Total Posts:27|Showing Posts:1-27
Jump to topic:

Worldwide Recession 2013?

Wallstreetatheist
Posts: 7,132
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/19/2012 5:26:15 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
Mark Faber points toward a no-growth Europe, a slowing China, and a slowing US as signs that a worldwide recession is imminent.

Thoughts?
DRUG HARM: http://imgur.com...
Primal Diet. Lifting. Reading. Psychedelics. Cold-Approach Pickup. Music.
MouthWash
Posts: 2,607
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/19/2012 6:32:24 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
The Europeans will have a problem. China isn't going to collapse, it will become stagnant and decline slowly. The U.S. will do fine.
"Well, that gives whole new meaning to my assassination. If I was going to die anyway, perhaps I should leave the Bolsheviks' descendants some Christmas cookies instead of breaking their dishes and vodka bottles in their sleep." -Tsar Nicholas II (YYW)
lewis20
Posts: 5,093
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/19/2012 9:35:11 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/19/2012 6:32:24 AM, MouthWash wrote:
The Europeans will have a problem. China isn't going to collapse, it will become stagnant and decline slowly. The U.S. will do fine.

aren't these economies pretty interdependent on eachother? to say one or the other will be a problem but the other will be fine
"If you are a racist I will attack you with the north"- Abraham Lincoln

"Do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material" - Leviticus 19 19

"War is a racket" - Smedley Butler
Wallstreetatheist
Posts: 7,132
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/19/2012 7:09:34 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/19/2012 9:35:11 AM, lewis20 wrote:
At 10/19/2012 6:32:24 AM, MouthWash wrote:
The Europeans will have a problem. China isn't going to collapse, it will become stagnant and decline slowly. The U.S. will do fine.

aren't these economies pretty interdependent on eachother? to say one or the other will be a problem but the other will be fine

American consumers are heavily reliant on cheap Chinese labor. As wages rise, production will either have to be done somewhere else or labor costs will be higher -> US prices will be higher. If a Chinese economy stagnates, it means the US economy feels it strongly.
DRUG HARM: http://imgur.com...
Primal Diet. Lifting. Reading. Psychedelics. Cold-Approach Pickup. Music.
keepinitreal
Posts: 58
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/19/2012 9:12:11 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
I would agree with that. Probably in the last quarter of 2013 though. A financial system crisis is ready to explore. Asset prices were suppose to fall in 2007-2008 due to the inefficiencies of companies and financial institution. However, the federal government prevented asset prices from declining to the level it should decline. Instead, the federal government rewarded the inefficiencies and prevented the market from correcting it. There are still inefficient variables need to be corrected and to be honest, I wouldn't surprise if another recession hits the USA in 2013. Probably more severe than what we experienced in 2007-2008.

So, if something is suppose to go in direction and you put opposing force on it, that doesn't mean that it ended. It's just being restrained until it goes in that direction.
Contra
Posts: 3,941
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/19/2012 9:32:09 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/19/2012 7:09:34 PM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
At 10/19/2012 9:35:11 AM, lewis20 wrote:
At 10/19/2012 6:32:24 AM, MouthWash wrote:
The Europeans will have a problem. China isn't going to collapse, it will become stagnant and decline slowly. The U.S. will do fine.

aren't these economies pretty interdependent on eachother? to say one or the other will be a problem but the other will be fine

American consumers are heavily reliant on cheap Chinese labor. As wages rise, production will either have to be done somewhere else or labor costs will be higher -> US prices will be higher. If a Chinese economy stagnates, it means the US economy feels it strongly.

