2008 Presidental Canidates

[sackingz123]

Lets not forget who gave the Guns to Saddam. Thanks George Bush! You WERENT getting your dick sucked....but we're getting FUCKED now for it!!!

YAY!

YAYAYA...we're gettin fucked now!!! YAYAYA

[alb_accord]

its funny to me when my economis proffesor talks about the american Economy.... it's even more funny when i can relate whatever he says to my trip in europe. as i said before i would vote for clinton and edwards.

[MadSpleen85]

FROM THE DEAD...

Add John McCain to the list or Republicans

Taken from Business Week, SEPTEMBER 6, 2004



Sections of interest:

1. Real disposible income per person
2. Real GDP groth (Gross Domestic Product)
3. Interest Rates
4. Productivity

Also read this: http://www.businessandmedia.org/spec...sr20041014.asp

Just goes to show the power of the media.......

I'm done.

Is that the best info you could find to attempt to compare Clinton and Bush? Source 2004... It is now 2007.. Anyways this isnt about the Bill Clinton or Bush... This thread is about the 2008 canidates. Last time I checked Bill Clinton and George W. Bush are both not able to run again.

[owequitit]

Ohhhh I bit and bit and bit.

Now my tongue is bleeding.

1) Hillary will never get my vote. I don't need the US Gov't to tell me how to live life. Period. She isn't nearly as capable or interested in serving the common good as people think.

Capable probably isn't a good word, or rather incapable... Self serving would probably be a better 2 words.

Sorry, that is just the way it is.

2)At this point (it is early yet) Obama seems promising. I don't think the racial tension would be that high. Most Americans are much more receptive than they were even 20 years ago. In 10 years the majority population won't even be "white." KKK enrollment is less than 20,000 people nationwide.

Colin Powell is very highly regarded in most political circles (even by the "other side") and he has been black since birth.

3) As far as the economy information in this thread goes, it is a joke.

Some people need to go back and study Fiscal Policy vs Monetary Policy.

Fiscal policy is what the gov't does, and monetary policy is what the Federal Reserve does. One has nothing to do with the other.

The Federal Reserve has NO control over the budgetary process

And other than the appointment of the Chairman of the Federal Reserve every 4 years, the gov't has no control over the Federal Reserve.

They are completely unrelated. The Fed controls, the money supply, the interest rates and your ability to spend and borrow money.

They are completely unrelated for a VERY specific reason. The people (gov't) who set up the Federal Reserve KNEW it would be economic suicide if there was ANY political influence in the process whatsoever.

Politicians have very little to do with the economy.

That is a GOOD thing.

Interest rates under Bill Clinton were some of the lowest in history. Is that because Bill Clinton was a great guy?

Nope.

It was because the process actually started when Stagflation was ended during the Reagan Administration.

2 things happened simultaneously that allowed us to have the largest growth in history and maintain that for 20+ years.

1) The economy was reset when they reasserted the Philips Curve (look it up, because it is important to the understanding of Economics). This allowed it to resume its normal properties of either decline or growth.

This set the stage for #2 to succeed.

2) Computers. The PC allowed for a tremendous increase in productivity.

How? It gave people the ability to do things in a timeframe or to a degree of accuracy that had never been achieved before. Things that used to take months now took hours. Things that used to not be possible (advanced computation fluid dynamics and physics calculations) could now be done in a matter of minutes.

This allowed people to achieve more in less time with less cost. That translated directly into more profits, and more opportunities.

That translated directly into growth. Growth that could be sustained because the technolgy was developing rapidly enough to allow it too.

It had nothing to do with Clinton or Bush I or Bush II.

If you think it did, your fundamentals are weak.

Fast foward to 2000-2001. The "tech bubble" burst...

People had invested BILLIONS of dollars in E-companies that had no assets, offered no real goods or services, and were never going to make a profit (at least not in a 10-20 year time frame).

They people were stunned to find out that this trend couldn't continue forever...

The bubble burst, and it was fairly large. This was the beginning of the slowdown.

Why did it slow down? Because we had caught up to the technology. PC's didn't offer as much time savings as they once did. Everyone who didn't have one before, had one now. The growth could only last as long as the revolution, and the revolution slowed down too.

Normally, that 20% growth would have caused SKYROCKETING inflation, but because we were getting more goods and services for the same amount of money, it didn't. The productivity gain was anti-inflationary.


