Jump to content

The Economy...


Recommended Posts

The Economy was looking pretty bad a year ago.

http://finance.yahoo.com/q/hp?s=%5EDJI&a=0...&e=9&f=2003&g=m

It was pre-war Iraq and the UN was wearing a blindfold. Our economy was REALLY bad....

http://finance.yahoo.com/?u

Now, exactly one year later, we're over 9680 for the DOW.....

I'd say Bush is doing a pretty good job.

Two years ago we were attacked by terrorists and the economy obviously took a hit, now it's skyrocketing....

Hello 2004 Elections!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 66
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I'm sure you right-wingers will find some way to disagree or to state that I am making an "apples-to-oranges" comparison but let's compare Georgie's handling of the economy with Bob Rae's.

The economy for Bush was pretty bad last year. Bob Rae inherited a recession from Brian Mulroney - or just the business cycle.

Bush turned a surplus into a deficit. Bob Rae turned a deficit into a bigger deficit.

Into Bush's 3rd year, the Dow is roaring (stock markets are forecasters so let's say investors are predicting good times six months from now). During Bob Rae's final year, the Ontario economy was growing at a rate faster than any other G8 region.

Is Bush going a pretty good job? If yes, then Bob Rae did an excellent job.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Speaking of jobs, where are they? The U.S. is resorting to higher tariffs on China, Canada... 37% on goods bought from China??? For two years, the U.S. has seen a significant move from manufacturing to service. What was the largest company in the U.S. last year? Bethlehem Steel? Ford? Hell no it was Wal-mart. What is the average pay of a Wal-mart employee? President Bush might get reelected next year when he parades either Saddam or Osams head on a stick.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Derek, surely you jest.

The World Trade Towers were hit because they were symbols of the West, more venerable structurally and easy to recognize from the air than other targets.

The U.S. economy had slumped well before 9/11 for a number of reasons with plenty blame to spread around. And yes even sum for our beloved President Bush.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sure a good percentage of the skilled labor force, who were the one whom lost their jobs could get a burger job, possibly? Is this your idea of a President doing a good job where everyone could/should be working?

Remember, over skilled workers often don't get hired because the interviewer views it as a person who would quit when something else more appropriate comes up.

Derek, that's a pretty crappy way to talk about the unemployed........your conservatism just came out in the open like that!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm just saying BMG, if they need a job you can get a job.

Mcdonalds isn't going to care how long you are there.

If you need a job, you can get a job. Its that simple.

Its not like there are no jobs, there are less but there are still skilled jobs left.

I know a guy who was a computer programmer. He was fired and went into starting his own business. Which worked out for the best.

There is usually alternatives instead of trying to get the same job you were fired from.

Liberals are acting like there isn't another job for you to get after you get fired from your previous job.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Derek,

That's not necessarily true and I don't have statistics as you don't either; however, I have a friend who is currently unemployed and interviewed 2 weeks ago for a bar tending job where his resume clearly shows his line of work. In discussion, the manager cited his concerns of hiring someone who the company has to invest in an employee whom they feel will be in for the long run and with his skill felt that he would leave at a drop of a dime when a job opening in his field opened.

Again, employees are investments, it costs to train these people and any company would like to see a return on investment. WHY HIRE HIM WHEN THEY CAN HIRE SOMEONE YOUNG, ETC...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh, since Daniel says so there must be..........how do you explain 2.7 million lost jobs since Bush took office.

Also, this administration wants to GIVE money to Iraq in lieu of LOANING it to them to build schools when he won't put the money here to build schools and create jobs.

This is the same president giving Arnold S. advise on how to balance his budget..........HAHAHAHAH, what a joke!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

it would be nice if we could just work with frictional unemployment, folks just moving around, changing jobs, and the seasonal unemployed is predictable etc. the ecomony would then by operating at full production capcity, just what every economy should aim for.

alas we are dealing with 8% unemployment, a high canadian dollar with a earlier sluggish US economy puts on CDN trading disadvantage, the only good is if we can see much increase in US domestic demands, mind you we still are lagging behind in growth with the US

Well I can give some stats for a particular catchment area - survey 35000 unemployed people

demographics:

95% first generation immigrants

41% women

59% male

general education level appraised at grade 10 or above

1 in every 4 person looking menial job (would take any general labor, assembling type work) they take about 3-

9 months to find work

1 in every 4 male is looking for highly specialize area of natural science (if you call these folks 9-16 months from now – they are still looking for work) would realize their disappointment and be filed under menial jobs

8% unemployment and climbing – and does not include those folks who are unemployed but is depressed and stop looking

but it is an employers market, meaning that there are more folks looking for work, so much more selection of skill, education, experience etc., and good news for the employers low wages

you bartender didn’t get the job because even though he has the experience and mesh into the opportunity there is much competition, the employers are looking for basic requirements but also for more qualification, your immeasurable soft skill, “the fit” and too much people to choose from

I am glad to hear someone mentioned there is cost benefits associated with hiring. I would endorse there are much savings to companies when they choose and invest wisely in talents. But try telling this to management in times of downsizing and cost cutting for companies – the same folks that want to tell how to save in hiring are the first to go – happens all the time – choose your career wisely folks.

So how our good government does tries to help ease the burden of employment, well if they are liberal in thinking how about these:

- job creation programs to help the unemployed – means more folks get hired by the government to find jobs for others – but based on the government hiring alone is already varying the unemployment rates, so way to go with the tax dollars

- I don’t want to appear too bias with immigrants but why do we need to send all these folks into some newcomer intervention such as: English upgrading – but good news folks, so again more government workers employed – helps with the unemployment rate

so I am glad to say there are lots of jobs and help out there for the unemployed, and the government is trying its dammest to curb unemployment

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Firstly, there are jobs out there. In order to maintain your lifestyle, you may have to work 70 hours a week at $10 an hour to barely get by, but it sure beats sitting on your rear in front of the TV. As far as serious salary paying jobs that have been scarce, I believe that the stock market reflects how individual companies are doing. Once the companies are doing well enough that the executives feel they have a safety margin, they will begin to entertain expansion and other prusuits that will lead to jobs. The top dogs of the companies need to feel the company is in good enough shape before they tack on more salary expenses. I believe, with the market doing as well as it is now, that we'll see jobs popping back up within a year.

Although the attack on the WTC helped to hurt the economy, it wasn't necessarily from the loss of the officespace. It was from the fear of terror attacks that helped fuel an already ailing economy. The economy goes up and down but throughout all history(can't remember where i heard this stat so you'll have to trust my word of mouth) the economy has steadily increased over the years. EVEN DURING THE GREAT DEPRESSION the economy slowly progressed. Right now we're coming out of a down turn.

I'm optimistic of about the economy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

well jobs have been disappearing for years in the manufacturing sector try 13% reduction which is more like 20% in the past 15 years

there is no one to blame. the faster we recognise we are mostly service oriented it is easier to explore ways to impove the economy than trying to proctect steel

the manufacturing sector is faced with hurdles of major foreign competition, cheap labor and a domestic educated work force

the us and canada need to encourage entrepreneurial spirits by offering tax incentives for start-ups to get the economy going, or incentives for R&D - create new products, or stay ahead of the game...the car industry is an example this. next is we need to encourage folks to invest in domestic products

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh, since Daniel says so there must be..........how do you explain 2.7 million lost jobs since Bush took office.

Also, this administration wants to GIVE money to Iraq in lieu of LOANING it to them to build schools when he won't put the money here to build schools and create jobs.

This is the same president giving Arnold S. advise on how to balance his budget..........HAHAHAHAH, what a joke!

I got this one.

The job lost is not as bad a thing as most libs are trying to make it sound like. It is an inevitability.

If it took the same number of people in 2003 to do a job as it took in 1945 then this nation would never progress and most everyone would be farmers.