It is likely that labor would be shifted to low income countries like Bangladesh or Vietnam, so I don't believe that labor prices will go astronomically high. And higher labor prices for China means that they have higher incomes and will buy more of our exports.
"The solution [for Republicans] is to admit that Bush was a bad president, stop this racist homophobic stuff, stop trying to give most of the tax cuts to the rich, propose a real alternative to Obamacare that actually works, and propose smart free market solutions to our economic problems." - Distraff

"Americans are better off in a dynamic, free-enterprise-based economy that fosters economic growth, opportunity and upward mobility." - Paul Ryan
twocupcakes
Posts: 2,748
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/20/2012 10:37:58 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
I don't think a recession will happen in the USA. But, from what I have heard, the economy will probably improve very slowly if at all over the next little while.
Wallstreetatheist
Posts: 7,132
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/20/2012 8:49:16 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/19/2012 9:32:09 PM, Contra wrote:
It is likely that labor would be shifted to low income countries like Bangladesh or Vietnam, so I don't believe that labor prices will go astronomically high. And higher labor prices for China means that they have higher incomes and will buy more of our exports.

Probably, but it's important to note that the move to those countries is expensive. Factories cost millions of USD to build, train workers, and establish logistics networks. Vietnam and Bangladesh would also increase transportation costs.
DRUG HARM: http://imgur.com...
Primal Diet. Lifting. Reading. Psychedelics. Cold-Approach Pickup. Music.
Mirza
Posts: 16,992
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/20/2012 8:58:26 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Europe is in a mess. Things don't look bright for most of the countries here, and unless the economic policies move toward the right, I don't see success coming anytime soon. Nonetheless. I look forward to moving out of Europe, into America. Only downturn is Obama. If he continues his horrid presidency, I'd give it a second thought, despite loving America more than almost everyone I know of.
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/20/2012 9:06:14 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/20/2012 8:58:26 PM, Mirza wrote:
Europe is in a mess. Things don't look bright for most of the countries here, and unless the economic policies move toward the right, I don't see success coming anytime soon. Nonetheless. I look forward to moving out of Europe, into America. Only downturn is Obama. If he continues his horrid presidency, I'd give it a second thought, despite loving America more than almost everyone I know of.

America is on its way towards Europe as well. If your looking for nations that aren't interested in social-democracies with strong standards of livings then the asian miracles: japan, hong kong, singapore, and south korea are your best bets. Of course, they tend not to take many immigrants, hence the whole good non-leftist policy initiatives.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
Mirza
Posts: 16,992
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/20/2012 9:13:02 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/20/2012 9:06:14 PM, darkkermit wrote:
America is on its way towards Europe as well. If your looking for nations that aren't interested in social-democracies with strong standards of livings then the asian miracles: japan, hong kong, singapore, and south korea are your best bets. Of course, they tend not to take many immigrants, hence the whole good non-leftist policy initiatives.
I'm not interested in getting anywhere for the sake of earning more money. I have a desire to get to America for many reasons, and what I want is to NOT be government dependent. I'd start working from day one, and earn my success with my own hands from that day. Why I am turned down by Obama is because he would rather put me on the food stamp list rather than enabling me a job and paycheck. His policies are catastrophic. I need a job in order to be there, and politicians like him make it far less attractive. Shame.
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/20/2012 9:17:02 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/20/2012 9:13:02 PM, Mirza wrote:
At 10/20/2012 9:06:14 PM, darkkermit wrote:
America is on its way towards Europe as well. If your looking for nations that aren't interested in social-democracies with strong standards of livings then the asian miracles: japan, hong kong, singapore, and south korea are your best bets. Of course, they tend not to take many immigrants, hence the whole good non-leftist policy initiatives.
I'm not interested in getting anywhere for the sake of earning more money. I have a desire to get to America for many reasons, and what I want is to NOT be government dependent. I'd start working from day one, and earn my success with my own hands from that day. Why I am turned down by Obama is because he would rather put me on the food stamp list rather than enabling me a job and paycheck. His policies are catastrophic. I need a job in order to be there, and politicians like him make it far less attractive. Shame.

