I don't think I am out of this world when I say most of the US will be like Michigan in a few years. Unless something drastic happens.
What do you mean, poor or communist?cpt.fass1 wrote:
Our system is flawed and if it doesn't get fixed we're going to end up like the likes of the U.S.S.R..
- Superior Mind
- (not macbeth)
- +1,755|7119
It's all about the $. There isn't much you or I can do about it, so don't worry about it. Either roll with the punches, move, or organize a revolution. Even so, the other people interested in the $ won't allow your revolution to flourish. If you want to know more, then you need not be a civilian.
What??? Come on man. We elect them.ATG wrote:
The government has become a criminal institution.
Petty thugs and money collectors.
I stood in line for four hours. They better give me a Wal-Mart gift card, or something. - Rodney Booker, Job Fair attendee.
Yeah, get rid of your service sector: financial institutions, insurance corporations, public service, who needs it. Try it, turf all those office workers out and convert them to manufacturing workers, you think they'll be happy when you pay them the wages of a Chinese peasant in order to have your goods competing on price in the international market?S.Lythberg wrote:
The problem with the American economy is the fact that, as a nation, we produce next to nothing. We are a culture of consumers, who work office jobs doing absolutely nothing, and use the salary to purchase overseas goods. A nation of 300 million people and incredible natural resources should be an industrial powerhouse, not 300 million paper pushers...
are you serious?<BoTM>J_Aero wrote:
Yeah, get rid of your service sector: financial institutions, insurance corporations, public service, who needs it. Try it, turf all those office workers out and convert them to manufacturing workers, you think they'll be happy when you pay them the wages of a Chinese peasant in order to have your goods competing on price in the international market?S.Lythberg wrote:
The problem with the American economy is the fact that, as a nation, we produce next to nothing. We are a culture of consumers, who work office jobs doing absolutely nothing, and use the salary to purchase overseas goods. A nation of 300 million people and incredible natural resources should be an industrial powerhouse, not 300 million paper pushers...
damn right they'll be happy, because hey, they'll have a job. and regardless, they're not going to be making pennies like in china. we still have a minimum wage here. we have to downsize the service sector considerably or we're going under.
the global rules of economy have been the same pretty much forever: sell more than you buy.
That's mathematically impossible for every country to accomplish simultaneously.Ender2309 wrote:
the global rules of economy have been the same pretty much forever: sell more than you buy.
whoever said it was?SenorToenails wrote:
That's mathematically impossible for every country to accomplish simultaneously.Ender2309 wrote:
the global rules of economy have been the same pretty much forever: sell more than you buy.
the second rule of economics is that for anybody to have any money at all, somebody must be poor. and thats not just for the rich. even for middle classers like you or I, somebody must be poor for us to have money.
whoever said it was?SenorToenails wrote:
That's mathematically impossible for every country to accomplish simultaneously.Ender2309 wrote:
the global rules of economy have been the same pretty much forever: sell more than you buy.
the second rule of economics is that for anybody to have any money at all, somebody must be poor. and thats not just for the rich. even for middle classers like you or I, somebody must be poor for us to have money.
I think you should fire your economics teacher.Ender2309 wrote:
whoever said it was?SenorToenails wrote:
That's mathematically impossible for every country to accomplish simultaneously.Ender2309 wrote:
the global rules of economy have been the same pretty much forever: sell more than you buy.
the second rule of economics is that for anybody to have any money at all, somebody must be poor. and thats not just for the rich. even for middle classers like you or I, somebody must be poor for us to have money.
Fire him now.DrunkFace wrote:
I think you should fire your economics teacher.Ender2309 wrote:
whoever said it was?SenorToenails wrote:
That's mathematically impossible for every country to accomplish simultaneously.
the second rule of economics is that for anybody to have any money at all, somebody must be poor. and thats not just for the rich. even for middle classers like you or I, somebody must be poor for us to have money.
and here's an e-mail I just got that I think sums up our situation nicely:
A Japanese company Toyota and an American company General Motors decided to have a canoe race on the Missouri River . Both teams practiced long and hard to reach their peak performance before the race. On the big day, the Japanese won by a mile.
The Americans, very discouraged and depressed, decided to investigate the reason for the crushing defeat. A management team made up of senior management was formed to investigate and recommend appropriate action.
Their conclusion was the Japanese had 8 people rowing and 1 person steering, while the American team had 8 people steering and 1 person rowing.
Feeling a deeper study was in order, American management hired a consulting company and paid them a large amount of money for a second opinion. They advised, of course, that too many people were steering the boat, while not enough people were rowing.
Not sure of how to utilize that information, but wanting to prevent another loss to the Japanese, the rowing team's management structure was totally reorganized to 4 steering supervisors, 3 area steering superintendents and an assistant superintendent steering manager. They also implemented a new performance system that would give the 1 person rowing the boat greater incentive to work harder. It was called the 'Rowing Team Quality First Program,' with meetings, dinners and free pens for the rower. There was discussion of getting new paddles, canoes and other equipment, extra vacation days for practices and bonuses.
The next year the Japanese won by two miles.
Humiliated, the American management laid off the rower for poor performance, halted development of a new canoe, sold the paddles, and canceled all capital investments for new equipment. The money saved was distributed to the Senior Executives as bonuses and the next year's racing team was outsourced to India.
Sadly, The End.
Now for some facts and; figures: Ford has spent the last thirty years moving all its factories out of the US , claiming they can't make money paying American wages.
