CDZ What facts have we about the state of the U.S. economy today?

[BULLDOG]

We are slowly, but steadily recovering from losses of 800,000 jobs per month. I'm sorry if he wasn't able to clean up the right wing mess fast enough to suit you.

You know what, Bulldog? You could have made that argument six years ago and had a point! Coming up on the 8 year mark of the Obama Presidency that claim has become laughable. Tell me what Barack Obama's been doing the last two years to grow the economy? I challenge you to even tell me who his economic advisors are right now! You know why NOBODY knows who they are without Googling them...because Obama hasn't proposed something that would grow the economy since Larry Summers left years ago. He's absolutely clueless when it comes to economics and doesn't even TRY at this point!

He doesn't waste time trying to do things he knows the right will block. He already said he had wasted too much time hoping they would cooperate. When he realized that they truly would fight everything, even if it hurt the country, he changed his tactics and got quite a lot done.

Reagan worked with Tip O'Neal...Clinton worked with Newt Gingrich...Bush worked with Nancy Pelosi...but for some reason Barry can't work with anyone from the other side?

Gee, Bulldog...maybe we should have elected that Romney guy last election...you know the GOP Governor from a heavily Democratic State that had already proven he COULD work across the aisle?

So you;re saying anybody on the right was willing to work with him? He tried. They refused.

So you're saying that when Barack Obama took office with those large majorities in the House and the Senate that he was willing to work with the GOP? Really? When did that happen? If you'll recall, he called a meeting with the GOP leadership and then lectured them that "elections have consequences...I won!" Then he let Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid do both the Obama Stimulus and ObamaCare with Republicans excluded from the process. It was totally "My way or the highway" right up until the 2010 mid-terms when the political shit hit the fan because the American electorate voted out Democrats at the highest rate in modern political history! Amazingly the guy who stated elections have consequences two years earlier did a complete about face and declared that elections DIDN'T have consequences because he had a phone and a pen and that he would be circumventing Congress and pushing his agenda with Executive Orders! If that is what you call "working" with the Opposition then you have a strange concept of how that "works"!

They were invited to participate, but refused.

 

[NCC1701]

The US has added $50 trillion to total national wealth since 2008

Hardly an economy that is suffering

How much of that "wealth" was just printed up by the Fed?

Seems very little since the value of the dollar remains strong and inflation has been very low

Never heard of quantitative easing, have ya?

Again, we are talking about $50 trillion

If that $50 trillion is made up of "funny money" it would be reflected in a devalued dollar and runaway inflation

that is not always true, the banks routed it to the stock market and bonds, and the dollar is always relative to the other currency, most of which were also tied to shaky economies. Here is one example of a currency cross rate that was not in an ugly contest with the dollar, the swiss franc. It started taking off in 2008 and only when the swiss government intervened did it stop. You can see the dollar did tank here

 

[NCC1701]

We're not collapsing...we're treading water and that's all we've done for the past eight years!

Wrong.

Barack Obama will be the first President in American history to have 8 years of economic growth below 2%...he's averaging 1.5% growth. It's the very definition of treading water. So show me why I'm "wrong"!

We are slowly, but steadily recovering from losses of 800,000 jobs per month. I'm sorry if he wasn't able to clean up the right wing mess fast enough to suit you.

You know what, Bulldog? You could have made that argument six years ago and had a point! Coming up on the 8 year mark of the Obama Presidency that claim has become laughable. Tell me what Barack Obama's been doing the last two years to grow the economy? I challenge you to even tell me who his economic advisors are right now! You know why NOBODY knows who they are without Googling them...because Obama hasn't proposed something that would grow the economy since Larry Summers left years ago. He's absolutely clueless when it comes to economics and doesn't even TRY at this point!

He doesn't waste time trying to do things he knows the right will block. He already said he had wasted too much time hoping they would cooperate. When he realized that they truly would fight everything, even if it hurt the country, he changed his tactics and got quite a lot done.

no, he simply doesn't compromise like almost all before him, cooperation to him meant agreeing with him

 

[NCC1701]

Again, we are talking about $50 trillion

If that $50 trillion is made up of "funny money" it would be reflected in a devalued dollar and runaway inflation

Or reflected in, among other things, grossly overvalued securities markets.

View attachment 87895

frothy, but it can go on like this a long long time, maybe even a new higher average, however, DO NOT buy right now. Market cap to GDP is too high

People think way too much of the president's influence on the economy. It's actually surprisingly limited.

yup, very limited except for discretionary fiscal policy

 

[CrusaderFrank]

In the meantime, we have 5.8 million jobs unfilled because people don't have the skills.

As long as Republicans teach their children education is a liberal plot, they will continue to drag down the country's economy.

Obama's been President these past 7 years, Derp

 

[NCC1701]

Are you suggesting a $15 an hour minimum wage? Because if you are then you'd best understand the ramifications of that for entry level employment. If you think unemployment is bad for young people and unskilled workers trying to enter the job market now...just wait and see how it is with a $15 and hour minimum!

You seem to be confused. If you raise taxes on the wealthy what are you doing with that money? Don't you intend to give it to the poor? Isn't that what Hillary and every other progressive promises will happen?

