America may never recover from recession

[BostonPirate]

resonance...... I honestly don't know where you are getting your economic ideas from, but they are not sound and not based on any models I have ever studied or read about.

the problem here is that the republicans view the economy as a political issue and the Dems favor the scientific models as guiding factors in their current plans.

 

[BostonPirate]

Most of you don't remember this or were even born then, but this is pretty much the same doomsday talk that was going around in 1974-1975. We were mired in a deep recession, gas shortages, inflation, unemployment. It was all over the news how private cars were going to be too expensive to own. Gas shot up from 24¢ a gallon to an unbelievable 50¢ a gallon and there was panic and fights in some stations.

America was in a bad mood because President Nixon just resigned in disgrace, there was uncertainty if we would ever recover. There was talk about how some people would be permanently unemployed.

That was a long time ago and we recovered and the economy boomed again. It's just another cycle and we'll recover from this one too.

the wild swings back and forth in the american economy have destabilized the entire global economy.

the flatline model is preferable at this point because it may bring long term gain that will have substantial staying power.

 

[BostonPirate]

I agree ravenstar. A new industry HAS to be created, and that is why so much of the stimulus cash is targeted at experimental programs that the republicans whine so much about.

there are other options, though, that do not require the private sector.

For example.... The largest consumer of oil in the world is the USA military. If they would divert some of their R&D funding to fuel efficiency and alternative energy development, then we could solve two problems at once.

It is not unfixable.

I think the real problem is that americans live in an instant society, full of fast food, sound bites, microwave ovens, etc., and economic engines are slow slow moving. People simply don't have the discipline to allow a fix to occur on a realistically natural slow timeline.

 

[resonance]

the problem here is that the republicans view the economy as a political issue and the Dems favor the scientific models as guiding factors in their current plans.

Don't just make big empty statements. Please ELABORATE.

In what ways are Democratic policies more in line with economic theory? In what ways are Republicans opposed?

I feel like an 8th grade English teacher.

##################

To be fair, I kind of understand what you mean despite the vagueness of your statements.

My reply is that there are multiple schools of economic thought: Keynesian and Classical. Dems prefer Keynesian economics while Republicans prefer Classical.

However, a great number of economists feel Dems abuse the Keynesian school of economics which they have arbitrarily interpreted to mean more money = more jobs when there are in fact circumstances in which spending more money does not significantly increase employment or output.

Liberals also tend to intertwine Keynesian thought with Socialism which NO school of economics support.

Most economists are in fact Classical Liberals like myself who generally support the Republican Party.

 

[LilBit]

I agree ravenstar. A new industry HAS to be created, and that is why so much of the stimulus cash is targeted at experimental programs that the republicans whine so much about.

Not just a new industry, but a whole new basis for the economy. The problem is, the US has been (along with some other countries) at the leading edge of innovation. When most of the world was still in an agriculture-based economy, the US and some European countries had already gone through the Industrial Revolution. That's when we began importing a larger proportion of our food. Then we switched from a manufacturing-based economy to a service economy, and we started importing more and more of our manufactured goods. But now we're "importing" a large proportion of our services, due to outsourcing, and we haven't found anything to replace them.

(Honestly, I wish we would bring more manufacturing jobs back into the US. I'd much rather buy products that weren't made with sweatshop labor.)

 

[DJ1990]

As long as Americans stay lazy and fat and smoke weed all the time saying it's good for you.

La la la la

I'm a little butterfly

flying over the mountains

oh look there is a castle

the prince and the princess are kissing each other

la la la

oh my the earth is shaking

the castle fell on them

they are dead

 

[c750dt]

^Pass me a beer. Your first sentence made sense but after that, my mind's like WTF mate?

Actually, look at it. Fat people sue McDonalds, poor people badmouth politicians, bad drivers complain about the cops, etc. People who aren't in a stellar place in life all share something in common no matter what their journey or place: they all blame someone else and have a myriad of excuses to shoot out.

 

[frankfrank]

We will never recover until people have jobs.

People will never have jobs as long as we continue to ship jobs out of country.

How many Americans would have jobs today if their job had not been sent overseas?

How many American business would still be in business if their customers jobs had not been sent overseas?

