US GDP rises 5.7%, but corporations aren't hiring

[Zander]

We borrowed $800 billion for stimulus spending. From that GDP increased 7.9% or $1.2 Trillion. Meanwhile, the stock market increased from 6600 to 10300 or a 56% improvement which added another $5 Trillion in gain.

Yes, my friend, our net worth DID go up

Your lack of economic intelligence is staggering. The stock market is not the economy. Government spending is not economic growth. Our day of economic reckoning is coming soon and no amount of "stimulus" will prevent it. Sorry, but those are the facts. It doesn't matter which party is in power either.......

I'm afraid it is my friend

The economy is comprised of trillions of economic transactions. GDP is an indicator of the economy, so is the stock market.

A rising tide lifts all boats (thanks JFK) that $800 Billion influx of cash resulted in over $6 trillion in economic growth.

Leftwinger - let me assure you, this is a non-partisan "depression" we are in the midst of. And YES it is a depression. The economy is in tatters and only going to get worse.

We would need 5% GDP growth for the entire year just to knock unemployment down by 1%. Bear in mind that 10% is only the reported unemployment - approximately 600,000 people fall off the "reported" unemployment rolls every month - the total unemployed is almost 20%. These people still don't have jobs, they just do not count anymore. I understand that you want to credit your messiah "Obama" with an economic recovery, good for you, you are a perfect Obamite apparatchik. I sincerely wish it were true and that we were recovering, but we are not. It is only an illusion created by monetary policy. Real economic recovery comes from the free market, not monetary policy. We are heading for another wave downward in all markets - commodities, stocks, and real estate- and there is simply nothing that politicians can do to stop it. In fact, the best thing would be for them to get out of the way. The sooner we get the hurt behind us, the faster we can make a REAL recovery.

 

[Big Fitz]

I look back and I don't see companies fleeing the US until we began signing 'free trade' agreements.

Free trade agreements with nations that have significantly lower wage scales, environmental controls and union influence. Yes, then they move. I would too.

 

[rdean]

Well, the GDP rose by 5.7% which is a continuation of a trend of rising GDP, so the stimulus and other economic policies appear to be helping a bit:

U.S. GDP grows at 5.7% rate in fourth quarter - latimes.com



But unemployment continues to be dismal.

What's the reason? US Companies keep sending their jobs overseas, to save money, thanks to reliance on market self-governance.

So the corporations reap record profits, Wall Street continues to climb, and US citizens continue to have no jobs.

So what's the solution? Obama believes it's giving tax breaks to companies that keep their jobs in the US. I say that's a good start.

Anyone have any other good ideas to keep jobs here?

The reason the GDP is up is because companies are restocking inventories that they allowed to fall because of the recession.

As was pointed out in another post, hiring is a lagging indicator of an improving economy.

Another indicator is the Dow Jones, which reached an all time high in 2000, a high of 11,500. The last 52 weeks (that's one year) has see it climb from 6,500 (approx) ---> 10,500 (approx.), the highest since 2003 (if it's hard to believe, do a search on "Dow Jones" because I've already posted this at least 6 times).

Oct 09 07
Rises 120.80 to close at 14,164.53, first close above 14,100 - All time closing high
The DJIA has risen 6,878.26, or 94%, since the low point of Oct 9, 2002, 5 years ago

OK, you got all the way to 2007. Now, what happened between 2007 and 2009?

Go ahead and think it through.

Now, what happened between 2009 and today?

 

[beowolfe]

I look back and I don't see companies fleeing the US until we began signing 'free trade' agreements.

Free trade agreements with nations that have significantly lower wage scales, environmental controls and union influence. Yes, then they move. I would too.

Then I don't get your having the positions tht unions are to blame??? According to your statement, it would appear that we did this to ourselves through trade agreements and not labor negotiations.

Now, if you're saying that the unions need to recognize the new realities created by these trade agreements and abdicate some of the things they'd won in labor agreements; I don't think you'll find many union members who will agree with you.
They will say all we need to do is negotiate better treaties. And even according to you (whom I would think would disagree with the unions position) the job fleeing is a result of signing these treaties with poor low wage nations.l

 

[Zander]

We borrowed $800 billion for stimulus spending. From that GDP increased 7.9% or $1.2 Trillion. Meanwhile, the stock market increased from 6600 to 10300 or a 56% improvement which added another $5 Trillion in gain.

