login
Yet another BO promise broken (Page 6)
-
No new posts
|
 2009-02-01 5:25 AM in reply to: #1935872 |
Veteran 178  |  Subject: RE: Yet another BO promise brokenbreckview - 2009-01-29 12:47 PM dexter - 2009-01-29 11:00 AM Just wait till 5 years down the road when some one needs to pay back that 850 billion dollars. The national debt will NEVER be repaid. The whole "our children will have to pay it back" stuff is nonsense. The US will eventually default or the debt will monetized. Anybody catch this tiny bit of news yesterday? "The Federal Reserve on Wednesday said it is prepared to buy long-term government debt if that would help improve credit conditions and signaled some concern that deflation risks were rising." http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20090128/ts_nm/us_usa_fed_policy_8 which basically means, "The third source of financing is for the Federal Reserve to monetize the debt. In other words, the Treasury prints bonds and the Fed purchases them by printing money. The supply of money thus expands dramatically in relation to goods and services, and high inflation, possibly hyperinflation, would engulf America." http://onlinejournal.com/artman/publish/article_4236.shtml Get ready for quite a ride and position yourselves accordingly. Great points, however, we are already there and have been so since the end of Q3 '09. Commercial lending has been putting arbitrary floor rates in for most lending based upon risk. Since the last rate drop we have not seen a floor rate below 6%. Get ready for the ride is an apt comment as it will definitely one bumpy ride. |
| 2009-02-01 5:34 AM in reply to: #1936612 |
| Veteran 178 | Subject: RE: Yet another BO promise broken AcesFull - 2009-01-29 6:42 PM bradword - 2009-01-29 6:35 PM When you try to sneak it on the American people and call it a stimulus package, yeah I say it's bad. If you bring it as what it is and pass the bills as are needed, then I say it's the choice of the people. The Bush stimulus: Give Billions to banks with no conditions and no oversight. Hope that the money "trickles down" through the economy. The Obama stimulus: Give billions to rebuild deteriorating infrastructure, improve schools, add police, develop green technology and provide tax relief to millions. Hope that the money "bubbles up" through the economy. We are not going to build this country back up by giving money to banks to cover bad debt. We are going to build the country back up by making sure there are jobs to go around so that people can pay their own debts, and buy goods and services. How do you want to save GM? You can give them billions directly, or you can make sure that consumers have jobs so they can afford cars, and make sure that consumers with jobs are not so afraid of losing jobs that they choose to not buy new cars. Hate to bust your bubble here, but, GM will be back at the table asking for another hand out before the end of the 2nd quarter this year. Let's face it, their operating model does not work and needs a complete overhaul and the only way that this will be completed is through bankruptcy. Say what you will, but, Mr. Anderson it is inevitable. Now lets see if GM claims their name is Neo. |
| 2009-02-01 9:21 AM in reply to: #1935628 |
Extreme Veteran 580  Kansas City, MO | Subject: RE: Yet another BO promise broken I find the whole argument in favor of keeping/creating manufacturing jobs here as part of the stimulus interesting. We're a service economy these days, not a manfucturing one. Should we revert, put more people back to work producing goods rather than services? Not sure I have an answer for it either. I do believe that doing nothing will make the recession worse. I also believe it will take a minor miracle for this stimulus package to have the necessary effect given the amount of crap currently in the House version. |
| 2009-02-01 10:37 AM in reply to: #1938812 |
Elite 4564 Boise | Subject: RE: Yet another BO promise broken Tri'nNC - 2009-01-31 10:31 AM Wrong...the housing bubble/credit crisis occurred due to (yes) those poor lending standards but those standards were imposed by the government. Check out the evolution of the Community Reinvestment Act starting back in the 70's and the changes made to it in 95 creating the "subprime" market. So the problem didn't start with the banks it started with our government imposing on the banks. Might want to check your facts. Randall Krozner, one of the Fed Governors, just released a report in December that showed that the CRA had very little to do with the subprime mess.
http://www.reuters.com/article/bondsNews/idUSN0332633420081203 |
| 2009-02-02 7:48 AM in reply to: #1939810 |
Elite 3022 Preferably on my bike somewhere | Subject: RE: Yet another BO promise broken JoshR - 2009-02-01 11:37 AM Tri'nNC - 2009-01-31 10:31 AM Wrong...the housing bubble/credit crisis occurred due to (yes) those poor lending standards but those standards were imposed by the government. Check out the evolution of the Community Reinvestment Act starting back in the 70's and the changes made to it in 95 creating the "subprime" market. So the problem didn't start with the banks it started with our government imposing on the banks. Might want to check your facts. Randall Krozner, one of the Fed Governors, just released a report in December that showed that the CRA had very little to do with the subprime mess.
