So. Who here still thinks that the USA will EVER be back where it was in the 'economically on-fire' era of Bush's early reign?
POSTED BY: chrisisall
UPDATED: Monday, August 29, 2016 14:10
VIEWED: 5268
PAGE 2 of 5
Quote:Oh, we'll recover all right. But our economic patellas have been broken. We'll never run quite as well again.
Originally posted by Hero:
If the 1970s taught us anything its that the US can NEVER recover from tough economic times.
The laughing Chrisisall
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Chris: 
re both posts!
Hippie Operative Nikovich Nikita Nicovna Talibani,
Contracted Agent of Veritas Oilspillus, code name “Nike”,
signing off 
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Magonsdaughter:
Maybe it was the downturn you needed to have. Too much spending, too much consuming. It can't go on for ever, you know.
..."Needed" to have?
You know, much as I do sympathize with people in other nations who have been hit by the economic downturn, and much as I agree this whole mess has been "our" bad (or at least the bad of the greedy thugs stealing left and right), I draw the line at outright wishing other people ill.
I'm bothered by the "you guys suck, you deserve it" mentality. We are not all rich assholes responsible for this problem. People are starving and dying here, not as bad as a third world nation, but they are. There was a while there people couldn't collect from our unemployment support programs, people have been worried about being able to buy food, water has been shut off in some city neighborhoods that have been hit hard, making hygiene and disease a huge concern, electricity was also shut off, which in summer, without AC, can be a bad proposition for people, and now we're heading into winter when those same people won't have heating.
And apparently you think we need to suffer to teach us a lesson about our buying habits. Yeah. Thanks.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:
..."Needed" to have?
You know, much as I do sympathize with people in other nations who have been hit by the economic downturn, and much as I agree this whole mess has been "our" bad (or at least the bad of the greedy thugs stealing left and right), I draw the line at outright wishing other people ill.
I'm bothered by the "you guys suck, you deserve it" mentality. We are not all rich assholes responsible for this problem. People are starving and dying here, not as bad as a third world nation, but they are. There was a while there people couldn't collect from our unemployment support programs, people have been worried about being able to buy food, water has been shut off in some city neighborhoods that have been hit hard, making hygiene and disease a huge concern, electricity was also shut off, which in summer, without AC, can be a bad proposition for people, and now we're heading into winter when those same people won't have heating.
And apparently you think we need to suffer to teach us a lesson about our buying habits. Yeah. Thanks.
Wow, defensive what?
If your system relies on consuming/owning most of the world's resources, before your citizens do not starve or suffer then I'd say it was a pretty poor system. It should be possible to weather economic downturns, which any free marketeer will tell you are just inevitable 'adjustments' without people suffering catastrophically. If they are, then the system is broke, from where I stand.
I don't agree with the expectation that we all have to ride high on economic growth, it's not sustainable in any system, and as the resources of the world diminish and populations increase, then the down turns will only get worse if we continue on our current path.
I'd like to see the resources and the wealth distributed a little more equitably throughout the world, and maybe that goes for within countries as well. I'd like to see a system that doesn't rely on continuous growth as being the norm. I'd like to see a graph that didn't show the US and other Western nations as being so much wealthier and consuming so many more resources than most of the nations of the world, but I also know that they can't play catch up to our way of living without us really falling short on resources very soon.
I'd love for all this to be done because it was the right way to live, but I also see that people don't decide to downsize their standard of living on mass unless they are sometimes forced into it. Just because I don't wish to see the US return to its former levels of economic growth, doesn't mean I wish starvation on any human in this world, and I'm insulted that you have attributed that to me.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I don't see the general economy sparking back to life for a long, long, time. Businesses are discovering that they really don't need all the workers they let go. They're finding new efficiencies, and they know they have a "grateful" workforce do deliver the same work as before, just with less employees.
Also, we've had extremely LOW interest rates in place now for a long time, years already. Record low mortgage rates, and record low business loans, yet these low rates are not stimulating anything. I think the Fed has screwed up the ecomony something terrible. Businesses are simply not borrowing money to grow, and individual Americans are not buying homes and automobiles at the low rates either. These low rates have stymied the economy.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:Quote:This might make AURaptor sad; he LOVED where we were just before it burst! Our economy was ON FIRE!!!
