This debate between polar opposites is disturbing. The only thing more disturbing is that you both wholeheartedly believe in the correctness of your position.

10/8/2008 1:44:20 AM

Quote :

"In traditional technocracy, energy accounting determines production. Within the limits of resources and equality, consumer decide what they want."

And how is a consumer to know what is within the limits of resources and equality? What do you do to them if they refuse? Under capitalism it is easy; everything has a price dictated by its alternative uses, so you know you are operating within the resource limits if you are profitable. If all you look at is energy, then land, labor, and machines, which for accounting purposes are free, will be poorly allocated to whoever already has them.

IMStoned420, what would you have us do? This is not like abortion or global warming. There is no middle ground between totalitarian technocracy and any form of capitalism I know. So only one of us can be right.

10/8/2008 1:56:12 AM

those fiscally irresponsible are damning everyone ... dont take out a mortgage for a house you cant afford, its simple. and now we have to bail these morons out

someone mentioned before about how our possessions signify wealth? maybe i read that wrong but thats ridiculous. warren buffet, the wealthiest man in the world lives in the same 2 story house that he bought 20-30 years ago. jim goodnight who is worth billions opts to drive a older station wagon.

im far from knowledgeable in economic policy and legislation, but i do know the fundamentals and the importance of saving to ensure a future of living within a comfortable means

10/8/2008 2:08:43 AM

hooksaw is a fcking idiot to start this thread. damn, B. almost like saying The Fundamentals of the Economy are strong.

10/8/2008 2:49:35 AM

But the fundamentals are strong. Our people are educated, our labor markets are efficient, and our goods markets are free. We are a 1st world country, afterall. It doesn't mean we wont have a recession. Now, Zimbabwe, that is a country with poor fundamentals.

10/8/2008 9:06:36 AM

As the economy worsens, apparently the meaning of fundamentals broadens.

10/8/2008 9:15:39 AM

^ that's the truth.
Of course, McCain already broadened it about as far as it can go. "Our economy is fundamentally based on workers. We still have workers. Therefore, our economy is fundamentally strong."

10/8/2008 9:30:56 AM

Beginning of the end...






of falling home prices?


http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27084129/

10/8/2008 10:57:17 AM

U.S. Economy Still Most Competitive Despite Crisis, WEF Says

Quote :

"Oct. 8 (Bloomberg) -- The U.S. retained the title of most competitive nation for a fifth year even as its economy is roiled by the biggest financial crisis since the Great Depression, the World Economic Forum said. The U.S. led Switzerland, Denmark and Sweden in the Geneva- based organization's annual rankings of 134 nations, receiving top marks for innovation, the size of its markets and labor productivity. The efficiency of the world's largest economy may provide it with a cushion as it slides towards a recession and its banking sector continues to be hurt by last month's collapse of Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc. The U.S. government is beginning to implement a $700 billion finance-rescue package. 'Despite rising concerns about the soundness of the banking sector and other macroeconomic weaknesses, the country's many other strengths continue to make it a very productive environment,'' the report said of the U.S."

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601103&sid=aOt_B5qhjhqQ&refer=us

Likely responses: But, but. . .FUCK BUSH!!!1

10/8/2008 4:46:33 PM

lol, that's the best you can come up with? We really are in trouble if you can't find better material than that.

10/8/2008 4:56:46 PM

^ Um. . .yes. . .

Quote :

"The U.S. retained the title of most competitive nation for a fifth year even as its economy is roiled by the biggest financial crisis since the Great Depression, the World Economic Forum said. "

. . .seems pretty damned good to me. Even impressive, I'd say.

10/8/2008 5:09:06 PM

So is "competitive" the new "impressive"?

10/8/2008 5:54:25 PM

so relative to items does this rise in dollar just mean everything else can buy less items while the dollar can still buy the same items it could 10 days ago?

by dollar strength are we saying the dollar can just buy more of other currencies because the others are weaker or is the dollar actually more valuable than it was 2 weeks ago?