Fast foward to Today.

The economy is STRONG and I CAN prove it.

The person who said this is the worst economic period in history needs to go do some history homework...

They also need to look up two words. Recession and Depression.

We are currently in neither. The economy IS growing albeit at a 3% pace vs a 15-25% pace like it was for 20 years.

3% growth is a good growth rate. It will allow a long period of sustained growth without inflation going nuts.

20% would no longer be feasible without ridiculous inflation because the technology equation has more or less balanced itself. We have mostly finished the process of going from manual to automated, from low tech to high tech, and from hand driven to computer driven. The technology has made it into every workplace, every factory, every school.

From here on out, we will see incremental growth just like after the Industrial Revolution.

3% is healthy incremental growth. Unemployment is about 5%. That is about as good as can be expected. If we go much lower than that, inflation would start to skyrocket...

Inflation = economic enemy #1.

So in summary, Bush Sr and Clinton both got to just ride the wave. Bush II got here at the tail end of it, and got blamed for all of it. It had nothing to do with Republican or Democratic policy, it had to do with timing.

The economy was starting to slow before Bush was ever elected. Had Clinton's second term occurred from 2000-2004, you would all be singing a VERY different tune.

Fiscal Policy (what the gov't does) does have SOME effect on the economy, but because it takes so long to take effect, it is often just the opposite of what they want, or what they intended.

Monetary policy can occur instantaneously if necessary. Fiscal policy usually takes years to take effect (4-6 from the time a bill is passed until you feel it, is the norm).

That is why Bush pressed so hard for his tax cuts when he took office. He knew that in order to have the desired effect and to work quickly, they needed to occur ASAP.

The "budget surplus" when Clinton left office was imaginary.

It was an accounting error that made certain assumptions that didn't happen.

It was similar to what happened at Enron, only they didn't intentionally mislead people. The books said one thing would happen, when in reality, something totally different occurred.

Where Bush has really screwed us is in our foreign relations.

Of course, Clinton could have dropped 1 bomb and prevented any of this from ever happening, so he isn't innocent either.

IMO, our foreign relations have sucked since Kissinger and Vietnam. THAT trandscends Republican OR Democrat, because we have had plenty of both.

The issue we need to deal with now isn't what we are going to do in Iraq.

The issue that we need to start worrying about is what we are going to do when the next wave of terrorist attacks occurs.

I get a kick out of people who claim that everything is the Republican's fault or everything is the Democrat's fault, or only the Democratic ways are good, or only the Republican ways are good.

Especially when they have NO concept of how the world around them works.

Of course, making a statement like that was a pretty good indicator in the first place.

As far as Presidential hopefulls go, I WILL NOT Vote for Hillary.

Everyone else is fair game at this point, although in a battle between McCain and Obama, I would probably lean toward Obama. McCain is one of my home Senators, and he is a good Senator, but sometimes I wonder about his stability. I think living in the Hanoi Hilton may have left some bruises...

I would really like to see Rudy G run. He is idealistic enough to see the future, but he is pragmatic enough to keep his head out of the clouds.

He has proven in the REAL WORLD that he can consistently get the job done, and look out for his constituents' interests. Hell, they wanted to change the law so he could stay in office! Haven't seen that offer for Hillary yet...

Realistically though, like Deev said, he won't be able to make that much of a difference anyway. A Mayorship is typically much more autocratic than the Federal Gov't. Every choice doesn't have to be approved by everyone, who disapproves.

My political question is this:

Why do we have to be so polarized? That is a sign of "me me me" close mindedness. Close mindedness is an indicator of ignorance. Ignorance helps no one and hurts everyone.

By being so far left or so far right, all we do is make it harder to get things done because neither side is willing to meet in the middle.

Since we have to meet in the middle to get stuff done, everything grinds to a halt and you are left with a bunch of pissants hissing at each other, blaming everyone else when they are 1/2 the problem.

What in the hell happened to "Conservative Democrats," or "Liberal Republicans?"

[lokuputha]

What in the hell happened to "Conservative Democrats," or "Liberal Republicans?"

some ppl call those oxymorons...


just a question regarding the Fed:

...it IS run by a conglomerate of major banks right?

...and according to some articles I've read, all income tax goes to pay the national debt owed to the fed?(this i am not too sure of)

...so does that mean all the income tax goes towards the conglomerate of major banks?

[owequitit]

some ppl call those oxymorons...


just a question regarding the Fed:

...it IS run by a conglomerate of major banks right?

...and according to some articles I've read, all income tax goes to pay the national debt owed to the fed?(this i am not too sure of)

...so does that mean all the income tax goes towards the conglomerate of major banks?

The Fed is not so much a conglomerate of private banks, as much as it is a central bank whos purpose is to control and oversee the private banks and money supply. It is like the banking God.

They don't regulate through law or agencies. They regulate through control of the money supply.

The people who actually run the Fed are from all kinds of disciplines and walks of life. Take Ben Bernanke, the Chairman, for instance.

He was an economics professor.

The Fed is sort of part of the government, but it was purposefully seperated to protect us from ourselves and from politics. That way, EVERY decision they make is in the best interest of the economy, and not the best interest of the flavor of the month.

It is also seperate from private banks.

They have the ability to increase or reduce the money supply, they have the ability to increase of reduce the amount that banks have to hold on to and can't lend out (a % of total money deposited), and they have the ability to change interest rates.

The most common obviously is changing the rates.

Private banks essentially borrow all of their money from the Fed. The Fed controls how much they borrow it for. That is the "prime rate."

From there, the Banks put their markup on it, which is what you get when you borrow. That is the "market rate."

The markup varies, but is always in addition to the prime rate.

For instance, lets say Chase decides to lend you money at a 4% markup.

The prime rate is 4%.

Your total interest rate is 8% on that loan.

Now let's say the Fed sees inflation coming, so they decide to increase the prime rate to 6%.

You go to borrow the same loan with the same markup, only now you are going to pay 10% on the exact same loan.

This discourages people from borrowing money, but more importantly, it makes you run out of money to spend on payments faster, thus limiting your ability to buy more stuff.

When you take this effect and mulitply it by every person in the country, it results in less buying, which means less demand, which means the economy cools and prices either remain or grow more slowly.

Since inflation is basically spending more money to buy the same thing without and increase in quality or quantity, the reduced price increase that are caused by the higher interest rate, is basically inflation being controlled.

That is how it works at its basic level.

If the Fed were a conglomerate of private banks, they would have influence to function in the best interests of the banks, not in the best interest of the economy. Although, the health of the banking system is directly linked to the health of the economy.

The Fed is the top dog, not the private banks.

As far as income tax use, that sounds like bologna to me.

Income tax money is used for everything from highways to highschools, from Air Traffic Control, to Border Patrol.

Actually, most of what goes to pay the debt goes to pay off treasury and savings bonds.

Since the gov't decides what bonds they want to issue or print, this isn't really a Federal Reserve issue. In fact, on more than one occasion, the former Fed Chairman, Alan Greenspan, told the government, they were spending too much and it was going to have a bad effect on the economy.

Unfortunately, they are so busy writing I.O.U.'s to cover I.O.U.'s they can't afford to stop.

A VERY large % of the total American Debt is held by American taxpayers and investors who use the gov'ts debt instruments (bonds and bills) as a means of investing.

That is why you KNOW anybody who proposes wiping out the debt is stupid.

We would get screwed the most! Nothing like shooting yourself in the foot.

That is another reason that the national debt isn't exactly "accurate."

Yes, those bonds are owed to someone, but they aren't all due right now today. They are due in increments up to 30years, and many of the creditors are American Citizens.

It is also misleading because not all of that debt will come to be collected.

A good example of this would be your granny buying you a $50.00 Savings Bond for graduation. You have to wait 30 years to get your full face value of $50.00. Well you lose it for 20 years, and then you find it after your granny is dead and gone. $50.00 isn't a lot of money, so you decide to frame it, or keep it.

That debt technically shows up in the National Debt, even though you will never call it, or collect it.

That happens more than you think.

The concerning thing is foreign investment. At one point, all of our debt was owed pretty much to our citizens.

Nowadays, we owe quite a bit to China and Japan.

Do we really want China to have the ability to bankrupt our government, if we do something they don't agree with or vice versa?

Luckily, the saving grace there is the same as it is with Japan.

They are as dependent on us as we are on them. As long as that doesn't change, we are OK.

What you have is a little bit of confusion with Fiscal Policy and Monetary Policy.

Fiscal Policy is what the Gov't does. Taxation, what they buy, how they spend it, what programs they support.

Monetary policy is how much money costs, and how it affects your ability or desire to spend. The Gov't borrows with the same prime rate IIRC, so they aren't exempt.

Gov't spending has a profound impact on the system too.

Do you see how the two systems, are seperate but interdependent?

It is like of like your engine and transmission. They are both doing something completely seperate from the other, but they are dependent on one another too.

[owequitit]

Oh, and just for the record, to those who think I am biased, I trend toward Conservative Democrat more than I do Liberal Republican, although it is about 50/50.

I just like to play devil's advocate sometimes.

I whole heartedly disagree with the ultra liberal, "let's feed everybody and hug" ideals, because they are not realistic and neglect human nature.

Communism has proven it, extreme Socialism has proven it, and moderate socialism is starting to prove it.

The problem and root cause is simple.

1) People are lazy. If you feed them with no strings attached, they will begin to feel apathetic towards themselves, because they do not feel fullfilled. Apathy with the self leads to apathy towards the world. Pretty soon they are conditioned to exist on the system. That wasn't the original intention.

2) There is an endless supply of want, and a short supply of have. As long as we have more want than have, we will not be able to provide everyone with everything they need. That is just the way it is. We have to accept it because there is no other choice. We can't change it, it is in nature, and the universe.

I am realistic about the fact that if we don't regulate anything, people will do whatever the hell they want, especially if it will save or make them a buck.

So, I understand that we need some kind of oversight on most things.

Personally, I would like to keep that oversight as small as possible while still getting the job done, because ultimately, less government means more freedom and more money for me to enjoy.

I bust my ass for my money and I deserve that, as does everybody else who busts their ass for their money.

I also believe in helping people in times of need. I don't agree with entitlements and handouts.

I believe in retraining and temporary aid. I understand that shit happens. I believe there should be a safety net.

I also understand that we can't allow that be an excuse to feel sorry for ourselves and let life swallow us whole.

I whole heartedly disagree with the ultra conservatives and their unfounded, biased, and ignorant views.

I think Pat Robetson is an ignorant schmuck who is our version of Osama Bin Laden. Thank God his audience is too lazy to actually put themselves in an airplane and fly it into buildings. Of course they are already living in caves, so how much can we really hurt them?

I don't like people who say they don't like muslims just because. I have had some very good Muslim friends (practicing ones that were not from this country), and in all honesty, other than a few minor details, the gist of the 4 main monotheistic religions in this world are basically the same.

"Do unto others, as you would have others do unto you."

Islam and Christianity are pretty much the same. The main difference is that it was believed that Muhammed was the 13th apostle who spread the gospel to the Muslims.

Can you FUCKING BELIEVE that we have been murdering each other in the name of the SAME God for THOUSANDS OF YEARS?

How stupid is that?
---------------------------------------------------------------------

I don't like people who judge others because they don't agree.

I don't agree with people who don't like *** people.

If you don't want or like the idea of people sleeping with other people of the same sex, then why do you spend so much time thinking about it?

Why don't you go get a hobby or something?

Ultimately, our time here is limited, and I think we should enjoy it.

We don't know if there is a God or not, and therefore must plan accordingly. That doesn't mean you can't have fun, or live life to the fullest.

It also doesn't mean that you can run over your fellow person because they are in your way.

If a Presidential Candidate could walk that line right there, they would get a lot of votes...probably a landslide victory.

See the problem isn't that most people are far to one side or the other. The problem is that the extreme left and the extreme right are the vocal minorities.

So the Politicians go to where they believe the votes are. They polarize.

That leaves most of the rest of us standing here in the middle trying to decide who is less evil.

Not a good choice to have to make.

Odds are, if you have been extremely impressed with one candidate or another in recent history, or have been extremely displeased with one candidate or another, you are nowhere near the middle...

[verothacamaro]

Ohhhh I bit and bit and bit.

Now my tongue is bleeding.

1) Hillary will never get my vote. I don't need the US Gov't to tell me how to live life. Period. She isn't nearly as capable or interested in serving the common good as people think.

Capable probably isn't a good word, or rather incapable... Self serving would probably be a better 2 words.

Sorry, that is just the way it is.

