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

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

Bush came into office with the Dow at 10750. He left eight years later with the Dow at 8150.

If you were playing craps and started with $10,000 and eventually won up to $14,000 and then went on a losing streak and walked away from the table with $8000....would you call that a profitable session?
 
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

Bush came into office with the Dow at 10750. He left eight years later with the Dow at 8150.

If you were playing craps and started with $10,000 and eventually won up to $14,000 and then went on a losing streak and walked away from the table with $8000....would you call that a profitable session?

Wasn't the DOW at 14,100 + at one point?
 
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

Bush came into office with the Dow at 10750. He left eight years later with the Dow at 8150.

If you were playing craps and started with $10,000 and eventually won up to $14,000 and then went on a losing streak and walked away from the table with $8000....would you call that a profitable session?

Wasn't the DOW at 14,100 + at one point?

Exactly.....then Bush did nothing as it withered to 8150 when he left office


Last I checked, it was over 10000 since Obama took office
 
Bush came into office with the Dow at 10750. He left eight years later with the Dow at 8150.

If you were playing craps and started with $10,000 and eventually won up to $14,000 and then went on a losing streak and walked away from the table with $8000....would you call that a profitable session?

Wasn't the DOW at 14,100 + at one point?

Exactly.....then Bush did nothing as it withered to 8150 when he left office


Last I checked, it was over 10000 since Obama took office

and would have done so no matter who was president.
 
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?

If I could I'd be in Washington fixing it.
 
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

Bush came into office with the Dow at 10750. He left eight years later with the Dow at 8150.

If you were playing craps and started with $10,000 and eventually won up to $14,000 and then went on a losing streak and walked away from the table with $8000....would you call that a profitable session?

Again, and you've heard it a million times. Congress controls the purse strings. The President cannot force them to spend jack. If they don't agree it don't happen.
 
Bush came into office with the Dow at 10750. He left eight years later with the Dow at 8150.

If you were playing craps and started with $10,000 and eventually won up to $14,000 and then went on a losing streak and walked away from the table with $8000....would you call that a profitable session?

Wasn't the DOW at 14,100 + at one point?

Exactly.....then Bush did nothing as it withered to 8150 when he left office


Last I checked, it was over 10000 since Obama took office
You really think Obama is responsible for stock prices?
 
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

Bush came into office with the Dow at 10750. He left eight years later with the Dow at 8150.

If you were playing craps and started with $10,000 and eventually won up to $14,000 and then went on a losing streak and walked away from the table with $8000....would you call that a profitable session?

Again, and you've heard it a million times. Congress controls the purse strings. The President cannot force them to spend jack. If they don't agree it don't happen.

The 2007 budget was written and passed by the Republicans. Beyond that show a single piece of legislation that was not vetoed by Bush
 
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.


And they won't make those decisions because the bail out was to save the UAW, not GM.
 
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.


I don't know about the rest of the country, but in Indiana, there are more Auto workiers employed making Hondas, Suburus and Toyotas than GM Vehicles or Fords.

Anyone know how many auto workers in the USA are employed assembling foreign nameplates compared to GM's and Fords?

I do believe these are both non-union and within our borders.
 
Wasn't the DOW at 14,100 + at one point?

Exactly.....then Bush did nothing as it withered to 8150 when he left office


Last I checked, it was over 10000 since Obama took office
You really think Obama is responsible for stock prices?
I don't.

But I do know that a president's stated policies and intentions can influence investors greatly. It's an indirect form of pressure that the POTUS wields over markets in this nation.

For instance, Bush ends the executive order on no drilling. Price of oil drops the next day. Why? Because speculators start to believe he's serious about increasing supply, so they stop betting the price will go up. This causes a run that drops the price of oil back to where it would be plus inflation from when the run up started.

Can't get much clearer than that to me.
 
"Nobody should be paid GM wages"
Hmmm
Okay. Let me amend that.