10/8/2008 5:55:53 PM

^^ Um. . .no. But the "most competitive nation for a fifth year" is still impressive. And let's get real: If the World Economic Forum had ranked the United States economy as the least competitive, you would have flapped in here immediately to screech about it.

10/9/2008 2:22:08 AM

^ If they had ranked the U.S. less competitive than Chad, Zimbabwe, Uganda, etc. I would have assumed their methodology was flawed.

Their interactive rankings on the institute's site are pretty interesting, but I am a sucker for detailed charts

Some detailed results - out of 134 countries

Where U.S. was top 5:

Available Seat Kilometers (availability of airplanes): 1st
Malaria Incidence: 1st
Tuberculosis Incidence: 1st
Quality of Management Schools: 3rd
Local Available of Research and Training Services: 1st
Intensity of Local Goods Market Competition: 4th
Degree of Customer Orientation: 5th
Buyer Sophistication: 5th
Firing Costs: 1st
Rigidity of Employment: 1st
Brain Drain: 1st
Financial Market Sophistication: 3rd (haha, wonder if that will change next time)
Venture Capital Availability: 1st
Strength of Investor Protection: 5th
Availability of Latest Technologies: 5th
Firm-level Technology Absorption: 3th
Domestic Market Size: 1st
Foreign Market Size: 2nd
State of Network Cluster Development: 2nd
Control of International Distribution: 4th
Extent of Marketing: 1st
Quality of Scientific Research Institutions: 1st
Company Spending on R&D: 3rd
University-Industry Research Collaboration: 1st
Gov't Procurement of Advanced Tech Products: 4th
Utility Patents: 4th

Where we currently suck

Wastefulness of Government Spending: 67th
Burden of Government Regulation: 50th
Business Costs of Terrorism: 127th
Business Costs of Crime and Violence: 83rd!
Organized Crime: 72nd!
Government Suplus/Deficit: 97th
National Savings Rate: 107th
Government Debt: 102nd
Business Impact of AIDS: 76th
HIV Prevalence: 86th
Primary Education Enrollment: 74th
Agricultural Policy Costs: 69th
Total Tax Rate: 74th
Imports: 131st (Don't know what that is measuring - fewer the better?)
Soundness of Banks: 40th (not terrible, but the type of figure you'd like to see higher)
Quality of Math and Science Education: 48th (ditto)

10/9/2008 9:47:49 AM

1111111111

10/9/2008 9:57:40 AM

great market moves today...most indices up about 11%...Dow back above 9,000...good for everyone

10/13/2008 4:06:44 PM

Dude... don't even mention the stock market in this thread.

10/13/2008 4:32:58 PM

huh?

10/13/2008 4:34:52 PM

Yeah, maybe because it's down like 30% in 3 weeks...

10/13/2008 5:11:22 PM

Dude, it just had it's largest gain ever.

10/13/2008 5:13:48 PM

seriously...the Dow gained over 900 points today...looks like the markets are rebounding from the last couple weeks...lets hope it keeps up

10/13/2008 5:17:33 PM

market =! economy

10/13/2008 5:55:03 PM

Lol at hooksaw cherry-picking a news report to try to redeem himself.

10/13/2008 6:03:42 PM

^^a 900 point gain in the dow = good for the economy

let alone the 11% increases in the NASDAQ, S&P and NYSE

[Edited on October 13, 2008 at 6:07 PM. Reason : .]

10/13/2008 6:06:42 PM

It's good if it's sustainable...

10/13/2008 7:29:36 PM

The bond market was closed today, so this might just be a one day occurrence.

It doesn't change the fact that the markets are down massively.

