that is another matter – twenty, sixty, one hundred, three hundred, and even eighteen hundred per cent – the sky is the limit. All that traffic will bear. Uncle Sam has the money. Let's get it.

Of course, it isn't put that crudely in war time. It is dressed into speeches about patriotism, love of country, and "we must all put our shoulders to the wheel," but the profits jump and leap and skyrocket – and are safely pocketed. Let's just take a few examples:

Take our friends the du Ponts, the powder people – didn't one of them testify before a Senate committee recently that their powder won the war? Or saved the world for democracy? Or something? How did they do in the war? They were a patriotic corporation. Well, the average earnings of the du Ponts for the period 1910 to 1914 were $6,000,000 a year. It wasn't much, but the du Ponts managed to get along on it. Now let's look at their average yearly profit during the war years, 1914 to 1918. Fifty-eight million dollars a year profit we find! Nearly ten times that of normal times, and the profits of normal times were pretty good. An increase in profits of more than 950 per cent.

Take one of our little steel companies that patriotically shunted aside the making of rails and girders and bridges to manufacture war materials. Well, their 1910-1914 yearly earnings averaged $6,000,000. Then came the war. And, like loyal citizens, Bethlehem Steel promptly turned to munitions making. Did their profits jump – or did they let Uncle Sam in for a bargain? Well, their 1914-1918 average was $49,000,000 a year!

Or, let's take United States Steel. The normal earnings during the five-year period prior to the war were $105,000,000 a year. Not bad. Then along came the war and up went the profits. The average yearly profit for the period 1914-1918 was $240,000,000. Not bad.

There you have some of the steel and powder earnings. Let's look at something else. A little copper, perhaps. That always does well in war times.

Anaconda, for instance. Average yearly earnings during the pre-war years 1910-1914 of $10,000,000. During the war years 1914-1918 profits leaped to $34,000,000 per year.

Or Utah Copper. Average of $5,000,000 per year during the 1910-1914 period. Jumped to an average of $21,000,000 yearly profits for the war period.

Let's group these five, with three smaller companies. The total yearly average profits of the pre-war period 1910-1914 were $137,480,000. Then along came the war. The average yearly profits for this group skyrocketed to $408,300,000.

A little increase in profits of approximately 200 per cent.

Does war pay? It paid them. But they aren't the only ones. There are still others. Let's take leather.

For the three-year period before the war the total profits of Central Leather Company were $3,500,000. That was approximately $1,167,000 a year. Well, in 1916 Central Leather returned a profit of $15,000,000, a small increase of 1,100 per cent. That's all. The General Chemical Company averaged a profit for the three years before the war of a little over $800,000 a year. Came the war, and the profits jumped to $12,000,000. a leap of 1,400 per cent.

International Nickel Company – and you can't have a war without nickel – showed an increase in profits from a mere average of $4,000,000 a year to $73,000,000 yearly. Not bad? An increase of more than 1,700 per cent.

American Sugar Refining Company averaged $2,000,000 a year for the three years before the war. In 1916 a profit of $6,000,000 was recorded.

Listen to Senate Document No. 259. The Sixty-Fifth Congress, reporting on corporate earnings and government revenues. Considering the profits of 122 meat packers, 153 cotton manufacturers, 299 garment makers, 49 steel plants, and 340 coal producers during the war. Profits under 25 per cent were exceptional. For instance the coal companies made between 100 per cent and 7,856 per cent on their capital stock during the war. The Chicago packers doubled and tripled their earnings.

And let us not forget the bankers who financed the great war. If anyone had the cream of the profits it was the bankers. Being partnerships rather than incorporated organizations, they do not have to report to stockholders. And their profits were as secret as they were immense. How the bankers made their millions and their billions I do not know, because those little secrets never become public – even before a Senate investigatory body."

=================================

Hows about betting on how many of those "new" millionares are part of the military industrial complex, eh ?



Oh, and AnthonyT ?

Not to sound piratenewsish about it, but one reason they wanted to bury WTC1993..
http://www.fff.org/freedom/fd0408c.asp

Ask some folk *where* those dickheads got the plans, formulas and materials to make a working bomb of that size....

Or better yet, ask why the FBI supervisor told their agent not to render the bomb inoperable...

