LITEROTICA PODCAST
LIT CAMS (200 Free Tokens)ADULT TOYSVOD MOVIES

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

Status
Not open for further replies.
RightField said:
I think the Republicans only want to root out the fraud and abuse that's become plainly evident in the Democrat shenigans in the Department of Energy ....like 80% of the awards for billions of dollars in green energy programs going to companies with close ties to the democrats - like Solyndra and part owner George Kaiser - a democrat campaign bundler.
Click to expand...

How is your complaint at all valid? Republicans tend to not support - and frequently all-out attack green-energy companies and research. So what happens is that almost none of them have ties to the GOP because the GOP pushed them away intentionally. When green companies get grants of course they tend to go to the ones with Democratic ties because that's all there is left. This is a situation that Republicans must blame themselves for.

And this week we're seeing the GOP take this a step further with the algae issue. Last week if an algae fuel research firm got funding it was a good thing according to Republicans. But this week if that very same company gets funding it's just Obama channeling resources to a company with Democratic ties.
 
Just a word from a passing Brit. The vast cost of financing election campaigns in your country seems to make it certain that cronyism will occur in government. It's puzzling to me that this is some kind of partisan issue to you. Solyndra stinks; as may these electric car firms on the horizon; but then so did a swath of 'Republican' contracts and contacts, of which I remember most clearly the intricate relationships between Enron and early employees of the Bush administration, and the startling contracts awarded by Bushites to Haliburton, often without competition. Banking and economic policy wonks seem to move in and out of the same government and private institutions whichever party is in power. On a more local level individual senators and members of Congress seem liberal with their favours to particular individuals and companies.

Don't you think that partisan name-calling obscures for you the fact that cronyism has become endemic to the system? (I don't mean it isn't in the UK, but it's cronyism in a different way over here, relating to class and different kinds of institution)
 
When Government gets so powerful that its purchase price is cost effective, even imperative, to business, then business will purchase government indulgences.
A_J, the Stupid
 
patrick1 said:
Just a word from a passing Brit. The vast cost of financing election campaigns in your country seems to make it certain that cronyism will occur in government. ...
Click to expand...

Americans spend more on dog food than on selecting a President. It's a 15 trillion dollar economy and a billion here, a billion there sounds big, but it's a rounding error.
 
To be fair Koala never explained that the graph is self updating. There aren't a lot of us here just hitting the refresh button to figure out that of all the pictures on the web this one is actually keeping itself current. Which also means that Koala bear should take down the posts at the end of the day as they no longer reflect what he's talking about once the day ends.
 
They had fallen at the exact point that Koala posted. He's not a liar he's a misleading doom sayer.
 
Joy joy happy happy!

Consumer confidence is UP!!!

AP reports!

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20120306/D9TARGNG0.html
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_CONSUMER_CONFIDENCE?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT

Only one version I found said this though:

- Obama deserves little or no credit for declining unemployment. Only one of the 19 economists who answered the question said Obama should get "a lot" of credit. They give most of the credit to U.S. consumers, who account for about 70 percent of economic growth, and businesses.
Click to expand...

;) ;)

Mike Englund of Action Economics is among those who noted that the declining unemployment is due, in part, to fewer people seeking work. Millions of those out of work remain too discouraged to start looking again, or, in the case of many young adults, haven't begun to do so.
"Most of this recent drop in the unemployment rate is due to a mass exodus" from the work force, Englund said.
The economy still has about 5.5 million fewer jobs than it did before the recession began in December 2007.

...

The U.S. economy remains under threat from Europe's debt crisis. But those concerns have eased, the AP survey showed.
Click to expand...

*chuckle*

Many economists have been surprised that the stronger economy hasn't led more people without jobs to start looking for work. If many more were looking, the unemployment rate would likely be higher.
Click to expand...

Why won't they look for work? Extended benefits? Food stamps? The government fighting their mortgage holders for them?

In a separate report, the Commerce Department said U.S. businesses slashed spending on machinery and equipment in January after a tax break expired. That pushed orders for long-lasting manufacturing goods down 4 percent, the biggest monthly decline in three years.