10/13/2008 7:48:33 PM

Stocks Mount in Strong All-Day Rally

Quote :

"Heavy Buying Starts at Opening Sentiment toward the stock market, from the very outset of the day showed improvement. Thousands of investors all over the country, owning their share certificates outright, had heeded the advice of their bankers and brokers not to sacrifice their holdings. In addition, the overnight developments had persuaded many thousands, at home and abroad, that stocks were a buy at these levels. A stupendous volume of cash was marshaled at the market's opening for the purchase of stocks. The banking consortium stood by with practically unlimited buying power to be thrown under leading stocks, if necessary. But, as it developed, the buying power furnished by investors was sufficient not only to stem the tide of the decline, but to start stocks along the road of recovery. Rich men bought stocks heavily yesterday. Poor men bought, too, as evidenced by the tremendous odd lot business transacted. The man of medium means, with surplus cash, rushed it to the market. Most of the big wire houses did the biggest business in their history, and the purchasing orders came from every section of the country. Bankers declared it the most remarkable exhibition of confidence in the country's prosperity and of its future they had ever seen. "

-October 31st, 1929

http://www.nytimes.com/library/financial/103129crash-mount.html

10/13/2008 9:13:22 PM

OMG, the stocks went down then came back up!


The only other time it has done that was the great depression!

10/13/2008 10:25:29 PM

Quote :

"Where we currently suck Wastefulness of Government Spending: 67th Burden of Government Regulation: 50th"

10/13/2008 10:33:26 PM

^^
Actually..

Quote :

"Biggest Percentage Gains March 15, 1933: 8.26 points, or 15.34 percent, to 62.10 Oct. 6, 1931: 12.86, or 14.87 percent, to 99.34 Oct. 30, 1929: 28.40, or 12.34 percent, to 258.47 Sept. 21, 1932: 7.67, or 11.36 percent, to 75.16 Oct. 13, 2008: 936.42, or 11.08 percent, to 8,387.61 Oct. 21, 1987: 186.84, or 10.15 percent, to 2,027.85 August 3, 1932: 5.06, or 9.52 percent, to 57.22 Feb. 11, 1932: 6.80, or 9.47 percent, to 78.60 Nov. 14, 1929: 18.59, or 9.36 percent, to 217.28 Dec. 18, 1931: 6.90, or 9.35 percent, to 80.69. "

http://www.forbes.com/feeds/ap/2008/10/13/ap5548724.html

10/13/2008 11:06:24 PM

^ what's your point.
most of those data points are from the Great Depression

10/13/2008 11:31:10 PM

The many contorted faces of IMStoned420:

Quote :

"Dude... don't even mention the stock market in this thread."

IMStoned420

message_topic.aspx?topic=500489&page=23

From page one (and in a number of other posts):

Quote :

"DOW down 361 points today (2.64%). "

IMStoned420

message_topic.aspx?topic=500489&page=1

Quote :

"market =! economy"

nutsuckr von nusssauger

Unless you need a talking point for political expediency, you fucking far-left moonbat.

10/13/2008 11:45:02 PM

According to the Bureau of Economic Analysis, under Clinton's regime, the GDP increased at an average of 3.858% per year (1993-2000*), while under the Bush regime, it increased an average of 2.320% per year (2001-2007*).

I should remind everyone that presidents usually have little to do with the economy. Clinton has the Microsoft and Google advantage and Bush has the 9/11 and housing crisis disadvantage.

*No data for 2008 yet. Also, I should have been more fair and started the ranges about one year later, to give their policies time to "affect the economy".

10/14/2008 12:43:37 AM

Quote :

"I should remind everyone that presidents usually have little to do with the economy."

You should keep reminding everyone here of this--and remind Obama, too, while you're at it.

Quote :

"OXFORD: The economic crisis sweeping the United States is the 'final verdict' on eight years of failed Republican policies, Democrat Barack Obama said Friday launching straight into the first 2008 presidential debate."

http://www.thenews.com.pk/updates.asp?id=56468

10/14/2008 1:06:42 AM

It is my understanding that it is very unusual for stock rebounds to occur so massively and so quickly. As such, I worry that people are trying to call bottom and beat the market. This is fine if in fact the drop was driven by irrational pessimism, which is very likely.

But, this means the rebound was driven by outsiders, not market insiders, which means it does not actually convey any information either good or bad.

