U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Covid-19 Information Page
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Economics
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 07-07-2012, 11:49 AM
 
Location: None of your business
5,466 posts, read 4,008,452 times
Reputation: 1172

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by darkeconomist View Post
Your highlights suggest a gross misunderstanding of economics, governance, and politics.

You can, very easily, spend your way out of a financial depression or recession if you are a government with a central bank. Why? Because you print the money. Sure, you risk inflation, but that's hardly the nearest threat at the moment.

But, if the federal government doesn't spend enough to offset failures elsewhere (ie, the private sector or the states), then you run in to the problem we have now, an insufficient demand for goods.

No, you don't spend hapharzardly on any project. That would be foolish and wouldn't see good returns on that spending. But, look at the layoffs by the states; those former workers, of whom there are many, aren't spending money. That's an opportunity to spend money effectively and see good returns on that spending. That's putting people to work who serve the public good. Double points.

The stimulus some individuals like to hold against the Obama administration, ignoring it was passed in to law before the administration came in to office, was smaller than economists, in general, would have liked. When you go to the doctor for a bacterial infection, the doctor gives you antibiotics. If you only take one dose, you're not going to kill the infection. That, though, is exactly what we did; as a country, we took one dose, then turned around and asked "Why aren't we better?"
darkeconomist compares our economy to a bacterial infection. He believes that even though throwing money at the economy before, he believes the POTUS that it was not enough money and he we need to throw more money at the problem.?

Ok, I will be open minded and asked to hear the plan. What the outcome the action and effect of this action. What is the expected timeline of getting Americans back to work. How printing more money will encourage or prove to business owners that it is time to hire. This should be interesting. I'm waiting??

I'm surprised they didn't fire up the printing presses to contribute to his re-election campaign.

Last edited by eRayP; 07-07-2012 at 12:01 PM..
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 07-07-2012, 07:27 PM
 
2,553 posts, read 2,155,149 times
Reputation: 1349
Quote:
Originally Posted by eRayP View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by darkeconomist View Post
Your highlights suggest a gross misunderstanding of economics, governance, and politics.

You can, very easily, spend your way out of a financial depression or recession if you are a government with a central bank. Why? Because you print the money. Sure, you risk inflation, but that's hardly the nearest threat at the moment.

But, if the federal government doesn't spend enough to offset failures elsewhere (ie, the private sector or the states), then you run in to the problem we have now, an insufficient demand for goods.

No, you don't spend hapharzardly on any project. That would be foolish and wouldn't see good returns on that spending. But, look at the layoffs by the states; those former workers, of whom there are many, aren't spending money. That's an opportunity to spend money effectively and see good returns on that spending. That's putting people to work who serve the public good. Double points.

The stimulus some individuals like to hold against the Obama administration, ignoring it was passed in to law before the administration came in to office, was smaller than economists, in general, would have liked. When you go to the doctor for a bacterial infection, the doctor gives you antibiotics. If you only take one dose, you're not going to kill the infection. That, though, is exactly what we did; as a country, we took one dose, then turned around and asked "Why aren't we better?"
Your kidding. I would love to hear the plan, print and spend more money, economy remains in bad shape, as you say, he needs to spend more money ok, then what happens. This is not a doctors visit so show me your action and timelines to a better economy ole wise one.




You mean like on projects like Solyndra, isn'tt that 4-5 failures so far? Now he new investment in Africa.



And after almost 4 years you still blame a previous administration. Ok so tell me, he promised to fix the mess and he didn't therefor I blame Obama for not keeping that promise and fixing it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by eRayP View Post
darkeconomist compares our economy to a bacterial infection. He believes that even though throwing money at the economy before, he believes the POTUS that it was not enough money and he we need to throw more money at the problem.?

Ok, I will be open minded and asked to hear the plan. What the outcome the action and effect of this action. What is the expected timeline of getting Americans back to work. How printing more money will encourage or prove to business owners that it is time to hire. This should be interesting. I'm waiting??

I'm surprised they didn't fire up the printing presses to contribute to his re-election campaign.
I'd have responded sooner, but, unfortunately, I didn't have access to a computer.