Yes, my friend, our net worth DID go up

Your lack of economic intelligence is staggering. The stock market is not the economy. Government spending is not economic growth. Our day of economic reckoning is coming soon and no amount of "stimulus" will prevent it. Sorry, but those are the facts. It doesn't matter which party is in power either.......

I'm afraid the you may be correct. But I also think we can manage the landing so that it is something other than an all out crash.

No, we can't. It needs to crash. Just like GM needed to fail. Do you think that the GM is truly a viable entity? They are little more than a zombie company propped up by government loans. They will eventually end up "kaput" regardless of the intervention of the government. It will merely take a bit longer and instead of shareholders paying for it the taxpayers will.

The enduring power of capitalism lies in it's power of CREATIVE DESTRUCTION. Out of the ashes new industries and new ideas are born. When creative destruction is interfered with, other problems arise. Government assistance to failing companies like GM will lead to less innovation and stagnation. It is like pulling a band aid off....get it over with!

 

[beowolfe]

Your lack of economic intelligence is staggering. The stock market is not the economy. Government spending is not economic growth. Our day of economic reckoning is coming soon and no amount of "stimulus" will prevent it. Sorry, but those are the facts. It doesn't matter which party is in power either.......

I'm afraid the you may be correct. But I also think we can manage the landing so that it is something other than an all out crash.

No, we can't. It needs to crash. Just like GM needed to fail. Do you think that the GM is truly a viable entity? They are little more than a zombie company propped up by government loans. They will eventually end up "kaput" regardless of the intervention of the government. It will merely take a bit longer and instead of shareholders paying for it the taxpayers will.

The enduring power of capitalism lies in it's power of CREATIVE DESTRUCTION. Out of the ashes new industries and new ideas are born. When creative destruction is interfered with, other problems arise. Government assistance to failing companies like GM will lead to less innovation and stagnation. It is like pulling a band aid off....get it over with!

It might not survive, but then Ford will. And before you say Ford didn't take government money, I'll counter with 'they didn't take it directly'. The entire industry took it indirectly through the cash for klunkers program. GM, IMO, hasn't had the balls to make the necessary decisions to turn itself around. And as long as that's they case, they probably won't make it.

 

[Big Fitz]

Then I don't get your having the positions tht unions are to blame??? According to your statement, it would appear that we did this to ourselves through trade agreements and not labor negotiations.

We did. We need to reverse this. But that involves also busting a lot of union control. It also means destroying government unions completely.

Just because we did something stupid does not obligate us to continue with the precedent.

I don't think you'll find many union members who will agree with you.

Of course not. They have a conflict of interest. To end the union jeopardizes their status and livlihood. But I also suspect there's a healthy minority in the union who would be happy to see it go so they could negotiate their own wages and dump the incompetent who've been occupying space protected by union rules for decades.

They will say all we need to do is negotiate better treaties.

For the sake of protecting their status quo, sure. That's why if you did Inverse Subsidy Tariffs, you can't turn around and use them to protect those who are in essence profiteering from artificially high wages/benefits/profits. You must be honest to both sides.

And even according to you (whom I would think would disagree with the unions position) the job fleeing is a result of signing these treaties with poor low wage nations.l

I'm all for ending every free trade agreement with nations that do not measure up to our way of life. China, Mexico, South & Central America in general. On the other hand, free trade with Japan, Canada, England, Scandinavian nations, maybe not France, Germany... that would be much more in line with what I'd like to see. Why? Because their national standards of living and wages are similar to ours. The disparity in neo-third world nations like China who has a modern coast, but much of the nation's interior lives barely in the bronze age where indoor plumbing is science fiction... not so much.

It's too bad we can't do this ad hoc now and just cut them off. But, it's a goal to work forward to.

Their livlihood is not our responsibility. Globalists in this nation want to end nations, and because of this, we who still believe in nationalism need to start fighting for our right to say 'no' to their agenda.

