Karmavore, word of advice: REFINANCE that ARM buddy !! RUN, don't walk to your nearest mortgage lender TODAY !!!
AMEN brother. As mentioned in a previous post, the internet is obviously a great thing, since that's what we are all participating in right now, however, the dot.com bubble was a JOKE and anyne that wants to be intellectually honest, no matter what side of the aisle you are on, has to agree. Talk to any VC firm and ask them how many millions they lost pouring it into all the johnny-come-lately's with the next "sure-thing" which were never businesses at all but just attempts to take other peoples products, services or ideas and insert 100 middle men in the chain before they got to the end user. The guy that owns the Dallas Mavericks, he got out of his company and cashed in billions before his original "idea/start-up" went BELLY-UP !! Bully for him. For every Ebay, there are 1000 internet failures, far exceeding the normal failure rate in traditional brick and mortar business. Warren Buffet said, and yes I know he's a liberal, (paraphrased) "if I can't touch it, feel it, smell it, it ain't REAL" Berkshire Hathaway took a pass on the whole internet craze, and even when those companies that did not go out of business were in the toilet price-wise, where you would assume a savvy investor like Buffet has in the past, go in buying bargain mode, HE STILL PASSED !!! I know why all the Clinton sycophants keep clinging in vain to the go-go economy of 96-99, because AL GORE INVENTED THE INTERNET !!! Sorry, I forgot. As for interest rates, no I am no economist, nor do I claim to be one, nor do I claim to be smarter than Allan Greenspan, however, I was only a kid when Jimmy Carter was elected but I remember my father wallowing in the 18-20% rates and saying in 1979 that he wanted to move to Italy and he could live like a king. Interest rates are the truest barometer of an economy because they prove that Keynesian economics do work. Interest rates, low or high, directly impact EVERY sector of the economy and EVERY socio-economic class. Spending is done across all spectrums when money is cheap: XYC spends more money on R&D, employ more, upgrade and replace machinery, which employs more for the people making the machinery, which means that worker bee has more money n his pocket for disposables and durables, etc. So-on and so-on right down the line. Conversely, the opposite effect happens when money supplies are tighter and more expensive. You guys on the left KNOW this is TRUE, you just can't stand that REAGAN was the one who made it work
Yes low interest rates are nice, but you have to ask yourself, "why are interest rates so low?" From my understanding, the Fed had to keep lowering rates in order to prevent economic armagedon, not because the economy is so good. Lower rates = more consumer spending = economic life raft. I don't think Greenspan sat around thinking "gee the economy is doing really well, let's lower rates.." I think it was more like "HOLY **** I better lower rates to counteract this crappy situation.." Remind me again what Reagan did? Something about largest recession since '29 and $10Trillion debt? -R
Great idea, but society isn't working that way in today's economy. This "recovery" isn't producing jobs. One of the great engines that produced quite a few jobs was the .com boom. Sure there were quite a few loony ideas, but companies like Yahoo, Amazon, etc were created, still exit and will continue to exist. Having said that, Santa Clara County, near San Francisco is literally a disaster zone. Empty new buildings, high levels of unemployment, you name, still exit there. That area was once one of the highest income areas in the country and it still hasn't recovered, or in my humble opinion started to recovery. Ancedotal comments against Alan Greenspan to support your ideology is just great. Reagan did quite a few good things for the USA, the major one being that he assisted in the demise of the Soviet Union. His economics "Voodoo" a name trade marked by George HW Bush is about as accurate as any that I've seen in the past. The recession that put Bush senior out of office was the direct result of that lunacy, and the tax increase voted in under Clinton which Greenspan credits for the Clinton economy was caused by Reagan's "voodoo" economics. There has apparently been a complete role reversal here: those who support Bush are all in favor of a 500B deficit (and it will be higher, perhaps as high as 700-800B, which we'll be told after the election). This is going to come home to roost, my money is on a prime in the two figure range within 18 months after the election, no matter who is elected. Bottom line, Bush is walking a thin line, and if any one of his ideas fail, he will probably lose. I'd prefer he won, because when this economy goes down, it might just destroy the reepublican just like Hoover did. Art
Art - Welcome back! Your argument above hold zero water, buddy. To say that economic times were better during the .com boom is like saying you were richer when you were still involved in that pyramid scheme. The .com boom was a fragile house of cards. Did it employ people? Sure, but of course the employment wasn't going to last, and anyone who beleived it would have is a fool. I could start ten business tomorrow, hire 100 people for each business, even if I didn't have one red cent to do it with. Does that mean that economic times are good? Of course not. Did Bush, or Clinton, or ANY government official have ANYTHING to do with the .com crash? Of course not - but yet, you want to blame it on Bush. That's laughable. The fact is, you live in an area that exploded along with the .com boom - Silicon Valley. So is it surpirsing to see that there are now empty building and unemployment there? I don't think it's surpirsing - why do you? If tomorrow, Toyota and Honda came out with a car that runs on cold-fusion, and cost $5000 dollars, you can bet that detroit would DIE. The factories would close down, and hundred of thousands of people would loose their jobs. Buildings would be empty, and the roads would be clear of traffic. But what does that have to do with the President's job? Absolutely NOTHING. And Art, all this "chicken-little" crap about low unemployment rates is just stupid. At 5.6% unemplyoment, I don't see the economic doom that you and other pissed off dems see. I see a fairly average rate.
