PDA

View Full Version : Economics Honestly, explain to me "Fundamentals of the Economy."


Direckshun
09-16-2008, 11:49 PM
What does John McCain mean when he says "the fundamentals of our economy are strong"?

What, exactly, are the "fundamentals" of our economy? Help, please.

Now, it's an intentionally vague phrase. I get it. But vagueness to win a political point opens you up for an insane arrays of interpretation.

On one side, you have Obama and Biden (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G7CRDSZ3Pl4), who claim McCain says the economy is doing fine. I'm not sure that's what the "fundamentals" mean, but it could mean that.

On the other side, you have McCain arguing that "fundamentals" means that people are working hard and still support a culture of working for what you deserve. Again, I'm not sure that's what the "fundamentals" means, but it could mean that.

No doubt Democrats and Republicans will interpret this phrase in ways that benefit their point of view, but that's the problem when you're this vague.

Anybody have a theory as to what McCain means?

Logical
09-16-2008, 11:56 PM
What does John McCain mean when he says "the fundamentals of our economy are strong"?

What, exactly, are the "fundamentals" of our economy? Help, please.

Now, it's an intentionally vague phrase. I get it. But vagueness to win a political point opens you up for an insane arrays of interpretation.

On one side, you have Obama and Biden (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G7CRDSZ3Pl4), who claim McCain says the economy is doing fine. I'm not sure that's what the "fundamentals" mean, but it could mean that.

On the other side, you have McCain arguing that "fundamentals" means that people are working hard and still support a culture of working for what you deserve. Again, I'm not sure that's what the "fundamentals" means, but it could mean that.

No doubt Democrats and Republicans will interpret this phrase in ways that benefit their point of view, but that's the problem when you're this vague.

Anybody have a theory as to what McCain means?If it does not make logical sense upon first glance and the statement has been made multiple times recently. It probably does not just quack like a duck, it probably is a duck.

Mecca
09-16-2008, 11:58 PM
It means what everyone thought it meant, he's just trying to spin it now because it makes him look like a retard.

Guy has the same policies Bush does so what does that say?

Direckshun
09-17-2008, 12:02 AM
It means what everyone thought it meant, he's just trying to spin it now because it makes him look like a retard.

Guy has the same policies Bush does so what does that say?

That's my suspicion as well.

But I'll give him and his supporters here a chance for any other feasible interpretations.

Mecca
09-17-2008, 12:05 AM
That's my suspicion as well.

But I'll give him and his supporters here a chance for any other feasible interpretations.

It's going to involve something like "Obama is for raising taxes" that's generally all McCain can say when it comes to this.

Fishpicker
09-17-2008, 03:26 AM
what's so hard to understand? the fundamentals are strong. there's no arguing that. especially when fundamentals actually mean American workers. McCain has faith in you (the American worker) Granted, you CANT work for an entire season on a plantation. But, Good ole John still has faith in you, despite the fact that you cannot possibly do the same job as a Mexican Expatriate. does this really need any further explanation? if only you Peruwas would get with it, John McCain would stand behind you. just make a choice... work or no work. The thing that Americans need to understand is that beggars cant be choosers, so take your $50/hr or quit complaining entirely.

KCJohnny
09-17-2008, 04:11 AM
Low unemployment, 8 straight years of GDP growth, % of homeowners continues to rise, and all this during 7 years of war. McCain is correct.

Is everyone happy? of course not. What Obama means when he says it is not fundamentally sound is that we are not practicing the type of wealth redistribution favored by Jeremiah Wright and James Cone.

orange
09-17-2008, 05:17 AM
You know, if you REALLY want an answer - and you're not just throwing out more Obama campaign sound-bites - there is a TOOL called "GOOGLE" that you can use to find all sorts of information like that. Here, for example, is a mass-market article:

Economic Fundamentals Say No Recession
By Brian Wesbury, First Trust Portfolios LP
Posted in Our Columns on May 05, 2008 with 0 comments.
tags: Economics



It’s not hard to understand why fears of recession are elevated, or why some economists even think the US is in one right now. From their 2005 peaks, existing home sales are down 32% and new home sales are down 62%. Home prices are falling at their fastest pace in decades. Car and truck sales have been abysmal, with US-made vehicle sales down 15.3% versus a year ago.
The credit markets have seen enormous turmoil, with huge write-downs at major financial institutions, wider risk spreads, and a correction in the stock market.

These developments, or news about them, have helped drop at least one measure of consumer sentiment to its lowest level since the end of the 1981–82 recession, when the unemployment rate was up above 10%.

The conventional wisdom is not always wrong. But because it depends so much on emotion, it can often mislead. As a result, it is in times like these that economic fundamentals become so important. Rather than dwelling on the bad news coming from the financial and housing sectors, we believe it is important to look at the underlying drivers of the economy. And those look very solid.

Monetary policy is not tight. In fact, the Fed is holding interest rates below inflation. Tax rates are still relatively low and have not been hiked, yet. And productivity is still growing strongly. When these three things have been true, the US has never fallen into recession. When these three things are true, a financial market collapse is highly unlikely.

So far, the data have corroborated this historical and fundamental view. Real GDP growth remained positive in the first quarter of 2008. And although the initial report showed just 0.6% annualized growth, new data on construction and inventories suggest a revision to roughly 1.1%. Friday’s trade report will probably add more to these upward revisions.

Of course, the big news on Friday was the Labor Department’s report that payrolls fell only 20,000 in April, which was much less than the consensus expected decline of 75,000. The consensus also had expected an increase in the unemployment rate to 5.2% but the jobless rate fell instead, to 5% (4.953% unrounded).

In our view, the biggest news from the employment report should be the very wide gap between the two major job surveys – the payroll survey and the household survey. The payroll survey is sent to employers and asks how many people are working for them; the household survey finds people at home and asks them whether they are working.

Back in 2002–03, the household measure of civilian employment was much stronger than the payroll survey, signaling economic recovery. However, at the time, many prominent economists, including Alan Greenspan, (wrongly) argued that the payroll survey was right about the economy, not the household survey.
Then, in late 2007, the household survey was weaker than payroll growth, signaling slower growth and gaining some adherents now that it was showing weakness. But in the past few months, the household survey – which we have followed closely all along – has turned up strongly. In the first four months of 2008, when the payrolls survey shows a loss of 65,000 jobs per month, the household survey shows a gain of 179,000 per month.

