The Truth about the Economy
Reply to Topic
It looks like the economy will be a crucial factor in the November elections. It seems that the economic recovery of recent months will prove to be a major factor in winning votes for Bush's "compassionate conservative" agenda--an agenda that is, interestingly, singularly devoid of compassion, and which is primarily concerned with serving special interest groups.
When you examine the realities of this Bush-era economic recovery--when you scratch the surface of the resurgence of Wall Street and look at the truth of the economic situation in the US, you are confronted by certain undeniable facts:
1) Bush's tax cuts, which inordinately favor the wealthiest 1% of the nation, put a lot of cash into the hands of a wealthy few, which factor can alone account for the resurgence of the Dow Jones industrial average--the wealthy few get more money on their hands, which, naturally, they invest in the stock market.
2) However, in spite of the resurgence of Dow and the dramatic rise in the nation's GDP, the economic recovery remains a jobless recovery. Over 2 million jobs have been lost since Bush took office, the most jobs lost since Herbert Hoover's presidency.
3) The Federal Deficit has climbed to record-breaking levels of over $1.3 trillion. Obviously Bush's tax cuts are a major contributing factor.
4) Republican deficit spending remains exorbitant, largely directed towards special interest groups. Republican Senator John McCain has been cited as saying, "Congress is now spending money like a drunken sailor." The question remains, who will foot the bill for all this reckless deficit spending, rivalling the Reagonomics of the '80s? In McCain's own words, "We are laying a burden of debt on future generations of Americans. ... Any economist will tell you, you cannot have this level of debt, of increasing deficits without eventually it affecting interest rates and inflation."
5) The dollar is consistently being devalued in the world currency markets.
6) The Iraq war has cost the American taxpayers $150 billion.
What are the facts concerning Bush's economic recovery? I think we need to take a look at the Enron debacle for some answers. Before the Houston-based energy company declared bankruptcy, Enron Corporation was the leading financial contributor to George W. Bush's presidential campaign, as well as to his campaigns for the governorship of Texas. Former Enron chairman Kenneth Lay is a close personal friend of George W. Bush. When Enron Corporation declared bankruptcy, the management disappeared with millions of dollars of ill-gotten funds, while the company's employees were left stranded, having lost all their life-savings.
Bush's economic policies, especially surrounding his war in Iraq, have primarily served to enrich his buddies and financial contributors. He has awarded billions of dollars in no-bid Iraq reconstruction contracts to Halliburton, the former company of his VP Dick Cheney. Energy companies have benefitted tremendously from his policies, at the cost of environmental protection. And the list goes on.
When you examine the realities of this Bush-era economic recovery--when you scratch the surface of the resurgence of Wall Street and look at the truth of the economic situation in the US, you are confronted by certain undeniable facts:
1) Bush's tax cuts, which inordinately favor the wealthiest 1% of the nation, put a lot of cash into the hands of a wealthy few, which factor can alone account for the resurgence of the Dow Jones industrial average--the wealthy few get more money on their hands, which, naturally, they invest in the stock market.
2) However, in spite of the resurgence of Dow and the dramatic rise in the nation's GDP, the economic recovery remains a jobless recovery. Over 2 million jobs have been lost since Bush took office, the most jobs lost since Herbert Hoover's presidency.
3) The Federal Deficit has climbed to record-breaking levels of over $1.3 trillion. Obviously Bush's tax cuts are a major contributing factor.
4) Republican deficit spending remains exorbitant, largely directed towards special interest groups. Republican Senator John McCain has been cited as saying, "Congress is now spending money like a drunken sailor." The question remains, who will foot the bill for all this reckless deficit spending, rivalling the Reagonomics of the '80s? In McCain's own words, "We are laying a burden of debt on future generations of Americans. ... Any economist will tell you, you cannot have this level of debt, of increasing deficits without eventually it affecting interest rates and inflation."
5) The dollar is consistently being devalued in the world currency markets.
6) The Iraq war has cost the American taxpayers $150 billion.
What are the facts concerning Bush's economic recovery? I think we need to take a look at the Enron debacle for some answers. Before the Houston-based energy company declared bankruptcy, Enron Corporation was the leading financial contributor to George W. Bush's presidential campaign, as well as to his campaigns for the governorship of Texas. Former Enron chairman Kenneth Lay is a close personal friend of George W. Bush. When Enron Corporation declared bankruptcy, the management disappeared with millions of dollars of ill-gotten funds, while the company's employees were left stranded, having lost all their life-savings.
Bush's economic policies, especially surrounding his war in Iraq, have primarily served to enrich his buddies and financial contributors. He has awarded billions of dollars in no-bid Iraq reconstruction contracts to Halliburton, the former company of his VP Dick Cheney. Energy companies have benefitted tremendously from his policies, at the cost of environmental protection. And the list goes on.
Bush's Jobless Economic Recovery: Workers Pay Price for Productivity
by Jeffrey Frankel
December 19, 2003
Reprinted from Forward
From recent news reports, the American economy might appear to be in great shape. The estimated rate of growth in GDP in the third quarter was a very strong 8.2%, and the Dow Jones climbed back above 10,000 last week. The economic recovery now seems genuine. Furthermore, forecasts are for growth to continue strong, in the vicinity of 4%, into 2004.
This is very significant politically, of course. Past history suggests that the outcome of presidential elections is heavily influenced by the rate of change in the economy during the year preceding the election, rather than by either economic performance over the entire preceding four years, or longer-term prospects.
The truth, however, is that the economy does not look nearly as good from a longer-term perspective.
Democrats emphasize that the economy has lost well over 2 million jobs since President Bush took office, more than under any president since Herbert Hoover. Democratic presidential candidates may be hoping that continued high unemployment will deprive the second George Bush of a second term in 2004 as it did to the first George Bush in 1992.
In response to the jobs situation, Bush supporters take one of two very different tacks. The first is to emphasize that employment has begun to rise over the past five months. The hiring has just come with a lag after firms began to increase output two years ago. As in the recovery from the 1990-91 recession, firms have waited to hire until they are sure that the expansion is well-established, as it now is. The second response is to argue that the divergent paths of output and employment represent an economically beneficial acceleration of long-run productivity growth. The merit in each of these arguments is, however, limited.
Contrary to some recent reporting, the recent expansion of employment has been anemic. Even measured relative to the lowest point in June, the average increase in payroll jobs has averaged a mere 54,000 per month. To be sure, this is an improvement over the preceding steep loss of jobs. But by any other benchmark, it is a poor performance. During the eight years of the Clinton administration, the growth in employment averaged 240,000 per month.
In October, Treasury Secretary John Snow set a benchmark of 167,000 jobs per month to be created by the election. The recent numbers are not enough to keep pace with the rate of growth of the population, let alone to make up for the previous decline.
Some say that the standard payroll employment numbers, which come from the non-agricultural establishment survey of the Bureau of Labor Statistics, substantially understate job growth. They say that we should instead look at the household survey ρρ which shows a faster rate of growth in employment. Their argument is that the government statisticians are behind the times, failing to recognize the importance of new start-up firms, which are missed in the survey of business establishments.
Unfortunately, this argument is wrong.
The establishment numbers probably remain the more reliable of the two sets of statistics. The Bureau of Labor Statistics has made progress in recent years in adjusting the numbers for the effects of new start-up firms. It is the critics who are out of date. The "joblessness" of the recovery to date is genuine.
The other line of defense is that the jobless expansion represents an acceleration of long-run productivity growth, which is good for the national economy in the aggregate, even if it is hard on those who are laid off. It is true, as a matter of definition, that if GDP grows more rapidly than employment, then productivity is growing. It is also true, in the long run, that productivity growth is the means whereby countries are able to raise their standard of living from one generation to the next.