Companies that pay janitors close to 25 bucks an hour deserve to go out of business. It's stupid and we shouldn't be forced to bail their sorry ass out.
 
Wasn't the DOW at 14,100 + at one point?

Exactly.....then Bush did nothing as it withered to 8150 when he left office


Last I checked, it was over 10000 since Obama took office
You really think Obama is responsible for stock prices?

In this case....yes I do

Under Bush, the Market crashed from a high or 14000 down to 8150 when he left office. The Bush market crash eventually reached a low of 6500.

The market was in a panic that the financial markets would crash and that nobody would stand behind the banks. Both Bush and Obama passed TARP packages to shore up the banks and return investor confidence.
The market turned around within two weeks of Obama passing his $800 billion stimulus package

So ...YES...he did impact the market
 
Bush came into office with the Dow at 10750. He left eight years later with the Dow at 8150.

If you were playing craps and started with $10,000 and eventually won up to $14,000 and then went on a losing streak and walked away from the table with $8000....would you call that a profitable session?

Again, and you've heard it a million times. Congress controls the purse strings. The President cannot force them to spend jack. If they don't agree it don't happen.

The 2007 budget was written and passed by the Republicans. Beyond that show a single piece of legislation that was not vetoed by Bush

Honestly in 07 I wasn't paying that much attention to congress but more to the mid east. I remember a few vetoes but that doesn't mean that nothing got done in congress, and so what the budget, This congress busted 09's budget all to hell and back.
 
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.

How many of those eaters are eating on the tax payers dime?
 
So, are you suggesting that in the areas of social and environmental policy that we all engage in a 'race to the bottm' in order for the US to become the most attractive place to do business? Wouldn't it be better to try and bring the rest of the world up in those areas rather than bring the US down to where they are?

The economic well being of the rest of the world is not our responsibility. It is that of those people's governments to raise their standard of living, or for the people to replace them till they can live a better standard of life. We have no responsibility to make it easier for them to do so on the backs of our children.

And yes, over-regulation, like the EPA's ever increasingly stringent rules and regulations with no cost/benefit analysis required on their part has killed industry in our nation. When's the last time you have heard of a new Steel Mill being built here? Why is that? As someone who's worked for an Iron Foundry before I can flat out tell you there are 3 main reasons why costs to do here are prohibitively high.

1. Pollution regulation. The EPA, with the radical environazis are intent on stopping any manufacturing like this from occuring in this nation again. The amount of lawsuits to stop nuclear power plants, coal power plants, any waste disposal dumps and everything else is insanely high in this nation because of religious zeal of the greens in their anti-human quest, and a good healthy dose of NIMBY.

2. Unions. Union costs are crippling the auto industry with legacy costs, and they're trying to force their way into every aspect of manufacturing and other foundational industries. Why deal with these assholes when you can go to China, India, Taiwan, Vietnam and get workers who will not strike or demand insane wages for essentially non-skilled labor? I'm for the basic protection of abuse by management from labor. I am NOT for them strangling every industry they get in bed with because they want to live the life of millionaires while working as janitors. See the pay scale for a GM custodian if you don't believe me.

3. Punitive taxation. P-BO and his ilk have a crazy notion that all profit is bad. Probably because they've never had to make one to survive before. They've no real world business experience, and therefore seem to have it in their silly little noggins that the University system is how all business should be. So, when they hear about Exxon profiting, they assume they must be stealing. They ignore that profit is reinvested or spread across a billion plus shares making the earnings from them a pittance if anything because they have to struggle to survive as well. On the other hand, they ignore the profit percentage of Hedge Funds which almost skim 80% off the top for their profit, instead of big oil's paltry 10%. Why would you bother to risk your business here when you can go over seas, not risk double taxation and a government who won't punish you for being successful?

These are reasons why business is fleeing this nation. If you want links, be your own research monkey. I know it's out there, I've seen it before.