I have serious concerns, based upon the language and tone of your responses, that, no matter what I write or how I write it, you'll be predisposed to being against it. That being a given, I'll respond anyway.

As I said before, a country with it's own central bank can easily spend it's way out of recessesion so long as it is able to keep inflation in check. Despite what has been said about the stimulus, it was very small in relative terms. As I also said previously, it was too small to do much long term good. You and I may consider that much money to be a lot, but, to a country, it wasn't. Your "throwing money at the problem" statement suggests you misunderstood that key point. And that's why I equated it to only taking one dosage of a antibiotic treatment.

Across the country, people are out of work. The public sector is shedding jobs, and the private sector, without demand for goods and services, has no reason to hire new workers. The number of unemployed, underemployed, and discouraged workers is, well, discouraging.

What our federal government could do right now is shore up state budgets, thereby allowing those states to hold on to or rehire workers for the services people like you and I used to enjoy, such as libraries, emergency services, community services, and so on. This is not a trivial number of workers, and the money they would be spending on private sector goods and services would not be trivial either. Very quickly, there is new demand for goods and services. In turn, there is demand for workers to meet this new demand (so long as you overcome the surplus in ability to meet this demand). In this one action, the government has effectively kick started some of the economy.

Our government could, also, continue to pump money in to infrastructure projects. Our infrastructure is crumbling and the states lack the funds to meet current and future funding needs. By funding those projects, not only do you re-hire construction workers (who were hit the hardest after 2007), but you also invest in the future viability of our country. Double points.

You bring up Solyndra. True, it was a big, public spectacle. I was quite disappointed in the administration for making such a politically motivated move. But, using it as a representation of all government projects is inaccurate. Imagine if, as an alien species, you used Stephen Hawking to make your assessment of humanity. You'd assume humanity is all bound to mechanical devices (iPhones aside) but extremely intelligent. You'd be wrong, but that's what you'd assume. It doesn't make sense in that case, or in the case of Solyndra. Simply, the failure of Solyndra is not representative of the larger set of investments made by the government.

Going further on the Solyndra point, if you want to hold your viewpoint regarding subsidies, you must also concede that the government shouldn't subsidize farming, shouldn't subsidize the auto industry through tariffs on imported vehicles (which, though not a direct subsidy by the government, cost all citizens of the US every time one buys a car or truck and thus are, effectively, subsidies), shouldn't provide massive tax breaks to oil companies (thereby subsidizing the production of crude oils), shouldn't have built or have provided funding for our rail system (the greatest freight rail system in the world, no less), and shouldn't have built or have provided or continue to provide funding to build and maintain our air transportation infrastructure.

Did that fully answer your question?

Last edited by darkeconomist; 07-07-2012 at 08:16 PM..
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-08-2012, 02:54 PM
 
Location: None of your business
5,466 posts, read 4,008,452 times
Reputation: 1172
Quote:
Originally Posted by darkeconomist View Post
I'd have responded sooner, but, unfortunately, I didn't have access to a computer.

I have serious concerns, based upon the language and tone of your responses, that, no matter what I write or how I write it, you'll be predisposed to being against it. That being a given, I'll respond anyway.

As I said before, a country with it's own central bank can easily spend it's way out of recessesion so long as it is able to keep inflation in check. Despite what has been said about the stimulus, it was very small in relative terms. As I also said previously, it was too small to do much long term good. You and I may consider that much money to be a lot, but, to a country, it wasn't. Your "throwing money at the problem" statement suggests you misunderstood that key point. And that's why I equated it to only taking one dosage of a antibiotic treatment.
Your answer sounds like an Obama speech.

Why do liberal economists claim to care about the middle class and the poor — while still supporting printing money knowing that by doing so will cause inflation. If you want to stimulate the economy you don't use inflationary policies effectively decreasing value of the money. Printing money and the resulting inflation, increase cost of everything including the basic necessities. It hurts the middle class and the poor the most because they have less disposable income to be absorbed by inflation.

