How is the US Economy Doing REALLY?

[firefox]

URL: http://www.freemarketnews.com/Analysis/96/7458/eye.asp?wid=96&nid=7458


"GROWTH" IS IN THE EYE OF THE BEHOLDER

Monday, May 07, 2007

It may come as a shock to many of you, but I too believe that we are experiencing a "Goldilocks" economy. However, unlike most on Wall Street I do not define this as economic growth that is neither too hot nor too cold. I believe the analogy is apt simply because U.S. economic growth is a fairy tale! When such gains are measured against the gains in the price of just about anything people buy, or in just about any foreign currency, it's a whole different story. For example; measured in euros, U.S. GDP has declined from 11.5 trillion in January of 2000 to 10 trillion today. From a European perspective, the U.S. economy has been in a seven-year recession, with GDP declining by close to 2% per annum.

Also ignored in the rhapsodizing over U.S. GDP growth is the extent to which consumption has been paid for with borrowed money. Since these debts must be repaid with interest, GDP will likely decline even more significantly in the future. Had we borrowed primarily to finance capital investment this would not be the case, as the loans could have been repaid out of increased income. However, as the vast majority of borrowing is simply used to purchase consumer goods, the income needed to repay the debts will have to come at the expense of reduced future consumption.

This week we received new data that illustrates how big of a financial hole U.S. consumers are digging. Despite disappointing sales from major retailers such as Target and Circuit City, first-quarter profits at MasterCard surged 70% to a record $214.9 million following a 19% jump in transactions. I see two possible explanations for this apparent paradox. The first is that despite buying fewer items, consumers were forced to borrow to pay for things that until recently they could afford to pay for in cash. A second possibility is that due to disappearing home equity and tighter lending standards, fewer home owners were able to tap into home equity and were thus forced to use credit cards instead. Since credit card debt carries higher interest rates and is non-tax deductible, it is far more expensive to finance then mortgage debt. Under either possibility, future consumption will suffer as an even greater share of personal income is devoted to making interest and principal payments on items consumed in the past.

Compounding the problem is the fact that job growth is stalling. April's 88,000 gain in non-farm payrolls is the most anemic in over two years. As falling real estate prices, rising mortgage payments, and tighter lending standards knock the legs out from under American consumers, look for even worse jobs reports in the months ahead. If Americans are struggling to make ends meet now, imagine how much harder it will be without paychecks!

While Americans continue to sacrifice their futures to indulge their present, the rest of the world sacrifices today to build a brighter tomorrow. As a result, the American economy will become increasingly less significant in global affairs. In January of 2000, the U.S. accounted for a staggering 31% of global GDP. While that percentage is still an impressive 28% today, it will likely fall to 20% over the next several years. This will certainly be true if Asian currencies, particularly the yuan, are allowed to rise to more realistic levels. Once the bottom really drops out of the dollar, I expect U.S. GDP to fall below 10% of global GDP. By then the world will surely have realized that the U.S. economy has not been the locomotive of global growth, but rather the caboose. If the actual productive economies decide to decouple the deadweight, the train would actually move much faster...

Is the new Dow high of 13,300 really so amazing if this figure largely represents a devalued dollar and subsequently lower domestic productivity? Part of my solution involves owning some gold and silver to diversify my holdings and maintain buying power.

[potter]

This mornings paper reported that consumer borrowing increased last month despite high gas prices, inflation, and the mortgage issue. They were framing it as folks were increasing their borrowing because have a strong economy.

Funny...I see people increasing their borrowing because they are having difficulty making ends meet because of high gas prices, inflation, and the cut off of the "home equity" revolving credit.

Both may be true...but me thinks the latter is more true.

[Mayberry]

Funny...I see people increasing their borrowing because they are having difficulty making ends meet because of high gas prices, inflation, and the cut off of the "home equity" revolving credit.
I would agree with that. Toys are the first thing to be neglected or disposed of in rough times. Boat repair is my sideline, and there is little work to be had, indicating that people are scaling back their spending. This cycle is usually concurrent with high gas prices. It cost me $47 to fill up my Jeep last week. That was for just under 17 gallons. My Tahoe will cost about $60 to fill from 1/4 tank. 5 years ago when I bought the Tahoe, it only cost about $35 to fill up. So that extra $25 must be deducted from somewhere else, since my pay hasn't risen much in the last 5 years in comparison to the amount my monthly bills have risen. So spending for recreational activities is the first thing to go. I sold my offshore boat because I could no longer afford to run it at $3 a gallon. I was forced to "downsize" to a much smaller boat. My neighbors with larger boats don't go out much anymore, because the cost is too high. Unused boats don't get torn up, my business suffers. The old "viscious circle". It amazes me that more businesses aren't feeling the crunch. At least not yet. I cringe to think of $4 a gallon. :(

[Pookie]

Back to the question:
Not good. Pay isn't going up, but gas is. Makes it all the more expensive to get to work...and for what if pay doesn't go up?
That's my view.
Purrs,

[potter]

Funny...I see people increasing their borrowing because they are having difficulty making ends meet because of high gas prices, inflation, and the cut off of the "home equity" revolving credit.
I would agree with that. Toys are the first thing to be neglected or disposed of in rough times. Boat repair is my sideline, and there is little work to be had, indicating that people are scaling back their spending. This cycle is usually concurrent with high gas prices. It cost me $47 to fill up my Jeep last week. That was for just under 17 gallons. My Tahoe will cost about $60 to fill from 1/4 tank. 5 years ago when I bought the Tahoe, it only cost about $35 to fill up. So that extra $25 must be deducted from somewhere else, since my pay hasn't risen much in the last 5 years in comparison to the amount my monthly bills have risen. So spending for recreational activities is the first thing to go. I sold my offshore boat because I could no longer afford to run it at $3 a gallon. I was forced to "downsize" to a much smaller boat. My neighbors with larger boats don't go out much anymore, because the cost is too high. Unused boats don't get torn up, my business suffers. The old "viscious circle". It amazes me that more businesses aren't feeling the crunch. At least not yet. I cringe to think of $4 a gallon. :(


I'm surprised that the boat business would suffere in a depressed cycle. Boats seem to be such a large luxury purchase I would think if you could afford one you wouldn't have to worry much about tight times. Ah well...