2)At this point (it is early yet) Obama seems promising. I don't think the racial tension would be that high. Most Americans are much more receptive than they were even 20 years ago. In 10 years the majority population won't even be "white." KKK enrollment is less than 20,000 people nationwide.

Colin Powell is very highly regarded in most political circles (even by the "other side") and he has been black since birth.

3) As far as the economy information in this thread goes, it is a joke.

Some people need to go back and study Fiscal Policy vs Monetary Policy.

Fiscal policy is what the gov't does, and monetary policy is what the Federal Reserve does. One has nothing to do with the other.

The Federal Reserve has NO control over the budgetary process

And other than the appointment of the Chairman of the Federal Reserve every 4 years, the gov't has no control over the Federal Reserve.

They are completely unrelated. The Fed controls, the money supply, the interest rates and your ability to spend and borrow money.

They are completely unrelated for a VERY specific reason. The people (gov't) who set up the Federal Reserve KNEW it would be economic suicide if there was ANY political influence in the process whatsoever.

Politicians have very little to do with the economy.

That is a GOOD thing.

Interest rates under Bill Clinton were some of the lowest in history. Is that because Bill Clinton was a great guy?

Nope.

It was because the process actually started when Stagflation was ended during the Reagan Administration.

2 things happened simultaneously that allowed us to have the largest growth in history and maintain that for 20+ years.

1) The economy was reset when they reasserted the Philips Curve (look it up, because it is important to the understanding of Economics). This allowed it to resume its normal properties of either decline or growth.

This set the stage for #2 to succeed.

2) Computers. The PC allowed for a tremendous increase in productivity.

How? It gave people the ability to do things in a timeframe or to a degree of accuracy that had never been achieved before. Things that used to take months now took hours. Things that used to not be possible (advanced computation fluid dynamics and physics calculations) could now be done in a matter of minutes.

This allowed people to achieve more in less time with less cost. That translated directly into more profits, and more opportunities.

That translated directly into growth. Growth that could be sustained because the technolgy was developing rapidly enough to allow it too.

It had nothing to do with Clinton or Bush I or Bush II.

If you think it did, your fundamentals are weak.

Fast foward to 2000-2001. The "tech bubble" burst...

People had invested BILLIONS of dollars in E-companies that had no assets, offered no real goods or services, and were never going to make a profit (at least not in a 10-20 year time frame).

They people were stunned to find out that this trend couldn't continue forever...

The bubble burst, and it was fairly large. This was the beginning of the slowdown.

Why did it slow down? Because we had caught up to the technology. PC's didn't offer as much time savings as they once did. Everyone who didn't have one before, had one now. The growth could only last as long as the revolution, and the revolution slowed down too.

Normally, that 20% growth would have caused SKYROCKETING inflation, but because we were getting more goods and services for the same amount of money, it didn't. The productivity gain was anti-inflationary.


Fast foward to Today.

The economy is STRONG and I CAN prove it.

The person who said this is the worst economic period in history needs to go do some history homework...

They also need to look up two words. Recession and Depression.

We are currently in neither. The economy IS growing albeit at a 3% pace vs a 15-25% pace like it was for 20 years.

3% growth is a good growth rate. It will allow a long period of sustained growth without inflation going nuts.

20% would no longer be feasible without ridiculous inflation because the technology equation has more or less balanced itself. We have mostly finished the process of going from manual to automated, from low tech to high tech, and from hand driven to computer driven. The technology has made it into every workplace, every factory, every school.

From here on out, we will see incremental growth just like after the Industrial Revolution.

3% is healthy incremental growth. Unemployment is about 5%. That is about as good as can be expected. If we go much lower than that, inflation would start to skyrocket...

Inflation = economic enemy #1.

So in summary, Bush Sr and Clinton both got to just ride the wave. Bush II got here at the tail end of it, and got blamed for all of it. It had nothing to do with Republican or Democratic policy, it had to do with timing.

The economy was starting to slow before Bush was ever elected. Had Clinton's second term occurred from 2000-2004, you would all be singing a VERY different tune.

Fiscal Policy (what the gov't does) does have SOME effect on the economy, but because it takes so long to take effect, it is often just the opposite of what they want, or what they intended.

Monetary policy can occur instantaneously if necessary. Fiscal policy usually takes years to take effect (4-6 from the time a bill is passed until you feel it, is the norm).