Look for more positive economic data in the months ahead, as the most predicted recession in US history never comes to pass.


81347


http://www.cdobs.com/archive/our-columns/economic-fundamentals-say-no-recession,1086/

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

If you want something more technical, you can find journal papers like this http://webuser.bus.umich.edu/zhanglu/vgCycle04Aug.pdf

Mecca
09-17-2008, 05:34 AM
Low unemployment, 8 straight years of GDP growth, % of homeowners continues to rise, and all this during 7 years of war. McCain is correct.

Is everyone happy? of course not. What Obama means when he says it is not fundamentally sound is that we are not practicing the type of wealth redistribution favored by Jeremiah Wright and James Cone.

Um unemployment is getting higher...saying it's low is a very nice cover for what's going on.

Fishpicker
09-17-2008, 05:39 AM
Um unemployment is getting higher...saying it's low is a very nice cover for what's going on.

>50% in America work for a living

KCJohnny
09-17-2008, 06:39 AM
Um unemployment is getting higher...saying it's low is a very nice cover for what's going on.

Dude, its less than 5.5%. That's gravy train. Do you have any idea how many people in this country don't want to work? Give me a break, most Mexicans can come here and find a job lickity split.

Next.

penchief
09-17-2008, 06:40 AM
Low unemployment, 8 straight years of GDP growth, % of homeowners continues to rise, and all this during 7 years of war. McCain is correct.

Is everyone happy? of course not. What Obama means when he says it is not fundamentally sound is that we are not practicing the type of wealth redistribution favored by Jeremiah Wright and James Cone.

Then why is McCain changing his tune? Why is he trying to twist it into some sort of reincarnation of "Obama hates the troops" by saying that if you don't agree with him you don't think much of the "workers?" Fundamentals = workers, my ass. Give us break, Mr. McCain. We know what you meant so quit lying.

In reality, it's John "deregulator" McCain and Phil "nation of whiners" Gramm that are the ones who don't care about the workers. The pro-corporate anti-worker economic policies that they continue to advocate prove that.

Seeing you and others trying to defend McCain's ignorance and his grade school bully tact by perpetuating the deflections, the smears, and the lies only convinces me that you are well aware that the republican party is scraping the bottom of the barrel and the scorched earth strategy is all you have left.

Shock and Awe, baby. Shock and Awe!

Mecca
09-17-2008, 06:43 AM
Dude, its less than 5.5%. That's gravy train. Do you have any idea how many people in this country don't want to work? Give me a break, most Mexicans can come here and find a job lickity split.

Next.

Uh it's up over 6 right now actually...

penchief
09-17-2008, 06:44 AM
Dude, its less than 5.5%. That's gravy train. Do you have any idea how many people in this country don't want to work? Give me a break, most Mexicans can come here and find a job lickity split.

Next.

Then you don't agree with McCain when he says that the fundamentals of the economy are strong because the fundamentals are the workers?

banyon
09-17-2008, 08:27 AM
I'm pretty sure it's the fast food industry. People are going to stop stuffing their faces in this country any time soon.

banyon
09-17-2008, 08:29 AM
Uh it's up over 6 right now actually...

The true unemployment rate is more like 9 -12 %

Sully
09-17-2008, 08:36 AM
So... this has nothing to do with the economy keeping its head up, its knees bent, and its hands at a striking position?

Nightfyre
09-17-2008, 08:38 AM
The true unemployment rate is more like 9 -12 %
I am expanding on your post banyon, btw. This is more directed at KCPuppet.

GDP is up over the last 8 years, but so has the federal deficit. GDP is a terrible indicator. Inflation is up over 6% by the pre-clinton era reporting standards.
Homeownership is up because:
1) The Fed lowered interest rates obscenely in the early part of this decade coupled by
2) Bush removing regulations on fannie and freddie
resulting in:
Dire housing crisis present today.

But don't let little facts get in the way of your interpretation, KCJ.

Cave Johnson
09-17-2008, 08:40 AM
The true unemployment rate is more like 9 -12 %

Next Johnny will tell us that inflation is only up 4%.

RINGLEADER
09-17-2008, 08:50 AM
What does John McCain mean when he says "the fundamentals of our economy are strong"?

What, exactly, are the "fundamentals" of our economy? Help, please.

Now, it's an intentionally vague phrase. I get it. But vagueness to win a political point opens you up for an insane arrays of interpretation.

On one side, you have Obama and Biden (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G7CRDSZ3Pl4), who claim McCain says the economy is doing fine. I'm not sure that's what the "fundamentals" mean, but it could mean that.

On the other side, you have McCain arguing that "fundamentals" means that people are working hard and still support a culture of working for what you deserve. Again, I'm not sure that's what the "fundamentals" means, but it could mean that.

No doubt Democrats and Republicans will interpret this phrase in ways that benefit their point of view, but that's the problem when you're this vague.

Anybody have a theory as to what McCain means?


Who knows what McCain meant -- it was a stupid claim to make politically whether you want to dress it in a "he was talking about the hard workers of America" or "he was being optimistic" or however else it's positioned because it gives Obama an opportunity to truncate the full statement and say McCain is out of touch.

Mr. Kotter
09-17-2008, 09:47 AM
What does John McCain mean when he says "the fundamentals of our economy are strong"?

What, exactly, are the "fundamentals" of our economy? Help, please.

Now, it's an intentionally vague phrase. I get it. But vagueness to win a political point opens you up for an insane arrays of interpretation.

On one side, you have Obama and Biden (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G7CRDSZ3Pl4), who claim McCain says the economy is doing fine. I'm not sure that's what the "fundamentals" mean, but it could mean that.

On the other side, you have McCain arguing that "fundamentals" means that people are working hard and still support a culture of working for what you deserve. Again, I'm not sure that's what the "fundamentals" means, but it could mean that.

No doubt Democrats and Republicans will interpret this phrase in ways that benefit their point of view, but that's the problem when you're this vague.

