Unemployment rate hits 10 (10.2) % [Archive]

Rodimus Prime

Nov 6, 2009, 10:38 AM

And interestingly enough, if you look at the the recessions since 1970 and correlate who was in office to the start time of the recessions, it's sort of interesting:

Nov 1973 - Nixon (R)
Jan 1980 - Carter (D)
Jul 1981 - Reagan (R)
Jul 1990 - Bush (R)
Mar 2001 - Bush (R)
Dec 2007 - Bush (R)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_recessions_in_the_United_States

Minus the fact the resession for Mar 2001 was more under Clinton (D). Not enough time for Bush to any effect on it. (less than 2 months in office) and economy started falling apart while Clinton was in office.

As for the unemployment rate. What ever happen to Obama promise of Unemployment will not pass 9% (or was it 8%) either way it is another one of his growing list of broken promises. It goes to show me Obama is same lieing scumbags politians we have had for decades now. Only differences i the changing of the face. Same scumbag new face.
But it wasn't a lie when people who no longer started looking for jobs weren't counted as unemployed during Herr Bush?

BTW- jobs are the last thing to come back after a recession, just so ya know. ;)

I might buy the argument we are getting out of a ression if the job losses was not still at 6 figures. Come on it was a huge deal with the job loss in a month crossed the 6 figures number and now they media saying it is a great thing that the job loss for last month was UNDER 200k. Sorry. I will not consider this session over until the job loss at least gets back under 6 figures.

As it stands over 13 mil people are with out work (job loss plus 150k every month to account for work force growth). It is just getting worse. So much for making things better. 10 months in and no improvement.

Shivetya

Nov 6, 2009, 10:47 AM

You do realize that no one is going to take you seriously when you toss around crap like "Comrade Obama" and use the socialist Joker image of him, especially when the Joker was an anarchist which is the complete opposite of socialist, don't you?

I like Führer Bush better ;)

Actually Obama is closer than Bush ever was. Obama with the help of Reid, Pelosi, and Frank, are neatly integrating corporate interest with the government to the point they may become inseparable. With their direct to Wall Street expenditures it certainly isn't the common man who benefits.

NT1440

Nov 6, 2009, 10:48 AM

As it stands over 13 mil people are with out work (job loss plus 150k every month to account for work force growth). It is just getting worse. So much for making things better. 10 months in and no improvement.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but historically speaking, aren't jobs always the LAST thing to recover in any recession?

Shivetya

Nov 6, 2009, 10:50 AM

[QUOTE=Rodimus Prime;8770852
As it stands over 13 mil people are with out work (job loss plus 150k every month to account for work force growth). It is just getting worse. So much for making things better. 10 months in and no improvement.[/QUOTE]

Not directed at you RP, just keying off your reply.

It certainly is Obama's economy, he and his cronies pummeled us with fear mongering story and story that if we did not pass their stimulus bill that unemployment would exceed eight percent. Well we blew right by that all because the money was payoffs to special interest and Obama deserves the bulk of the blame for it because he refused to take charge. Hell he doesn't take charge of anything someone having the naive belief that it won't touch him

NT1440

Nov 6, 2009, 10:53 AM

aristobrat

Nov 6, 2009, 11:08 AM

It certainly is Obama's economy, he and his cronies pummeled us with fear mongering story and story that if we did not pass their stimulus bill that unemployment would exceed eight percent. Well we blew right by that all because the money was payoffs to special interest and Obama deserves the bulk of the blame for it because he refused to take charge. Hell he doesn't take charge of anything someone having the naive belief that it won't touch him
And if we had a different president, do you really think the economy would be drastically different today, one way or the other? This current recession apparently started back in 2007, during which we've had two presidents.

From what I've noticed, "the economy" doesn't do anything quickly. It ramps up, and it ramps down, but it doesn't switch between either modes very quickly.

The full effects of the laws that Congress make to "help" the economy (taxes, etc) seem to take *years* to affect the economy, one way or the other.

barkomatic

Nov 6, 2009, 11:41 AM

What's confusing is just yesterday a report was issued that indicated to some economists that the peak of unemployment might be closer than previously forecast. Granted, the linked report is based on unemployment insurance claims and that might fall due to people running out of benefits and not getting jobs. Here is the link:

http://money.cnn.com/2009/11/05/news/economy/jobless_claims/index.htm?postversion=2009110509

hulugu

Nov 6, 2009, 12:05 PM

Not directed at you RP, just keying off your reply.

It certainly is Obama's economy, he and his cronies pummeled us with fear mongering story and story that if we did not pass their stimulus bill that unemployment would exceed eight percent. Well we blew right by that all because the money was payoffs to special interest and Obama deserves the bulk of the blame for it because he refused to take charge. Hell he doesn't take charge of anything someone having the naive belief that it won't touch him

I just don't understand how you think.

Simply put, the argument as stated by Obama was without stimulus, unemployment would pass the projected 8 percent and could enter double digits. Thus, with the stimulus package we're supposed to expect it to stop at 8 percent?
Wurt?

From Bloomberg (http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?sid=axoaniRp5i9w&pid=20601087), July 2008:

Jan. 3 (Bloomberg) -- President-elect Barack Obama said that Democrats and Republicans need to act with urgency to address the “great and growing” economic crisis, warning of double-digit unemployment if swift action isn’t taken.

“These are America’s problems, and we must come together as Americans to meet them with the urgency this moment demands,” he said today in his weekly radio address. “If we don’t act swiftly and boldly, we could see a much deeper economic downturn that could lead to double-digit unemployment.”

With the U.S. amid its worst economic slump since World War II, Obama said he is looking forward to meeting with leaders of both political parties in Washington in the new week. Job losses are likely to continue this year, as economists surveyed by Bloomberg News in December forecast the jobless rate to rise to 8.2 percent by the end of 2009 from 6.7 percent in November.

The incoming 44th president, back on the U.S. mainland after a 12-day vacation in Hawaii, is working on a package of tax cuts and spending on infrastructure, such as roads, bridges and transit systems, to stimulate growth and create 3 million jobs. Eighty percent of these will be in the private sector, he said.

Now, that said, there is certainly criticism of the stimulus, which has been too slow with too little emphasis on targeted infrastructure projects. At this point, we might have been better off if the Fed had simply written checks to the various states like California and Arizona who are slashing budgets and cutting back on staffing.

Also, the rush to blame Obama completely ignores the various Republican Congress critters, governors, etc. who also helped design the legislative stimulus bill which you're so critical.

Zombie Acorn

Nov 6, 2009, 12:07 PM

Unemployment is higher than 10.2%, we just don't count certain people, it was going to get this high no matter what. Obama needs to make sure the rest of the stimulus is targeted spending as we don't need spending for spendings sake. I just said spending a lot.

leekohler

Nov 6, 2009, 12:16 PM

I just don't understand how you think.

Simply put, the argument as stated by Obama was without stimulus, unemployment would pass the projected 8 percent and could enter double digits. Thus, with the stimulus package we're supposed to expect it to stop at 8 percent?
Wurt?

Please allow me to clarify- Shivetya doesn't actually want anything to get better. He wants it to get worse so he can point fingers at Obama. When things do get better, and they will, he will claim it's because of Republican policies. Trust me, it's coming.

Or better yet, he'll claim that the economy got better in spite of Obama. "No matter what- Comrade Obama cannot crush the capitalistic, entrepreneurial spirit of 'Merca!"

Believe me, it's coming. ;) It's exactly what they did during Clinton.

Rodimus Prime

Nov 6, 2009, 12:17 PM

Correct me if I'm wrong, but historically speaking, aren't jobs always the LAST thing to recover in any recession?

While they are but this depression is far from over with job losses every still in the 6 figure range. Thisdepression has little hope of being over until at least it drops under the 6 figures in a month.

Hell I am not going to call it a recession any more depression. Classic definition of a depression are if a recession last more than 2 years Or if there has been over a 10% drop in GDP from the beginning. The US has had over a 10% drop in GDP.

The US is currently in a depression and it is still sinking.

hulugu

Nov 6, 2009, 12:19 PM

Unemployment is higher than 10.2%, we just don't count certain people, it was going to get this high no matter what.

I agree, but this gives us at least an idea of what's happening in the economy. Other numbers should be included as well, although not the Stock Market which appears completely divorced from reality. Although, I did enjoy seeing my Apple stock go to $200+ per share.

Obama needs to make sure the rest of the stimulus is targeted spending as we don't need spending for spendings sake...

Ultimately, anything that moves through Congress will have all sorts of attached plans that are anything but targeted. If the Republicans in the House and Senate want to appear serious for once, rather than fighting the stimulus tooth and nail and then stuffing it like a turkey, they could try to direct the money towards projects that will actually create investments for the future.

I'd also like a unicorn.

hulugu

Nov 6, 2009, 12:21 PM

Please allow me to clarify- Shivetya doesn't actually want anything to get better. He wants it to get worse so he can point fingers at Obama. When things do get better, and they will, he will claim it's because of Republican policies. Trust me, it's coming.

Or better yet, he'll claim that the economy got better in spite of Obama. "No matter what- Comrade Obama cannot crush the capitalistic, entrepreneurial spirit of 'Merca!"

Believe me, it's coming. ;) It's exactly what they did during Clinton.

Are you saying he's being disingenuous? Even mendacious?

Perish the thought. He looks like such an upstanding fellow.

leekohler

Nov 6, 2009, 12:23 PM

Are you saying he's being disingenuous? Even mendacious?

Perish the thought. He looks like such an upstanding fellow.

I know- hard to believe, isn't it? ;)

.Andy

Nov 6, 2009, 12:27 PM

A culture wars thread. The bottom of the barrel squabble of american politics.

PcBgone

Nov 6, 2009, 01:59 PM

[QUOTE=hulugu;8771245]I just don't understand how you think.

Simply put, the argument as stated by Obama was without stimulus, unemployment would pass the projected 8 percent and could enter double digits. Thus, with the stimulus package we're supposed to expect it to stop at 8 percent?
Wurt?

From Bloomberg (http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?sid=axoaniRp5i9w&pid=20601087), July 2008:

[QUOTE]
“If we don’t act swiftly and boldly, we could see a much deeper economic downturn that could lead to double-digit unemployment.”

From your own article is what we are having a problem with. He said if we dont get this stimulus passed, then it would lead to double digit unemployment. Now that the stimulus has passed, we still have double digit unemployment. Tell me why we passed this stimulus again?

Sky Blue

Nov 6, 2009, 02:15 PM

Don't worry, if the polls hold true, you will have a conservative government soon enough and you can really begin to grow again.

What polls are these?

barkomatic

Nov 6, 2009, 02:32 PM

We are not out of it yet - that is a media lie to help prop up Comrade Obama. The most common metric is two quarters of growth. We in the US only have one so far.