I have a Tahoe also which I bought in 2000 when it cost 30 bucks to fill. Yesterday it cost $75 to fill. But the beast is paid for and is indeed an all around good vehicle so I continue to hang onto it.

I am re-thinking my vacation this year though...maybe not Colorado...maybe southern Missouri instead....or maybe a local Kansas lake....

[sbannon]

This mornings paper reported that consumer borrowing increased last month despite high gas prices, inflation, and the mortgage issue. They were framing it as folks were increasing their borrowing because have a strong economy.

Funny...I see people increasing their borrowing because they are having difficulty making ends meet because of high gas prices, inflation, and the cut off of the "home equity" revolving credit.

Both may be true...but me thinks the latter is more true.

Thank you, my faith in the art of reading comprehension has been restored.

People borrow more (use credit) when they need to spend money they don't have.

To view increased borrowing (outside of the housing market) as a sign of a strong economy requires a Master's degree in Fiscal Absurdity.

[Mayberry]

Boats seem to be such a large luxury purchase I would think if you could afford one you wouldn't have to worry much about tight times. I'm talking about small bay boats, 23 feet or less, not yachts. The kind of boats the average Joe has. They're no more expensive than a new car. But the average Joe can't afford to blow $75 to go fishing or playing with the family every weekend, which is about what it would cost to run the boat for the weekend. My old offshore boat would consume about 120 gallons in a day of fishing, heading out 40 to 50 miles into the Gulf. Medium sized bay boats (18-24 feet) will burn 30 to 60 gallons for the same length trip. Even puttering around the bay for a day you'll burn 10-20 gallons. 60 bucks is a hard pill to swallow for a lot of families, but it was doable when it only cost $20 or $30. I know a lot of people who sacrifice the new cars so they could have a small boat, but now they can't run them. Pity. To me being out on the boat is the ultimate freedom.

[Leopardpm]

I'm surprised that the boat business would suffere in a depressed cycle. Boats seem to be such a large luxury purchase I would think if you could afford one you wouldn't have to worry much about tight times. Ah well...
this misconception about folks with alot of money is way to widespread: rich people are STILL people, they have budgets, they have limits, and they can't do anything they want. Even if their income is 100 times an average person, it is still a finite amount. Rich does NOT mean unlimited.

[firefox]

This is true. Rich people tend to be rich in part because they are good at maintaining a budget and reigning in spending.

[Leopardpm]

This is true. Rich people tend to be rich in part because they are good at maintaining a budget and reigning in spending.


yes, and it is surprising that folks just seem not to notice that 'poor' folks are not good at these things, and these things are CHOICES. Rich people tend to be rich because of their choices, and the same with poor folks. Equalitists want to overlook the fact that individual choice plays in one's circumstance. I am at my current level of wealth because of the choices I have made, both good and bad, and the interaction of these choices within the environment of my life.

[potter]

This is true. Rich people tend to be rich in part because they are good at maintaining a budget and reigning in spending.


yes, and it is surprising that folks just seem not to notice that 'poor' folks are not good at these things, and these things are CHOICES.Â*Â*Rich people tend to be rich because of their choices, and the same with poor folks.Â*Â*Equalitists want to overlook the fact that individual choice plays in one's circumstance.Â*Â*I am at my current level of wealth because of the choices I have made, both good and bad, and the interaction of these choices within the environment of my life.


And many people don't make the prime emphasis of their lives hording weath...to some people there are more important things to consider. For them I would say they do pretty damn well at managing their money. You intimate that because someone isn't weathy they can't manage money or they are somehow unmotivated which is highly insulting.

You are right, it's a choice, and to intimate that choosing relationships, art, or a simple lifestyle over hording gold somehow makes that person incompetent is incorrect.

[Leopardpm]

This is true. Rich people tend to be rich in part because they are good at maintaining a budget and reigning in spending.


yes, and it is surprising that folks just seem not to notice that 'poor' folks are not good at these things, and these things are CHOICES. Rich people tend to be rich because of their choices, and the same with poor folks. Equalitists want to overlook the fact that individual choice plays in one's circumstance. I am at my current level of wealth because of the choices I have made, both good and bad, and the interaction of these choices within the environment of my life.


And many people don't make the prime emphasis of their lives hording weath...to some people there are more important things to consider. For them I would say they do pretty damn well at managing their money. You intimate that because someone isn't weathy they can't manage money or they are somehow unmotivated which is highly insulting.

You are right, it's a choice, and to intimate that choosing relationships, art, or a simple lifestyle over hording gold somehow makes that person incompetent is incorrect.


actually, I am right with you, Mr. Potter! The reason why the inflection in my post was in placing 'blame' on the 'not-so-wealthy' is because most folks completely disregard the choices made and see some sort of 'problem' which needs be corrected through governmental redistribution programs (ie: stealing...er...taxing the rich and giving to the poor). All that I advocate is to leave people alone: those that desire wealth are free to earn and acquire it, and those that have other desires are free to pursue those ends as well. But if a person makes the choice to NOT earn wealth, even to the point where they might put their health at risk by not being able to provide food/shelter/medical services for themselves, then the 'consequences' should not be compensated for by forcibly extracting wealth from others!

I personally have stepped back, dramatically, my wealth gathering and have decided to spend my time instead raising children. So, I am on the 'poor' side (wealthwise), but the benefits I perceive are well worth it. Yes, I would love to buy a new car, or super-big screen TV, or even better medical insurance, but I can't afford it (due to my choices) and it's worth the trade-off.

What I call 'incompetent' is when a person makes choices that are not 'wealth gathering' yet advocates stealing wealth from those who make wealth gathering choices.... it is plain immoral - they want to eat the cake, yet make someone else make it! And only through government is such a thing accepted.