Anybody have a theory as to what McCain means?


FTR, I'm not defending McCain--it was a stupid thing to say. However, my take on it....is he's referring to:

1. worker productivity
2. ingenuity and technical expertise, "know-how"
3. American work ethic
4. capital resources
5. abundant opportunities
6. favorable business climate/policies
7. underlying business infrastructure
8. long-term economic and financial stability

It's sufficiently vague, that....it's "true" on at least some level.

That said, it was also really, really stupid timing on McCain's part.

KCJohnny
09-17-2008, 09:52 AM
The true unemployment rate is more like 9 -12 %

Link?

ROYC75
09-17-2008, 09:57 AM
FTR, I'm not defending McCain--it was a stupid thing to say. However, my take on it....is he's referring to:

1. worker productivity
2. ingenuity and technical expertise, "know-how"
3. American work ethic
4. capital resources
5. abundant opportunities
6. favorable business climate/policies
7. underlying business infrastructure
8. long-term economic and financial stability

It's sufficiently vague, that....it's "true" on at least some level.

That said, it was also really, really stupid timing on McCain's part.

Bingo, Rob nailed it. McCain didn't take it far enough on his comment, left himself open to ridicule because of the latest developing stories.

Had McCain said the fundamentals of the people are strong, we just need to get Wall Street and the economy back to the basic fundementals, then he would have been OK.

Self inflicted stab by not defining the comment ......

Fat Elvis
09-17-2008, 10:00 AM
I am expanding on your post banyon, btw. This is more directed at KCPuppet.

GDP is up over the last 8 years, but so has the federal deficit. GDP is a terrible indicator. Inflation is up over 6% by the pre-clinton era reporting standards.
Homeownership is up because:
1) The Fed lowered interest rates obscenely in the early part of this decade coupled by
2) Bush removing regulations on fannie and freddie
resulting in:
Dire housing crisis present today.

But don't let little facts get in the way of your interpretation, KCJ.

Business is good in KCJ's line of work under this administration, so you have to forgive his ignorance (which is bountiful).

KCJohnny
09-17-2008, 10:01 AM
Among the unemployed, the number of persons who lost their last job rose by
417,000 to 4.8 million in August, with increases occurring among those on tem-
porary layoff and those who do not expect to be recalled to work. Over the last
4 months, the number of unemployed job losers has increased by 810,000. (See
table A-8.)

Link (http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.nr0.htm)

6.1% out of 320 million citizens. And how many of that # are layed off because of the end of summer or the need to go back to school?

Our economy is very strong now. A socialist government such as the "change" platform Obama is running on would plunge us back into the double digit inflation and unemployment % of the Carter administration.

Fat Elvis
09-17-2008, 10:03 AM
Bingo, Rob nailed it. McCain didn't take it far enough on his comment, left himself open to ridicule because of the latest developing stories.

Had McCain said the fundamentals of the people are strong, we just need to get Wall Street and the economy back to the basic fundementals, then he would have been OK.

Self inflicted stab by not defining the comment ......

Since Jan. 2008, McCain has said "the economy is fundamentally sound" at least 22 times in public. He has had plenty of opportunity to define the comment. It is nothing more than a canned soundbite. McCain has no friggin idea what he means when he says the economy is fundamentally sound.

KCJohnny
09-17-2008, 10:04 AM
Business is good in KCJ's line of work under this administration, so you have to forgive his ignorance (which is bountiful).

You have neither refuted my arguments nor established your own.
This is what commonly passes for political discourse.


Take note. This is not political discourse. This is a cheap shot adhominem attack with nothing to add to the discussion.

ROYC75
09-17-2008, 10:06 AM
Since Jan. 2008, McCain has said "the economy is fundamentally sound" at least 22 times in public. He has had plenty of opportunity to define the comment. It is nothing more than a canned soundbite. McCain has no friggin idea what he means when he says the economy is fundamentally sound.


Old politicians will make a comment and try not to go to great details and lengths to explain it each time as a young politicians does .......

patteeu
09-17-2008, 10:06 AM
Um unemployment is getting higher...saying it's low is a very nice cover for what's going on.

It's getting higher from incredibly low levels. It's still low in historical terms. I guess you young pups don't have enough perspective to recognize these things. Obama does well among the crowd that thinks that music always came from iTunes.

KCJohnny
09-17-2008, 10:08 AM
Since Jan. 2008, McCain has said "the economy is fundamentally sound" at least 22 times in public. He has had plenty of opportunity to define the comment. It is nothing more than a canned soundbite. McCain has no friggin idea what he means when he says the economy is fundamentally sound.


Economic Fundamentals Say No Recession
By Brian Wesbury, First Trust Portfolios LP
Posted in Our Columns on May 05, 2008 with 0 comments.
tags: Economics



It’s not hard to understand why fears of recession are elevated, or why some economists even think the US is in one right now. From their 2005 peaks, existing home sales are down 32% and new home sales are down 62%. Home prices are falling at their fastest pace in decades. Car and truck sales have been abysmal, with US-made vehicle sales down 15.3% versus a year ago.
The credit markets have seen enormous turmoil, with huge write-downs at major financial institutions, wider risk spreads, and a correction in the stock market.

These developments, or news about them, have helped drop at least one measure of consumer sentiment to its lowest level since the end of the 1981–82 recession, when the unemployment rate was up above 10%.

The conventional wisdom is not always wrong. But because it depends so much on emotion, it can often mislead. As a result, it is in times like these that economic fundamentals become so important. Rather than dwelling on the bad news coming from the financial and housing sectors, we believe it is important to look at the underlying drivers of the economy. And those look very solid.

Monetary policy is not tight. In fact, the Fed is holding interest rates below inflation. Tax rates are still relatively low and have not been hiked, yet. And productivity is still growing strongly. When these three things have been true, the US has never fallen into recession. When these three things are true, a financial market collapse is highly unlikely.

So far, the data have corroborated this historical and fundamental view. Real GDP growth remained positive in the first quarter of 2008. And although the initial report showed just 0.6% annualized growth, new data on construction and inventories suggest a revision to roughly 1.1%. Friday’s trade report will probably add more to these upward revisions.