Don't worry, if the polls hold true, you will have a conservative government soon enough and you can really begin to grow again. God Speed. We hope to join you in 2012!

Not necessarily. The election is still years off and a lot will happen between now and then. I know you desparately want the country to sink into a depression--because you care more about getting an extremist government into the Whitehouse than the well-being of your fellow citizens, but the show is far from over.

aristobrat

Nov 6, 2009, 02:32 PM

From your own article is what we are having a problem with. He said if we dont get this stimulus passed, then it would lead to double digit unemployment. Now that the stimulus has passed, we still have double digit unemployment. Tell me why we passed this stimulus again?
Tell me what the unemployment rate would be if the stimulus hadn't passed. Think it'd be the same as now? Lower? :confused:

The US is currently in a depression and it is still sinking.
To me, the word used to describe it doesn't matter. It sucks for too many people, regardless of the term. Maybe it's still sinking, maybe it's not. There are all sorts of contradictory indicators out there. Seems to me that more and more companies are starting to post profits again, and in my mind, that's what will eventually lead to more jobs being created.

hulugu

Nov 6, 2009, 02:37 PM

“If we don’t act swiftly and boldly, we could see a much deeper economic downturn that could lead to double-digit unemployment.”

From your own article is what we are having a problem with. He said if we dont get this stimulus passed, then it would lead to double digit unemployment. Now that the stimulus has passed, we still have double digit unemployment. Tell me why we passed this stimulus again?

But, that's part of a conditional statement, notice the 'if' and 'could.' If he had said, "My stimulus package will stop unemployment from exceeding 8 percent..." then you'd have a case.

I feel like we're being a bit legalistic here and I don't want to get into a semantics argument about the word "if" but nonetheless I think your bias is getting ahead of you.

RazHyena

Nov 6, 2009, 02:38 PM

Change™ you'd better believe in. ;)

mkrishnan

Nov 6, 2009, 03:37 PM

BTW- jobs are the last thing to come back after a recession, just so ya know. ;)

This is true, to a point... unemployment is a lagging indicator of technical recovery from recession, in the sense that economic growth numbers and corporate profits precede it, but at the same time, it's a leading indicator of a real, meaningful recovery... until the job growth appears, I don't think anyone can rest easy with any kind of certainty that the recession is really behind us.

As for the partisan aspect of this thread's argument...meh. What's the point in responding to it?

PcBgone

Nov 6, 2009, 03:51 PM

Tell me what the unemployment rate would be if the stimulus hadn't passed. Think it'd be the same as now? Lower? :confused:

Unknown. The economy may have picked up without a stimulus package. Maybe consumers are not spending because they feel fear due to the the massive debt the government has spent and they know higher taxes are coming. I will say his statement was a good fear-mongering tool however. Saying if we dont pass this bill it would lead to could lead to double digit unemployment is a good tool.

With that statement, anyone who is against it could be twisted and could have made the assumption that they were for unemployment.

I dont think the government should intervene in the marketplace. The marketplace will expand and contract naturally to reset itself. Your not going to avoid recessions/depressions, they just offset the exponetial growth that has occurred previously.

Desertrat

Nov 6, 2009, 03:59 PM

This is Obama's depression since he could have reversed the erroneous Bush/Congress monetary behavior; the stimulus package and TARP. Obama could have forced a Volcker-type to be the Fed Head instead of Helicopter Ben. He could have pushed Congress to quit wasting money on the various bailouts and the gigantic deficits resulting therefrom. Since he continued with bad policy, it's his baby and he's gotta rock it.

As far as "growth", it only came about due to deficit spending by the government. (Personal opinion: Federal deficits should be subtracted from GDP, not be added to it.) IOW, essentially meaningless. Further, without more fooliishness like Cash for Clunkers and the tax break on home-buying, the GDP will contract further.

Has anybody kept track of U6, the better measure of unemployment? I'm behind the curve at the moment. Somewhere above 18%, I imagine.

This has been some 70% a consumer economy, so as consumers quit consuming to the degree they're doing, the unemployment cannot help but rise. One thing that's already noticed is that those companies which have pretty much ended job layoffs are pushing the workforce much harder and are thereby somewhat profitable--but even a bit of increase in profitability does not lead to more hires.

And both residential and commercial real estate are still in the toilet and will remain so for at least another two to five years--particularly commercial.

FWIW, the reference to Reagan and the recession in his first term: That began in late 1979 with Volcker's jacking up of the Fed rate. The rate increase brought the economy to a halt by late 1980, but it also brought down the 15+/-% consumer price inflation rate of the Carter era. Reagan took office in 1981. The economy began moving again in late 1983.

'Rat

NT1440

Nov 6, 2009, 04:00 PM

I dont think the government should intervene in the marketplace. The marketplace will expand and contract naturally to reset itself. Your not going to avoid recessions/depressions, they just offset the exponetial growth that has occurred previously.

So should we just sit by and watch our population lose their jobs because "thats the way the market goes" ?

.Andy

Nov 6, 2009, 04:01 PM

I dont think the government should intervene in the marketplace. The marketplace will expand and contract naturally to reset itself.
Free market extremism is the answer? What leads you to this conclusion?

Your not going to avoid recessions/depressions, they just offset the exponetial growth that has occurred previously.
I don't think any economists ever claims fiscal policy is going to completely avoid fluctuations in the economy, however their implementation is designed to smooth the severity. Offsetting "exponential growth" in an attempt to protect/minimise the contractions is far more prudent policy than just letting the economy collapse and unemployment skyrocket in the name of political ideology.

leekohler

Nov 6, 2009, 04:02 PM

FWIW, the reference to Reagan and the recession in his first term: That began in late 1979 with Volcker's jacking up of the Fed rate. The rate increase brought the economy to a halt by late 1980, but it also brought down the 15+/-% consumer price inflation rate of the Carter era. Reagan took office in 1981. The economy began moving again in late 1983.

'Rat

So- you give Reagan a little over 2 years to turn things around, but Obama only gets 10 months? Oh, I see how this works. :rolleyes:

Eraserhead

Nov 6, 2009, 04:02 PM

We're lucky--in much of western Europe the unemployment rate is several percentage points higher.

Now if you're talking about Spain or Ireland I'll believe you. But source on the rest of western europe...

So- you give Reagan a little over 2 years to turn things around, but Obama only gets 10 months? Oh, I see how this works. :rolleyes:

Its just partisan ********.

This is Obama's depression since he could have reversed the erroneous Bush/Congress monetary behavior; the stimulus package and TARP. Obama could have forced a Volcker-type to be the Fed Head instead of Helicopter Ben. He could have pushed Congress to quit wasting money on the various bailouts and the gigantic deficits resulting therefrom.

Which other government in the world has been anywhere near that radical that quickly? You're expecting an absurd about from Obama, and even if that was the right path, being that radical would have definitely scared everyone.

Overall though as the Chinese came out of recession at the beginning of the year and the French and Germans came out of the recession in the middle of the year, clearly what Obama needs to do to really solve the crisis is move much further to the left ;).

hulugu

Nov 6, 2009, 04:26 PM

...As for the partisan aspect of this thread's argument...meh. What's the point in responding to it?

Wise words.

...
Has anybody kept track of U6, the better measure of unemployment? I'm behind the curve at the moment. Somewhere above 18%, I imagine....

It's at 17.5 percent per BLS.

...
Which other government in the world has been anywhere near that radical that quickly? You're expecting an absurd about from Obama, and even if that was the right path, being that radical would have definitely scared everyone.....

Congress would have revolted and we'd be at a standstill.

Iscariot

Nov 6, 2009, 04:31 PM

I'm wondering if maybe we could form some kind of pact amongst the liberal/moderate/conservatives here on MR that haven't drank whatever the extreme kool-aid choice of the day is:

When one of these topics comes up in the PRSI and the OP is clearly just a partisan smearjob, could we just ignore the poster and discuss the topic? Because this is a great topic of discussion and I would love to hear what the members of MR think, but it's difficult to extract clear opinions from the muddy waters of partisan hackery.

Dont Hurt Me

Nov 6, 2009, 04:38 PM

The OBAMA depression!

I remember when President Bush was in, and we had this thing called economic growth and low employment. If you like high unemployment, vote democratic. If you like prosperity, vote Republican.Bush and the republicans put this economy where it is now in the tank. They were corrupt and the policy they inacted and endless spending and wars has us in this recession. Clinton and the republicans had it going good but it should be said I see nothing coming out of Obama and his democrats that does anything to produce goods in the U.S. As long as that continues unemployment will increase.. we can all be burger flippers under these two partys.

NT1440

Nov 6, 2009, 04:42 PM

Bush and the republicans put this economy where it is now in the tank. They were corrupt and the policy they inacted and endless spending and wars has us in this recession. Clinton and the republicans had it going good but it should be said I see nothing coming out of Obama and his democrats that does anything to produce goods in the U.S. As long as that continues unemployment will increase.. we can all be burger flippers under these two partys.

Whats he supposed to do? Any move forcing businesses to do anything is proclaimed as a "government takeover" and shouted from the rooftops by the nutjobs. How is he supposed to force companies to start making things in the USA again? :confused:

Eraserhead

Nov 6, 2009, 04:43 PM

Whats he supposed to do? Any move forcing businesses to do anything is proclaimed as a "government takeover" and shouted from the rooftops by the nutjobs. How is he supposed to force companies to start making things in the USA again? :confused:

And it would probably also be against WTO rules if he increased tariffs on foreign goods, so he'd find it pretty difficult to insist on.

Dont Hurt Me

Nov 6, 2009, 04:47 PM

Whats he supposed to do? Any move forcing businesses to do anything is proclaimed as a "government takeover" and shouted from the rooftops by the nutjobs. How is he supposed to force companies to start making things in the USA again? :confused:These two partys have spent years getting everything into China. How about some tax breaks and incentive to make U.S. goods? every industry except the military industrial complex has been destroyed by our Congress. Textiles? Steel? Auto? Electronics? Our Govt is crap.

NT1440

Nov 6, 2009, 04:49 PM

These two partys have spent years getting everything into China. How about some tax breaks and incentive to make U.S. goods? every industry except the military industrial complex has been destroyed by our Congress. Textiles? Steel? Auto? Electronics? Our Govt is crap.

No tax breaks will ever make up the costs saved by companies for paying foreign workers pennies a day. Ever. There is no realistic incentive unless we paid the difference to the companies directly, which is just a ridiculous idea.

leekohler

Nov 6, 2009, 04:55 PM

Eraserhead

Nov 6, 2009, 04:56 PM

Textiles?

Why should we deny the Chinese, the Thai, the Vietnamese and the Bangladeshis to make themselves richer by having a job that pays above the poverty line?

