|
Home > Archive > Certifications and IT jobs/Salaries > September 2003 > It Suffers
You are viewing an archived Text-only version of the thread.
To view this thread in it's original format and/or if you want to reply to
this thread please [click here]
|
|
| Study_tx 2003-07-14, 11:25 am |
| I remember in 1999, a friend of mine who just got his bachelor in MIS started with 60k ,at that time I just got my high school degree. I had a dream when I ll get a bachelor I ll have a chance to get a goooood job.but guess what this administration destroys our dream, no jobs,IT SUFFERS the most my friend who get a degree in marketing and accounting some of them get a job , but most of MIS none of us get a job.
This administration stills have only a few month to fix this economy, or they will join us (JOBLESS PEOPLE). | |
| Teck Shark 2003-07-14, 12:24 pm |
| I do agree that the Bush administration needs to do a better job of addressing the situation. But no matter what they do it's not going to help you get a job unless you work at it. It's not going to be any easier in any other field. They are all saturated. There isn't anywhere near the jobs available to fill even half of all the college graduates every year. It's an employer's market, unfortunately. That just means we have to work that much harder! Good luck to you all! | |
| Deja-vue 2003-07-14, 12:48 pm |
| No kidding,friends!
A Friend of mine, member of this Board as well,went to an Interview this last Friday.
Mind you, he's a MCSE, and a pretty good one. (at least in my opinion).
The City of Huntington Beach had 15 Openings to fill in their IT-Structure, all from Techs to DBA's.
Guess, how many People showed up?
....you
...will
...not
...believe it!
about 4000 !!!
The poor guy stood in line for 6 hours just to answer 12 questions, got severly sun burned and is frustrated as Hell.
Thank God i own my own business.I could not handle that, no way!
Same thing going on over in Germany(i keep close contact to Friends/Family) were 300 to 400 People show up for one lousy Tech-job.They are asking you to know Win2000/NT4/Oracle/Novell-6/Cisco, and all they will pay you is $45000/Year?
Come on!
just venting.... | |
| Study_tx 2003-07-14, 11:24 pm |
| Teck Shark
I do agree with u in the fact I should solve my problem by myself. But this administration kills the economy in the previous administration they were a lot of jobs ( 25Millions new jobs 7 Millions in IT)even some companies hires people from other countries.
We need a better president who cares about americans by using all his power to allow us to have a better live. Every day instead of creating new jobs this country loses thousands of job in every field. | |
| Luchnia 2003-07-15, 6:38 am |
| It isn't the administration that kills jobs. Although at times they are greatly affected. Jobs are people. People can make things happen. People hurt the IT economy. People gouged and took advantage of the IT boom and look at what you have now.
Here is an example. You hire a developer here in the US and you pay him $50 an hour. He does a half-way job sorry job and abuses you if possible. You hire a developer overseas and pay him $10 an hour and he does a fantastic job and wants to work. Now, consider this, if you were in business, what would you do? Let your business go down the tubes because of the type of people here?
Personally, I think it is rather sad that we have to do this in this country.
Just some food for thought. | |
| ANDRONDA 2003-07-17, 10:22 am |
| I do empathize with people who are having difficulty finding jobs. I just believe that reality must set in here at some point. I am distressed at how many respond, which is mostly complaining and blaming.
Economists have concluded regarding labor theory that a work force has only one of two things to offer: the ABILITY to do something that no one else can do or the WILLINGNESS to something that everyone can do for a lower wage. IT is not different. Either you possess skills that make you valuable and a rare catch to a firm or you are willing to do common tasks and take a lower wage. This is life. This is how it is. No one owes you anything- not hiring firms, not the President, not Bill Gates. Either you compete in what is now a limited market or you wait for the opportunities to expand and try again when competition is not so fierce. | |
|
| Welcome to the club...
I am problem seeking job, too...
Job is out there, but it required experience!!!!
Many college graduate don't have enough experience and the school education actually don't teach them (include myself) even skill to meet today high level tech demand... | |
| DivxGuy 2003-07-19, 2:24 am |
| quote:
We need a better president who cares about americans by using all his power to allow us to have a better live.
It's not his doing, it's the confluence of several factors, most notably the popping of the tech bubble that had been driving a huge wave of investment into IT, and which popped before the 2000 presidential election.
There is also the offshore outsourcing boom, but there is strong support amongst Democrats for that (including Jay Inslee, who represents the district Microsoft is in). FYI a bi-partisan bill was introduced in the House to limit L-1 visas (which sneak in cheap labor from overseas to undercut American salaries) by Florida Republican John Mica. You might want to write in and voice your support for it.
RD | |
| bloodshotx 2003-07-21, 2:52 pm |
| Some of your guys way of thinking just amazes me.
We have the greatest terroist attack of all time. We goto war. Our economy is in a slump. You blame it on bush? gimmie a break.
IT is in a downsizing. They hired too many without degree's and only on certifications. Now we see all these "Experienced Certified IT professionals without jobs"
Well its because they demand so much money without a DEGREE. Degree's still mean something to companies. | |
| DivxGuy 2003-07-21, 3:21 pm |
| quote:
IT is in a downsizing. They hired too many without degree's and only on certifications. Now we see all these "Experienced Certified IT professionals without jobs"
Everyone in the IT industry is hurting, including many with PhDs and MScs from Ivy League universities.
In my case, I had a 2-year credential (equivalent of an AA) and several years of relevant experience before I embarked on my certs. When the certs didn't pan out, employment-wise, I enrolled in a program to upgrade my 2-year diploma to a 4-year degree. At the time, a 4-year IT degree looked like a good bet, but the spectre of offshore outsourcing is casting an ominous shadow over the industry.
Only time will tell if everyday IT in North America is a sunset industry or not, but one thing is for certain, the halycon days of high salaries for such work are over. This is why I warn people here constantly, so they can at least have the information to make an informed decision, and not be deceived by dreadfully outdated salary surveys or employment projections.
RD | |
| groversyck 2003-07-22, 9:11 pm |
| If Shrub would do as good a job on the economy as he has for forign relations, we would be in a full fledged depression.
His "welfair for the rich" tax cuts did little for the economy. Most economist say the tax cuts Shrub shoved through congress was only worth about $.09 on the dollar as far as econimic stimulus goes.
But Shrub was mainly trying to stimulate contributions to his election war chest. | |
| Study_tx 2003-07-26, 1:38 am |
| groversyck
I do agree with u .Bush is responsible for this mayhem he must solve it or leave the office | |
| rathore 2003-07-26, 2:44 am |
| with all these certifications against my name since 2002 i'm still finding it hard to get a job totally related to my profession. | |
| Luchnia 2003-07-26, 5:41 am |
| Study_TX
I do find it interesting that you type that Bush is responsible, and yet, you have "In God We Trust" on your post 
Now, that is a strange thing.
Peace up! | |
| DivxGuy 2003-07-26, 4:32 pm |
| The following appears courtesy of The Ottawa Citizen
============================
World waits for U.S. to recover
Signs point to improvements as early as this year, think-tank says
Eric Beauchesne
The Ottawa Citizen
Saturday, July 26, 2003
The world is waiting on the Americans to fire up their economy and in turn the global economy, the Conference Board of Canada said yesterday.
The good news in the global forecast is that there's reason to believe the U.S. economy will be up and running again later this year.
"The world economy needs a stronger recovery in the United States, because many other economic powers are struggling in 2003," Kip Beckman, board researcher and author of the think tank's global economic forecast.
"Japan's economy is still contending with deflation and is in danger of slipping back into recession," he said. "Europe's economic growth is stagnant as five countries, including Germany, have gone into recession this year."
Also in recession are the Netherlands, Norway, Switzerland, and Mexico, while Brazil, Finland, and Italy are in only marginally better shape.
The Canadian economy will be hindered by the rising dollar, which was trading around the 72 cents U.S. level yesterday.
The TD Bank in a separate forecast predicts the rise in the Canadian dollar will cut economic growth by a full percentage point over the coming year. Most analysts expect growth here this year of about two per cent, and about three per cent next year.
The board is forecasting the world economy will expand by just two per cent in 2003, only a slight improvement from last year's 1.8-per-cent anemic expansion.
However, the board said there is reason for optimism.
Tax cuts, higher government spending, extremely low interest rates, and the weak greenback are expected to boost U.S. economic growth later this year, which will feed through into the global economy leading to a three per cent expansion next year.
