However you wish to look at things the "Debt owned by the public jumped to $10.1 trillion in January 2012 from $5.75 trillion in January 2009." (It took decades for the US debt to rise to $5.75 trillion, but only 3 years to almost double it. All of this happened after TARP and other official bailouts were basically over.)

President Obama decided to deploy another 50,000 troops to Afghanistan to fight that expensive war that Bush had botched.  We were still fighting Bush's war in Iraq until one year ago.  Those wars cost a lot of money.  Income tax receipts to the federal treasury decreased and that added to the deficit.  Millions of people were kept in their homes by unemployment insurance. Unemployment payments, Medicaid, and food stamps added to the deficit.  The "prescription drug program" Bush launched was unfunded and added to the deficit.  You Republicans like to act like none of that would have happened if your "MBA President" had still been running things for the last four years.   

 

If we had not been making support payments like unemployment insurance, families would not have been able to keep their homes and dumped them on the market or been foreclosed upon.  The real estate market would have been in a deeper hole at a time when " banks weren't lending".  The US GDP would have decreased annually instead of getting the modest growth that occurred.

 

Something tells me that you have not been reading the same newspapers that I have. 

 

I will not engage in a political conversation on this thread. I am not a Republican or a Democrat and believe both parties are a mess and are owned by Wall Street and big business. Both groups continue to line Wall Street pockets and the banking groups. In my book, once you try and turn economics just into a political conversation you have already missed what is really going on.

 

 

Amen Rage.  The two parties continue their charade at the expense of this great nation.  All the public rhetoric keeps us busy while they are sitting at bipartisan lobbyist meals at 5 star restaurants sharing cigars and celebrating their success. 

 

 

Then how do you account for the four trillion dollar increase in the public debt, ragerunner?

It's your turn to do some work. You tell us.

Haven't you heard?

http://www.urbanohio.com/forum2/index.php/topic,17905.msg652739.html#msg652739

 

What, that you made some political comments and believe its all do to war and tax cuts?

 

Has war and tax cuts added to our debt levels. Absolutely. By a lot and any new wars or tax cuts will also do the same. But so has bailouts and efforts to keep interest rates artifically low (most of this is on the FEDs balance sheet) and Freddie and Fannie are their own 'side show' and in a different column of debt for the US. Remember I made the case that not only is the taxpayer on the hook for the official public debt, but also for the new 2 trillion on the FEDs balance sheet. A lot of the bailout efforts are on that FED sheet. From the discount window, and buying of mortgage-backed securities, etc.

The TARP bailout cost the taxpayers ~$60 billion and the GM bailout was ~$25 Billion.  They are small, incremental parts of the fiscal lamewreck that America has been involved in for the last decade.  The solar companies that failed were about a half a billion dollars.

 

If the Federal Reserve is bailing anybody out, then *that* is on the banks' accounts, not the public's accounts: http://www.urbanohio.com/forum2/index.php/topic,17905.msg652688.html#msg652688

Major reasons for recent increases in the national debt are listed below.  It's not as tin-foil hat worthy as some might like, but it is not as complicated as you might think:

 

- The Great Recession - $?? (this would include $800 billion stimulus, $400 billion Obama tax cuts, and $200 billion financial industry bailout, but does not account for the wealth which just evaporated into thin air when the crisis hit and the lost revenue which followed all of the layoffs and business closings)

 

- Bush tax cuts which were debt financed - $1.6 trillion

 

- The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan - $1.3 trillion (and rising)

 

- The massive rise in health care costs over the past 10 years - $1.1 trillion

 

- Medicare Part D which was debt financed - $300 billion

 

 

The TARP bailout cost the taxpayers ~$60 billion and the GM bailout was ~$25 Billion.  They are small, incremental parts of the fiscal lamewreck that America has been involved in for the last decade.  The solar companies that failed were about a half a billion dollars.