 

[beowolfe]

Then I don't get your having the positions tht unions are to blame??? According to your statement, it would appear that we did this to ourselves through trade agreements and not labor negotiations.

We did. We need to reverse this. But that involves also busting a lot of union control. It also means destroying government unions completely.

Just because we did something stupid does not obligate us to continue with the precedent.

I don't think you'll find many union members who will agree with you.

Of course not. They have a conflict of interest. To end the union jeopardizes their status and livlihood. But I also suspect there's a healthy minority in the union who would be happy to see it go so they could negotiate their own wages and dump the incompetent who've been occupying space protected by union rules for decades.

They will say all we need to do is negotiate better treaties.

For the sake of protecting their status quo, sure. That's why if you did Inverse Subsidy Tariffs, you can't turn around and use them to protect those who are in essence profiteering from artificially high wages/benefits/profits. You must be honest to both sides.

And even according to you (whom I would think would disagree with the unions position) the job fleeing is a result of signing these treaties with poor low wage nations.l

I'm all for ending every free trade agreement with nations that do not measure up to our way of life. China, Mexico, South & Central America in general. On the other hand, free trade with Japan, Canada, England, Scandinavian nations, maybe not France, Germany... that would be much more in line with what I'd like to see. Why? Because their national standards of living and wages are similar to ours. The disparity in neo-third world nations like China who has a modern coast, but much of the nation's interior lives barely in the bronze age where indoor plumbing is science fiction... not so much.

It's too bad we can't do this ad hoc now and just cut them off. But, it's a goal to work forward to.

Their livlihood is not our responsibility. Globalists in this nation want to end nations, and because of this, we who still believe in nationalism need to start fighting for our right to say 'no' to their agenda.

At the end of the day, we are not very far apart at all. I agree with your idea of limiting free trade agreements to nations who are pretty much 'on par' with our own. I actually think we do a disservice to other nations by engaging them in these agreements. They are not ready for that yet.

There is a theory in linguistics called a 'loan word theory'. It's named after someone. I think his name was Jespersen or something like that. But if it was applied to international treaties it would back you up on your thinking about free trade between the US and third world nations. Actually, there is a more ready example. During the 1960's we merged the 'black economy' and the 'white economy'. The 'black economy' wasn't ready to compete with the 'white economy' and so a great deal of the 'black economy' disappeared. We can see it in professional sports leagues.

 

[SFC Ollie]

The reason the GDP is up is because companies are restocking inventories that they allowed to fall because of the recession.

As was pointed out in another post, hiring is a lagging indicator of an improving economy.

Another indicator is the Dow Jones, which reached an all time high in 2000, a high of 11,500. The last 52 weeks (that's one year) has see it climb from 6,500 (approx) ---> 10,500 (approx.), the highest since 2003 (if it's hard to believe, do a search on "Dow Jones" because I've already posted this at least 6 times).

Oct 09 07
Rises 120.80 to close at 14,164.53, first close above 14,100 - All time closing high
The DJIA has risen 6,878.26, or 94%, since the low point of Oct 9, 2002, 5 years ago

OK, you got all the way to 2007. Now, what happened between 2007 and 2009?

Go ahead and think it through.

Now, what happened between 2009 and today?

You really make this too easy. In January of 07 the Democrats took charge of Congress.

So what happened?

 

[uscitizen]

I look back and I don't see companies fleeing the US until we began signing 'free trade' agreements.

Free trade agreements with nations that have significantly lower wage scales, environmental controls and union influence. Yes, then they move. I would too.

Ross was right. I voted for Ross.

 

[Big Fitz]

Then I don't get your having the positions tht unions are to blame??? According to your statement, it would appear that we did this to ourselves through trade agreements and not labor negotiations.

We did. We need to reverse this. But that involves also busting a lot of union control. It also means destroying government unions completely.

Just because we did something stupid does not obligate us to continue with the precedent.



Of course not. They have a conflict of interest. To end the union jeopardizes their status and livlihood. But I also suspect there's a healthy minority in the union who would be happy to see it go so they could negotiate their own wages and dump the incompetent who've been occupying space protected by union rules for decades.



For the sake of protecting their status quo, sure. That's why if you did Inverse Subsidy Tariffs, you can't turn around and use them to protect those who are in essence profiteering from artificially high wages/benefits/profits. You must be honest to both sides.