Oh, horse shit.

Our own past shows that when our prosperity and productivity was at its peak was when our government spent money, regulated, and structured the economy. In fact, our highest economic growth was during the early 1940s when a wartime government virtually managed the economy, and the 1960s at the height of social welfare expansion. (1)

Reagan blamed the deficits on Congress, while 95% of the reason for them was high defense spending and the refusal to raise taxes to pay for them. In 1982 the deficit was 90 billion dollars, and by 1987 they totaled 283 billion dollars. This caused the US to borrow, the borrowing raised interest rates, the higher interest rates attracted foreign capital, causing the dollars value to rise disproportionately to its true value. As the dollar skyrocketed, imports became cheaper than products made by American labor, forcing many American businesses to relocate to third world countries in order to take advantage of more cost effective labor platforms.<And the right blamed it all on the UNIONS> Meanwhile trade imbalance became disproportionate as foreign markets could not afford American goods at inflated dollar value. (2)

Past efforts at regulatory relief?

Robert Leone contributed information about the regulatory relief effects targeted to auto industries. The “auto package” was 34 specific regulations actions designed to reduce regulatory costs for the auto industry by $1.4 billion annually. The goals were not met regarding sales or employment, but the industry profits went up due to the industries focus on reducing employment. (3)

And what are the results of regulation relief?

Lash, Gillman, and Sheridan investigated the assault on the Environmental Protection Agency by administration policy, means testing, budget cuts, and the person of EPA Administrator Ann Gorsuch Buford. A Season of Spoils; The Reagan Administration's Attack on the Environment describe the hazards that leaded gasoline posed, and connect the savings regulation reform offered to industry to the physical and neurological damage caused by lax regulation of hazardous waste. (4) This is particularly important, as the rhetoricians of the Reagan Revolution blamed the poor directly for their condition , and considered at least some of their problems inherent to the lower economic classes.

Industry, as of 1983, generates 150 million metric tons of hazardous waste per year. In March of 1981, Vice President Bush, as head of the Regulatory Task Force, “targeted for ‘regulatory relief’ the whole of the EPA’s hazardous waste control program.” One of Gorsuch’s more egregious actions was to indicate to a gas refiner that the EPA would not pursue enforcement of lead levels in gasoline, as the regulation was under review and likely to be reversed. Lead, released, as particulates from automobiles, does not degrade. Exposure to lead particulates is most intense in inner cities, and the ones most vulnerable to exposure are short people, children. One in five children living in urban poverty between 1976-1988 had levels higher than 30 micrograms per decimeter. High levels of lead in children’s blood, 30 micrograms per deciliter, cause lower IQ scores and learning disabilities by induced restlessness and inability to concentrate. (5)

Taxes:

Tax relief offered higher benefits for high-income families, and effectively raised taxes for lower income families. Cuts to benefit programs disproportionately and negatively affect those with lower and reduced incomes. The Tax policy raised buying power only modestly for the middle class, not at all for the poor, and the wealthy experienced the greatest increase.(6)

1. Chafe, William H. The Unfinished Journey : America Since World War II . 4th Edition . New York, New York: Oxford University Press, Inc. , 1986, 1991, 1995, 1999, 475.
2. Ibid, 486-487.
3. The Urban Institute Press. The Reagan Regulatory Strategy. 1st. Edited by George C. Eads and Michael Fix. Washington, DC: The Urban Institute Press, 1984, 8-9.
4.Lash, Jonathan, Katherine Gillman, and David Sheridan. A Season of Spoils; The Reagan Administration's Attack on the Environment. 1st Edition. New York, New York: Random House, 1984, xii, xiv, and 102.
5. Ibid, 27, 131-142.
6. The Urban Institute. The Reagan Experiment. 1st Edition. Edited by Isabel V. Sawhill John L. Palmer. Washington, DC: The Urban Institute Press, 1982, 21-22.
 

Forum List

Back
Top