 

If the Federal Reserve is bailing anybody out, then *that* is on the banks' accounts, not the public's accounts: http://www.urbanohio.com/forum2/index.php/topic,17905.msg652688.html#msg652688

 

And I have made the case that the FED's (which is the central bank of the US) is at the end of the day backed by the US taxpayer as well (which makes 'bailouts' well into the Trillion+ column and growing). It's just another column on a balance sheet of debt. So is Freddie and Fannie and Medicare, etc.

 

Maybe the bigger point is, we don't have the ability to ever make good on all our debts as they stand today (I think its about $62 trillion dollars). Using any money to bailout wall street is a BIG waste of our very limited financial resources and is just lining pockets of the great and powerful Oz(s). It also has significantly reduced the concept of risk by these large financial instititutions. My other major point has been that housing should be allowed to return to the historic norms of home cost vs income (about 3x income). Any effort to artifically inflate home prices again is a bad use of financial resources and doesn't create affordability or long term stability in our economy.

Here is a link to a 'fun' little page.

 

http://www.usdebtclock.org/

If the deficit was ZERO companies would still send jobs overseas. No new jobs would be made because the deficit is ZERO. We are screwed because of greedy companies and shareholders.

 

All the above spending is not causing job losses. It's greed.

Major reasons for recent increases in the national debt are listed below.  It's not as tin-foil hat worthy as some might like, but it is not as complicated as you might think:

 

- The Great Recession - $?? (this would include $800 billion stimulus, $400 billion Obama tax cuts, and $200 billion financial industry bailout, but does not account for the wealth which just evaporated into thin air when the crisis hit and the lost revenue which followed all of the layoffs and business closings)

 

- Bush tax cuts which were debt financed - $1.6 trillion

 

- The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan - $1.3 trillion (and rising)

 

- The massive rise in health care costs over the past 10 years - $1.1 trillion

 

- Medicare Part D which was debt financed - $300 billion

 

 

 

I am not sure anything posted here is tin foil hat. It just is what it is. But it doesn't take away what is happening.

If the deficit was ZERO companies would still send jobs overseas. No new jobs would be made because the deficit is ZERO. We are screwed because of greedy companies and shareholders.

 

All the above spending is not causing job losses. It's greed.

 

Bingo and any bailouts that go to wall street and the banking industry through the official public debt, or the FEDs balance sheet is nothing more than greed.

I am not sure anything posted here is tin foil hat. It just is what it is. But it doesn't take away what is happening.

 

I am not a Republican or a Democrat and believe both parties are a mess and are owned by Wall Street and big business. Both groups continue to line Wall Street pockets and the banking groups.

 

 

I am not sure anything posted here is tin foil hat. It just is what it is. But it doesn't take away what is happening.

 

I am not a Republican or a Democrat and believe both parties are a mess and are owned by Wall Street and big business. Both groups continue to line Wall Street pockets and the banking groups.

 

 

 

Are you saying that the opinion that Wall Street and the big banks control the politicians is a tin foil hat type moment?

Citigroup cutting 11,000 jobs, taking $1 billion in charges

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/12/05/us-citigroup-jobs-idUSBRE8B40NY20121205

 

 

Finland's Economy Dips Into Recession

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324640104578160540815882884.html?mod=googlenews_wsj

 

 

SAIC cuts 700 jobs

"McLean-based SAIC Inc., in the midst of splitting into two separate companies, is cutting 700 jobs, about half of which are Washington area positions."

http://www.bizjournals.com/washington/news/2012/12/04/saic-cuts-700-jobs.html

 

^^Yup.  Do they have influence, probably even too much influence?  Absolutely.  But it is Tea Party and Occupy Wall Street worthy to say they "own" the two political parties or "control" the politicians.

^^Yup.  Do they have influence, probably even too much influence?  Absolutely.  But it is Tea Party and Occupy Wall Street worthy to say they "own" the two political parties or "control" the politicians.

