^ First and probably last time ever... but I agree with you. It doesn't look as though the economy is going to hit a recession, despite the fact that housing is doing terrible. It could still possibly happen because it's hard to forecast what will happen next month much less a year from now. The future does look somewhat bright though.

10/30/2007 10:20:32 PM

Quote :

"Oh? Last I checked in a free market economy there was no "control" domestic or otherwise. Business managers do with their property whatever they wish within the law, whether they are in Raleigh, New York, or Beijing."

You pretty much contradicted yourself and conceded my point in this very statement.

10/30/2007 10:41:13 PM

Are you suggesting that owners in Beijing managing a company operating in Raleigh are operating under some other set of laws than those found in Raleigh? If they do so then just arrest the local managers and enforce the law; DuH. Are you still that slow? You know you still owe me $100 right?

10/30/2007 11:30:24 PM

Let me help you out LoneSnark.

Quote :

""Oh? Last I checked in a free market economy there was no "control" domestic or otherwise. Business managers do with their property whatever they wish within the law, whether they are in Raleigh, New York, or Beijing.""

Little nitpicky, but I'd have to side with SandSanta.

10/30/2007 11:35:41 PM

^ You're taking on LoneSnark concerning economics? Just so you know, you will lose.

10/30/2007 11:51:40 PM

Quote :

"Are you suggesting that owners in Beijing managing a company operating in Raleigh are operating under some other set of laws than those found in Raleigh?[quote] Don't divert the argument with mundane details that aren't essential to my main point. [quote] And the exponential increase on the dependence of cheap foreign labor and materials. Stability doesn't have to be defined strictly in terms of the reduction of risk, stability can also be defined by domestic control of most economic factors, and thats most definitely no longer the case. "

By domestic control, I'm not referring strictly to congress legislating prosperty but rather the fact that future growth, expansion, and profit lay in sectors outside of the United States. Emerging markets will dictate global financial policy and free market resource allocation and none of that bodes well for a nation that historically has been the focal point of of both.

Quote :

"Are you still that slow? You know you still owe me $100 right?"

I've stated in public and via PM that I won't honor our bet. Given that you have no way of enforcing it, I actually owe you nothing.


[Edited on October 30, 2007 at 11:55 PM. Reason : >.<]

10/30/2007 11:54:58 PM

Quote :

"You're taking on LoneSnark concerning economics? Just so you know, you will lose."

Your opinion has been duly noted and promptly disregarded.

10/30/2007 11:56:22 PM

^ Your mistake.

10/30/2007 11:59:57 PM

Quote :

"Your opinion has been duly noted and promptly disregarded."

10/31/2007 12:12:21 AM

Quote :

"^ Your mistake."

10/31/2007 12:22:56 AM

Quote :

"there are just too many areas of the economy that are doing well"

Name 10?

10/31/2007 7:52:54 AM

Quote :

"By domestic control, I'm not referring strictly to congress legislating prosperty but rather the fact that future growth, expansion, and profit lay in sectors outside of the United States. Emerging markets will dictate global financial policy and free market resource allocation and none of that bodes well for a nation that historically has been the focal point of of both."

Again, what do I care whether resources are being allocated in New York, Amsterdam, or Beijing? Did the fact that they were being allocated in New York not 'bode well' for the people of Canada or France? If they did not work in that industry then it did not affect them at all. All that American citizens care about is that the resources are allocated to their highest valued uses. If it turns out the Chinese do not allocate resources well then sellers and buyers will re-locate somewhere better, such as back to London where a sizeable percentage of trades take place today (kinda negates your theory that Americans were at the center of allocating resources before now, but I digress). Then again, resource allocation is the responsibility of resource owners, not the exchanges. And resource ownership really is not going to change very much in the future (OPEC still owns much of the oil, has for fifty years).

Quote :

"Given that you have no way of enforcing it, I actually owe you nothing."

Now now, don't take it so personally. It was a stupid bet, you accepted it for poor reasons, I know. But I do have the right to be a dick about it and keep mentioning it everytime you post.

Quote :

"Name 10?"