But an alternative interpretation of recent productivity numbers is possible. During the 1990s, corporate executives and stock market analysts were extravagant in their reporting of contemporaneous corporate profits, and overly optimistic in their forecasts of future profit growth. Ever since the corporate accounting scandals began in 2001, executives have been under pressure each quarter to perform more closely to those promises, by delivering profit growth that is strong in reality. Under this alternative explanation of the employment numbers, firm managers have been desperately cutting labor costs in any way that they can, a squeeze that is not sustainable in the long run.
How can one tell which explanation of the jobless recovery — short-term cost-cutting or long-run productivity growth — is the right one? If we were seeing an acceleration of the productivity boom that began in the 1990s, we would see workers sharing in the benefits, in the form of higher wages, as they did in the late 1990s. Instead, real wages have been almost flat in recent years. The failure of firms to share productivity gains with workers supports the hypothesis of desperate short-term cost-cutting, and not the hypothesis of an improved long-term productivity trend.
Employment is bound to recover substantially before long, given how far it fell in 2001 through 2003. If one is looking for the adverse implications of Bush economic policies, it is better to look five or 10 years out than to look at the coming year. In fact, good economic logic does not support the idea that Bush fiscal policies caused the weak economy of the last three years. Good economic logic supports, rather, a causal link between Bush fiscal policies and the next recession. The future downturn is likely to be far worse than the recent one.
The problem is the remarkably ill-conceived composition of the Bush tax changes legislated in 2001 and 2003. It is almost as if some aspects of the tax cuts were composed to minimize bang for the buck. Such measures as the decision to abolish estate taxes in the year 2010 and the reduction in dividend taxes, without offsetting future revenue gains, flunk most tests for an intelligent tax cut. The tax changes were not designed to have most of their effect in the present, when we needed the boost. Moreover, they were designed to redistribute from poor to rich and from consumption to saving; thus they have provided only a limited stimulus to consumption. Worse, the dividend and estate tax measures were designed to produce large revenue losses later in the decade. Thus they minimize expansionary bang and maximize the long-run buck.
A sensible response to the 2001 recession would have included some tax cuts, but would have had a mix much better targeted to stimulate the economy, without sacrificing long-term fiscal discipline. A well-designed plan would have avoided setting the future economy on a long-term path of rapidly rising national debt. As it is, interest rates are likely to rise for the remainder of this decade, crowding out private spending.
It is impossible to say when the next recession will come. But when it does, it is likely to be worse than the 2001 recession. Why? Precisely because we will enter it at a time when the budget deficit, national debt and international borrowing are already alarmingly high. Thus when the next recession hits, we will not have the luxury of being able to cut taxes and increase spending as the current President Bush has done. If anything, we are more likely to be in the midst of raising taxes, as the elder President Bush had to do in 1990.
This will exacerbate the downturn, but we will have no choice. The resulting pain will make today's economic travails pale in comparison. (Emphasis mine)
Jeffrey Frankel, a former member of President Clinton's Council of Economic Advisers, is Harpel Chair of Capital Formation and Growth at Harvard University.
by Jeffrey Frankel
December 19, 2003
Reprinted from Forward
From recent news reports, the American economy might appear to be in great shape. The estimated rate of growth in GDP in the third quarter was a very strong 8.2%, and the Dow Jones climbed back above 10,000 last week. The economic recovery now seems genuine. Furthermore, forecasts are for growth to continue strong, in the vicinity of 4%, into 2004.
This is very significant politically, of course. Past history suggests that the outcome of presidential elections is heavily influenced by the rate of change in the economy during the year preceding the election, rather than by either economic performance over the entire preceding four years, or longer-term prospects.
The truth, however, is that the economy does not look nearly as good from a longer-term perspective.
Democrats emphasize that the economy has lost well over 2 million jobs since President Bush took office, more than under any president since Herbert Hoover. Democratic presidential candidates may be hoping that continued high unemployment will deprive the second George Bush of a second term in 2004 as it did to the first George Bush in 1992.
In response to the jobs situation, Bush supporters take one of two very different tacks. The first is to emphasize that employment has begun to rise over the past five months. The hiring has just come with a lag after firms began to increase output two years ago. As in the recovery from the 1990-91 recession, firms have waited to hire until they are sure that the expansion is well-established, as it now is. The second response is to argue that the divergent paths of output and employment represent an economically beneficial acceleration of long-run productivity growth. The merit in each of these arguments is, however, limited.
Contrary to some recent reporting, the recent expansion of employment has been anemic. Even measured relative to the lowest point in June, the average increase in payroll jobs has averaged a mere 54,000 per month. To be sure, this is an improvement over the preceding steep loss of jobs. But by any other benchmark, it is a poor performance. During the eight years of the Clinton administration, the growth in employment averaged 240,000 per month.
In October, Treasury Secretary John Snow set a benchmark of 167,000 jobs per month to be created by the election. The recent numbers are not enough to keep pace with the rate of growth of the population, let alone to make up for the previous decline.
Some say that the standard payroll employment numbers, which come from the non-agricultural establishment survey of the Bureau of Labor Statistics, substantially understate job growth. They say that we should instead look at the household survey ρρ which shows a faster rate of growth in employment. Their argument is that the government statisticians are behind the times, failing to recognize the importance of new start-up firms, which are missed in the survey of business establishments.
Unfortunately, this argument is wrong.
The establishment numbers probably remain the more reliable of the two sets of statistics. The Bureau of Labor Statistics has made progress in recent years in adjusting the numbers for the effects of new start-up firms. It is the critics who are out of date. The "joblessness" of the recovery to date is genuine.
The other line of defense is that the jobless expansion represents an acceleration of long-run productivity growth, which is good for the national economy in the aggregate, even if it is hard on those who are laid off. It is true, as a matter of definition, that if GDP grows more rapidly than employment, then productivity is growing. It is also true, in the long run, that productivity growth is the means whereby countries are able to raise their standard of living from one generation to the next.
But an alternative interpretation of recent productivity numbers is possible. During the 1990s, corporate executives and stock market analysts were extravagant in their reporting of contemporaneous corporate profits, and overly optimistic in their forecasts of future profit growth. Ever since the corporate accounting scandals began in 2001, executives have been under pressure each quarter to perform more closely to those promises, by delivering profit growth that is strong in reality. Under this alternative explanation of the employment numbers, firm managers have been desperately cutting labor costs in any way that they can, a squeeze that is not sustainable in the long run.
How can one tell which explanation of the jobless recovery — short-term cost-cutting or long-run productivity growth — is the right one? If we were seeing an acceleration of the productivity boom that began in the 1990s, we would see workers sharing in the benefits, in the form of higher wages, as they did in the late 1990s. Instead, real wages have been almost flat in recent years. The failure of firms to share productivity gains with workers supports the hypothesis of desperate short-term cost-cutting, and not the hypothesis of an improved long-term productivity trend.
Employment is bound to recover substantially before long, given how far it fell in 2001 through 2003. If one is looking for the adverse implications of Bush economic policies, it is better to look five or 10 years out than to look at the coming year. In fact, good economic logic does not support the idea that Bush fiscal policies caused the weak economy of the last three years. Good economic logic supports, rather, a causal link between Bush fiscal policies and the next recession. The future downturn is likely to be far worse than the recent one.
The problem is the remarkably ill-conceived composition of the Bush tax changes legislated in 2001 and 2003. It is almost as if some aspects of the tax cuts were composed to minimize bang for the buck. Such measures as the decision to abolish estate taxes in the year 2010 and the reduction in dividend taxes, without offsetting future revenue gains, flunk most tests for an intelligent tax cut. The tax changes were not designed to have most of their effect in the present, when we needed the boost. Moreover, they were designed to redistribute from poor to rich and from consumption to saving; thus they have provided only a limited stimulus to consumption. Worse, the dividend and estate tax measures were designed to produce large revenue losses later in the decade. Thus they minimize expansionary bang and maximize the long-run buck.