 

I'm good with that. We have two different opinions. I do believe who ever controls the money supply is on the top of the power structure. History has taught us that and I don't believe we are that different.

 

With that said I don't believe they tell the politicans when to breath every time, but when Wall Street and the FEDs really want something, they get it.

Did Wall Street really want Dodd-Frank?

Major reasons for recent increases in the national debt are listed below.  It's not as tin-foil hat worthy as some might like, but it is not as complicated as you might think:

 

- The Great Recession - $?? (this would include $800 billion stimulus, $400 billion Obama tax cuts, and $200 billion financial industry bailout, but does not account for the wealth which just evaporated into thin air when the crisis hit and the lost revenue which followed all of the layoffs and business closings)

 

- Bush tax cuts which were debt financed - $1.6 trillion

 

- The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan - $1.3 trillion (and rising)

 

- The massive rise in health care costs over the past 10 years - $1.1 trillion

 

- Medicare Part D which was debt financed - $300 billion

 

I've seen numbers (and maybe these are guesses at what the final total will be) that have the costs of military adventurism in the Middle East in the past decade sitting closer to $3 or $4 trillion.

You are correct that before they were officially taken over that the Treasury would back them up. But now its official.

 

I believe I posted it several pages back that Freddie and Fannie are expected to asked for another bailout soon. You are correct that if things go great the debt risk shrinks and if things go bad again the debt risk rises rapidly.

 

I don't think that's right. The recent(ish) news about Fannie and Freddie was a restructuring of their payback obligations to make it less circular.  Before August, Fannie and Freddie were sometimes borrowing money from the Treasury to meet their obligations to pay back the 10% dividend on the preferred shares owed to...the Treasury.  Now they just shoot their profits right to the Treasury. They won't be retiring their bailout debt anytime soon, but I don't think they're expected to require any net new cash for the foreseeable future.  And I didn't say "if things go well, the debt risk shrinks."  Their book i much more resilient now because it's been purged of so much of the crap in their investment portfolio and the Alt A mortgages they were guaranteeing.  They've also hiked G fees and are more aggressive enforcing put-back rights.

 

Anyway, this is probably more detail than people care to hear, but the point is that Fannie and Freddie aren't out of the woods, but they no longer the teetering, ongoing money pits you imply either.  They aren't at all adding to the national debt now.  That kind of explicit federal exposure to default risk isn't great, but it's not a material fiscal issue at this point (which is why nobody is focusing on it).

Major reasons for recent increases in the national debt are listed below.  It's not as tin-foil hat worthy as some might like, but it is not as complicated as you might think:

 

- The Great Recession - $?? (this would include $800 billion stimulus, $400 billion Obama tax cuts, and $200 billion financial industry bailout, but does not account for the wealth which just evaporated into thin air when the crisis hit and the lost revenue which followed all of the layoffs and business closings)

 

- Bush tax cuts which were debt financed - $1.6 trillion

 

- The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan - $1.3 trillion (and rising)

 

- The massive rise in health care costs over the past 10 years - $1.1 trillion

 

- Medicare Part D which was debt financed - $300 billion

 

I've seen numbers (and maybe these are guesses at what the final total will be) that have the costs of military adventurism in the Middle East in the past decade sitting closer to $3 or $4 trillion.

 

I have seen those numbers too...... but the calculations included long-term care for wounded soldiers who were made life-long dependents due to their injuries.

Did Wall Street really want Dodd-Frank?

 

Lets wait and see what Dodd-Frank actually does and what gets implemented. Currently accounting rules for banks, etc. have been reduced to allow less mark to market on the balance sheet.

^I'm not following your thinking here

^I'm not following your thinking here

 

Maybe I should have made my comment more like this - sorry.

They may have not wanted Dobb-Frank but they are about as afraid of it as the SEC. A slap on the hand here and there and the party goes on.