10/14/2008 1:27:50 AM

Quote :

"what's your point. most of those data points are from the Great Depression"

That IS the point

[Edited on October 14, 2008 at 1:32 AM. Reason : .]

10/14/2008 1:31:49 AM

^^ It was a correction from the over-correction we saw over the last 2 weeks. The market is fishtailing while it tries to settle on a realistic valuation.

10/14/2008 1:40:35 AM

^^^ Yeah, yesterday's huge rally was obviously good news, but it's a snapshot. Anybody calling bottom is just guessing.

^ Agreed.

[Edited on October 14, 2008 at 1:44 AM. Reason : .]

10/14/2008 1:42:57 AM

^^

No I think there was real news over the weekend that is continuing today. Things are changing dramatically and the probability of Great Depression II are dropping by the minute. I think this is the source of the rally.

10/14/2008 8:57:07 AM

Quote :

"Unless you need a talking point for political expediency, you fucking far-left moonbat."

only idiots think the stock market is the economy. Are you saying you are an idiot?

10/14/2008 10:08:17 AM

^It would appear, then, that approximately 90% of Americans are idiots...

Can't say I disagree.

10/14/2008 10:10:44 AM

To hooksaw:

At a time when the stock market has dropped 30% in 3 weeks, mentioning it in a thread titled "The Impressive U.S. Economy" is retarded. You fucking far-right dipshit.

10/14/2008 10:19:19 AM

^Eh, this thread has kind of become a "Let's all post what the economy is doing right now" thread instead of a "Let's post why the economy is impressive" thread.

Besides, the irony is what makes it great.

10/14/2008 10:30:05 AM

Some interesting reading:

http://chronicle.com/temp/reprint.php?id=477k3d8mh2wmtpc4b6h07p4hy9z83x18

"The depression of 1929 is the wrong model for the current economic crisis

The problems had emerged around 1870, starting in Europe. In the Austro-Hungarian Empire, formed in 1867, in the states unified by Prussia into the German empire, and in France, the emperors supported a flowering of new lending institutions that issued mortgages for municipal and residential construction, especially in the capitals of Vienna, Berlin, and Paris. Mortgages were easier to obtain than before, and a building boom commenced. Land values seemed to climb and climb; borrowers ravenously assumed more and more credit, using unbuilt or half-built houses as collateral. The most marvelous spots for sightseers in the three cities today are the magisterial buildings erected in the so-called founder period.

But the economic fundamentals were shaky. Wheat exporters from Russia and Central Europe faced a new international competitor who drastically undersold them. The 19th-century version of containers manufactured in China and bound for Wal-Mart consisted of produce from farmers in the American Midwest. They used grain elevators, conveyer belts, and massive steam ships to export trainloads of wheat to abroad. Britain, the biggest importer of wheat, shifted to the cheap stuff quite suddenly around 1871. By 1872 kerosene and manufactured food were rocketing out of America's heartland, undermining rapeseed, flour, and beef prices. The crash came in Central Europe in May 1873, as it became clear that the region's assumptions about continual economic growth were too optimistic. Europeans faced what they came to call the American Commercial Invasion. A new industrial superpower had arrived, one whose low costs threatened European trade and a European way of life.

As continental banks tumbled, British banks held back their capital, unsure of which institutions were most involved in the mortgage crisis.The cost to borrow money from another bank — the interbank lending rate — reached impossibly high rates. This banking crisis hit the United States in the fall of 1873. Railroad companies tumbled first. They had crafted complex financial instruments that promised a fixed return, though few understood the underlying object that was guaranteed to investors in case of default. (Answer: nothing). The bonds had sold well at first, but they had tumbled after 1871 as investors began to doubt their value, prices weakened, and many railroads took on short-term bank loans to continue laying track. Then, as short-term lending rates skyrocketed across the Atlantic in 1873, the railroads were in trouble. When the railroad financier Jay Cooke proved unable to pay off his debts, the stock market crashed in September, closing hundreds of banks over the next three years. The panic continued for more than four years in the United States and for nearly six years in Europe.