And you advocate printing money as long as its a low rate of inflation? Have you been to the grocery store lately? Inflation has already hurt this country. The lifestyles of the super-rich are less affected by inflation in fact inflation is a benefit to the rich. The poor and the middle class suffer most from inflation because of their decline in purchasing power.

Inflation hurts savers because the money loses its value. When inflation increases, it benefits borrowers and rich people borrow money to invest (called good debt). It benefits by not having to pay back as much (relative to prices), while at the same time all their material goods do not decrease in true value (if they wanted to sell, the selling prices would move relative to inflation.

Higher Taxation:
And, even though Obama promised that the middle class will not pay another dime more in taxes, he vowed to let the Bush tax cuts expire because he believes it only helps the rich. WRONG!, the Bush tax cuts also help the working poor and middle class through reducing child care credit, reinstating the marriage penalty, tax brackets are lowered to mention a few. By letting the Bush cuts expire Obama is effectively RAISING TAXES on the middle class.


Due to inflation and increasing taxes, due to loss of jobs, the middle class and the working poor are getting hit from all sides?

Last edited by eRayP; 07-08-2012 at 03:59 PM..
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-08-2012, 03:03 PM
 
Location: None of your business
5,466 posts, read 4,008,452 times
Reputation: 1172
Quote:
Originally Posted by darkeconomist View Post
I'd have responded sooner, but, unfortunately, I didn't have access to a computer.
Across the country, people are out of work. The public sector is shedding jobs, and the private sector, without demand for goods and services, has no reason to hire new workers. The number of unemployed, underemployed, and discouraged workers is, well, discouraging.
Of course the sectors are shedding jobs. Private sector small businesses know that they will get hit with the highest tax increase in American history and the highest corporate taxes in the world and you don't expect that they will pull back on their own spending and investing.

As for demand, people are out of work, they are also forced to decrease spending to bear minimum. Everyone else is forced to reduce their expenses and debt if possible while the Obama wants to print more money so he can spends more.

Did Obama say he wants to print money and increase taxes to stimulate the economy? How does causing the devaluation of money stimulate the economy? How does taking money from people through higher taxation stimulate the economy?

If you leave that money in the peoples hands through less taxation and keep inflation down, the mere fact that people will keep more of their money, people by their own natural inclination or need people will spend the money, it circulates through the economy therefor stimulating the economy. People don't need government to control how their money is spent nor do they need government to spend the money for them.

Last edited by eRayP; 07-08-2012 at 04:02 PM..
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-08-2012, 03:08 PM
 
Location: None of your business
5,466 posts, read 4,008,452 times
Reputation: 1172
This is simply taking money out of the economy so the government can control how the money is spent. Would most people have invested in Solyndra or agreed to subsiding electric cars or now he wants to spend money to invest in Africa. Would people have agreed to this if they had control over the money, I would not think so especially when they struggling to pay their bills or feed their family? Right now, no one cares about the electric cars but he is spending taxpayer dollars in an attempt to make it happen. Obama Administration offers a "subsidy" for the cars, some of which cost more than $40,000 and people are not buying.

People care about jobs and being able to support their families.

Again, The middle class and the working poor are getting hit from all sides through inflation and taxation.

Bottom line is, This country and its people are are tapped out. The money tree is bare and the well has run dry so Obama solution is to print more, cause inflation, tax more, contract the economy. It did not work before and more of it will not work either.

Stop spending to stimulate the economy. Stop taking hard earned money from the working poor and the middle class, through higher taxation, it will not stimulate the economy, it will contract the economy like it did the last time.

Let people keep more of their money through less taxation, NOT more taxation and policies that keep inflation down. The mere fact that people will keep more of their money, by their own natural inclination or need people will make sure the money circulates through the economy therefor stimulating the economy.

Last edited by eRayP; 07-08-2012 at 04:28 PM..
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-09-2012, 06:44 AM
 
Location: Metro Detroit, Michigan
18,163 posts, read 16,612,384 times
Reputation: 18130
Cmon, you give this Obama clown too much credit. He doesn't have a clue what any of this means. He is not an economist. He follows no school of thought or theory base other than letting "this guy" push the buttons. OF course, when they crash the ship, because there is no way to right it at this point, Obama will catch most of the blame. The guy is to incompetent to pass the blame. If anything, I blame the incompetent voters of America for electing this audibly pleasing dingbat. Great job America.