[potter]

I would like to add that one problem of those who choose not to spend their lives collecting wealth is the greed of those that do. Used to be a businessman was happy making a profit and was content building his wealth over a lifetime. Now so many people want instant wealth and they don't want to wait or work for it. This results in high prices for necessities because of greed.

Health care, energy, and food are examples of this greed. Health care is unafordable because those in the medical profession feel they need to make a million a year and work in marble palaces. Evergy costs increase because millions in profits for the oil industry are no longer sufficient, profits must now be measured in the billions. Those costs affect everything else. The person who wants to live a simple life must forever struggle to pay for basic necessities because the truly greedy who have control over necessities must have that 5th mercedes, must have that 10,000 sq foot home, must cleat 10 million a year and pay CEO 265 million a year. And to be frank, I don't know of anyone who can do even a million dollars of honest work in a year.

I think marketing plays a lot into this as well. Americans are bombarded 24/7 with buy this and buy that. Marketers create "needs" where there is no need and it's all pretty hard to resist. You don't need 95% of what those marketers sell...but people are convinced through marketing that they do need all that crap...they do need to eat and drink all those products, they do need to be glamorous and keep up with the jonses because marketing makes them feel they will be failures if they don't.

It's all a game of one group of people working their hardest to empty the pockets of the other group of people. Would be good if that "other" group of people woke up and realized they don't need all that crap in their lives and that they can live reasonably well on what they already have. But, like I said, marketing is hard to resist and we know a lot of people lack will.

[potter]

I personally have stepped back, dramatically, my wealth gathering and have decided to spend my time instead raising children.Â*Â*So, I am on the 'poor' side (wealthwise), but the benefits I perceive are well worth it.Â*Â*Yes, I would love to buy a new car, or super-big screen TV, or even better medical insurance, but I can't afford it (due to my choices) and it's worth the trade-off.



I did the same when my children were born. We went through some tight times as a result but my priorities were in the right place.

What'll bite you in the butt though is just one medical problem that wipes you out finacially. Then you'll have the conservative hords telling you how you lack motivation and you made the wrong choices in life so it's your own fault that you cannot pay those who capitalize on the misfortunes of others by screwing them for everything they own.

[Mayberry]

Marketers create "needs" where there is no need and it's all pretty hard to resist. You don't need 95% of what those marketers sell... If you are weak minded enough to be persuaded by this marketing, that is your problem, not the marketers. They're just doing their job. This results in high prices for necessities because of greed.
Yes, there are some greedy SOBs out there, but they are a small minority in the overall picture. Your average businessman just wants to earn a good living, and if he has done all the work to get into business, he deserves what he makes. CEO salaries and golden parachutes are ridiculous, but you have the option of not supporting those businesses. Companies can pay what they want to. If enough people avoid dealing with that company due to excessive pay for executives, their stock will drop as shareholders sell off due to poor performance, making changes necessary. But apparently, most people are not too upset about this, because we don't see a bunch of stocks declining because of CEO's compensation. And to be frank, I don't know of anyone who can do even a million dollars of honest work in a year.
If I start a company, and it makes me a million in profits in a year, I have earned and deserve every penny. I am the one who risked everything, who took the chance, who worked hard and made wise decisions, and I deserve the rewards. The only way I could earn a million in profits is because I provided goods or services for a fair price, and of good quality, that people were willing to pay for. Companies that overcharge for poor products that are not wanted or needed do not stay in business for long. The point is, that people are rewarded for having the courage to go out on a limb (which is what starting a business is) and doing what they do well. What's wrong with that? I did the same when my children were born And so did I. I left a $75,000 a year job for a $30,000 a year job because I didn't want to work 1000 hours of overtime every year. I wanted to have more time to spend with my family. And that was my choice to do so, as it was yours. I don't whine about rich people. They made their choice, I made mine. Then you'll have the conservative hords telling you how you lack motivation and you made the wrong choices in life so it's your own fault that you cannot pay those who capitalize on the misfortunes of others by screwing them for everything they own You can't expect everyone else to carry your load just because you want to live a certain way. It is your choice as to how you live. Take responsibility for yourself and your actions. You chose a lower paying job, as I did. But I was also responsible enough to ensure that the job provided adequate benefits to take care of my family's needs. It's not my fault, or a wealthy person's fault, if you failed to do this. Tell me this, Potter. If you are so poor, why are you wasting money on internet access? It isn't necessary to life. You must have succombed to the evil marketing types.

[Leopardpm]

I would like to add that one problem of those who choose not to spend their lives collecting wealth is the greed of those that do.
how does the 'greed' of one affect the life of another?

Used to be a businessman was happy making a profit and was content building his wealth over a lifetime. Now so many people want instant wealth and they don't want to wait or work for it. This results in high prices for necessities because of greed.
don't know where you got this view of human nature, but it hasn't changed for thousands of years: ALL humans desire to put forth the least amount of effort for the most amount of benefit. People always are susceptible to snake oil salesmen selling the fountain of youth, or something for nothing. You and I do and everyone does it everyday we walk into a grocery store: we want the best bargains, the cheapest prices, the most value or 'bang' for our buck... same as a businessman when he is trying to sell. Despite your belief that prices can be set arbitrarily on the market at whatever level the businessmen desire, the reality is that prices are really determined by both consumers and producers, equally.

BTW, I wouldn't use the term 'greed' to label folks - it is arbitrary and really means nothing... your definition of greed is different from everyone elses and no definition is correct or incorrect.

Health care, energy, and food are examples of this greed.
in a way, you are absolutely right - but not for the reasons you think. The actual reasons the prices in these fields have risen is due to government intervention in the market, restricting supply (at the behest of 'greedy' business folks), which cause prices to rise. Also, there is a direct tie to the continual rise in inflation which is due to the 'greed' of politicians who pander to special interest groups in their spending beyond budget and borrowing the rest.