The U.S. economy is expected to grow by 2.3 per cent this year, up a notch from 2.2 per cent last year, and then accelerate to 3.8 per cent in 2004.
The global economy will also get an added boost from an anticipated decline in world oil prices as the year unfolds, it added.
The board also dismissed fears of deflation in the U.S., raised by U.S. Federal Reserve Board chairman Alan Greenspan, and in the global economy as overblown.
"The falling dollar and stimulative policy actions should keep deflation at bay in the world's No. 1 economy," it said. "For now, while deflation will remain a problem in a few countries, fears that it will spread are misplaced."
In the U.S., the board expects the Federal Reserve will keep overnight interest rates there at a half-century low of only one per cent for the rest of this year and then start raising them next year as the recovery picks up steam.
The administration's tax relief plan will also provide a significant boost to that economy, it said.
Over the longer term, however, those tax cuts could hurt the economy because they will push the government much deeper into debt, it warned.
"In fact, if all of the tax breaks in the current Bush administration tax plan become permanent, the cumulative deficit over the next decade will rise by nearly $1 trillion," it said.
"These large deficits, if not brought back under control, will result in higher long-term interest rates and weaker economic growth."
© Copyright 2003 The Ottawa Citizen | |
| Study_tx 2003-07-28, 3:52 pm |
| Luchnia I have no doubt in my mind that Mr Bush reponsible for this terrible economy.
Yes in God I trust. | |
| JerryD 2003-07-31, 5:04 pm |
| quote:
Originally posted by Study_tx
Luchnia I have no doubt in my mind that Mr Bush reponsible for this terrible economy.
Yes in God I trust.
(Sorry my first post is a rant)
The current recession started in March of 2001, just 2 months after W. took office. Gee, he must be pretty effective at wrecking monetary systems in such a short amount of time. Congress CONTINUES to spend money like a sysadmin drinks MountainDew, but screams that tax cuts will wipe out civilization as we know it. You know what? Those "rich" republicans invest in business which in turn expand product lines which in turn require additional workers. Yea, right now industry would rather load up on overtime than pay for additional workers, but that'll change too. The economy is rebounding. It's taking longer than everyone would like, but it still is coming back.
I've been in IT in one fashion or another for over 15 years. I have NO certs. I have NO degree. Have I been downsized? Yes. Have I relocated. Yes. Have I taken jobs that just sucked. Sure. But I'm still employed because I made a committment to work through the tough times.
Evaluate your own strengths and weaknesses. It's easy to blame external influences on one's misfortunes. But you know what? There are some things you don't have a lot of control over. Not to be picky, but perhaps some people overlook their soft skills (verbal communication, written expression including grammar) when the technical side of the house is top notch. That can be the deciding factor in a tight job market.
I know what people are going through. I've been there. Just try and solidify your strengths, identify and address your weaknesses, and stop blaming W. on an inherited situation when there truly is a "confluence of several factors" (thanks DivxGuy ) that impact a system as complex as the U.S. economy. If you graduated H.S. in '99, perhaps you're too young to remember the recessions that happened previously. Here's the ending: The economy bounced back. And it's rebounding again.
Perhaps it's a lack of exposure to the business side of things or maybe even naivete, but you'd do well to study up on business and econ topics (especially if management is in your future) just to understand WHY it takes more than one man, or even his administration, to truly affect our economy. Don't mistake my tone. I'm trying to point out some items that you may have overlooked in your disappointment in the job market.
Remember, your best asset is your brain.
Good luck to all!
(I hope to be more constructive in future posts.) | |
| Study_tx 2003-08-01, 4:51 am |
| JerryD
I like what you wrote but I do have some remarks:
1- You Said : Those "rich" republicans invest in business which in turn expand product lines which in turn require additional works "
Guess what Mr Jerry D, those rich invest elsewhere where they can get cheap labors ,make easy profit , they careless about creating jobs in this country
All the big companies lately invest heavily in Asia.
Which proves that the program of our President sucks,and infirms this economy.
A lot of experts in finance assailed Mr bush Tax policy.
2- I m so happy for u that u survive in this tough economy, I believe u have experience most companies prefere candidates with experience even without degree like urself.I m preety sure the economy will be fine by the end of 2004 when bush will leave the office.
I like bush as governor ( Im from TX TOO) but he is not a goooooood president | |
| JerryD 2003-08-01, 8:54 am |
| I believe American companies still invest in their own companies. I do feel that jobs do get shipped out of country because of wages/benefits/OSHA regulations. I personally would like to see the whole work visa issue revisited, but that's another story.
Just like in I.T., you can find an "expert" just about anywhere. I usually try to go beyond the rhetoric and news articles because it seems everyone has an agenda. At least some sources are more open about their bias. Greenspan once told Congress that he was against cutting taxes. His next sentence was that cutting taxes would be better than increased spending. Guess which statement got reported?
As far as W. for a President... some things I've supported, other things I think he's way off base. The effect an administration has on the country or the economy usually can't be felt untill a few years after the policies are implemented. A big ship can't be turned on a dime. So if the economy DOES rebound in 2004 (I think it's happening now), and Bush is out of office, the incoming President wouldn't really have had a chance to do anything.
Thanks for the discourse. I firmly believe that the economy IS rebounding. (of course, take my opinions with a grain of salt, too! ), However, I.T. has probably changed again.
I read an article somewhere about the markets being ripe in the medical & scientific communities for I.T. It stated that individuals may need to bone up on some basic industry-specific knowledge, but techies can bring a lot to the table in an industry that has lagged in the technology race. Anyone have any input (or is this a different thread?) | |
| pointstarr 2003-08-06, 1:38 pm |
| quote:
Originally posted by DivxGuy
The following appears courtesy of The Ottawa Citizen
============================
World waits for U.S. to recover
Signs point to improvements as early as this year, think-tank says
Eric Beauchesne
The Ottawa Citizen
Saturday, July 26, 2003
The world is waiting on the Americans to fire up their economy and in turn the global economy, the Conference Board of Canada said yesterday.
The good news in the global forecast is that there's reason to believe the U.S. economy will be up and running again later this year.
"The world economy needs a stronger recovery in the United States, because many other economic powers are struggling in 2003," Kip Beckman, board researcher and author of the think tank's global economic forecast.
........................
The board is forecasting the world economy will expand by just two per cent in 2003, only a slight improvement from last year's 1.8-per-cent anemic expansion.
However, the board said there is reason for optimism.
Tax cuts, higher government spending, extremely low interest rates, and the weak greenback are expected to boost U.S. economic growth later this year, which will feed through into the global economy leading to a three per cent expansion next year.
The U.S. economy is expected to grow by 2.3 per cent this year, up a notch from 2.2 per cent last year, and then accelerate to 3.8 per cent in 2004.
The global economy will also get an added boost from an anticipated decline in world oil prices as the year unfolds, it added.
..........
The administration's tax relief plan will also provide a significant boost to that economy, it said.
Over the longer term, however, those tax cuts could hurt the economy because they will push the government much deeper into debt, it warned.
"In fact, if all of the tax breaks in the current Bush administration tax plan become permanent, the cumulative deficit over the next decade will rise by nearly $1 trillion," it said.
"These large deficits, if not brought back under control, will result in higher long-term interest rates and weaker economic growth."
© Copyright 2003 The Ottawa Citizen
the cumulative deficit over the next decade will rise by nearly $1 trillion," it said.
How is this promising!? | |
| pointstarr 2003-08-06, 1:45 pm |
| quote:
Originally posted by Study_tx
Luchnia I have no doubt in my mind that Mr Bush reponsible for this terrible economy.
Yes in God I trust.
Bush is just the figure head. It's the billionaire pupett masters'; such as his buddies from Enron and ... etc | |
| Lucidity 2003-08-09, 8:25 pm |
| For all you Bush bashers, please enlighten me on exactly the President influences a FREE MARKET economy?
I'm sure you don't have a clue.
The current recession did not "begin" in March of 2001. That was the start date attributed to it by a group of eggheads who looked at a few factors and said that by March the economy had shunk for two consecutive months. I'm just curious if you believe these same folks who said that this same recession ended 11/01? After all, their data is what you are using to base your opinion, is it not? I'd say a recession of only 8 months is pretty damn good. Unfortunately, I don't swallow what someone tells me. I'll test it for myself and come to my own conclusions.