The FBI planted an agent, gave these dimwits the idea in the first place, then the plans, and at least some if not all of the materials, through that agent, then had him put it together correctly since none of the other plotters had the skill to do it effectively, in spite of the fact that we trained and financied most of their leaders cabal ourselves to begin with.
(That being Sheik Abdul Rahman, mind you - who we used as a proxy to whup soviet ass back in the 80's)

And then told him not to sabotage it when he offered to do so cause they wanted to catch em with a "real" bomb, then fumbled it from that point.

Criminal negligence, at the very least, if not worse - it ranks up there with a cop getting some guy drunk, handing him his car keys and then following him until he causes a fatal accident just to get a vehicular manslaughter bust.

They're supposed to prevent this shit, not cause it.

You better believe they wanted it buried.

What's worse is that if you follow up on Emad Salem, you'll find that more than half of these so-called terror plots they've held up all over the news post 9-11 as prevented, were in fact intiated BY this guy in the first place, while employed by us - like that sears tower thing he talked some bunch of pathetic losers into while working as CW2, not to mention the FBI was paying the bastards rent on their office for em the whole time.

Some days I wonder if they oughta change the name to...
Federal Bombing Instigators.

I dread the next fumble, I really do.

-Frem

PS. While wholly unrelated, the fact that we trained and financed so many of these assholes to begin with in order to kick the Soviets out of Afghanistan - I find it surprising that no one has begun to wonder about, or even suspect, the possibility that they might be returning the favor at this time... it would explain much, if they were.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, November 9, 2007 3:02 AM

JONGSSTRAW


Quote:

"I blame Bush for actively transferring wealth from the poor to the rich."

Quote of the Year!
Sentiment of the Year!
Utter, mindless Bush Derangement Syndrome statement of the Year!

Congratulations!! You've won the Dennis Kucinich Medal of Freedom for that one.

How much "wealth" have the "poor" transferred to the wealthy again?...I forgot.



NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, November 9, 2007 8:05 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


"I blame Bush for actively transferring wealth from the poor to the rich."- Signy

Utter, mindless Bush Derangement Syndrome statement of the Year! How much "wealth" have the "poor" transferred to the wealthy again?...I forgot.- JSS

Wow, and speaking of mindless statements. Maybe math is too complicated for you? Anyway, the answer is: about $40B in 2006.


---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, November 9, 2007 9:04 AM

FREMDFIRMA


Ummm.. Jong ?

Rich assholes in the immensely corrupt home finance industry realize the hard way that you can't squeeze money out of broke people.

Rich assholes go running to the Gov for a bailout to protect their profits.

Big daddy Gov loots MY paycheck and yours, and gives the money to THEM.

I'd say that fucking qualifies.

-F

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, November 9, 2007 9:10 AM

CHRISISALL


Quote:

Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
Ummm.. Jong ?

Rich assholes in the immensely corrupt home finance industry realize the hard way that you can't squeeze money out of broke people.

Rich assholes go running to the Gov for a bailout to protect their profits.

Big daddy Gov loots MY paycheck and yours, and gives the money to THEM.

I'd say that fucking qualifies.

-F

You are so right.

Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, November 9, 2007 10:59 AM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!


"If the president had said, "Eh, ignore them and they'll go away," he'd have been denounced."

If the president had said ... we've been tragically wounded but our future is still bright. We will mourn our losses, and remember for all time our grief, but we will be a strong and free country now and in the future. We will seek justice, we will seek security, we will work with our friends and allies around the globe to insure a safe and secure world. ...

I think that would have gone down just fine.

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, November 9, 2007 11:01 AM

CHRISISALL


Quote:

Originally posted by rue:

If the president had said ... we've been tragically wounded but our future is still bright. We will mourn our losses, and remember for all time our grief, but we will be a strong and free country now and in the future. We will seek justice, we will seek security, we will work with our freinds and allies around the globe to insure a safe and secure world. ...

I think that would have gone down just fine.


Those would have been the words of a thoughtful and reasonable President, yes.

Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, November 9, 2007 12:35 PM

CITIZEN


Quote:

Originally posted by chrisisall:
Those would have been the words of a thoughtful and reasonable President, yes.

Not to mention one that couldn't get elected in the US.



More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, November 9, 2007 12:40 PM

CHRISISALL


Quote:

Originally posted by citizen:
Quote:

Originally posted by chrisisall:
Those would have been the words of a thoughtful and reasonable President, yes.

Not to mention one that couldn't get elected in the US.


Carter was such a man...
Too bad he didn't know how to swim w/the sharks.

Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, November 9, 2007 1:48 PM

LEADB


Quote:

Originally posted by rue:
"If the president had said, "Eh, ignore them and they'll go away," he'd have been denounced."

