What happened to all of the doom and gloom economic threads?

[Ulaven_Demorte]

Gee U_D, you're so busy in every thread but this one...

Could it be the Financial Sector's reaction to the Bill that Saves them from themselves? -261?

Or it could be the dip in quarterly earnings from BofA and Citigroup from last year's reports coupled with a drop in consumer confidence.

But you can go ahead and make up whatever reasons you want (so long as you can somehow blame a Democrat), that seems to be your forte'.

 

[Frisco_Slug_Esq]

Now, why would consumers lack confidence when Obama is telling them he just created and saved 3 million jobs?

Man, if TWO companies can acount for a 2% drop.

They must be TOO big to fail.

Take 'em OVER!

Fire the CEOs!


__________________
If you still have a job, it was "saved." If you don't have a job, it's being "created."
A_J, the Incredulous

 

[Ulaven_Demorte]

Now, why would consumers lack confidence when Obama is telling them he just created and saved 3 million jobs?

Man, if TWO companies can acount for a 2% drop.

They must be TOO big to fail.

Take 'em OVER!

Fire the CEOs!

It's no more unbelievable a scenario than that the financial reform legislation is the cause. I can see why wall street would resist strengthening consumer protections, reining in complex financial products, and heading off more bank bailouts. Lord forbid banks be required to be responsible with the money entrusted to them by depositors.

But then I didn't say those two companies were the only cause now did I?

Other things, like the price of oil dropping, along with gold value taking a dip (you did sell your gold stash right? Limbaugh needs his kickback to pay for his new digs.) just may have had something to do with it.

But that doesn't play into your little fantasy does it?

 

[GrumpyOldGoat]

Most of the successful businesses today started with government subsidy.

Assuming you meant "without" I think you are mistaken.

Every drug company can trace the product it sells to a government subsidy.
Every medical device company can trace the product it sells to a government subsidy.
Every computer company can trace its products to government subsidies, the same thing with every internet based company.
Every product you see advertised on television is being subsidized by the government.
Developments in every automobile can be traced to military production and innovation.

Just because a brand new company didn't get cash from Uncle Sam doesn't mean they exist without money from the taxpayers.

If the US taxpayers didn't support innovation that leads to new products and technology, there would be none in the US because other governments want that innovation and they will support it.

 

[GrumpyOldGoat]

And another thing!

Every company that ships its product does so over government subsidized roads and/or rails.

Every company that uses electricity, gets that electricity from wires placed on government provided easements.

 

[GrumpyOldGoat]

But there's more!

When a company invents (or slightly modifies) something, that innovation is protected by a government provided patent.

It's brand-name is protected by a government provided trade mark

If there's a dispute, the company takes the dispute to a government provided court (discounting private arbitration).

 

[unregistered]

 

[unregistered]

 

[rosco rathbone]

But there's more!

When a company invents (or slightly modifies) something, that innovation is protected by a government provided patent.

It's brand-name is protected by a government provided trade mark

If there's a dispute, the company takes the dispute to a government provided court (discounting private arbitration).

Those examples are just the beginning of the ways that corporations and the modern market are government creations.

 

[rosco rathbone]

That is what I meant, and you know full well what my point was. Americans of the past didn't line up at a government office to apply for venture capitial to start their businesses. The fact that the entire economy exists, or used to exist, in a government provided free enterprise infrastructure created and mandated by the Constitution, doesn't change that fact.

They may not have lined up at a venture capital office, but they were lining up for government land to put railroad rights-of-way on for one.

 

[unregistered]

 

[firespin]

Assuming you meant "without" I think you are mistaken.

Every drug company can trace the product it sells to a government subsidy.
Every medical device company can trace the product it sells to a government subsidy.
Every computer company can trace its products to government subsidies, the same thing with every internet based company.
Every product you see advertised on television is being subsidized by the government.
Developments in every automobile can be traced to military production and innovation.

Just because a brand new company didn't get cash from Uncle Sam doesn't mean they exist without money from the taxpayers.

If the US taxpayers didn't support innovation that leads to new products and technology, there would be none in the US because other governments want that innovation and they will support it.

You realize this is ridiculous, right?

Or perhaps you are from the Naughtycakes / Oddball school of subsidization, that says that even if the subsidy is far less than 1% of the costs, it's still a subsidy. Whether or not it has any effect at all is irrelevant.

 

[Frisco_Slug_Esq]

It's no more unbelievable a scenario than that the financial reform legislation is the cause. I can see why wall street would resist strengthening consumer protections, reining in complex financial products, and heading off more bank bailouts. Lord forbid banks be required to be responsible with the money entrusted to them by depositors.

But then I didn't say those two companies were the only cause now did I?

Other things, like the price of oil dropping, along with gold value taking a dip (you did sell your gold stash right? Limbaugh needs his kickback to pay for his new digs.) just may have had something to do with it.

But that doesn't play into your little fantasy does it?