A sensible response to the 2001 recession would have included some tax cuts, but would have had a mix much better targeted to stimulate the economy, without sacrificing long-term fiscal discipline. A well-designed plan would have avoided setting the future economy on a long-term path of rapidly rising national debt. As it is, interest rates are likely to rise for the remainder of this decade, crowding out private spending.
It is impossible to say when the next recession will come. But when it does, it is likely to be worse than the 2001 recession. Why? Precisely because we will enter it at a time when the budget deficit, national debt and international borrowing are already alarmingly high. Thus when the next recession hits, we will not have the luxury of being able to cut taxes and increase spending as the current President Bush has done. If anything, we are more likely to be in the midst of raising taxes, as the elder President Bush had to do in 1990.
This will exacerbate the downturn, but we will have no choice. The resulting pain will make today's economic travails pale in comparison. (Emphasis mine)
Jeffrey Frankel, a former member of President Clinton's Council of Economic Advisers, is Harpel Chair of Capital Formation and Growth at Harvard University.
McCain: Congress spending money 'like a drunken sailor'
Sunday, November 30, 2003 Posted: 12:03 PM EST (1703 GMT)
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Leading Republican Sen. John McCain Sunday berated fellow lawmakers for "spending money like a drunken sailor" and said President Bush was also to blame for pushing the nation toward higher interest rates and inflation.
On the "Fox News Sunday" program, McCain lamented the closing actions of the Senate and House before recessing for the year, most notably passage of a massive overhaul of the Medicare insurance program for the elderly.
He also decried a $31 billion national energy bill, still pending until at least next year, much of which would fund industry tax breaks.
"The numbers are astonishing," said McCain, an Arizona Republican. "Congress is now spending money like a drunken sailor. And I've never known a sailor drunk or sober with the imagination that this Congress has."
It was a rare admonition from a member of Bush's own political party, which hopes to benefit from a series of wins this year in Congress -- which in addition to the first-ever Medicare prescription drug benefit, included more tax relief, funds to rebuild Iraq and a law to restrict abortion.
Bush is hoping the record will help him and fellow Republicans keep control of the White House and Congress in next November's election. Democrats, however, have bemoaned the rising price tags, a sentiment shared Sunday by McCain, a member of the Senate's Armed Services Committee.
Exceeding Caps
McCain said Bush, who has never vetoed a spending bill, was in large part responsible for this year's spending levels exceeding prescribed caps of four percent growth, at a whopping eight percent.
"The president cannot say, as he has many times, that I am going to tell Congress to enforce some spending discipline and then not veto bills," McCain said.
"We are laying a burden of debt on future generations of Americans. ... Any economist will tell you, you cannot have this level of debt, of increasing deficits without eventually it affecting interest rates and inflation," he added.
McCain, who challenged Bush for the Republican presidential nomination in 2000, took particular issue with the massive energy bill, which in beginning stages cost $8 billion, a total that rocketed up with dozens of provisions inserted to benefit the districts of individual lawmakers to win their support.
"There was no policy initiatives in the energy policy. It was just one pork barrel project larded onto another," he said. "... And the administration is still saying it is one of its highest priorities, I don't know how you rationalize that."
Despite the bills that were passed, however, lawmakers recessed last week without passing a roughly $375 billion year-end federal spending bill.
The failure will not shut down the government, which can operate under stopgap funding until January 31. But it was a setback for Republicans, who had vowed to get the budget process back on track this year.
Copyright 2003 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Sunday, November 30, 2003 Posted: 12:03 PM EST (1703 GMT)
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Leading Republican Sen. John McCain Sunday berated fellow lawmakers for "spending money like a drunken sailor" and said President Bush was also to blame for pushing the nation toward higher interest rates and inflation.
On the "Fox News Sunday" program, McCain lamented the closing actions of the Senate and House before recessing for the year, most notably passage of a massive overhaul of the Medicare insurance program for the elderly.
He also decried a $31 billion national energy bill, still pending until at least next year, much of which would fund industry tax breaks.
"The numbers are astonishing," said McCain, an Arizona Republican. "Congress is now spending money like a drunken sailor. And I've never known a sailor drunk or sober with the imagination that this Congress has."
It was a rare admonition from a member of Bush's own political party, which hopes to benefit from a series of wins this year in Congress -- which in addition to the first-ever Medicare prescription drug benefit, included more tax relief, funds to rebuild Iraq and a law to restrict abortion.
Bush is hoping the record will help him and fellow Republicans keep control of the White House and Congress in next November's election. Democrats, however, have bemoaned the rising price tags, a sentiment shared Sunday by McCain, a member of the Senate's Armed Services Committee.
Exceeding Caps
McCain said Bush, who has never vetoed a spending bill, was in large part responsible for this year's spending levels exceeding prescribed caps of four percent growth, at a whopping eight percent.
"The president cannot say, as he has many times, that I am going to tell Congress to enforce some spending discipline and then not veto bills," McCain said.
"We are laying a burden of debt on future generations of Americans. ... Any economist will tell you, you cannot have this level of debt, of increasing deficits without eventually it affecting interest rates and inflation," he added.
McCain, who challenged Bush for the Republican presidential nomination in 2000, took particular issue with the massive energy bill, which in beginning stages cost $8 billion, a total that rocketed up with dozens of provisions inserted to benefit the districts of individual lawmakers to win their support.
"There was no policy initiatives in the energy policy. It was just one pork barrel project larded onto another," he said. "... And the administration is still saying it is one of its highest priorities, I don't know how you rationalize that."
Despite the bills that were passed, however, lawmakers recessed last week without passing a roughly $375 billion year-end federal spending bill.
The failure will not shut down the government, which can operate under stopgap funding until January 31. But it was a setback for Republicans, who had vowed to get the budget process back on track this year.
Copyright 2003 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Last edited by Django; 01-23-04 at 09:14 PM.
Originally Posted by Creed
ignorance is bliss...
Turn the War Machine off. Free up funds to other areas. Tax cuts accross the board.
Problem Solved.
Turn the War Machine off. Free up funds to other areas. Tax cuts accross the board.
Problem Solved.
I wonder why Bush has been described by former Secretary of the Treasury Paul O'Neill as "a blind man in a room full of deaf people"! Maybe for ignoring common sense advice such as this...
Last edited by Django; 01-23-04 at 10:43 PM.
Originally Posted by Django
It looks like the economy will be a crucial factor in the November elections. It seems that the economic recovery of recent months will prove to be a major factor in winning votes for Bush's "compassionate conservative" agenda--an agenda that is, interestingly, singularly devoid of compassion, and which is primarily concerned with serving special interest groups.
Originally Posted by Django
1) Bush's tax cuts, which inordinately favor the wealthiest 1% of the nation, put a lot of cash into the hands of a wealthy few, which factor can alone account for the resurgence of the Dow Jones industrial average--the wealthy few get more money on their hands, which, naturally, they invest in the stock market.
"It's called progressive taxation. But clearly, there ought to be a limit. As of 2000, the top 5% of Americans paid 54% of the nation's income tax. The top 1%? A third of all income taxes. That's 1 in 100 paying enough for 1 in 3. Sounds more oppressive than progressive to me, especially considering that the wealthy are ultimately the ones providing employment for so very many U.S. citizens. Pretty ironic that you harp on job creation, yet simultaneously favor the inordinate taxation of those who provide a large number of those jobs. If you can't see the connection between taxation and hiring, God help you, because I sure can't."
And let's not forget that investment is ultimately what spurs economic growth for the country as a whole. A rising stock market helps the entire country; last I checked, over half of American families owned stock.