And which Americans or Western Europeans are going to do those low paid jobs at a price that will compete with the people in Asia, when they are probably no better at sewing clothes together?

No tax breaks will ever make up the costs saved by companies for paying foreign workers pennies a day. Ever.

Realistically you earn around $100/month in a Vietnamese factory these days and probably $135/month in China, its not pennies a day, but its way less than you'd have to pay in the West.

ucfgrad93

Nov 6, 2009, 04:57 PM

Auto?

I think the auto industry did a good job of destroying itself. It didn't need much government intervention.

Our Govt is crap.

No argument from me on that. Never seems to matter who the President is.:(

NT1440

Nov 6, 2009, 04:59 PM

Realistically you earn around $100/month in a Vietnamese factory these days and probably $125/month in China, its not pennies a day, but its way less than you'd have to pay in the West.

Sorry about that, I keep forgetting that from these companies electronics aren't made in sweatshop conditions anymore. The price difference however is so drastic that no tax incentives could ever sway a company in this situation to bring production BACK to the states.

Eraserhead

Nov 6, 2009, 05:06 PM

Sorry about that, I keep forgetting that from these companies electronics aren't made in sweatshop conditions anymore.

Not at all :). If you're making electronics you probably earn a bit more than the figures I've given - its more skilled, though if you're making textiles you probably earn a bit less.

Though it will still be far from ideal employment and if you have bad management it could be much worse - the rule of law isn't always that strong in these countries.

Dont Hurt Me

Nov 6, 2009, 05:25 PM

No tax breaks will ever make up the costs saved by companies for paying foreign workers pennies a day. Ever. There is no realistic incentive unless we paid the difference to the companies directly, which is just a ridiculous idea.True, but lets admit that when you have almost zero regulation the costs go way way down. Its not even close to a level playing field. Endless regulation and bureaucracy in the U.S. but in China you might have anybody and or the army making the product.

Rodimus Prime

Nov 6, 2009, 05:27 PM

I think the auto industry did a good job of destroying itself. It didn't need much government intervention.

No argument from me on that. Never seems to matter who the President is.:(

Not just the auto industry.

Unemployment in this country is higher than the "official" 10.2%. It now so bad that people are legitimately giving up.

I am just about to say screw looking. What is the point I am at 8 months now and not a single interview or call back. It starts wearing on you after a while. When average unemployment has crossed 6 month (means long term) things are out of hand.

The labor market SHANK in the last month. That means a lot of people have given up.

Average hours worked right now is at 33.0 hours. Any lower and that means the average person is PART TIME (no longer full time). That or just just stop counting any lower.

Our government has failed. People want to blame bush. I say screw that. I am blaming the entire government. Decorates helped get the country in this mess. They had control over the house and the senate the last 2 years and did nothing.

This entire problem has been building threw multiple administrations. They just kept passing the buck. Obama is doing the same thing.

This economy as far as I am consered is in a depression and will not start turning around until the labor market improves.

Eraserhead

Nov 6, 2009, 06:12 PM

I am just about to say screw looking. What is the point I am at 8 months now and not a single interview or call back. It starts wearing on you after a while.

Damn, thats terrible. What industry are you in?

NT1440

Nov 6, 2009, 06:31 PM

True, but lets admit that when you have almost zero regulation the costs go way way down. Its not even close to a level playing field. Endless regulation and bureaucracy in the U.S. but in China you might have anybody and or the army making the product.

That regulation keeps our workers in safe working conditions and earning a live-able wage.

mkrishnan

Nov 6, 2009, 06:37 PM

Damn, thats terrible. What industry are you in?

Having been there too, I take it really seriously that unemployment is incredibly important to make traction on for this country to stay positive. Americans like working hard. Sometimes too much so. Not having a job when you want to work is demoralizing. :(

RazHyena

Nov 6, 2009, 06:42 PM

Not just the auto industry.

Unemployment in this country is higher than the "official" 10.2%. It now so bad that people are legitimately giving up.

I am just about to say screw looking. What is the point I am at 8 months now and not a single interview or call back. It starts wearing on you after a while. When average unemployment has crossed 6 month (means long term) things are out of hand.

The labor market SHANK in the last month. That means a lot of people have given up.

Average hours worked right now is at 33.0 hours. Any lower and that means the average person is PART TIME (no longer full time). That or just just stop counting any lower.

Our government has failed. People want to blame bush. I say screw that. I am blaming the entire government. Decorates helped get the country in this mess. They had control over the house and the senate the last 2 years and did nothing.

This entire problem has been building threw multiple administrations. They just kept passing the buck. Obama is doing the same thing.

This economy as far as I am consered is in a depression and will not start turning around until the labor market improves.

Hey Rod, I also just hit my 8 month mark last tuesday..:( I feel ya. I've had no more than 4 job interviews out of the 300+ resumes/applications I've been submitting. All I seem to hear from employers is "we filled the position already" or nothing at all.

Needless to say, I'm a little peeved when some airhead tries to convince me the recession is over.

Oh and on another note. People here can blame Bush or Clinton or whoever they want, doesn't matter. Our current "Messiah" was elected to do something other than triple the national debt in three months. That's not change we can believe in.

Blue Velvet

Nov 6, 2009, 06:52 PM

Our current "Messiah" was elected to do something other than triple the national debt in three months. That's not change we can believe in.

Triple the national debt? Show us where you got this figure from. It's more like about 12% over what he inherited.

Apart from that, I know it hurts, but anyone who thought this situation was going to be turned around in months has no idea of the depths of this economic problem. Look for things to start getting slowly better come late spring-summer but long-term structural problems remain that go back decades.

mkrishnan

Nov 6, 2009, 06:56 PM

Apart from that, I know it hurts, but anyone who thought this situation was going to be turned around in months has no idea of the depths of this economic problem. Look for things to start getting slowly better come late spring-summer but long-term structural problems remain that go back decades.

I think the Obama White House did set people on an overly optimistic trajectory there, by talking about the end of the formal recession without laying the groundwork for the longer recovery.

Much like this ridiculous talk about establishing a stable and credible democracy in Afghanistan during a 5-10 year troop commitment. I'm not saying it isn't possible, but being reasonable, and looking at history, anyone who really decides they want that goal should be talking about a 50-100 year troop commitment to achieve a reasonable likelihood of success.

Telling people the economy will just bounce back and downplaying the amount of serious fixing that needs to be done is a disservice. The current WH isn't the only organization doing it, but it's a disservice still.

NT1440

Nov 6, 2009, 07:00 PM

Oh and on another note. People here can blame Bush or Clinton or whoever they want, doesn't matter. Our current "Messiah" was elected to do something other than triple the national debt in three months. That's not change we can believe in.

Lol, you guys just keep making **** up don't you? You really beleive that the majority of voters went into the polls saying "Hey, this guys not going to make the national debt bigger!".

I'd wager the majority of Americans don't even think about or know what a national debt is. They vote on issues more personal to them.

NT1440

Nov 6, 2009, 07:02 PM

I
Telling people the economy will just bounce back and downplaying the amount of serious fixing that needs to be done is a disservice. The current WH isn't the only organization doing it, but it's a disservice still.

I take it everyone just mutes their TV's when Obama repeatedly says the years ahead will be difficult? :confused:

If anything he's been the most realistic guy I've heard in years, then again, I actually listen to the entirety of his speeches.

I'm glad we didn't elect a delusion (or just lying) "I can pay off the national debt in 8 years" McCain.

mkrishnan

Nov 6, 2009, 07:08 PM

I take it everyone just mutes their TV's when Obama repeatedly says the years ahead will be difficult? :confused:

I heard it -- and I think that overall he's doing a pretty good job -- and if you've been defending your liberal credentials recently I will also observe that I am at the very least a centrist liberal and have not been advocating a lot of right-wingery anytime in recent recall.

But I think that there's still relatively poor understanding of how we came to be in this mess and what needs to be done on the way back out, "out there," and it is their (the WH's) job to do that educating.

That's all... as many others have observed, the best thing about Obama is his ability to get people excited about making this country a better place. My personal observation, as I've said many times, of that was when I lived in his neighborhood last year and saw the old church ladies waiting for the bus with Obama t-shirts pulled over their church-lady-dresses. Hard not to be impressed by something like that. We need a lot of making this country a better place right now.

RazHyena

Nov 6, 2009, 07:12 PM

Lol, you guys just keep making **** up don't you? You really beleive that the majority of voters went into the polls saying "Hey, this guys not going to make the national debt bigger!".

I'd wager the majority of Americans don't even think about or know what a national debt is. They vote on issues more personal to them.

Yeah, there's nothing personal about job security at all.

Keep the anti-US flames coming. You're entertaining as usual. :D

NT1440

Nov 6, 2009, 07:14 PM

We need a lot of making this country a better place right now.

Unfortunatly our politicians, while they may secretly agree, hide behind the "greatest country on earth" mantra, which they take to mean "We don't need to improve, this is America damnit!".

Blue Velvet

Nov 6, 2009, 07:18 PM

I think the Obama White House did set people on an overly optimistic trajectory there, by talking about the end of the formal recession without laying the groundwork for the longer recovery.

The first thing they had to do and this also includes the previous administration, because things were collapsing at historically unprecedented rates, was to establish, as best as possible, an air of some optimism and control. Deflation was a serious risk, not the hysterics around here screaming about the risk of inflation.

I'm confident, that when 2012 comes around, that Obama will win a second term against an improving economy. Mid-terms could be dicey, but it depends on whose base is more motivated. And I'm not the only one who thinks this:

The White House believes that when Americans say they're worried about the deficit, they're motivated by a search for clues that the current administration is budgeting responsibly. The White House time horizon, remember, is focused on sustainable growth over the long term. The employment picture is terrible, but the continuing government transfer payments -- extensions of COBRA and unemployment insurance -- are militating against the social effects off mass unemployment.

Conservatives are going to run on deficits and spending because they can, and because those issues serve as proxies for a range of objections to the size and scope of government. The Obama administration is going to focus on slowly changing the fundamentals. There will be talk of real, across-the-board limits to discretionary spending. There will probably be a bipartisan deficit-reduction panel set up, along with, perhaps, another Social Security reform commission.

The Obama White House won't bail out state governments. Aside from small, precise interventions, like an extension of the homeowners' tax credit, business tax relief, and continual UI and COBRA extensions, the White House won't "do" much of anything to kickstart the economy in 2010.

At some point next year, the unemployment rate will start to come down. The deficit will remain high, but the administration is confident that a good vector for the rate along with visible economic growth will enhance consumer confidence and induce more spending. If consumers are spending -- if they sense that their personal incomes are rising --- they will be less amenable to Republican economic arguments.