It is simply that we have become more efficient at our work. That has to be a good thing, right?

I know it does not help the unemployed but to be fair to Bush it has nothing to do with him. And would happen regardless of who was head honcho.

This is also not an American problem. Every country, even Canada, are experiencing this to one degree or another.

I forget the % rate but it seems China has been hit more than the US by this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

when people become unemployed there are all sorts of associated soical problems such as: financial problems, mental health such as depression, drinking etc. it drains the already pressured social services in place and plus output in an economy is not operating at capacity. there is not much criticism as long as the gov't in term has policies and contingencies in place to deal with unemployment

well try 40% competitive advantage - china over the US - china poses biggest threat to world trade, but how to disapprove walmart buys more from China than

England - helps with china's job situation

well only 5% of all the folks finding work are attributed to personnel agencies.

unemployment is too important for simple dismissal especially when you are leaders of the world

the only way really to put people back to work is via government policies and programs - works for both employers and the unemployed, as needed provide re-training...those agriculture folks. and you won’t like this but subsidies for business if no breaks in tax for now, or breaks in borrowing

Link to comment
Share on other sites

All this talk about the worst economic recovery since Herbert Hoover is just liberal hysteria. And for those who claim that the U.S. federal budget deficit is by far the biggest in history. It could not be farther from the truth. As a percentage of GDP, the deficit is half of what it was in the 80's. Remember that you cannot directly compare dollars in 1980 with dollars in 2003 because the economy is 10 times bigger now then it was back then. That reality, liberals, not spin.

The best part of all of this is when Dems will be eating crow when the Dow rises above 10,000 in time for the 2004 election.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Right on. The US is growing GDP at 5 % + right now, durable goods orders are up, commodity indexes are up [which is a leading indicator], money M1 supply is up, rates are low, productivity is shooting through the roof [3x the rate in Canada] which means higher profits and longer term more jobs and innovation, the dividend tax credit is reorganising corporate governance and inducing investment, and all sectors are growing ie. the recovery is not industry specific, Iraq and Afghanistan are being reformed, the war on terror is now actually engaged [as opposed to the Dumbocruds 90's policy], and the UNO, France and Germany have been given the big middle finger which is about bloody time. As for jobs more Americans have jobs now than at any time in history, regardless of liberal media hysteria. The natural unemployment rate is 5 % and with current profit growth we will see that rate in 2004.

Not bad for a country that went through 9-11 and the bursting of the Clintonian Internet bubble.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tax cuts are working, the markets are up 30 % this year in spite of last weeks 1 % decline and many Granny's hold their pensionable earnings in funds that feed off of the DOW. Time for the liberal media to report the truth - the economy is in good shape and disposable incomes are up and in certain sectors, jobs are up as well. Only in transport, logisitics, some manufacturing sectors and thankfully government are jobs down significantly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

righturnonred Posted on Oct 24 2003, 06:10 PM

And for those who claim that the U.S. federal budget deficit is by far the biggest in history. It could not be farther from the truth. As a percentage of GDP, the deficit is half of what it was in the 80's.

this is what is also called fiscal irresponsibility.

the US have always have a unique characteristic to carried huge deficits. i can't answer why the americans choose not to pay and only little of its borrowing - but can suggest that it might be the diff. in foreign investment return where the gain is outweight. question is how much debt is enough or can it be that this can go on indefinitely

deficits do not correlate well with job loss and even when there is growth in the economy the deficit still continues to worsen things.

there is some confidence now in spending and attributed to the economy doing well - if there are no plans in store for job creation it will plummet the growth

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Tell a friend

    Love Repolitics.com - Political Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      10,713
    • Most Online
      1,403

    Newest Member
    nyralucas
    Joined
  • Recent Achievements

    • Jeary earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • Venandi went up a rank
      Apprentice
    • Gaétan earned a badge
      Very Popular
    • Dictatords earned a badge
      First Post
    • babetteteets earned a badge
      One Year In
  • Recently Browsing

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...