However, things started going bad long before that. Layoffs were edging up by the end of 2000 (should we blame Clinton? After all he was the president). The DOTCOM bubble had already started to burst long before 3/01. By my own findings, the recession started before the end of 2000 (it was made critical by the legal wranglings over the election) and still hasn't ended until the labor market (a lagging indicator) returns to some normalcy
The simple fact is that taxes and government interferrence have a negative influence on business. Bush has tried to reduce taxes, but not even he can be credited for this. Remember that it takes both Congress and the President to make law. No one thing is just the fault, or accomplished by the current President.
Did anyone here take Econ 101? Don't you remember simple economic principles?
Or better yet, let's look at California which is headed by a democratic Gov and legislature. They are 38 BIllion in the hole. That is a single state and not a national economy. If we are going to blame parties, then clearly the Democrats as a whole cannot even master the basic principles of sound economic decisions. Of course it doesn't help that California is the state with the most progressive initiatives, such as entitlements and opressive labor laws.
Put the whole thing into context. The wealth of the late 90's was based on credit. People were borrowing far more than they should have, and this includes businesses. They had no savings to stave off a recession. The values of many stocks were overinflated as people were buying them based on next quarters PREDICTIONS, not on the long term profitibility of a company.
I'd also like to address a point made earlier. The leaders in congress that make the most money, or are worth the most, are Democrats, not Republicans. To say that the Democratic party is for the "working man", and the Republican party is pro "rich man", is a falsehood. The Democrats rail against this fictitious American Wealthy, but by their own math, any family that makes in excess of 30K per year is "well off". When they speak of the "working class", they want you to believe that it includes you, but their own figures show that you are part of the "wealthy". | |
| Study_tx 2003-08-10, 2:41 am |
| Lucidity Said : better yet, let's look at California which is headed by a democratic Gov and legislature. They are 38 BIllion in the hole.
Wow, let do some Math which is worst 38Million or Trillions .I bet u are smart and u are good on Math not like some people (Mr Bush, I know how his grades in college).
Our deficit over 6 Trillion
Lucidity let assume that the recession start at Clinton administration , Tell me what our current president did to stop it , I know he did nothing , and he ll do nothing. Tell me what he did to stop these rich companies in Investing in INDA, CHINA, and instead of investing in US. By letting these companies doing that our economy will be wane , the middle classes will be so poor and weak ,infirm will not afford to spend money.
We need a strong president that can stop these companies like Oracle and Intel, Microsoft, Chech point,..........
for hurting the Middle class in this country which ll destoy our economy.
Lucidity pls do not even think to compare Mr Clinton with our recent president , Mr clinton created 28 Million Jobs ,during Mr Bush period we lost over 9 Million jobs, God knows how much we ll lose till 2004.
Vote Democrate in order to live Republican | |
| Lucidity 2003-08-10, 9:42 am |
| quote:
Originally posted by Study_tx
Lucidity Said : better yet, let's look at California which is headed by a democratic Gov and legislature. They are 38 BIllion in the hole.
Wow, let do some Math which is worst 38Million or Trillions .I bet u are smart and u are good on Math not like some people (Mr Bush, I know how his grades in college).
Our deficit over 6 Trillion
Lucidity let assume that the recession start at Clinton administration , Tell me what our current president did to stop it , I know he did nothing , and he ll do nothing. Tell me what he did to stop these rich companies in Investing in INDA, CHINA, and instead of investing in US. By letting these companies doing that our economy will be wane , the middle classes will be so poor and weak ,infirm will not afford to spend money.
We need a strong president that can stop these companies like Oracle and Intel, Microsoft, Chech point,..........
for hurting the Middle class in this country which ll destoy our economy.
Lucidity pls do not even think to compare Mr Clinton with our recent president , Mr clinton created 28 Million Jobs ,during Mr Bush period we lost over 9 Million jobs, God knows how much we ll lose till 2004.
Vote Democrate in order to live Republican
Yes, by all means let's do some math.
California is a single state. The US is comprised of 50 states. California has what maybe 10 to 15 million residents? The US has several hundred million. The California budget went from a surplus of 9 Billion dollars last year to a current deficit of over 38 Billion ( a net loss of......47 Billion, and most economists believe that the 38 Billion defecit is a bit on the "conservative" -what a horrible word, I know- side). The United States has been operating with a defecit long before Bush took office.
I wonder if you have the ability to formulate your own opinions, or if you simply rely on some democratic mouthpiece to influence your thinking. You really don't know anything about the Constitution or how governemnt is run. Especially a government in a free market economy.
You ask "What did Bush do?". Let me ask you this? What would you want him to do? He cannot make laws by himself. He can only sign bills, passed by Congress, into law. How about he deploys the military to take over these "evil" corporations that want to outsource their staff? Would that make you happy?
Of course the outsourcing of jobs will hurt our economy. You can have a healthy economy based upon a population that works at Wendy's and can only afford to buy lunch at Burger King. But you need to realise the reason that jobs are leaving. It is a simply matter that CEO's believe that they can obtain a similar or better product at a cheaper cost. It's things like taxes, excessive government regulations, beaurocratic overhead, and the like, which makes the cost of doing business overseas attractive.
The simple fact is that for the government to intrude in business matters will ALWAYS have a negative effect on our economy. I could recite information from Adam Smith, or Kaynsian economic principles, but I'm sure that you would much rather get your info from watching Dick Gephardt spew a bunch of half-truths.
Clinton did not create any jobs. The private business sector did. How many jobs in the U.S. were lost when Clinton signed NAFTA? You seem to want to give credit to one president when things are going "well", and blame his successor when things go bad. You really need to wake up and realize what authority the president has, and lacks. He cannot wave his arms and demand that businesses stop using offshore contractors. He can't demand that the FED start printing a bunch of money. He can only sign or veto bills which has been sent to him by Congress, and enforce the laws currently in place.
So please do enlighten me. Tell me EXCATLY how you want the President to fix our current woes? In order for you to blame him, you should be able to articulate what steps he needs to take, or what he has done to stiffle economic recovery. I'd prefer it if you could cite those things which he is empowered by the Constitution to perform. However, I'll even accept your Socialist ramblings about Government control of private businesses.
I've already pointed out that he signed two tax cutting bills, which many economists agree had a SIGNIFICANT impact on keeping the economy from sliding further into recession.
By the way, we live in a Constitutional Republic, not a Democracy. Learn the difference. | |
| DivxGuy 2003-08-10, 1:57 pm |
| quote:
It's things like taxes, excessive government regulations, beaurocratic overhead, and the like, which makes the cost of doing business overseas attractive.
You forgot to mention the manipulation of currencies by foreign governments to give their industries a huge edge in international trade. That's one area that Bush has severely neglected, and why charges by critics that he is in part responsible for the job losses during this downturn are accurate.
RD | |
| Lucidity 2003-08-10, 5:07 pm |
| What "manipulation" of foreign currencies?
Are you suggesting that foreign governments are purposely keeping their monitary unit weaker than the US dollar?
That is nothing new! It's been happening for generations. So does foreign governments giving tax breaks to US corporations in order to have them ship their production facilites overseas.
How would you suggest we fight it? Or, more to the point, how would you suggest the President fight it? What options are available to him? The only thing I can think of is military action, or sending his Sec of State to "speak" with them. Pretty much everything else needs Congress.
Let's be serious for a moment. In order for any government influence of their monitary standard against the US dollar to have much significance, their economic base must be somewhat competative to ours. So far, India, Malaysia, Mexico, and other 3rd world nations are in such a state that they do not have to purposely weaken their money to gain an advantage. Their economic base is so far below our own, that it will take a drastic upswing in their economy for them to resort to monitary manipulation, in order to maintain some type of advantage.
The only current economic powerhouse that can have any direct influence on our economy through monitary manipulation is China. However, nearly all our products are made there anyway. Long before Bush took office. Your demanding him to reverse a trend that has been decades in the making. Again, he alone cannot prevent an American business from using overseas supliers. He can work WITH Congress to raise tarrifs and the like, to help American business compete, or he can revoke "Most Favored Nation" status, but NOBODY (not even Clinton) would entertain that thought for a single moment. | |
| Study_tx 2003-08-13, 2:42 pm |
| Lucidity
DO u want to say that Mr Bush is not responsible for this infirm , wane economy .If u try to say so , let me tell u u are dead wrong, I know if a company do good it CEO get the credit, when things went bad it CEO get the blame,Same here Mr Bush he desroyed this economy ,Mr president he is a good farmer but not a good president, I hope Americans will see it in Nov 2004, and get a president that care for us, not for his rich friends. I m neither democrate nor republican , I m with the president that provides me a great life in the term , education , healthcare, and of course a great economy that allowed me and my familly to live in prosperity, Unfortunattly Mr Bush he failed ato do so with grade F to do so (he used to get that grde in school, college), last time I voted for him , I felt bad cause I made a big mistake, he betrayed us since he did not fulfil he promises on jobs and Investement | |
| DivxGuy 2003-08-13, 3:21 pm |
| quote:
That is nothing new! It's been happening for generations. So does foreign governments giving tax breaks to US corporations in order to have them ship their production facilites overseas.