Ok Nibbs and others please explain this to me. I have a better than acceptable grasp of the english language and a pretty good background in Buisness. both as a worker bee and as a drone. I have covered politics, business and Technology in writing and working world. What the hell is a "Jobless Recovery"????? Or is it the business' like Walmart are doin fine just the jobs that could have been created here are now in China..... (Levi's, Most everything,)
Actually it's been pretty widely reported that there have been record numbers of people rolling off the unemployment rosters. Not because they found a job, but because they've already used up their 12 months or whatever it is that you get for unemployment benefits. Since the unemployment figures only report those who are currently collecting UE benefits, all those people rolling off aren't being counted. Also, the scary part isn't so much the actual numbers, but just how bad the administration's projections are. For the last 3 years they've been projecting huge increases in revenue, but have fallen short by 10-15% every time. They were projecting GDP up over 6% in Q4, but only saw about 4%. Still a good number, but way under projections. Now their employment projections are falling short. They were expecting 350k new jobs last month, but there were only something like 115k. Since the budget and some policies rely on accurate projections, you'd think that someone in the administration would realize that their analysts don't have a clue. How can you be so far off so consistently, and not think you're doing something wrong? -R
Also remember that those in the know say that the nation needs to create 150,000 a month just to accomodate those entering the job market. So 115k is a net loss of jobs.
Unless my economics book is incorrect, the unemployment figures are actually based on 60,000 randomly selected households in a survey conducted by the Bureau of Labor Statistics, not how many people are on unemployment. I'm not an economist so maybe someone who is can enlighten us. Brad
I don't see economics anywhere in your resume. A "jobless recovery" is a period of time, starting with the first signs of a turn-around in an economy, and ending with the increase in hiring. It happens every time there is an economic turn-around. Why does this happen? I'll explain it to you, if you like. First of all, at the end of a recession (which we weren't in, by the way), business' have usually gone through about two or three years of rather rough times. Sales dropped, lay-off occured, capital was depeleted, etc etc. When the skies start to clear, business' usually won't immediate go hog wild with their checkbooks. Instead, they'll tend to gradually increase thier corporate spending and hiring, because who knows when the next big hit will happen, and they don't want another big round of layoff. Usually, after 12 - 15 months of a recovery, business' are fairly confident that the good times are "here to stay" for at least five more years, so they begin to massively increase hiring (to replace those laid off) and massively increase spending (to purchase new equipment which will replace the old stuff that had to go the extra mile during the recession.) We've been in a jobless recovery for neatly a year now. Expect that to end soon, and expect lower and lower unemployment numbers. This, by the way, has happened with nearly EVERY economic turn around.
we should have gone in right after he tried the assasination attempt on BUSH I. fact is there were a myriad of reasons to go after saddam. sooner or later the oppsoition was going to have a claim against the war that stuck. although, they werent claiming there were no WMD before hand. everyone was worried about WW3, wmd and biological attacks kiiling 100's thousands of our troops, israel getting into the war, civil war breaking out, oill fields blowing up sending oil to $80 plus
I did not imply that low interest rates were a FUNCTION of a good economy, I was merely replying to others that were poo-pooing them. I realize that Greenspan lowered them in attempt to stimulate the economy, WOW, thanks for the firm grasp of the obvious. There was no ECONOMIC ARMAGEDDON BTW and explain to me how everyone conveniently overlooks the fact that the signs that were coming before the 2000 election anyway. The DOW dropped to it's lowest levels since 1929 when Clinton was still in office, check your history, do a Google search. Art 355, it is well known FACT that jobs are ALWAYS a LAGGING indicator and even the leftist of the leftist agree with that FACT behind closed doors. But since they KNOW that intellectual honesty is anathema to the Dems, and the only way to stir up the great unwashed is to say "oh no, unemployment isn't keeping pace with all the other economic indicators, the sky is falling, the VERY DAY CONSUMER SPENDING OR PRODUCTIVITY OR MANUFACTURING goes up there should be a CORRESPONDING, immediate jump in employment is patently RIDICULOUS !!! Art, you seem like a very thoughtful and intelligent guy, I'm interested in why you would like to see the REP implode? Let give you a little anectdote. My father grew up dirt-poor in a rural town in nowhere's -ville Maine. His parents got divorced when he was a 5 or 6 year old and he was with his mother and 2 sisters. Had to work for real from the age of 9 to help support his family. Democrat family all the way, total blue collar, and to this day both his sisters and