Why would the US be better in terms of not being government dependent?
Anyways there's nothing seriously radical about Obama's policies. Its not Obama's policies but simply the direction America has been heading. Bush's policy of expanding government were just as severe as Obama's policy (in terms of the direction of expanding government).
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
Mirza
Posts: 16,992
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/20/2012 9:22:54 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/20/2012 9:17:02 PM, darkkermit wrote:
Why would the US be better in terms of not being government dependent?
Why would you ever assume the contrary? Are you seriously questioning my belief about paychecks being better than food stamps? Of course it is better not being government dependent. You contribute to the improvement of your society, you take less of what other people have worked for, you do not rely on a corrupt institution for the sake of having a full refrigerator, and I can go on forever. There is NO good reason to prefer self-earned success over government dependency, except if the government is the reason why you failed at everything in the first place, or if you're a peanut-brained social traitor who wants to enjoy longer nights because that makes you somewhat happier.

Anyways there's nothing seriously radical about Obama's policies. Its not Obama's policies but simply the direction America has been heading. Bush's policy of expanding government were just as severe as Obama's policy (in terms of the direction of expanding government).
I don't care about that. Why would I care about someone who is: (a) Not the president, (b) Will never be the president again, and (c) Held more success with the economy than the current president? I was never turned off by Bush's policies when it comes to my wish to reside in your country, despite having extremely opposing views to him in many aspects.
Mirza
Posts: 16,992
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/20/2012 9:25:09 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/20/2012 9:22:54 PM, Mirza wrote:
Why would you ever assume the contrary? Are you seriously questioning my belief about paychecks being better than food stamps? Of course it is better not being government dependent. You contribute to the improvement of your society, you take less of what other people have worked for, you do not rely on a corrupt institution for the sake of having a full refrigerator, and I can go on forever. There is NO good reason to prefer self-earned success over government dependency, except if the government is the reason why you failed at everything in the first place, or if you're a peanut-brained social traitor who wants to enjoy longer nights because that makes you somewhat happier.
May I correct a small fault Ma'am. That should state the opposite: "There is no good reason to prefer government dependency over self-earned success."
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/20/2012 9:38:21 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/20/2012 9:22:54 PM, Mirza wrote:
At 10/20/2012 9:17:02 PM, darkkermit wrote:
Why would the US be better in terms of not being government dependent?
Why would you ever assume the contrary? Are you seriously questioning my belief about paychecks being better than food stamps? Of course it is better not being government dependent. You contribute to the improvement of your society, you take less of what other people have worked for, you do not rely on a corrupt institution for the sake of having a full refrigerator, and I can go on forever. There is NO good reason to prefer self-earned success over government dependency, except if the government is the reason why you failed at everything in the first place, or if you're a peanut-brained social traitor who wants to enjoy longer nights because that makes you somewhat happier.

I'm not asking whether you believe government dependency is good or not. I'm asking why you think that you'd be less dependent on the government if you lived in the US. If you had an income, I don't see how you'd be "dependent on the government".

Anyways there's nothing seriously radical about Obama's policies. Its not Obama's policies but simply the direction America has been heading. Bush's policy of expanding government were just as severe as Obama's policy (in terms of the direction of expanding government).
I don't care about that. Why would I care about someone who is: (a) Not the president, (b) Will never be the president again, and (c) Held more success with the economy than the current president? I was never turned off by Bush's policies when it comes to my wish to reside in your country, despite having extremely opposing views to him in many aspects.

I don't see how Bush held more success with the economy then the current president. Yea, there was less unemployment under Bush during most of his term but he wasn't recovering from a huge recession.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
Mirza
Posts: 16,992
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/20/2012 9:43:37 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/20/2012 9:38:21 PM, darkkermit wrote:
I'm not asking whether you believe government dependency is good or not. I'm asking why you think that you'd be less dependent on the government if you lived in the US. If you had an income, I don't see how you'd be "dependent on the government".
I did not say that. I said that I would hope to being able to have a job in America to even begin with. I don't know the likelihood of that under the current situation, or even worse: At the point where I migrate. If the current president remains in office, I don't see a good outcome for the country, nor my own presence their. I am not government dependent, and I wish to live in America without being government dependent.