Health care is unafordable because those in the medical profession feel they need to make a million a year and work in marble palaces.everyone wants to live in a nicer house, take longer vacations, eat better food, receive better medical care... these traits are human and not restricted to a particular group (ie: the rich, the doctors, the lawyers, the plumbers, the poor, etc)


Evergy costs increase because millions in profits for the oil industry are no longer sufficient, profits must now be measured in the billions.
The absolute amount of profit doesn't mean a thing unless put into context of total outlays, risk, and sales. The profits of a lemonade stand which sells $100 of lemonade and has $50 of expenses (50% profit) is much better than the profits of a business which sells $10 billion in oil which costs them $9 billion to bring to market (10% profit) - so it is the size of the business which determines the size of the profits, has nothing to do with 'greed'.

Those costs affect everything else. The person who wants to live a simple life must forever struggle to pay for basic necessities because the truly greedy who have control over necessities must have that 5th mercedes, must have that 10,000 sq foot home, must cleat 10 million a year and pay CEO 265 million a year.the struggle you allude to is NOT due to another's success, it is a natural fact that we all must labor against nature to survive. We have found that through free trade and the market we are much better able to provide for ourselves and excert much less labor to do the same things (increase our productivity) - the fact that we have desires that turn this labor savings around to cater to other, new, desires is just a fact of human nature, again. We, as humans, are never satiated, never content, always seeking new and better methods of reducing labor, of entertaining ourselves. Compared to any other time in history, a human being is able to survive by exerting less labor than ever before. We probably have it down to less than an hour per day necessary, perhaps even lower. The fact that Joe is able to exert labor for 10 seconds and still survive is a GOOD thing, comparing Joe to Bob (who still exerts 5 hours per day to survive) is ridiculous and means nothing.

And to be frank, I don't know of anyone who can do even a million dollars of honest work in a year.What is honest work? I would define it as work which does not violate the rights of other folks. And almost everyone who earns $1 million/year is doing it honestly. The money doesn't come from some magic box, it is TRADED to him in exchange for something that the person (or people) who owned the $1 millions before thought to be valuable enough.

I think marketing plays a lot into this as well. Americans are bombarded 24/7 with buy this and buy that. Marketers create "needs" where there is no need and it's all pretty hard to resist.Sorry, people have free will and make choices, good choices, all the time - I refuse to believe that humans are just robots, puppets on strings of marketing. I do not buy cars that are being advertised to me, or visit restaurants, or purchase diamonds - no matter how much I am told that I might 'need' these things.


You don't need 95% of what those marketers sell
all a human 'needs' to survive is some bread, clean water, and a place to take a nap every so often - beyond this everything is a 'want'.

...but people are convinced through marketing that they do need all that crap...no. People determine that they DESIRE all that crap, that it will improve their life or perception of life in some manner... and they are not incorrect. I AM happier that I can roll down my car windows with a push of a button instead of cranking on some darned lever! I did not 'need' electric windows, but I sure think they are worth the extra money for the convenience!

they do need to eat and drink all those products, they do need to be glamorous and keep up with the jonses because marketing makes them feel they will be failures if they don't.not need, it is desire, want.

It's all a game of one group of people working their hardest to empty the pockets of the other group of people. Would be good if that "other" group of people woke up and realized they don't need all that crap in their lives and that they can live reasonably well on what they already have. But, like I said, marketing is hard to resist and we know a lot of people lack will.you make it all sound so dry, so immoral, so 'dirty' - take a look from another perspective: the ONLY way a business person will be successful is if he uncovers a desire in the market and caters to it as best he possibly can, perhaps better than anyone else. The baker does not bake bread for me out of the goodness of his heart, he does it so he can purchase things he desires - but I am better for it, and he has great incentive to make that loaf of bread as tasty as I wish and for as little money as possible. Its a wonderful world with everyone trying to 'out-please' everyone else!

[Leopardpm]

I personally have stepped back, dramatically, my wealth gathering and have decided to spend my time instead raising children. So, I am on the 'poor' side (wealthwise), but the benefits I perceive are well worth it. Yes, I would love to buy a new car, or super-big screen TV, or even better medical insurance, but I can't afford it (due to my choices) and it's worth the trade-off.

I did the same when my children were born. We went through some tight times as a result but my priorities were in the right place.
congratulations - we both think along the same lines in this regard - but just because this choice might be 'good' for us doesn't mean that another choice isn't also 'good' for another person (the one who desires to accumulate wealth).

What'll bite you in the butt though is just one medical problem that wipes you out finacially.
This is a risk I take and I will suffer the consequences of my decisions.

Then you'll have the conservative hords telling you how you lack motivationmotivation has nothing to do with it - I was motivated to spend less time working and more time with family.

and you made the wrong choices in lifewhether the choices were wrong is not inherent in the choices themselves, but in the outcome, the expected risk


so it's your own fault that you cannot pay those who capitalize on the misfortunes of others by screwing them for everything they own.
yes, it is indeed my own fault for not earning enough to provide the medical services that I might need - but I will not sit back and blame 'doctors' because their services are so highly valued (and thus expensive). I will blame government though for manipulating the market so that higher that natural prices exist for medical services. I blame government for forcing me to go pay for a $70 doctor's visit just to get a prescription for antibiotics which I already self-diagnosed and any idiot could figure out. I blame government for not letting me use the services of very capable medical practitioners just because they haven't completed the state licensure program or gone through all the hoops and expense of 'certified' medical schools. I blame the state for having to wait in a crowded room full of sick folks instead of having doctors make house calls and treating folks in the comfort of their own home like before the state got involved. You really think that high prices are caused by 'greedy' doctors? I suggest learning how prices are determined, what influences them, and what purpose and function they have in the market - here is a good starting point: Chapter 4 - Prices and Consumption (from Man, Economy, and State by Murray Rothbard) (http://www.mises.org/rothbard/mes/chap4a.asp). If you want a basic overview of economic principles, take an evening (maybe 2 hours actually) and read this book, its pretty good for getting a basic grounding in economics and how/why the world and markets work: Economics in One Lesson by Henry Hazlitt (http://www.mises.org/books/onelesson.pdf)

Really, please read that last link, it will help you tremendously and open your eyes to a far greater understanding as to this wonderful and weird world we live in.