How would you suggest we fight it? Or, more to the point, how would you suggest the President fight it?
Manipulation of currencies is not new, but the trade imbalances they are causing are too big to ignore. The U.S. has a $500 billion annual trade deficit, and much of that is due to lopsided trading relationships with countries in Asia that engineer perennial trade surpluses by grossly undervaluing their currencies. China is the most egregious offender here, with a currency that is pegged to the U.S. dollar so far below its real value that some say it would double immediately if allowed to float.
Note that over 2 million manufacturing jobs have left for China since 2001. The grossly undervalued currency has played a big role in this.
What should the Bush Administration do? I think the proposals of Senator Liebermann are a good place to start.
Cutting taxes for the rich, who are taking a bigger and bigger percentage of the national income, and shifting them to the shrinking middle class is not only unfair, it's doomed to fail as a long-term economic strategy.
RD | |
| Lucidity 2003-08-14, 12:16 pm |
| quote:
Originally posted by Study_tx
Lucidity
DO u want to say that Mr Bush is not responsible for this infirm , wane economy .If u try to say so , let me tell u u are dead wrong, I know if a company do good it CEO get the credit, when things went bad it CEO get the blame,Same here Mr Bush he desroyed this economy ,Mr president he is a good farmer but not a good president, I hope Americans will see it in Nov 2004, and get a president that care for us, not for his rich friends. I m neither democrate nor republican , I m with the president that provides me a great life in the term , education , healthcare, and of course a great economy that allowed me and my familly to live in prosperity, Unfortunattly Mr Bush he failed ato do so with grade F to do so (he used to get that grde in school, college), last time I voted for him , I felt bad cause I made a big mistake, he betrayed us since he did not fulfil he promises on jobs and Investement
Yes, Bush is NOT responsible for the Econonmy. Care to prove otherwise?
Take a look at our Constitution. Where in that document can you find anything about the President being responsible for the national economy.
How about any Supreme Court rulings (case law). Can you cite a single reference that indicates the President is empowered or somehow responsible for our economic climate?
The simple fact is that you are ignorant. You haven't a clue as to what are the powers and responsiblities of the President. You simple don't like him and want to put the blame for our economic woes at his feet.
You can't even put together a coherent sentence as to what steps he is EMPOWERED to fulfill, but failed to take. You seem to think he is at fault, but can't even explain WHY that is so. Instead you give some cock and bull analogy about him being responsible simply because he is the President.
Let's look at it a THIRD time, shall we? Congress send "bills" to his desk. He either signes them or vetos them. From that point on, the executive branch is incharge of making sure the laws are enforced. What laws has he failed to enforce or what bills has he failed to sign that would help stimulate the economy? NONE.
You are so busy listening to your "feelings" about what should or should not be, that you don't have a single clue as to what our problems entail. You can't even put together a simple sentence, or organize your thoughts.
You make claims, but have no facts or even any evidence to back them up. You are nothing more than a child throwing around accusations about how the President is like a CEO. Well, let me tell you something. A CEO is obligated to look out for the well being of his corporation. A President is neither empowered nor responsible for a busines' success or failure, much less the entire national economy.
I challenge you AGAIN, to find me any evidence of what steps the President can take to change our situation. He is the Commander in Chief of the Armed forces. Should he use the military to solve our problems? You seem to think that the only solution is government control of private business. Son, there is a word for that, Socialism. It's been tried and has failed miserably.
If you have any intellegence, then try to formulate argument as to how the President is responsible. So far, you have nothing but thrown out your "feelings", but can't even provide a basis for them. | |
| Lucidity 2003-08-14, 12:29 pm |
| quote:
Originally posted by DivxGuy
Manipulation of currencies is not new, but the trade imbalances they are causing are too big to ignore. The U.S. has a $500 billion annual trade deficit, and much of that is due to lopsided trading relationships with countries in Asia that engineer perennial trade surpluses by grossly undervaluing their currencies. China is the most egregious offender here, with a currency that is pegged to the U.S. dollar so far below its real value that some say it would double immediately if allowed to float.
Note that over 2 million manufacturing jobs have left for China since 2001. The grossly undervalued currency has played a big role in this.
What should the Bush Administration do? I think the proposals of Senator Liebermann are a good place to start.
Cutting taxes for the rich, who are taking a bigger and bigger percentage of the national income, and shifting them to the shrinking middle class is not only unfair, it's doomed to fail as a long-term economic strategy.
RD
Two MILLION jobs left for China? WOW!
Care to cite any references for that? I'm calling you out for the B.S. you just threw.
Your claim is nothing more than a lie. Firstly, businesses do not move their manufacturing to China. Since China is a Communist country, the government owns the factories. An American business cannot establish a factory in China. On the other hand, we do buy many of the goods produced in that country. Rather than having a American watch factory use Chineese labor, we have importers which deal direclty with the Chiness government on importing these goods. No American business uses Chinese labor. However, many American businesses do mantain control of the production of their goods. They tend to use workers in countries like Mexico and India.
Why? It's simple. Labor is cheap in those regions. The business owner isn't responsible for paying a minimum wage or providing benefits. It allows a business to sell a product at a price that people will accept, and still allow the owner to make a profit.
If you want Bush to implement the proposals of Lieberman, then maybe you should talk to Congress. THEY haven't sent him any bills to sign, thus far.
Bush didn't just cut taxes for the "rich", he cut them for everyone. The "rich" seem to get a bigger benefit, simple because THEY PAY THE MOST in taxes. Remember, that the Democrats in Congress thought that tax cuts were a "bad" idea. They didn't want to give ANYONE a single penny of THEIR OWN MONEY back.
When people have more income to spend, it help our privately owned businesses. It makes good economic sense.
I again challenge you to cite your reference as to how these "rich" are taking more and more of the "national income." They are Capitolists. They are working for their own benefit. That is the point.
Somehow, our country got caught up in the philosophy of "entitlements." It is neither the governments responsibilty or place to make sure that everyone is cared for. If you don't like how much you are paid, then YOU need to do something about it. Don't whine about needing government intervention. | |
| Lucidity 2003-08-14, 12:53 pm |
| Now go refute this:
Tax-cut shopping crucial for big rally
advertisement
Jeannine Aversa
Associated Press
Aug. 14, 2003 12:00 AM
WASHINGTON - Jodi Fields is eyeing a digital camera. Luigi Esposito is buying a new boat. Jack Manasco is saving for a rainy day. What Americans do with the fatter paychecks or child tax-credit checks from President Bush's latest tax-cut package will play a critical role in the strength of the economy's anticipated rebound this year.
The more consumers spend their tax windfalls, the better for the economy's budding revival. Consumer spending accounts for roughly two-thirds of all U.S. economic activity.
Fields, of Potomac, Md., is awaiting her $400 check.
"It's kind of like found money," she said.
Mark Zandi, chief economist at Economy.com, predicts consumers will spend about half of their tax break.
While some Americans tend to be savers, most are spenders, said Daniel Howard, a consumer behavior specialist and chairman of the marketing department at the Southern Methodist University Cox School of Business.
"Consumers typically have a list of things they want to obtain sitting on the back burner," he said.
"We believe the $400 checks, in particular, are going to have a significant, positive effect on consumer spending," said Lynn Reaser, chief economist at Banc of America Capital Management.
A strong, 1.4 percent increase in sales at the nation's retailers in July, the best showing in four months, partly reflected the impact of the tax cuts, economists said. | |
| DivxGuy 2003-08-14, 1:57 pm |
| quote:
Two MILLION jobs left for China? WOW!
Care to cite any references for that? I'm calling you out for the B.S. you just threw.
Your claim is nothing more than a lie. Firstly, businesses do not move their manufacturing to China. Since China is a Communist country, the government owns the factories.
Actually, the articles I've been reading may have been confusing the number of manufacturing jobs lost since 01/01 (2.6 million) with the number of manufacturing jobs that have actually been transferred to China, which is somewhat lower (Economy.com estimates it at 1.3 million). Sorry.