And even according to you (whom I would think would disagree with the unions position) the job fleeing is a result of signing these treaties with poor low wage nations.l

I'm all for ending every free trade agreement with nations that do not measure up to our way of life. China, Mexico, South & Central America in general. On the other hand, free trade with Japan, Canada, England, Scandinavian nations, maybe not France, Germany... that would be much more in line with what I'd like to see. Why? Because their national standards of living and wages are similar to ours. The disparity in neo-third world nations like China who has a modern coast, but much of the nation's interior lives barely in the bronze age where indoor plumbing is science fiction... not so much.

It's too bad we can't do this ad hoc now and just cut them off. But, it's a goal to work forward to.

Their livlihood is not our responsibility. Globalists in this nation want to end nations, and because of this, we who still believe in nationalism need to start fighting for our right to say 'no' to their agenda.

At the end of the day, we are not very far apart at all. I agree with your idea of limiting free trade agreements to nations who are pretty much 'on par' with our own. I actually think we do a disservice to other nations by engaging them in these agreements. They are not ready for that yet.

There is a theory in linguistics called a 'loan word theory'. It's named after someone. I think his name was Jespersen or something like that. But if it was applied to international treaties it would back you up on your thinking about free trade between the US and third world nations. Actually, there is a more ready example. During the 1960's we merged the 'black economy' and the 'white economy'. The 'black economy' wasn't ready to compete with the 'white economy' and so a great deal of the 'black economy' disappeared. We can see it in professional sports leagues.

I remember reading about the indian reservation issues back in the 1950's and 60's in WI. When they tried to 'mainstream' the tribes. All that happened was another version of the trail of tears in many ways. Tribes lost their land to shady deals and were then forced out into new reservations.

So there is a precedent in some regard.

 

[code1211]

Well, the GDP rose by 5.7% which is a continuation of a trend of rising GDP, so the stimulus and other economic policies appear to be helping a bit:

U.S. GDP grows at 5.7% rate in fourth quarter - latimes.com

The nation's total production of goods and services expanded at a heady 5.7% annual rate in the final three months of last year, the Commerce Department said Friday in its first estimate of the quarter's gross domestic product.

But unemployment continues to be dismal.

What's the reason? US Companies keep sending their jobs overseas, to save money, thanks to reliance on market self-governance.

So the corporations reap record profits, Wall Street continues to climb, and US citizens continue to have no jobs.

So what's the solution? Obama believes it's giving tax breaks to companies that keep their jobs in the US. I say that's a good start.

Anyone have any other good ideas to keep jobs here?

You have completely and utterly misstated the situation.

Companies of all sizes recognize that good employees with a knowledge of the products, processes and techniques are a major component to success. In view of this, companies that had been working overtime or multiple shifts cut back incrementally when the wheels came off about 18 months ago.

Cut backs started with reducing OT, then to reducing shifts, cutting out weekends and finally, when there was no other option, cutting headcounts. The build up will occur in the same incremental steps. First all of the remaining employees will get more hours. Then shifts will be added and weekends will be worked then, finally, temporaries will be hired again to fill in the open spaces on the expanded shifts. At length, the best Temps will become permanent employees with benefits.

Heavy equipment which may have actually sat idle for the last year will start to be used and then used around the clock as the additional shifts are scheduled.

"Jobs" are "added" as the work is available for more people to do than are currently employed.

The utter stupidity of this administration is that it seems to believe that employers hire people only so they can pay someone. Employers hire people to do work that needs to be done. Jobs are the result of increased demand. Demand rises from increased orders which rise from an expanding economy.

If an administration wants to stimulate the economy, it needs to stimulate purchasing. If the "Stimulus" had been spent in tax credits to those who bought products and services to improve their primary residence, unemploymet would be below 5% today and the entire country would have a new coat of paint and property values would be higher..

The squandered Trillion is the greatest swindle in the history of the Republic. It makes Madoff look like a philanthropist.

These crooks only know how to stimulate their own wallets.