Indeed, some GOP strategists are already counseling their clients not to shoot their wad on the economy, anticipating that it will recover enough.

http://politics.theatlantic.com/2009/11/the_deficit_choice_what_the_white_house_is_thinking.php#comments

mkrishnan

Nov 6, 2009, 07:24 PM

I'm confident, that when 2012 comes around, that Obama will win a second term against an improving economy. Mid-terms could be dicey, but it depends on whose base is more motivated. And I'm not the only one who thinks this:

I hope so... I think that if the administration has eight years to work on things, they are pretty likely to leave the country in much better shape. The major caveat would be if they can't act decisively on containing the Afghanistan plan. But otherwise, sure, I think the economy can recover, and that just as in recent past administrations the Democrats will get the government back in shape slowly vis-a-vis debt.

I understand the need for hope, but over time, there needs to be a more balanced communication about how we can make the economy more resistant to this. This is clearly something the people are willing to talk about, even if they are only hitting at things like executive pay limitations that address a small segment of a larger problem. Still, when they talk about limiting BoA bonuses, they are at some level talking about making structural changes that better the system.

Krafty

Nov 6, 2009, 07:26 PM

Having been there too, I take it really seriously that unemployment is incredibly important to make traction on for this country to stay positive. Americans like working hard. Sometimes too much so. Not having a job when you want to work is demoralizing. :(
Tell me about it. Applied to 25 places over the past summer and nothing.

Blue Velvet

Nov 6, 2009, 07:37 PM

The major caveat would be if they can't act decisively on containing the Afghanistan plan.

An even more ginormously biggerer caveat is the price of oil.

there needs to be a more balanced communication about how we can make the economy more resistant to this.

When one of the parties is screaming about death panels and socialism, I'm not sure the will is there. In that sense, the wingers have done a superb job of inoculating their base against Mr. Hopey-Changey, but they're fundamentally unserious.

leekohler

Nov 6, 2009, 07:45 PM

Yeah, there's nothing personal about job security at all.

Keep the anti-US flames coming. You're entertaining as usual. :D

However, the Republicans keep bringing up irrelevant non-issues and fear-mongering, while offering no solutions and blocking everything. I don't know how one can see that as positive.

RazHyena

Nov 6, 2009, 07:48 PM

However, the Republicans keep bringing up irrelevant non-issues and fear-mongering, while offering no solutions and blocking everything. I don't know how one can see that as positive.

I agree. That's all Republicans seems to be capable of.

Tesselator

Nov 6, 2009, 09:22 PM

Well, if they're blocking stuff I see that as positive. The more government gets into it the more control they have over our lives == the more our free-capitalistism becomes monopoly-capitalism == the more our freedoms and liberties are removed. Reduce federal government to about 1/500 it's current size and abolish the private Federal Reserve Bank and we might just get our nice country back!

BTW, in the past 4 months I have heard many economists predict ("with great certainty") that unemployment even as it is currently calculated will rise to around 20% before there is the potential for recovery. And that potential itself relies on several critical factors that none of the contributors to this situation seem to be taking seriously or considering at all.

So in another 10 or 15 months there may be a thread here called "Unemployment Rate Hits 20%".

Thomas Veil

Nov 6, 2009, 10:30 PM

The OBAMA depression!

It certainly is Obama's economy...Fail.

I sure hope you guys aren't cops or something for a living. Guy comes into an emergency room with a bullet in the chest, you wouldn't go out and look for the guy who shot him, you'd arrest the ER doctor.

yg17

Nov 6, 2009, 10:36 PM

Fail.

I sure hope you guys aren't cops or something for a living. Guy comes into an emergency room with a bullet in the chest, you wouldn't go out and look for the guy who shot him, you'd arrest the ER doctor.

Well obviously if the ER doc hasn't had the patient healed, up and talking and walking around, back to their old self as if nothing ever happened 5 minutes after first seeing the patient, the doctor is a failure ;)

NT1440

Nov 6, 2009, 10:41 PM

Keep the anti-US flames coming. You're entertaining as usual. :D

Lol, anti US?

63dot

Nov 6, 2009, 11:55 PM

My region: Monterey County (south of San Jose, CA) posted 10% percent unemployment last month, up from 6.3% percent this time last year.

The peak was at 10.3% percent unemployment the month before last. Counting the people who are citizens who have stopped looking, the number surpasses 14%. Add to that the people in the county seat of Salinas where most of the income of the county comes from, then the unemployment is estimated to be in the high-20s all the way up to a third of the possible work force (33%). There are no reliable numbers to how high the unemployment was in "good times" since there was always a majority of the people where I live that have come here illegally and were either unemployed or severely underemployed.

To the north in Silicon Valley, there are a lot of workers not counted in the work force and they are on H1B Visas or working under the table while students. Many of these jobs are not in the unskilled jobs many don't worry about, but technical jobs that require college educations. Northern California is not always the best place to have a college degree with such a huge influx of very smart people from Russia, China, the Philippines, Southeast Asia, and India. It's very hard to get a job regardless of your skill or education.

I hope November 2009 shows a lower "official" number (hopefully well below 10%) but most local news sources seem skeptical of employment gaining ground quickly.

Real estate hit rock bottom a couple of months ago, and most experts feel this will take a long time to recover. I don't know about the rest of the country, but with two of the three worst real estate busts in the nation in my state (San Diego and Sacramento), the recession's damage is going to be a lingering one.

National numbers have shown an up quarter, meaning the end of a national recession on paper, but my job market is victim to how (badly) the county is doing.

Some blame the President, others the Governor, but this terrible recession has roots much deeper than any one person.

But the trend swings back and when California is out of the recession, both sides will claim they ended the recession. I think seeing how this all came down indicates how little politicians can avoid what is a natural ebb and flow of the economy.

itcheroni

Nov 9, 2009, 12:09 AM

But it wasn't a lie when people who no longer started looking for jobs weren't counted as unemployed during Herr Bush?

BTW- jobs are the last thing to come back after a recession, just so ya know. ;)

Counting discouraged and part-time workers who are looking for full time work, unemployment is now 17.5%.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/07/business/economy/07econ.html

bobber205

Nov 9, 2009, 12:14 AM

We are not out of it yet - that is a media lie to help prop up Comrade Obama. The most common metric is two quarters of growth. We in the US only have one so far.

Don't worry, if the polls hold true, you will have a conservative government soon enough and you can really begin to grow again. God Speed. We hope to join you in 2012!

http://alexsah.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/10/epicze4.jpg

I believe the "end" of a recession is when GDP increases right? (A recession is defined as 2 or 3 consecutive quarters on negative GDP growth). Hmm. I'm sure the 3.5% increase we had is all a lie to support "Comrade Obama".

Full of Win has to be one of the most ignorant posters on this board. Barring that he's an excellent troll.

Cave Man

Nov 9, 2009, 10:29 AM

In other news, the DOW has hit a 52 week high today.

http://money.cnn.com/2009/11/09/markets/markets_newyork/index.htm?postversion=2009110911

Zombie Acorn

Nov 9, 2009, 10:36 AM

http://alexsah.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/10/epicze4.jpg

I believe the "end" of a recession is when GDP increases right? (A recession is defined as 2 or 3 consecutive quarters on negative GDP growth). Hmm. I'm sure the 3.5% increase we had is all a lie to support "Comrade Obama".

Full of Win has to be one of the most ignorant posters on this board. Barring that he's an excellent troll.

Lets keep in mind that the economy is still on government life support. If the economy was really on the up and up by itself we wouldn't need to spend the rest of the stimulus and could use the funds for something else.

yg17

Nov 9, 2009, 10:38 AM

In other news, the DOW has hit a 52 week high today.

http://money.cnn.com/2009/11/09/markets/markets_newyork/index.htm?postversion=2009110911

Surely "Comrade Obama" won't get credit for that like he does for the unemployment rate. The Dow going up is just the free market at work. But unemployment? That's Obama personally writing and delivering pink slips to workers.

hulugu

Nov 9, 2009, 10:53 AM

Surely "Comrade Obama" won't get credit for that like he does for the unemployment rate. The Dow going up is just the free market at work. But unemployment? That's Obama personally writing and delivering pink slips to workers.

Well, as Daniel Gross writes (http://www.slate.com/id/2234464/) in Slate:

The rising U.S. stock market and a weak, slow-growing U.S. consumer sector aren't really in contradiction. Given the large-scale trends transforming the global economy—and the role of large U.S. companies in it—it may be possible to have a sustainable rally in American stocks without a sustainable rally by American consumers.

Essentially, the stock market is a measure of mostly large companies that are expanding overseas or in new markets, so naturally they're growing and that's what the stock market is measuring, however this doesn't necessarily help the American worker.

This may actually lend credence to the criticism of Obama that he's so busy helping Wall Street that he hasn't done much for everyone else. However, for the Right to use this critique would require—if again they were serious in any way—to abandon the Obama The Next Mao line. This would also require the GOP to decide whether it wants to be a populist party or a money party. Again, this would require serious thinking rather than the slapdash disingenuous arguments we currently get.

mkrishnan

Nov 9, 2009, 11:05 AM

Surely "Comrade Obama" won't get credit for that like he does for the unemployment rate. The Dow going up is just the free market at work. But unemployment? That's Obama personally writing and delivering pink slips to workers.

Isn't it overly convenient that these slips are pink, of all colors? One has one's suspicions, but to see them so vividly shown true....

Desertrat

Nov 9, 2009, 12:18 PM

harking back to Page 2, I don't think I've ever claimed that Reagan rejuvenated the economy. Volcker's rate hike brought about the recession of 1980-1982/3 in order to end the high rate of inflation of the 1970s. The natural progression of recovery, aided by the Reagan tax cuts, brought about the increase in GDP...

IMO, had Bernanke raised the Fed rate and made the present recession worse, it would be a shorter period of bad times. We'd likely see a true recovery in the next year or so.

As is, only some of the large investment banks are being kept healthy in some sort of "recovery". The growth in GDP is not due to the normal pattern of business; it resulted from government spending in a wasteful manner: "Cash for Clunkers" is two-fold bad in that it's tomorrow's sales today, and incurring debt best left unincurred. Further, it's deficit spending.

Obama and Congress have not tripled the national debt, but they've raised it at a faster rate than ever in history. That is, the inheritance from Bush was for around $481 billion in deficit; we've just ended the fiscal year, now, with $1.4 trillion in deficit. That's where the tripling has occurred.

Still, the question remains: Recovery to what? Consumeritis? I don't think so. We're still contracting insofar as the number of employed workers. Ever less money being spent in the past behavioral patterns--which causes more unemployment.

We're still able to enjoy some amount of happy motoring, but only this recession/depression is enabling that due to reduced demand for transportation fuel. World oil production capability is maxxed out at around 85 million bbl/day, and present demand is down to around 82 million bbl/day. Any sort of recovery in any meaningful sense and Oops! No more happy motoring.