FYI China is a Communist country in name only. It is a one-party state that happens to call itself Communist for reasons of convenience. Your statement that the government owns all the means of production was true at one time, but no longer.
I'd say more, but I have other things on my agenda for the day. Maybe some other time.
RD
The following appears courtesy of The Washington Post.
==============================
Facing Up To the China Challenge
By Steven Pearlstein
The Washington Post
It came up at every stop on this week's Cabinet-level bus tour through the Midwest. Business lobbyists say it's all their members want to talk about. Economist Don Straszheim tells corporate clients that it will be the dominant economic policy issue for the next five years.
We're talking here about China, now on the fast track to becoming a dominant player in the global economy and causing major disruptions along the way.
Here in the United States, entire industries are being quickly wiped out as production is shifted across the Pacific, in most cases by U.S.-based multinationals that have concluded they have to abandon their U.S. workers and suppliers to squeeze out another penny to keep the order from Wal-Mart. The endangered species list includes makers of wood furniture, paper products, metal parts and machine tools. And topping it is textiles, as evidenced by this week's announcement that Cannon and Fieldcrest were literally throwing in the towel. China is now the fastest-growing component of the ballooning U.S. trade deficit, running at the rate of about $100 billion a year. And while it is impossible to say precisely how many of the 2.6 million manufacturing jobs lost over the past three years have been shifted to the Middle Kingdom, anecdotal evidence suggests it's a lot.
The exquisite political irony is that the howling is now coming from some of the same business groups that pushed so hard for China's entry into the global trading system. Now they are suddenly discovering what happens when you open your borders to a former communist country that, while making impressive strides in liberalizing its economy, still manipulates its currency, closes its markets to imports of agricultural products and financial services, violates patents, and prohibits investment outside its borders.
Some see in China's export-fueled growth strategy a replay of Japan's mercantilist strategy of an earlier era. Such fears were only confirmed when a memo leaked out this week revealing Beijing's plans to restrict imports of cars as part of an effort to nurture its own world-class auto industry.
But Clyde Prestowitz, a recovering Japan-basher who heads the Economic Strategy Institute, says the parallels between China and Japan are overdrawn. Unlike Japan, he notes, China has welcomed foreign direct investment. And while it is running a huge trade surplus with the United States, China's overall trade is in balance, with imports rising faster than exports.
Other China experts, like Nick Lardy of the Institute for International Economics, note that most of the production now being shifted to China is coming not from the United States but from other countries in Asia and Latin America. Unfortunately for us, while Mexico would turn around and spend 60 cents of every export dollar buying something from the United States, China tends to spend only 20 cents.
Only belatedly is the Bush administration coming around to the realization that the trade relationship with an emerging China has to be managed rather than simply left to the magic of market forces.
To get on top of the issue, Treasury Secretary Snow needs to stop his rhetorical tap dance and make it clear the United States will impose across-the-board tariffs on Chinese goods if China doesn't stop spending $300 million a day to keep the yuan pegged to the dollar. Right now, an undervalued yuan gives Chinese goods a 20 to 40 percent price advantage in global markets.
The White House will also have to use the special provisions negotiated by the Clinton administration allowing temporary tariffs and quotas to protect U.S. industries hit hard by the sudden surge in Chinese imports.
In the end, such measures would probably only delay the day when textiles, furniture and toilet paper join sneakers, toys and TV sets on the list of things no longer made in the USA.
But rather than engage in a fruitless effort to "save" such industries, it's time for the "winners" under free trade to finally make good on the unfulfilled promise to the "losers," providing them with lavish retraining grants, extended health benefits and insurance against falling wages.
Steven Pearlstein can be reached at pearlsteins@washpost.com. | |
| DivxGuy 2003-08-14, 2:23 pm |
| The following appears courtesy of CNN Money.
========================
Export gain trims trade gap
U.S. trade deficit shrinks to $39.5B in June, below estimates and down from $41.5B in May.
August 14, 2003: 8:44 AM EDT
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. trade deficit narrowed sharply in June as improving economic growth overseas propelled exports to their largest monthly increase in two years and imports were unchanged, the government said Thursday.
The smaller-than-expected trade gap totaled $39.5 billion, down from a revised estimate of $41.5 billion in May. Analysts surveyed before the report had expected the monthly trade deficit to narrow only marginally to $41.6 billion from the Commerce Department's earlier estimate of $41.8 billion in May.
U.S. exports of goods and services increased 2.4 percent to $84.6 billion in June, the largest month-to-month rise since June 2000. Exports were the highest since June 2001. Capital good exports showed the biggest increase, led by civilian aircraft and computer accessories. Services exports also jumped, setting a record at $25.6 billion.
Overall imports were flat at $124.2 billion as a sharp drop in consumer products was offset by smaller increases for autos and auto parts, industrial supplies and other goods.
Meanwhile, imports from China hit their highest level in eight months at $12.1 billion. China accounts for about one-quarter of the overall U.S. trade deficit, and figures for the first six months of the year are on track to surpass last year's record of $103 billion.
U.S. manufacturers complain that China has gained an unfair trade advantage from pegging its currency to the value of the U.S. dollar. U.S. Treasury Secretary John Snow has said he would raise that concern when he visits Beijing next month.
Copyright 2003 Reuters All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed. | |
| Lucidity 2003-08-15, 9:39 am |
| Yes, very good.
See it is not so hard to try and find some developement for your argument.
Unfortunately you are arguing the wrong thing.
I never said that buying all our products from China, or that loosing our manufacturing production to China was a good thing. In fact, you should go back and read my Burger King and Wendy's analogy.
Your news stories just solidifed my previous arguments. Firstly, American businesses are loosing out because of Chinese GOVERNMENT produced products are being imported cheaper. Nowhere in your articles does it mention that American businesses are using Chinese labor to decrease cost, while still being able to make a profit. Instead, it shows that American businesses are competing head to head with a Chinese Government controlled business sector.
China is not Communist in name only. Do they have the freedoms, most of the free nations in the world enjoy? The freedom of religion, speech, or anything similar? NO! The Chinese government has slowly allowed CHINESE CITIZENS to own private "for profit" businesses. However, they are hardly a "progressive" nation.
Now, for the important part of this reply: Why didn't you address what you want Bush to do? Why didn't or couldn't you answer the ONE question I asked?
I'll even ask it a FOURTH time. WHAT STEPS DO YOU WANT THE PRESIDENT TO TAKE? WHAT POWER CAN HE WIELD TO CHANGE THIS ECONOMIC CONDITION?
From the article, it gave two points to consider. The President could invoke special trade tarrifs, or he could have his Sec. Tres bring up the issue with the Chinese Government. Of the two of these, only one is anything more than a feel-good measure. Increasing tarrifs, will increase the end price of a product. This allows, American businesses to compete. However, this is only because of an across-the-board increase in retail prices.
What are we currently faced with now? A sluggish economy that has been kept afloat by consumer spending. Consumers have begun to "hit the wall" as it were, as we have been faced with a poor labor market, which has begun to result in LOWERED consumer confidence. You throw in INCREASED prices, and it will only make things worse. People are going to react by spending LESS on certain goods, which hurts retailers who rely on Chinese made products to maintain a profit margin.
Taxes are a BAD, BAD thing. Always have been, always will be.
So tell me. How does Bush fix this? You still haven't answered the original question. You blame him, but can't tell me what he did wrong, or what he can do. The best you have done so far, is to try and clarify a problem facing American businesses, but don't even mention what the President can do to help. | |
| Lucidity 2003-08-15, 9:50 am |
| BTW, what have you done lately to help American businesses? Don't tell me that YOU are purchasing Chinese made goods. If so, you are contributing (albeit in a very small way) to the problem facing our country.
Don't XXXXX about American jobs being lost, and American businesses being closed due to China, while at the same time buying imported goods.
As for me, I spent a couple thousand, yesterday, on 100% American made products. I even spent it at an American owned store, which hires American workers.
Unfortunately, those store owners, and the manufacturer are the scummy "rich". To bad that it is because of their wealth, that they can afford to build factories, hire American laborers to build their products, and work on their sales team. We need to make sure that these "rich" are punished for being wealthy, and hit them hard with taxes and fees. That way, they can't afford to keep American workers on the payroll, and will need to look at moving production overseas or using cheaper materials. | |
| Study_tx 2003-08-15, 1:08 pm |
| Lucidity said : I challenge you AGAIN, to find me any evidence of what steps the President can take to change our situation.