[potter]

Marketers create "needs" where there is no need and it's all pretty hard to resist. You don't need 95% of what those marketers sell... If you are weak minded enough to be persuaded by this marketing, that is your problem, not the marketers. They're just doing their job. This results in high prices for necessities because of greed.
Yes, there are some greedy SOBs out there, but they are a small minority in the overall picture. Your average businessman just wants to earn a good living, and if he has done all the work to get into business, he deserves what he makes. CEO salaries and golden parachutes are ridiculous, but you have the option of not supporting those businesses. Companies can pay what they want to. If enough people avoid dealing with that company due to excessive pay for executives, their stock will drop as shareholders sell off due to poor performance, making changes necessary. But apparently, most people are not too upset about this, because we don't see a bunch of stocks declining because of CEO's compensation. And to be frank, I don't know of anyone who can do even a million dollars of honest work in a year.
If I start a company, and it makes me a million in profits in a year, I have earned and deserve every penny. I am the one who risked everything, who took the chance, who worked hard and made wise decisions, and I deserve the rewards. The only way I could earn a million in profits is because I provided goods or services for a fair price, and of good quality, that people were willing to pay for. Companies that overcharge for poor products that are not wanted or needed do not stay in business for long. The point is, that people are rewarded for having the courage to go out on a limb (which is what starting a business is) and doing what they do well. What's wrong with that?Â*Â*I did the same when my children were born And so did I. I left a $75,000 a year job for a $30,000 a year job because I didn't want to work 1000 hours of overtime every year. I wanted to have more time to spend with my family. And that was my choice to do so, as it was yours. I don't whine about rich people. They made their choice, I made mine. Then you'll have the conservative hords telling you how you lack motivation and you made the wrong choices in life so it's your own fault that you cannot pay those who capitalize on the misfortunes of others by screwing them for everything they own You can't expect everyone else to carry your load just because you want to live a certain way. It is your choice as to how you live. Take responsibility for yourself and your actions. You chose a lower paying job, as I did. But I was also responsible enough to ensure that the job provided adequate benefits to take care of my family's needs. It's not my fault, or a wealthy person's fault, if you failed to do this. Tell me this, Potter. If you are so poor, why are you wasting money on internet access? It isn't necessary to life. You must have succombed to the evil marketing types.



Odd that you treat my post as an attack on you as it wasn't. In fact it was really just a commentary on greedy people and how greed can effect those who would normally live comfortable lives on a modest salary.Â*Â*And if you note, I only targeted commodities of necessity...those that people really cannot do without.Â*Â*Sure, if you make a million great for you, that doesn't change the fact that I've never seen anyone worth a million dollars a year no matter what they do.

You alkso assume I'm on the dole. I'm not and never have been...unlike many many major corporations who suck up tax subsidies....

[potter]

As far as government intervention in industry, I can see where that would cause some cost increases, but would you really trust industry to do right by it's workers or by the public without oversight? You'd have unsafe working conditions, child labor, adulterated food, poisonous chemicals used etc and 80 hour work weeks...anything for a buck and anything to save a penny.

[potter]

Tell me this, Potter. If you are so poor, why are you wasting money on internet access? It isn't necessary to life. You must have succombed to the evil marketing types.



Where have I ever stated I was poor Mayberry? Where have I ever stated I was on the government dole?

I am neither poor nor on the government dole. I have never used any social service of the government and I'm in the upper middle class.

Let me ask you this, how does one "prepare" for a medical emergency that could easily cost half a million dollars? You need insurance right? What if because of some pre-exising condition no one will insure you?

I suppose I get frustrated when I see people like you who have absolutely no compassion for anyone else unless they are as intelligent as you and as motivated as you.Â*Â*You act as if everyone is exactly alike, with the same intelligence and potential. You act as if the government has no place in our lives. Well, let's scrap the government and go totally private and see how much freedom we have left.

Question...say you are driving through the desert and your car craps out and leaves you stranded for several days with no food or water. Your cell phone doesn't work. I come along just as you are on deaths door and offer you an escape.Â*Â*The only condition is that you pay me $50,000.Â*Â*I'm the only vendor in town so I can ask any price I want.Â*Â*You don't have the 50 grand so I leave you to die.Â*Â*Fair right? You should have planned better...right?

[Mayberry]

Odd that you treat my post as an attack on you as it wasn't. Maybe not, but it was an attack on my beliefs, and the beliefs of millions of other like minded people. I only targeted commodities of necessity That all depends on your definition of necessity. Electricity is not a necessity. Man survived a long time without it, and some still do. Is life harder without it? Yes, but not impossible. It is a luxury that the masses have been led to believe is a necessity. Same with gasoline. You can live without it, but it sure is nice to have. And yes, I do gripe about gas prices. It takes away from the things that I want to do. But my beef is with the government, not ExxonMobile. State and Federal government make a much higher profit off of gasoline than the oil companies do. At a 10% margin (might be a little higher, but you get the idea), Exxon is making about 28 cents per gallon, while in Texas, state and federal taxes equal 38 cents per gallon. Who's ripping off who? The government is the greediest entity of them all. You alkso assume I'm on the dole. That's the impression I got from the way you laid things out. I'm not and never have been...unlike many many major corporations who suck up tax subsidies.... That's the government's fault. The companies are just working the system because the government allows it. And if these greedy companies are rolling in ill-gotten dough, why do they need subsidies? They should be doing quite well, thank you. Put the blame squarely in the government's lap, where it belongs.

[Mayberry]

You don't have the 50 grand so I leave you to die. Fair right? You should have planned better...right?
There's a huge difference between leaving someone to die and supporting a leach. I have never used any social service of the government and I'm in the upper middle class.
So what the hell are you complaining about? If you want to give money away to help the poor, be my guest. Just don't expect it to be everyone's "responsibility", because it isn't. If you're upper middle class, you are doing quite well and your arguments are pointless. You are arguing against yourself!