Originally Posted by Django
2) However, in spite of the resurgence of Dow and the dramatic rise in the nation's GDP, the economic recovery remains a jobless recovery. Over 2 million jobs have been lost since Bush took office, the most jobs lost since Herbert Hoover's presidency.
According to the establishment survey, we added 112,000 new jobs last month. According to the household survey (which contacts REAL PEOPLE, person by person), we added 496,000.
Moreover, jobless claims -- which indicate a stable market at 400,000, and an expanding market at around 350,000) -- have been at or under 350,000 for some time now. All the signs point to enormous job growth, except for one highly flawed statistic, which still points to modest growth. I'm guessing this is all news to you.
I'd also defy you to produce a single Bush policy or bill that could reasonably be said to have caused the initial job loss. The downturn started before he took office; feel free to verify this yourself.
Originally Posted by Django
3) The Federal Deficit has climbed to record-breaking levels of over $1.3 trillion. Obviously Bush's tax cuts are a major contributing factor.
Also, if the tax cuts were responsible for the increased deficit, then tax receipts wouldn't have been higher this year than they were over the same period of time a year ago; but so far, they are. You know why? Economic growth. Growth which we saw immediately following each of Bush's tax cuts. I suppose you'd have us believe that both spurts were total coincidences?
Originally Posted by Django
4) Republican deficit spending remains exorbitant, largely directed towards special interest groups. Republican Senator John McCain has been cited as saying, "Congress is now spending money like a drunken sailor." The question remains, who will foot the bill for all this reckless deficit spending, rivalling the Reagonomics of the '80s? In McCain's own words, "We are laying a burden of debt on future generations of Americans. ... Any economist will tell you, you cannot have this level of debt, of increasing deficits without eventually it affecting interest rates and inflation."
Spending a lot and spending recklessly are not always the same thing. The tax cut was no different than buying a house or attending college for most people: going into debt to improve the long-term situation. And that's exactly what these tax cuts do.
Originally Posted by Django
5) The dollar is consistently being devalued in the world currency markets.
Originally Posted by Django
6) The Iraq war has cost the American taxpayers $150 billion.
Originally Posted by Django
What are the facts concerning Bush's economic recovery? I think we need to take a look at the Enron debacle for some answers. Before the Houston-based energy company declared bankruptcy, Enron Corporation was the leading financial contributor to George W. Bush's presidential campaign, as well as to his campaigns for the governorship of Texas. Former Enron chairman Kenneth Lay is a close personal friend of George W. Bush. When Enron Corporation declared bankruptcy, the management disappeared with millions of dollars of ill-gotten funds, while the company's employees were left stranded, having lost all their life-savings.
Far more outlandish, however, is the paragraph's first sentence...
"What are the facts concerning Bush's economic recovery? I think we need to take a look at the Enron debacle for some answers."
...after which you did nothing to demonstrate any link between Enron and the recovery. Enron is a single company. It is in no way responsible for propping up, or tearing down, an economy of this size. Even if it was, you do not appear to have even attempted to find any of connection between the two. In reality, it's just a very poor, sloppy segue to another, ultimately unrelated complaint.
Originally Posted by Django
Bush's economic policies, especially surrounding his war in Iraq, have primarily served to enrich his buddies and financial contributors. He has awarded billions of dollars in no-bid Iraq reconstruction contracts to Halliburton, the former company of his VP Dick Cheney. Energy companies have benefitted tremendously from his policies, at the cost of environmental protection. And the list goes on.
"From my understanding, some of the companies (might just be Halliburton; not sure) had already mapped out strategies some time before. Example: Halliburton was, if I've heard correctly, hired under the last adminitration for work there, and as such came into this round far better equipped. I've been told (and this sounds reasonable, but I've yet to personally verify it) that Halliburton, therefore, had already done the prep that could've taken another company weeks or months...and obviously the US is in a bit of a hurry to get this thing under control as fast as possible.
Toss in the fact that Halliburton may very well be the most qualified anyway, and I think choosing them was quite reasonable. People toss accusations about Halliburton around very recklessly, given the fact that they'd be hard-pressed to find a better-qualified and prepared company for the job."
Even major Bush detractors like Golgot have acknowledged that Halliburton is almost certainly a qualified, legitimate choice for the work.
Also, what energy companies have benefitted from his policies, and how?
X
Favorite Movies
X
User Lists
Chiming in on the jobless recovery. I believe the unemployment rate has dropped a full percent or more in the last year. I believe that means more people are working.
_s
_s
__________________
“It takes considerable knowledge just to realize the extent of your own ignorance.” ― Thomas Sowell
X
Favorite Movies
X
User Lists
Originally Posted by Sedai
Chiming in on the jobless recovery. I believe the unemployment rate has dropped a full percent or more in the last year. I believe that means more people are working.
If the Presidential election is framed as a referendum on the economy, Bush'll coast.
X
Favorite Movies
X
User Lists
Oh, please! 
The miniscule drop in unemployment figures is nowhere near White House predictions.
The simple fact is that Reagan-style trickle-down economics does not work in a global economy. The reason is that in today's global economy, investors have the freedom to invest overseas. The result is "trickle-out" economics rather than "trickle-down" economics. As such, the Dow Jones Industrial Average is deceptive in that it does not reflect the fact that millions of American workers are still desperately in need of employment and the government is doing absolutely nothing to help their situation. All it is doing is giving tax breaks to those who don't need it in the hope that their investments will somehow stimulate domestic production and create jobs. The truth is that companies are going to want to cut costs as far as they can--they won't employ people in large numbers unless its absolutely necessary. Furthermore, the tiny improvement in the job market is almost completely attributable to jobs made available in the small business and service sectors. Big business continues to be a job wasteland.
The miniscule drop in unemployment figures is nowhere near White House predictions.
The simple fact is that Reagan-style trickle-down economics does not work in a global economy. The reason is that in today's global economy, investors have the freedom to invest overseas. The result is "trickle-out" economics rather than "trickle-down" economics. As such, the Dow Jones Industrial Average is deceptive in that it does not reflect the fact that millions of American workers are still desperately in need of employment and the government is doing absolutely nothing to help their situation. All it is doing is giving tax breaks to those who don't need it in the hope that their investments will somehow stimulate domestic production and create jobs. The truth is that companies are going to want to cut costs as far as they can--they won't employ people in large numbers unless its absolutely necessary. Furthermore, the tiny improvement in the job market is almost completely attributable to jobs made available in the small business and service sectors. Big business continues to be a job wasteland.
Originally Posted by Django
The miniscule drop in unemployment figures is nowhere near White House predictions.
Originally Posted by Django
The simple fact is that Reagan-style trickle-down economics does not work in a global economy. The reason is that in today's global economy, investors have the freedom to invest overseas. The result is "trickle-out" economics rather than "trickle-down" economics.
Originally Posted by Django
As such, the Dow Jones Industrial Average is deceptive in that it does not reflect the fact that millions of American workers are still desperately in need of employment and the government is doing absolutely nothing to help their situation.
The last sentence, however, is far more interesting (and telling): since when is it the government's job to guarantee everyone a job? Liberalism has its strong points, but entitlement isn't one of them.
Originally Posted by Django
All it is doing is giving tax breaks to those who don't need it in the hope that their investments will somehow stimulate domestic production and create jobs. The truth is that companies are going to want to cut costs as far as they can--they won't employ people in large numbers unless its absolutely necessary.
Originally Posted by Django
Furthermore, the tiny improvement in the job market is almost completely attributable to jobs made available in the small business and service sectors. Big business continues to be a job wasteland.
As for small business producing the jobs: yes! That's true! And what drives many small businesses? Could it be...hmmm...investment?