 

[beowolfe]

Oct 09 07
Rises 120.80 to close at 14,164.53, first close above 14,100 - All time closing high
The DJIA has risen 6,878.26, or 94%, since the low point of Oct 9, 2002, 5 years ago

OK, you got all the way to 2007. Now, what happened between 2007 and 2009?

Go ahead and think it through.

Now, what happened between 2009 and today?

You really make this too easy. In January of 07 the Democrats took charge of Congress.

So what happened?

They continued to grudgingly support Bush's policies.

 

[pete]

Well, the GDP rose by 5.7% which is a continuation of a trend of rising GDP, so the stimulus and other economic policies appear to be helping a bit:

U.S. GDP grows at 5.7% rate in fourth quarter - latimes.com

The nation's total production of goods and services expanded at a heady 5.7% annual rate in the final three months of last year, the Commerce Department said Friday in its first estimate of the quarter's gross domestic product.

But unemployment continues to be dismal.

What's the reason? US Companies keep sending their jobs overseas, to save money, thanks to reliance on market self-governance.

So the corporations reap record profits, Wall Street continues to climb, and US citizens continue to have no jobs.

So what's the solution? Obama believes it's giving tax breaks to companies that keep their jobs in the US. I say that's a good start.

Anyone have any other good ideas to keep jobs here?

One problem with "no jobs" is that everyone has learned to run lean and at a profit so now that things are picking up a bit why hire unnecessary help. I dont think we will ever see what we had before this mess.
If manufacturing is done outside the US ro save so they can import it back to make huge profits why not tax the hell out of them on the way back in so its more beneficial to manufacture and hire here?

 

[Big Fitz]

If manufacturing is done outside the US ro save so they can import it back to make huge profits why not tax the hell out of them on the way back in so its more beneficial to manufacture and hire here?

There's the best incentive possible to force manufacturers to the US. The market is still too good, even though it's faltering.

After all, why do you think that Japanese car companies have assembly plants here? Because it's cheaper to ship parts and assemble them here in non-union plants and fight off the legacy costs in states who are appreciative of good paying jobs, and employees who will be loyal to the company, not the union. Sure they aren't paid GM wages... nobody should be. But they are well paid compared to many other jobs.

 

[Oddball]

Cut backs started with reducing OT, then to reducing shifts, cutting out weekends and finally, when there was no other option, cutting headcounts. The build up will occur in the same incremental steps. First all of the remaining employees will get more hours. Then shifts will be added and weekends will be worked then, finally, temporaries will be hired again to fill in the open spaces on the expanded shifts. At length, the best Temps will become permanent employees with benefits.

Exactly.

Bidnesses are getting greater production with a lower head count. And most of them are holding their cards on new hires, until the silly medical Marxism and cap-n-crush-productivity bills die and go away.

 

[Oddball]

If manufacturing is done outside the US so save so they can import it back to make huge profits why not tax the hell out of them on the way back in so its more beneficial to manufacture and hire here?

Not always the case.

Mechanization means that Americans produce more with less labor than ever.

 

[Big Fitz]

Capital point Dude.

As our manufacturing sector jobs have shrunk in many cases, the industry productivity has not. It has in fact grown thanks to robotics and all forms of automation, and work process improvement.

I am reminded of a short story about an eudamonic society where work was illegal except for a few 'lucky' individuals who got to 'assemble' what was pre-made at robotic factories. There was no need for people to work, except for a very few. The problem was, people are made for work and it was causing a problem. Of course, the solution was fantastic. I wish I could remember the name of the story or author now.

 

[Oddball]

It was the same thing with agriculture.

150 years ago, more than 1/2 the American workforce was in agriculture. Now, we feed at least 10 times more people and agriculture now only employs 3% of the total workforce.

 

[rightwinger]

Oct 09 07
Rises 120.80 to close at 14,164.53, first close above 14,100 - All time closing high
The DJIA has risen 6,878.26, or 94%, since the low point of Oct 9, 2002, 5 years ago

OK, you got all the way to 2007. Now, what happened between 2007 and 2009?

Go ahead and think it through.

Now, what happened between 2009 and today?

You really make this too easy. In January of 07 the Democrats took charge of Congress.

So what happened?

I don't know...what did happen?

Can you point out specific legislation that crashed the economy?