How fine can I cut the 10? In general the only market in trouble is a small section of debt markets.
1. Labor markets (4.7%, woo hoo!)
2. Wage growth (4.0% a year!)
3. Inflation (Less than 2%! Lowest in years!)
4. Currency markets (a low dollar helps correct other imbalances)
5. Trade deficit (falling fast)
6. Government deficit (falling faster)
7. Export sector (growing 13% a year!)
8. Technology sector (still booming, record profits, record employment, etc)
9. Resource sector (still booming, record profits, 10 year highs for employment, etc)
10. Commercial realestate (stable growth, high profits, no sign of overbuilding)

[Edited on October 31, 2007 at 8:26 AM. Reason : ^]

10/31/2007 8:14:39 AM

I agree on 1, 2, possibly 4, 7, 8, 9, and 10. That leaves 3, 5, and 6.

3. This is not taking into account food and energy. I understand that people don't include these in their measurement of inflation because they can be volatile. But that doesn't change the fact that people still have to pay for them. If you count things that people are expected to have but aren't capital goods (health care, cost of college tuition for families, etc.) then inflation is actually outpacing wage growth at the moment.

5. The trade deficit might be falling fast, but that doesn't change the fact that it's still hundreds of billions of dollars in the red. This is more of a market effect that is hard to control, but it's clearly obvious that there is still a lot of work left to do if the goal is to climb back into the black, which it may or may not be. Even trade balances aren't that important in the grand scheme of things.

6. Again, it might be falling, but that doesn't change the fact that it's still plunging us hundreds of billions of dollars a year further into debt. This is a much more important issue because it's something we have direct control over. Irresponsible fiscal policies adopted over the past 7 years (changing from a balanced budget to a massive debt) are helping to ensure that the deficit will continue to grow for years to come unless taxes are increased or programs are cut. There's absolutely no reason why the government should not be able to work within the budget they set for themselves. I place the blame for the current massive debt squarely on the current administration and past Congress. They created a mess that the Democrats will have to fix for the good of the country but take a political hit at the same time. Almost like they planned it that way...

Other than these areas, your list is pretty accurate. The US economy is very strong right now despite some setbacks which is just a testament to how resilient it is. One thing to watch though is the price of oil. It's been skyrocketing lately and if it keeps that trend up we might be in trouble. Also, the stock market is unstably high at the moment and if something were to happen there it would also be very bad. These two things might go hand in hand actually.

10/31/2007 9:22:20 AM

Quote :

"1. Labor markets (4.7%, woo hoo!)"

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/06/business/06data.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

Quote :

"Even with the revisions, job growth over the last six months has averaged 112,000 a month, a figure that is the lowest for any six months since early 2004, when the economy was recovering from a period when jobs declined at the fastest rate since 1975. Moreover, there are reasons to think the latest figures will be revised lower. “There is an unmistakable deterioration in the job numbers over the last three months, six months, one year and two years,” said Robert Barbera, the chief economist of ITG, a financial analysis firm. A gain of 112,000 jobs a month is about half the growth in the population of working-age Americans, which is one reason the unemployment rate has risen to 4.7 percent in September from a low of 4.4 percent in March. "

I'll check out your other numbers later.

Additionally:

http://web-xp2a-pws.ntrs.com/content//media/attachment/data/econ_research/0710/document/dd102507.pdf

The durable goods picture and jobless claims looks great also!

10/31/2007 9:25:09 AM

^ Part of the reason is that a shitload of information jobs were lost in August when the whole mortgage thing was taking place. I think that was the first time a net monthly loss happened since like 2001 or something. That was probably enough to spike unemployment up .3%.

10/31/2007 10:13:41 AM

IMStoned420:

3. We are trying to track inflation, which is the erosion of the value of the dollar by monetary forces, not whether or not people pay more for things. The goods you mention: food, energy, college tuition, etc, are rising not because of inflation but because the resources of society are being shifted to favor the providers. That the providers of these goods are raking in huge profits means their input prices are not rising, all that is rising is the prices they charge, and pocketing the difference as profit. As such, you can say that the markets for these goods are broken due to either insuficient competition or insufficient supply, but you cannot say they are a sign of inflation.

5. Sure, but like you said I doubt the goal is to get into the black, just to get halt the slide of the dollar

6. Yes, it is still in deficit which is inexcusable with tax receipts rising 11% a year. But, the deficit is smaller than annual GDP growth, so while the debt is still growing in absolute terms, it is shrinking relative to our ability to pay.

[Edited on October 31, 2007 at 10:18 AM. Reason : .,.]