Regardless, so what if the improvement is attributable to small business hiring? More hiring is small business hiring anyway. You make it sound like Bush only deserves credit if hiring improves among big business. I presume this is because it's the only way to maintain the stance that the job market is in shambles.
By the way, you failed to answer the following questions/points from my last post:
- "I'd also defy you to produce a single Bush policy or bill that could reasonably be said to have caused the initial job loss" (the article you quoted admits that Bush cannot be reasonably held responsible)
- "The National Debt, as I've mentioned in the past, has been growing almost invariably, year after year, for roughly a century, through massive growth as well as crippling depression. So what adverse effects do you believe it has?"
- "...growth which we saw immediately following each of Bush's tax cuts. I suppose you'd have us believe that both spurts were total coincidences?"
- "Also, what energy companies have benefitted from his policies, and how?"
X
Favorite Movies
X
User Lists
Originally Posted by Yoda
The drop is not miniscule at all, as I have shown. Though even if it was, what the White House predicted is irrelevant in a discussion about the actual state of the economy. You're trying to bait and switch: first you claim that the economy isn't so great, then you backpeddle, claiming that a certain part of it isn't as great as the White House said it would be.
Originally Posted by Yoda
Then how do you explain the massive jump in employment according to the household survey?
Originally Posted by Yoda
First thing's first: the Dow Jones is not deceptive. Throughout history, its growth and retraction has coincided exceedingly well with the country's overall economic growth, for the reasons I've already stated. You've also conveniently ignored the fact that a very, very large number of Americans own stock these days.
Originally Posted by Yoda
The last sentence, however, is far more interesting (and telling): since when is it the government's job to guarantee everyone a job? Liberalism has its strong points, but entitlement isn't one of them.
Originally Posted by Yoda
Sure, that's true: people don't employ other people unless they need to. That's not greed, that's common sense. And it doesn't contradict any of my claims, either.
Originally Posted by Yoda
No, it doesn't: big business added 112,000 jobs the month before. It's not great...maybe not even good...but no one with any knowledge of employment statistics would ever refer to it as a "wasteland."
Originally Posted by Yoda
As for small business producing the jobs: yes! That's true! And what drives many small businesses? Could it be...hmmm...investment?
Originally Posted by Yoda
Regardless, so what if the improvement is attributable to small business hiring? More hiring is small business hiring anyway. You make it sound like Bush only deserves credit if hiring improves among big business. I presume this is because it's the only way to maintain the stance that the job market is in shambles.
Originally Posted by Yoda
"I'd also defy you to produce a single Bush policy or bill that could reasonably be said to have caused the initial job loss" (the article you quoted admits that Bush cannot be reasonably held responsible)
Originally Posted by Yoda
"The National Debt, as I've mentioned in the past, has been growing almost invariably, year after year, for roughly a century, through massive growth as well as crippling depression. So what adverse effects do you believe it has?"
Originally Posted by Yoda
"...growth which we saw immediately following each of Bush's tax cuts. I suppose you'd have us believe that both spurts were total coincidences?"
Originally Posted by Yoda
"Also, what energy companies have benefitted from his policies, and how?"
Originally Posted by Django
Okay... the figures are out there and there are plenty of them... tons and tons of evidence... but I'm too busy at work right now... I will return armed with more evidence than you can swallow.
Is it just me or is there an echo in here…
__________________
You never know what is enough, until you know what is more than enough.
~William Blake ~
~William Blake ~
AiSv Nv wa do hi ya do...
(Walk in Peace)
(Walk in Peace)
X
Favorite Movies
X
User Lists
Originally Posted by Django
My point is that the White House predicted a substantial improvement in the job market, an improvement that has yet to materialize. Compared to the upward swing in Dow Jones, the improvement in the job market is pretty insubstantial.
And what do you mean "compared" to the Dow Jones? You can't compare the two. They're completely different statistics, and I know of no measure to adequately compare the two.
Originally Posted by Django
You'll have to enlighten me on this further.
It says a lot about you that you're throwing around such opinionated claims about the job market when you don't even know what the household employment survey is.
Originally Posted by Django
Maybe so, but only a small percentage of Americans benefitted from Bush's tax breaks.
Anyway, seeing as how the entire country benefits from substantial economic growth, and Bush's tax cuts undeniably spurred our recent growth, there's really no basis from which to claim that only a "small percentage" of Americans benefitted from them. A small percentage benefitted directly, yes. Indirectly, many are benefitting.
Originally Posted by Django
Like I said, in the past, Dow may have been a reliable indicator of the economy, but in today's global economy, it is not as reliable, for reason's I have already outlined previously.
Originally Posted by Django
You're putting words in my mouth. I did not say anything of the sort. What I'm saying has to do with human rights and compassion, not about any sort of liberal doctrine.
Originally Posted by Django
Well, you should have paid attention to the recent Democratic debates when the candidates were discussing revoking NAFTA to protect American labor jobs from being exported overseas.
Originally Posted by Django
In the context of how many millions of jobs lost in the last 3 years? It's still a wasteland... a cutthroat job market. Obviously something that doesn't concern you!
It's not a wasteland. The unemployment rate is below historical norms, jobless claims are low, and household employment numbers are skyrocketing. Under no quantifiable standard is the job market a "wasteland." None.
You know what else? You don't even have much company in your perceptions, let alone your conclusions. Someone at my office took a look at the numbers for discouraged workers (defined as "persons who believe no job is available"): they're currently lower than Clinton's entire term average, starting in 1994 (which is as far back as the numbers go).
Originally Posted by Django
And how, exactly, do you figure this? Bush's tax cuts benefit big business, not small business! They inordinately benefit the wealthy minority. How do small businesses benefit from the investment market, I'd like to know? Small businesses tend to be privately owned and not traded on the stock exchange, btw.
- Bush's tax cuts were enacted more or less across the board. The fact that some groups benefitted more than others doesn't change the fact that everyone benfitted to one degree or another.
- Bush had two tax cuts; the first (it was given priority) was aimed primarily at the lower and middle classes. I've told you this before. Apparently it didn't stick.
- I'd say plenty of small business (or medium-sized businesses, which are still generally categorized as "small" business, I believe) benefit from investment. We're not talking about IPOs here, but things like venture capital. And let's not forget that many small distributors and suppliers buy from larger distributers and suppliers. The idea that you can isolate small business from large business is baseless.
Originally Posted by Django
Well, Bush's tax cuts were designed to stimulate big business hiring.
Originally Posted by Django
Bush cannot take credit for small business hiring because his tax cuts have nothing to do with it.
Wait, I know! Y2K restocking.
Originally Posted by Django
I'll have to get back to you on that.
Originally Posted by Django
Hmm... if you don't think that a huge outstanding National Debt, with all the interests that such a debt accrues, is not debilitating to the economy, I don't know what to say to you!
Originally Posted by Django
The spurt of activity in the investment market following a tax cut is inevitable. It does not necessarily reflect the state of the domestic economy, especially, as I said, in a global market, in which outsourcing of business and foreign investment are commonplace.
Originally Posted by Django
Okay... the figures are out there and there are plenty of them... tons and tons of evidence... but I'm too busy at work right now... I will return armed with more evidence than you can swallow.
Even if you do, it doesn't matter to me much. I'm not even denying what you said, frankly, but I'd like to see you produce some evidence for your claims nonetheless. I'm crossing my fingers and hoping it becomes habitual.
Last edited by Yoda; 02-17-04 at 07:42 PM.
X
Favorite Movies
X
User Lists
Originally Posted by Yoda
You're just repeating yourself, so I guess I'll do the same: you've changed your argument. Your original claim was that it's not so great. Now you're taking one aspect of the economy and complaining that it's not as good as the White House predicted it would be by now.