That is why Bush pressed so hard for his tax cuts when he took office. He knew that in order to have the desired effect and to work quickly, they needed to occur ASAP.

The "budget surplus" when Clinton left office was imaginary.

It was an accounting error that made certain assumptions that didn't happen.

It was similar to what happened at Enron, only they didn't intentionally mislead people. The books said one thing would happen, when in reality, something totally different occurred.

Where Bush has really screwed us is in our foreign relations.

Of course, Clinton could have dropped 1 bomb and prevented any of this from ever happening, so he isn't innocent either.

IMO, our foreign relations have sucked since Kissinger and Vietnam. THAT trandscends Republican OR Democrat, because we have had plenty of both.

The issue we need to deal with now isn't what we are going to do in Iraq.

The issue that we need to start worrying about is what we are going to do when the next wave of terrorist attacks occurs.

I get a kick out of people who claim that everything is the Republican's fault or everything is the Democrat's fault, or only the Democratic ways are good, or only the Republican ways are good.

Especially when they have NO concept of how the world around them works.

Of course, making a statement like that was a pretty good indicator in the first place.

As far as Presidential hopefulls go, I WILL NOT Vote for Hillary.

Everyone else is fair game at this point, although in a battle between McCain and Obama, I would probably lean toward Obama. McCain is one of my home Senators, and he is a good Senator, but sometimes I wonder about his stability. I think living in the Hanoi Hilton may have left some bruises...

I would really like to see Rudy G run. He is idealistic enough to see the future, but he is pragmatic enough to keep his head out of the clouds.

He has proven in the REAL WORLD that he can consistently get the job done, and look out for his constituents' interests. Hell, they wanted to change the law so he could stay in office! Haven't seen that offer for Hillary yet...

Realistically though, like Deev said, he won't be able to make that much of a difference anyway. A Mayorship is typically much more autocratic than the Federal Gov't. Every choice doesn't have to be approved by everyone, who disapproves.

My political question is this:

Why do we have to be so polarized? That is a sign of "me me me" close mindedness. Close mindedness is an indicator of ignorance. Ignorance helps no one and hurts everyone.

By being so far left or so far right, all we do is make it harder to get things done because neither side is willing to meet in the middle.

Since we have to meet in the middle to get stuff done, everything grinds to a halt and you are left with a bunch of pissants hissing at each other, blaming everyone else when they are 1/2 the problem.

What in the hell happened to "Conservative Democrats," or "Liberal Republicans?"

You're going to tell me this economy is strong, when our own DOW industial dropped 460 points in ONE trading day?

The DOW is one of the strongest reminders of how 'stable' our economy is....this 'economic' growth we've been experiencing was a false speculation.....

Dont get me wrong...I agree with most everything you say, mostly because its pure fact.....but how can you have a strong economy, when your country imports more than it exports?

I do believe the country will pick itself up, thanks to its very own citizens who have an insatiable thirst to consume. In the end, it is a buyers market...

[owequitit]

You're going to tell me this economy is strong, when our own DOW industial dropped 460 points in ONE trading day?

The DOW is one of the strongest reminders of how 'stable' our economy is....this 'economic' growth we've been experiencing was a false speculation.....

Dont get me wrong...I agree with most everything you say, mostly because its pure fact.....but how can you have a strong economy, when your country imports more than it exports?

I do believe the country will pick itself up, thanks to its very own citizens who have an insatiable thirst to consume. In the end, it is a buyers market...

I am not the one making faulty judgement.

You are looking at one indicator as a sole indicator of health.

Do you know how the Dow Jones works and what it is?

It is an indicator of 1 small sliver of the total market. Every stock in the country could be up except those ones, and people would claim the sky is falling because they don't understand it.

Housing starts are still strong. They have cooled, and even declined a little bit, but overall they are still doing well.

This is the #1 indicator of long term health because it is the #1 long term investment for the majority of families.

Retail sales figures are strong. They have also cooled some, but are growing at about 3%.

Interest rates indicate that inflation is putting pressure on the economy. Since inflation applies more pressure under growth, this ALSO indicates health.

The Phillips Curve that I referred to earlier says that when unemployment goes up, inflation goes down, and when unemployment goes down, inflation goes up.