[Leopardpm]

As far as government intervention in industry, I can see where that would cause some cost increases, but would you really trust industry to do right by it's workers or by the public without oversight? You'd have unsafe working conditions, child labor, adulterated food, poisonous chemicals used etc and 80 hour work weeks...anything for a buck and anything to save a penny.

I assume that your view of business without government 'oversight' is based on some sort of gut feeling because there is no historical evidence to support it - did you read this somewhere?


Let me ask you this, how does one "prepare" for a medical emergency that could easily cost half a million dollars? You need insurance right? What if because of some pre-exising condition no one will insure you?
If no one will insure you, then you can't 'prepare' through normal insurance means. You could try self-insuring or perhaps form a mutual aid society (which were quite common before government took over most of the roles, for 'free') where people can pool their risk together. No matter what, if you can't afford the proceedure and can't afford to insure yourself, then the universe has dealt a cruel blow to you. Very sad. But, it does not justify making a slave of your fellow man to subsidize you.

BTW - I also agree with you regarding corporate subsidies.... these are just as evil - if a business cannot support itself on the free market, then a sad and fiery death shall be its fate - and not one moment too soon either.

I suppose I get frustrated when I see people like you who have absolutely no compassion for anyone else unless they are as intelligent as you and as motivated as you.
Advocating for self-responsibility and an end to government theft and redistribution has nothing to do with being 'uncompassionate' - to determine true compassion, one must look towards VOLUNTARILY given gifts and help to others. I do give to various charitable sources, in addition to have directly helped out a few folks in need in my life.

Question...say you are driving through the desert and your car craps out and leaves you stranded for several days with no food or water. Your cell phone doesn't work. I come along just as you are on deaths door and offer you an escape. The only condition is that you pay me $50,000. I'm the only vendor in town so I can ask any price I want. You don't have the 50 grand so I leave you to die. Fair right? You should have planned better...right?
Moral thing to do: help if you can
Moral thing to do: if the person chooses to not help, then suffer your fate - do NOT attack them, steal from them, or otherwise force them to pay. Two wrongs do not make a right.

It is the right of the person to not help. This may not be a 'moral' or 'nice' or 'ethical' decision, but it is their decision to make. It is NOT the right of anyone else to force the person to help.

It is not right for a thief to steal from me to feed his children, or pay for his grandmothers surgery, or whatever. What he has stolen is a part of MY life, food for my children, medical expenses for my family.

[potter]

As far as government intervention in industry, I can see where that would cause some cost increases, but would you really trust industry to do right by it's workers or by the public without oversight? You'd have unsafe working conditions, child labor, adulterated food, poisonous chemicals used etc and 80 hour work weeks...anything for a buck and anything to save a penny.

I assume that your view of business without government 'oversight' is based on some sort of gut feeling because there is no historical evidence to support it - did you read this somewhere?

Why do you think the oversight was initiated to begin with? Yes, there is a historical precident in industry abuse of workers.Â*Â*The sweat shops of the early 19th century, etc.Â*Â*It is also claimed that competition will weed out the bad players in the market.Â*Â*All the corporation does is declare bankruptcy and start over again under another name. And then there are industries that are nototious for bad service who are propped up by the government and continue to do business as ususal. (the airline industry comes to mind)

TBH, I trust private business less to do the right thing than I trust the government.Â*Â*At least the government has to eventually answer to the people. industry does not. I'm not anti industry or business, I just think that unregulated they will get away with anything they can, from hiring illegals to polluting the environment. That is historical. I do agree however that government has a penchant for getting worked up and initiating regulations based on the hysterics of relatively few screamers.

Let me ask you this, how does one "prepare" for a medical emergency that could easily cost half a million dollars? You need insurance right? What if because of some pre-exising condition no one will insure you?

If no one will insure you, then you can't 'prepare' through normal insurance means.Â*Â*You could try self-insuring or perhaps form a mutual aid society (which were quite common before government took over most of the roles, for 'free') where people can pool their risk together.Â*Â*No matter what, if you can't afford the proceedure and can't afford to insure yourself, then the universe has dealt a cruel blow to you.Â*Â*Very sad.Â*Â*But, it does not justify making a slave of your fellow man to subsidize you.

I disagree, but then everyone has different levels of compassion.


BTW - I also agree with you regarding corporate subsidies.... these are just as evil - if a business cannot support itself on the free market, then a sad and fiery death shall be its fate - and not one moment too soon either.

But instead of targeting them we target the poor and unfortunate who cannot defend themselves. They have no lobby. Kinda like our foreign policy...we only attack the weak....:D

I suppose I get frustrated when I see people like you who have absolutely no compassion for anyone else unless they are as intelligent as you and as motivated as you.


Advocating for self-responsibility and an end to government theft and redistribution has nothing to do with being 'uncompassionate' - to determine true compassion, one must look towards VOLUNTARILY given gifts and help to others.Â*Â*I do give to various charitable sources, in addition to have directly helped out a few folks in need in my life.

I hold a different opinion. I see people in need and my thought is there but for the grace of God go I. I give to charity but it embarrasses me to have it acknowledged so I do it anonymously. At the same time I also know that despite all the planning in the world, it could happen to me. I wouldn't want to go begging for charity, in fact I would rather starve. I refuse to even let my neighbor lend me tools or help me at with major projects. At least with a government program I know I have a safety net that I have already contributed into and have a right to tap if I need. If I never need it I feel fortunate. Private insurance is not different. I find it unfortunate that some get a kick out of making the poor and unfortunate beg for a meal.

My major beef with the government isn't the safety net for the people, it's how it's used to prop up major industry.

Question...say you are driving through the desert and your car craps out and leaves you stranded for several days with no food or water. Your cell phone doesn't work. I come along just as you are on deaths door and offer you an escape.Â*Â*The only condition is that you pay me $50,000.Â*Â*I'm the only vendor in town so I can ask any price I want.Â*Â*You don't have the 50 grand so I leave you to die.Â*Â*Fair right? You should have planned better...right?

Moral thing to do: help if you can
Moral thing to do: if the person chooses to not help, then suffer your fate - do NOT attack them, steal from them, or otherwise force them to pay.Â*Â*Two wrongs do not make a right.