In the meantime the juggling of the books is becoming more and more fraudulent. Now, banks are being encouraged to carry the toxic paper on the books at some assumed value well above the marketplace reality in order to appear solvent. The reason is that the FDIC has nowhere near the money to cover its exposure--which is roughly $432 at risk in coverage for every $1 in the FDIC account. For Congress to budget more money for the FDIC would mean even more deficit.

And I haven't even touched on the commercial real estate debacle, now underway--which means more unemployment, among other problems. Or the ongoing foreclosures in residential real estate over these next two or three years.

Interesting times. Glad I saw it coming and was able to go about preparing for it in a leisurely fashion. It was patently obvious by the 1980s that we were into a societal Saturday night spree--and those are always followed by Sunday mornings.

'Rat

Evangelion

Nov 16, 2009, 03:34 AM

The OBAMA depression!

How exactly? The depression really got going in September 15th when Lehman Brothers collapsed. Obama won the elections on November 4th, and became president in January 20th, 2009. So the depression started when your pal Bush was still in office!

Right-wingers are more delusional and deranged than I imagined. tell me: is poor grasp of reality a requirement if you want to be a right-winger?

I remember when President Bush was in, and we had this thing called economic growth and low employment. If you like high unemployment, vote democratic. If you like prosperity, vote Republican.

This depression started when Bush was still in office. You REALLY have no clue what you are talking about, do you? But then again, cluelessness is a trademark of American Right....

EDIT: it seems to me that the lunatic right-wingers think that the situation in USA is due to "leftist" (some idiots even call it "marxist") policies.... Well, it seems that unemployment if USA is higher than in Finland (latest stats put Finnish unemployment at 7.9%) Finland is more left-wing country than USA is, but how could that be, since isn't everything left-wing bad? Tell me, oh wise righties, how can that be? How can pseudo-communist (by your standards) country like Finland be doing so well?

Evangelion

Nov 16, 2009, 03:38 AM

Oh and on another note. People here can blame Bush or Clinton or whoever they want, doesn't matter. Our current "Messiah" was elected to do something other than triple the national debt in three months. That's not change we can believe in.

And if Obama had not done anything, the retards in the Right would be whining "Obama allowed US auto industry to collapse! he caused huge unemployment!". And when he tries to save them, they whine "Obama is taking over business and running huge debts!". Damned if you do, damned if you don't.

IntheNet

Nov 16, 2009, 07:45 AM

Damned if you do, damned if you don't.

It is not so much that Obama has done nothing; we all know he attempted to spend our way out of the recession with the massive and yet-ineffective stimulus. The problem is what Obama has done was the wrong thing, as is witness the failed stimulus and the every increasing unemployment rate.

Previous recessions and/or unemployment in this nation have been addressed with tax cuts; Obama is proposing instead massive new taxes (the health care bill will advance new taxes for all). Moreover, Obama's new federal restrictions across the board on small business are restricting their investment and promoting unemployment as jobs are still being cut.

I sense unemployment will continue to rise, particularly in view of Obama's hostile attacks on small business with additional regulation that strangles capitalistic investment. So too, our ever-increasing debt load that Obama adds to daily could be rejected by Asian investors causing a cascading national bankruptcy. A depression is still on the horizon due to this administration's economic incompetence.

sysiphus

Nov 16, 2009, 07:54 AM

Previous recessions and/or unemployment in this nation have been addressed with tax cuts; Obama is proposing instead massive new taxes (the health care bill will advance new taxes for all). Moreover, Obama's new federal restrictions across the board on small business are restricting their investment and promoting unemployment as jobs are still being cut.

Although I think you're editorializing a bit, you do bring up a very important point: in the past, tax cuts have been a primary device to right the ship, whereas Obama has/is instead ramping up (deficit) spending that will almost inevitably be covered by tax increases.

Evangelion

Nov 16, 2009, 08:07 AM

It is not so much that Obama has done nothing; we all know he attempted to spend our way out of the recession with the massive and yet-ineffective stimulus. The problem is what Obama has done was the wrong thing, as is witness the failed stimulus and the every increasing unemployment rate.

The "correct" way would the the right-wing way, funded by PURE AMERICAN FREEDOM(tm), right?

I'm sorry, but I have hard time listening to anyone who think Sarah Palin is a good thing for USA. Seriously.

Previous recessions and/or unemployment in this nation have been addressed with tax cuts; Obama is proposing instead massive new taxes

Isn't he planning to increase taxes for the super-rich mostly?

I sense unemployment will continue to rise

Why don't you blame Bush and co then? like I said, this recession started when he was still in office! Is that because you are not going to let FACTS get in to the way of your right-wing blathering?

particularly in view of Obama's hostile attacks on small business with additional regulation that strangles capitalistic investment.

Unregulated capitalism is what got us in to this recession....

So too, our ever-increasing debt load that Obama adds to

What do you think about the massive increase in debt that Bush and Co created?

A depression is still on the horizon due to this administration's economic incompetence.

You want economic incompetence? Go take a look at the previous administrations.

And you didn't tell me why this left-wing paradise called Finland has lower unemployment than USA has....

NT1440

Nov 16, 2009, 08:51 AM

Isn't he planning to increase taxes for the super-rich mostly?

Actually no, he's planning on letting the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy expire, as they have been scheduled to since he signed them into law. Somehow that equates to Obama raising taxes in the shallower end of the gene pool's minds.

IntheNet

Nov 16, 2009, 08:54 AM

but I have hard time listening to anyone who think Sarah Palin is a good thing for USA. Seriously.

How is that related to this thread or economic discussion? Seriously?

Isn't he planning to increase taxes for the super-rich mostly?

Neither the House nor Senate versions of health care reform can be paid for (made deficit neutral as is proposed) without across the board tax increases and yes these taxes will be felt by low and middle income as well as wealthy Americans.

Why don't you blame Bush and co then? like I said, this recession started when he was still in office! Is that because you are not going to let FACTS get in to the way of your right-wing blathering?

We're almost a year into Obama Administration; Democrats continued blame of former president Bush for their economy is getting a bit stale. You Democrats plan on taking responsibility for anything or just blame everying on what "you inherited" dodge?

Unregulated capitalism is what got us in to this recession...

Apple Computer practices "unregulated capitalism" - are you against Apple Computer? Moreover, this nation is founded upon capitalism and small business provides most of this nation's jobs. However, if you want socialism you can leave the nation and live in a socialist nation that is free from capitalistic endeavor.

What do you think about the massive increase in debt that Bush and Co created?

I didn't like it. Obama tripling this debt I like even less. Plan to take ownership of economy of just continue to blame former administration?

You want economic incompetence? Go take a look at the previous administrations.

10.5% unemployment is your idea of good economic competence?

And you didn't tell me why this left-wing paradise called Finland has lower unemployment than USA has....

Perhaps Finland has wise and business savvy leaders?

Evangelion

Nov 16, 2009, 09:14 AM

How is that related to this thread or economic discussion? Seriously?

It tells quite a lot about the depth of your intellect when it comes to these things.

We're almost a year into Obama Administration

So he has had plenty of time to fix the massive problems that have been plaguing the banking-sector, the automobile-industry, crashing real-estate prices etc. etc.?

Democrats continued blame of former president Bush for their economy is getting a bit stale. You Democrats plan on taking responsibility for anything or just blame everying on what "you inherited" dodge?

Well it WAS inherited! I even gave you a timeline of the events, yet you fail to understand it! When this thing got started, Bush was still in the office. Just how hard is that for you to understand? Why exactly are you blaiming Obama and not Bush? Hypocricy, double-standards and half-truths, just what we can expect from right-wingers.

Apple Computer practices "unregulated capitalism" - are you against Apple Computer?

Holy crap, what a faulty comparison!

Moreover, this nation is founded upon capitalism and small business provides most of this nation's jobs. However, if you want socialism you can leave the nation and live in a socialist nation that is free from capitalistic endeavor.

I'm not in USA, I'm in Finland. And I don't think that you even know what socialism is. Hint: What Obama is doing, is not socialism. USA is still a capitalistic country. And the drivel you posted did not in any way refute the claim I made: unregulated capitalism is what brought us this crisis!

I said this before and I say it again: American right-wingers are stuck in buzzwords. They throw the word "socialism" around, and anything that is "socialistic" is automatically bad. But here's a hint for you: it's not quite that blakc and white. USA has plenty of socialism in it, and you are enjoying it's benefits every single day.

And here you are: telling us that capitalism is good, even when it brings with it huge recession. And socialism is automaticallhy bad. Even when it brings you things that you enjoy just about every day. Right.wingers are good at throwing buzz-words around, but they utterly SUCK at being able to understand things and discuss them.

All in all, I support capitalism. But unregulated capitalism is a bad idea. And such pure capitalism is just about impossible to achieve as pure communism is to achieve. There is no 100% capitalistic country in the world.

10.5% unemployment is your idea of good economic competence?

Last time I checked, we are in a middle of huge recession that was caused by incompetence of previous administrations....

Perhaps Finland has wise and business savvy leaders?

By your standards, Finlands leaders are more or less communists. Our finance-minister belongs to our mainstream right-wing party, which by US standards is comparable to democrats, maybe a bit to the left. Prime-minister is from the Center-party (a notch to the left from the right-wing party) and our president is a Social-democrat (a notch to the left from the Center Party).

leekohler

Nov 16, 2009, 10:21 AM

It tells quite a lot about the depth of your intellect when it comes to these things.

So he has had plenty of time to fix the massive problems that have been plaguing the banking-sector, the automobile-industry, crashing real-estate prices etc. etc.?

Well it WAS inherited! I even gave you a timeline of the events, yet you fail to understand it! When this thing got started, Bush was still in the office. Just how hard is that for you to understand? Why exactly are you blaiming Obama and not Bush? Hypocricy, double-standards and half-truths, just what we can expect from right-wingers.

Holy crap, what a faulty comparison!

I'm not in USA, I'm in Finland. And I don't think that you even know what socialism is. Hint: What Obama is doing, is not socialism. USA is still a capitalistic country. And the drivel you posted did not in any way refute the claim I made: unregulated capitalism is what brought us this crisis!

I said this before and I say it again: American right-wingers are stuck in buzzwords. They throw the word "socialism" around, and anything that is "socialistic" is automatically bad. But here's a hint for you: it's not quite that blakc and white. USA has plenty of socialism in it, and you are enjoying it's benefits every single day.

And here you are: telling us that capitalism is good, even when it brings with it huge recession. And socialism is automaticallhy bad. Even when it brings you things that you enjoy just about every day. Right.wingers are good at throwing buzz-words around, but they utterly SUCK at being able to understand things and discuss them.