Unemployment is about 5% right now. That is about as low as you can get. 100% of people will never work because they may be unable or unwilling.

Low unemployment also indicates strong health.

Manufactured goods from the US have increased in the last year, not decreased. That is an indicator of stronger health than previously.

Also, if you look at most developed countries, they typically import more than they export. It unfortunately seems to be part of the development cycle.

Mainly, this is because countries like China have such a differential advantage in the cost of labor that industrial manufacturing jobs move over there. This allows companies to continue to supply Wal-Mart and the fickle consumer with newer and better products that are still cheaper or cost the same.

An American won't work for $.20 an hour. The average Chinese person is glad to.

As they industrialize, and inflationary pressures set in, they too will demand more money, and more benefits and their cost of labor will rise. As they become more industrialized, they will become more expensive and there will be incentive to move jobs elsewhere.

Just like when the US industrialized.

Of course, if you back even farther than that, you would realize that one of the key reason for colonization of the states, was that it allowed England to manufacture and sell goods for less than if they had kept the jobs on the mainland.

It is a perfect illustration of the law of unintended consequences, and the fact that there is ALWAYS a reaction for each and every action, and not always the one you wanted.

As the cost of labor here increases it creates more and more pressure to build stuff in China and India. You want everything cheap, but you don't want to sacrifice anything to get it.

Sorry, can't have your cake and eat it too. You are unrealistic if you think you can.

Besides, typically America's biggest exports were cars, ships and airplanes.

The airplanes are still doing well, but the scale of planes built PALES in comparison to what we used to build in cars.

Is it the gov'ts fault that GM and Ford and Chrysler are building products that nobody wants to buy?

And the trade deficit could be MUCH worse. The 2 largest Japanese brands here (and Nissan is doing more and more) built the vast majority of cars sold in the US, in factories and with parts made in the US.

90% of the Honda vehicles sold here last year were built in the US with more than 70% US parts content.

Yup. That legally makes them domestic cars.

The fact of the matter still is and still remains that the US economy is healthy.

Your failure to understand and properly apply ALL indicators does not change the reality of the situation. Merely YOUR perception of it.

Looking at the Dow Jones and making an overall judgement of the economy, is like looking out of the peephole of a door and declaring that you can see the world.

Besides, had you taken the time to accurately interpret the Dow Jones, you would understand that there are day to day fluctuations (sometimes big) for many different reasons, none of which indicate collapse of the economy.

What you didn't report in your post is that MOST of what was lost, was gained back the next day. You also neglected to post that as of Jan 2004, the Dow was just over 10,000.

Today it is just over 12,000.

That is 20% growth in 3 years. That works out to about 7% growth annually.

Like I said. Healthy.

If you focus too much on the day to day fluctuations, you will be chasing the trend and causing over reaction.

Here is a 5 year chart of the DOW. The drop through '02 and into '03 has more than worked itself out, and that is the ONLY part of the chart that could be considered bad.

http://finance.yahoo.com/q/bc?s=%5EDJI&t=5y

[verothacamaro]

It's my job to follow trends....If I don't, then I lose out on opportunity.

I make money on speculation, solely....and quick wits.

[owequitit]

It's my job to follow trends....If I don't, then I lose out on opportunity.

I make money on speculation, solely....and quick wits.

Well that is fine, but you can make just as much, if not more by investing long term.

Plus, over time, you lessen the risk by investing long term because you reduce a lot of the variability.

Warren Buffet isn't a short term investor typically.

Also, a pattern that was almost identical to todays "day trading" is what caused the stock market crash in 1929 leading the REAL bad economy, and the only one we have really had in our history.

You can make money short term. But your risk climbs at an exponential rate that is higher than the potential payoff.

[floored]

He's got Hussein as a middle name, and his last name is one letter away from Osama.

Would that hurt his chances? Damn right. Do you think people make educated decisions?

thats waat i was gonna say

[According2Aaron]

Although I may not agree with absolutely 100% of what he says, Scott's still smarter in his pinky finger than most people are in their entire bodies.

[owequitit]

Although I may not agree with absolutely 100% of what he says, Scott's still smarter in his pinky finger than most people are in their entire bodies.

LOL! Not really. I just like to read a lot.

By nature I want to know how everything works together, not just by itself.

Of course, according to my parents, I have always been that way.