K
Kitty Sinatra
I've always taken that phrase to mean "too big to allow to fail."
Why do people often vote against their own interests?
- Thread starter @Li3n
- Start date
- Status
GasBandit
Staff member
You got some links showing this supposed "recovery?" And here's a hint - the 5% increase in GDP doesn't count. Productivity is not really increasing. It only seems like it's increasing because employers used the recession as an excuse to fire everyone on the payroll who was useless. With fewer employees on the payroll and with sales up, productivity artificially appears to be up. However, this is an artificial increase. And in order for inventories to continue to be rebuilt, employees will have to be rehired, because productivity is simply not this good. And with all the huge tax increases in Obama's proposed 2011 budget, and with the uncertainty of cap and trade looming in the future, businesses are still keeping the hatches battened down.
From this week's Frontline newsletter by John Maudlin:
We stand, in fact, an excellent chance of heading into a double dip recession here.
C
Chibibar
@li3n: ok. the current form of the bailout is a mistake. I think blindly (well mostly blind) giving money to banks without looking too deep or setting up specific rule use of money is not good planning. I read a few news (when the money was first handed the first time around) that banks are "holding it" instead of lending out those money. Some use money to fix their internal debts and even give bonuses. that is bad use to tax money. Congress should have waited and set up rules before handing out the cash.
@GB: I have to agree. We are around 10% unemployment. that is pretty high in a long while. How can we be "productive"? does this mean that all the extra people fired are just dead beat to begin with? if it is (in short view) then the business really need to rethink their organization.
@GB: I have to agree. We are around 10% unemployment. that is pretty high in a long while. How can we be "productive"? does this mean that all the extra people fired are just dead beat to begin with? if it is (in short view) then the business really need to rethink their organization.
S
Soliloquy
I'm... not sure what you're asking me to prove here. That alternative proposals exist? That it's possible to come up with another option to improve the health care industry besides the 1000+ pages of untested ideas that congress is putting together?
C
Chibibar
I'm... not sure what you're asking me to prove here. That alternative proposals exist? That it's possible to come up with another option to improve the health care industry besides the 1000+ pages of untested ideas that congress is putting together?[/QUOTE]
personally I think something of this caliber (which is huge) should NOT be rush like Obama and Congress try to do. It is a massive undertaking. I mean this bill could essentially change the way people look at healthcare.
S
Soliloquy
I'm... not sure what you're asking me to prove here. That alternative proposals exist? That it's possible to come up with another option to improve the health care industry besides the 1000+ pages of untested ideas that congress is putting together?[/QUOTE]
personally I think something of this caliber (which is huge) should NOT be rush like Obama and Congress try to do. It is a massive undertaking. I mean this bill could essentially change the way people look at healthcare.[/QUOTE]
That's my take on it too. Heck, I wouldn't necessarily mind a huge overhaul of the healthcare system if it was done slowly over time, so that all the unexpected kinks that will show up from the different proposals could be worked out as they show their heads, instead of piling on top of each other all at once, which is what would probably happen with the current proposal.
Of course, it doesn't look like the slow approach would work with what the democrats are planning, either. For instance, their plan for getting rid of the "preexisting conditions" thing would only work if they forced everyone to get healthcare, since otherwise it would have been too expensive of a change for insurance companies to handle. Same with pretty much everything else in the bill, from how I understand it.
After reading a couple of links all I see is things like "huge/massive tax increase" but it never says where (I'm assuming: income tax?) and how much. Or maybe I just seem to miss it. Can anyone tell me, cause I've gotten a bit curious.
As far as the healthcare bill, I think we can all agree that it sucks now. For us communists here in Europe it seems like a pretty weak bill and the opposition doesn't want it either. While Obama can hardly back down and ditch it now, I can't imagine he or his party is satisfied on how this thing turned out.
As far as the healthcare bill, I think we can all agree that it sucks now. For us communists here in Europe it seems like a pretty weak bill and the opposition doesn't want it either. While Obama can hardly back down and ditch it now, I can't imagine he or his party is satisfied on how this thing turned out.
C
Chibibar
That is one tricky area to tackle. pre-existing conditions. I know that my father have type 2 diabetes and high blood pressure. Some insurance want to charge extra and some don't even want to take him. Insurance company like any other is here to make money. They are hoping that 1000 people paying premium and maybe 1 person need to pay out, that is good. pre-existing condition throws that out of the window. The insurance company KNOWS they WILL have to pay out. So if they have 1000 new customers with all pre-existing condition, there is no money to be made since they will be paying out to all of them.