As long as this outsourcing outrage it permitted to continue is as long as the recession will continue.

http://www.opic.gov/

OPIC’s mission is to mobilize & facilitate the participation of United States private capital & skills in the economic & social development of less developed countries & areas, & countries in transition from nonmarket to market economies.

The really sad part about all this, is that we're actually paying some of our taxes to SUPPORT THIS SHIT!!!!!! Yes, any corporation can go to this government agency, and find out which country is most favorable to the type of labor whey want, which country has the least regulation on the kind of pollution that they will generate, etc.

Yes, we are paying taxes to FACILITATE corporations moving their jobs to whatever country will allow them to be the most exploitative of labor and/or resources, or whichever country is least likely to regulate what they seek to do.

So we have a government agency which is basically saying "Corporations, **PLEASE** move your jobs overseas - and we'll tell you the best place to go where you can get what you really want, and where you can make the most profit, because nothing else matters."

 

[frankfrank]

you need to punish them when they do outsource.

I worked as a government auditor from 1970 to 1978 - I was auditing the line-item costs and some of the procurement practices in manufacturing military weapons. I am almost sure that I remember seeing, if any part of any ordnance could be bought from an American manufacturer, it was ILLEGAL to buy it from out of the country. It may have even been illegal to buy stuff that was manufactured offshore, but I don't remember that for sure, but at that time I recall NEVER seeing any part that came from a non-U.S. source!!! How can it be prudent for the military to rely on overseas manufacturers? When younger George Bush was President, I remember a longshoremen strike or some other strike at the Long Beach port, and the President was very close to issuing a back-to-work injunction because some critical missile-guidance consoles from China or Japan couldn't get unloaded off the ships. How can it be a good thing for our military security to be in the hands of another country like this?

Every single dollar that goes for foreign outsourced labor should be payroll taxed at the full rate without limitation.
Or, at the very least, assess enough of a tariff to cover at least most of the differential. I understand in some cases we assign few or no tariffs on stuff, even if the host country charges massive tariffs on OUR exports in return.

The years the Dems were in control were the years the economy began slipping. The recession began in the second half of Bush's term and those 2 years may be argued to be most crucial.

Since Congress was split the other 2 years one could argue that it was in part a bipartisan buildup to the economic catastrophe.

Shifting? To believe that the Democrats are in no part responsible for the lackluster economy is delusional.

The late part of the "aughts" decade was when the chickens came home to roost. Years and years of deregulation...mostly encouraged by Republicans, but with enough Democratic agreement to make it happen...built up a house of fake cards, which tumbled. Deregulation was the major driving force behind the big mess that will not likely heal anytime soon. Though I haven't been able to verify this, I've heard it said that regulatory agencies were SECRETLY ORDERED, under George Bush, not to regulate MUCH OF ANYTHING. Of course, as soon as a Republican President takes office, he is allowed to stack every Federal agency with a majority of Republicans. Likewise with Obama...but HE is also so in bed with corporate interests that his people aren't likely to regulate with any real teeth either.


Also, no one can actually ever prove HOW Bush ruined the economy. The war in Iraq and Republican tax breaks are only what angry uneducated liberals like to randomly toss out.

But those DID contribute to the mess, too. Bush is by no means blameless in this. And for those who forget so quickly, DON'T forget...it was BUSH, not Obama, who signed the nearly-one-trillion-dollar package to bail out the banks.

I would argue that the legitimate cause of the market bubble and subsequent recession is due to inaction on the part of Congress and improper monetary policy by the Fed.

Yes, that too. There are so many causes. And I entirely agree with those on "the wacko far-right" who say that the Federal Reserve MUST be gotten rid of!

A few thoughts added via colors above...

 

[champagne]

Let's see, I travelled to London, Berlin, Amsteram(4x's), Rome, Athens, Cairo, Luxor, Sydney(6mos) and most every significant major city in the USA(NYC, LA, S.F., Seattle, Chicago, Boston, Jersey City, Dallas, Memphis, etc.) and made six figures while doing it. I fucked every man alive, ate and drank everything I wanted, had Beluga and Sevruga caviar at the caviar house, wore thousands of dollars worth of clothes at a single time and been to places I don't even remember having been to, until I see them on TV. Yea, I lived a pretty enjoyable life. Now I'm an old fat queen and if you're lucky enough, one day you may grow up to be an old fat queen too!