Originally Posted by Yoda
And what do you mean "compared" to the Dow Jones? You can't compare the two. They're completely different statistics, and I know of no measure to adequately compare the two.
Originally Posted by Yoda
I already did. It's the 8th post in this thread. You know: the one you didn't directly answer. It's even mentioned in the article you posted earlier.
) so pardon me if I don't have the leisure to cross-reference every darn thing you say! Anyway, back to the subject... 500,000 jobs gained and 3,000,000 jobs lost! 'Nuff said!
Originally Posted by Yoda
It says a lot about you that you're throwing around such opinionated claims about the job market when you don't even know what the household employment survey is.
Originally Posted by Yoda
You don't seem to get it: if the Dow has gone up, and most Americans own stocks, then most Americans benefit from the Dow going up. This isn't rocket science.
Originally Posted by Yoda
Anyway, seeing as how the entire country benefits from substantial economic growth, and Bush's tax cuts undeniably spurred our recent growth, there's really no basis from which to claim that only a "small percentage" of Americans benefitted from them. A small percentage benefitted directly, yes. Indirectly, many are benefitting.
Originally Posted by Yoda
We're not arguing over whether or not it's as reliable, but whether or not it's still reliable enough that a sharp, strong, steady increase signals economic progress. And given the fact that it's lining up (as usual) with other economic indicators, it looks like it is. You said that the government has done nothing to help those people, thereby implying that it is the government's job to do so. I say it's the government's job to stay out of our way when reasonably possible, in both a general and economic sense. Tax cuts are simply that philosophy in action
Also, check out this link for more information about the current state of affairs in the economy, esp. with reference to jobless claims.
Originally Posted by Yoda
I don't see how that has anything to do with what I said. The fact that employers are hesitant to hire new workers unless they need to doesn't conflict with what I'm saying in the least.
Originally Posted by Yoda
You're trying to redirect the issue; the number of jobs lost is an entirely seperate issue from today's climate of hiring. The fact that jobs have been lost does not tell us whether or not they're currently hard to get.
Originally Posted by Yoda
It's not a wasteland. The unemployment rate is below historical norms, jobless claims are low, and household employment numbers are skyrocketing. Under no quantifiable standard is the job market a "wasteland." None.
Originally Posted by Yoda
You know what else? You don't even have much company in your perceptions, let alone your conclusions. Someone at my office took a look at the numbers for discouraged workers (defined as "persons who believe no job is available"): they're currently lower than Clinton's entire term average, starting in 1994 (which is as far back as the numbers go).
Somehow, I find that really hard to believe! Nice try, but I'm going to call your bluff at this point.
Originally Posted by Yoda
- Bush's tax cuts were enacted more or less across the board. The fact that some groups benefitted more than others doesn't change the fact that everyone benfitted to one degree or another.
- Bush had two tax cuts; the first (it was given priority) was aimed primarily at the lower and middle classes. I've told you this before. Apparently it didn't stick.
- I'd say plenty of small business (or medium-sized businesses, which are still generally categorized as "small" business, I believe) benefit from investment. We're not talking about IPOs here, but things like venture capital. And let's not forget that many small distributors and suppliers buy from larger distributers and suppliers. The idea that you can isolate small business from large business is baseless.
Originally Posted by Yoda
He cut taxes for every income bracket. You're implying that tax cuts don't help people who own small businesses? Even if I were to accept this, that'd still leave you with the challenge of demonstrating what DID spur this increase.
Originally Posted by Yoda
I'm well aware as to what kind of effects the national debt can have. But I don't think you are, which is the point I'm making. Answer the question.
Originally Posted by Yoda
I said growth, not market activity. Namely, GDP growth, which is not subject to your "global market" contentions.
Originally Posted by Yoda
Even if you do, it doesn't matter to me much. I'm not even denying what you said, frankly, but I'd like to see you produce some evidence for your claims nonetheless. I'm crossing my fingers and hoping it becomes habitual.
Last edited by Django; 02-18-04 at 04:22 PM.
Originally Posted by Django
Well, that pretty much says why it isn't so great, doesn't it? The job market hasn't remotely lived up to the White House's own predictions.
And, frankly, we may very well meet that standard anyway, given the strong household survey numbers.
Originally Posted by Django
What I mean is that in the context of the dramatic upsurge in Dow, the job market has yet to experience a comparable upsurge.
Originally Posted by Django
Well, like I said, you may say a lot of things (and I mean a lot of things ) so pardon me if I don't have the leisure to cross-reference every darn thing you say! Anyway, back to the subject... 500,000 jobs gained and 3,000,000 jobs lost! 'Nuff said!
) so pardon me if I don't have the leisure to cross-reference every darn thing you say! Anyway, back to the subject... 500,000 jobs gained and 3,000,000 jobs lost! 'Nuff said!You don't have to know everything...but you'd damn well had better do your homework if you're going to start opinionated threads like this. I'm not going door to door mocking people for not understanding employment statistics; but you deserve what you get, seeing as how you're instigating arguments on topics you are simply not educated of.
As for the lost jobs: I'm still waiting for you to demonstrate that Bush is in any way responsible for them.
Originally Posted by Django
Well, sorry, but I'm not the fanatical statistician that you obviously are!
Actually understanding the subject I'm arguing about (something which you seem to be phobic of) does not make me a fanatic. Though even if I were, it wouldn't change the fact that you're arguing about things you don't understand, which is pretentious.
Originally Posted by Django
Well, it's common sense that the vast majority of stockholders, by far, are the wealthy few. The rest of America probably own a few shares here and there, and the working class probably owns no shares at all. So, obviously, the people to benefit from the resurgence of Dow are undeniably the wealthiest minority--the same people who benefit from Bush's tax cuts.
Your problem is that you're unable to grasp distinctions. For example: you seem incapable of comprehending that even when one group benefits less than another, they've still benefitted.
Originally Posted by Django
And many more are getting no benefits at all. All too many are still unemployed while their labor and white collar jobs are lost overseas.
If we're losing so many jobs overseas, why did jobs surge last month, and are similarly expected to surge this month, as well?
This whole "overseas" argument is bunk. The only way to lose jobs overseas is for Americans to be underqualified for their work, ultimately. If a free market economy works for America, it can work for the world, too. There's nothing unfair about giving workers a larger pool of employers to choose from, and vice versa.
Originally Posted by Django
Well, the fact is that whatever the economic indicators might be, Republican spending is so out of whack that in the words of Republican senator John McCain, "We are laying a burden of debt on future generations of Americans. ... Any economist will tell you, you cannot have this level of debt, of increasing deficits without eventually it affecting interest rates and inflation."
Regardless of that, you're not presenting any argument here. You're just quoting someone who agrees with you. The fact that he's a Republican doesn't make him right.
Originally Posted by Django
Also, check out this link for more information about the current state of affairs in the economy, esp. with reference to jobless claims.
Originally Posted by Django
Well, it says that employers are not as confident about the economic recovery as you are. If they were, then they would be hiring in massive numbers to prepare for an upsurge in demand.
They're bigger. They move slower. This is how it is in all things. The quicker, smaller businesses (which are better at responding to trends, and more at their mercy), have spoken clearly and definitively.
Originally Posted by Django
Sure it does. If jobs were easy to get, you wouldn't have large unemployment figures.
Originally Posted by Django
You said exactly the same thing a year ago. Your words regarding the job market ring hollow are lack credibility, I'm afraid.
You can babble on about credibility, but the numbers are available publicly. Look them up.
Originally Posted by Django
Yeah, right! Somehow, I find that really hard to believe! Nice try, but I'm going to call your bluff at this point.
Somehow, I find that really hard to believe! Nice try, but I'm going to call your bluff at this point.