All in all, I support capitalism. But unregulated capitalism is a bad idea. And such pure capitalism is just about impossible to achieve as pure communism is to achieve. There is no 100% capitalistic country in the world.

Last time I checked, we are in a middle of huge recession that was caused by incompetence of previous administrations....

By your standards, Finlands leaders are more or less communists. Our finance-minister belongs to our mainstream right-wing party, which by US standards is comparable to democrats, maybe a bit to the left. Prime-minister is from the Center-party (a notch to the left from the right-wing party) and our president is a Social-democrat (a notch to the left from the Center Party).

Arguing with people like InTheNet is like arguing with a brick wall. They're going to believe what they want and will shift the goal posts no matter what. The economy could be amazing right now and they'd give the credit to Bush, trust me. But even when they know damn well whose fault it is, they'll blame Obama. And when the economy gets better (and it will), they'll find a way to give Bush credit. Trust me.

Reasonable people, even many conservatives will acknowledge there hasn't been enough time to see what the effects of Obama's actions are at this time.

Zombie Acorn

Nov 16, 2009, 11:34 AM

Actually no, he's planning on letting the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy expire, as they have been scheduled to since he signed them into law. Somehow that equates to Obama raising taxes in the shallower end of the gene pool's minds.

So when you get introductory 0% APR on a credit card and they boost it to 8% after the period do you consider it a raise in your paid interest rate?

Allowing a tax cut to lapse is essentially the same as raising the tax, the result is exactly the same.

Shivetya

Nov 16, 2009, 11:38 AM

Actually no, he's planning on letting the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy expire, as they have been scheduled to since he signed them into law. Somehow that equates to Obama raising taxes in the shallower end of the gene pool's minds.

I don't consider myself wealthy and these will affect me and many I know.

It is raising taxes because Democrats would not make the cuts permanent because they wanted them high.

Low end of the gene pool is for those who think they deserve the fruits of other people's labor.

Zombie Acorn

Nov 16, 2009, 11:39 AM

Isn't he planning to increase taxes for the super-rich mostly?

Hes already increased taxes on the poorest of the poor by hitting smokes and booze.

Also there is a difference in opinion on what "super-rich" really means. For Obama it appears to be in the 250k per year range, what people don't understand is that this includes many small businesses. More taxes = Bye bye jobs.

IntheNet

Nov 16, 2009, 12:15 PM

So he has had plenty of time to fix the massive problems that have been plaguing the banking-sector, the automobile-industry, crashing real-estate prices etc. etc.?

My reply set forth my belief on the economic situation facing the United States and Obama's less than successful efforts dealing with it and the growing unemployment rate.

If you believe my post and/or beliefs in error, let us know where you think Obama has been successful in reference to economy (rather than condemn my opinion)? Explain to us how you see what Obama has done in reference to economy has helped (rather than condemn former president)?

NT1440

Nov 16, 2009, 12:19 PM

So when you get introductory 0% APR on a credit card and they boost it to 8% after the period do you consider it a raise in your paid interest rate?

Allowing a tax cut to lapse is essentially the same as raising the tax, the result is exactly the same.

Except you are ignoring that it was 8% in the first place and only temporarily went down to 0.

Evangelion

Nov 16, 2009, 12:23 PM

Hes already increased taxes on the poorest of the poor by hitting smokes and booze.

Avoiding those taxes is easy: quit smoking and drinking. Neither of those are mandatory for happy living, quite the opposite.

Also there is a difference in opinion on what "super-rich" really means. For Obama it appears to be in the 250k per year range, what people don't understand is that this includes many small businesses. More taxes = Bye bye jobs.

Like I said, Finland has lower unemployment than USA does, and I bet our tax-rate is considerably higher than that of USA's. After all, we have that terrible socialized health-care (which apparently kills people. After all, according to right-wingers, Stephen Hawking would be long dead if he had to rely on UK healthcare....) and all kinds of neo-communist "public-services" that are funded through taxes...

For some reason Americans (even the middle-class Americans) are brainwashed in to thinking that the rich are somehow oppressed and that they need massive tax-cuts. Ayn Rand would be proud!

I really don't understand that way of thinking. When the poor and middle-class receive tax-cuts, that money goes 100% (more or less) to consumption. With the rich there's not much they could be spending it on (there's only so much money can buy you), so that money just ends up increasing their net-wealth. Consumption would create jobs, money laying in the bank does not.

And (as "marxist" as this might sound) fact is that the rich can afford to pay taxes. Oh, it's so terrible when they can't afford to replace their Ferrari with that Bugatti Veyron! Oh how they suffer! Quick, somebody call the Amnesty International!

And no, contrary what you might think, I have no problem with rich people. People who work hard and take risks should be allowed to get rich. But that still doesn't mean that they need massive tax-cuts. They can be rich and pay more taxes, this is not an either/or situation.

Evangelion

Nov 16, 2009, 12:34 PM

My reply set forth my belief on the economic situation facing the United States and Obama's less than successful efforts dealing with it and the growing unemployment rate.

Do you REALLY think that any kind of stimulus-package would have turned the economy around in a matter of 2-3 months? Really? That a crisis of this sort could be fixed just like that? Obama became president in january, and now we are starting to see first signs of growth in the economy. I really don't think that he could have done it any faster.

If you believe my post and/or beliefs in error, let us know where you think Obama has been successful in reference to economy (rather than condemn my opinion)? Explain to us how you see what Obama has done in reference to economy has helped (rather than condemn former president)?

I think Obama has done what could be done. There's only so much you can do. You do not have infinite amount of resources or money available.

What did you expect? That two weeks after Obama became president, the GDP should be growing at a substantial rate, and unemployment was falling? You obviously have no clue how slowly economic problems such as this can be fixed.

Japan has been fixing their economic problems for over 10 years now, for Russia it took about 6-7 years. This crisis started in late september, so it has been a bit over 13 months now. About 10 of those months have been under Obama-administration. And here you are, whining because Obama has not been able to totally, and utterly end the crisis in 10 months. 10.... frigging.... months. For a crisis that started under the previous administration.

You are totally detached from reality, and your comments show gigantic amount of double-standards and lack of understanding for the issues you are criticizing.

leekohler

Nov 16, 2009, 12:41 PM

Do you REALLY think that any kind of stimulus-package would have turned the economy around in a matter of 2-3 months? Really? That a crisis of this sort could be fixed just like that? Obama became president in january, and now we are starting to see first signs of growth in the economy. I really don't think that he could have done it any faster.

I think Obama has done what could be done. There's only so much you can do. You do not have infinite amount of resources or money available.

What did you expect? That two weeks after Obama became president, the GDP should be growing at a substantial rate, and unemployment was falling? You obviously have no clue how slowly economic problems such as this can be fixed.

Japan has been fixing their economic problems for over 10 years now, for Russia it took about 6-7 years. This crisis started in late september, so it has been a bit over 13 months now. About 10 of those months have been under Obama-administration. And here you are, whining because Obama has not been able to totally, and utterly end the crisis in 10 months. 10.... frigging.... months. For a crisis that started under the previous administration.

You are totally detached from reality, and your comments show gigantic amount of double-standards and lack of understanding for the issues you are criticizing.

Again- it doesn't matter with people like this.

Shivetya

Nov 16, 2009, 01:01 PM

Washington Times pokes at Obama and Co. claims of jobs saved with interactive map.

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/maps/Bogus-jobs-created-or-saved-by-the-Stimulus.html

Actually the app is really good. O&C do seem quite capable of making fools of themselves.

Peterkro

Nov 16, 2009, 01:37 PM

Low end of the gene pool is for those who think they deserve the fruits of other people's labor.

Not like you to support the classic criticism of Capitalism.( the gene pool bit is just gratuitous mouth foaming).

Eraserhead

Nov 16, 2009, 01:47 PM

EDIT: it seems to me that the lunatic right-wingers think that the situation in USA is due to "leftist" (some idiots even call it "marxist") policies.... Well, it seems that unemployment if USA is higher than in Finland (latest stats put Finnish unemployment at 7.9%) Finland is more left-wing country than USA is, but how could that be, since isn't everything left-wing bad? Tell me, oh wise righties, how can that be? How can pseudo-communist (by your standards) country like Finland be doing so well?

You could also bring up China, who were the first major economy out of the recession.

Although I think you're editorializing a bit, you do bring up a very important point: in the past, tax cuts have been a primary device to right the ship, whereas Obama has/is instead ramping up (deficit) spending that will almost inevitably be covered by tax increases.

Tax cuts also have to be paid by tax increases eventually...

itcheroni

Nov 16, 2009, 03:11 PM

I really don't understand that way of thinking. When the poor and middle-class receive tax-cuts, that money goes 100% (more or less) to consumption. With the rich there's not much they could be spending it on (there's only so much money can buy you), so that money just ends up increasing their net-wealth. Consumption would create jobs, money laying in the bank does not.

Credit comes from money in the bank. But most rich people have most of their money in securities, which is just as good. One fundamental problem with our economy is too much consumption and not enough savings. That is why China is doing so well. They are probably the best savers in the world.

I don't think Obama is doing anything right concerning the economy but I also don't blame any of it on him. The only thing he might be responsible for is the increase in the Dow and the GDP numbers caused by the stimulus. Both of them are increasing which, per se, is neither good nor bad until we have further information. If the Dow reaches 100,000 before the end of Obama's term, I'm sure getting credit for it will be the least of his problems.

Lehman's collapse was a symptom of our recession, not the cause or beginning. Like an AIDS patient who might die of a common cold, it's not the cold with which we should be concerned. Arguing Dem v. Rep will get us nowhere. I like free markets but Republicans, who claim they do too, have no idea how free markets should operate. If you take random comments from various Republicans and Democrats, neither side will make sense people some people don't make sense. Blaming a political part or ideal because an idiot can't espouse the views correctly is bad judgment on your part.

If you believe Bush weakened the economy, as I do, you should be aware that he interfered with the free market to a great degree (along with other acts that severely weakened our economy like invading Iraq). Obama is continuing that interference. The only difference seems to be whether to tax this income bracket or that income bracket, higher or lower taxes. There are more important things.

Evangelion

Nov 17, 2009, 02:15 AM

Credit comes from money in the bank.

So is it good thing to live on credit? Isn't that what got us in to this hole?

Lehman's collapse was a symptom of our recession, not the cause or beginning.

You are right in that the reason for the recession is the same thing that caused the collapse of Lehman, not that our recession is caused by Lehman collapse. But Lehmans collapse really got the ball rolling. The signs were already there long before Lehman collapsed.

If you believe Bush weakened the economy, as I do, you should be aware that he interfered with the free market to a great degree (along with other acts that severely weakened our economy like invading Iraq). Obama is continuing that interference.