******************************
*****
I wonder where u been when our president declare war at Iraq, do u know Mr Lucidity that war cost us over 4 Million $ a week, and u said the president is not responsible for this terrible economic situation.
if Mr bush focus on the economy rather than attack innocent contries, just to get their OIL.The things that bored me republican claim he is a good christian.
let me tell to these people Stealing is against Christian spirit,Mr bush and chainy sent the troop to get Iraq Oil.
Mr Bush lies to us (16 Words), trying to convince us that Iraq has nuke even the administration knew that Iraq does not have them and does not pose any treat to us.
Pls I m tried to hear some stupid Republican like urself tries to find stupid excuses for Mr Bush.
U dont think it ll be great for us,that Mr. bush focus on the economy rather than attack IraQ, specially that country does not treat us, and does not has any link to Al Quaida.
I pray for u to see light, because u live in darkness, I can tell from ur logo (Guns),u are a red sneak .I wish for u that u ll see the reality and pls stop watching Fox it is not good for ur mind. | |
| Lucidity 2003-08-15, 3:55 pm |
| Sorry it took so long for me to reply, but it took me a great deal of reading to try and understand what the hell you were trying to say. Either you are a 10 year old child who needs to spend his time learning how to communicate in the English language and not IM text, or you simply don't care enough to learn how to write properly. You don't need to be perfect (hell, even I don't proofread my posts for spelling or grammar), but you do need to at least be understandable.
So, WHO lost 4 million a week? Your souce would be....? As for the War to gather OIL, please explain. As of yet, I haven't seen any evidence that we are exporting Iraq's oil. Currently, the Iraqi oil program is still under the perview of the UN. That would seem to shoot a freakin big hole in you theory.
As for the war's effect on the economy. You are correct in that it hampered our recovery efforts. Consumer spending was down, as was investment. The same thing happened during the US invasion of Haiti.
I don't care if you think the war was only about oil or not. Sadam has been killing his citizens for years. Several mass graves have already been uncovered. One of the largest contains over 10,000 bodies. The UN should have taken action a long time ago. Sadam was a butcher, a phychopath. He deserved to go, and in reality Bush Sr. should have done the job in 91. Unfortunately, Sr. wanted an easy ride and encouraged the Shites to revolt, but didn't give them the support needed to win. Sadam and his sons killed the Shites en masse.
As to you claim that Iraw was not affiliated with terrorists, you are wrong again. Did you not hear about the meetings between Bin Laden and Iraqi intellegence in Kenya, where Sadam offered financial and logistical support? Or, how about the terrorist camps inside Iraq? How about the financial support Sadam gives to homicide bombers in Palestine? Do you only believe that Al Quida is the only terrorist organization?
Since you are obviously a genius, let me ask you this. How much of a financial impact would the US have suffered if no action had been taken against Sadam, and another terrorist event (on the scale of 9/11) had taken place? Had Bush not acted, it is possible that we would have thousands of Americans dead, and further economic collapse. Instead, we have many dead Iraqi soldiers and mercenaries. The Iraqi people will soon be self governing, and free to enjoy liberty.
Now, genius, I'm going to point out how wrong you assumptions really are. You think I am a Republican. I am not. You think I support Bush. I don't. I am a Libertarian. You voted for Bush, not me. I find it very interesting that you would vote for a person that you now claim is a liar, an imbecile, and a host of other ill named things. Who is more incompetent: The one who is an idiot, or the one who supports an idiot for the most powerful job in the world?
It is sad that you jump to conclusions and point fingers without knowing what the hell you are talking about. | |
| Study_tx 2003-08-16, 5:17 pm |
| Lucidity
Yup Saddam was a bad guy, no doupt about that.but he killed his people in 1985 ( 18 years ago , while he was our primary allie in the middle East) and guess what all countries around the world was mad at Saddam except us, Mr Rumsfield went to meet with him and he gave a letter of friendship from Bush dad.
U are again wrong , u said :As of yet, I haven't seen any evidence that we are exporting Iraq's oil. ask Mr cheney, he ll tell that his EX company get million of dollars from Iraq on daily bases , believe me u are naive.
Again u proove u are stupid, u tried to compare our interviention in Haitti to the one in Iraq, Pls dont compare Apple with Oranges.Iraq is not Haitti
We should stay in Iraq over 5 years, every day we lose American lives in Iraq, billion of dollars we spent in Iraq .
Mr bush igored UN.he inveded other nation without the approval of UN.
Iraq war made other coutries such France, Germay, Belguim,Turkey,Canada..... bound to conclude that USA is too powerful and treat the stability in the world and must be resisted. If that happens, Mr Bush will not be remembered for liberating Iraq, but for GALVANISING INTERNATIONAL OPPOSITION TO AMERICA.
Do u deny that Mr bush got a lot of Cs and Ds
in College, do not defend him, people will think that u are like him, pls dont do that to urself. | |
| Lucidity 2003-08-17, 10:54 am |
| Jeez, you really are thick.
Sadam has been killing people long before, and long after 1985. Also, Bush Sr. wasn't even President in 1985, so how could he have sent Rumsfield to Iraq?
As for American Oil companies in Iraq, the only company I know of is the one that was awarded the contract to REPAIR their infrastructure. Not to export their oil. However, the facts don't seem to matter much to you. You seem able to draw your own conclusions from false statements.
Just a thought, but you aren't "Baghdad Bob", are you? Your arguments are just about as plausible as his were.
I compared the economic repercussions of the U.S. invasion of Haiti to the economic repercussions of the U.S. invasion of Iraq. They are similar. Also similar, is that they BOTH were fought against a dictator who brutalized and killed his own citizens. However, Iraq had an additional incentive in that the dictator of that country was also heavily engaged in international terrorist support and developing destructive weapons against U.N. resolutions.
As for France, Germany and Russian opposition to an invasion, I'm surprised that you would even bring this up. It just exposes another area in which you are completely ignorant. Didn't you realize that both France and Russia had loaned Iraq BILLIONS of dollars, and these loans were "guaranteed" by Sadam? They realized that if the Iraqi regime was overthrown, they would never get paid. Germany had several business dealings with Iraq, building their infrasturcture, and they too lost out on valuable contracts. So these countries put MONEY ahead of the lives of innocent citizens, and showed that they would rather risk more terrorist attacks than loose a dime.
About Bush's grades in College. Do you even know what his scores were? Or are you trying to repeat hersay? What is your evidence of his failing grades. Personally, I don't know what his grades were. Of course, they aren't of interest to me as I didn't vote for the guy. You did. Didn't it concern you that he performed so poorly, when you showed your support for him at the ballot box? Why would you elect someone who you think is an extremely stupid man?
BTW, I challenged you to provide evidence of Bush's negative influence on the economy or his failures to act which would have had a positive impact on an economic recovery. More specifically, I asked you to define what role the President plays in this nation's Economy. You have chosen to try and sidetrack the conversation. This is always a tactic used by a loosing side in an undefensible position.
Face facts, and admit that you don't know what you are talking about. If you don't like Bush, that is fine. It's your right. I don't care for him either, but I don't make up lies about his culpability in an economic collapse. I'd rather deal with facts, and address REAL problems and not made up ones.
As an aside, you risk being classified as suffering from paranoia when you choose to develop your beliefs based on emotion and fantasy, rather than on fact and logic. You might really want to seek some help. | |
| Lucidity 2003-08-17, 5:05 pm |
| If you want to know JUST how evil a man Sadam and his sone were, look here:
http://movies.ogrish.com/288/udayfeethit.wmv
I dare you.
Those are HIS soldiers. I don't even dare imagine what he was doing to his Civilians.