If the president had said ... we've been tragically wounded but our future is still bright. We will mourn our losses, and remember for all time our grief, but we will be a strong and free country now and in the future. We will seek justice, we will seek security, we will work with our friends and allies around the globe to insure a safe and secure world. ...

I think that would have gone down just fine.

While I don't disagree, he could 'merely' have stopped with the invasion of Afghanistan. He would have looked tough, and avoided a debacle.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, November 9, 2007 2:07 PM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!


ahem Yeah, on fire all right. Last one off this burning tub is a ...

Dow drops over 200 points

It's a week of big losses as Wachovia, Fannie Mae are the latest lenders caught in the real estate mess. Nasdaq slides over 2.5 percent.

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, November 9, 2007 2:25 PM

CHRISISALL


Time to get a gat.

Wild in the streets Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, November 9, 2007 2:42 PM

KAREL

Flying on duct tape and a damaged registry.


Providing mortgages to those who should not qualify is nothing new, especially in good times (when merely the fuse is burning). Here's how the scam goes, as always:

Bait hook with American Dream.
Sink hook.

If the fish, erm, customer is able to make payments, great! If the customer is barely able to make payments, better still! More money.

If the customer is unable to make payments, great! The market is going up, repossess the house, sell it at a PROFIT! More money.

Either way, more money for the lenders. Now...

Too many people default on their loans (shoe #1)
Market goes into decline (shoe #2, aka "other shoe")

Voila! Now, lenders lose tens of billions, and the downward spiral begins.

The problem with mortgages is that lenders and borrowers forget to pronounce the "t". If it were pronounced "mort-gage", as in "mortis", as in "death", the pronounciation just might help with lending and borrowing decision-making processes.

ravingmoderatekarelisall.



"And we've just heard that in the English Channel, a ship carrying red paint has collided with a ship carrying purple paint. It is believed that both crews have been marooned. And now, back to our regular programme." -- The Two Ronnies.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, November 9, 2007 2:51 PM

BIGDAMNNOBODY


Quote:

Originally posted by Karel:
Providing mortgages to those who should not qualify is nothing new, especially in good times (when merely the fuse is burning).


But haven't you heard. People getting themselves into situations they know they shouldn't have is not really their fault at all. It's somehow all traceable back to the Big Bad Bush. Welcome to the new land of no personal responsibility.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, November 9, 2007 3:01 PM

KAREL

Flying on duct tape and a damaged registry.


Quote:

Originally posted by BigDamnNobody:
Quote:

Originally posted by Karel:
Providing mortgages to those who should not qualify is nothing new, especially in good times (when merely the fuse is burning).


But haven't you heard. People getting themselves into situations they know they shouldn't have is not really their fault at all. It's somehow all traceable back to the Big Bad Bush. Welcome to the new land of no personal responsibility.


I've heard that both borrowers and lenders are able to over-extend themselves, regardless of who is in office. *snort*



"And we've just heard that in the English Channel, a ship carrying red paint has collided with a ship carrying purple paint. It is believed that both crews have been marooned. And now, back to our regular programme." -- The Two Ronnies.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, November 9, 2007 3:57 PM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Quote:

But haven't you heard. People getting themselves into situations they know they shouldn't have is not really their fault at all. It's somehow all traceable back to the Big Bad Bush. Welcome to the new land of no personal responsibility.
And here we have a systems problem as viewed by an ant.

There are all kinds of issues about the current mortgage crisis: lending regulations, capitalization requirements, the necessity of credit to keep consumption afloat, etc. Even if people HAD been "personally responsible" we'd still have a mess on our hands, so it's not all about your crusty list moralisms. Trying to control the economy by telling people how they "should" behave is like trying to control electrons by telling them how they should behave.

FWIW I think we're facing a "perfect storm", and the mortgage problem is simply a trigger for a larger crisis, just as Black Tuesday (1929) was just a trigger for the Great Depression. And yes, I think this is a real sea-change, of about the same magnitude as the Great Depression.

1) A larger income gap than at any time since 1929.
2) Loss of manufacturing capability in the USA.
3) Massive Federal debt, paid for by Treasuries bought by foreigners.
4) Massive trade debt.
5) Worldwide political ill-will against the USA.
6) A shift from the USA being China's main market to the EU being China's main market.