http://www.reuters.com/article/bondsNews/idUSN0332633420081203 Lets not let the facts get in the way of a perfectly good partisan economic debate!! Shame on you!! |
| 2009-02-02 10:25 AM in reply to: #1938841 |
Champion 7347 SRQ, FL | Subject: RE: Yet another BO promise broken breckview - 2009-01-31 12:07 PM Buying things like TVs, DVDs and rings on credit cards IS bad debt. These items do not appreciate. I'm going to respectfully disagree. First off, doing whatever you have to do to propose marriage to someone you love is a good investment. Investment return is not always about bigger numbers on a bank statement. We are talking about financial equations here. You cannot bring emotion into the argument. While it might be a factor in your decision it does not change the fact that it is non-appreciating debt. Besides if the big ring is the only reason the woman will marry you then you have IMHO chosen the wrong woman. But others are very confident that some day they will be able to control/increase their incomes. For them, I see nothing wrong with taking some risk now and buying things on credit that will enrich their current life experience. This is the attitude that some had a few years back when they bought a house WELL beyond their means. That said "well this house will appreciate and I'll be making more money in a few years so it'll be ok". Then the market crashed and some of these people got laid off. You CANNOT buy things now and HOPE that you can pay them off in the future. This is a bad business decision plain and simple. |
| 2009-02-02 10:30 AM in reply to: #1941121 |
Champion 14571 the alamo city, Texas | Subject: RE: Yet another BO promise broken TriRSquared - 2009-02-02 11:25 AM breckview - 2009-01-31 12:07 PM Buying things like TVs, DVDs and rings on credit cards IS bad debt. These items do not appreciate. I'm going to respectfully disagree. First off, doing whatever you have to do to propose marriage to someone you love is a good investment. Investment return is not always about bigger numbers on a bank statement. We are talking about financial equations here. You cannot bring emotion into the argument. While it might be a factor in your decision it does not change the fact that it is non-appreciating debt. Besides if the big ring is the only reason the woman will marry you then you have IMHO chosen the wrong woman. But others are very confident that some day they will be able to control/increase their incomes. For them, I see nothing wrong with taking some risk now and buying things on credit that will enrich their current life experience. This is the attitude that some had a few years back when they bought a house WELL beyond their means. That said "well this house will appreciate and I'll be making more money in a few years so it'll be ok". Then the market crashed and some of these people got laid off. You CANNOT buy things now and HOPE that you can pay them off in the future. This is a bad business decision plain and simple. TRS, great responses. |
| 2009-02-02 11:21 AM in reply to: #1941121 |
Elite 3022 Preferably on my bike somewhere | Subject: RE: Yet another BO promise broken TriRSquared - 2009-02-02 11:25 AM You CANNOT buy things now and HOPE that you can pay them off in the future. This is a bad business decision plain and simple. I'm having a hard time justifying this in my head - and partly maybe I attributing the statements of others you. If that is the case let me know and disregard my post. It has been stated above, presumably by a non-Obama supporter, that taxes should be cut so businesses could reinvest that money in newer equipment that will allow them to produce more product more efficiently (and presumably cheaper). I know for a fact that many entreprenuers require starting capital to get off the ground. Most people with good ideas do not have enough money in the bank to do this on their own - often then spend all they have to simply develop the idea and or product, and require additional funding to get them through the development period. Your post above seems to suggest that getting this capital is an unwise business decision. That is counter to just about every capitalist theory I have ever heard. As others have stated above, if only the rich could start a business, well, only the rich will start businesses and the working folks are left out of the American dream. On top of that, innovation will suffer because only big business will guide products, and will soon monopolize every market where large amounts of capital are required. I disagree with your position that seeking capital (debt) is an unwise decision. In fact, it is is exactly necessary in our economy. |
| 2009-02-02 11:51 AM in reply to: #1935628 |