But economists suggested the drop was largely because most companies made big purchases at the end of last year to qualify for the tax credit, which expired at the end of December. They noted that demand for so-called core capital goods, a good measure of business investment plans, fell sharply in January after surging in December to an all-time high.
Click to expand...

Wow, I said that already!

;) ;)

Who'da thunk, expiring taxes change behavior. Wonder what higher taxes, like the Clinton tax rate will do...
 
It would be remiss of me and highly partisan to not give President Obama the credit he deserves when he earns it so I must point out that since he and his minions played the contraception card, sales of guns and ammo have again surged, the strongest surge since his election...



:cool:
 
The rise in oil prices is not due to the laws of supply and demand regarding oil. It is the result of the continued fall of the dollar. As the Federal Reserve creates more money, the value of the dollar falls. As the value of the dollar falls and oil producers demand more and more for each barrel, the price of crude goes up. Despite what the politicians say about the oil companies, the greatest component of the price of gas is the cost of crude. Crude oil is about 67% of the price per gallon, 7% for refining, 11% for distribution and marketing, and 15% for taxes. Blaming the oil companies may be good for politics, but it is not good economics.

Pouring more crude into the pipeline is not going to appreciably change the price at the pump. Nor will reducing total car travel cause much difference. The emphasis on the supply and demand for crude does not explain the dramatic increase in the price of gas, which is far above the changes in the demand for crude oil. The chart below illustrates the matter.

In 2002, with an ounce of gold worth $278, an American consumer could buy 251 gallons of gasoline. That ration of gold to gas held steady, going up and down between 215 and 279 gallons for the years from 2002 to July 2008. Then gas dramatically surged in price, and it has not come down.

From January 2009 (when Obama was inaugurated) until today, the number of gallons per ounce of gold has fluctuated between 349 and 525.

Opening up Saudi pipelines, or any other such matters, will not be more important in determining the price of oil measured in dollars than the value of the dollar.

Surprisingly, gas prices have not risen as much as they should. In fact, oil is underpriced compared to the rise in the price of gold. If we had the same ratio of an ounce of gold at $1,780 per ounce, gasoline would cost $7.09 at the pump. Gas prices have not rise as much as gold prices. Gas is about three times more expensive than in 2002, while gold is over five times more expensive ($1.11 vs. $3.64 for gas compared to $278 vs. $1,780 for gold).

Prices at the pump, of course, do not reflect the other inflationary effects such as the cost of transporting goods, planting and harvesting crops, and running factories and homes.

It is surprising that Republican politicians do not make the case for the relation between inflation as measured in the increase in the declining value of the dollar versus gold. Rather, they let Democrats harangue about the oil companies, although the Democrats do that less now that they are in political control. The American consumers see prices rising in food and other goods, but nothing is as visible as the price increases they see at the pump.

Republicans would be better off putting the blame where it belongs: excessive spending means monetizing our debt, which means printing money, which means foreign oil producers want more of it for the same barrel of oil. This would be another force or reason to control spending beyond the abstract idea of inflation. The vast majority of Americans are probably more sensitive to the visible impact of the price of fuel than they are to the invisible decline in the value of their savings.
Click to expand...
See chart:

http://www.americanthinker.com/2012..._the_decline_of_the_dollar.html#ixzz1oQye7rRF
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

RobDownSouth
Remember those dire predictions of a "Recession in 2023-2024"? The White House does!
Replies
0
Views
320
RobDownSouth
RobDownSouth
Counselor706
Joe Biden and the powerless presidency
Replies
5
Views
444
John_von_Neumann
John_von_Neumann
Ulaven_Demorte
New and Improved "Doom and Gloom™" Thread
2 3
Replies
51
Views
4K
IrezumiKiss
IrezumiKiss
K
Paul Krugman: "In Defense of Obama"
5 6 7
Replies
155
Views
9K
IrezumiKiss
IrezumiKiss
Ulaven_Demorte
About all of the minimum wage "Doom and Gloom"
2
Replies
30
Views
1K
bronzeage
bronzeage
Back
Top