Quote:
Originally Posted by eRayP View Post
Inflation hurts savers because the money loses its value. When inflation increases, it benefits borrowers and rich people borrow money to invest (called good debt). It benefits by not having to pay back as much (relative to prices), while at the same time all their material goods do not decrease in true value (if they wanted to sell, the selling prices would move relative to inflation.
Most economists will tell you, during times of spending contraction, the whole structure is purposely shifted to reduce incentives for saving. You don't dig yourself out of a recession or a depression through savings... Higher inflation is not the planned strategy, but we will probably be dealing with it in short order.

And inflation wouldn't be such a bad thing, except we live in America... Consumers are used to rock bottom prices. Wages can't keep up with inflation unless prices themselves allow for it. The consumers will whine when things get more expensive due to inflation. If the product allows for a slight increase in play for the workers, forget about it. They ain't gonna buy it! Of course, you'll hear every American whining about how their paycheck hasn't kept up with inflation over the past 3 decades.

This problem is not a new one. It's just going to pick up steam at a more rapid rate pretty soon.

Quote:
Originally Posted by eRayP View Post
Of course the sectors are shedding jobs. Private sector small businesses know that they will get hit with the highest tax increase in American history and the highest corporate taxes in the world and you don't expect that they will pull back on their own spending and investing.
Our tax structure is well in line with most of the world. In fact, I believe China has higher taxes on corporations. Something tells me taxes aren't quite the problem here
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-09-2012, 10:33 AM
 
Location: None of your business
5,466 posts, read 4,008,452 times
Reputation: 1172
More printing and spending is not going to fix the problem,

People care about jobs and being able to support their families.

This country and its people are are tapped out.

enuf said
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-09-2012, 11:34 AM
 
2,553 posts, read 2,155,149 times
Reputation: 1349
Quote:
Originally Posted by eRayP View Post
Your answer sounds like an Obama speech.

Why do liberal economists claim to care about the middle class and the poor — while still supporting printing money knowing that by doing so will cause inflation. If you want to stimulate the economy you don't use inflationary policies effectively decreasing value of the money. Printing money and the resulting inflation, increase cost of everything including the basic necessities. It hurts the middle class and the poor the most because they have less disposable income to be absorbed by inflation.

And you advocate printing money as long as its a low rate of inflation? Have you been to the grocery store lately? Inflation has already hurt this country. The lifestyles of the super-rich are less affected by inflation in fact inflation is a benefit to the rich. The poor and the middle class suffer most from inflation because of their decline in purchasing power.

Inflation hurts savers because the money loses its value. When inflation increases, it benefits borrowers and rich people borrow money to invest (called good debt). It benefits by not having to pay back as much (relative to prices), while at the same time all their material goods do not decrease in true value (if they wanted to sell, the selling prices would move relative to inflation.

Higher Taxation:
And, even though Obama promised that the middle class will not pay another dime more in taxes, he vowed to let the Bush tax cuts expire because he believes it only helps the rich. WRONG!, the Bush tax cuts also help the working poor and middle class through reducing child care credit, reinstating the marriage penalty, tax brackets are lowered to mention a few. By letting the Bush cuts expire Obama is effectively RAISING TAXES on the middle class.


Due to inflation and increasing taxes, due to loss of jobs, the middle class and the working poor are getting hit from all sides?
As I feared and noted, my response didn't matter. It seems you are steadfastly conservative (personally, I'm a moderate), and that I never had an actual chance to convince you of anything other than the position you hold.

Ironically, if you are the conservative you seem to be, and you successfully vote Romney in to office, you'll have voted in a group which loves to spend, spend, spend.

What, then, is the point of crafting a thoughtful response? It doesn't matter that inflation isn't a concern right now, especially in relative terms as compared to the weak economy. You're so worried about inflation that you'd damn the economy (and everyone from every economic strata who participates in it) to keep it low.