TOYOTA has spent the last thirty years building more than a dozen plants inside the US. The last quarter's results: TOYOTA makes 4 billion in profits while Ford racked up 9 billion in losses.
Ford folks are still scratching their heads.
Last edited by S.Lythberg (2008-04-03 10:59:45)
It's how and where you spend your money that is important. The irony is that lack of consumer confidence also drives unemployment up. When you sit on your wealth you are not creating/supporting employment. This is the quickest way to kill the middle class. Most people lack the long term foresight to see this. They look for simple answers to complicated questions.Vilham wrote:
Maybe because Americans have been spending outside of their means, as a people and a country for the last 40 years. You made lots of money from WWII but you aint making it anymore and that is why the economy is slumping, debts are catching up with you.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
I think the answer to the faltering economy is to provide more government-funded programs, especially ones like universal healthcare for everyone.
You already put money into federal healthcare, you probably aren't getting the benefits. At least a universal system would allow us all coverage, instead of the uninsured and elderly.Jibbles wrote:
I think the answer to the faltering economy is to provide more government-funded programs, especially ones like universal healthcare for everyone.
I know (or I think I know) that the bank problem started with the rising house prices. Or rather the sudden descent after a constant rise thereof. People were getting confident, and getting second and possibly third mortgages on the house to buy themselves luxuries. Whilst this was good for the market in the short run, as soon as the house prices fell, banks lost lots of money, as people suddenly didn't have the money which they said they did. They thus got into debt with the banks... But their collateral for this were their houses. So now the bank gets to deal with the issue that the house prices are falling, and when they do collect these assets, they find their values decreasing - and thus the demand therefore as well. So the banks aren't paid back except with an asset of decreasing value.
Unemployment, on the other hand, is a product of the recession in consumption. People no longer have the loans that allowed them luxury goods such as a TV, or PC or whatnot, and companies are losing money as they lose consumers. In turn they have to fire workers...
Also, the US has a trading deficit of about 2 billion daily. That means you import 2 billion more than you export every day, and thus bring the economy further into debt...
Kmarion, feel free to correct me if I'm wrong on any of these points...
-konfusion
edit:
Unemployment, on the other hand, is a product of the recession in consumption. People no longer have the loans that allowed them luxury goods such as a TV, or PC or whatnot, and companies are losing money as they lose consumers. In turn they have to fire workers...
Also, the US has a trading deficit of about 2 billion daily. That means you import 2 billion more than you export every day, and thus bring the economy further into debt...
Kmarion, feel free to correct me if I'm wrong on any of these points...
-konfusion
edit:
Indeed - unless he meant relatively. There is always going to be someone who's relatively poor to you, unless you live in a perfectly communist country. However, the awesome thing about economics is that everyone can win. Everyone can become richer at the same time, without someone losing.DrunkFace wrote:
I think you should fire your economics teacher.
Last edited by konfusion (2008-04-03 13:17:54)
It's key to know why home values dropped. The credit problems started as a result of predatory lending. Lenders were giving out loans to borrowers with less than ideal creditworthiness. It was their eagerness to capitalize on the trend that created the burden on all lenders. The previous rising home prices were a result of basic supply and demand. However, the combination of banks seizing homes and builders building on speculation drove the value of homes down (flooded the market). It used to be (we) Realtors fought over getting listing agreements. Now the roles are reversed, buyers are the key. If a seller is asking an unreasonable price most Realtors will turn them down now. I had to do this last Friday. It's tough, but I'd rather be disappointed rather than lied to when it comes to the marketability of my home.konfusion wrote:
I know (or I think I know) that the bank problem started with the rising house prices. Or rather the sudden descent after a constant rise thereof. People were getting confident, and getting second and possibly third mortgages on the house to buy themselves luxuries. Whilst this was good for the market in the short run, as soon as the house prices fell, banks lost lots of money, as people suddenly didn't have the money which they said they did. They thus got into debt with the banks... But their collateral for this were their houses. So now the bank gets to deal with the issue that the house prices are falling, and when they do collect these assets, they find their values decreasing - and thus the demand therefore as well. So the banks aren't paid back except with an asset of decreasing value.
Unemployment, on the other hand, is a product of the recession in consumption. People no longer have the loans that allowed them luxury goods such as a TV, or PC or whatnot, and companies are losing money as they lose consumers. In turn they have to fire workers...
Also, the US has a trading deficit of about 2 billion daily. That means you import 2 billion more than you export every day, and thus bring the economy further into debt...
Kmarion, feel free to correct me if I'm wrong on any of these points...
New home construction is down. This is good for sellers who have been waiting to take advantage of the move up market. New home builders have been flooding the market over the last year trying to dump the property the purchased on speculation. If we can give some leverage back to the seller it could encourage them to move up, thus taking advantage of the low interest rates we have now.
Our biggest trouble continues to be the trade imbalance. The good thing about Real Estate is that it will eventually correct itself. It is a limited commodity. People are still getting married, starting families, and buying homes (Believe it or not).
CorrectSo now the bank gets to deal with the issue that the house prices are falling, and when they do collect these assets, they find their values decreasing - and thus the demand therefore as well. So the banks aren't paid back except with an asset of decreasing value.
Banks do not want your home. It's more economically prudent for them to work with homeowners rather than to seize a house that probably wont sell in this market. They know this and that is why they are more willing now to help homeowners save their homes.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
Give it a rest.GunSlinger OIF II wrote:
says who?
America is going down, England is bringing them down with us.
Shame, but its true.