Of course, the big news on Friday was the Labor Department’s report that payrolls fell only 20,000 in April, which was much less than the consensus expected decline of 75,000. The consensus also had expected an increase in the unemployment rate to 5.2% but the jobless rate fell instead, to 5% (4.953% unrounded).

In our view, the biggest news from the employment report should be the very wide gap between the two major job surveys – the payroll survey and the household survey. The payroll survey is sent to employers and asks how many people are working for them; the household survey finds people at home and asks them whether they are working.

Back in 2002–03, the household measure of civilian employment was much stronger than the payroll survey, signaling economic recovery. However, at the time, many prominent economists, including Alan Greenspan, (wrongly) argued that the payroll survey was right about the economy, not the household survey.
Then, in late 2007, the household survey was weaker than payroll growth, signaling slower growth and gaining some adherents now that it was showing weakness. But in the past few months, the household survey – which we have followed closely all along – has turned up strongly. In the first four months of 2008, when the payrolls survey shows a loss of 65,000 jobs per month, the household survey shows a gain of 179,000 per month.

Look for more positive economic data in the months ahead, as the most predicted recession in US history never comes to pass.
http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/attachment.php?attachmentid=81347&d=1221650307


http://www.cdobs.com/archive/our-col...ecession,1086/ (http://www.cdobs.com/archive/our-columns/economic-fundamentals-say-no-recession,1086/)

patteeu
09-17-2008, 10:08 AM
Who knows what McCain meant -- it was a stupid claim to make politically whether you want to dress it in a "he was talking about the hard workers of America" or "he was being optimistic" or however else it's positioned because it gives Obama an opportunity to truncate the full statement and say McCain is out of touch.

I agree with this completely. Welcome back, RINGLEADER.

penchief
09-17-2008, 10:09 AM
Bingo, Rob nailed it. McCain didn't take it far enough on his comment, left himself open to ridicule because of the latest developing stories.

Had McCain said the fundamentals of the people are strong, we just need to get Wall Street and the economy back to the basic fundementals, then he would have been OK.

Self inflicted stab by not defining the comment ......

If that is what he meant then why do his policies pull the rug out from under them?

Mr. Kotter
09-17-2008, 10:09 AM
Since Jan. 2008, McCain has said "the economy is fundamentally sound" at least 22 times in public. He has had plenty of opportunity to define the comment. It is nothing more than a canned soundbite. McCain has no friggin idea what he means when he says the economy is fundamentally sound.

On the contrary, I think he (mistakenly) thinks it's self-evident what he means.

He is a part of a generation who knows what the American Dream is/was. He still believes in it. So do most people older than, say, 30 or so. From their view, and mine (and McCain's, it would seem).....America has problems, things need to be fixed (why I'm willing to give Obama a chance,) but....in general, we've still got it pretty good. There is nothing that the people of this country can't fix/rise above.

I know, not everyone believes that....but most of us still do. And most, intuitively KNOW what McCain meant....even if, politically, it has become a inappropriate and ill-timed thing to say, given what's going on/has gone on.

penchief
09-17-2008, 10:13 AM
You have neither refuted my arguments nor established your own.
This is what commonly passes for political discourse.


Take note. This is not political discourse. This is a cheap shot adhominem attack with nothing to add to the discussion.

And you have never answered my questions about Thomas Jefferson's and Ben Franklin's beliefs on religion from another thread. Nor have you answered the question in this thread whether you believe John McCain or not.

Right now you're squawking for refutation of your claims but when someone provides evidence that refutes your claims you ignore it.

KCJohnny
09-17-2008, 10:19 AM
And you have never answered my questions about Thomas Jefferson's and Ben Franklin's beliefs on religion from another thread. Nor have you answered the question in this thread whether you believe John McCain or not.

Right now you're squawking for refutation of your claims but when someone provides evidence that refutes your claims you ignore it.

Baloney. I have answered all these spurrious, spectaular claims time and time again. Anyone who can read knows the clear and unambiguous intention of the Founding Fathers.

I'm not 'squawking'. Personal attacks are not legitimate in public discourse. For heaven's sake, if you are going to appeal to Franklin and Jefferson, at least get the basics right.

Fat Elvis
09-17-2008, 10:31 AM
Economic Fundamentals Say No Recession
By Brian Wesbury, First Trust Portfolios LP
Posted in Our Columns on May 05, 2008 with 0 comments.
tags: Economics



It’s not hard to understand why fears of recession are elevated, or why some economists even think the US is in one right now. From their 2005 peaks, existing home sales are down 32% and new home sales are down 62%. Home prices are falling at their fastest pace in decades. Car and truck sales have been abysmal, with US-made vehicle sales down 15.3% versus a year ago.
The credit markets have seen enormous turmoil, with huge write-downs at major financial institutions, wider risk spreads, and a correction in the stock market.

These developments, or news about them, have helped drop at least one measure of consumer sentiment to its lowest level since the end of the 1981–82 recession, when the unemployment rate was up above 10%.

The conventional wisdom is not always wrong. But because it depends so much on emotion, it can often mislead. As a result, it is in times like these that economic fundamentals become so important. Rather than dwelling on the bad news coming from the financial and housing sectors, we believe it is important to look at the underlying drivers of the economy. And those look very solid.

Monetary policy is not tight. In fact, the Fed is holding interest rates below inflation. Tax rates are still relatively low and have not been hiked, yet. And productivity is still growing strongly. When these three things have been true, the US has never fallen into recession. When these three things are true, a financial market collapse is highly unlikely.

So far, the data have corroborated this historical and fundamental view. Real GDP growth remained positive in the first quarter of 2008. And although the initial report showed just 0.6% annualized growth, new data on construction and inventories suggest a revision to roughly 1.1%. Friday’s trade report will probably add more to these upward revisions.

Of course, the big news on Friday was the Labor Department’s report that payrolls fell only 20,000 in April, which was much less than the consensus expected decline of 75,000. The consensus also had expected an increase in the unemployment rate to 5.2% but the jobless rate fell instead, to 5% (4.953% unrounded).