But, instead of actually knowing what's going on, you draft a response which sounds thorough and relevant, but is actually a distraction from the point. The point is the economy and, namely, unemployment. Instead of focusing on unemployment, you say, essentially, that inflation is bad. That's not true any more than bacteria are bad. Inflation can be painful, as it does deflate the value of money, but it is a necessary part of the economy. When the market, as a whole, overheats, low and moderate inflation is what brings it back in to line. Bad inflation, of the kind you wrote about at length, is high inflation. High inflation is, simply, not a threat to the US right now.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-09-2012, 02:27 PM
 
Location: Ohio
22,798 posts, read 16,028,022 times
Reputation: 19289
Quote:
Originally Posted by jtur88 View Post
One of the three classic devices of the debater who has been soundly defeated. Faced with any one of those three, one just shrugs and stops presenting data.
You never presented any data whatsoever. I did.

Bizarre beliefs are not facts. Hard data is. I would hope that you could understand the difference.

As for the Straw Man, it is dead on the money. You and Krugman and other idiots are conflating spending with investing: sorry, they are not the same thing.

If you have evidence to the contrary, post it, otherwise it would appear I just killed another thread.

Classically...

Mircea

Quote:
Originally Posted by eRayP View Post
Why do liberal economists claim to care about the middle class and the poor — while still supporting printing money knowing that by doing so will cause inflation.
Your question contains the answer: Liberal.

Liberals are control freaks. They believe they have the power to control everything. Witness Global Warming and other such stupidity.

Liberals, especially Liberal economists believe they can control the economy, when the simple reality is that you cannot control the economy. It has a mind of its own and does what it does within the realm of its laws.

Liberals believe they can mix Hydrochloric Acid with Sodium Hydroxide and not get water or sodium chloride (table salt). Sorry, that just doesn't work.

Answering...

Mircea

Quote:
Originally Posted by andywire View Post
Most economists will tell you, during times of spending contraction, the whole structure is purposely shifted to reduce incentives for saving. You don't dig yourself out of a recession or a depression through savings... Higher inflation is not the planned strategy, but we will probably be dealing with it in short order.
You mean most stupid economists.

An intelligent person knows that in order to provide a solution, you must first understand the problem.

And you mean long order. It will be about 12 more years before you get the full effect.

Shifting...

Mircea

Quote:
Originally Posted by darkeconomist View Post
Austerity doesn't work in the modern world.
Of course austerity works in the modern world. Three months of austerity will not fix a problem that requires several years of austerity.

Quote:
Originally Posted by darkeconomist View Post
Take, for instance, our current condition; the states have cut back spending drastically, leaving many individuals unemployed in the process.
Yeah? So what?

Recessions are about eliminating inefficiency. When you operate inefficiently, that comes with a price, and that price is a recession. The fact that those jobs were lost, means they should never have existed in the first place.

Quote:
Originally Posted by darkeconomist View Post
The consequence has been a prolonging of the recovery because all those unemployed former government workers aren't buying things.
Recovery? Your economy already recovered.

If you know anything about economics, then you know that there is absolutely no relationship between GDP and employment. Neither is a function of the other. $X in GDP does not equate to N thousands of jobs.

You should also know that there is no magical number of jobs for any economy.

Whether you have more jobs or less jobs is totally irrelevant, if for no other reason than the fact that it is not an indicator of an healthy or robust economy.

Quote:
Originally Posted by darkeconomist View Post
Suddenly, we're in a situation where no one is spending because no one is being hired because no one is spending.
Everyone is spending.

Quote:
According to a recent survey by Career Builder, 77 percent of American consumers are living paycheck to paycheck.
Five Steps Toward Financial Wellness — NDSU Ag CMS

I just totally destroyed your argument.

Quote:
Originally Posted by darkeconomist View Post
S But, this could have been averted by not taking austerity measures and thereby not leaving former government workers unemployed.
Sorry, terminating employees is not austerity measures.

Quote:
Originally Posted by darkeconomist View Post
Your highlights suggest a gross misunderstanding of economics, governance, and politics.
You mean like your gross misunderstanding?