Originally Posted by Django
Bush's tax cuts primarily benefit the wealthiest 1% of Americans while cutting back on benefits for the working class. That is no secret. Bush's tax cuts are about feeding the rich and starving the poor. That, too, is no secret. The only thing that Bush's tax cuts are stimulating is wealth creation for the wealthy and the further impoverishment of the needy.
GDP is surging. The stock market is surging. Household employment is surging. Big business employment is doing decently. It appears that we're seeing record numbers of new small businesses. Taxes have been cut, but tax receipts are up. Jobless claims are down. The unemployment rate is down. We've seen record numbers of home sales.
You've yet to offer anything more than rhetoric in response to any of this. Any halfwit can recite their opinion time after time.
Originally Posted by Django
You make a big deal out of how Bush cut taxes for every tax bracket. Big deal! The poor still benefitted only a few hundred dollars at most, because of their smaller income! The wealthy benefitted by several hundreds of thousands of dollars. The point is that if taxes were cut by a flat rate across the board, the major beneficiaries would inevitably be the ones with greater income.
I make a "big deal" out of the fact that taxes were cut across the board because you routinely imply that Bush only cut taxes for the wealthy. Get it right.
And if tax cuts for the lower and middle class are so valuable, why did we see greater GDP growth following the second round (aimed at the upper brackets) than we did following the first (aimed at the lower brackets)?
Originally Posted by Django
I don't want to speculate on what caused the jump in small businesses without researching the subject further.
Originally Posted by Django
Well, it's pretty obvious. The huge interest accrued by the debt place an unwarranted strain on the budget. Furthermore, the dollar is adversely affected in world currency markets and the dollar exchange rate slips. Debt is always a drawback, in any economic context.
Originally Posted by Django
The point is that the growth in GDP also includes goods manufactured overseas under US brand names or by US corporations. American workers do not benefit from manufacturing jobs exported overseas.
Regardless, you still haven't explained how we can be losing loads of jobs to foreign markets, yet have increased unemployment at a staggering pace last month. Do you have any statistical evidence to support any of this?
Originally Posted by Django
Don't worry, it's coming.
Is your evidence to support the "Y2K restocking" explanation coming, too? Or have you abandoned that?
X
Favorite Movies
X
User Lists
Originally Posted by Yoda
Even major Bush detractors like Golgot have acknowledged that Halliburton is almost certainly a qualified, legitimate choice for the work.
- but for the oil contracts i did agree that they probably had the relevant experience. (altho i expect the Russian, French and Chinese companies that have been doing more recent, naughty, negotiating with Iraq over oil-industry repair and expansion are probably even more qualified. - the competition for the contracts still looks too narrow, and illegitamte )But as for all the non-oil-related contracts, well, let's just say they're record isn't looking very good at the moment. Over-charging and shoddy service in many areas...
http://www.guardian.co.uk/internatio...150320,00.html
I do so hope the monogrammed towels become one of the many white-flags the Bush-admin is forced to wave come election time
...................
And one of the many reasons i'd like to see the Bushies go are coz of their economic practices.
I certainly don't know the whole deal, but if the IMF say the deficit is untenable and the recovery-package based on dodgey ground, i'm inclined to listen. And when the financial papers agree that the future might be a bit more rocky than the plain-sailing the admin forsees, it makes me angry as an "outsider", and concerned for "insiders". With the weakening dollar having the potential to unglue things like investment and international-cooperation (i.e. "Asian" bank persuadability to do the international-community thing), i wouldn't bet on the Bush-way being free-from-dismay just yet.
As for the "Truth". I know not
X
User Lists
Wow, Django's conspicuously absent. Shocking! I guess I'll reply to Gol to entertain myself:
Shoddy service is another matter entirely from corruption. Especially if we haven't much of anything to compare it to, quality-wise. The overcharging was revealed as having no benefit to Halliburton at all.
Regardless, I'm sure you see what I meant: that falling back on Halliburton for complaints just doesn't cut it. It's a kneejerk conspiracy theory that people mouth without any in-depth knowledge of the situation.
One can almost always find an organization of some sort that's speaking out against whatever's going on at the moment. Tell me honestly: did the IMF present a point-by-point deduction as to why the deficit was a problem? Did they say anything which would refute the kinds of claims I've been putting forward? If not, then I've got to conclude that you're giving them the benefit of the doubt solely because you like their conclusion. That's too Django-esque for a reasonable fellow such as yourself.
Which "financial papers"? I've not seen any indication that there's a widespread consensus among them on this issue, though even if there were, I'd defy you to use any of them to produce a counterargument to the claims I've laid out. It's too flippant for my blood to try to defer to the IMF or some other organization that agrees with me so as to take an opposite stance without having to really get into the nitty gritty of it all.
Originally Posted by Golgot
I never agreed with legitimate - but for the oil contracts i did agree that they probably had the relevant experience. (altho i expect the Russian, French and Chinese companies that have been doing more recent, naughty, negotiating with Iraq over oil-industry repair and expansion are probably even more qualified. - the competition for the contracts still looks too narrow, and illegitamte )
But as for all the non-oil-related contracts, well, let's just say they're record isn't looking very good at the moment. Over-charging and shoddy service in many areas...
http://www.guardian.co.uk/internatio...150320,00.html
I do so hope the monogrammed towels become one of the many white-flags the Bush-admin is forced to wave come election time .
- but for the oil contracts i did agree that they probably had the relevant experience. (altho i expect the Russian, French and Chinese companies that have been doing more recent, naughty, negotiating with Iraq over oil-industry repair and expansion are probably even more qualified. - the competition for the contracts still looks too narrow, and illegitamte )But as for all the non-oil-related contracts, well, let's just say they're record isn't looking very good at the moment. Over-charging and shoddy service in many areas...
http://www.guardian.co.uk/internatio...150320,00.html
I do so hope the monogrammed towels become one of the many white-flags the Bush-admin is forced to wave come election time
.Regardless, I'm sure you see what I meant: that falling back on Halliburton for complaints just doesn't cut it. It's a kneejerk conspiracy theory that people mouth without any in-depth knowledge of the situation.
Originally Posted by Golgot
And one of the many reasons i'd like to see the Bushies go are coz of their economic practices.
I certainly don't know the whole deal, but if the IMF say the deficit is untenable and the recovery-package based on dodgey ground, i'm inclined to listen.
I certainly don't know the whole deal, but if the IMF say the deficit is untenable and the recovery-package based on dodgey ground, i'm inclined to listen.
Originally Posted by Golgot
And when the financial papers agree that the future might be a bit more rocky than the plain-sailing the admin forsees, it makes me angry as an "outsider", and concerned for "insiders". With the weakening dollar having the potential to unglue things like investment and international-cooperation (i.e. "Asian" bank persuadability to do the international-community thing), i wouldn't bet on the Bush-way being free-from-dismay just yet.
X
Favorite Movies
X
User Lists
Originally Posted by Yoda
Shoddy service is another matter entirely from corruption. Especially if we haven't much of anything to compare it to, quality-wise. The overcharging was revealed as having no benefit to Halliburton at all.
Originally Posted by Yoda
One can almost always find an organization of some sort that's speaking out against whatever's going on at the moment. Tell me honestly: did the IMF present a point-by-point deduction as to why the deficit was a problem?
)Here are some snippets from the FT's take on their report (which i guess i took to be suggestive of unanimity coz of their broad brief and membership). Their specific beef is with the projected role of tax-cuts in reducing the deficits. The problems over overly-large deficits are more implied than spelt out (I'll give you some more specific criticisms of deficit and dollar-devaluation problems by answering the bit below).
Originally Posted by FT - Alan Beattie in Washington
Published: January 7 2004 21:01
Published: January 7 2004 21:01
Tax cuts passed in the US last year will do little to improve economic efficiency as President George W. Bush has claimed, according to an International Monetary Fund study released on Wednesday.
