ShcShc11

The answer is: It isin't. A private dollar is preferable and "more potent" than a government dollar spent. However, this is only true IF the private sectors are spending this dollar...and its only true IF the private sector is functioning correctly. In the circumstances we are currently, the private sector has a lot of money, but they are hoarding/stashing their cash (often in super-safe U.S bonds that gives them negative return). http://www.bloomberg.com/quote/USGG10YR:IND (I've shown this chart before) So, in the end, we have to ask ourselves how do we make the private sector spend?? This is where politics converge: The right-wings say: "Obama is undermining confidence" and "cut taxes" This is fantasy that keeps repeating itself. The U.K experiment with Cameron clearly shows that confidence has nothing to do with the politician, but on the demand forecast. (I can show the charts again if you want on business confidence). Cutting tax helps, but is inefficient because you are giving a cash-rich company more cash. And this cash ends up in U.S bonds (which the Gov is doing nothing with it). Cash flow ends up either under the company's bed or under the Gov's bed doing nothing to the economy. Point is, cash becomes clogged doing nothing. By far, the #1 reason why companies are hoarding the money is because they have no reason to spend it. Their current capacity is under-used and there is zero reason to invest in new machinery, new employees, etc... This is what they mean by "uncertainty"- not uncertainty of gov reg, but uncertainty due to volatile demand forecasts. Uncertainty from Gov Reg. affects a minority of businesses (5%) such as Coal and Oil. Volatile demand forecasts affects 100% of businesses. Why are demand forecasts volatile? http://creditwritedowns.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/US-Private-Debt.png Because people are busy paying off their debt hangover (private debt exploded after the Financial Crisis of 2008...but that's another topic). Ordinary U.S citizens can't spend if they have urgent debt to pay off. So it isin't so much that Gov $ is better than Private $. Its just private $ is doing nothing at the moment and going nowhere (usually something that is fixed by lowering interest rates, but interest rates is at 0 right now). If you cut gov spending, private companies simply have even less reasons to spend. Another solution would be high inflation, but this is politically highly unpopular. High inflation erodes private debt, forces people to spend (by eroding their savings account) and private $$ goes back into real investments (e.g: machinery, employees, etc...). The current European saga really shows all this in details, but people keep having this misconception that they are in trouble because they are "socialists" . Anyway, my 2 cents. Cheers!

http://blogs.ft.com/gavyndavies/2012/10/21/high-fiscal-multipliers-undermine-austerity-programmes/#axzz29xQFTZDU I believe the article is important in order to understand why countries such as U.K, Germany and even Greece have such a hard time "balancing their budget". Its not because they are socialist countries, but because they are cutting spending when they are nowhere near full employment %. What is happening with the U.K NOW should serve as a real warning sign to the U.S. Neither Romney or Obama can/should "balance the budget" for at least another 3 years because of this multiplier problem. Its also why a country's debt shouldn't be compared to a household debt ("credit card" debt argument). Trying to cut debt in a country simultaneously cuts income for a country while it does no such thing for personal debt. (note that Gavyn Davies is right-leaning economist) Hope this helps clarify why the economy is sluggish. Cheers!

We need more topics like this in the Speakers Corner.

unless if you are talking about TARP. ...which in that case, its not really pumping money into the economy. More like giving banks a cushion from bankruptcy. (A bit like how your bank deposits are insured at 100k in the event the bank goes bankrupt). Eitherway, the TARP was paid back and considered highly successful. So I do give high notes Pres. Bush and Obama for TARP in spite of it being highly unpopular with the mass at the time (and even today). Cheers! Shc

The New Deal could be considered its equivalent. What we've learned back then is that when you retract too fast the money, the system ends up "lacking" money circulation. This lack of money circulation brought America back to the recession in 1937-1938ish... up until the war that re-restored America through massive fundings that would probably worth trillions of $ worth of spending. 700B stimulus (also remember there was a major tax-cut component) is honestly nothing compared to GDP gap caused by 2008 (estimated to be around 3 to 3.5 trillion $). You get the economy you bought by penny-pinching and being cheap. Cheers! Shc