Large reason of this recession is unregulation of the markets. It's quite disingenious to think that simply letting markets do whatever they want to do will solve everything. No, the solution is not total regulation of the market (like they tried to do in the ol' Soviet Union) either. That causes the market to grow rigid and unflexible. But laisses-faire capitalism is not the answer either. The answer is somewhere between those extremes. No country is in the either extreme (North-Korea might be close to the total control end of the spectrum, whereas no country is really all that close to pure capitalism...), they are somewhere in the between.

I don't think that there's a direct correlation between amount of government control in market vs. amount of well-being for the citizens. Like I said, Finland seems to have lower unemployment than USA does, and Finnish economy is more regulated than American economy is.

Rodimus Prime

Nov 17, 2009, 02:35 AM

I don't think that there's a direct correlation between amount of government control in market vs. amount of well-being for the citizens. Like I said, Finland seems to have lower unemployment than USA does, and Finnish economy is more regulated than American economy is.

True on that part right now.
Something that you have not pointed out is when comparing the US less regulated market compared to Europe very regulated market there is something to be noted long term.

The US economy had much higher highs than Europe and at the same time had lower lows.

Long term US economy has been growing at a faster pass than Europe. There is a happy middle ground Europe from what I understand is over regulated to the point it is hurting long term economic growth. The US on the other had does not have enough regulation so long term stability is in question.

Evangelion

Nov 17, 2009, 08:35 AM

True on that part right now.
Something that you have not pointed out is when comparing the US less regulated market compared to Europe very regulated market there is something to be noted long term.

The US economy had much higher highs than Europe and at the same time had lower lows.

Long term US economy has been growing at a faster pass than Europe.

Hmmm, Finland economic growth was considered an "economic miracle" even though we were quite socialistic. Finland was called "the Japan of North" and such things. Before and after Finland was quite poor country, but in the following decades it grew at a fast pace, and reached parity with other wealthy industrialized countries.

If we compare Finland's GDP-growth to USA, I don't really see USA growing any faster than Finland:

http://www.tradingeconomics.com/Economics/GDP-Growth.aspx?Symbol=FIM

http://www.tradingeconomics.com/Economics/GDP-Growth.aspx?Symbol=USD

Right now Finnish economy is contracting more, but then again it grew more during the last 10 years or so. So I really don't see how USA is growing faster or something like that.

And related to that, Japan was growing fast as well for decades, even though they were quite bureaucratic and regulated.

And, of course, we should also consider that is GDP the correct measurement to use. If you pay me $100 to shake your hand, we have increased GDP. Many of the things that are free in Finland (well, they are paid through taxes, but you get the point) need to be bought in USA, so it could be said that those things contribute to US GDP, but they do not contribute to Finnish economy, even if the end-result is more or less the same.

Ugg

Nov 17, 2009, 10:12 AM

Long term US economy has been growing at a faster pass than Europe. There is a happy middle ground Europe from what I understand is over regulated to the point it is hurting long term economic growth. The US on the other had does not have enough regulation so long term stability is in question.

I used to think the same but I'm not so sure anymore that that is the case. We've been led to believe that ever since Europe's "Socialist Seventies" that the Reagan Revolution meant our free market was better. However, in that time, Europe has generally suffered fewer labor issues by working with the unions rather than opposing them. Through regulation, growth has been moderated and the opening of borders for workers means that labor has more flexibility than ever before.

It's also disingenuous to state that "Europe this or Europe that..."

France and Spain are two cases in point when it comes to real estate regulation. Spain in all reality has virtually none and most of it comes from local government. This led to mass corruption, overbuilding and an entirely collapsed real estate market. France is highly regulated from the top and although French home owners never saw the mass real estate appreciation that the Spaniards did, they also never saw the bottom of the market drop out.

I'd also like to point out that the EU, despite all its growing pains, means that European countries are forced to cooperate in a way that is extremely foreign to most American states. This cooperation and resultant sharing of outlooks has resulted in a major intellectual leap forward. Finland has consolidated its leadership in mobile telephony, Germany in auto building, London in Financial markets, Vienna in west meets east diplomacy and so on and so forth.

Everyone talks about how stifling Europe is and in a way it's true, just like the US is at this point in time, mostly due to the stranglehold that the baby boomers have on government and on production. However, once the boomers start to die off, I think Europe will be better placed to capitalize on what comes next. Whereas the US will still be fighting internally about whether Obama is Muslim or not.

Zombie Acorn

Nov 17, 2009, 12:33 PM

I used to think the same but I'm not so sure anymore that that is the case. We've been led to believe that ever since Europe's "Socialist Seventies" that the Reagan Revolution meant our free market was better. However, in that time, Europe has generally suffered fewer labor issues by working with the unions rather than opposing them. Through regulation, growth has been moderated and the opening of borders for workers means that labor has more flexibility than ever before.

It's also disingenuous to state that "Europe this or Europe that..."

France and Spain are two cases in point when it comes to real estate regulation. Spain in all reality has virtually none and most of it comes from local government. This led to mass corruption, overbuilding and an entirely collapsed real estate market. France is highly regulated from the top and although French home owners never saw the mass real estate appreciation that the Spaniards did, they also never saw the bottom of the market drop out.

I'd also like to point out that the EU, despite all its growing pains, means that European countries are forced to cooperate in a way that is extremely foreign to most American states. This cooperation and resultant sharing of outlooks has resulted in a major intellectual leap forward. Finland has consolidated its leadership in mobile telephony, Germany in auto building, London in Financial markets, Vienna in west meets east diplomacy and so on and so forth.

Everyone talks about how stifling Europe is and in a way it's true, just like the US is at this point in time, mostly due to the stranglehold that the baby boomers have on government and on production. However, once the boomers start to die off, I think Europe will be better placed to capitalize on what comes next. Whereas the US will still be fighting internally about whether Obama is Muslim or not.

Internal unions are not such a problem when each country is focusing on a core competency and trading with each other more freely. The US's problem is that they are holding on to a dieing industry that they aren't very good at, and charging a lot to work in it through unions. Give most Americans a choice on cars without including price and I would bet a large majority would be leaning towards something from japan or quality cars from europe as opposed to domestic.

That is beside the fact that the government is propping 2/3 of them up while they continue this.

Ugg

Nov 17, 2009, 12:48 PM

Internal unions are not such a problem when each country is focusing on a core competency and trading with each other more freely. The US's problem is that they are holding on to a dieing industry that they aren't very good at, and charging a lot to work in it through unions. Give most Americans a choice on cars without including price and I would bet a large majority would be leaning towards something from japan or quality cars from europe as opposed to domestic.

That is beside the fact that the government is propping 2/3 of them up while they continue this.

That's funny.

The way the US auto industry got to the point it did was through an insistence by the stock market that short term profits take precedence over long term viability.

In other words, "Excess Profit Über Alles!" Germany and Japan believe in social cohesion, not disposable employees.

The US airline industry went through the same thing and pensions for many airline and auto industry employees have been decimated. All that's taught the heads of those industries is that contracts made today are irrelevant tomorrow and encourage risky behaviour.

Unfettered capitalism leads to periods of extended unemployment for millions of Americans. One can only hope that this time around, the "captains" of industry are held accountable for lining their pockets.

takao

Nov 17, 2009, 02:54 PM

That's funny.

The way the US auto industry got to the point it did was through an insistence by the stock market that short term profits take precedence over long term viability.

In other words, "Excess Profit Über Alles!" Germany and Japan believe in social cohesion, not disposable employees.

sadly though much of those ideas seem to have been lost over the last 10-15 years but somehow i feel that at least around here the pendelum begins to swing back
for example the german SPD sure is bound to swing away from the we-are-more-conservatives-than-the-conservatives line .. because if they don't they will fall apart

also how for example how the US managers of GM are handling the opel sale put of many people around here off ..if anybody is interest they can read up that waterloo GM, opel,magna and the german government pull on the spiegel website

as a result GM want on about how great Insigna and Astra sales are going (GM europes sales dropped 10% even the cash for new cars from the government didn't help) .. and then their promising quarter result of only 1.2 billion ... minus that is
meanwhile their workers in rüsselsheim... who are protesting their own company... will continue to develop GM plattforms ...they sure are

meanwhile FiatChrysler has gone batsh.. insane and wants to double sales untill 2015 with "introducing new small european models to america"... also called 'The-Most-Obvious-Strategy-Ever-Imagined'
at least the Fiat Chrysler managment is worth a few laughs.... i'm sitting here just waiting for the new Fiat Jeepeto.. and the obvious 500 Pickup cross over .. and the optional green-white-red racing stripes on a common rail diesel Chrysler Voyager, or the first Alfa Romeo with a US style suspension
it will be hilarious just thinking about it

Ugg

Nov 17, 2009, 03:29 PM

sadly though much of those ideas seem to have been lost over the last 10-15 years but somehow i feel that at least around here the pendelum begins to swing back
for example the german SPD sure is bound to swing away from the we-are-more-conservatives-than-the-conservatives line .. because if they don't they will fall apart

also how for example how the US managers of GM are handling the opel sale put of many people around here off ..if anybody is interest they can read up that waterloo GM, opel,magna and the german government pull on the spiegel website

as a result GM want on about how great Insigna and Astra sales are going (GM europes sales dropped 10% even the cash for new cars from the government didn't help) .. and then their promising quarter result of only 1.2 billion ... minus that is
meanwhile their workers in rüsselsheim... who are protesting their own company... will continue to develop GM plattforms ...they sure are

meanwhile FiatChrysler has gone batsh.. insane and wants to double sales untill 2015 with "introducing new small european models to america"... also called 'The-Most-Obvious-Strategy-Ever-Imagined'
at least the Fiat Chrysler managment is worth a few laughs.... i'm sitting here just waiting for the new Fiat Jeepeto.. and the obvious 500 Pickup cross over .. and the optional green-white-red racing stripes on a common rail diesel Chrysler Voyager, or the first Alfa Romeo with a US style suspension
it will be hilarious just thinking about it

Yeah, there was a push towards more laissez-faire capitalism but I'm sure that it's going to be pushed to the back of the shelf for awhile. Sarkozy had grand plans to turn France into an ownership society, but now he trumpets how safe and sturdy the French economy is.

I think the places to watch will be the flat taxers. I really haven't read anything about Slovakia lately, but I wonder how they're fairing.

Poland's slow but steady pace seems to be the one that's paid off the most, at least so far.

It'll be fascinating to see how Fiat does with Chrysler. All they need is $100 a barrel oil and their 500s will be selling like hotcakes! I'm sure their quality has changed, but the early 80s Fiats that were sold in the US were awful and I'm sure Italian workmanship needs an image overhaul in the US before they can convince us to buy an Italian car.

takao

Nov 17, 2009, 04:33 PM

Yeah, there was a push towards more laissez-faire capitalism but I'm sure that it's going to be pushed to the back of the shelf for awhile. Sarkozy had grand plans to turn France into an ownership society, but now he trumpets how safe and sturdy the French economy is.