Originally posted by Niki2:
I think we'll bounce back, most of the time we do; I don't think it'll ever be to the extent we had in the '50s and '60s, OR (hopefully!) to where we were before the BushBubble burst, but we'll be okay in the long run. That's just my opinion.
alas, we had no fire insurance...
What 'BushBubble' are you referring ? If you mean Housing, then that's the Barney Frank/ Chris Dodd bubble, because they and the sub prime Dems are far more responsible for the collapse, not Bush.
"The modern definition of 'racist' is someone who is winning an argument with a liberal."
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Magonsdaughter:Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:
..."Needed" to have?
You know, much as I do sympathize with people in other nations who have been hit by the economic downturn, and much as I agree this whole mess has been "our" bad (or at least the bad of the greedy thugs stealing left and right), I draw the line at outright wishing other people ill.
I'm bothered by the "you guys suck, you deserve it" mentality. We are not all rich assholes responsible for this problem. People are starving and dying here, not as bad as a third world nation, but they are. There was a while there people couldn't collect from our unemployment support programs, people have been worried about being able to buy food, water has been shut off in some city neighborhoods that have been hit hard, making hygiene and disease a huge concern, electricity was also shut off, which in summer, without AC, can be a bad proposition for people, and now we're heading into winter when those same people won't have heating.
And apparently you think we need to suffer to teach us a lesson about our buying habits. Yeah. Thanks.
Wow, defensive what?
If your system relies on consuming/owning most of the world's resources, before your citizens do not starve or suffer then I'd say it was a pretty poor system. It should be possible to weather economic downturns, which any free marketeer will tell you are just inevitable 'adjustments' without people suffering catastrophically. If they are, then the system is broke, from where I stand.
I don't agree with the expectation that we all have to ride high on economic growth, it's not sustainable in any system, and as the resources of the world diminish and populations increase, then the down turns will only get worse if we continue on our current path.
I'd like to see the resources and the wealth distributed a little more equitably throughout the world, and maybe that goes for within countries as well. I'd like to see a system that doesn't rely on continuous growth as being the norm. I'd like to see a graph that didn't show the US and other Western nations as being so much wealthier and consuming so many more resources than most of the nations of the world, but I also know that they can't play catch up to our way of living without us really falling short on resources very soon.
I'd love for all this to be done because it was the right way to live, but I also see that people don't decide to downsize their standard of living on mass unless they are sometimes forced into it. Just because I don't wish to see the US return to its former levels of economic growth, doesn't mean I wish starvation on any human in this world, and I'm insulted that you have attributed that to me.
Magons, I see no "defensiveness", I see an effort at bringing perspective to the discussion. I would venture to say that MOST Americans have neither created or furthered the system of which you speak. It was created long, long ago by politicains and businesses, and yes, it's stupid that so many Americans bought into it, but there are social reasons why many were also manipulated or FORCED into living in such a waythat it perpetuates the system.
I agree with EVERYTHING you said in this last post, word for word, except I don't think Byte meant to "insult" you...I think she was expressing her frustration that America seems to get blamed for everything wrong in the world, when in actuality it isn't the average American person who's responsible, much as it may seem that way at times.
In other words, I agree with both of you and see no defensiveness, only frustration.
Hippie Operative Nikovich Nikita Nicovna Talibani,
Contracted Agent of Veritas Oilspillus, code name “Nike”,
signing off
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I see everyone agrees that we're going down. There's an old adage in economics that whenever everyone agrees on something, they have to be wrong.
Meanwhile, for those who haven't seen it, this:
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Magon,
while I appreciate the right wing rant, [/snark] I don't suspect that a real shortage of resources is at play or that anyone needs to lower their standard of living so that others can increase theirs.
This is a free market issue, in which the control and lack of a free market has led to both the excesses and the imbalance you perceive. If govt. holds the power over finance the result is that it will give a disproportionate amount to itself and its friends, and the word that tipped me here was "force." If the market were truly a free market than the balance of influence of India and China would surely more than offset that of Europe and N. America. No one needs to force anyone to do anything, we just collectively need to recognize that the perception of wealth is what is key here.
The US possesses dollars which the rest of the world values out of proportion because of undue political influence of govts. who are beholden to international economic financial interest more than just our economic propaganda campaign. It does not logically follow that the US has any more economic influence than, India, because we own the dollar and they own the Rupee. I'm sure that in time the balance will definitely show things the other way. The influence of international bankers is bound to have more effect in this environment than any single player in the field.