Just wanted to shed some light on this. The 2008 was a recession/depression caused through crises with financial institutions. Lehman Brother's event permitted a complete credit freeze + housing debts lags the economy. 1980s U.S recession was caused by the Fed through slowing down the interest rates. 1980s Banking crisis from Sweden, 1990s Japanese banking crisis look exactly the same we have now. 1929-1933 is the only time where there was a "rapid recovery", but to do that, banks had to implode first. Banks, this time, were saved through TARP. This isin't really mentioned by neither GOP or Democrats, so just wanted to point it out

And this is what I mean. People like to shrug it off as its natural. http://gain.fas.usda.gov/Recent%20GAIN%20Publications/Grain%20and%20Feed%20Annual_Moscow_Russian%20Federation_3-23-2011.pdf Read it and look at the numbers. This wasn't a "normal" agricultural crisis. Anyway. Cheers

Well that seals it for me. If people in the EU say it's true it must be so. Do you suppose that your informal survey is a bit skewed by whom you keep as company? I'm still waiting for someone whom I can trust, that has no skin in the game to convince me. Hehe...gramma-phone. Funny. This topic has nothing to do with "surveys" or trying to convince you (there are other topics for that). My question is: why are so many of us willing to ignore it as jibbrish when the consequences (esp economics) are so great? As Bill said, it feels like a lot of people are treating it as a politics or taking it too personally- rather than making a marked effort to find the real truth.

Been travelling a bit to Europe, talking to Professors/having coffee with businessmen. It is pretty unanimous that they truly believe that it is happening. People who've went to the Arctic, who've spent years researching on this. I can understand skepticism, but I'm curious how people can flatly deny it after having such a pretty catastrophic food drought. Even John Block (secretary of agriculture for Reagan administration) believes it is because of global warming. What is it about people who get outraged over a few billion $ on green projects, yet be indifferent in hundreds of billion of $ of damages worldwide in the past 3 years (anyone remember Russia's fire and agriculture crisis?). Madness. "Droughts, floods, hurricanes and other extreme weather cost the U.S. economy at least $55 billion in 2011, according to NOAA, with 14 separate events exceeding $1 billion. The devastating drought and associated wildfires in Texas and Oklahoma alone cost American crop farmers $7.6 billion and the cotton and cattle industries around $5.4 billion." http://www.forbes.com/sites/manishbapna/2012/07/23/the-missing-link-droughts-the-economy-and-climate-change/ ...and this is the U.S only from this year. Russian and European crises were worse. Cheers! Shc

This isin't stagflation but anyway.

We keep talking about the economy yet its rare to find people mention about the U.S household debt to disposal income. http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2009/12/Household-Debt-to-Disposable-Personal-Income-Ratio.png THIS is what makes the U.S economy sluggish. Not some U.S Gov Debt. Not about the tax. Not about bs ''confidence fairy policies''. Household debt IS the center of our economic problems. THAT is what Sweden struggled with with their recession caused by financial collapse. THAT is also what Japan suffered in the 1990s and had hard time ''fixing''. Fix household debt, the spending level is normalized, the businesses invest in order to meet this demand and jobs come back. The problem? You have to punish the creditors and/or people who are saving money. And unfortunately, its bad politics to say: ''we are punishing the ones who have been morally responsible with money'' ... or ''we are aiming 4% inflation''. Nobody wants to lose their money through inflation (neither do I). But these are the real medicine when it comes to financial institution + housing recessions. ... Much of the talk about economics in politics are just fluff. Cheers! Shc

yeehaw!

"It appears that Obama has hired infamous Iraqi information minister to calculate the unemployment rate, anybody who believes the number is either naive or a paid Obama PR" Jack Welsh, former CEO, also said the new job numbers were cooked up....... If it came from a wealthy former CEO, it must be true. Cheers!

...and not by anyone, by the Wall Street Journal lol. or when Hillary supposedly murdered Vince Foster? Good times. Gosh I feel old.