$15 an hour?
Sure, $15 an hour seems reasonable to me

Why? Because I used to make $2 an hour minimum wage
For a stinking $2 an hour, I could buy a brand new car after working six months, take you a year now
I could pay my college tuition after working two months in the summer, take you eight months now
For that $2 an hour, I could buy six gallons of gas, can only buy three and a half now

Minimum wage has been stagnant and buys less than half what it used to....I can support doubling it

Can you "support" the massive job losses that would engender?

Sure can

The last minimum wage increase was in 2009. Small business has seen their wealth increase from $6.2 trillion in 2008 to $11.2 trillion today

They have almost doubled their wealth, Looks like they can support doubling what they pay their workers

U.S. National Debt Clock : Real Time

You honestly think that small business owners can absorb a doubling of their labor costs, Winger? Wow...and people wonder why progressives and economics don't mix!

In post 48 I described how the nation has seen $50 trillion increase in wealth and claimed I did not want to take money from the rich and give it to the poor. I did use it as a justification that our nation can afford to pay higher wages

Small business has seen an increase of $5 trillion in its wealth. That wealth has come on the backs of its lowest paid workers who have not seen a wage increase in eight years

I don't want to hear business crying poverty when it comes to wages. They have just become comfortable with paying low wages

you have to quit throwing that $50T number around like it actually means something

 

[AnCap'n_Murica]

frothy, but it can go on like this a long long time, maybe even a new higher average, however, DO NOT buy right now. Market cap to GDP is too high.

Can go on until the next real downturn, at which point the Fed has ZERO wiggle room as the interest rate is already functionally at 0%

Then, grab your ass and your silver bars.

 

[rightwinger]

$15 an hour?
Sure, $15 an hour seems reasonable to me

Why? Because I used to make $2 an hour minimum wage
For a stinking $2 an hour, I could buy a brand new car after working six months, take you a year now
I could pay my college tuition after working two months in the summer, take you eight months now
For that $2 an hour, I could buy six gallons of gas, can only buy three and a half now

Minimum wage has been stagnant and buys less than half what it used to....I can support doubling it

Can you "support" the massive job losses that would engender?

Sure can

The last minimum wage increase was in 2009. Small business has seen their wealth increase from $6.2 trillion in 2008 to $11.2 trillion today

They have almost doubled their wealth, Looks like they can support doubling what they pay their workers

U.S. National Debt Clock : Real Time

You honestly think that small business owners can absorb a doubling of their labor costs, Winger? Wow...and people wonder why progressives and economics don't mix!

In post 48 I described how the nation has seen $50 trillion increase in wealth and claimed I did not want to take money from the rich and give it to the poor. I did use it as a justification that our nation can afford to pay higher wages

Small business has seen an increase of $5 trillion in its wealth. That wealth has come on the backs of its lowest paid workers who have not seen a wage increase in eight years

I don't want to hear business crying poverty when it comes to wages. They have just become comfortable with paying low wages

you have to quit throwing that $50T number around like it actually means something

Of course it does. It reflects real estate, inventory, available capital

I'd rather have $125 trillion than $75 trillion

 

[AnCap'n_Murica]

Of course it does. It reflects real estate, inventory, available capital

I'd rather have $125 trillion than $75 trillion

Do you know what banks get to count as "assets"?

 

[Pilate]

Arent total assets about as important as gross income since they don't necessarily represent the actual wealth of an entity?

 

[AnCap'n_Murica]

Arent total assets about as important as gross income since they don't necessarily represent the actual wealth of an entity?

Even sketchier.

"Assets" include al the outstanding loans held by the bank, as though they will faithfully be paid back.

 

[NCC1701]

Can you "support" the massive job losses that would engender?

Sure can

The last minimum wage increase was in 2009. Small business has seen their wealth increase from $6.2 trillion in 2008 to $11.2 trillion today

They have almost doubled their wealth, Looks like they can support doubling what they pay their workers

U.S. National Debt Clock : Real Time

You honestly think that small business owners can absorb a doubling of their labor costs, Winger? Wow...and people wonder why progressives and economics don't mix!

In post 48 I described how the nation has seen $50 trillion increase in wealth and claimed I did not want to take money from the rich and give it to the poor. I did use it as a justification that our nation can afford to pay higher wages

Small business has seen an increase of $5 trillion in its wealth. That wealth has come on the backs of its lowest paid workers who have not seen a wage increase in eight years

I don't want to hear business crying poverty when it comes to wages. They have just become comfortable with paying low wages

you have to quit throwing that $50T number around like it actually means something

Of course it does. It reflects real estate, inventory, available capital

I'd rather have $125 trillion than $75 trillion

I already explained to you why that is meaningless, did you not grasp it?

 

[AnCap'n_Murica]

I already explained to you why that is meaningless, did you not grasp it?

File it under "97% of scientists agree.!

 

[NCC1701]

I already explained to you why that is meaningless, did you not grasp it?

File it under "97% of scientists agree.!