In our view, the biggest news from the employment report should be the very wide gap between the two major job surveys – the payroll survey and the household survey. The payroll survey is sent to employers and asks how many people are working for them; the household survey finds people at home and asks them whether they are working.

Back in 2002–03, the household measure of civilian employment was much stronger than the payroll survey, signaling economic recovery. However, at the time, many prominent economists, including Alan Greenspan, (wrongly) argued that the payroll survey was right about the economy, not the household survey.
Then, in late 2007, the household survey was weaker than payroll growth, signaling slower growth and gaining some adherents now that it was showing weakness. But in the past few months, the household survey – which we have followed closely all along – has turned up strongly. In the first four months of 2008, when the payrolls survey shows a loss of 65,000 jobs per month, the household survey shows a gain of 179,000 per month.

Look for more positive economic data in the months ahead, as the most predicted recession in US history never comes to pass.
http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/attachment.php?attachmentid=81347&d=1221650307


http://www.cdobs.com/archive/our-col...ecession,1086/ (http://www.cdobs.com/archive/our-columns/economic-fundamentals-say-no-recession,1086/)



lol at the date of the article.

This especially: When these three things have been true, the US has never fallen into recession. When these three things are true, a financial market collapse is highly unlikely






As an aside, yesterday alone, over 50,000 people lost their jobs at just Lehman and HP.

Even more damning: You're claiming a 5% unemployment rate in May of 08 and today it stands at 6.1%; that is a HUGE jump in such a short period of time. That would suggest that things are flushing down the toilet faster and harder than you or the author of the article could of ever expected.

KCJohnny
09-17-2008, 10:38 AM
lol at the date of the article.

This especially:






As an aside, yesterday alone, over 50,000 people lost their jobs at just Lehman and HP.

Even more damning: You're claiming a 5% unemployment rate in May of 08 and today it stands at 6.1%; that is a HUGE jump in such a short period of time. That would suggest that things are flushing down the toilet faster and harder than you or the author of the article could of ever expected.

D-E-M-O-C-R-A-T-C-O-N-T-R-O-L-L-E-D C-O-N-G-R-E-S-S.

BucEyedPea
09-17-2008, 10:40 AM
Ron Paul says the fundamentals of our economy have been eroded over the past 16 years. The Greenspan/Bernanke era. Using employment is a Keyenesian tool as is GDP. They are flawed indicators. He also says we're just in an early phase of what could get worse...on the other hand no one knows the exact date our economic chickens will come home to r-o-o-s-t!!! Just that they will someday.

penchief
09-17-2008, 10:47 AM
Baloney. I have answered all these spurrious, spectaular claims time and time again. Anyone who can read knows the clear and unambiguous intention of the Founding Fathers.

I'm not 'squawking'. Personal attacks are not legitimate in public discourse. For heaven's sake, if you are going to appeal to Franklin and Jefferson, at least get the basics right.


Baloney is right. I posted direct quotes from Jefferson and Franklin. If you are going to suggest that the basics aren't right maybe you should take it up with them. You never answered whether or not you agreed or disagreed with their statements. Ben Franklin and Thomas Jefferson are waiting for your answer. Why do you ignore them? They probably don't take too kindly to you misrepresenting their positions to satisfy your own bias.

penchief
09-17-2008, 10:53 AM
D-E-M-O-C-R-A-T-C-O-N-T-R-O-L-L-E-D C-O-N-G-R-E-S-S.

Boy, you are really unreasonable, aren't you? You make it sound like the democrats can actually get anything done. It took immense public pressure just for the republicans to agree to an increase in the minimum wage.

And when you look at the whole body of work from both sides of the aisle one thing is clear. Democrats are the ones who are always going to bat for the worker and the consumer while republicans are always the ones obstructing their efforts.

Nightfyre
09-17-2008, 10:54 AM
D-E-M-O-C-R-A-T-C-O-N-T-R-O-L-L-E-D C-O-N-G-R-E-S-S.
What does this have anything to do with the events of today? Wwwwwhat? you don't know? THATS BECAUSE IT DOESN'T HAVE ANYTHING TO DO WITH IT.

penchief
09-17-2008, 10:54 AM
Baloney. I have answered all these spurrious, spectaular claims time and time again. Anyone who can read knows the clear and unambiguous intention of the Founding Fathers.

I'm not 'squawking'. Personal attacks are not legitimate in public discourse. For heaven's sake, if you are going to appeal to Franklin and Jefferson, at least get the basics right.

By the way, do you agree with McCain that the worker is strong or do you agree with your own assessment that too many people in this country don't want to work?

KCJohnny
09-17-2008, 10:57 AM
By the way, do you agree with McCain that the worker is strong or do you agree with your own assessment that too many people in this country don't want to work?

If 12 million Mexicans can find work here, there are jobs.

KCJohnny
09-17-2008, 10:58 AM
What does this have anything to do with the events of today? Wwwwwhat? you don't know? THATS BECAUSE IT DOESN'T HAVE ANYTHING TO DO WITH IT.

Nice try! Ever heard of the House Ways and Means Committee?

BucEyedPea
09-17-2008, 10:58 AM
If 12 million Mexicans can find work here, there are jobs.

Yeah but what kind? Min wage or working OT to make ends meet.

Nightfyre
09-17-2008, 11:02 AM
Nice try! Ever heard of the House Ways and Means Committee?

What could they possibly do to stop the hemorrhaging of jobs created by this financial disaster?

KCJohnny
09-17-2008, 11:02 AM
Yeah but what kind? Min wage or working OT to make ends meet.

With your party hustling middle American enterpreneurs to pay 'living wages' to any and everyone who can sign a paycheck, I'm surprised you ask. There is no such thing as a right to a middle class wage for people who have not attributed to it. But feel free to inquire in the socialist republic of North Korea just a few miles from where I am now. They'll give you an earful about the beauty of socialist redistributionsist policy.

KCJohnny
09-17-2008, 11:05 AM
What could they possibly do to stop the hemorrhaging of jobs created by this financial disaster?

I'm sorry, you are so right, its not their fault. Even though Congress controlls spending, its the evil Bush/Cheney cabal that is responsible for the cheap credit and easy lending policies that got us here.