"you and your ilk" lol. Why so much hate? We're in this together. You're a bit too focused on wanting to be right. "You guys will see; if he is re-elected we are all doomed! Just watch". p-s: about your comment on people investing overseas. Look at the U.S 10 years, an all time-low because TOO MANY people are investing in the U.S. Investors are literally paying the U.S to take their money (adjusted per inflation). Look at: http://www.bloomberg.com/quote/USGG10YR:IND Cheers! Shc Funny thing is that the US economy was actually doing better when tax rates were higher. GM's right wing scare tactic is not based on anything other than the pure greed of his "ilk". Right, the US economy was doing better BECAUSE taxes were higher. Making Strawman arguments show you have run out of real ones. Back at you. Just responding you yours. But you are right, you have no argument unless you are actually claiming the economy improves when taxes are raised. That's like claiming my thermometer controls the weather because every time the mercury goes up it gets hotter outside and every time it goes down it gets colder. Continuing to make strawman arguments shows very clearly that you have nothing. Then stop making them. I like when messages have long quotes

"you and your ilk" lol. Why so much hate? We're in this together. You're a bit too focused on wanting to be right. "You guys will see; if he is re-elected we are all doomed! Just watch". p-s: about your comment on people investing overseas. Look at the U.S 10 years, an all time-low because TOO MANY people are investing in the U.S. Investors are literally paying the U.S to take their money (adjusted per inflation). Look at: http://www.bloomberg.com/quote/USGG10YR:IND Cheers! Shc

lol nice dodge? And do you not understand the 3 trillion $ output gap that was left out in the aftermath of the Lehman Brother collapse? You're always so ... angered by this. You almost seem to take it personally. I love reading financial statements, budget plans and the whatnot. But if we blindly take the two budget proposals, the GOP plan simply just doesn't work, almost imaginary. I think what could help is for people to look back at what the media was saying back in the early 1930s. They were saying quite eerily the same thing that we are today. Fear of inflation, fear of debt, fear of decline..... And with all this concerns, there was the lack of doing anything at all- needlessly prolonging America's Great Depression. Cheers! Shc

According to the CBO, progressively well. CBO on the Ryan Plan: http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/ftpdocs/121xx/doc12128/04-05-ryan_letter.pdf Oh and if you want to compare how U.S is faring in comparison to other Financial-crises (you seem pretty willing to do everything to not understand what happened in 2007-2008) http://oregoneconomicanalysis.files.wordpress.com/2012/09/rr_employment.jpg Also look up the U.K and how Osborne tackled their own depression (errily similar to what Romney is proposing)... hint: doing not so good my friend

lol @ bullshit numbers. Look at the bipartisan CBO conclusions. Obama's numbers make sense. The GOP (neither Ryan nor Romney) doesn't make sense even in the MOST favorable conditions./ Cheers! Shc

hahahaha! Jokes on me then. I owe you guys a beer

"Minnesota Congresswoman Michelle Bachmann courted controversy today by claiming that falafel and other "jihadi foods" should be banned from school lunches in the United States. "Chris, falafel is a gateway food," responded Bachmann, "It starts with falafel, then the kids move on to shawarma. After a while they say 'hey this tastes good, I wonder what else comes from Arabia?' "I have no proof that President Obama is forcing our children to eat Arab and Middle Eastern food. But it would certainly fit the pattern." " ...lol Jihadi foods. seriously? I love shawarma :) and of course, the GOP hints at blaming Obama for Arab foods taking over our clean bodily fluids! Cheers! Shc

http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/73d14032-088e-11e2-b37e-00144feabdc0.html#axzz27sQ0GpVX "By Denise Roland Fish stocks across the world are declining faster than feared, with the smallest fisheries faring worst, a comprehensive study shows – but there is still time to turn the situation around. More than half of fisheries worldwide face shrinking stocks, with most of these in worse condition than previously thought, leading to yearly economic losses of $50bn. This more worrying picture emerged from the most wide-ranging and detailed analysis to date, led by scientists at the University of California Santa Barbara and published online by the journal Science. It applied stock patterns from the few hundred big fisheries for which abundant data are available to analyse thousands of fisheries which have never been formally assessed and about which much less is known. Prior studies produced skewed results by omitting these ‘data-poor’ or ‘unassessed’ fisheries – which account for 80 per cent of the global catch – and only focusing on the few hundred largest, ‘data-rich’ stocks. These earlier investigations tended to overestimate the global fish population since the most severe decline is found at smaller fisheries, where management is generally less scrupulous. The latest study showed that data-poor fisheries operate with an average of 64 per cent of the fish required to yield the largest sustainable catch, much less than data-rich fisheries where the average fish population was 94 per cent of this optimum." Cheers!

All I can say is: Poutine.

... The guy is war-prone, but he wants to protect Israel from nuclear weapon. There's nothing "deceiving" about that.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v7Zrin-5LfY&feature=relmfu Sums up quite nicely.