The report - which adds that the long-term effects of the tax cuts will be to push the federal government deeper into the red - steps up the fund's repeated warning to the US to put its fiscal house in order, with some combination of tax increases and spending cuts needed to return the budget to a sustainable position.
The warning adds to a growing chorus of complaint from economists and policymakers. On Wednesday night, Don Kohn, a Federal Reserve governor and member of the Fed's open market committee, said the slide in the dollar showed that foreigners would not continue to fund the US's fiscal and current account deficits indefinitely.
The report - which adds that the long-term effects of the tax cuts will be to push the federal government deeper into the red - steps up the fund's repeated warning to the US to put its fiscal house in order, with some combination of tax increases and spending cuts needed to return the budget to a sustainable position.
The warning adds to a growing chorus of complaint from economists and policymakers. On Wednesday night, Don Kohn, a Federal Reserve governor and member of the Fed's open market committee, said the slide in the dollar showed that foreigners would not continue to fund the US's fiscal and current account deficits indefinitely.
Originally Posted by Yoda
Which "financial papers"? I've not seen any indication that there's a widespread consensus among them on this issue, though even if there were, I'd defy you to use any of them to produce a counterargument to the claims I've laid out.
A politico-economic voice:
Originally Posted by FT US federal deficit to rise by extra $986bn
By Christopher Swann in Washington
Published: January 26 2004 19:23
By Christopher Swann in Washington
Published: January 26 2004 19:23
John Spratt, a Democratic member of the House budget committee, said the deficit was now reaching alarming proportions. "While Republicans suggest that these record-breaking deficits are 'manageable', there is growing awareness of the dangers these deficits pose to the economy," he said.
"Chronic deficits crowd out private investment, push up interest rates, and slow down economic growth. The specter of large and uncontrolled budget deficits could cause dramatic dislocations in financial markets."
"Chronic deficits crowd out private investment, push up interest rates, and slow down economic growth. The specter of large and uncontrolled budget deficits could cause dramatic dislocations in financial markets."
Originally Posted by The Guardian - But how low can the greenback go before America has to act? - Charlotte Denny and Mark Milner
Friday February 20, 2004
Friday February 20, 2004
Still obsessed with fighting inflation despite Europe's sluggish recovery, [the ECB] blames the dollar's slide on a more fundamental problem: America's widening current account deficit.
The US is borrowing more than it can afford from the rest of the world in order to fund its spending habit - and the markets know it can't last. The US current account deficit has already hit levels that the IMF considers dangerous to the stability of the global economy.
The Washington-based economic watchdog predicted in January that the dollar would weaken further as traders lost confidence in America's ability to repay its mounting foreign debts, damaging the recovery in rest of the world
The US is borrowing more than it can afford from the rest of the world in order to fund its spending habit - and the markets know it can't last. The US current account deficit has already hit levels that the IMF considers dangerous to the stability of the global economy.
The Washington-based economic watchdog predicted in January that the dollar would weaken further as traders lost confidence in America's ability to repay its mounting foreign debts, damaging the recovery in rest of the world
And the "it's our currency, and your problem" approach adopted at the recent G7 meeting really hasn't helped.
A couple of "Independent"-economic views
(with a cowboy metaphor thrown in with the latter ):
Originally Posted by Dollar sinks further as US trade deficit swells to 4.5% of GDP
By Rupert Cornwell in Washington
14 February 2004
By Rupert Cornwell in Washington
14 February 2004
If inflation begins to rise - or worse still, foreign investors grow wary of purchasing US securities to finance the deficit - the Fed may be forced to start raising short-term interest rates from their current 40-year lows.
Originally Posted by The Independent - Stephen King: Dollar drinking in the Last Chance Saloon
16 February 2004
16 February 2004
[if job growth continues to be weak, what can the government do?...]...He can't cut interest rates any more, because they're already close to zero. He can't really borrow very much more, because his creditors are becoming uneasy about the debts he's built up. And he can't keep swigging from the dollar depreciation bottle. A couple of gulps might not do too much damage, but a whole bottle? That's another matter altogether.
.....
The stock market crash in October 1987 had many causes, but chief among them was the breakdown of co-ordination between the world's central banks. Earlier that year, with the signing of the Louvre Accord, the G7 nations committed themselves to the maintenance of currency stability. Finance Ministers were becoming increasingly worried about the dollar's decline, and both Germany and Japan made a solemn commitment to set domestic policies that would be consistent with stable currencies. The dollar's decline was seemingly at an end.
That was true up until the summer, at which point the Bundesbank decided to raise interest rates for domestic economic reasons. All hell broke loose. Currency markets realised the "co-ordination" game was up, and that the dollar was, once more, standing on the precipice. Down it went, up went US long-term interest rates and, eventually, crash went the stock market.
The world economy finds itself in a similar position today. The Bundesbank is, of course, no longer the force it used to be, but the dependency of the US on the goodwill of central banks elsewhere in the world is no less great. The Bank of Japan and other Asian central banks are this time providing the crutch that prevents the US dollar from completely falling over. And the reason for America's dependency is almost exactly the same as it was 17 years ago: huge government borrowing, a huge balance of payments deficit and not enough foreign private investors to provide the funds to plug the gap. So, let's say that Japan or other countries in Asia suddenly have a desire to "do a Bundesbank", to refocus their policies on domestic economic goals. The case for doing so might not seem particularly strong at the moment, but that's what everyone thought about the Germans in the first half of 1987. Suddenly, the support for the dollar would be gone, the currency markets would be faced with a crisis, US bond yields would have to go up and riskier US assets - equities, for example - would begin to look very risky indeed.
.....
The stock market crash in October 1987 had many causes, but chief among them was the breakdown of co-ordination between the world's central banks. Earlier that year, with the signing of the Louvre Accord, the G7 nations committed themselves to the maintenance of currency stability. Finance Ministers were becoming increasingly worried about the dollar's decline, and both Germany and Japan made a solemn commitment to set domestic policies that would be consistent with stable currencies. The dollar's decline was seemingly at an end.
That was true up until the summer, at which point the Bundesbank decided to raise interest rates for domestic economic reasons. All hell broke loose. Currency markets realised the "co-ordination" game was up, and that the dollar was, once more, standing on the precipice. Down it went, up went US long-term interest rates and, eventually, crash went the stock market.
The world economy finds itself in a similar position today. The Bundesbank is, of course, no longer the force it used to be, but the dependency of the US on the goodwill of central banks elsewhere in the world is no less great. The Bank of Japan and other Asian central banks are this time providing the crutch that prevents the US dollar from completely falling over. And the reason for America's dependency is almost exactly the same as it was 17 years ago: huge government borrowing, a huge balance of payments deficit and not enough foreign private investors to provide the funds to plug the gap. So, let's say that Japan or other countries in Asia suddenly have a desire to "do a Bundesbank", to refocus their policies on domestic economic goals. The case for doing so might not seem particularly strong at the moment, but that's what everyone thought about the Germans in the first half of 1987. Suddenly, the support for the dollar would be gone, the currency markets would be faced with a crisis, US bond yields would have to go up and riskier US assets - equities, for example - would begin to look very risky indeed.
I guess we could sum up like this:
The admin may have used all its tricks too early, while focusing on future gain. i.e. they've put all their eggs in one basket, and have hoped that no adverse events will take place - and indeed, that's its policies won't exacerbate their possible emergance.
I know you believe in an endless loop of dependable economic troughs and peaks. Problem is, it might not pan out that sleekly. Running these deficits involves playing a lot of games. And not every game always turns out the same as the last one.
Last edited by Golgot; 02-21-04 at 11:51 AM.
X