Like I said before, he should have been removed from power LONG ago. Don't XXXXX and whine that we should have waited. Instead, we should be ANGRY that we didn't have more countries lined up shoulder to shoulder to stomp their (Sadam and sons) sorry asses. Angrier still that he was allowed to due this for DECADES, and nobody stepped in to stop it. Furious that France, Germany and Russia wanted this to continue so that they could make money. | |
| Study_tx 2003-08-17, 11:18 pm |
| Lucidity
Bush dad was Vice president in 1985.Yup he sent Rumsfield to Iraq , I bet u saw Saddam with Ramsfield, shaking hands like buddies. After Saddam killed thousands of people. I feel u never been out of the state I would like u to go to europe as see by urself how people around the world look at us.Mr Bush make American look terrible around the world,we should stand together as a true American and not vote for him, he do not deserve our trust, he disguise the reality our real enmy was the Saudi, 15/19 of them plan and execute 9-11.Did u ask urself why Mr Bush keep protecting the Saudis, because he cares about his investement in Saudi OIL, HE CARELESS ABOUT US, SAME HERE WE SHOULD NOT CARE ABOUT HIM IN 2004. He fooled me one he ll not fool me not twice.I hope u ll not vote for him too. | |
| Lucidity 2003-08-27, 7:26 pm |
| I cannot believe how incredibly stupid you are. I mean rock-hard stupid. Hydrated-rock-hard stupid. Stupid, so stupid it goes way beyond the stupid we know into a whole different dimension of stupid. You are trans-stupid stupid. Meta-stupid. Stupid collapsed on itself so far that even the neutrons have collapsed. Stupid gotten so dense that no intellect can escape. Singularity stupid. Blazing hot mid-day sun on Mercury stupid. You emit more stupid in one second than our entire galaxy emits in a year. Quasar stupid. Your writing has to be a troll. Nothing in our universe can really be this stupid. Perhaps this is some primordial fragment from the original big bang of stupid. Some pure essence of a stupid so uncontaminated by anything else as to be beyond the laws of physics that we know.
I'm sorry. I can't go on. This is an epiphany of stupid for me. After this, you may not hear from me again for a while. I don't have enough strength left to deride your ignorant questions and half baked comments about unimportant trivia, or any of the rest of this drivel. Duh.
The only thing worse than your logic is your manners. I have snipped away most of your of whay you wrote, because, well... it didn't really say anything. Your attempt at constructing a creative flame was pitiful. I mean, really,stringing together a bunch of insults among a load of babbling was hardly effective...
Maybe later in life, after you have learned to read, write, spell, and count, you will have more success. True, these are rudimentary skills that many of us "normal" people take for granted that everyone has an easy time of mastering. But we sometimes forget that there are "challenged" persons in this world who find these things more difficult. If I had known, that this was your case then I would have never read your post. It just wouldn't have been "right".Sort of like parking in a handicap space. I wish you the best of luck in the emotional, and social struggles that seem to be placing such a demand on you. | |
| RichardJW 2003-08-27, 8:01 pm |
| Hello again Lucidity.
I thought you were dead.
Let's play Russian Roulette!
You go first! | |
| Lucidity 2003-08-27, 8:23 pm |
| Dead?
Not hardly. After your wife left you, we secuded ourselves to explore our passion.
Alas, she was not as strong as I had hoped. I was in great mourning when I sent her away, and chose not to return to the world until I could find another.
Myles, the phone is ringing.
Coward. | |
| RichardJW 2003-08-27, 8:51 pm |
| I am no coward for I am prepared to play Russian Roulette.
I am however stupid.
It was my wife.
She forced me into such activities.
The mourning is extreme and I miss the silly hussy to this day.
But let us pray solemnly now ..
*Our Father/Mother who is in Heaven/Hell Hallowed/Not Hallowed be thy Name/Nameless.
Thy Kingdom/Hovel come.
In Heaven/Earth as it is in Earth/Heaven
blah blah blah
Amen.* | |
| DivxGuy 2003-08-29, 1:11 pm |
| quote:
Two MILLION jobs left for China? WOW! Care to cite any references for that? I'm calling you out for the B.S. you just threw.
This was in CNN Money today:
quote:
Still, manufacturing has borne the brunt of the labor market pain, losing 2.3 million of the 2.7 million total jobs lost since March 2001.
| |
| onoski 2003-08-29, 5:26 pm |
| No offence RichardJW but having read most of your recent post I think it is clear that you really do need to seek mental counselling. | |
| Lucidity 2003-08-29, 6:50 pm |
| quote:
Originally posted by DivxGuy
This was in CNN Money today:
Reading is fundamental.
Where did it say those jobs went to China? | |
| Lucidity 2003-08-29, 6:59 pm |
| Let me help you further...
"Many of those jobs are unlikely to return as the U.S. economy shifts further from manufacturing to services, forcing many workers to seek greener pastures.
"The manufacturing sector will continue to shed jobs for the foreseeable future," Wachovia Securities analyst Matthew Ellis wrote in a recent research note, citing a "structural change, not just a cyclical downturn" in the industry.
Ellis's sentiment was echoed by a New York Fed study this week pointing to structural causes of the long "jobless" recovery from the 2001 recession. "
Now what does this say? It discusses how the US has been moving away from manufacturing into different sectors. Did you ever ask yourself why? It's simple. Other countries have cheaper labor due to less regulation and the fact they are willing to do the same work for less money. This is actually a GOOD thing, as it allows Americans to buy manufactured goods at more reasonable prices.
If you think buying Nike shoes is expensive now, what do you think it would cost if those shoes were made here in the US under union labor? Producing goods here is financially prohibitive, thus production MUST be shipped overseas.
The real problem is that HIGHER PAYING jobs have now begun to leave for overseas. Unless there is a way to employ the displaced workers at the same or higher compensation wage, then it hurts our economy much more than loosing manufacturing jobs.
Again, you will recall that there is nothing the President can do about shipping these jobs overseas. | |
| RichardJW 2003-08-29, 7:18 pm |
| quote:
Originally posted by onoski
No offence RichardJW but having read most of your recent post I think it is clear that you really do need to seek mental counselling.
I don't take offence particularly but did you ever consider that if I wanted your *expert* opinion of my mental state on the basis of what I post here that I would ask you for it? I do not need mental counselling - I am sorry that you a fool. | |
| DivxGuy 2003-08-29, 9:05 pm |
| quote:
Where did it say those jobs went to China?
It didn't--when I find evidence that backs up the statement that 2 million U.S. manufacturing jobs have been lost to China, then I'll post it. Until then, at least I've established that 2.3 million manufacturing jobs have been lost in total.
quote:
This is actually a GOOD thing, as it allows Americans to buy manufactured goods at more reasonable prices.
Only if American wages stay high, which will not be the case if the trend continues where the U.S. imports more and produces less and pays for it via foreign borrowing.
In fact, many Americans have seen their real wages drop sharply. The minimum wage would be about $8 an hour if it had kept pace with inflation since 1964, and working class people who would have had high-paying manufacturing jobs a generation ago are having to make do in the low-paying service sector.
The fact that the GDP per capita has risen over the last generation hasn't meant a thing for much of the population, because wealth distribution has become increasingly skewed towards the wealthy. In simple terms, the rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer. | |
| onoski 2003-08-30, 5:40 am |
| Originally posted by RichardJW
I don't take offence particularly but did you ever consider that if I wanted your *expert* opinion of my mental state on the basis of what I post here that I would ask you for it? I do not need mental counselling - I am sorry that you a fool.
If I remember clearly there was a period on this forum when you were warned about the content of your post by the webmaster and other posters? Or maybe am wrong too or being jugdemental.
Secondly, jugding from the contents of your post which deviates entirely from what the thread is about goes to proof that you are not all that sane. Good day as I am not going to engage in a flame with you as that would just bring me down to your level.
It is a shame however that someone of your intellect is loosing the plot without even knowing it. God help you. | |
| Helen of Troy 2003-09-01, 8:42 pm |
| quote:
Originally posted by onoski
Originally posted by RichardJW
I don't take offence particularly but did you ever consider that if I wanted your *expert* opinion of my mental state on the basis of what I post here that I would ask you for it? I do not need mental counselling - I am sorry that you a fool.
If I remember clearly there was a period on this forum when you were warned about the content of your post by the webmaster and other posters? Or maybe am wrong too or being jugdemental.
Secondly, jugding from the contents of your post which deviates entirely from what the thread is about goes to proof that you are not all that sane. Good day as I am not going to engage in a flame with you as that would just bring me down to your level.
It is a shame however that someone of your intellect is loosing the plot without even knowing it. God help you.
Oh dear onoski. As chance would have it I am perfectly sane. What therefore does that make you? | |
| DivxGuy 2003-09-11, 12:45 pm |
| The following appears courtesy of CNN Money.
============================
Trade deficit widens to $40.3 billion in July
WASHINGTON (AP) — America's trade deficit expanded in July to $40.3 billion as imported goods from China and the quantity of overseas crude oil sold to the United States each hit record highs.
The latest snapshot of the country's trade activity showed that the trade gap grew 0.7% in July from June's $40 billion imbalance, the Commerce Department reported Thursday. July's trade deficit was slightly smaller than the $40.5 billion shortfall economists were predicting.