mother still are Dems. He paid his own way through college after a stint in the Air Force and got a job with a Big 6 (at the time) accounting firm in 1967. Was still a Dem thinker until the late 70's when he saw how the party was interested in doing nothing more than keeping their feet on the necks of their base/electorate. During this he worked his way up to managing partner and high six figures which enabled him to also get into real estate and other ventures. His client list read like a who's-who of American business. He was very familiar with how tax code and governmental regulations could either foster economic growth or stifle it. Why is it the Dems keep whipping up this class envy thing when they are all ultra wealthy? Because the operate under the assumption that wealth in the hands of those that earned it is an evil thing, God forbid, they might actually INVEST it !! No, we cannot allow that to happen, that money would be better spent in the hands of Robert Maplethorpe, or saving the spotted, one-legged, 2 penised, 4 toed American gekko, or ENCOURAGING people to stay at home, where they can make up to 65% of their income from unemployment, a program, by the way, that is just as much funded by me in private enterprise as it is by government. THAT IS WHY so many jobs are either being outsourced or switched to independent contractor, because the costs of FICA and unemployment insurance are cost prohibitive. When I was in college at the University of Michigan (GO BLUE) I had some friends that were 2nd and 3rd generation automotive assembly workers in Detroit that were my age. This is no exagerration, this is FACT: because of the ridiculous union contracts that FORD, GM et al. had to cave to, these 19 and 20 year olds were SITTING at home for about 28-32 weeks out of each year and STILL RECEIVED 90% of their checks plus their FULL medical benefits. A friend of mine would joke: "I made $968 this week watching Oprah" This Art is a fact. Not to mention, because of the unions mob tactics, there were 20 year olds making $50-65k a year because their dad's had worked there and their grandads before them, etc. That is just ONE of the USELESS members of the Democratic parties electorate. I know that at the turn-of-the-century we needed unions to protect children, protect against work-place hazards and unsafe working conditions, etc. but in 2004 ENOUGH IS ENOUGH !!! I love it when I see the latest Dem to lock arms with an AFLCIO guy and sing kum-ba-yah with them and talk about how the Dems are going to make their lives better. Well, yeah, they sure did, but at what and whose expense? The Dems are just poverty pimps, selling snake oil to the deer-in-headlight crowd as those lemmings blindly follow them off the cliff. I told you this long story about my dad to illustrate that you can do whatever you want in this country, and the shortcomings of any particular politician notwithstanding (George W included) the principles of the right can truly impact anyone's life positively. What does the left offer anyone NOWADAYS, not 20 or 30 or 40 years ago. Did we need civil right legislation, absolutely, did we need child labor laws, absolutely, did we need laws to protect certain segments of the population, YES, YES, YES. In 2004 however, the left is living off the coatails of past successes, taking credit for things they had nothing to do with and saying "we can bring you more" What has Jesse Jackson or Al Sharpton done for blacks? NADA, yet they still march in lock step to the Dems each and every election, not because of either of those assclowns but because some WHITE dem (CLINTON - THE FIRST BLACK PRESIDENT) has convinced them he has their best interests at heart. BTW Art, Yahoo has yet to show a real profit and about a year ago, the same people singing Jeff Bezo's praises (Time's Man of the Year) were calling for his head. Redistribution of wealth is NOT the answer
Redistribution isn't the answer. However, since those who are better off use more of the country's services, it is important to make sure that they pay their share. This is a community, and the wrangling about what is fair or not is an ongoing issue with our society. Having said that, your Dad and I have similar backgrounds, only it wasn't the Big 6, it was the Big 8 in the late 60s. I went to work at Andersen, left to become a lawyer. Started there after the Army, very conservative. The Army and Andersen saw to it that I become a liberal. Saw too much b/s while working there. Lastly, the Unions have caused problems with the US auto industry. With comnpetition, we need to streamline our work rules. Having said that we still need Unions. I make a very good living from representing employees who've had their rights abused by employers. A prime example is the absolute refusal of various businesses to pay overtime, although its the law, and although the know that they (the employer) is legally required to pay same. While I understand the objection, I can't condone the blatant violation of the law when the employer knows that its obligation is to pay the overtime. That's the sort of greed that I've seen over the years, its the equivelent of theft. Art
Art, check my profile, you probably know my dad as Anderson was a TABOO word around my house growing up. I know what you are saying, I really do, but at the end of the day, is the refusal to pay overtime a function of their politics or just a by-product of them being *******s?