I think the places to watch will be the flat taxers. I really haven't read anything about Slovakia lately, but I wonder how they're fairing.

Poland's slow but steady pace seems to be the one that's paid off the most, at least so far.

to be honest not even in austria much is heard about slovakia .. they sure didn't the the attention of czech president not wanting to sign nor the rumbling of hungarian problems

It'll be fascinating to see how Fiat does with Chrysler. All they need is $100 a barrel oil and their 500s will be selling like hotcakes! I'm sure their quality has changed, but the early 80s Fiats that were sold in the US were awful and I'm sure Italian workmanship needs an image overhaul in the US before they can convince us to buy an Italian car.

in the german ADAC break down statistics 2008 of small cars the Fiat Panda is 3rd behind the audi A2 (out of production since 4 years) and the Toyota Aygo... but the statistic is always most precise about the cars in production for a few years so they don't add cars untill their 3rd year afaik

up until 2005 Fiat still had plenty problems but have improved massivly just like mercedes did after about 2003/04 and just like citroen is currently improving the last 1-2 years... so is VW quality also improving the last few years

but the other side with the french and also italian cars you always could be sure to get some emotion or some exterior/interior style even if the quality was problematic ... now you can get both and to top it of with state of the art technology like the Multiair engine
if you bought/buy a chrysler you didn't get reliability or style.. especially in europe...
not that i hd my own problems with some cars fiat put out .. like the 90hp non-turbo diesel Ulysse Van in which shifting felt like you moved around wet clothes in a bucket with a stick and you accelerated like the moon
(that said it's fuel economy was brilliant and the AC was superb)
edit: i just read that dreadful 90 hp engine had actually a turbo .. which i suppose was powered by a hamster who died long ago in the car i drove...)

itcheroni

Nov 17, 2009, 07:14 PM

So is it good thing to live on credit? Isn't that what got us in to this hole?

Living on credit is partly what got us into this, which is why I am against the government going into debt for us. But by credit, I mean credit for businesses, loans to farmers, etc. My only point was that credit is essential for a vibrant economy and credit comes from savings, thus savings are not necessarily lesser(?) by sitting in someone's account opposed to being spent. Savings simply serves a different and necessary purpose in an economy. A country with a very low or negative savings rate, like US just a couple years ago, has some fundamental economic problems.

Large reason of this recession is unregulation of the markets. It's quite disingenious to think that simply letting markets do whatever they want to do will solve everything. No, the solution is not total regulation of the market (like they tried to do in the ol' Soviet Union) either. That causes the market to grow rigid and unflexible. But laisses-faire capitalism is not the answer either. The answer is somewhere between those extremes. No country is in the either extreme (North-Korea might be close to the total control end of the spectrum, whereas no country is really all that close to pure capitalism...), they are somewhere in the between.

I don't think that there's a direct correlation between amount of government control in market vs. amount of well-being for the citizens. Like I said, Finland seems to have lower unemployment than USA does, and Finnish economy is more regulated than American economy is.

What you say is true but what I say is true as well (that govt interference played the most significant role). So we have to take a look at how both factors contributed. The repeal of Glass Steagall, which is believed to have caused our recession, was signed by Clinton in the late 90's. I've heard that Credit Default Swaps were already being traded by the time Clinton left office. But our housing bubble and the malaise afterwards are a lot more recent. The govt interfered due to the dot com bubble bursting and wanted to stimulate the economy by lowering the interest rate to 1.0%, the absolute lowest rate in history. I think this act carries a lot more consequence than any single law that tightens emission standards or dictate better working conditions. It was after Greenspan lowered the interest rate to 1.0% that the housing market and CDO's exploded. Traditionally, global investors played it safe and bought US Treasuries, but at 1.0%, it just wasn't worth it, and they searched for another investment vehicle.

In hindsight, it is obvious that the repeal of Glass Steagall played a major role in our current situation, but there is no telling what other type of recession we would have had. At an unprecedented 1.0%, there is no telling where the bubble would have formed. I would probably have had a bubble and a bursting, but it would have been a different kind of bubble. On the other hand, if the Fed had kept the interest at a more normal rate of 3-4%, maybe there might have been problems with CDO's but it probably would have been small enough to lack news coverage.

I don't know anything about Finland's central bank but I would be surprised if they controlled their interest rate at 1.0% for an extended period without serious consequences. A low interest also discourages savings. I don't think it was a coincidence that following an unprecedented 1.0% fed funds rate, we soon have a negative savings rate, along with the largest housing bubble ever.

Ugg

Nov 17, 2009, 08:22 PM

not that i hd my own problems with some cars fiat put out .. like the 90hp non-turbo diesel Ulysse Van in which shifting felt like you moved around wet clothes in a bucket with a stick and you accelerated like the moon
(that said it's fuel economy was brilliant and the AC was superb)
edit: i just read that dreadful 90 hp engine had actually a turbo .. which i suppose was powered by a hamster who died long ago in the car i drove...)

I drove a Fiat sedan once in the mid 80s. I honestly don't remember what it was but it was only two or three years old and you could already see the pavement under your feet when you drove. Not a good thing in rainy Seattle. Unlike your mushy transmission, the one I drove was like a stick in a bucket of spare parts the clanked and clinked every time you even so much as looked at it.

I'd love to have a crystal ball and look 5 years into the future and see how Fiat is doing in the US.

Evangelion

Nov 20, 2009, 08:26 AM

I drove a Fiat sedan once in the mid 80s. I honestly don't remember what it was but it was only two or three years old and you could already see the pavement under your feet when you drove. Not a good thing in rainy Seattle. Unlike your mushy transmission, the one I drove was like a stick in a bucket of spare parts the clanked and clinked every time you even so much as looked at it.

I'd love to have a crystal ball and look 5 years into the future and see how Fiat is doing in the US.

Fiat of the eighties is not the Fiat of the 2000's. And even today we need to remember that while Fiat is the parent-company, it's basically the econobox-maker of the overall corporation. Fiat's subsidiaries include such brands as Alfa Romeo, Lancia, Maserati and Ferrari. IIRC, Fiat is planning to use Lancia as their key-brand when it comes to US-market.

Ugg

Nov 20, 2009, 11:11 AM

Fiat of the eighties is not the Fiat of the 2000's. And even today we need to remember that while Fiat is the parent-company, it's basically the econobox-maker of the overall corporation. Fiat's subsidiaries include such brands as Alfa Romeo, Lancia, Maserati and Ferrari. IIRC, Fiat is planning to use Lancia as their key-brand when it comes to US-market.

I know that Fiat has drastically improved the quality of their cars but it'll be interesting to see how they succeed in the US. People's memories are long and they're going to have to rebrand Italian built cars. Americans know only the rattly Fiats and the über expensive Ferraris.

Like I said, that best thing that could happen is for gas to hit $100 a barrel and stay there.

Zombie Acorn

Nov 20, 2009, 12:05 PM

That's funny.

The way the US auto industry got to the point it did was through an insistence by the stock market that short term profits take precedence over long term viability.

In other words, "Excess Profit Über Alles!" Germany and Japan believe in social cohesion, not disposable employees.

The US airline industry went through the same thing and pensions for many airline and auto industry employees have been decimated. All that's taught the heads of those industries is that contracts made today are irrelevant tomorrow and encourage risky behaviour.

Unfettered capitalism leads to periods of extended unemployment for millions of Americans. One can only hope that this time around, the "captains" of industry are held accountable for lining their pockets.

You aren't looking at someone who was for letting capitalism get away with their misdeeds. I would have loved to see GM get **** canned and go into reorganization rather than take billions of US tax payers money.

Also if you still insist that GM should have been building fuel efficient cars you must have not lived in the US during the time gas was low, much lower than EU. No one would have bought them, their gas guzzling sales were the only thing keeping them alive at the time.

Desertrat

Nov 21, 2009, 10:01 AM

Ugg & Zombie: The "short-term" aspect began after the SEC (a regulatory body, right?) began requiring quarterly reports instead of just annual reports. This changed the thinking of both managment and stockholders.

As far as profitability, the Big Three contracted with the UAW in the heyday of their control of the market with quite generous plans for health care and retirement. As the rest of the world industrialized, the overhead from the contracts meant that we could no longer be cost-competitive and still hold quality. Too much overhead in benefits for a given sales price.

Unintended consequences cause a lot of trouble, just as the SEATO treay got us into Vietnam. Benefits contracts contributed greatly to the same sort of mess--along with govermental regulations.

And now all you working people are giving tax dollars to companies which should have been allowed to follow the normal path of bankruptcy. You've rewarded Obama's Car Czar, who was in an ownership position in the auto industry, in a company which is/was a major supplier to Chrysler.

Ugg

Nov 21, 2009, 10:48 AM

Ugg & Zombie: The "short-term" aspect began after the SEC (a regulatory body, right?) began requiring quarterly reports instead of just annual reports. This changed the thinking of both managment and stockholders.

As far as profitability, the Big Three contracted with the UAW in the heyday of their control of the market with quite generous plans for health care and retirement. As the rest of the world industrialized, the overhead from the contracts meant that we could no longer be cost-competitive and still hold quality. Too much overhead in benefits for a given sales price.

You'll have to refresh my memory 'Rat, when did the SEC start requiring quarterly reports? 1934?

All this union thumping gets old when all you have to do is look across the pond and see that Germany's unions are far stronger than the UAW, have ten times the benefits and much more secure jobs. Obviously the biggest difference there is health care. Detroit's unfunded retiree benefits have been a ball and chain for a couple of decades now. Single payer health insurance would have saved Detroit just like it would have saved the US airline industry.

Now, instead of enjoying the fruits of their labors, many auto and airline industry retirees have been stripped of their pensions to reward grotesquely overpaid CEOs and institutional shareholders.

Desertrat

Nov 21, 2009, 06:53 PM

Ugg, I don't remember the exact year; sometime after I moved back to Austin in 1963. I didn't pay attention to that sort of thing until later years, as I read various articles about stock market investments. I ran across commentary about the change in planning patterns.

I'm not thumping on unions: All I said was that the terms of the contracts made in the heyday years of the 1960s proved to be too generous for affordability later on as foreign competition developed. Any idea about single payer is irrelevant to what actually occurred over time; it didn't exist so it's just a bunch of "woulda, coulda, shoulda".

Parenthetically, I spent a year at the Chevy Test Lab, working around UAW folks. Rather educational about the good and the horrible aspects. I had always been and still am supportive of the concept of trade unions, but the corruption is astounding. Maybe not as bad as the Teamsters, but...