Imports and exports each posted gains in July; but the dollar amount of imports was larger than the value of exports, thus widening the monthly trade gap.
On the trade front, imports of goods and services came to $126.5 billion in July, the second-highest level on record, and represented a 1.6% increase from June. As the U.S. economy strengthens, so has Americans' appetite for foreign-made goods.
Exports, meanwhile, totaled $86.1 billion in July, the strongest showing since May 2001, and marked a 2% increase from the month before. That offered a hopeful sign that other countries' economies, hurt by a worldwide economic slump, may be on the mend.
The Bush administration believes the way to deal with rising trade deficits is for other countries to remove trade barriers. That would allow U.S. companies to more freely do business in overseas markets, thus boosting America's global competitiveness, the administration says.
Critics say growing deficits are proof that the administration's free-trade policies are not working. U.S. companies have moved operations overseas and imports are flooding into the United States, a situation that has resulted in hefty losses of American manufacturing jobs.
That — along with a bout of economic hard times at home and abroad — also has hurt the U.S. manufacturing sector.
Manufacturing has lost nearly 16% of its workforce, or 2.7 million jobs, in a record 37 straight months. Another 44,000 jobs were lost last month.
America's politically sensitive trade deficit with China widened 13.5% from June to July to a record $11.3 billion. Imports from the country in July totaled $13.4 billion, an all-time monthly high.
In a visit to China last week, Treasury Secretary John Snow pressed the administration's case for letting China's yuan — also known as the renminbi — to trade freely on world markets.
U.S. manufacturers and other critics say China's fixed-exchange rate is protectionist and that it makes goods produced in China less expensive on world markets and makes foreign imports too costly for Chinese consumers. Critics contend that China's currency policy amounts to an unfair trade advantage and draws manufacturing jobs away from the United States.
The United States' trade gap with Japan expanded in July to $5.9 billion from June's $5.4 billion. America's trade deficit with Canada also widened in July to $5 billion, the highest since January 2001.
Meanwhile, the quantity of crude oil imported in the United States in July came to 339.7 million barrels, a record monthly high. That was up from 311.9 million barrels imported in June. The price of crude oil in July rose to $26.70 a barrel, up from $25.50 a barrel the month before.
Copyright 2003 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed. | |
| DivxGuy 2003-09-20, 1:04 pm |
| The following appears courtesy of the L.A. Times.
============================
Too Soon to Declare Economic Woes Over
By Peter G. Gosselin, Times Staff Writer
WASHINGTON — Profits are back, production is up, houses and cars keep selling like crazy. The clear consensus of American economists is: We're back!
But here are three reasons to curb your enthusiasm for now.
Reason No. 1: Being above zero is not the proper measure of economic success, and we may be nowhere near what is.
The latest rash of economic forecasts seem so dazzling precisely because the numbers that economists have been tossing out — a 4.5% annual growth rate this quarter and a 4% rate the next — are larger than anything we've seen in years, and far above zero.
But zero is not where the growth game really begins. For the economy to lift into a self-sustaining recovery, it needs to be zipping along at a pretty fast clip to start with, and much faster than in the past.
It needs to expand 1% a year just to take care of "new entrants" — all those young people looking for first jobs and spouses who've decided they want to supplement their families' incomes. It needs to grow an additional 4% to get ahead of recent productivity gains, which means the same number of workers using pretty much the same plants and equipment can make more goods and services, making new workers unnecessary.
"It's starting to look like 5% a year sustained growth is what's needed," said UC Berkeley economist Brad DeLong.
Nobody says the U.S. economy can't eventually grow this fast. But almost nobody — not even any of President Bush's economic advisors — is predicting that it will do so anytime soon, largely because they can't see anything that's likely to kick growth into high gear.
Reason No. 2: Signs of the long-awaited business investment comeback, the one that's supposed to relieve consumers of the need to prop up growth with their spending, are still mighty hard to find.
Unlike virtually every other recession since World War II, the 2001 downturn was caused in large part by corporate America's decision that it had bought too many computers, laid too much fiber optic cable and waded into too many profitless ventures. Businesses hit the brakes, and economists have been waiting ever since for them to begin investing again.
To be sure, some companies have started replacing aging high-tech equipment. A recent Goldman Sachs survey of 100 major firms, for example, found that their technology spending plans rose 0.2% last month.
But the blip in tech spending isn't big enough yet to make an economic difference and does not seem to point to a broader trend.
Indeed, nearly two years after the economy began growing again, after-inflation spending on producer durable equipment — the gizmos companies use to make new things and provide new services — is only about a third of what it usually is at this stage of a recovery.
Spending on new buildings, which is usually up by this time, is down 15%. Commercial and industrial bank loans, a bellwether of small- and mid-sized business activity, have slipped nearly 5% this year alone.
"Businesses are not investing; they're not spending," said Mark Zandi, chief economist of West Chester, Pa.-based Economy.com. "They're not adding to inventories. They're not advertising to any degree. They are not traveling. And clearly they're not hiring."
Reason No. 3: Although most economic indicators now point up, America's jobs total is still headed down and is unlikely to turn around quickly.
The trend is by now depressingly familiar: Nonfarm payrolls shrank by 93,000 last month and are down 1.1 million since the nation began to grow again almost two years ago. But the potential threat to the economy is not as widely appreciated.
Having a job, or the confidence that you can land one, is the single biggest determinant of whether consumers, who account for the lion's share of economic activity, keep buying or buy even more.
"For most of us," said Los Angeles-based economist Donald H. Straszheim, "if we have a job, we're OK. If we don't, we're not, and people don't shop.
"If jobs fail," he said, "so does the economy."
Economic optimists have offered various responses to the stubbornly contrary job trend.
Some say that even with the recent losses, the nation's unemployment rate has remained remarkably low by historical standards, hovering around 6%. So the losses will have only minimal effect.
What these analysts miss is that the nature of unemployment has changed in recent years. The average length of time out of work has climbed. With it, so has the financial threat that joblessness poses for Americans. The result: The comfort of a low unemployment rate is being offset by increasingly dire possibilities that flow from being laid off.
Other optimists assert that the numbers are wrong and the country is actually gaining jobs. They charge that the Labor Department's survey of employers, on which the payroll counts are based, overlooks the small companies that are usually the first to start hiring when recessions end.
But the department has spent the last three years fixing the small-company problem, and many analysts think it has done a pretty good job.
"The fact is, the job market is a mess," Zandi said.
Still other optimists assert that although payrolls may be shrinking now, new jobs — millions of them — are just around the corner. But a recent New York Federal Reserve Bank study, the first to try to explain what distinguishes this recovery and its early 1990s cousin from others in the last half-century, puts a serious damper on their predictions.
The study by economists Erica Groshen and Simon Potter concludes that most job losses in the two recent recessions involved permanent elimination of positions, not temporary and easily reversible layoffs. And it says that most of what gains there have been so far this time have involved establishing new jobs in wholly different parts of the economy from where the losses occurred.
"If job growth now depends on the creation of new positions in different firms and industries," Groshen and Potter write, "then we would expect a long lag before employment rebounded."
Translation: Don't expect a jobs boom — and a big new lift for the economy — anytime soon. | |
| Study_tx 2003-09-24, 7:34 pm |
| It's not much of a secret that the American economy has been a catastrophe for the entire course of the Bush administration. What seems to be an open secret is the fact that economic policies embraced by Bush.
The year and a half prior to 9/11 saw the loss of 1.6 million American jobs. The six months following 9/11 saw the loss of an additional 2.5 million American jobs. Obviously, Americans are right in thinking they have a lot to fear; but the truth is that they have far more to fear than they have yet come to realize. That's because millions and millions and millions of additional American jobs are going to be lost in the decade ahead, particularly better-paying jobs. | |
| DivxGuy 2003-09-25, 2:47 am |
| quote:
Unlike virtually every other recession since World War II, the 2001 downturn was caused in large part by corporate America's decision that it had bought too many computers, laid too much fiber optic cable and waded into too many profitless ventures. Businesses hit the brakes, and economists have been waiting ever since for them to begin investing again.
In other words, this is the hangover after the big party of the Nineties. There's no other alternative but to let it work its way out of the system, which could take years. FYI the Bush administration is openly abandoning the "strong dollar" policy of its predecessor, which led to U.S. labor and goods being priced out of international markets. Hopefully, that will result in a slow but steady slide in the U.S. currency's value, which should result in the gradual elimination of the trade deficit eliminated as international trade flows balance out.
RD |
|
|
|
|