Nightfyre
09-17-2008, 11:07 AM
I'm sorry, you are so right, its not their fault. Even though Congress controlls spending, its the evil Bush/Cheney cabal that is responsible for the cheap credit and easy lending policies that got us here.

Where did I blame Bush/Cheney? I simply said the fundamentals of our economy aren't sound. And that is a fact.

penchief
09-17-2008, 11:11 AM
If 12 million Mexicans can find work here, there are jobs.

So McCain is wrong.

Let me know when you're going to address the words of Thomas Jefferson and Ben Franklin.

BucEyedPea
09-17-2008, 11:12 AM
With your party hustling middle American enterpreneurs to pay 'living wages' to any and everyone who can sign a paycheck, I'm surprised you ask. There is no such thing as a right to a middle class wage for people who have not attributed to it. But feel free to inquire in the socialist republic of North Korea just a few miles from where I am now. They'll give you an earful about the beauty of socialist redistributionsist policy.

My party? I'm a conservative Republican. Aka small govt conservativism.

Just wow!

You do know there is a whole contingent of anti-war conservatives don't you?
Who are pro-market-capitalism. Oh, btw, we have a mixed economy with plenty of socialism in it.

I think you need to stop looking at the world through 2-valued logic, B&W and more in terms of scales or spectrums.

KCJohnny
09-17-2008, 11:12 AM
Where did I blame Bush/Cheney? I simply said the fundamentals of our economy aren't sound. And that is a fact.

That is your assertion. The empirical data (http://www.usnews.com/blogs/capital-commerce/2008/09/16/mccains-right-the-economy-is-fundamentally-sound.html) do not support it.


1) Wall Street is in a recession (autos and housing, too), but the overall U.S. economy is not. The economy probably grew at close to 4 percent in the second quarter and is expanding at near 2 percent in the third quarter.
2) Worker productivity, the single best measure of the intrinsic strength of an economy, is booming. It was up 3.4 percent from a year ago in the second quarter. As market guru Ed Yardeni notes, "It is up by another percentage point, excluding the depressed residential construction industry. Economic growth is shifting from low productivity home construction to high productivity capital goods exports manufacturing." This is good.
3) In its 2007 ranking of global competitiveness, the World Economic Forum ranked America first. Among its strengths: Higher education, labor markets, and innovation. The credit crisis hasn't changed any of that. (The 2008 ranking comes out next month.)
4) Consumer confidence has actually been rising all summer. No doubt the upturn is linked to the 40 percent drop in prices. The "energy tax cut" will help real working incomes.
Bottom line: What's not fundamentally sound is the [democrat majority]U.S. government. For starters, it has huge long-term liabilities. What's more, it pushed a pro-housing agenda (Fannie/Freddie, subsidies) that when combined with absurdly low interest rates earlier this decade (via the Fed) created the environment for the housing bubble and implosion and now rising unemployment. Michael Bloomberg nailed it yesterday when he said in an interview, "I do agree that fundamentally America has an economy that is strong. America's great strength is its diversity, its hard work, its good financial statements, its broad capital markets, its enormous natural resources.... I'd rather play America's hand than any other country. Without problems? No."

Mr. Kotter
09-17-2008, 11:14 AM
So McCain is wrong.

Let me know when you're going to address the words of Thomas Jefferson and Ben Franklin.


To be fair, Jefferson and Franklin were primarily concerned with the establishment of a national religion.....and preventing theocratic characteristics from creeping into the culture.

Both, whole-heartedly, endorsed the idea of religious freedom though....which many folks today, it would seem, would just as soon forget is ALSO an important part of the first amendment.

It's an important distinction.

KCJohnny
09-17-2008, 11:15 AM
My party? I'm a conservative Republican. Aka small govt conservativism.

Just wow!

You do know there is a whole contingent of anti-war conservatives don't you?
Who are pro-market-capitalism. Oh, btw, we have a mixed economy with plenty of socialism in it.

I think you need to stop looking at the world through 2-valued logic, B&W and more in terms of scales or spectrums.

We need to talk. If you are a conservative, we need to optimize our synergy offline. I am surprised at your professed affiliation - take that for what it is worth.

KCJohnny
09-17-2008, 11:16 AM
To be fair, Jefferson and Franklin were primarily concerned with the establishment of a national religion.....and preventing theocratic characteristics from creeping into the culture.

Both, whole-heartedly, endorsed the idea of religious freedom though....which many folks today, it would seem, would just as soon forget is ALSO an important part of the first amendment.

It's an important distinction.
:clap::clap::clap:

BucEyedPea
09-17-2008, 11:17 AM
We need to talk. If you are a conservative, we need to optimize our synergy offline. I am surprised at your professed affiliation - take that for what it is worth.

Nah! You're just not here enough.
I'm just not a BIG govt conservative.
I am pro-life and hence anti-war as well.
Other than that I am a social moderate but feel those issues should not be nationalized at the federal level but kept with the states and community standards.

BucEyedPea
09-17-2008, 11:18 AM
:clap::clap::clap:

Now see, I agreed with Kotter on that too. :clap:

KCJohnny
09-17-2008, 11:29 AM
Nah! You're just not here enough.
I'm just not a BIG govt conservative.
I am pro-life and hence anti-war as well.
Other than that I am a social moderate but feel those issues should not be nationalized at the federal level but kept with the states and community standards.
Then I have profound respect for you and your heartfelt convictions.
Pro Life is the bedrock of all other political positions. As a professional Soldier who is also Pro Life, I think was can navigate substantial common ground.

I'm not a fan of big govt either.

KCJ

Fat Elvis
09-17-2008, 11:31 AM
Nice try! Ever heard of the House Ways and Means Committee?

LOL, yeah, the House Ways and Means Committee is responsible for a credit crunch resulting in banks being unable to raise enough capital to cover the loans they wrote.

Fat Elvis
09-17-2008, 11:33 AM
Then I have profound respect for you and your heartfelt convictions.
Pro Life is the bedrock of all other political positions. As a professional Soldier who is also Pro Life, I think was can navigate substantial common ground.

I'm not a fan of big govt either.

KCJ

Irony at its finest: http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=growth+of+government+under+bush&aq=1&oq=growth+of+government

KCJohnny
09-17-2008, 11:34 AM
LOL, yeah, the House Ways and Means Committee is responsible for a credit crunch resulting in banks being unable to raise enough capital to cover the loans they wrote.

Uh, YEAH, loans written under a democrat legislative watch that wanted to extend federally garaunteed credit to anyone with a pulse and an address.

Friendo
09-17-2008, 11:38 AM
Irony at its finest: http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=growth+of+government+under+bush&aq=1&oq=growth+of+government

while on the subject...

http://www.warresisters.org/pages/piechart.htm

Nightfyre
09-17-2008, 11:39 AM
That is your assertion. The empirical data (http://www.usnews.com/blogs/capital-commerce/2008/09/16/mccains-right-the-economy-is-fundamentally-sound.html) do not support it.

Here's something interesting for you!
The Federal Deposit Insurance Corp.—which guarantees accounts at more than 8,500 banks and savings associations—has recently increased its tally of "problem" institutions by more than 50 percent, to 76, from the year-earlier period. Meanwhile, the agency is working to bring 25 officials—who served during a wave of bank failures in the savings and loan crisis of the 1980s—out of retirement.

Unemployment is up over 6% not counting today
Real inflation is up over 6%
In just this year, we have watched bear get bailed out, fannie and freddie get bailed out, lehman sink, indymac get seized, AIG get bailed out, Treasury reserves dwindle, Fed loaning at an all-time high (an indicator that banks are all but insolvent,) and Bank of America get so big that if it collapses no one will be able to bail them out and the economy will follow it.

But cut and paste more, since you are so clued in.

KCJohnny
09-17-2008, 11:45 AM
Here's something interesting for you!
The Federal Deposit Insurance Corp.—which guarantees accounts at more than 8,500 banks and savings associations—has recently increased its tally of "problem" institutions by more than 50 percent, to 76, from the year-earlier period. Meanwhile, the agency is working to bring 25 officials—who served during a wave of bank failures in the savings and loan crisis of the 1980s—out of retirement.

Unemployment is up over 6% not counting today
Real inflation is up over 6%
In just this year, we have watched bear get bailed out, fannie and freddie get bailed out, lehman sink, indymac get seized, AIG get bailed out, Treasury reserves dwindle, Fed loaning at an all-time high (an indicator that banks are all but insolvent,) and Bank of America get so big that if it collapses no one will be able to bail them out and the economy will follow it.

But cut and paste more, since you are so clued in.

Yes! Two words: Nancy Pelosi.

Even you know what the relationship between Congress and the WH is for economic policy. The House holds the actual purse strings. That's Pelosi and her accomplice Dingy Harry Reid in the senate. For Fannie and Freddie reporting, Obama has some 'splaining' to do (http://amyproctor.squarespace.com/blog/2008/9/17/barack-obama-2-on-fannie-mae-freddie-macs-lobbyistcampaign-c.html) on that.

Fat Elvis
09-17-2008, 11:54 AM
Uh, YEAH, loans written under a democrat legislative watch that wanted to extend federally garaunteed credit to anyone with a pulse and an address.


IF that is your assertation, then correct me if I'm wrong, but most of the home loans that went sour were written at least 3 years ago or more and are now resetting....who controlled congress then?

Pssst. BTW, House Ways and Means Committee has nothing to do with it.

2bikemike
09-17-2008, 12:16 PM
I think this article goes a little way in explaining McCain's thoughts.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26744322/

Stewie
09-17-2008, 12:26 PM
Economic fundamental numbers are massaged by the very people who tout their proof that "all is well." It's an experiment in recursive bullshit.

***SPRAYER
09-17-2008, 12:27 PM
In just this year, we have watched bear get bailed out, fannie and freddie get bailed out, lehman sink, indymac get seized, AIG get bailed out, Treasury reserves dwindle, Fed loaning at an all-time high (an indicator that banks are all but insolvent,) and Bank of America get so big that if it collapses no one will be able to bail them out and the economy will follow it.

Wow. This is getting scary, and I'm not kidding.

BucEyedPea
09-17-2008, 12:29 PM
Lew Rockwell predicts WaMu to be next and that will deplete the FDIC.
Fractional reserve banking at its finest.

HC_Chief
09-17-2008, 12:31 PM
We're seeing a market correction due to horrific lending practices and braindead debt monetization schemes. It is the bubble bursting. The result is deflation of the market; a cyclical self-correction.

I am more worried of the government intervention than I am the correction itself. It looks to me like the fed is swooping in to take control of a natural situation in order to provide more $$ for a few in power.

Nightfyre
09-17-2008, 12:36 PM
Yes! Two words: Nancy Pelosi.

Even you know what the relationship between Congress and the WH is for economic policy. The House holds the actual purse strings. That's Pelosi and her accomplice Dingy Harry Reid in the senate. For Fannie and Freddie reporting, Obama has some 'splaining' to do (http://amyproctor.squarespace.com/blog/2008/9/17/barack-obama-2-on-fannie-mae-freddie-macs-lobbyistcampaign-c.html) on that.
You're making this partisan again. I AM NOT ARGUING ABOUT IT. I am arguing the fundamentals of our economy aren't strong.

If you want to argue about the partisanship of it all, both parties are equally to blame.
1) Secretary of the Treasury Henry Paulson has constructed many of these bailout plans.
2) A republican congress passed and a democratic president signed the repeal of the Glass-Steagle Act.
3) A republican congress passed and a republican president signed laws deregulating fannie and freddie
4) The Fed simultaneously slammed on its credit accelerator

All of these things created the crisis we have today and will contribute to the crisis of next year.

Nightfyre
09-17-2008, 12:37 PM
Economic fundamental numbers are massaged by the very people who tout their proof that "all is well." It's an experiment in recursive bullshit.
Happy Birthday!

Fat Elvis
09-17-2008, 12:38 PM
We're seeing a market correction due to horrific lending practices and braindead debt monetization schemes. It is the bubble bursting. The result is deflation of the market; a cyclical self-correction.

I am more worried of the government intervention than I am the correction itself. It looks to me like the fed is swooping in to take control of a natural situation in order to provide more $$ for a few in power.


Kill me now, I actually agree with you.

Nightfyre
09-17-2008, 12:38 PM
Yes! Two words: Nancy Pelosi.

Even you know what the relationship between Congress and the WH is for economic policy. The House holds the actual purse strings. That's Pelosi and her accomplice Dingy Harry Reid in the senate. For Fannie and Freddie reporting, Obama has some 'splaining' to do (http://amyproctor.squarespace.com/blog/2008/9/17/barack-obama-2-on-fannie-mae-freddie-macs-lobbyistcampaign-c.html) on that.

OH AND PS. Monetary policy has created the vast majority of this situation, and the congress nor the president have anything to do with that.

penchief
09-17-2008, 12:40 PM
To be fair, Jefferson and Franklin were primarily concerned with the establishment of a national religion.....and preventing theocratic characteristics from creeping into the culture.

Both, whole-heartedly, endorsed the idea of religious freedom though....which many folks today, it would seem, would just as soon forget is ALSO an important part of the first amendment.

It's an important distinction.

I endorse freedom of religion. He's trying to argue that they intended for this to be a Christian nation and that they did not prefer a separation between church and state. He's trying to say that there is no doubt about that.

Nightfyre
09-17-2008, 12:42 PM
I endorse freedom of religion. He's trying to argue that they intended for this to be a Christian nation and that they did not prefer a separation between church and state. He's trying to say that there is no doubt about their intentions.
Pfft. Jefferson wasn't even a full-blown christian; he was a deist. Furthermore, he wrote a letter that explicitly explains the divide between church and state.

HC_Chief
09-17-2008, 12:43 PM
Kill me now, I actually agree with you.

You should. I am correct 99.999842% of the time :D

Fat Elvis
09-17-2008, 12:45 PM
OH AND PS. Monetary policy has created the vast majority of this situation, and the congress nor the president have anything to do with that.


Apparently, Johnny must think that the Fed is controlled by the House Ways and Means Committee.....

***SPRAYER
09-17-2008, 12:46 PM
I am more worried of the government intervention than I am the correction itself. It looks to me like the fed is swooping in to take control of a natural situation in order to provide more $$ for a few in power.

I agree. The government should not take over a private business, especially when the "watchdog" who let this happen was the government.

HC_Chief
09-17-2008, 12:47 PM
I agree. The government should not take over a private business, especially when the "watchdog" who let this happen was the government.

The government was instrumental in causing the fiasco. The deregulation in 2004 allowed much of this to occur.

Stewie
09-17-2008, 12:47 PM
Happy Birthday!

Thanks! I don't "feel" old! :)

penchief
09-17-2008, 12:48 PM
Pfft. Jefferson wasn't even a full-blown christian; he was a deist. Furthermore, he wrote a letter that explicitly explains the divide between church and state.

Exactly. That's why I keep asking KCJohnny to respond to the statements I posted by both Jefferson and Franklin. He says he has but he hasn't. He just keeps spouting off about how the "separation" thing is a modern interpretation and that it is clear that our founding fathers intended no such thing.

The reason I brought it up was because he was accusing someone of not refuting his claims. I was pointing out that even when someone does, he ignores it. He's still ignoring it.

Fat Elvis
09-17-2008, 01:05 PM
Exactly. That's why I keep asking KCJohnny to respond to the statements I posted by both Jefferson and Franklin. He says he has but he hasn't. He just keeps spouting off about how the "separation" thing is a modern interpretation and that it is clear that our founding fathers intended no such thing.

The reason I brought it up was because he was accusing someone of not refuting his claims. I was pointing out that even when someone does, he ignores it. He's still ignoring it.


You are a civilian and therefore hate God and America.

KCJ

tiptap
09-17-2008, 01:20 PM
Multiplier gentle men, multiplier. It works in a falling market as well. If you let the failures generate at too high a pace, allow free fall, you are just as likely to run pass the correction point and undervalue assets and forestall a recovery. At that point you are putting the economy in too real trouble. This idea that the market is all knowing is just like an oracle. Really it is just human knowledge at play.

Calcountry
09-17-2008, 01:31 PM
What does John McCain mean when he says "the fundamentals of our economy are strong"?

What, exactly, are the "fundamentals" of our economy? Help, please.

Now, it's an intentionally vague phrase. I get it. But vagueness to win a political point opens you up for an insane arrays of interpretation.

On one side, you have Obama and Biden (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G7CRDSZ3Pl4), who claim McCain says the economy is doing fine. I'm not sure that's what the "fundamentals" mean, but it could mean that.

On the other side, you have McCain arguing that "fundamentals" means that people are working hard and still support a culture of working for what you deserve. Again, I'm not sure that's what the "fundamentals" means, but it could mean that.

No doubt Democrats and Republicans will interpret this phrase in ways that benefit their point of view, but that's the problem when you're this vague.

Anybody have a theory as to what McCain means?Quite frankly, it's a gaffe on his part. Honestly, there has been little if any leadership on this issue this entire election cycle. They run from platitudes of change and hope on one side, to a me too type of response from McCain. Honestly, this is to be expected of McCain as he is a real dumb ass when it comes to this subject. I didn't vote for him in the primaries, as we need REAL leadership, not reaction ship when it comes to the economy.

The fundamentals suck. We have an aging baby boom population that will be retiring, yet still acting like the spoiled children that they always were, wanting their way all the time, every time. It will be virtually impossible, for an abortion depleted population of payees to support FDR's social security system when the boomers retire. Who is going to bail out the lock box?

The amorality when it comes to contracts, and obligations have reached biblical proportions. Everyone was fine, regular Donald Trumps in the making when their 3 or 4 properties were going up. Now that they have have dipped, have no compunction whatsoever to just walk away from these deals. This cuts across all lines, as people bought homes and used them for free rent, with no intention of paying for them, used them up, shit on the floor, then left.

Now the house of cards, that us gold buyers have been warning against for years, if not decades, is crashing.

America's chickens, are coming home, to roost. Somebodies campaign is probably happy about all of this, because, they have no real answer, and are actually happy it is happening, because it will be the vehicle that they will drive to the White House. But be careful, the note is coming due on that vehicle.