It is the right of the person to not help.Â*Â*This may not be a 'moral' or 'nice' or 'ethical' decision, but it is their decision to make.Â*Â*It is NOT the right of anyone else to force the person to help.

It is not right for a thief to steal from me to feed his children, or pay for his grandmothers surgery, or whatever.Â*Â*What he has stolen is a part of MY life, food for my children, medical expenses for my family.


However you forget that these same people also pay into the system.Â*Â*You speak of insurance and group sharing, that's exatly what the government programs are. (Yes...I know they arent' voluntary but neith is police protection or fire protection or roads)

I'm all for reducing the scope and size of government but I do not trust industry to do the right thing, so I see what we have as the best we can do until something better comes along. Look at the profiteering going on by Haliburton, blackhawk, Carlysle, etc...in Iraq. Billion being fleeced from the taxpayers. Look at the billions spent bailing out the S&L's and soon the mortgage industry.Â*Â*Free market doesn't seem to work either. We have a conundrum don't we?Â*Â*We're gonna be fleeced either way unless we just do away with government entirely. However if we do away with the govenrment, who will tend the sheep? They get fleeced either way.

[Mayberry]

At least the government has to eventually answer to the people. industry does not. Industry does have to answer to their customers and shareholders though. And those people are much more educated and informed than they were in the 19th century. Do you think someone would own stock in a company they knew was doing terrible things? Nope. They'd dump it like a hot potato because they know there will be hell to pay when the company is found out. And do you really believe the government answers to the people? I think they answer to the check-writers more than anything, Republican or Democrat. The "will of the people" seems to be completely ignored nowadays. Why do you think the oversight was initiated to begin with? Largely due to private citizen "whistleblowers", such as Upton Sinclair and his book "The Jungle". Big Brother still mostly relies on whistleblowers, even with all this government "oversight". I could name hundreds of OSHA violations at places I've worked. But I don't need more OSHA regs telling me how to work. I know what's safe and what's not, and if it isn't safe, I won't do it. And I didn't need OSHA to tell me this. It's common sense.

[potter]

At least the government has to eventually answer to the people. industry does not. Industry does have to answer to their customers and shareholders though. And those people are much more educated and informed than they were in the 19th century. Do you think someone would own stock in a company they knew was doing terrible things? Nope. They'd dump it like a hot potato because they know there will be hell to pay when the company is found out. And do you really believe the government answers to the people? I think they answer to the check-writers more than anything, Republican or Democrat. The "will of the people" seems to be completely ignored nowadays.

I can agree with that last part.

Just a thought, but many companies are privately owned and do not answer to stockholders. I know one guy who processes coffee. It's a private business. He roasts at night so no one can see the smoke so he can avoid clean air standards. His proceessing plant is filthy and no doubt his coffee is contaminated but he gets away with it and sells to unsuspecting consumers all over...low bidder because he thumbs his nose at clean air and sanitation standards everyone else follows. He avoids all oversight. Would you agree he should not have to live by the regulations everyone else does? Wouled you drink his coffee?
What if you had to live downwind of him and smell the stench?

Perhaps there could be too much regulation by OSHA, but the regulations put everyone on the same footing. I doubt my friend would be in business if he followed the rules everyone else has to follow, but then he pollutes the air and someday someone is going to get sick from his coffee...maybe many people.

Without those rules the people downwind will have to breath his stench and there isn't anything they can do about it. Should industry be able to foist it's waste upon the public with no recourse?

Without those rules he could poison someone. Aren't the rules worth preventing that death?

Why do you think the oversight was initiated to begin with? Largely due to private citizen "whistleblowers", such as Upton Sinclair and his book "The Jungle". Big Brother still mostly relies on whistleblowers, even with all this government "oversight". I could name hundreds of OSHA violations at places I've worked. But I don't need more OSHA regs telling me how to work. I know what's safe and what's not, and if it isn't safe, I won't do it. And I didn't need OSHA to tell me this. It's common sense.


I have a lot of common sense as well. But I don't know everything. I do know there are more folks out there lacking common sense than there are with common sense. It that weren't true we wouldn't have to have so many rules and regulations.

[Leopardpm]

Here is one historical perspective which talks a bit about 'The Jungle':

After winning the election in 1904, Roosevelt became even more aggressive in attempting to establish the progressive regulatory agenda, and one of his first targets was the meat packing industry. At the turn of the century, refrigeration was rare, although the interstate meat industry had developed ice-chilled containers for trains and ships to enable companies to ship dressed meats. (Before refrigeration, meat packing companies could only ship live animals, since dressed meats would quickly spoil.)

During the Spanish-American War, meat packers shipped dressed meats to Cuba for distribution to the inland troops. After the meats were unloaded at the ports, the meat packers warned army quartermasters to keep the meat on ice, or else it would spoil. As one would expect, the arrogant quartermasters refused to listen, and sent the meat wagons into the fields. And, as one would also expect, by the time the meat reached the troops, most of the time it was spoiled.

The meat companies were accused of profiteering on rotten meat and attempting to poison the troops. Roosevelt carried this resentment to the presidency and when Upton Sinclair published The Jungle in 1906, TR had his excuse to act.

Sinclair wrote his book in hopes of converting Americans to socialism, and he found a willing ally in Roosevelt. Although The Jungle was pure fiction, it resonated with the public, which was ready to believe the worst about American companies. Roosevelt, acting in the name of the public interest, ordered an investigation of the meat industry, which was delivered to him in secret later that year. However, the president refused to release the report, saying only that the contents were "devastating," and he bullied Congress into passing the Pure Food and Drug Act, which created the FDA, an agency which bedevils the country to this day.

It turned out, however, that Roosevelt had other reasons for refusing to release the report. When Sinclair visited the White House in 1906, the president remarked to him that the study contained nothing incriminating. The myth endures, unfortunately, that Roosevelt somehow "reformed" the meat industry.
from an article, Bully in the Pulpit by William Anderson which details portions of the Roosevelt presidency

History is not as simple as you put forth, Mayberry. Taking The Jungle as if it were a true representation of what conditions were like 'back in the day' and using this to further encroachment of the government into private affairs is rather irresponsible and verges on propaganda.