Quote:
Originally Posted by darkeconomist View Post
You can, very easily, spend your way out of a financial depression or recession...
No, you cannot. Whether "spending" alleviates the problems or not depends on the root cause of the problem, which very obviously you don't even understand.

The primary root cause of this recession is the fact that your global work force cannot compete against the global work forces of other countries, due to the grotesque difference in wages, which the US created through its Foreign Policy of oppression.

You can spend all you want, $Billions, $TRILLIONS, or even $QUADRILLIONS, and at the end of the day, the reality still remains -- your global work force cannot compete against the global work forces of other countries.

And there is absolutely nothing you can do to alter that reality, save nuclear war.

When will your global work force be able to compete against the global work forces of other countries?

About the year 2040 or so.

So spend all you want, because it won't change the fact that Americans are grotesquely over-paid relative to the wages of people in other countries (and again -- that is your own stupid fault).

Economically...

Mircea
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-09-2012, 07:22 PM
 
2,553 posts, read 2,155,149 times
Reputation: 1349
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mircea View Post
You never presented any data whatsoever. I did.

Bizarre beliefs are not facts. Hard data is. I would hope that you could understand the difference.

As for the Straw Man, it is dead on the money. You and Krugman and other idiots are conflating spending with investing: sorry, they are not the same thing.

If you have evidence to the contrary, post it, otherwise it would appear I just killed another thread.

Classically...

Mircea



Your question contains the answer: Liberal.

Liberals are control freaks. They believe they have the power to control everything. Witness Global Warming and other such stupidity.

Liberals, especially Liberal economists believe they can control the economy, when the simple reality is that you cannot control the economy. It has a mind of its own and does what it does within the realm of its laws.

Liberals believe they can mix Hydrochloric Acid with Sodium Hydroxide and not get water or sodium chloride (table salt). Sorry, that just doesn't work.

Answering...

Mircea



You mean most stupid economists.

An intelligent person knows that in order to provide a solution, you must first understand the problem.

And you mean long order. It will be about 12 more years before you get the full effect.

Shifting...

Mircea



Of course austerity works in the modern world. Three months of austerity will not fix a problem that requires several years of austerity.



Yeah? So what?

Recessions are about eliminating inefficiency. When you operate inefficiently, that comes with a price, and that price is a recession. The fact that those jobs were lost, means they should never have existed in the first place.



Recovery? Your economy already recovered.

If you know anything about economics, then you know that there is absolutely no relationship between GDP and employment. Neither is a function of the other. $X in GDP does not equate to N thousands of jobs.

You should also know that there is no magical number of jobs for any economy.

Whether you have more jobs or less jobs is totally irrelevant, if for no other reason than the fact that it is not an indicator of an healthy or robust economy.



Everyone is spending.

Five Steps Toward Financial Wellness — NDSU Ag CMS

I just totally destroyed your argument.



Sorry, terminating employees is not austerity measures.



You mean like your gross misunderstanding?



No, you cannot. Whether "spending" alleviates the problems or not depends on the root cause of the problem, which very obviously you don't even understand.

The primary root cause of this recession is the fact that your global work force cannot compete against the global work forces of other countries, due to the grotesque difference in wages, which the US created through its Foreign Policy of oppression.

You can spend all you want, $Billions, $TRILLIONS, or even $QUADRILLIONS, and at the end of the day, the reality still remains -- your global work force cannot compete against the global work forces of other countries.

And there is absolutely nothing you can do to alter that reality, save nuclear war.

When will your global work force be able to compete against the global work forces of other countries?

About the year 2040 or so.

So spend all you want, because it won't change the fact that Americans are grotesquely over-paid relative to the wages of people in other countries (and again -- that is your own stupid fault).

Economically...

Mircea
Listen, Mircea, I gain nothing from responding to you. All you care about is destruction. You don't care about the discussion. If you oppose someone's view, it's never enough to say "that's not right, here's what is correct." You seem compelled to attack and instigate. So, yeah, you just "killed another thread." So, no, I won't provide a rebuttal to your attack. I said that before, didn't I? If someone else adds to the discussion, I'll gladly discuss it with them. With you? No.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Economics
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2021, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top