How is that going to make them any money? All the profit from the people who doesn't have any will start going toward people who do. Also certain conditions can get pretty expensive.
How is that going to make them any money? All the profit from the people who doesn't have any will start going toward people who do. Also certain conditions can get pretty expensive.
C
Chibibar
Here's an article going into details about the Obama 2011 budget's tax hikes.[/QUOTE]
ouch....... it is painful all around.
Here's an article going into details about the Obama 2011 budget's tax hikes.[/QUOTE]
ouch....... it is painful all around.[/QUOTE]
Nice article, but it does gloss over a few things. It's not "Taxes all around". It's taxes on the wealthy, estate taxes (which is labeled as The Death Tax to scare people), and big businesses. The plan for job stimulation isn't at a corporate level (which has been decreasing jobs by sending them overseas where it is cheaper to produce), but at the small business/construction level.
I'm not even going to get into the healthcare part. I've become exhausted listening to arguments against reforming healthcare.
S
Soliloquy
Well, it is a tax on the dead. After they die.
You can understand why it'd get that name.
But if you give up, they win! All arguments boil down to making the other person think that pushing their point of view isn't worth the effort.
Tactics of successful arguers involve:
1)Not paying attention to what the opposition has to say beyond finding points to refute.
2)Appealing to the audience's passions instead of the argument at hand.
3)Ignoring Gasbandit in his entirety.
Follow these three rules, and you'll be at the top of your game in no time!
Well, it is a tax on the dead. After they die.
You can understand why it'd get that name.
But if you give up, they win! All arguments boil down to making the other person think that pushing their point of view isn't worth the effort.
Tactics of successful arguers involve:
1)Not paying attention to what the opposition has to say beyond finding points to refute.
2)Appealing to the audience's passions instead of the argument at hand.
3)Ignoring Gasbandit in his entirety.
Follow these three rules, and you'll be at the top of your game in no time![/QUOTE]
Heh, ok, I laughed.
I'm not a successful arguer. I'm more interested in what is achievable than who can push their point the longest.
S
Soliloquy
C
Chibibar
Heh. I will debate
argument means usually only 1 person wins. I like debate. There are plenty of times my views are changed due to people actually listing valid supporting statement/links (it is internet after all)
@GB
How about the fact that there's economic growth in most countries hit by the recession and there are still enough companies around to hire people some time in the future...
Sure, right now there's the possibility that stuff might get worse or better based on what decisions are made etc., but that's hardly proof either way until it actually happens.
And i believe the taxes stuff was covered well enough by other people.
How would you interpret it any other way?!
Sure, show me that they exist and that people are actually keen to make them happen besides saying it. What was that about tort (sp?) reform the republicans where talking about but when Obama said "sure, let's discuss it" they all went mum?!
---------- Post added at 01:31 PM ---------- Previous post was at 01:26 PM ----------
Now see, there's a good argument...
Of course my rebuttal is that they'll never actually get that done because the lobbies will bury stuff as it shows up divide and conquer style (aka if it was possible it would have been ongoing already). But sure, that would be the best way to implement any reform in order to tackle any unforeseen problems.
How about the fact that there's economic growth in most countries hit by the recession and there are still enough companies around to hire people some time in the future...
Sure, right now there's the possibility that stuff might get worse or better based on what decisions are made etc., but that's hardly proof either way until it actually happens.
And i believe the taxes stuff was covered well enough by other people.
I've always taken that phrase to mean "too big to allow to fail."[/QUOTE]
How would you interpret it any other way?!
Oh noes, it haz 1k pages, tl:dr so it must be bad.
Sure, show me that they exist and that people are actually keen to make them happen besides saying it. What was that about tort (sp?) reform the republicans where talking about but when Obama said "sure, let's discuss it" they all went mum?!
---------- Post added at 01:31 PM ---------- Previous post was at 01:26 PM ----------
Now see, there's a good argument...
Of course my rebuttal is that they'll never actually get that done because the lobbies will bury stuff as it shows up divide and conquer style (aka if it was possible it would have been ongoing already). But sure, that would be the best way to implement any reform in order to tackle any unforeseen problems.
GasBandit
Staff member
No, I'm serious. I want to know who is telling you that we're in a recovery. I know the Obama administration keeps talking about how we're recovering, but we're not, and I've provided links to show it.
This is the same thing in reverse that was going on in 2005, when the MSM was constantly harping that we were in a recession and that 5% unemployment was a horrible tragedy. Now everything's in the shitter and we're in a recovery despite 10% unemployment (which is estimated to be closer to 20% in actuality, it's just some people have given up looking, and looking for work is how the unemployment rate is calculated).
What?!?! You didn't even try to look that up, did you? The heading "Where do the statistics come from" is where you want to look.
...the Government conducts a monthly sample survey called the Current Population Survey (CPS) to measure the extent of unemployment in the country.
I used a google search with the keywords "how unemployment rate is calculated" and it was the first link. Honestly, it wasn't hard to find.
h
...the Government conducts a monthly sample survey called the Current Population Survey (CPS) to measure the extent of unemployment in the country.
I used a google search with the keywords "how unemployment rate is calculated" and it was the first link. Honestly, it wasn't hard to find.[/QUOTE]
wow that's a lot of text for what my economics professor was able to explain to us, with 2 questions:
1) do you have a job?
2) if not are you looking for one?
simple enough, I remember when libs were complaining that the unemployment number was innacurate in the past 8 years because of people who "give up." Frankly if people no longer seek to be part of the workforce than they are really not relevant to the unemployment figure, which indicates the number of people in the workforce who are out of a job, not the number of people in the county who don't work (which would include students, stay at home parents, and retired citizens).
What?!?! You didn't even try to look that up, did you? The heading "Where do the statistics come from" is where you want to look.
...the Government conducts a monthly sample survey called the Current Population Survey (CPS) to measure the extent of unemployment in the country.
I used a google search with the keywords "how unemployment rate is calculated" and it was the first link. Honestly, it wasn't hard to find.[/QUOTE]
wow that's a lot of text for what my economics professor was able to explain to us, with 2 questions:
1) do you have a job?
2) if not are you looking for one?
simple enough, I remember when libs were complaining that the unemployment number was innacurate in the past 8 years because of people who "give up." Frankly if people no longer seek to be part of the workforce than they are really not relevant to the unemployment figure, which indicates the number of people in the workforce who are out of a job, not the number of people in the county who don't work (which would include students, stay at home parents, and retired citizens).
What?!?! You didn't even try to look that up, did you? The heading "Where do the statistics come from" is where you want to look.
...the Government conducts a monthly sample survey called the Current Population Survey (CPS) to measure the extent of unemployment in the country.
I used a google search with the keywords "how unemployment rate is calculated" and it was the first link. Honestly, it wasn't hard to find.[/QUOTE]
wow that's a lot of text for what my economics professor was able to explain to us, with 2 questions:
1) do you have a job?
2) if not are you looking for one?
simple enough, I remember when libs were complaining that the unemployment number was innacurate in the past 8 years because of people who "give up." Frankly if people no longer seek to be part of the workforce than they are really not relevant to the unemployment figure, which indicates the number of people in the workforce who are out of a job, not the number of people in the county who don't work (which would include students, stay at home parents, and retired citizens).[/QUOTE]
Sorry, I read that as "I am too lazy to read 3 paragraphs, and now here comes a talking point".
What?!?! You didn't even try to look that up, did you? The heading "Where do the statistics come from" is where you want to look.
...the Government conducts a monthly sample survey called the Current Population Survey (CPS) to measure the extent of unemployment in the country.
I used a google search with the keywords "how unemployment rate is calculated" and it was the first link. Honestly, it wasn't hard to find.[/QUOTE]
wow that's a lot of text for what my economics professor was able to explain to us, with 2 questions:
1) do you have a job?
2) if not are you looking for one?
simple enough, I remember when libs were complaining that the unemployment number was innacurate in the past 8 years because of people who "give up." Frankly if people no longer seek to be part of the workforce than they are really not relevant to the unemployment figure, which indicates the number of people in the workforce who are out of a job, not the number of people in the county who don't work (which would include students, stay at home parents, and retired citizens).[/QUOTE]
Sorry, I read that as "I am too lazy to read 3 paragraphs, and now here comes a talking point".[/QUOTE]
Damn close. I was sitting in class and wanted to keep half my attention on the professor. No talking point, just stating what I was taught about the subject, and my opinion on it.
No, I'm serious. I want to know who is telling you that we're in a recovery. I know the Obama administration keeps talking about how we're recovering, but we're not, and I've provided links to show it.
[/QUOTE]
Stuff like this: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/8471747.stm (and to a lesser extent this: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/8497627.stm)
And countries like Germany, France and others reporting the same thing, a slow recovery etc.
I see no reason why the US would be in different straights but lying about it...
Also, note that the article mentions that it's a fragile recovery...
If you want i'm sure i can find more stuff when i have the time and i'm not at work (man does the internet stink at work).
K
Kitty Sinatra
Canada's Prime Minister is calling it a recovery, too, but there's no way Gas will listen to him since he's also promoting regulating the world's banking industry . . . All hail glorious blue leader of Soviet Canuckistan
GasBandit
Staff member
No, I'm serious. I want to know who is telling you that we're in a recovery. I know the Obama administration keeps talking about how we're recovering, but we're not, and I've provided links to show it.
[/QUOTE]
Stuff like this: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/8471747.stm (and to a lesser extent this: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/8497627.stm)
And countries like Germany, France and others reporting the same thing, a slow recovery etc.
I see no reason why the US would be in different straights but lying about it...
Also, note that the article mentions that it's a fragile recovery...
If you want i'm sure i can find more stuff when i have the time and i'm not at work (man does the internet stink at work).[/QUOTE]
FTA:
"The World Bank says global economic recovery is underway. However, it warns the recovery is fragile and could fizzle out later this year as stimulus measures are wound down."
In other words, IF we keep spending like we have been, we'll artificially inflate growth by the same percentage this year as it went down last year (according to what he said in the video). Except we can't and won't keep spending at that level because it's breaking us. Also, perhaps Europe is doing OK for right now, but what will happen to them when the US drops into the second dip? It was the US market crash that yanked down everybody else, and the problem is not fixed here yet - our politicians haven't learned anything.
C
Chibibar
No, I'm serious. I want to know who is telling you that we're in a recovery. I know the Obama administration keeps talking about how we're recovering, but we're not, and I've provided links to show it.
[/QUOTE]
Stuff like this: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/8471747.stm (and to a lesser extent this: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/8497627.stm)
And countries like Germany, France and others reporting the same thing, a slow recovery etc.
I see no reason why the US would be in different straights but lying about it...
Also, note that the article mentions that it's a fragile recovery...
If you want i'm sure i can find more stuff when i have the time and i'm not at work (man does the internet stink at work).[/QUOTE]
I think the U.S. might "fib" on it since the world market is on the US dollar, or at least one of the majors.
No, I'm serious. I want to know who is telling you that we're in a recovery. I know the Obama administration keeps talking about how we're recovering, but we're not, and I've provided links to show it.
[/QUOTE]
Stuff like this: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/8471747.stm (and to a lesser extent this: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/8497627.stm)
And countries like Germany, France and others reporting the same thing, a slow recovery etc.
I see no reason why the US would be in different straights but lying about it...
Also, note that the article mentions that it's a fragile recovery...
If you want i'm sure i can find more stuff when i have the time and i'm not at work (man does the internet stink at work).[/QUOTE]
FTA:
"The World Bank says global economic recovery is underway. However, it warns the recovery is fragile and could fizzle out later this year as stimulus measuresare wound down."
In other words, IF we keep spending like we have been, we'll artificially inflate growth by the same percentage this year as it went down last year (according to what he said in the video). Except we can't and won't keep spending at that level because it's breaking us. Also, perhaps Europe is doing OK for right now, but what will happen to them when the US drops into the second dip? It was the US market crash that yanked down everybody else, and the problem is not fixed here yet - our politicians haven't learned anything.[/QUOTE]
The word you're looking for is IF.
He says that the growth we're seeing now is because of the money spent, and that the next question is if without the money will there still be growth (but slower because there's no more, or less, stimulus money) or will it go down into the negative again.
Let's not underestimate the level of stupidity on everyone's part on investing/emulating into all those screwy things the US banks where doing...
GasBandit
Staff member
I don't have data for the European countries, but economists on both sides of the aisle here in America agree that the recent growth of our GDP is entirely artificial, owing less to stimulus money and more to how GDP is calculated. Much like kicking the kids with the worst grades out of a school artificially increases test scores, so has our GDP gone up 5% from the least productive workers being fired. The takehome here is that we're nowhere NEAR out of the woods, and at least in America, businesses still are too busy trying to clench their cheeks together in the face of Obama's ever-increasing hostility toward the private sector to rehire or expand. Plus, we just raised our debt ceiling over 14 trillion dollars. This is not a formula for recovery.
That's just it... a large part of the world economy is investing in the US economy, even now, after what should have been a giant wake-up call. But I guess political myopia isn't limited to one culture.
C
Chazwozel
I don't have data for the European countries, but economists on both sides of the aisle here in America agree that the recent growth of our GDP is entirely artificial, owing less to stimulus money and more to how GDP is calculated. Much like kicking the kids with the worst grades out of a school artificially increases test scores, so has our GDP gone up 5% from the least productive workers being fired. The takehome here is that we're nowhere NEAR out of the woods, and at least in America, businesses still are too busy trying to clench their cheeks together in the face of Obama's ever-increasing hostility toward the private sector to rehire or expand. Plus, we just raised our debt ceiling over 14 trillion dollars. This is not a formula for recovery.
That's just it... a large part of the world economy is investing in the US economy, even now, after what should have been a giant wake-up call. But I guess political myopia isn't limited to one culture.[/QUOTE]
I don't have data for the European countries, but economists on both sides of the aisle here in America agree that the recent growth of our GDP is entirely artificial, owing less to stimulus money and more to how GDP is calculated. Much like kicking the kids with the worst grades out of a school artificially increases test scores, so has our GDP gone up 5% from the least productive workers being fired. The takehome here is that we're nowhere NEAR out of the woods, and at least in America, businesses still are too busy trying to clench their cheeks together in the face of Obama's ever-increasing hostility toward the private sector to rehire or expand. Plus, we just raised our debt ceiling over 14 trillion dollars. This is not a formula for recovery.[/QUOTE]
Ok, in what way is your GDP calculated that it manages to ignore people that where fired?!
You sure it's not just that getting rid of those people made the businesses more efficient, which lead to better relative performances, but also a jobless recovery... and once you have all those consumers without money to buy stuff the modern economic system is in trouble, which could easily lead to a double dip, as no customers, no sales...
So it's more like an unsustainable growth then a fake one...
But like i said, there are no guarantees, it could go both ways, no matter how the GDP is calculated...
And talking about Europe: (note that these are old)
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8198766.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8199970.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/8479639.stm
You do realise that you guys would be even worse off without the rest of the world investing in you, right?
But i was talking about the actual actions then just being invested in the US market (Toyota is invested in the US, but it wasn't as affected as your car companies because it wasn't run the same way GM was, even if that's not a banking thing).
GasBandit
Staff member
Well, that's not exactly what is happening. Because the least productive workers are fired first, overall productivity looks like it is going up because the ratio of production to expenses goes up, even though production itself may not be going up at all. Here's how Economist James Altucher puts it:
"Productivity is not really increasing. It only seems like it's increasing because employers used the recession as an excuse to fire everyone on the payroll who was useless. With fewer employees on the payroll and with sales up, productivity artificially appears to be up. However, Rosenberg (and Mauldin) are correct: This is an artificial increase. And in order for inventories to continue to be rebuilt employees will have to be rehired, because productivity is simply not this good."
You just reasoned your way around to agreeing with me. Congratulations.
Of course. My point was not that I wanted other countries to stop investing, I was merely pointing out that the economy of the world is invested in the economy of the United States, which is most likely about to screw everybody again.
S
Soliloquy
You know, how about we all just take bets and shut up about it.
We make a bet about how some aspect of the economy will have fared by, say, July of this year. The winners will be treated to free Halforums mugs by the losers.
Then, when an argument about the economy comes up in the future, the winners can just show a picture of themselves with the mug, and we will all know that we're standing in the presence of a superior economic forecaster.
We make a bet about how some aspect of the economy will have fared by, say, July of this year. The winners will be treated to free Halforums mugs by the losers.
Then, when an argument about the economy comes up in the future, the winners can just show a picture of themselves with the mug, and we will all know that we're standing in the presence of a superior economic forecaster.
GasBandit
Staff member
How we're doing in july will depend entirely upon what actions are taken between now and then, and how they make private sector business owners feel about the way the future is going to work out. If democrats decide, as they have mumbled about doing, to extend the bush tax cuts, and if they decide to pare back on Obama's obscenely bloated 2011 budget, we may see some modest improvements. If they instead decide to keep beating the health care dead horse and then double down by throwing cap and trade into the mix, things may look less rosy.
But this is the nefarious thing - most of the spending outlined for us is spread over the next 10 years. It's the old credit fallacy. "I'd gladly pay you tuesday." The main point of contention is not about what we do that will affect July... it's about what we do that will affect 2020.
Fewer employees would affect profits, not productivity... and sales being up can't be at the base of an artificial increase...
What you're saying is that profits are up because costs are down... which isn't really artificial, but it is why it's a jobless recovery. The problem comes from all those consumers with little money to spend because they have no jobs...
No, i was saying your conclusions might be correct, but the logic you used is flawed... or at least badly worded...
That's your fault, Marshall plan and all... but it's not that cut and dry: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Early_1980s_recession
- Status