[Buck Laser]

Here is one historical perspective which talks a bit about 'The Jungle':
(snip)
History is not as simple as you put forth, Mayberry. Taking The Jungle as if it were a true representation of what conditions were like 'back in the day' and using this to further encroachment of the government into private affairs is rather irresponsible and verges on propaganda.

I think what you're quoting here Leopard is definitely a minority view. I don't dispute that Sinclair was a socialist. But the abuses he attacked in the meat packing industry were real. Interestingly, there are still abuses in the meat packing industry. The large employment of undocumented workers (or, for Mayberry, "illegal aliens") is the lesser abuse. The greater one is that employees there are work in conditions and at speeds that produce inordinate numbers of serious injuries. And OSHA has been just about defanged.

You are correct in that history is never a simple as we think: witness the stories that are just now emerging more than 50 years after the Korean war and the massacre at No Gun Ri. Or, if you wish, witness the revisionist historian's assessments of Abraham Lincoln: to hear some tell it, he was the worst monster in American history. No one historical analysis is ever the {b]"correct'[/b] one, forever and ever.

[Leopardpm]

I think what you're quoting here Leopard is definitely a minority view.
I don't deny this - but being in the minority does not discredit in any way the view itself.

I don't dispute that Sinclair was a socialist.me either

But the abuses he attacked in the meat packing industry were real. With very little evidence to support the claim - I will not accept 'truth' positioned to me with such scantily clad evidence, ESPECIALLY considering possible other motivations which he might have had due to his life and views.

Interestingly, there are still abuses in the meat packing industry. The large employment of undocumented workers (or, for Mayberry, "illegal aliens") is the lesser abuse.
sooo... employing people in a purely voluntary contract is some sort of abuse? I think the workers themselves would disagree with you (if not, then why would they continue to work there?)

The greater one is that employees there are work in conditions and at speeds that produce inordinate numbers of serious injuries.Every job has a varying degree of risk associated with it - sheesh, even stepping out of the house and driving to the store is very risky. But we take all these risks into consideration and each make our own determination as to what is 'too risky' (my wife will not drive because it is too risky to her) - no need for some busy-body government division to tell us what is 'too' risky and force us to pay for certain 'safety' measures as THEY determine, not ourselves. As I said before, as long as it is a voluntary contract to work, then the 'risk' is acceptable by the employee themselves.

And OSHA has been just about defanged.I wish!


You are correct in that history is never a simple as we think: witness the stories that are just now emerging more than 50 years after the Korean war and the massacre at No Gun Ri. Or, if you wish, witness the revisionist historian's assessments of Abraham Lincoln: to hear some tell it, he was the worst monster in American history. No one historical analysis is ever the {b]"correct'[/b] one, forever and ever.history is indeed a very pure source for 'truth' because we cannot and do not have enough information. So, the best we can do, is gauge by the actions of the people at the time as to what the circumstances were. And if the majority of people were satisfied enough with the meat they received from the meat packing industry then who are we to sit back and say otherwise? If the workers at the time thought that 'meat packing' was the best job they could do, even considering any safety issues or other risks, then who are we to point and say they were 'wrong'? Obviously the choices made by millions of consumers and thousands of workers individually all agreed that the choice they undertook was better than all other possibilities that existed.

[Pookie]

Hmmm. I won't argue about this, but what is real in my life is this: When I joined the Army in 1979, I had a little tiny bit of money, and there was this little company called Microsoft. I put $200 into it. I did not know about finances and all that stuff, but dang, I kept putting money into over several years and geez! Now I have a home (nothing fancy) that is paid for and three IRA's -- all because I made a smart investment. Hell, I had no idea what I was doing. I think it's all chance and being there at the right time.
We all make financial decisions. Although I am retired Army, I still work. Plus I wrote a book I hope will be published. I think we all go our own ways and do what we will, but I still say -- my pay isn't going up but gas is! Arrrrrggghhh LOL!
Purrs,

[Leopardpm]

oops, I made a mistake - I said "history is indeed a very pure source for 'truth'"... please replace 'pure' with 'poor' - totally different and opposite meaning!

[Leopardpm]

Hmmm. I won't argue about this, but what is real in my life is this: When I joined the Army in 1979, I had a little tiny bit of money, and there was this little company called Microsoft. I put $200 into it. I did not know about finances and all that stuff, but dang, I kept putting money into over several years and geez! Now I have a home (nothing fancy) that is paid for and three IRA's -- all because I made a smart investment. Hell, I had no idea what I was doing. I think it's all chance and being there at the right time.
We all make financial decisions. Although I am retired Army, I still work. Plus I wrote a book I hope will be published. I think we all go our own ways and do what we will, but I still say -- my pay isn't going up but gas is! Arrrrrggghhh LOL!
Purrs,

Congrats!

Pookie, There is no doubt that random chance cand and does play a part in everything. But that doesn't discount a few things to note in your circumstance: YOU undertook the action of putting $200 away into savings/investing - another person who did not could never have benifitted from 'chance' in the manner you did. This is also reflective in the IRA's you have - you have what is known as a low or 'lower' time preference... you save a portion of your money and therefore gather rewards from doing so.

[Mayberry]

Taking The Jungle as if it were a true representation of what conditions were like 'back in the day' and using this to further encroachment of the government into private affairs is rather irresponsible and verges on propaganda.
I think you misunderstood what I was trying to say Leopard. I used that as an example of why government intervention was NOT necessary. I guess that sorta backfired on me.:P Oh well. My point was that government is rarely proactive on anything, only knee-jerkingly reactive after someone else makes enough noise about something.

[Leopardpm]

LOL! sorry

[firefox]

It's OK LPM I got the same impression there the first time I read it too.

[Pookie]

Well, I've done the best I could. If I die tomorrow, I want my family taken care of; I need them to have something.
Purrs,