Champion 7347 SRQ, FL | Subject: RE: Yet another BO promise broken I never said that purchasing capital is a bad decision. There is a big difference between a) buying a TV (or ring or insert item here) on a credit card and hoping that you'll make enough money next year to cover it and b) purchasing a $100k piece of machinery for your business because you cannot keep up with production Yes in both cases you are hoping that the future will bring you the $ to cover you debt but in the latter cases you are going into debt to try to produce more income for the company. Presumably you also did not buy the machinery when your company was sliding into bankruptcy. The TV does not help produce income. It is a luxury item. In my statement above I could have been a bit more specific. I'm just frustrated with the instant gratification to which this society has become addicted. This is also why I was saying that education is "good debt". And thanks for approaching this with a level head and measured words. It's hard to have a civil conversation in here sometimes. Edited by TriRSquared 2009-02-02 11:52 AM |
| 2009-02-02 12:42 PM in reply to: #1939725 |
Master 2006 Portland, ME | Subject: RE: Yet another BO promise broken ColdRingo6 - 2009-02-01 9:21 AM I find the whole argument in favor of keeping/creating manufacturing jobs here as part of the stimulus interesting. We're a service economy these days, not a manfucturing one. Should we revert, put more people back to work producing goods rather than services? Not sure I have an answer for it either. I do believe that doing nothing will make the recession worse. I also believe it will take a minor miracle for this stimulus package to have the necessary effect given the amount of crap currently in the House version. One big benefit of manufacturing is that each manufacturing job creates 2 support jobs. Someone builds the product, someone warehouses it, and someone transports it. So it is somewhat worthwhile to invest in manufacturing goods that we have competive advantages in. Edited by Jackemy 2009-02-02 12:45 PM |
| 2009-02-02 1:02 PM in reply to: #1941330 |
Elite 3022 Preferably on my bike somewhere | Subject: RE: Yet another BO promise broken TriRSquared - 2009-02-02 12:51 PM I never said that purchasing capital is a bad decision. There is a big difference between a) buying a TV (or ring or insert item here) on a credit card and hoping that you'll make enough money next year to cover it and b) purchasing a $100k piece of machinery for your business because you cannot keep up with production Yes in both cases you are hoping that the future will bring you the $ to cover you debt but in the latter cases you are going into debt to try to produce more income for the company. Presumably you also did not buy the machinery when your company was sliding into bankruptcy. The TV does not help produce income. It is a luxury item. In my statement above I could have been a bit more specific. I'm just frustrated with the instant gratification to which this society has become addicted. This is also why I was saying that education is "good debt". And thanks for approaching this with a level head and measured words. It's hard to have a civil conversation in here sometimes. Fair point. Truth be told, this is one of the tamer places on the web to have a discussion. Most other forums I have attended ALWAYS deteriorate into name-calling and flaming as soon as a post is challenged for factual reasons. It usually takes 2 or 3 pages for that to happen here.  |
| 2009-02-02 4:07 PM in reply to: #1941440 |
Elite 4564 Boise | Subject: RE: Yet another BO promise broken Jackemy - 2009-02-02 12:42 PM ColdRingo6 - 2009-02-01 9:21 AM I find the whole argument in favor of keeping/creating manufacturing jobs here as part of the stimulus interesting. We're a service economy these days, not a manfucturing one. Should we revert, put more people back to work producing goods rather than services? Not sure I have an answer for it either. I do believe that doing nothing will make the recession worse. I also believe it will take a minor miracle for this stimulus package to have the necessary effect given the amount of crap currently in the House version. One big benefit of manufacturing is that each manufacturing job creates 2 support jobs. Someone builds the product, someone warehouses it, and someone transports it. So it is somewhat worthwhile to invest in manufacturing goods that we have competive advantages in.
The big issue with this is that the amount of goods that we have a competitive advantage in is shrinking. |
| 2009-02-02 5:17 PM in reply to: #1941945 |
Expert 946 Barrington Area, IL | Subject: RE: Yet another BO promise broken JoshR - 2009-02-02 4:07 PM Jackemy - 2009-02-02 12:42 PM ColdRingo6 - 2009-02-01 9:21 AM I find the whole argument in favor of keeping/creating manufacturing jobs here as part of the stimulus interesting. We're a service economy these days, not a manfucturing one. Should we revert, put more people back to work producing goods rather than services? Not sure I have an answer for it either. I do believe that doing nothing will make the recession worse. I also believe it will take a minor miracle for this stimulus package to have the necessary effect given the amount of crap currently in the House version. One big benefit of manufacturing is that each manufacturing job creates 2 support jobs. Someone builds the product, someone warehouses it, and someone transports it. So it is somewhat worthwhile to invest in manufacturing goods that we have competive advantages in.
