(07-14-2009 02:01 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(07-14-2009 12:06 PM)RobertN Wrote:  

(07-14-2009 11:00 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  For the world as a whole, I see real deflation, at least short term. Assuming 20% deflation, what was worth 100 currency units will be worth 80.
In the US only, I see another factor. It's going to be hard enough to pay our debts in any event, perhaps impossible with a deflating currency. So the US prints money to inflate the currency. With 50% real inflation, using the above example the constant-dollar value goes from $100 to $80, representing 20% deflation. But the US monetary inflates the price 50%, to $120. That, of course, looks like 20% inflation, and our politicians convince us we can live with that.
Look at it from the viewpoint of China or Japan or UAE or any of our other creditors. They loaned us $100, and with real deflation they were expecting their $100 repaymrnt to be worth $125 in constant dollars. Instead, it's now worth $83. So they decide we are a bad currency risk and stop lending. Flush us.

This is all just Republican scare tactic bull****.

Oh, really?
Since I'm not a republican, that's an amazing comment.
Perhaps you can enlighten us. What do you see happening instead?
How do you see us dodging the bullet that I describe?

Ok, you are Libertarian but I hate to inform you that Libertarians are a wing of the Republican party. So, in reality, I was right.

You get dumber with every post.

(07-14-2009 02:02 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(07-14-2009 01:58 PM)cb4029 Wrote:  

(07-14-2009 01:47 PM)Rebel Wrote:  

(07-14-2009 01:44 PM)RobertN Wrote:  dumb***, I never said he was FIGHTING Republican parties policies(you really should learn to read). I said he was INCLUDING some Republican party policies.

Which ones?

Tax cuts. (typed with a straight face)

Huh?
What tax rates has he cut?

Stimulus bill.

(07-14-2009 02:09 PM)RobertN Wrote:  

(07-14-2009 02:02 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(07-14-2009 01:58 PM)cb4029 Wrote:  

(07-14-2009 01:47 PM)Rebel Wrote:  

(07-14-2009 01:44 PM)RobertN Wrote:  dumb***, I never said he was FIGHTING Republican parties policies(you really should learn to read). I said he was INCLUDING some Republican party policies.

Which ones?

Tax cuts. (typed with a straight face)

Huh?
What tax rates has he cut?

Stimulus bill.

Illustration #437.

Obama, tax cuts, and working with Republicans.

Keep it up. This is rich.

(07-14-2009 02:09 PM)RobertN Wrote:  

(07-14-2009 02:02 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(07-14-2009 01:58 PM)cb4029 Wrote:  

(07-14-2009 01:47 PM)Rebel Wrote:  

(07-14-2009 01:44 PM)RobertN Wrote:  dumb***, I never said he was FIGHTING Republican parties policies(you really should learn to read). I said he was INCLUDING some Republican party policies.

Which ones?

Tax cuts. (typed with a straight face)

Huh?
What tax rates has he cut?

Stimulus bill.

Nope.
Unless I'm missing something, there were no tax rate cuts included in the stimulus bill.
There were some giveaways processed through the tax system, but those weren't tax rate cuts. Pretending that they were is dishonest and disingenuous. But no more dishonest or disingenuous than anything else this administration has done.

My economic friends, answer me this:

**If I am able to maintain my current renumeration, wouldn't my buying power increase in a deflation?

**Where is the loss for an individual's lifestyle in a deflationary economy to one normally compensated couple without concerns to job loss or reduction in income?

I understand how I could be affected by another's loss in a poor economy that leads to deflation in the sense that there may be reduced production of consumer goods, less choice of items etc, but let's say I want to buy a big ticket item, say a new roof. Won't deflation lower the cost of that roof?

Certainly I understand the dangers of long term deflation, and I understand inflation concerns, but immediate deflation concerns don't make as much sense......

(07-14-2009 09:33 AM)Rebel Wrote:  

http://www.businessinsider.com/chart-of-the-day-2009-7

http://www.econbrowser.com/archives/2009..._we_s.html

Wait just a second now... If not for the most high and merciful Lord Obama's stimulus package the job losses would have been much worse. We should worship him for his vast knowledge on how stop job loss, economic growth, capitalism, free markets, etc.

(07-14-2009 09:33 AM)Rebel Wrote:  

http://www.businessinsider.com/chart-of-the-day-2009-7

http://www.econbrowser.com/archives/2009..._we_s.html

That is the biggest train wreck I've ever seen.

(07-14-2009 05:02 PM)Lord Stanley Wrote:  My economic friends, answer me this:

**If I am able to maintain my current renumeration, wouldn't my buying power increase in a deflation?

**Where is the loss for an individual's lifestyle in a deflationary economy to one normally compensated couple without concerns to job loss or reduction in income?