I'm not the one with the fantasy that the Obama team has economic recovery first and foremost in the back of their mind as they pursue social justice.

We know what is going to come of Obama's social justice.

A dour economy based on the fallacy that if you eliminate booms by removing incentive, then you will eliminate busts...

 

[Frisco_Slug_Esq]

The "Created or Saved" jobs fallacy, a parallel to Bastiat's "Broken Windows" fallacy

In order to justify the president's there-but-for-the-grace-of-me claim of creating or saving enough jobs to keep the unemployment rate from jumping to 15%, the official White House jobs estimate would have to multiply the multiplier. That would cause even the most dyed-in-the-wool Keynesian economist to gag. However, simply by sticking to a multiplier of 1.5-to-1, the White House may go on claiming to have created or saved an ever-increasing number of jobs. It needn't stop for however long it continues to "invest" hundreds of billions of dollars of taxpayers' money in a wide assortment of politically favored enterprises and causes -- everything from solar panels and windmills to sending money to cities and states to shore up public sector payrolls and pensions.

Whether anyone will believe the administration is another matter. According to a recent Pew/National Journal poll, only 23% of the public thinks that "Barack Obama's economic policies" have led to improved economic results while 64% think that they have failed -- including 29% who think that the president's policies has led to worse results and another 35% who think that they have had little or no effect.

According to classical economics, as refined and updated by Milton Friedman, the "Austrian" economists and others, every public job that is created by additional public spending is a private job that is destroyed somewhere else. When the government announces to great fanfare that it will build more bridges or highways, there is no net job creation, because all that happens is a diversion of resources from the private sector to the public sector. There may be more bridge builders and highway workers; at the same time, however, there will be fewer hoteliers, accountants, advertising executives, and others supported by the dynamics of free enterprise. Still worse, because politicians rather than self-interested and closely aligned consumers and business people are making the buying and selling decisions, more money goes to unproductive uses, which in turn leads to a lack of growth, a loss of income, and the destruction of both wealth and jobs.

John Maynard Keynes -- the patron saint of all those in favor of increased government intervention in the marketplace -- spoke of the importance of "animal spirits." He wrote: "If Enterprise is afoot, wealth accumulates whatever may be happening to Thrift; and if Enterprise is asleep, wealth decays whatever Thrift is doing."

Ironically, what is so noticeable in the current economic environment -- created by an excess of government intervention in more and more aspects of the nation's economic life -- is the total absence of Enterprise with a capital "E." It has gone to sleep. People (and businesses) have lost confidence in their ability to build a better future for themselves and for future generations. That is the real tragedy associated with Obamanomics. People are all too aware of the horrible record of socialistic or statist governments.

As no less an authority than Karl Marx said, "History repeats itself, first as tragedy, and second as farce."

Andrew B. Wilson
http://spectator.org/archives/2010/07/19/in-joco-jobitas/print

 

[Ham Murabi]

According to the AP, one result of "financial reform" is that it's going to get more expensive to deal with your bank.
BofA will take a $7B to$9B hit and will need to recoup that money from somewhere. Guess who pays?

 

[jeninflorida]

...and yesterday there was some bitching by obama and team about corporate america keeping 1.x trillion in the bank....go figure!

business is fearful and very afraid of obama & pelosi....

and yet there is obama still trying to figure out why corporate america isn't willing to spend money

the pelosi quote fits here, "we have to pass this bill...in order to know what's inside"

According to the AP, one result of "financial reform" is that it's going to get more expensive to deal with your bank.
BofA will take a $7B to$9B hit and will need to recoup that money from somewhere. Guess who pays?

 

[unregistered]

 

[koalabear]

He's searching for a statute that would allow him to commandeer that money.

The new finance bill gives the Govenment the power to take over what ever business they deem is failing.

 

[jeninflorida]

I pray at night that the house falls....and pelosi is kicked out....


then, with the Rep's in power they can Sabena records on obama…and lets see if obama’s trolls offered jobs inexchange if a political leader did not run against an obama wannabe

then obama can be exposed as a thug!

The new finance bill gives the Govenment the power to take over what ever business they deem is failing.

 

[unregistered]

 

[rosco rathbone]

I pray at night that the house falls....and pelosi is kicked out....


then, with the Rep's in power they can Sabena records on obama…and lets see if obama’s trolls offered jobs inexchange if a political leader did not run against an obama wannabe

then obama can be exposed as a thug!

Maybe they can shut down government while they are at it

 

[koalabear]

Obama just gave a speech, look for the market to fall again.

 

[unregistered]

 

[koalabear]

They said he was going to attack the Pubs again, this is where I came in so I didn't watch it.

Blames them for jobs losses *no unemployment extensions*. Yet not one idea on how to create new jobs.

 

[jeninflorida]

Maybe they can shut down government while they are at it

why not? i'm sure that 50% of the government workers don't do much work anyways!