The big issue with this is that the amount of goods that we have a competitive advantage in is shrinking. Actually with countries overseas having increased wages the benefit to ship those jobs overseas has been shrinking. There was an article in one of the Chicago papers about this a couple weeks ago - I will see if I can find it. |
| 2009-02-02 7:03 PM in reply to: #1941121 |
Master 1651 Breckenridge, CO | Subject: RE: Yet another BO promise broken TriRSquared - 2009-02-02 9:25 AM We are talking about financial equations here. You cannot bring emotion into the argument. I disagree. The emotional aspect of business and investing is just as important as the "financial equations". Then the market crashed and some of these people got laid off. I think I was pretty clear when I said, "Obviously if you have no entreprenural abilites or desires, you are stuck with a fixed income and therefore should live within your current means." You CANNOT buy things now and HOPE that you can pay them off in the future. This is a bad business decision plain and simple. It ain't so "plain and simple". You are ignoring the non-monetary returns that come from "things". |
| 2009-02-02 7:13 PM in reply to: #1942051 |
Elite 3022 Preferably on my bike somewhere | Subject: RE: Yet another BO promise broken Wolff27 - 2009-02-02 6:17 PM JoshR - 2009-02-02 4:07 PM Jackemy - 2009-02-02 12:42 PM ColdRingo6 - 2009-02-01 9:21 AM I find the whole argument in favor of keeping/creating manufacturing jobs here as part of the stimulus interesting. We're a service economy these days, not a manfucturing one. Should we revert, put more people back to work producing goods rather than services? Not sure I have an answer for it either. I do believe that doing nothing will make the recession worse. I also believe it will take a minor miracle for this stimulus package to have the necessary effect given the amount of crap currently in the House version. One big benefit of manufacturing is that each manufacturing job creates 2 support jobs. Someone builds the product, someone warehouses it, and someone transports it. So it is somewhat worthwhile to invest in manufacturing goods that we have competive advantages in.
The big issue with this is that the amount of goods that we have a competitive advantage in is shrinking. Actually with countries overseas having increased wages the benefit to ship those jobs overseas has been shrinking. There was an article in one of the Chicago papers about this a couple weeks ago - I will see if I can find it. This is accurate, from what I have read, and experienced. Certain jobs WERE sent overseas, but they have begun to come back as businesses have learned that when you factor in all the extra support required to keep someone working in a foreign land, there isn't so much of a savings anymore. I suspect with the shrinking economy (I have NO evidence to back this up - simply a gut feeling) and world recession, money made in the US will tend to stay in the US. |
| 2009-02-03 12:17 PM in reply to: #1936508 |
Pro 4909 Hailey, ID | Subject: RE: Yet another BO promise broken pengy - 2009-01-29 4:27 PM bradword - 2009-01-29 5:20 PM This isn't a stimulus package. Lets call it what it is. A second budget above and beyond the one they are already overspending on. No pork in bills? What happens when the WHOLE bill is pork? This is just totally idiocy. Bush started stupid bailouts and now Obama is trying to 1 up him. I don't think people really understand how big 850 billion truly is. If you had $850 BILLION at the birth of Christ, and spent 1 Million dollars EVERY DAY, you still would have over $100 Billion left over! 850,000,000,000.00 is crazy! Stop the bleeding. I'm sorry, but when you have almost unanimous agreements among top economists that government spending is the best way to soften the blow of the recession - I tend to agree with them. The issue is in how to spend it (ie tax cuts or direct government spending). So much for that Pengy " There is no disagreement that we need action by our government, a recovery plan that will help to jumpstart the economy." - PRESIDENT-ELECT BARACK OBAMA, JANUARY 9 , 2009 I received this because the local university in our town, MTSU, has a Nobel laureate in economics and this list was passed around locally. Oh and he signed off disagreeing with Obama as well... With all due respect Mr. President, that is not true. Notwithstanding reports that all economists are now Keynesians and that we all support a big increase in the burden of government, we do not believe that more government spending is a way to improve economic performance. More government spending by Hoover and Roosevelt did not pull the United States economy out of the Great Depression in the 1930s. More government spending did not solve Japan's "lost decade" in the 1990s. As such, it is a triumph of hope over experience to believe that more government spending will help the U.S. today. To improve the economy, policy makers should focus on reforms that remove impediments to work, saving, investment and production. Lower tax rates and a reduction in the burden of government are the best ways of using fiscal policy to boost growth. Burton Abrams, Univ. of Delaware Douglas Adie, Ohio University Ryan Amacher, Univ. of Texas at Arlington J.J. Arias, Georgia College & State University Howard Baetjer, Jr., Towson University Stacie Beck, Univ. of Delaware Don Bellante, Univ. of South Florida James Bennett, George Mason University Bruce Benson, Florida State University Sanjai Bhagat, Univ. of Colorado at Boulder Mark Bils, Univ. of Rochester Alberto Bisin, New York University Walter Block, Loyola University New Orleans Cecil Bohanon, Ball State University Michele Boldrin, Washington University in St. Louis Donald Booth, Chapman University Michael Bordo, Rutgers University Samuel Bostaph, Univ. of Dallas Scott Bradford, Brigham Young University Genevieve Briand, Eastern Washington University George Brower, Moravian College James Buchanan, Nobel laureate Richard Burdekin, Claremont McKenna College Henry Butler, Northwestern University William Butos, Trinity College Peter Calcagno, College of Charleston Bryan Caplan, George Mason University Art Carden, Rhodes College James Cardon, Brigham Young University Dustin Chambers, Salisbury University Emily Chamlee-Wright, Beloit College V.V. Chari, Univ. of Minnesota Barry Chiswick, Univ. of Illinois at Chicago Lawrence Cima, John Carroll University J.R. Clark, Univ. of Tennessee at Chattanooga Gian Luca Clementi, New York University R. Morris Coats, Nicholls State University John Cochran, Metropolitan State College John Cochrane, Univ. of Chicago John Cogan, Hoover Institution, Stanford University John Coleman, Duke University Boyd Collier, Tarleton State University Robert Collinge, Univ. of Texas at San Antonio Lee Coppock, Univ. of Virginia Mario Crucini, Vanderbilt University Christopher Culp, Univ. of Chicago Kirby Cundiff, Northeastern State University Antony Davies, Duquesne University John Dawson, Appalachian State University Clarence Deitsch, Ball State University Arthur Diamond, Jr., Univ. of Nebraska at Omaha John Dobra, Univ. of Nevada, Reno James Dorn, Towson University Christopher Douglas, Univ. of Michigan, Flint Floyd Duncan, Virginia Military Institute Francis Egan, Trinity College John Egger, Towson University Kenneth Elzinga, Univ. of Virginia Paul Evans, Ohio State University Eugene Fama, Univ. of Chicago W. Ken Farr, Georgia College & State University Hartmut Fischer, Univ. of San Francisco Fred Foldvary, Santa Clara University Murray Frank, Univ. of Minnesota Peter Frank, Wingate University Timothy Fuerst, Bowling Green State University B. Delworth Gardner, Brigham Young University John Garen, Univ. of Kentucky Rick Geddes, Cornell University Aaron Gellman, Northwestern University William Gerdes, Clarke College Michael Gibbs, Univ. of Chicago Stephan Gohmann, Univ. of Louisville Rodolfo Gonzalez, San Jose State University Richard Gordon, Penn State University Peter Gordon, Univ. of Southern California Ernie Goss, Creighton University Paul Gregory, Univ. of Houston Earl Grinols, Baylor University Daniel Gropper, Auburn University R.W. Hafer, Southern Illinois University, Edwardsville Arthur Hall, Univ. of Kansas Steve Hanke, Johns Hopkins Stephen Happel, Arizona State University Frank Hefner, College of Charleston Ronald Heiner, George Mason University David Henderson, Hoover Institution, Stanford University Robert Herren, North Dakota State University Gailen Hite, Columbia University Steven Horwitz, St. Lawrence University John Howe, Univ. of Missouri, Columbia Jeffrey Hummel, San Jose State University Bruce Hutchinson, Univ. of Tennessee at Chattanooga Brian Jacobsen, Wisconsin Lutheran College Jason Johnston, Univ. of Pennsylvania Boyan Jovanovic, New York University Jonathan Karpoff, Univ. of Washington Barry Keating, Univ. of Notre Dame Naveen Khanna, Michigan State University Nicholas Kiefer, Cornell University Daniel Klein, George Mason University Paul Koch, Univ. of Kansas Narayana Kocherlakota, Univ. of Minnesota Marek Kolar, Delta College Roger Koppl, Fairleigh Dickinson University Kishore Kulkarni, Metropolitan State College of Denver Deepak Lal, UCLA George Langelett, South Dakota State University James Larriviere, Spring Hill College Robert Lawson, Auburn University John Levendis, Loyola University New Orleans David Levine, Washington University in St. Louis Peter Lewin, Univ. of Texas at Dallas Dean Lillard, Cornell University Zheng Liu, Emory University Alan Lockard, Binghampton University Edward Lopez, San Jose State University John Lunn, Hope College Glenn MacDonald, Washington University in St. Louis Michael Marlow, California Polytechnic State University Deryl Martin, Tennessee Tech University Dale Matcheck, Northwood University Deirdre McCloskey, Univ. of Illinois, Chicago John McDermott, Univ. of South Carolina Joseph McGarrity, Univ. of Central Arkansas Roger Meiners, Univ. of Texas at Arlington Allan Meltzer, Carnegie Mellon University John Merrifield, Univ. of Texas at San Antonio James Miller III, George Mason University Jeffrey Miron, Harvard University Thomas Moeller, Texas Christian University John Moorhouse, Wake Forest University Andrea Moro, Vanderbilt University Andrew Morriss, Univ. of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign Michael Munger, Duke University Kevin Murphy, Univ. of Southern California Richard Muth, Emory University Charles Nelson, Univ. of Washington Seth Norton, Wheaton College Lee Ohanian, Univ. of California, Los Angeles Lydia Ortega, San Jose State University Evan Osborne, Wright State University Randall Parker, East Carolina University Donald Parsons, George Washington University Sam Peltzman, Univ. of Chicago Mark Perry, Univ. of Michigan, Flint Christopher Phelan, Univ. of Minnesota Gordon Phillips, Univ. of Maryland Michael Pippenger, Univ. of Alaska, Fairbanks Tomasz Piskorski, Columbia University Brennan Platt, Brigham Young University Joseph Pomykala, Towson University William Poole, Univ. of Delaware Barry Poulson, Univ. of Colorado at Boulder Benjamin Powell, Suffolk University Edward Prescott, Nobel laureate Gary Quinlivan, Saint Vincent College Reza Ramazani, Saint Michael's College Adriano Rampini, Duke University Eric Rasmusen, Indiana University Mario Rizzo, New York University Richard Roll, Univ. of California, Los Angeles Robert Rossana, Wayne State University James Roumasset, Univ. of Hawaii at Manoa John Rowe, Univ. of South Florida Charles Rowley, George Mason University Juan Rubio-Ramirez, Duke University Roy Ruffin, Univ. of Houston Kevin Salyer, Univ. of California, Davis Pavel Savor, Univ. of Pennsylvania Ronald Schmidt, Univ. of Rochester Carlos Seiglie, Rutgers University William Shughart II, Univ. of Mississippi Charles Skipton, Univ. of Tampa James Smith, Western Carolina University Vernon Smith, Nobel laureate Lawrence Southwick, Jr., Univ. at Buffalo Dean Stansel, Florida Gulf Coast University Houston Stokes, Univ. of Illinois at Chicago Brian Strow, Western Kentucky University Shirley Svorny, California State University, Northridge John Tatom, Indiana State University Wade Thomas, State University of New York at Oneonta Henry Thompson, Auburn University Alex Tokarev, The King's College Edward Tower, Duke University Leo Troy, Rutgers University David Tuerck, Suffolk University Charlotte Twight, Boise State University Kamal Upadhyaya, Univ. of New Haven Charles Upton, Kent State University T. Norman Van Cott, Ball State University Richard Vedder, Ohio University Richard Wagner, George Mason University Douglas M. Walker, College of Charleston Douglas O. Walker, Regent University Christopher Westley, Jacksonville State University Lawrence White, Univ. of Missouri at St. Louis Walter Williams, George Mason University Doug Wills, Univ. of Washington Tacoma Dennis Wilson, Western Kentucky University Gary Wolfram, Hillsdale College Huizhong Zhou, Western Michigan University Additional economists who have signed the statement Lee Adkins, Oklahoma State University William Albrecht, Univ. of Iowa Donald Alexander, Western Michigan University Geoffrey Andron, Austin Community College Nathan Ashby, Univ. of Texas at El Paso George Averitt, Purdue North Central University Charles Baird, California State University, East Bay Timothy Bastian, Creighton University John Bethune, Barton College Robert Bise, Orange Coast College Karl Borden, University of Nebraska Donald Boudreaux, George Mason University Ivan Brick, Rutgers University Phil Bryson, Brigham Young University Richard Burkhauser, Cornell University Jim Butkiewicz, Univ. of Delaware Richard Cebula, Armstrong Atlantic State University Don Chance, Louisiana State University Robert Chatfield, Univ. of Nevada, Las Vegas Lloyd Cohen, George Mason University Peter Colwell, Univ. of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign Michael Connolly, Univ. of Miami Jim Couch, Univ. of North Alabama Eleanor Craig, Univ. of Delaware Michael Daniels, Columbus State University A. Edward Day, Univ. of Texas at Dallas Stephen Dempsey, Univ. of Vermont Allan DeSerpa, Arizona State University William Dewald, Ohio State University Jeff Dorfman, Univ. of Georgia Lanny Ebenstein, Univ. of California, Santa Barbara Michael Erickson, The College of Idaho Jack Estill, San Jose State University Dorla Evans, Univ. of Alabama in Huntsville Frank Falero, California State University, Bakersfield Daniel Feenberg, National Bureau of Economic Research Eric Fisher, California Polytechnic State University William Ford, Middle Tennessee State University Ralph Frasca, Univ. of Dayton Joseph Giacalone, St. John's University Adam Gifford, California State Unviersity, Northridge Otis Gilley, Louisiana Tech University J. Edward Graham, University of North Carolina at Wilmington Richard Grant, Lipscomb University Gauri-Shankar Guha, Arkansas State University Darren Gulla, Univ. of Kentucky Dennis Halcoussis, California State University, Northridge Richard Hart, Miami University James Hartley, Mount Holyoke College Thomas Hazlett, George Mason University Scott Hein, Texas Tech University John Hoehn, Michigan State University Daniel Houser, George Mason University Thomas Howard, University of Denver Chris Hughen, Univ. of Denver Marcus Ingram, Univ. of Tampa Joseph Jadlow, Oklahoma State University Sherry Jarrell, Wake Forest University Robert Krol, California State University, Northridge James Kurre, Penn State Erie Tom Lehman, Indiana Wesleyan University W. Cris Lewis, Utah State University Stan Liebowitz, Univ. of Texas at Dallas Anthony Losasso, Univ. of Illinois at Chicago John Lott, Jr., Univ. of Maryland Keith Malone, Univ. of North Alabama Henry Manne, George Mason University Richard Marcus, Univ. of Wisconsin-Milwaukee Timothy Mathews, Kennesaw State University John Matsusaka, Univ. of Southern California Thomas Mayor, Univ. of Houston W. Douglas McMillin, Louisiana State University Mario Miranda, The Ohio State University Ed Miseta, Penn State Erie James Moncur, Univ. of Hawaii at Manoa Charles Moss, Univ. of Florida Tim Muris, George Mason University John Murray, Univ. of Toledo David Mustard, Univ. of Georgia Steven Myers, Univ. of Akron Dhananjay Nanda, University of Miami Stephen Parente, Univ. of Minnesota Douglas Patterson, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and University Timothy Perri, Appalachian State University Mark Pingle, Univ. of Nevada, Reno Richard Rawlins, Missouri Southern State University Thomas Rhee, California State University, Long Beach Christine Ries, Georgia Institute of Technology Nancy Roberts, Arizona State University Larry Ross, Univ. of Alaska Anchorage Timothy Roth, Univ. of Texas at El Paso Atulya Sarin, Santa Clara University Thomas Saving, Texas A&M University Eric Schansberg, Indiana University Southeast Alan Shapiro, Univ. of Southern California Frank Spreng, McKendree University Judith Staley Brenneke, John Carroll University John E. Stapleford, Eastern University Courtenay Stone, Ball State University Avanidhar Subrahmanyam, UCLA Scott Sumner, Bentley University Clifford Thies, Shenandoah University William Trumbull, West Virginia University Gustavo Ventura, Univ. of Iowa Marc Weidenmier, Claremont McKenna College Robert Whaples, Wake Forest University Gene Wunder, Washburn University John Zdanowicz, Florida International University Jerry Zimmerman, Univ. of Rochester Joseph Zoric, Franciscan University of Steubenville " |
| 2009-02-03 12:24 PM in reply to: #1935628 |
Master 2808 , Minnesota | Subject: RE: Yet another BO promise broken |
| 2009-02-03 12:29 PM in reply to: #1935628 |
Pro 6838 Tejas | Subject: RE: Yet another BO promise broken Killefer and Daschle both fell on their sword. Change is on the way........ |
| 2009-02-03 12:35 PM in reply to: #1942223 |
Champion 7347 SRQ, FL | Subject: RE: Yet another BO promise broken breckview - 2009-02-02 8:03 PM TriRSquared - 2009-02-02 9:25 AM We are talking about financial equations here. You cannot bring emotion into the argument. I disagree. The emotional aspect of business and investing is just as important as the "financial equations". Then the market crashed and some of these people got laid off. I think I was pretty clear when I said, "Obviously if you have no entreprenural abilites or desires, you are stuck with a fixed income and therefore should live within your current means." You CANNOT buy things now and HOPE that you can pay them off in the future. This is a bad business decision plain and simple. It ain't so "plain and simple". You are ignoring the non-monetary returns that come from "things". You can get "touch feely" all you want but the last time I checked: 2+2=4... not 2+2+"feelings of joy and happiness"=5 I'm not saying that emotions DO NOT enter into decisions. I'm saying that emotions do not make a mathematically bad decision, a mathematically good one. I can feel good about buying a $1/2 million dollar machining center but if that sucker is not adding to my bottom line it's a bad decision. Edited by TriRSquared 2009-02-03 12:38 PM |
 2009-02-03 12:38 PM in reply to: #1943408 |
| Subject: ... This user's post has been ignored. |
| 2009-02-03 4:01 PM in reply to: #1943447 |
| Master 1651 Breckenridge, CO | Subject: RE: Yet another BO promise broken TriRSquared - 2009-02-03 11:35 AM You can get "touch feely" all you want but the last time I checked: 2+2=4... not 2+2+"feelings of joy and happiness"=5 I'm not saying that emotions DO NOT enter into decisions. I'm saying that emotions do not make a mathematically bad decision, a mathematically good one. I can feel good about buying a $1/2 million dollar machining center but if that sucker is not adding to my bottom line it's a bad decision. OK let's talk math. After all financial mathematics is what I do... People spend about 10 hours/day sleeping/eating/hygene/etc. That leaves 14 hours per day to pursue increasing assets by selling one's time. Therefore, time is obviously an asset just like cash on account. Most people spend 7 hrs/day working including commute. That leaves 7 hours per day, every one of which, that if not spent working results in a reduction of potential monetary assets and is therefore an expense (opportunity cost). So if one's time is worth $25/hr after tax, the math says 7*365*25=$63,875 per year is being lost by not working those hours. Remove emotion and go straight off the math and one has to wonder why anyone would pass up that kind of extra money. That is exactly how the working poor of this country operate and why they can never get ahead. Further one has to REALLY wonder why you'd choose to pursue triathlon and especially waste time talking about it on the internet. After all the math says that every second wasted is an expense exactly the same as paying interest on a new car. Could it possibly be that there are non-monetary returns you receive from spending those valuable extra hours doing something besides chasing the buck? Could it also be that others get non-monetary returns from different things? Too "touchy feely" for ya? That reminds me, it's time for me to waste some of my assets on skiing with my dog... Edited by breckview 2009-02-03 4:03 PM |
| 2009-02-03 4:09 PM in reply to: #1935628 |
| Champion 7347 SRQ, FL | Subject: RE: Yet another BO promise broken The time I spend doing tris or arguing with you I am not borrowing against time I do not have. That is the difference. I never said that people should not buy things that make them happy. I do it all the time. I said people should not incur "bad" debt to get the things that make them happy. Your dog skis? Cool! Edited by TriRSquared 2009-02-03 4:10 PM |
| 2009-02-03 4:54 PM in reply to: #1943384 |
| Houston | Subject: RE: Yet another BO promise broken bradword - 2009-02-03 12:17 PM pengy - 2009-01-29 4:27 PM bradword - 2009-01-29 5:20 PM This isn't a stimulus package. Lets call it what it is. A second budget above and beyond the one they are already overspending on. No pork in bills? What happens when the WHOLE bill is pork? This is just totally idiocy. Bush started stupid bailouts and now Obama is trying to 1 up him. I don't think people really understand how big 850 billion truly is. If you had $850 BILLION at the birth of Christ, and spent 1 Million dollars EVERY DAY, you still would have over $100 Billion left over! 850,000,000,000.00 is crazy! Stop the bleeding. I'm sorry, but when you have almost unanimous agreements among top economists that government spending is the best way to soften the blow of the recession - I tend to agree with them. The issue is in how to spend it (ie tax cuts or direct government spending). So much for that Pengy " There is no disagreement that we need action by our government, a recovery plan that will help to jumpstart the economy." - PRESIDENT-ELECT BARACK OBAMA, JANUARY 9 , 2009 I received this because the local university in our town, MTSU, has a Nobel laureate in economics and this list was passed around locally. Oh and he signed off disagreeing with Obama as well... With all due respect Mr. President, that is not true. Notwithstanding reports that all economists are now Keynesians and that we all support a big increase in the burden of government, we do not believe that more government spending is a way to improve economic performance. More government spending by Hoover and Roosevelt did not pull the United States economy out of the Great Depression in the 1930s. More government spending did not solve Japan's "lost decade" in the 1990s. As such, it is a triumph of hope over experience to believe that more government spending will help the U.S. today. To improve the economy, policy makers should focus on reforms that remove impediments to work, saving, investment and production. Lower tax rates and a reduction in the burden of government are the best ways of using fiscal policy to boost growth. " From now on I will use a qualifier such as "most economists" or "many economists" so I am not hit by a wall of ~250 names that do not necessarily mean anything. Unless you put that next to a list of those economists in favor of Keynesian economics it has no perspective. But yes I agree that not all economists agree with Obama. Though I do think it is important to keep in mind the historical nature of what we are going through here. Hoover choose to take a non-interventionist stance as the economy was sliding pre-Great Depression and it didn't do anything to help. It would have been down right foolish for Bush or Obama to do the same thing. Recessions also have a huge social impact that a government cannot ignore. Economic crisis make people question the status quo. Iceland has already had a new government put in place. France, though they are always rioting there, has seen an increase in protests along with China. And we may not even be through the worst of it yet. So I believe there is a lot more to a stimulus package than just trying to pull the economy up. And I do not necessarily agree with the stimulus package as it now stands, I just agree with it in concept. |
| 2009-02-03 5:00 PM in reply to: #1943892 |
| Subject: ... This user's post has been ignored. |
| 2009-02-03 9:21 PM in reply to: #1943911 |
| Master 1651 Breckenridge, CO | Subject: RE: Yet another BO promise broken TriRSquared - 2009-02-03 3:09 PM Your dog skis? Cool! Well, he actually just runs. Nice debatin' ya! |
|
|
|
|
View profile
Add to friends
Go to training log
Go to race log
Send a message
View album
CONNECT WITH FACEBOOK