U.S. jobless claims drop 25,000 to 370,000

Applications retreat for third straight week as effects of Sandy fade

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/us-jobless-claims-drop-25000-to-370000-2012-12-06?dist=lcountdown

 

 

Wall Street Job Reductions Seen Persisting After Citigroup Cuts

"Wall Street’s cost cuts and dismissals, which have helped erase more than 300,000 financial- industry jobs in the past two years, are far from over."

"Bank of America Corp. (BAC) and HSBC Holdings Plc (HSBA) said last year they would cut 30,000 jobs, and UBS AG (UBSN) announced in October that it would fire 10,000 workers and largely exit fixed-income trading. Banks are under pressure to cut costs as they earn returns on equity that are lower than their cost of capital.

Cuts may continue as executives look to boost stock valuations amid poor revenue growth in capital-markets businesses. Investment-banking and trading revenue at the 10 largest global firms may climb 2.8 percent this year to $148 billion, 32 percent below 2009 and 13 percent below 2010, according to data from industry analytics firm Coalition Ltd."

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-12-06/wall-street-job-reductions-seen-persisting-after-citigroup-cuts.html

 

 

The first half of the year or so the US was doing better than the year before, but that trend has reversed noticable.

 

Planned layoffs rise for third month in November: Challenger

"Employers announced 57,081 job cuts last month, the highest level since May and up nearly 20 percent from 47,724 in October, according to the report from consultants Challenger, Gray & Christmas, Inc.

November's job cuts were also up 34.4 percent from the 42,474 seen a year ago."

http://money.msn.com/business-news/article.aspx?feed=OBR&date=20121206&id=15872351

Households back to slashing debt, Fed says

"WASHINGTON (MarketWatch) — Households went back to shedding debt in the third quarter, with Americans repaying mortgages even as student and car loans piled up, the Federal Reserve said Thursday."

"In the third quarter, a 3% drop in mortgages more than offset the 4.3% increase in consumer credit, namely student and car loans.

While home prices have improved of late, they are still more than 25% below their peak levels, CoreLogic said last week."

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/households-back-to-slashing-debt-fed-says-2012-12-06-12103712?dist=afterbell

 

^I'm not following your thinking here

 

Maybe I should have made my comment more like this - sorry.

They may have not wanted Dobb-Frank but they are about as afraid of it as the SEC. A slap on the hand here and there and the party goes on.

 

Dodd-Frank is going to have more of a negative impact on community and regional banks than it is on the larger 'too big to fail' banks. They can absorb the costs and spread them out over numerous business lines, whereas a smaller bank, who's costs to comply with these regulations are going to be disporportionately higher, don't have the leverage to charge the higher fees necessary to make up for the higher costs (or the volume of customers to absorb those costs).

 

We get approached on average about once a month by smaller banks looking to sell in anticipation of the impact of Dodd Frank

^Which means it was nothing more than a conspiracy by the big bank controlled politicians to put their smaller counterparts out of business!!

well, duh!

Serious question now because I have read a bit about the fears of smaller banks and arguments in favor of exempting them from the Act all together.  Correct me if I'm wrong, but the overwhelming majority of regulations attached to Dodd-Frank do not apply to institutions with less than $50 billion in assetts.  Is it that the Act limits some of the profits smaller banks made from things such as debit card transactions?  What specifically are their concerns when they come to you?

We get a nice, after the elections, downward revision to September and Octobers numbers.

Also, with these revisions the 3 month average was only 127,333. Well below the standard of 150,000 jobs need each month just to take care of the incoming workforce.

 

U.S. economy adds 146,000 jobs as unemployment rate slips

"Hiring remained steady during the storm and in the face of looming tax increases. But the government said employers added 49,000 fewer jobs in October and September than it initially estimated.

And the unemployment rate fell to a four-year low in November from 7.9 percent in October mostly because more people stopped looking for work and weren't counted as unemployed."

http://www.ibj.com/us-economy-adds-146000-jobs-unemployment-falls-to-77-percent/PARAMS/article/38377

 

 

Consumer sentiment nose-dives in December

"The preliminary University of Michigan-Thomson Reuters consumer sentiment index fell to 74.5 from 82.7 in November."

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/consumer-sentiment-nose-dives-in-december-2012-12-07?dist=lcountdown

 

 

All that talk about the boomers leaving the workforce might be a little premature.

 

Number Of Workers Aged 25-54 Back To April 1997 Levels

"...after all the thesis is that old workers are increasingly dropping out of the labor force and retiring. Nothing could be further from the truth as can be seen in this chart of workers aged 55-69, i.e. the prime retirement age. But perhaps a far more important secular issue is the complete lack of pickup in the prime worker demographic, those aged 25-54, which in November dropped by 400k to 94 MM. This is a level first breached in April 1997, in other words in the past 15 years not a single incremental job has been gained in this most productive and lucrative of age groups!"

 

 

Source: St. Louis FED

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2012-12-07/number-workers-aged-25-54-back-april-1997-levels

We get a nice, after the elections, downward revision to September and Octobers numbers.

 

Blasted conpiracies!

 

Negative revisions are par for the course these days.

 

 

All that talk about the boomers leaving the workforce might be a little premature.

 

 

^^ Going back to the graphs about the number of worker. I think that you are thinking about this wrong. There is really nothing too shocking in what this showing. The leading edge of the boomers has just started reaching retirement age, so that 55-69 segment of the work force is just going to increase in numbers  until the people born in the peak years of the baby boom start to finally retire. And as far as the 25-24 segment graph, yes we lost a lot of jobs but the population distribution behind the boomers who left this demographic during this time period is pretty flat, ie the number of people of turning 55 in a year equals the number turning 25.

Cross-posted this chart here - http://www.urbanohio.com/forum2/index.php/topic,28021.new.html#new.  Again, this goes to the point that whatever our economic problems are, they are the result of long-term trends which we must first find a way to reverse if there is any hope or possibility of returning to the type of growth people seem to think just occurs naturally through the free market....

 

Tyler Durden is such a hack writer.  Blogs suffer because they don't have editors.

 

What is "incremental job" in reference to?  Is that a term from business school?  His second sentence isn't a sentence.  His third sentence is laced with conspiracy and is grossly obtuse.  This clown is acting like he doesn't know there has been a banking collapse causing  mass unemployment.

This is a level first breached in April 1997, in other words in the past 15 years not a single incremental job has been gained in this most productive and lucrative of age groups!

 

Furthermore, there is absolutely no demographic reason why America, which has a substantial natural growth rate across all demographics, should not see more workers from the younger age cohorts enter this age group. We are, however, confident one will promptly be discovered as this chart becomes prevalent in the mainstream media.

BTW, I was trying to find a graph that showed the US population from the 2010 census by the year the person was born to illustrated what I was saying. I did a couple of google searches but struck out. Has anyone seen one?

 

 

 

All that talk about the boomers leaving the workforce might be a little premature.

 

 

^^ Going back to the graphs about the number of worker. I think that you are thinking about this wrong. There is really nothing too shocking in what this showing. The leading edge of the boomers has just started reaching retirement age, so that 55-69 segment of the work force is just going to increase in numbers  until the people born in the peak years of the baby boom start to finally retire. And as far as the 25-24 segment graph, yes we lost a lot of jobs but the population distribution behind the boomers who left this demographic during this time period is pretty flat, ie the number of people of turning 55 in a year equals the number turning 25.

 

That makes a lot of sense.  Of course there are a lot more 55-69 year old workers than there used to be; there are a lot more 55-69 year olds than there used to be, period, because of demographics (baby boomers) and advances in healthcare.  Notice that the charts include there don't take into account the percentage of the 55-69 age group that is working, only raw numbers. 

http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2012/12/07/employment-situation-november

 

33 straight months of private sector job growth.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2012/12/07/employment-situation-november

 

33 straight months of private sector job growth.

 

The question is, is the growth enough to employ the incoming workforce and take care of those looking/needing jobs? Plus I have posted several articles showing that the income for the jobs being gained are not replacing the income levels of the jobs being lost.

We get a nice, after the elections, downward revision to September and Octobers numbers.

 

Blasted conpiracies!

 

 

Negative revisions are par for the course these days.

 

The difference was, almost every major data point from September/October was revised down. You are correct, it is par for the course that the initial data that makes the headlines is usually revised lower at a later date. But, I need to be careful. Hts121 will give me another tinfoiled hat again.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2012/12/07/employment-situation-november

 

33 straight months of private sector job growth.

 

The question is, is the growth enough to employ the incoming workforce and take care of those looking/needing jobs? Plus I have posted several articles showing that the income for the jobs being gained are not replacing the income levels of the jobs being lost.

I consider it much better than losing 800k a month when the president first got in there.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2012/12/07/employment-situation-november

 

33 straight months of private sector job growth.

 

The question is, is the growth enough to employ the incoming workforce and take care of those looking/needing jobs? Plus I have posted several articles showing that the income for the jobs being gained are not replacing the income levels of the jobs being lost.

I consider it much better than losing 800k a month when the president first got in there.

 

Agreed and have said so in the past. We are clearly not still in the depths of the Great Recession. But we are basically stuck in neutral economically and are starting to slide back down the slope. That is way I think we have a very good chance for another recession in 2013. Of course if we do another major round of stimulus we may kick the can again.

 

But, this doesn't take away the question, are we currently (last 6 months) adding enough jobs to take care of the incoming workforce and reduce the unemployment levels? And are the jobs that are being created replacing previous standard of living/income?

 

The other reason I have kept posting on this thread is to show that we have some very large underlining economic structural issues that are really keeps the US from returning to a strong growth rate. Not to get back into that subject (because we beat it to death several pages back).

He is not superman. What do businesses want. pay no taxes at all? They would still send jobs across seas. Bush gave them the tools to succeed(lower taxes). What they do? Lay off and send jobs across seas. There is nothing anyone can do  at this point. They tried everything in the book. Instead the rich got richer and the poor got poorer.

Jobs, Pay and standard of living.

 

Laid-off workers are finding new jobs, but they often pay far less than previous positions

"An analysis last year by the National Employment Law Project found that most of the jobs created during this weak recovery have been in lower-wage occupations, paying between $7.51 to $13.52 per hour. Most of the jobs lost during the recession were in mid-wage occupations with hourly salaries ranging from $13.53 to $20.66."

http://www.cleveland.com/business/index.ssf/2012/03/laid_off_workers_are_finding_n.html

 

 

U.S. Income Gap Rose, Sign of Uneven Recovery

"The numbers helped drive an overall decline in income for the typical American family. Median household income after inflation fell to $50,054, a level that was 8 percent lower than in 2007, the year before the recession took hold."

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/13/us/us-incomes-dropped-last-year-census-bureau-says.html?_r=0

 

So not only is job growth not keeping up with the incoming workforce needs, but income from a many of the new jobs make that person/family poorer than before. I have said this before, we can get the unemployment rate down to 4%, but if its based off of what we have been doing, than more US citizens will be poorer than before, gaining less skills for future employment opportunities and reducing GDP growth for the entire economy. If this is the road of the future than home prices and many other things will have to fall noticably to have any hope at rebalancing with the incomes of the overall population.

 

So we can look at charts all day long and say, at least its not as bad as before, but if a large part of our society ends up poorer than before, than we have some REALLY big issues. Is this the best we can do as a nation? Is all that we really have left is to try and blow more housing and stock market bubbles and have the FEDs buy all of our own treasury bonds in an effort to keep interest rates low no matter what the cost?

He is not superman. What do businesses want. pay no taxes at all? They sould still send jobs across seas. Bush gave them the tools to succeed(lower taxes). What they do? Lay off and send jobs across seas. There is nothing anyone can do  at this point. They tried everything in the book. Instead the rich got richer and the poor got poorer.

 

I understand people have a lot of strong political views, but I really don't want this to turn into a Republican and Democrat discussion.

I'm sure the moderators will control the discussion, if necessary.  No one poster gets to choose its direction or tone.

 

Here's where I think you run into problems here, ragerunner.  This board is comprised of a fairly well-informed and highly educated group.  We all know how to access the three news sites you routinely and selectively stream into the thread.  Most of us purposely avoid the slanted/bias sites you also reference on occassion.  We all are generally aware of global economic conditions and the general forecast.  You really don't have to regurgitate the same data points month after month, especially when your viewpoint of the topic is already well-documented and known.  As has been mentioned many times, this is a discussion forum, not a blog.  By turning it into a blog, your political undertones, as much as you might want to deny them, are not nearly as subtle as you think they are.

I think too many people expect too much in too little of time. If companies operate in the long term instead of the short term the economy would be booming. Sadly it's all about maximizing profits no matter if it's good or bad for the company in the long term. I remember years ago many companies went through years of losses and didn't cut jobs. Now they cut jobs when making profits.

I'm sure the moderators will control the discussion, if necessary.  No one poster gets to choose its direction or tone.

 

Here's where I think you run into problems here, ragerunner.  This board is comprised of a fairly well-informed and highly educated group.  We all know how to access the three news sites you routinely and selectively stream into the thread.  Most of us purposely avoid the slanted/bias sites you also reference on occassion.  We all are generally aware of global economic conditions and the general forecast.  You really don't have to regurgitate the same data points month after month, especially when your viewpoint of the topic is already well-documented and known.  As has been mentioned many times, this is a discussion forum, not a blog.  By turning it into a blog, your political undertones, as much as you might want to deny them, are not nearly as subtle as you think they are.

 

If you already know all this stuff and you know all the places I go. Why even visit this thread? You don't add much information for people to review? You make general comments, tell people they wear tinfoil hats and that you know their political opinions. And if you really want to have a political discussion start another thread and go for it. Plus, its apparent you would be surprised who I vote for.

 

If you find it useless just don't click on the button that sends you to this thread.

 

Apparently some people find this thread of some interest. It has almost 231,000 reads. Add in the original housing/recession thread that had about 250,000 view (if I remember correctly) and you have almost 500,000 reads.

I think too many people expect too much in too little of time. If companies operate in the long term instead of the short term the economy would be booming. Sadly it's all about maximizing profits no matter if it's good or bad for the company in the long term. I remember years ago many companies went through years of losses and didn't cut jobs. Now they cut jobs when making profits.

 

Wouldn't it be great if that type of business philosophy came back and what Wall Street thought had less value? Matter of fact that might just be some of those underlining structural economic issues.

How the Rich Rule

By Sheldon Richman, vice president and editor at The Future of Freedom Foundation and author of Tethered Citizens: Time to Repeal the Welfare State.

 

http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/how-the-rich-rule/

I think too many people expect too much in too little of time. If companies operate in the long term instead of the short term the economy would be booming. Sadly it's all about maximizing profits no matter if it's good or bad for the company in the long term. I remember years ago many companies went through years of losses and didn't cut jobs. Now they cut jobs when making profits.

 

Wouldn't it be great if that type of business philosophy came back and what Wall Street thought had less value? Matter of fact that might just be some of those underlining structural economic issues.

 

Also exemplified in micro-trading, versus Buffett-style investment of taking stock in good ideas. That technology enables micro-trading, I think, is not a coincidence. Technological advancement has given us all short attention spans and a craving for instant gratification.