I understand how I could be affected by another's loss in a poor economy that leads to deflation in the sense that there may be reduced production of consumer goods, less choice of items etc, but let's say I want to buy a big ticket item, say a new roof. Won't deflation lower the cost of that roof?

Certainly I understand the dangers of long term deflation, and I understand inflation concerns, but immediate deflation concerns don't make as much sense......

keep in mind the Great Depression was a Deflationary recession at its start

buying power increases assuming you continue to make same amount of money through it. Problem is business start making less, which results in laying off workers and if they hire back those jobs its at lower salaries.

the problem here is the debt, both the Nations and Individuals. If you are making less, but have say a Mortgage based on more valuable dollars and your higher income you are screwed. Basically it makes the Debt more burdensome.

.

Why do they NOT COUNT the United States Military as "Jobs" ????

If they did, Bush wins hands down on Job Increases and before you start being a f'cking fool with me about this .......

IT IS AN "ALL VOLUNTEER MILITARY" - - it is a Job Choice just like choosing to work at Burger King or AIG.

You dig homies ???

.

Yep there's no draft. Serving in the military is a definitely a job.

Enlistment standards were also lowered during Bush's tenure, so that did have an effect.

IMO that is not a "necessary evil" or even a bad thing.

If a kid is screwing up, I think the military is a much better correctional institution than jail.

I wish more judges would offer at-risk kids a break, in return for a military committment.

(07-14-2009 10:58 PM)Tripster Wrote:  Why do they NOT COUNT the United States Military as "Jobs" ????

One quick answer is that changing the way you count jobs makes it meaningless to compare numbers over a long period (though you can obviously go back and adjust prior years for a change like this).



From The Bureau of Labor Statistics

The unemployment rate by these numbers is 14.7/154.9=9.49%. Adding 1,450,000 in the military would make it 14.7/156.4=9.40%. The effect wouldn't really be very large - not quite one tenth of one percent.

(07-14-2009 02:33 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(07-14-2009 02:09 PM)RobertN Wrote:  

(07-14-2009 02:02 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(07-14-2009 01:58 PM)cb4029 Wrote:  

(07-14-2009 01:47 PM)Rebel Wrote:  

(07-14-2009 01:44 PM)RobertN Wrote:  dumb***, I never said he was FIGHTING Republican parties policies(you really should learn to read). I said he was INCLUDING some Republican party policies.

Which ones?

Tax cuts. (typed with a straight face)

Huh?
What tax rates has he cut?

Stimulus bill.

Nope.
Unless I'm missing something, there were no tax rate cuts included in the stimulus bill.
There were some giveaways processed through the tax system, but those weren't tax rate cuts. Pretending that they were is dishonest and disingenuous. But no more dishonest or disingenuous than anything else this administration has done.

And those who think that the tax rates changed, when it was actually the withholding rates, will be quite surprised next April 15 when the government will want the money back. Some people are very easily fooled.

(07-14-2009 11:54 PM)I45owl Wrote:  

(07-14-2009 10:58 PM)Tripster Wrote:  Why do they NOT COUNT the United States Military as "Jobs" ????

One quick answer is that changing the way you count jobs makes it meaningless to compare numbers over a long period (though you can obviously go back and adjust prior years for a change like this).



From The Bureau of Labor Statistics

Code:

_______________________________________________________________________________
                            |                 |                          |        
                            |    Quarterly    |                          |        
                            |     averages    |       Monthly data       |  May -  
           Category         |_________________|__________________________|  June  
                            |        |        |        |        |        | change  
                            |    I   |   II   |  Apr.  |  May   |  June  |        
                            |  2009  |  2009  |  2009  |  2009  |  2009  |        
   _________________________|________|________|________|________|________|________
                            |                                                      
        HOUSEHOLD DATA      |                 Labor force status                  
                            |_____________________________________________________
                            |        |        |        |        |        |        
   Civilian labor force ....| 153,993| 154,912| 154,731| 155,081| 154,926|    -155
     Employment ............| 141,578| 140,591| 141,007| 140,570| 140,196|    -374
     Unemployment ..........|  12,415|  14,321|  13,724|  14,511|  14,729|     218
   Not in labor force ......|  80,920|  80,547|  80,541|  80,371|  80,729|     358

The unemployment rate by these numbers is 14.7/154.9=9.49%. Adding 1,450,000 in the military would make it 14.7/156.4=9.40%. The effect wouldn't really be very large - not quite one tenth of one percent.

Yeah, especially when you start counting how many people are no longer drawing unemployment benefits and those who have given up and dropped off the radar and are no longer counted at all in any reference.

It is such an ever changing, day-by-day mathematical loop, that the current calculations really do not reflect actual unemployment figures.

And no, looking at the Military in that small way against the backdrop of staggering unemployment, using their numbers would not make that much of a difference in the over all.

.