 

[resonance]

Years and years of deregulation...mostly encouraged by Republicans, but with enough Democratic agreement to make it happen...built up a house of fake cards, which tumbled

Mmm... its possible. Prove to me the regulation was ever there. The Fed was doing some of the regulating but they did a lousy job.

But those DID contribute to the mess, too. Bush is by no means blameless in this.

Practically every war in the history of the United States has been positive for the economy, as unfortunate as it may be. WWII got the US out of the Great Depression.

Every measure before, even the New Deal, was by and large futile. If the Iraq War had been delayed several years it could have very well got us out of our present rut.

The only adverse impact of tax cuts and Iraq is the burgeoning debt and that is no different from liberal plans of expensive social programs.

Liberals like to bring the two issues up because they are A) unpopular and B) in their view unjust but at the end of the day they most likely had a net benefit on the economy.

And for those who forget so quickly, DON'T forget...it was BUSH, not Obama, who signed the nearly-one-trillion-dollar package to bail out the banks.

That's the only part of the stimulus that practically did anything!

Large chunks of the 1 trillion dollar bailout is being recuperated as we speak. Google "bank bailout government recuperation". The cost to TARP has been projected to come down to 89 bil from 350 bil. 169 bil of the 245 bil invested in banks has come back.

Again, liberals may feel the banks deserved to fail but this was the most cost effective stimulus plan. The government was "investing" and not throwing money in a black hole like the Obama stimulus. The benefits of his stimulus has been reaped and the money is gone forever.

Yes, that too. There are so many causes. And I entirely agree with those on "the wacko far-right" who say that the Federal Reserve MUST be gotten rid of!

Actually, I feel the Fed needs to be rebuilt and not eliminated. The US needs a bipartisan, nonpolitical governing body.

 

[Spiff]

Some of you are saying it will recover and boom again just like it always has in the past. I certainly hope so. But the world economy is much different now than in the past. Especially China's, which is a driving force for much of the U.S. economy. In simplest terms, we need (good) jobs to come back to a sustained healthy economy. There is no evidence that all the jobs that have been exported to various countries or eliminated altogether are coming back. And no evidence that we are doing anything to create good new jobs. We're not the industrial giant that we once were which made us thrive in past generations. Maybe we need another world war?

 

[fetaby]

Like invading Pakistan?

 

[evanrick]

What is hypocrisy at the highest level is present day republicans. They want to run government, but they also want to destroy it.

They don't want government telling them what to do, but don't mind cashing taxpayer checks.

They expect the President to be responsible for economic recovery, but stop any attempt to help the american worker.

It seem the only thing that would make republicans happy is if suddenly slavery became legal again, thats the only place their minds lead to.

 

[resonance]

They expect the President to be responsible for economic recovery, but stop any attempt to help the american worker.

Saving jobs is helping the American worker. The US government creating jobs like Obama enjoys is short term and unsustainable. Private sector jobs are the ones we need to create/maintain and this can only be achieved through tax breaks and subsidies.

Look, the Dems tried their thing. Its the GOP's turn to try theirs.

It seem the only thing that would make republicans happy is if suddenly slavery became legal again, thats the only place their minds lead to.

Please do note that Lincoln was a Republican and that it was actually the Democrats who were fighting for slavery in the United States.

 

[LilBit]

Please do note that Lincoln was a Republican and that it was actually the Democrats who were fighting for slavery in the United States.

And the Republican party in 1860 was the liberal party. Apples and oranges, dear.

 

[resonance]

And the Republican party in 1860 was the liberal party. Apples and oranges, dear.

Not quite true.

First, the Republican ran their anti-slavery platform on religious moral grounds: these are the same they stand by today and that Democrats often contest.

Second, the Classic Liberal is dratically different from the modern day Liberal. Classic Liberals still support Republicans today and many of their demands have still not been met.

In that way, the Republican Party is largely unchanged. The only real change was in the term "liberal" itself when the modern iteration of unrelated Liberalism came to being.

 

[frankfrank]

Let's see, I travelled...

I fucked every man alive

Interesting, I don't remember you fucking me. HA! - you missed one.

Please do note that Lincoln was a Republican and that it was actually the Democrats who were fighting for slavery in the United States.

It can be said that the two parties have more or less "flipped" since then...or, actually, since the 1950's. People who are old enough to have been voting before 1965, and who were "southern Democrats," are now very close to 100% Republicans.