Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Which businesses would those be? 0bama's policies have artificially increased the costs everyone pays for electricity and health care. Don't sit there and tell me that raising the costs of day to day business is increasing profits. Businesses used to reinvest into their companies, now they lay off employees, or reduce their hours, and hoard their profits instead of expanding.
Oil companies are happy to see oil prices soar, and green energy companies love it when politicians and bureaucrats have an agenda TO throw money at them. You can always find some businesses that make money when others lose their shirts.
Walmart, Dell computer, Lockheed, McDonalds, Ford, GM, the airlines, are seeing profits go down.
Let's look at your first two myths, namely that, "0bama's policies have artificially increased the costs everyone pays for electricity and health care." The chart below shows the relative price of electricity since 2000. Notice how it rose consistently from 2000 and that growth slowed from 2009-present?
Verdict:
Now, let's look at health care. Below is a chart from 2000 to the present. Please show us where "0bama's policies have artificially increased the costs everyone pays for health care?" I don't see it. What I do see is a relative constant increase in medical costs.
Verdict:
Quote:
Originally Posted by OICU812
Walmart, Dell computer, Lockheed, McDonalds, Ford, GM, the airlines, are seeing profits go down.
Yesterday’s slide occurred while fourth-quarter sales and profit exceeded estimates. Excluding one-time items, the per- share profit was 31 cents, exceeding the 25-cent average estimate of 19 analysts surveyed by Bloomberg. Automotive revenue totaled $34.5 billion, beating the $33 billion average estimate of 11 analysts. Total fourth-quarter revenue rose 5.5 percent to $36.5 billion.
The Detroit-based automaker, currently about 19 percent owned by the U.S. government, posted fourth quarter earnings of 48 cents per share excluding items, versus a 39 cent profit in the comparable year ago period. Revenue rose to $39.2 billion, from $37.99 billion a year ago.
Last edited by MTAtech; 03-12-2013 at 09:54 AM..
Reason: response to deletion
That's just it, he thinks he can wallpaper over the truth with charts and graphs. As if these stories can be erased simply by posting some stupid chart or graph
Yea, why worry about stupid charts and graphs? They just represent stupid "facts" and "evidence," which doesn't persuade the right-wing, who already have their minds made up in their alternate reality.
Income: Verdict: The assertion that income was greater under Bush is false too.
Personal Savings:
Verdict: The assertion that personal savings was better under Bush is false. The highest savings rate was during the brink of the recession (when savings always rises) but most Bush's savings rate was lower than Obama's.
Number of citizens in the work force
This isn't an economic indicator, as it is subject to many different factors unrelated to the economy, such as babyboomer retirements.
In any case, the number of working age persons in the workforce is higher now than under Bush.
unemployment
Unemployment is higher than the pre-recession Bush years but was 8.4% when Obama was inaugurated. Now, it is 7.6%.
...
Neither Debt or Deficits are economic indicators -- and a nation is supposed to run deficits during weak economic times. That's ECON 101.
So on every economic indicator, Obama's economy is better than that which was handed to him by Bush.
MTA- you are priceless!
I love how you present false and manipulated data. Gee............ it must be all true, since it is on a graph!
2. You showed a graph of citizens who are in "the work force age group", not people employed! That one was a stitch!
3. The "unemployment rate" excludes people who have given up looking for jobs. The number of people employed in the US is at a 50 year low, as a percentage of those who are available for employment!
4. You showed a graph of "personal savings rate", not net wealth. They are two seperate things. One could have a 100% decline in net wealth, yet if someone started saving $2, instead of $1 per annum, that would be a 100% increase in "the savings rate". That, of course, has nothing to do with net wealth, which has declined under Obama. In fact, net wealth has declined over 40% under Obama!
I use the 2013 deficit of $845 billion and the 2009 deficit of $1.3 trillion.
Notice that I didn't say "Obama cut deficit by 35%." Just as I and others have been saying for years, the deficit during the Great Recession isn't due to any particular action of the President and he shouldn't get credit when those automatic areas reverse.
Most of the increase in spending since the Great Recession started is due to “automatic stabilizers” as the CBO calls them. These are items like unemployment benefits and SNAP, that increase when the economy is weak. They aren't due to any action by a sitting president.
From the CBO:
The CBO estimates that in fiscal 2013 automatic stabilizers will amount to $422 billion, which is half of a est. $845 billion deficit.
You too, but certainly more affordable during debt deflation. .
Quote:
4. You showed a graph of "personal savings rate", not net wealth. They are two seperate things. One could have a 100% decline in net wealth, yet if someone started saving $2, instead of $1 per annum, that would be a 100% increase in "the savings rate". That, of course, has nothing to do with net wealth, which has declined under Obama. In fact, net wealth has declined over 40% under Obama!
When the savings rate rises, assets fall . A fresh supply of laughing stock as axiomatic economic truths are like flubber in your hands. Cash hoarding and debt reduction increase the value of cash at the expense of assets. Of course they are two separate things on either side of the equation.
Again form the *******s at Mises.
Martin Armstrong: Well, it's really a leveraging system. You're increasing the money supply by taking the same money and lending it out several times, so if I deposit $100 and the bank lends you $100 we both think we have $100 but there's only one $100 deposit. Take the mortgage market where the Federal Reserve created trillions by buying mortgage backed securities (MBS). The mortgage market contracted by maybe $5 trillion from the top. So, you have deleveraging at the same time. If the Federal Reserve created $3 trillion when there was no deflation then that would be inflationary, but, in this type of system, every time you get a decline in the economy it's deflation and deleveraging. In a deflation, everyone wants cash so asset values fall. The cash is only a small fraction of the total asset value at the peak. If Bill Gates sold all his Microsoft stock at once it wouldn't be worth as much as it is on paper. It's a yin and yang between leverage and deflation.
Now return interest rates to the historical average and get back to us.
On the other hand some one who does have some sense. How many fallen angels does an investment banker make when he rings the cash register? Every time a banker makes a ponzi loan, he fells a cathedral.
Yeah except for the explosion of bank credit. Here are the steps:
* ZIRP
* lotsa bank leverages
* bloat
* pop
* deleveraging
* credit starvation
* automatic stabilizers
Bush, bloat , deficits, crap, gunk, junk and swill.
Except that the same thing happened when Reagan cut taxes in 1981 and 1983; government revenue almost doubled. Government revenue also increased after the John F. Kennedy tax cuts in the early 1960s. Tax cuts help the economy and increase government revenue.
Quote:
Goes back to my question, - what is total debt? -
The total national debt now? It's about $17 trillion.
Except that the same thing happened when Reagan cut taxes in 1981 and 1983; government revenue almost doubled. Government revenue also increased after the John F. Kennedy tax cuts in the early 1960s. Tax cuts help the economy and increase government revenue.
Well of course revenue went up. More clam shells went into circulation.
Quote:
The total national debt now? It's about $17 trillion.
Define total debt.
Define money supply.
Define how money is created.
What's a buck? I have been here for quite some time, and it seems quite clear to me no one seems to know. They say we have debt, and then we are printing money. While printing money certainly has that credit quality to it, its not quite the same thing is it?
So let me ask ya. Would you rather owe a 25k share of the national debt or would you like to carry that yourself all nice and private like?
And how in the hell will we ever get to a full equity position when money is one big debt pyramid?
series id: ces0500000013
seasonally adjusted super sector: total private industry: total private naics code: - data type: average hourly earnings of all employees, 1982-1984 dollars
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
...
