1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.
  2. We've had very few donations over the year. I'm going to be short soon as some personal things are keeping me from putting up the money. If you have something small to contribute it's greatly appreciated. Please put your screen name as well so that I can give you credit. Click here: Donations
    Dismiss Notice

It's the Economy, stupid - Languishing & Lingering after the Great Recession

Discussion in 'Tilted Philosophy, Politics, and Economics' started by rogue49, Aug 10, 2012.

  1. Aceventura

    Aceventura Slightly Tilted

    Location:
    North Carolina
  2. Baraka_Guru

    Baraka_Guru Möderätor Staff Member

    Location:
    Toronto
    But thank god it doesn't look as bad as the Reagan period, amiright? (Also, let's hope there isn't another global financial crisis.)
     
    • Like Like x 1
  3. redux

    redux Very Tilted

    Location:
    Foggy Bottom
    Or a president misleading (lying) us into another unnecessary war.

    But if that happens, the pres can always put the war costs off budget so it wont impact the annual deficit....a trick Bush perfected with nearly $1 trillion in war costs between 2003 and 2009.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  4. Aceventura

    Aceventura Slightly Tilted

    Location:
    North Carolina
    Debt and deficits are not inherently negative relative to economic growth and stability and can be positive. The important issues is what the money is being spent on. Investments with measurable returns is one thing - debt use for the ultimate goal of redistribution of wealth is another. Our current administration does not view the use of debt the way I would - that is my core problem with the current administration.
     
  5. redux

    redux Very Tilted

    Location:
    Foggy Bottom
    Ace.....I assume once again, you wont accept the numerous independent, non-partisan studies based on real data that programs like SNAP and extended unemployment insurance , particularly during (and coming out of) a recession are two most cost-effective of all spending and tax options it examined for boosting growth and jobs in a weak economy....as opposed to Reagan's massive deficit/debt increasing trickle down tax cuts that contributed little or nothing to economic growth.
    --- merged: Feb 6, 2014 at 4:55 PM ---
    [​IMG]

    I must not understand the fuzzy math where making Bush's tax cuts for the wealthiest permanent would have been a better stimulus than extending food stamps or unemployment insurance.

    Or how investing in infrastructure (blocked at every turn by Republicans in Congress) is redistribution of wealth.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Feb 13, 2014
    • Like Like x 1
  6. Baraka_Guru

    Baraka_Guru Möderätor Staff Member

    Location:
    Toronto
    And sometimes they're the same thing. You'll need to be more specific.

    How would you view the use of debt?
     
  7. rogue49

    rogue49 Tech Kung Fu Artist Staff Member

    Location:
    Baltimore/DC
    This is the headline of an article Another disappointing jobs report

    YET...we created more jobs...and the unemployment rate went down another notch.

    When did we get so cynical??
    What is good enough?

    I would think "disappointing" would mean getting worse, going down.
    But NO, "not good enough"..."what have you done lately?"

    People are petty and unrealistic. :rolleyes:
     
    • Like Like x 1
  8. rogue49

    rogue49 Tech Kung Fu Artist Staff Member

    Location:
    Baltimore/DC
    Ok, I'm tired of red-meat conservatives throwing out financial fear mongering.
    (more than likely because they aren't in full control...and their "guy" isn't at the top)

    Let's stick to the facts...and not the ones from the liberals to get their agenda through either.
    Can't we just deal with reality???

    THAT, all the above AND we just struck energy gold in the Northern Plain states...enough to allow us to export on the levels of Saudi Arabia.

    I think the employment scenario described above a combination of things, a subtle shift in low-skill jobs being converted into automated ones.
    The fact that companies are sitting on unprecedented levels of cash ...and not hiring (because of the constant fear mongering...)
    Nor do they want to train anymore...experience and orientation right out the box is the new mindset.

    And finally...why are these myths touted so much?
    Not just politicians and pundits fault...but media loves a controversy...if it bleeds, it leads.

    I have a dream...a dream when people deal in true perspectives.
    *sigh* But that's just a pipe dream...
    Because people would just rather scream & shout about the sky falling or put on rose colored glasses otherwise.
    And with those watching the gladiator pits the mayhem is just encouraged.

    I wonder why I care so much?
    Because I'm the idiot in the center of the battle shouting, "there's nothing to fight over..." :rolleyes:
     
    Last edited: Feb 17, 2014
  9. ASU2003

    ASU2003 Very Tilted

    Location:
    Where ever I roam
    That is a delusion of the right-wing/big oil companies. There is no way the math works out for us to start 'exporting' anything, let alone be energy independent by drilling more.

    This was from a few years ago, but ND and TX haven't been able to produce enough to make up the gap, let alone export like Saudi Arabia without eliminating oil use by all Americans. And if they did try to export without reducing demand here, it would just deplete the reserves in the ground at a very quick pace and they would run out much faster.

    [​IMG]

    And it is that gap that has caused all of the problems in the past 40 years. From the devaluation of the dollar, lower quality of life when you do make money, rich getting richer in the oil industry, foreign entanglements, and pollution.
     
    Last edited: Feb 18, 2014
    • Like Like x 1
  10. Baraka_Guru

    Baraka_Guru Möderätor Staff Member

    Location:
    Toronto
    Yes, it's important to keep perspective here.

    They recently found that the Northern Plains oil reserve is double what they previously thought. In real terms, that means ~7 billion barrels. A few caveats though:
    • This still finds the U.S. out of the top ten nations by proven oil reserves.
    • This still means Canada has ~6 times more reserves and Saudi Arabia has ~9 times more reserves.
    • Even if you added in the estimated undiscovered U.S. oil reserves (somewhere around 200 billion barrels), America's total reserves would still fall short of Saudi Arabia's proven reserves—by an amount greater than America's current reserves.
    • Production is key. Most of the Northern Plains oil is "tight oil," which mean it's difficult (i.e., expensive) to extract. (Ask Canada about oil that's difficult/expensive to extract.)
    • Tight oil extraction has a lot of environmental repercussions that will only add to the difficulty of establishing a highly productive infrastructure.
    • There are two reasons why it's difficult to bridge the gap between production and consumption: 1) production increases are extremely difficult to ramp up, 2) consumption increases are extremely difficult to manage—they're tied to the economy.
    • So what you have is an economy that demands oil when it expands, but a difficult time accessing all this new oil you found. So what do you do? You turn to OPEC.
     
    Last edited: Feb 18, 2014
    • Like Like x 2
  11. Charlatan

    Charlatan sous les pavés, la plage

    Location:
    Temasek
    Ultimately, use reduction is the best route.

    And that doesn't mean that we have to stop using it, we just need to be more efficient with our current usage (for starters).
     
  12. redux

    redux Very Tilted

    Location:
    Foggy Bottom
    Two of the few decent laws to come out of the Bush administration were the bi-partisan Energy Policy Act of 2005 that set renewable energy requirements of 3 percent in 07-09 and rising to 7.5% for 2013 and beyond and the Energy Independence Security Act with new energy efficiency requirements for vehicles, buildings and products.

    Small steps but better than none.

    Now, we're back to a common sense comprehensive plan vs a hardline big oil plan:

    [​IMG]
     
    • Like Like x 1
  13. Spiritsoar

    Spiritsoar Slightly Tilted

    Location:
    New York
    What I'm hearing is that we need to invade Canada.
     
  14. Charlatan

    Charlatan sous les pavés, la plage

    Location:
    Temasek
    It's easier to just fuck Canada in the ass, like always.

    There are so many Canadian politicians who are willing...
     
    • Like Like x 2
  15. Baraka_Guru

    Baraka_Guru Möderätor Staff Member

    Location:
    Toronto
    Silly American, Canada's oil belongs to China!
     
    • Like Like x 1
  16. ASU2003

    ASU2003 Very Tilted

    Location:
    Where ever I roam
    If they re-elect Rob Ford we just might. It will be proof that they have lost it and need our help.
     
  17. Charlatan

    Charlatan sous les pavés, la plage

    Location:
    Temasek
    Toronto ≠ Canada
     
  18. Baraka_Guru

    Baraka_Guru Möderätor Staff Member

    Location:
    Toronto
    I think he meant Stephen Harper. ;)
     
    • Like Like x 1
  19. rogue49

    rogue49 Tech Kung Fu Artist Staff Member

    Location:
    Baltimore/DC
    So we're not lingering so much after the Great Recession now,
    although, it's still not up where it should due to management reticence and political/media fear-mongering.
    Still US Consumer Confidence has reached a 6-year high...nice to know.

    Yet the new re-coldwar scenario may throw things for a loop...if not other things.

    However, different technologies are emerging and becoming more used and prevalent that may change how things work and the macro-economics.
    One of these is 3D printing.
    Still in its toddler stages...it has the potential to alter how things are made.

    The 3D Economy

    If this is true...then it will have impact to the manufacturing base.
    While there will still quite a bit made professionally...these will be more sophisticated and complicated equipment.

    The post-industrial nations will likely survive the transition easy, because they are more in a service orient economy and they are the ones building the more complex items.
    But countries like China and otherwise will likely be impacted more.
    They tend to build the "basics" cheap...and in volume.
    So does this mean their new clients will be the mid to low income nations, where they won't have 3D printing and still need the basics?
    Or will this trigger a recession/depression in their nations?

    BTW...clothing won't be likely created by 3D printers, so they may keep that market.
    But perhaps it will make it more of a commodity and allow them to charge more or pay their workers more.

    I'm curious as to these questions.
    What do you think??
     
    Last edited: Mar 25, 2014
  20. ASU2003

    ASU2003 Very Tilted

    Location:
    Where ever I roam
    I think CNC machines and the DIY verity are more of a thing than the 3D plastic printers. I make more stuff out of wood and aluminum than plastic.

    But, I think they are both not going to impact the economy for a long, long time. I spend most of my money of food, and then on other big things like solar panels, a deck, and an HDTV.