As the panic deepened, ordinary Americans suffered terribly. A cigar maker named Samuel Gompers who was young in 1873 later recalled that with the panic, "economic organization crumbled with some primeval upheaval." Between 1873 and 1877, as many smaller factories and workshops shuttered their doors, tens of thousands of workers — many former Civil War soldiers — became transients. The terms "tramp" and "bum," both indirect references to former soldiers, became commonplace American terms. Relief rolls exploded in major cities, with 25-percent unemployment (100,000 workers) in New York City alone. Unemployed workers demonstrated in Boston, Chicago, and New York in the winter of 1873-74 demanding public work. In New York's Tompkins Square in 1874, police entered the crowd with clubs and beat up thousands of men and women. The most violent strikes in American history followed the panic, including by the secret labor group known as the Molly Maguires in Pennsylvania's coal fields in 1875, when masked workmen exchanged gunfire with the "Coal and Iron Police," a private force commissioned by the state. A nationwide railroad strike followed in 1877, in which mobs destroyed railway hubs in Pittsburgh, Chicago, and Cumberland, Md "


http://www.ci.green-bay.wi.us/geninfo/mayors_past/1873_panic.html

"After the end of the Civil War, railroad construction in the United States had been booming. By 1873 railroad mileage had doubled itself since 1869, and this was a cause of rash speculation. Between 1866 and 1873, 35,000 miles of new track were laid across the country. Banks and other industries were putting their money in railroads. While business was expanding the currency was contracting. Paper money had depreciated, and the conditions foreboded a crash. So when the banking firm of Jay Cooke and Company, a firm heavily invested in railroad construction, closed its doors on September 18, 1873, a major economic panic swept the nation.

Jay Cooke firm handled most of the government loans during the war and was financing the planned Northern Pacific Railroad. The first transcontinental railroad had been completed in 1869 and entrepreneurs planned the Northern Pacific as the second. Cooke’s firm was the financial agent in this venture and poured money into it. Then on September 18, 1873, the company realized it had overextended itself and declared bankruptcy.


The collapse was disastrous for the nation’s economy. Other strong institutions tottered and thousands of people in every rank of life were stricken with absolute ruin. The blow was felt for years in impaired credit, pressure for payment of dues, the lowering of securities and general dread of even safe enterprises. Savings were exhausted and many banks went under. The New York Stock Exchange closed its doors for ten days. Credit dried up, foreclosures were common. Factories closed, costing thousands of worker’s their jobs. A startling 89 of the country’s 364 railroads crashed into bankruptcy. In two years, a total of 18,000 businesses failed and by 1876, unemployment in this country was at 14 percent."

10/14/2008 10:36:57 AM

the Panic of 1873 and the Long Depression are what this event might turn into over the long haul.

10/14/2008 10:39:26 AM

Not at all. That depression had a heavy monetary component. While a recession was inevitable, it was the ensuing cash shortage which turned it into a depression (unlike the 1930s depression which was created by regime uncertainty). As such, the mere existance of a reasonably run Federal Reserve with well stocked printing presses curtails the negative monetary potential.

10/14/2008 12:24:39 PM

The panic of 1873 was caused by a lack of credit in the market.

10/14/2008 2:11:16 PM

That may be solved by this new unlimited commitment of cash (at our expense, of course) from the Fed...

10/14/2008 2:23:02 PM

Yes it was. But a credit panic does not by itself cause a four year long depression. Had the U.S. at that time not been on the gold standard and had our modern federal reserve, that crisis, like this one is, would have been limited to a recession. Unemployment would have shot up due to the collapse of export markets, many of America's largest banks did and would collapse, but the rest of the economy would not have collapsed with it due to the plentiful supply of cash flowing from the printing presses. Banks that did collapse would have quickly been replaced by the nation's smaller banks which had no exposure to the international fiasco.

10/14/2008 2:24:07 PM