10/31/2007 10:17:02 AM

We can thank George W for #3 ^

Conservatives bitch about liberals giving handouts to the poor; the problem with the current administration is that they tweaked the economy to give more big profits to big corporations

10/31/2007 10:25:03 AM

Quote :

"3. We are trying to track inflation, which is the erosion of the value of the dollar by monetary forces, not whether or not people pay more for things. The goods you mention: food, energy, college tuition, etc, are rising not because of inflation but because the resources of society are being shifted to favor the providers. That the providers of these goods are raking in huge profits means their input prices are not rising, all that is rising is the prices they charge, and pocketing the difference as profit. As such, you can say that the markets for these goods are broken due to either insuficient competition or insufficient supply, but you cannot say they are a sign of inflation."

Doesn't inflation also refer to the buying power of a single dollar over time? If milk cost $2/gal last week and $3/gal this week, my dollar is worth less. It doesn't matter to the individual(s) who need to buy that product where the money goes. All they know is that what they could afford yesterday is now out of reach. I get what you're saying about inflation being tracked by measuring the economy as a whole. But you're looking at it from a macro view and I'm seeing it more from a micro view. Seems like the opposite of the trickle down effect, if there is such a thing.

10/31/2007 10:33:23 AM

anyone reading page 3 of this thread will wonder what this has to do with attacking Iran. Then again, this all ties into the doom of the US attacking Iran and the economic repercussions.

10/31/2007 10:47:16 AM

^ The same thought has crossed my mind for the past page and a half. It's turned into a good discussion though, so roll with it...

10/31/2007 11:02:51 AM

IMStoned420, you admit that what you are tracking is not inflation, merely loss of consumer surplus. But, here is the fundamental difference: inflation is permanent, producer surplus is not. As production grows, consumption slacks, and profits get eaten away by competition, then prices will fall back to their old position + 2% inflation. It will not be deflation when the price of gasoline drops back to below $2 a gallon, it will simply be the restoration of normalcy.

This may take a long time. In the case of food it will require a shift in Government policy away from Ethanol production. In the case of tuition it will require the founding of new universities, the expansion of old ones, and training lots more professors.

10/31/2007 12:57:06 PM

Inflation
http://tinyurl.com/25mkuq

10/31/2007 8:45:18 PM

how much better than iraq is iran?

11/1/2007 3:05:45 AM

Quote :

"Again, what do I care whether resources are being allocated in New York, Amsterdam, or Beijing? Did the fact that they were being allocated in New York not 'bode well' for the people of Canada or France? If they did not work in that industry then it did not affect them at all. All that American citizens care about is that the resources are allocated to their highest valued uses. If it turns out the Chinese do not allocate resources well then sellers and buyers will re-locate somewhere better, such as back to London where a sizeable percentage of trades take place today (kinda negates your theory that Americans were at the center of allocating resources before now, but I digress). Then again, resource allocation is the responsibility of resource owners, not the exchanges. And resource ownership really is not going to change very much in the future (OPEC still owns much of the oil, has for fifty years)."

American's currently are the center of global resource 'allocation' by virtue of being the largest consumer base of everything in the world. My central point is that this might not be the case ten - fifteen years from now. What does that mean? I don't know. We're a service based economy centered around serving ourselves.

11/1/2007 11:14:09 AM

Fascinating insight, SantaSand. Wait, don't you owe me $100?

[Edited on November 1, 2007 at 11:13 PM. Reason : .,]

11/1/2007 11:13:40 PM

We must be living in an American service based economy because SandSanta just got served!


(I'm so, so sorry)


(Not really)

[Edited on November 2, 2007 at 12:17 AM. Reason : bitches love smileys]

11/2/2007 12:17:02 AM

LoneSnark pwnt NoChance

11/2/2007 6:51:08 AM

Just want to point out that going into Iran is no longer IF, but WHEN.

11/8/2007 9:52:02 AM

Well, oil is $100 a barrel. Iran has oil. Let's invade them and take theirs. That is sure to work right? RIGHT?!?!

11/8/2007 9:58:57 AM

War in Iraq really was a waste. W did not even bring us lower oil prices which was the primary reason for going there. I guess omar, sabeeb, and yusef blowing themselves up everywhere causes too much instability to get the oil pipes flowing good.

11/8/2007 12:19:14 PM

HUR, it is equally easy to believe they invade Iraq for the purpose of driving up oil prices.

11/8/2007 2:28:33 PM

Fox News anchor calling for USA-sponsored terrorism inside Iran. Classy.