The M2 money supply right now is about $13T, that alone means it would be impossible to talk about $50T in assets for 'redistribution'

 

[AnCap'n_Murica]

I already explained to you why that is meaningless, did you not grasp it?

File it under "97% of scientists agree.!

The M2 money supply right now is about $13T, that alone means it would be impossible to talk about $50T in assets for 'redistribution'

Ever heard of illustrating the absurd by being absurd?

 

[NCC1701]

Arent total assets about as important as gross income since they don't necessarily represent the actual wealth of an entity?

wealth and value can be extremely ephemeral as they are psychological concepts, it gets paradoxical very quickly and it is not a science

 

[NCC1701]

I already explained to you why that is meaningless, did you not grasp it?

File it under "97% of scientists agree.!

The M2 money supply right now is about $13T, that alone means it would be impossible to talk about $50T in assets for 'redistribution'

Ever heard of illustrating the absurd by being absurd?

yeah, I was trying for that, the idea of liquidating $50T is nonsensical

 

[Oldstyle]

How much of that wealth ended up in the hands of the Middle Class or the poor? It's amazing how you liberals can rant about income inequality but then turn around and brag about how much wealth you've "added" to the richest in America as if THAT is indicative of a strong economy! The majority of that 50 trillion is made up of stock market gains that the average American has not gotten a piece of!

Distribution of wealth is a related issue

We have created $50 trillion in additional wealth in the last eight years. As you so eloquently stated, very little has ended up in the hands of poor and working Americans

Is that a justification to take money away from the wealthy and give to the poor? Of course not

But it is a justification to insist that the wealthy can afford to pay higher tax rates, the "job creators" can afford to pay higher wages, we can afford to pay a higher minimum wage

Are you suggesting a $15 an hour minimum wage? Because if you are then you'd best understand the ramifications of that for entry level employment. If you think unemployment is bad for young people and unskilled workers trying to enter the job market now...just wait and see how it is with a $15 and hour minimum!

You seem to be confused. If you raise taxes on the wealthy what are you doing with that money? Don't you intend to give it to the poor? Isn't that what Hillary and every other progressive promises will happen?

You should make up your mind. You claim Mexican immigrants are causing our wages to fall, and then claim wages are high enough. Which is it?

When did I claim that Mexican immigrants have caused our wages to fall?

When a free market sets wages at a certain level then that's what that job is worth. It has nothing to do with me...nor should it have anything to do with the government.

Mexicans causing a lowering of wages is a common right wing claim. Are you sure you want to deviate from the script?

Since I don't work from a "script"....I'm good, but thanks anyways!
Did you bring up Mexicans because you couldn't answer my other questions? Trying to bring racism into this discussion? That would be the "progressive script" this year...right?

 

[Oldstyle]

You know what, Bulldog? You could have made that argument six years ago and had a point! Coming up on the 8 year mark of the Obama Presidency that claim has become laughable. Tell me what Barack Obama's been doing the last two years to grow the economy? I challenge you to even tell me who his economic advisors are right now! You know why NOBODY knows who they are without Googling them...because Obama hasn't proposed something that would grow the economy since Larry Summers left years ago. He's absolutely clueless when it comes to economics and doesn't even TRY at this point!

He doesn't waste time trying to do things he knows the right will block. He already said he had wasted too much time hoping they would cooperate. When he realized that they truly would fight everything, even if it hurt the country, he changed his tactics and got quite a lot done.

Reagan worked with Tip O'Neal...Clinton worked with Newt Gingrich...Bush worked with Nancy Pelosi...but for some reason Barry can't work with anyone from the other side?

Gee, Bulldog...maybe we should have elected that Romney guy last election...you know the GOP Governor from a heavily Democratic State that had already proven he COULD work across the aisle?

So you;re saying anybody on the right was willing to work with him? He tried. They refused.

So you're saying that when Barack Obama took office with those large majorities in the House and the Senate that he was willing to work with the GOP? Really? When did that happen? If you'll recall, he called a meeting with the GOP leadership and then lectured them that "elections have consequences...I won!" Then he let Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid do both the Obama Stimulus and ObamaCare with Republicans excluded from the process. It was totally "My way or the highway" right up until the 2010 mid-terms when the political shit hit the fan because the American electorate voted out Democrats at the highest rate in modern political history! Amazingly the guy who stated elections have consequences two years earlier did a complete about face and declared that elections DIDN'T have consequences because he had a phone and a pen and that he would be circumventing Congress and pushing his agenda with Executive Orders! If that is what you call "working" with the Opposition then you have a strange concept of how that "works"!

They were invited to participate, but refused.

When you tell someone that they can agree to what you want...or have no part in the process...that isn't "working" with someone...that's dictating to them!

Barack Obama poisoned the well in 2009 because he basically told the GOP that he had the power...was going to do whatever he wanted...and if they didn't like it they could go pound sand!

Then the 2010 mid-terms happened...

 

[rightwinger]

Of course it does. It reflects real estate, inventory, available capital

I'd rather have $125 trillion than $75 trillion

Do you know what banks get to count as "assets"?

Not the banks but the Federal Reserve

U.S. National Debt Clock : Real Time

I'll take $125 trillion