If you haven't already, you might want to check out Hayek, and esp. G.K. Chesterton
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distributism
Quote:
Originally posted by Magonsdaughter:Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:
..."Needed" to have?
You know, much as I do sympathize with people in other nations who have been hit by the economic downturn, and much as I agree this whole mess has been "our" bad (or at least the bad of the greedy thugs stealing left and right), I draw the line at outright wishing other people ill.
I'm bothered by the "you guys suck, you deserve it" mentality. We are not all rich assholes responsible for this problem. People are starving and dying here, not as bad as a third world nation, but they are. There was a while there people couldn't collect from our unemployment support programs, people have been worried about being able to buy food, water has been shut off in some city neighborhoods that have been hit hard, making hygiene and disease a huge concern, electricity was also shut off, which in summer, without AC, can be a bad proposition for people, and now we're heading into winter when those same people won't have heating.
And apparently you think we need to suffer to teach us a lesson about our buying habits. Yeah. Thanks.
Wow, defensive what?
If your system relies on consuming/owning most of the world's resources, before your citizens do not starve or suffer then I'd say it was a pretty poor system. It should be possible to weather economic downturns, which any free marketeer will tell you are just inevitable 'adjustments' without people suffering catastrophically. If they are, then the system is broke, from where I stand.
I don't agree with the expectation that we all have to ride high on economic growth, it's not sustainable in any system, and as the resources of the world diminish and populations increase, then the down turns will only get worse if we continue on our current path.
I'd like to see the resources and the wealth distributed a little more equitably throughout the world, and maybe that goes for within countries as well. I'd like to see a system that doesn't rely on continuous growth as being the norm. I'd like to see a graph that didn't show the US and other Western nations as being so much wealthier and consuming so many more resources than most of the nations of the world, but I also know that they can't play catch up to our way of living without us really falling short on resources very soon.
I'd love for all this to be done because it was the right way to live, but I also see that people don't decide to downsize their standard of living on mass unless they are sometimes forced i
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
Magon,
while I appreciate the right wing rant, [/snark] I don't suspect that a real shortage of resources is at play or that anyone needs to lower their standard of living so that others can increase theirs.
This is a free market issue, in which the control and lack of a free market has led to both the excesses and the imbalance you perceive. If govt. holds the power over finance the result is that it will give a disproportionate amount to itself and its friends, and the word that tipped me here was "force." If the market were truly a free market than the balance of influence of India and China would surely more than offset that of Europe and N. America. No one needs to force anyone to do anything, we just collectively need to recognize that the perception of wealth is what is key here.
The US possesses dollars which the rest of the world values out of proportion because of undue political influence of govts. who are beholden to international economic financial interest more than just our economic propaganda campaign. It does not logically follow that the US has any more economic influence than, India, because we own the dollar and they own the Rupee. I'm sure that in time the balance will definitely show things the other way. The influence of international bankers is bound to have more effect in this environment than any single player in the field.
If you haven't already, you might want to check out Hayek, and esp. G.K. Chesterton
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distributism
Dreamtrove, I could not agree with you less. I don't believe in an unregulated market and would put the blame on the GFC directly on the lack of effective regulation on the US financial markets which behaved like criminals and racketeers and were able to do it legally. In case you are not aware, Australia is one of the countries that has not been dramatically effected by the GFC to date, and the reasons include our regulated banking industry that did not have a sub prime market, the government funded stimulus package, and the mining boom. A mixture of government intervention and market forces.
Free marketers have this reference for the 'market', so that it's almost a holy entity, not to be sullied by mischevious government intervention. I've never really understood that reverence for any system, frankly, most having their strengths and weaknesses. Free market certainly does encourage strong business growth and prosperity, although I'd argue that prosperity doesn't necessarily mean for the bulk of the population. You see that in Asia a lot, strong economies but lots of poverty. Free market also relies on continuous growth and unlimited/undiscovered resources. It was probably at its strongest when the world was a 'larger' place and their was still unclaimed terrorities (bugger the Indigenous population - whatever use did they make of the land) and minerals and resources to be discovered. The trouble is there is no wild west anymore, and the resources are finite, so a system based entirely on economic growth is not only doomed, it's immoral.
We need to find a way to live with zero growth, a sustainable economy that doesn't create chaos and hardship for the general population.
By the way, in the link dDistributism does not look like your type of theory.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME