Gloomy predictions for the economic future

bush_cheney2004 · May 31, 2011

Why not structure those tax cuts as a rebate? So that the wealthy who get the tax cuts really ARE the ones building businesses, hiring new workers, etc. Then you dont have to take wild guesses anymore...

The Bush Administration did provide tax rebate programs as "Economic Stimulus" in 2001 (as part of tax cuts) and as standalone rebates in 2008. Increased deficits on the revenue side were not caused exclusively by tax cuts just for "the rich".

Scotty · May 31, 2011

The Bush Administration did provide tax rebate programs as "Economic Stimulus" in 2001 (as part of tax cuts) and as standalone rebates in 2008. Increased deficits on the revenue side were not caused exclusively by tax cuts just for "the rich".

The fact is when you cut taxes "for all" the people who are most going to benefit are the rich. It's sure not going to benefit the poor, who don't pay federal taxes anyway.

Another fact is that Clinton had a balanced budget, and then Bush got in and ran huge deficit after huge deficit, ignored the responsibilities of the state to monitor and control the financial sector, and ran your economy into the ground.

I'm beginning to think the problem in America is there aren't any conservatives. Bush certainly wasn't one. You guys think all it means to be a conservative is to want to ban abortions and gays, have prayer in the classroom and go to sleep with your gun every night. There don't seem to be any fiscal conservatives left in your supposedly conservative Republican Party, just spendthrifts who suck up to the religious right.

bush_cheney2004 · May 31, 2011

The fact is when you cut taxes "for all" the people who are most going to benefit are the rich. It's sure not going to benefit the poor, who don't pay federal taxes anyway.

The "poor" also benefit, as do others at different marginal rates. I never got a job from a poor man/woman.

Another fact is that Clinton had a balanced budget, and then Bush got in and ran huge deficit after huge deficit, ignored the responsibilities of the state to monitor and control the financial sector, and ran your economy into the ground.

Lots of blame to go around here, but that has already been covered in previous threads. President Clinton is not without blame.

I'm beginning to think the problem in America is there aren't any conservatives. Bush certainly wasn't one. You guys think all it means to be a conservative is to want to ban abortions and gays, have prayer in the classroom and go to sleep with your gun every night. There don't seem to be any fiscal conservatives left in your supposedly conservative Republican Party, just spendthrifts who suck up to the religious right.

It's not my party, and Republicans are a much bigger tent than that. President Clinton eventually got to a balanced budget working with a Republican led House. If Guns, Gays, and God are good enough issues for Canadians, then they are good enough for Americans too.

Pliny · June 1, 2011

Lots of blame to go around here, but that has already been covered in previous threads. President Clinton is not without blame.

If I remember there was a bit of a tech bubble that burst in Y2K, that lead to a recession at the beginning of Bush's administration. But I agree, lots of blame to go around.

Michael Hardner · June 1, 2011

What we're seeing now is, in my opinion, a lot of chaos that is coming from adjustment to Globalization. The economies, as a whole, are growing but there are winners and losers. Our systems of disbursement need to invest in adjusting to the new economy, but also need to provide a competitive tax environment.

This puts a huge demand on our systems of government, which have been more static up to now when it comes to allocating funds and so on. The complaining we hear is real, but it's magnified by the fact that our democratic systems demands very loud complaints before anything is done.

Shady · June 2, 2011

What we're seeing now is, in my opinion, a lot of chaos that is coming from adjustment to Globalization. The economies, as a whole, are growing but there are winners and losers. Our systems of disbursement need to invest in adjusting to the new economy, but also need to provide a competitive tax environment.

This puts a huge demand on our systems of government, which have been more static up to now when it comes to allocating funds and so on. The complaining we hear is real, but it's magnified by the fact that our democratic systems demands very loud complaints before anything is done.

Government is the cause of much of the economic chaos we see right now. Whether it's policy pushing for home ownership for people that couldn't afford it in America, to an unsustainable public service and social safety net like in Greece, Portugal, Spain, etc.

sharkman · June 3, 2011

And now after 2 1/2 years of stimulus packages, dumping money into the system, bailouts, mortgage aid programs and crossing his fingers for luck, Obama sees a disasterous hiring stat for the month of May. Forecasts were for 150,000 new jobs(and 150,000 is a pretty small amount to begin with), but only 54,000 actual jobs were created. To add insult to injury, the Dow has lost 5% this week. So far.

After the billions spent and dumped into the system ran out, this is the result because the recovery was based on government spending/programs more than anything else.

Edited June 3, 2011 by sharkman

Pliny · June 3, 2011

What we're seeing now is, in my opinion, a lot of chaos that is coming from adjustment to Globalization.

With a jihad or two thrown in for effect.....

The ones that find it the hardest to adjust to is governments. Societies and individuals will change and adapt more readily but the governments where economies are shrinking or stagnant tend to, instead of adapt by cutting spending or downsizing which is what every company, household and individual would do as a first step, search under every nook and cranny for new revenues for the State. When companies, households and individuals see shrinking income it follows that government will experience the same because their revenues derive from the wealth generating activities of the individuals in society.

The choices for government are, add debt by borrowing on future production, such as in subsidies, bailouts and monetary stimulus packages, and/or squeeze the economy harder, such as increasing taxation,fines and fees, and/or foster activity in the private sector by cutting taxes, decreasing regulation and encouraging competition.

Introducing, or threatening to introduce, new taxes on businesses and other employer costs that are unspecified and not predictably calculable, such as things like Obamacare, or passing bills to see what's in the bills, will not create employment or economic activity. Only uncertainty and stagnation in the private sector.

The economies, as a whole, are growing but there are winners and losers. Our systems of disbursement need to invest in adjusting to the new economy, but also need to provide a competitive tax environment.

You should work for the OECD. The definition of a competitive tax environment is every country's tax level is the same - only that will make it competitive. Lower taxes will unfairly favour one country.

They write letters to Presidents and Premiers if they feel their tax rates are too low and start creating economic activity. It's so unfair to create economic activity this way.

sharkman · June 3, 2011

I can't remember the National Post Edition, but it was a few months ago. It seems that one of Margaret Thatcher's main concerns with forming a EU was that the weaker economies would eventually drag down an EU economy and euro. She was bang on.

I don't see the globalization point. We've been globalized for a almost a decade, haven't we? Bigger economies like the EU should be flourishing because of globalization. So what's causing the need for deficit spending worldwide? Simply adjusting to globalization? Did that cause the financial crisis of '08? Did it cause the oil prices to hit $150 per barrel and now hover at 100?

Michael Hardner · June 3, 2011

You should work for the OECD. The definition of a competitive tax environment is every country's tax level is the same - only that will make it competitive. Lower taxes will unfairly favour one country.

They write letters to Presidents and Premiers if they feel their tax rates are too low and start creating economic activity. It's so unfair to create economic activity this way.

That strikes me as a strange reaction to my point about being competitive. You just took it as me saying the exact opposite - that taxes have to go up.

Michael Hardner · June 3, 2011

Bigger economies like the EU should be flourishing because of globalization.

It's not the size of the economy that makes you flourish, it's the value that you bring to the world market. If you're overpriced on that market, then you will lose out.

So what's causing the need for deficit spending worldwide? Simply adjusting to globalization? Did that cause the financial crisis of '08? Did it cause the oil prices to hit $150 per barrel and now hover at 100?

Worldwide ? Is China suffering ? If not, then why not ? Adjusting to Globalization sure seems to have something to do with it, if we have higher unemployment and we're exporting jobs.

bush_cheney2004 · June 3, 2011

....Worldwide ? Is China suffering ? If not, then why not ? Adjusting to Globalization sure seems to have something to do with it, if we have higher unemployment and we're exporting jobs.

Jobs are not exported....labor is now portable and global. Nobody is owed a job, but they can compete for one.

Michael Hardner · June 3, 2011

Jobs are not exported....labor is now portable and global. Nobody is owed a job, but they can compete for one.

Nickpicky.... :angry:

sharkman · June 3, 2011

Okay, I think I see how globalization does come into play. But I don't see how it caused the '08 recession, or any of the other things I mentioned. The jobs that disappeared at that time in the US were lost due to reduced consumer spending for the most part. Jobs lost to the global economy have been lost very gradually and seemingly replaced with others going by the employment rates prior to the recession.

Smallc · June 3, 2011

Nickpicky.... :angry:

Trolly, actually.

Michael Hardner · June 3, 2011

Okay, I think I see how globalization does come into play. But I don't see how it caused the '08 recession, or any of the other things I mentioned. The jobs that disappeared at that time in the US were lost due to reduced consumer spending for the most part.

Jobs lost to the global economy have been lost very gradually and seemingly replaced with others going by the employment rates prior to the recession.

The crash was waiting to happen, with over-capacity real estate markets, and associated work driving the economy.

bush_cheney2004 · June 3, 2011

Trolly, actually.

Factually...actually. Deal with it.

sharkman · June 3, 2011

The crash was waiting to happen, with over-capacity real estate markets, and associated work driving the economy.

So the above quote indicates that globalization is a driving cause of the American recession of'08?

Michael Hardner · June 3, 2011

So the above quote indicates that globalization is a driving cause of the American recession of'08?

No.

sharkman · June 4, 2011

I give up trying to get you to explain yourself, go piss up a rope.

Bonam · June 4, 2011

The main cause of the recession was the burst of the real estate bubble. The real estate bubble was caused by federal government policies along with irresponsibility in the private sector.

As for high oil prices, they are caused by worldwide increasing demand, only slowly growing supply, and instability in some of the nations that produce and export oil.

As for globalization, it has acted to slow salary growth among workers in industrialized economies by thrusting them into competition with workers in developing nations who can work for a much lower price.

maple_leafs182 · June 4, 2011

The reason why the recession happened is because we have a monetary system that is based on debt.

Michael Hardner · June 4, 2011

I give up trying to get you to explain yourself, go piss up a rope.

Are you frustrated with me not accepting your characterizations of my position ? I don't blame you.

You can look on this thread if you want to know my opinion.

Michael Hardner · June 4, 2011

The main cause of the recession was the burst of the real estate bubble. The real estate bubble was caused by federal government policies along with irresponsibility in the private sector.

As for high oil prices, they are caused by worldwide increasing demand, only slowly growing supply, and instability in some of the nations that produce and export oil.

As for globalization, it has acted to slow salary growth among workers in industrialized economies by thrusting them into competition with workers in developing nations who can work for a much lower price.

This sounds reasonable. What about speculation ? Isn't it the case that there is investment money looking to grow, but can't find a stable place to invest ?

TimG · June 4, 2011

This sounds reasonable. What about speculation ? Isn't it the case that there is investment money looking to grow, but can't find a stable place to invest ?

People love to demonize speculators but they serve a critical role in a financial system by providing liquidity. It everyone was a 'buy and hold' investor then the chances if there being someone wanting to buy when you want to sell would be much smaller. This would reduce the returns on investing. Obviously it would be nice if we could get the benefits of speculators without the downside but I don't think that is possible.