I don't see how Bush held more success with the economy then the current president. Yea, there was less unemployment under Bush during most of his term but he wasn't recovering from a huge recession.
I see. All the bad things happened just when Obama took office in the White House. Come on, get over yourself. Even if I granted that Obama was hit by a big mess caused by Bush, I think he could have marked a successful presidency by not making stupid decisions. The fact is: He made things worse, and in theory alone his policies are bouldersmashing.
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/20/2012 9:50:20 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/20/2012 9:43:37 PM, Mirza wrote:
At 10/20/2012 9:38:21 PM, darkkermit wrote:
I'm not asking whether you believe government dependency is good or not. I'm asking why you think that you'd be less dependent on the government if you lived in the US. If you had an income, I don't see how you'd be "dependent on the government".
I did not say that. I said that I would hope to being able to have a job in America to even begin with. I don't know the likelihood of that under the current situation, or even worse: At the point where I migrate. If the current president remains in office, I don't see a good outcome for the country, nor my own presence their. I am not government dependent, and I wish to live in America without being government dependent.

Even with the unemployment rate its only 7.6%, so it isn't that bad. And the unemployment rate varies based on state. Texas and many midwest states have low unemployment. Fields like computer science are also much less likely to have unemployment.

But Denmark has lower unemployment than the US, so I don't see what your complaint is.

I don't see how Bush held more success with the economy then the current president. Yea, there was less unemployment under Bush during most of his term but he wasn't recovering from a huge recession.
I see. All the bad things happened just when Obama took office in the White House. Come on, get over yourself. Even if I granted that Obama was hit by a big mess caused by Bush, I think he could have marked a successful presidency by not making stupid decisions. The fact is: He made things worse, and in theory alone his policies are bouldersmashing.

I didn't say that Bush caused the mess. I'm more or less saying that a president doesn't really have that much of an effect of an economy. There has been job growth under Obama.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
Mirza
Posts: 16,992
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/20/2012 10:01:40 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/20/2012 9:50:20 PM, darkkermit wrote:
Even with the unemployment rate its only 7.6%, so it isn't that bad. And the unemployment rate varies based on state. Texas and many midwest states have low unemployment. Fields like computer science are also much less likely to have unemployment.

But Denmark has lower unemployment than the US, so I don't see what your complaint is.
I don't see where you pull the string off of my points here. I don't claim to having a bad situation in Denmark when it comes to having material success. I simply have a lifelong desire to reside in America (very few other countries could do, too). And while the unemployment rate is not very frightening right now, they will be in the future if the current president remains in office, and his implementations will leave a huge mess for future generations to come. Denmark has a leftist government right now; It does not help the economy. We pay highest electricity bills in the world, only because the government imposes high fees and taxes. It's ridiculous, I can spend a year explaining the mess there is going on here.

My country Bosnia is catastrophic though. Unemployment at 30-40%, but people get off somehow.

I didn't say that Bush caused the mess. I'm more or less saying that a president doesn't really have that much of an effect of an economy. There has been job growth under Obama.
Yes he does. For example, small business create the vast majority of jobs. Obama is on the verge of destroying small business. The thousands of pages of regulations that get passed regularly not only threatens the existence of current businesses, but makes it extremely hard to form new businesses. As for the job growth, the .3-.5% is nothing compared to what he could have done, nor is it a high accomplishment whatsoever. And it happened in what, the last few weeks? Romney put that as a very good joke in the Alfred Smith dinner, when suggesting a new slogan for Obama: "You were better off than you were 4 weeks ago!" That's not an improvement. It's a shame. So more regulations, less small business, fewer people employed, fewer people paying taxes, ergo the economy gets worse. No doubt about any of this.
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/20/2012 10:11:42 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/20/2012 10:01:40 PM, Mirza wrote:
At 10/20/2012 9:50:20 PM, darkkermit wrote:
Even with the unemployment rate its only 7.6%, so it isn't that bad. And the unemployment rate varies based on state. Texas and many midwest states have low unemployment. Fields like computer science are also much less likely to have unemployment.

But Denmark has lower unemployment than the US, so I don't see what your complaint is.
I don't see where you pull the string off of my points here. I don't claim to having a bad situation in Denmark when it comes to having material success. I simply have a lifelong desire to reside in America (very few other countries could do, too). And while the unemployment rate is not very frightening right now, they will be in the future if the current president remains in office, and his implementations will leave a huge mess for future generations to come. Denmark has a leftist government right now; It does not help the economy. We pay highest electricity bills in the world, only because the government imposes high fees and taxes. It's ridiculous, I can spend a year explaining the mess there is going on here.

My country Bosnia is catastrophic though. Unemployment at 30-40%, but people get off somehow.

I didn't say that Bush caused the mess. I'm more or less saying that a president doesn't really have that much of an effect of an economy. There has been job growth under Obama.
Yes he does. For example, small business create the vast majority of jobs. Obama is on the verge of destroying small business. The thousands of pages of regulations that get passed regularly not only threatens the existence of current businesses, but makes it extremely hard to form new businesses. As for the job growth, the .3-.5% is nothing compared to what he could have done, nor is it a high accomplishment whatsoever. And it happened in what, the last few weeks? Romney put that as a very good joke in the Alfred Smith dinner, when suggesting a new slogan for Obama: "You were better off than you were 4 weeks ago!" That's not an improvement. It's a shame. So more regulations, less small business, fewer people employed, fewer people paying taxes, ergo the economy gets worse. No doubt about any of this.

In terms of job growth rate, it was slower under Bush then Obama. Bush just resided in office longer and didn't have as much as a problem. Regulations were increase under Bush as well. There was no deregulation under Bush. The regulation burden has been slowing down the US economy but it certainly hasn't caused the recession and it has been a trend in the United States.

http://1.bp.blogspot.com...
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
Mirza
Posts: 16,992
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/20/2012 10:43:55 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/20/2012 10:11:42 PM, darkkermit wrote:
In terms of job growth rate, it was slower under Bush then Obama.
Under Bush's presidency the unemployment curve was actually curved! It went up and down, unlike during Obama's reign where it is almost completely straight. That's point number one. And point number two: The vast majority of the Bush years were far better than these during Obama, and yet you're assuming that only the last few months of his term actually brought Obama into all this mess? Wait, my destruction of your arguments has yet to come. Let's take a look at the facts: http://www.indexmundi.com...

GDP real growth rate during the first four years of Bush's presidency

2001: 0.3%
2002: 2.45%
2003: 3.1%
2004: 4.4%

All of those being positive. How about Obama?

2009: (-)2.6%
2010: 2.8%
2011: 1.7%

Not significant growth expected at the end of 2012. This is a horrible failure on Obama's part. You never seem to mention the fact that Bush also inherited a recession, yet the average economic growth was far higher during his term over seven years, even the first four years where he was forced to enter two wars and was confronted by extremely difficult decision-making after a mighty terrorist blow on US soil. Obama is so incompetent that he is shaken by the mere fact of having to campaign! That's why he spent most of his time campaigning in the last few months than solving America's problems. Is that a mark of success? No.

Moreover, the spending under Bush was far lower. According to THR, the average during his seven years the deficit went on to being "$476 billion, while Obama averaged $1,588 billion." http://heathenrepublican.blogspot.dk... In addition to this, look at the deficit to GDP ratio under Bush and Obama.

Bush average: 2.7
Obama average: 8.9

Taken from: http://www.forbes.com... Is that not enough for a detailed explanation? How about pure numbers in money? "According to the White House's Office of Management and Budget, during his eight fiscal years, Bush ran up a total of $3.283 trillion in deficit spending (p. 22). In his first two fiscal years, Obama will run up a total of $2.826 trillion in deficit spending ($1.294 trillion in 2010, an estimated $1.267 trillion in 2011 (p. 23), and the $265 billion in "stimulus" money that was spent in 2009). Thus, Bush ran up an average of $410 billion in deficit spending per year, while Obama is running up an average of $1.413 trillion in deficit spending per year " or $1.003 trillion a year more than Bush." www.npr.org/2011/01/25/133211508/the-weekly-standard-obama-vs-bush-on-debt

What more to convince you? Do the homework.

Bush just resided in office longer and didn't have as much as a problem.
No, of course not. He got massages in the Oval Office, and all the decision making had nothing to do with managing a complex plan for dealing with an insanely complex terrorist attack, deciding how to lead two wars and how to manage the pressure that were put against his presidency, and so on, and so forth... None of that is a big problem compared to what Obama faces: Laziness, and the hardest question of his final term: How to effectively beat Romney in the campaign?

Regulations were increase under Bush as well. There was no deregulation under Bush. The regulation burden has been slowing down the US economy but it certainly hasn't caused the recession and it has been a trend in the United States.

http://1.bp.blogspot.com...
So Obama beats Bush in that area, too! Great record. What's more? Let's have a look at a new graph: http://blog.heritage.org... There's something known as major regulations, and this is what you need to look at. From the same article, "This week"s chart tests Obama"s claim by looking at the number of major regulations imposed by each administration. Major regulations, as defined by the government, are regulations that cost up to $100 million or more each year. In his first three years of presidency, President George W. Bush imposed 28 major regulations at a cost of $8.1 billion. Obama imposed 106 major regulations at a cost of $46 billion. 'This is almost four times the number"and more than five times the cost"of the major regulations issued by George W. Bush during his first three years,' according to the report. Gattuso and Katz"s report, Red Tape Rising, documents how the Obama administration has greatly increased government regulations."

In addition: "More regulations are looming. Obamacare is imposing rules faster than the regulators can write them." If Romney is on pair with Bush with his economic policies, and I think he'll be better, then he will be a far more successful president, and make America far more attractive for people who wish to find success there. Period.
slo1
Posts: 4,330
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/23/2012 11:49:41 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
It is rather funny how the Democrats were crying "largest deficit ever" when GW Bush had deficits around 1/2 trillion (Of course when measured by % of GDP they were not largest ever). However, once Obama doubled and has maintained doubling GWB's deficit amounts they don't say a peep.

Although to be fair Bush could have probably ran no deficit if he didn't take on wars with no return on investment. The entire Iraq fiasco was ridiculousness. On the other hand GDP during Bush's was largely ran up due to real-estate bubble. What good is creating a wave crest when you know you have to eventually come to the wave trough?

Point in case, you are delusional if you think repbulicans are any better than the democrats. They are all involved with "taxivisim" and using tax code and spending for their pet projects rather than focused on achieving return for the american people by mostly getting out of the way.
Mirza
Posts: 16,992
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/23/2012 12:04:40 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/23/2012 11:49:41 AM, slo1 wrote:
It is rather funny how the Democrats were crying "largest deficit ever" when GW Bush had deficits around 1/2 trillion (Of course when measured by % of GDP they were not largest ever). However, once Obama doubled and has maintained doubling GWB's deficit amounts they don't say a peep.

Although to be fair Bush could have probably ran no deficit if he didn't take on wars with no return on investment. The entire Iraq fiasco was ridiculousness. On the other hand GDP during Bush's was largely ran up due to real-estate bubble. What good is creating a wave crest when you know you have to eventually come to the wave trough?

Point in case, you are delusional if you think repbulicans are any better than the democrats. They are all involved with "taxivisim" and using tax code and spending for their pet projects rather than focused on achieving return for the american people by mostly getting out of the way.
You're a genius. Tell me Ma'am, what would you have done if you were Bush? Ignore all the hardcore proof some of the best intelligence agencies in the world gave you regarding development of WMD's by a maniac?
slo1
Posts: 4,330
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/23/2012 2:41:13 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/23/2012 12:04:40 PM, Mirza wrote:
At 10/23/2012 11:49:41 AM, slo1 wrote:
It is rather funny how the Democrats were crying "largest deficit ever" when GW Bush had deficits around 1/2 trillion (Of course when measured by % of GDP they were not largest ever). However, once Obama doubled and has maintained doubling GWB's deficit amounts they don't say a peep.

Although to be fair Bush could have probably ran no deficit if he didn't take on wars with no return on investment. The entire Iraq fiasco was ridiculousness. On the other hand GDP during Bush's was largely ran up due to real-estate bubble. What good is creating a wave crest when you know you have to eventually come to the wave trough?

Point in case, you are delusional if you think repbulicans are any better than the democrats. They are all involved with "taxivisim" and using tax code and spending for their pet projects rather than focused on achieving return for the american people by mostly getting out of the way.
You're a genius. Tell me Ma'am, what would you have done if you were Bush? Ignore all the hardcore proof some of the best intelligence agencies in the world gave you regarding development of WMD's by a maniac?

Still clinging to that, bra? That is sad. Poor GWB....the "best intelligence" agencies pulled the wool over his eyes. lol.

Go ahead and pretend he was the best thing since sliced bread, despite him running up the deficit when it did not need to be. Unfunded medicare drug benefit mean anything to you?
Mirza
Posts: 16,992
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/23/2012 2:47:36 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/23/2012 2:41:13 PM, slo1 wrote:
Still clinging to that, bra? That is sad. Poor GWB....the "best intelligence" agencies pulled the wool over his eyes. lol.
Yes. I cling to common sense. There's no way the vast majority of people would ever undermine the evidence presented by some of the best intelligence agencies in the world that have ever existed. You think that what we know now is what they all knew back then. It was different. They did their best. Bush made a hard decision, something he should not be ridiculed for. You, on the other hand, have the nonsensical courage to simply dismiss evidence given by various sources, who happen to be some of the best in the world. Try again Ma'am.

Go ahead and pretend he was the best thing since sliced bread, despite him running up the deficit when it did not need to be. Unfunded medicare drug benefit mean anything to you?
I didn't defend that anywhere. Take a closer look. Did I? Look again. Nope.
slo1
Posts: 4,330
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/23/2012 3:00:53 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Back to the original post. Marc Faber stated in an interview with Bloomberg that the fallacy of the west is that our monetary policy of quantitative easing does not result in money getting into the hands of the, "man on the street" and only enriches the banking system and pockets of "well to do" people.

He of course is right, in that trickle down does not work, especially in instances of loose monetary policy. That is really the main driver of his proposition of a 20% drop in equity prices in the US market. He has interestingly bought equities in the distressed countries in Europe, such as Spain and Portugal. He is a strong advocate of real estate and farm land.

My personal thoughts is that we are do for a correction, but I don't see a global recession. The driver that establishes decreased overall demand has not yet been established. It is pressured and not growing, but don't see the driver that pushes it lower.

We need something systemic or large like Japan finally hitting the point where they can not finance their government internally and have to sell bonds on the international market. Our bond bubble can be held on to for at least a number of years.
slo1
Posts: 4,330
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/23/2012 3:10:41 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/23/2012 2:47:36 PM, Mirza wrote:
At 10/23/2012 2:41:13 PM, slo1 wrote:
Still clinging to that, bra? That is sad. Poor GWB....the "best intelligence" agencies pulled the wool over his eyes. lol.
Yes. I cling to common sense. There's no way the vast majority of people would ever undermine the evidence presented by some of the best intelligence agencies in the world that have ever existed. You think that what we know now is what they all knew back then. It was different. They did their best. Bush made a hard decision, something he should not be ridiculed for. You, on the other hand, have the nonsensical courage to simply dismiss evidence given by various sources, who happen to be some of the best in the world. Try again Ma'am.

I'll commend you, you are not a giver-upper, even in the face of supporting a loosing proposition. Let me ask you this? Do you think that when a President considers policy or action which sets a precedence, such as the Iraqi occupation with no viable information that wmd were imminently going to be used on us or an alley, should take extra ordinary effort to make sure he has the facts right?

Heck, Obama's "Shoot first and aim second", comment is very relevant to the process Bush used when planning the Iraqi occupation. The only thing that stopped it from doing it sooner was that pesky Osama Bin Ladin and Taliban. too funny.

Go ahead and pretend he was the best thing since sliced bread, despite him running up the deficit when it did not need to be. Unfunded medicare drug benefit mean anything to you?
I didn't defend that anywhere. Take a closer look. Did I? Look again. Nope.

You are using Bush as the yardstick against Obama. It makes you look like you love the guy. Trust me, he is not good enough to be the yard stick.