None of this has to do with mortgages, but what is does is seriously undermine the value of the dollar. Without those factors in place, the mortgage "crisis" would simply be a mortgage blip, just as the S&L crisis of 1982-3 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Savings_and_Loan_crisis
didn't affect the dollar's exchange rates.
http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/data/EXJPUS.txt
I'm certain that what we're seeing is the conversion of the USD from being "the" world currency to "a" world currency- and not a particularly valuable one at that.

ETA: And may I add my WELCOME to Karel!

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, November 9, 2007 4:23 PM

FREMDFIRMA


Well spoken Karel - and welcome to the chaotic warzone hell that is RWED, also known as swimming with pirahnas.

You'll find reason and logic don't go far around here, but you're welcome to attempt it's application as much as ya please.

Don't let it discourage you, I for one welcome new opinions even radically different than mine own.

-Frem

It cannot be said enough, those who do not learn from history, are doomed to endlessly repeat it

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, November 9, 2007 6:53 PM

KAREL

Flying on duct tape and a damaged registry.


Quote:

Originally posted by SignyM:
FWIW I think we're facing a "perfect storm", and the mortgage problem is simply a trigger for a larger crisis, just as Black Tuesday (1929) was just a trigger for the Great Depression. And yes, I think this is a real sea-change, of about the same magnitude as the Great Depression.

1) A larger income gap than at any time since 1929.
2) Loss of manufacturing capability in the USA.
3) Massive Federal debt, paid for by Treasuries bought by foreigners.
4) Massive trade debt.
5) Worldwide political ill-will against the USA.
6) A shift from the USA being China's main market to the EU being China's main market.

None of this has to do with mortgages, but what is does is seriously undermine the value of the dollar. Without those factors in place, the mortgage "crisis" would simply be a mortgage blip, just as the S&L crisis of 1982-3 didn't affect the dollar's exchange rates. I'm certain that what we're seeing is the conversion of the USD from being "the" world currency to "a" world currency- and not a particularly valuable one at that.

ETA: And may I add my WELCOME to Karel!

Thank you Fremdfirma and SignyM!

Great Depression? We'll see. Regardless of the magnitude --

1-5) Agreed.
6) Holy crap! As China's dependence on us wanes, how will that change their policies toward us?

Random thoughts:

Somebody in the late 1980s or early '90s said something like "Potato chips or microchips, what does it matter?" I'm afraid that we are starting to find out! We do not provide the world with goodies like China does. What are we going to sell China to level the trade deficit? What do we have to offer China? Fighter jets?

Here's a list, along the "perfect storm" lines:
1.) National debt
2.) Trade deficit
3.) War
4.) Economic slowdown
5.) Bad loans
6.) Falling interest rates
7.) Rising energy costs

All inter-related. What can the power of the almighty dollar do for you? Less with every passing second.

The government says that inflation is low. It is amazing what 'nothing' can do to a man. I say that whomever is elected President in 2008 is screwed on at least the the economic front.



"And we've just heard that in the English Channel, a ship carrying red paint has collided with a ship carrying purple paint. It is believed that both crews have been marooned. And now, back to our regular programme." -- The Two Ronnies.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

YOUR OPTIONS

NEW POSTS TODAY

USERPOST DATE

OTHER TOPICS

DISCUSSIONS
Russia Invades Ukraine. Again
Thu, March 28, 2024 05:27 - 6154 posts
In the garden, and RAIN!!! (2)
Thu, March 28, 2024 02:07 - 3408 posts
Russian losses in Ukraine
Wed, March 27, 2024 23:21 - 987 posts
Elections; 2024
Wed, March 27, 2024 22:19 - 2069 posts
human actions, global climate change, global human solutions
Wed, March 27, 2024 15:03 - 824 posts
NBC News: Behind the scenes, Biden has grown angry and anxious about re-election effort
Wed, March 27, 2024 14:58 - 2 posts
BUILD BACK BETTER!
Wed, March 27, 2024 14:45 - 5 posts
RFK Jr. Destroys His Candidacy With VP Pick?
Wed, March 27, 2024 11:59 - 16 posts
Russia says 60 dead, 145 injured in concert hall raid; Islamic State group claims responsibility
Wed, March 27, 2024 10:57 - 49 posts
Ha. Haha! HAHA! HAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAAHAHA!!!!!!
Tue, March 26, 2024 21:26 - 1 posts
You can't take the sky from me, a tribute to Firefly
Tue, March 26, 2024 16:26 - 293 posts
Tucker Carlson
Tue, March 26, 2024 16:24 - 132 posts

FFF.NET SOCIAL