11/9/2007 12:03:02 PM

There's certainly plenty of precedent for that type of thing in Cold War Latin America

11/9/2007 12:09:44 PM

Iran nuclear drive 'a grave threat': French FM

Quote :

"JERUSALEM (AFP) — Iran's controversial nuclear programme is one of the gravest threats currently facing the world, French Foreign Minister Bernard Kouchner was quoted as saying in an interview in Israel on Sunday. 'The Iranian nuclear programme is one of the gravest crises currently hanging over world order,' he was quoted as saying in the Haaretz newswpaper, while also insisting on 'reaching a negotiated settlement agreeable to all.' The UN Security Council has still to decide whether to impose a third round of sanctions on Tehran, which the West fears is trying to covertly develop a nuclear weapon. Iran says its nuclear programme is only for peaceful purposes."

http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5gecwG3lqSEWwB64yg6ArHsf4vaGQ

Report Raises New Doubts on Iran Nuclear Program

Quote :

"VIENNA, Nov. 15 — The International Atomic Energy Agency said in a report on Thursday that Iran had made new but incomplete disclosures about its past nuclear activities, missing a critical deadline under an agreement with the agency and virtually assuring a new push by the United States to impose stricter international sanctions. In the report, the agency confirmed for the first time that Iran had reached the major milestone of 3,000 operating centrifuges, a tenfold increase from just a year ago. In theory, that means that it could produce enough uranium to make a nuclear weapon within a year to 18 months."

Quote :

"The report made clear that even while providing some answers, Iran has continued to shield many aspects of its nuclear program. Iran's 'cooperation has been reactive rather than proactive,' the report said, adding that because of restrictions Iran has placed on inspectors the agency's understanding of the full scope of Iran's nuclear program is 'diminishing.' The Bush administration, which suspects Iran of having a nuclear weapons program, seized on the report's findings as evidence of Tehran’s determination to forge ahead with its nuclear program in defiance of the United Nations Security Council. 'We think that today's report does not in any way, shape or form answer the questions that the U.N. Security Council has had about Iran's nuclear program,' R. Nicholas Burns, the under secretary of state for political affairs, said. 'Nothing in today's I.A.E.A. report alleviates our major concern that Iran is trying to develop the technology that would lead to a nuclear capability.' The British Foreign Office, meanwhile, urged Tehran to 'come clean on all outstanding issues without delay.' The report clearly acknowledges that Iran has ignored for more than a year the Security Council’s demand that it stop enriching uranium."

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/16/world/middleeast/16nuke.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1&hp

Does anybody here really think Iran doesn't want a nuclear weapon?

11/19/2007 12:42:53 AM

if they didnt before, after the constant threats and sanctions by the US, they do now

it seems real strange to me that IRAN's tone has changed since Putin visited.
i think he told AJ that he will be backed and to be confident, since then his tone has changed
also i think part of the reason gas prices are high is because opec refuses to raise production, because of america's threats against iran

11/19/2007 12:46:45 AM

^ Jumpin' Jesus on a pogo stick! Now that's blame-America-first agitprop if I ever heard it! Just, "Wow."

Quote :

"if they didnt before, after the constant threats and sanctions by the US UN, they do now"

Fixed.

[Edited on November 19, 2007 at 1:10 AM. Reason : .]

11/19/2007 1:09:34 AM

how about blame who's responsible, i dont have a complex since i blame the USA for some things and IRAN for others,
you and your people seem to blame EVERYTHING on someone else
you're in the 'blame someone else first' crowd,

check yourself before you wreck yourself
ICE CUBE

11/19/2007 1:13:40 AM

^ You have no retort.

11/19/2007 1:27:42 AM

attacking Iran would be retarded. We barely have enough troops in Iraq as it is, and Iran is a much bigger country. Why not let other countries attack Iran instead of the US? They seem to be pissing off enough people.

11/19/2007 7:21:39 AM

b.c other countries have no need to. Compared to other global events; Iran is relativly non-problematic. Perhaps your time may be better spent as to why the US/Iran has shitty relations instead of wasting time beating the war drum.

Quote :

"also i think part of the reason gas prices are high is because opec refuses to raise production, because of america's threats against iran"

Are you telling me OPEC hates our freedom too!?!?!? [/sarcasm]

11/19/2007 9:27:14 AM

Didn't we already invade Iran? or was that Iraq? what's the difference?

11/19/2007 10:14:45 AM

On CNN today I overheard that Bush came up of the ORIGINAL and GREAT idea to arm Afghanistan local militias to help aid battle the War on Terror and the remnants of the Taliban.

We should have in the 1980's helped out the Mujahideen with guns and money to fight those communists. oh wait a second......

11/19/2007 12:59:50 PM