If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Some Guy)   Economic expert: "At best case we're going to re-run the 1970s, only with Barack Obama instead of Jimmy Carter in the White House." EVERYBODY DISCO   (businessinsider.com) divider line 86
    More: Scary, Niall Ferguson, White House, obama, Jimmy Carter, reserve currency, Arabia, public debt, democracy in the Middle East  
•       •       •

2420 clicks; posted to Business » on 15 Mar 2011 at 2:42 AM (3 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



86 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2011-03-15 02:46:06 AM
Sure.
 
2011-03-15 03:03:56 AM
Okay we can't really be that fundamentally farked.

Barry's gonna community activize us out of this, unless he just decides to vote 'present' again.
 
2011-03-15 03:06:27 AM
Why haven't Americans been taken hostage in some country that is friendly to us, but will become hostile in the next few weeks?

Is Reagan's soul inside Palin's body?
 
2011-03-15 03:12:43 AM
Heres my question.


What can we do about it?

The political landscape in this country is not conducive to fixing anything in a meaningful way.
 
2011-03-15 03:14:19 AM
CNBC, just riddled with credibility at this point.
 
2011-03-15 03:16:04 AM
Economic expert and advisor to John McCain: "At best case...
 
2011-03-15 03:16:57 AM
For starters, unless Obama's going to invite Robert Mugabe to the White House and slobber all over him any time soon, such comparisons are unfair.
 
2011-03-15 03:29:18 AM

Welfare Xmas: Okay we can't really be that fundamentally farked.

Barry's gonna community activize us out of this, unless he just decides to vote 'present' again.


No kidding, Disco should never make a come back.

\except for ABBA
\\I like them (weirdly enough)
 
2011-03-15 03:42:30 AM
i53.tinypic.com

Also, what's with the backdated troll alts?
 
2011-03-15 03:53:50 AM
Does this mean the McCain will win in 2012, effect the largest tax increases in history, get Alzheimer's and then sell weapons to our enemies because he was a POW?
 
2011-03-15 04:44:41 AM
I was gonna click the link, then I noticed it was by Niall Ferguson
 
2011-03-15 04:54:01 AM
20 January 2009

Dow: 7949.09
Nasdaq: 1440.86
S&P: 805.22

14 March 2011

Dow: 11993.16
Nasdaq: 2700.97
S&P: 1296.39

On the other hand, the 70s was a great decade for movies
 
2011-03-15 05:26:33 AM
Stocks are paying out at their highest rates in 18 years.
Companies are sitting on more cash than they ever have...

But yeah, the economy is shiat.

/only if you're a have-not
//like 95% of the country.
 
2011-03-15 05:27:57 AM
Obama is no Carter.

Jimmy had Miss Lillian and Billy, the closest America has come to a Queen Mother and a Court Jester. It at least provided some good ol' down-home panache and comic relief.

All Barrack brings to the party is a media-avoiding half-brother in Kenya somewhere. Never drives drunk, no beer named after him, nothing.
 
2011-03-15 05:45:23 AM
At first he was Niall...
 
2011-03-15 06:10:56 AM
If we're going disco, I want some Bolivian marching powder.
 
2011-03-15 06:19:20 AM
Carter had to clean up Nixon's mess. Clinton had to clean up Raygun's mess. Obama has to clean up Bush's mess. Each time the democrats can't bring you back to where you were before you elected republicans. You idiots are killing your selves every time you put republicans in power. The world has no sympathy for you. The loss of reserve currency status was a given after raygun turned the US from the world's largest creditor to the world's largest debtor.
 
2011-03-15 06:27:38 AM

crab66: Heres my question.


What can we do about it?

The political landscape in this country is not conducive to fixing anything in a meaningful way.


Describe meaningful way.

The left seem more inclined to wealth-redistribution not as a means to an end but an end in itself. Sure it may garnish votes, but it's not an economic plan.

It's the victory of sentiment over commonsense.
 
2011-03-15 06:52:04 AM

Blairr: The left seem more inclined to wealth-redistribution not as a means to an end but an end in itself. Sure it may garnish votes, but it's not an economic plan.


And you just affirmed his argument by spewing stupid bullshiat. Stop listening to Limbaugh.
 
2011-03-15 07:42:32 AM
...for small values of "expert"
 
2011-03-15 07:49:50 AM
If this economy brings the Bee Gees back into popularity, I'm all for moving to a trailer for that :)
www.arjanwrites.com
 
2011-03-15 07:50:42 AM

Sergeant Grumbles: Blairr: The left seem more inclined to wealth-redistribution not as a means to an end but an end in itself. Sure it may garnish votes, but it's not an economic plan.

And you just affirmed his argument by spewing stupid bullshiat. Stop listening to Limbaugh.


Sometimes I wonder if 90% of Limbaugh's listeners are liberals because I sure as hell don't know anyone who listens to him except the liberals I know.

How is it stupid? That basically IS the liberals economic plan, raise taxes and spend spend spend. (Then wonder why jobs flee overseas to places where those policies have been abandoned.) Which is not that much different than Neo-Con Bush's print-n-spend policy. Both at their core is Keynesian thinking, which has been debunked for well over half a century.

Failure of the 'New Economics' (new window)

The government is working to eat the rich and shocked to find when they and the jobs they produce leave for elsewhere. Leaving behind only the political entrepreneurs who only stay in business because of government handouts. When you vilify and punish the producers, they go elsewhere.
 
2011-03-15 08:12:06 AM

Crosshair: Then wonder why jobs flee overseas to places where those policies have been abandoned.


While taxes certainly don't encourage businesses to stay and invest, they're hardly a deterrent. Most large corporations have absolutely no tax burden due to shelters and loopholes. The real deterrent to businesses staying in America is other costs: labor is expensive, environmental regulation is expensive, people can unionize, etc.

Why stay in the States when you can setup shop in Malaysia, pay your labor pennies on the dollar, dump whatever you like into the water, and if someone starts talking "union", your "security force" can "disappear" them. These nations often have radically different anti-trust regulations (if any exist at all). There's no OSHA, no EPA.

That's what the US has to compete with; an environment roughly akin to the late-19th/early-20th century US. Tax policy's relevance pales in comparison to those factors. I'm not taking a stand on what the appropriate tax policy is, but to claim that tax policy drives business overseas is absurd.
 
2011-03-15 08:14:17 AM

Vertdang: Stocks are paying out at their highest rates in 18 years.
Companies are sitting on more cash than they ever have...

But yeah, the economy is shiat.

/only if you're a have-not
//like 95% of the country.


Exactly the problem. Great time to be rich...not so good a time to be anything else.
 
2011-03-15 08:29:41 AM
I love jokes. Let's joke about it. Let's deny that it is happening.

Fark it!
 
2011-03-15 08:31:48 AM
Just like we said would happen.
 
2011-03-15 08:35:24 AM

t3knomanser: Crosshair: Then wonder why jobs flee overseas to places where those policies have been abandoned.

While taxes certainly don't encourage businesses to stay and invest, they're hardly a deterrent. Most large corporations have absolutely no tax burden due to shelters and loopholes. The real deterrent to businesses staying in America is other costs: labor is expensive, environmental regulation is expensive, people can unionize, etc.

Why stay in the States when you can setup shop in Malaysia, pay your labor pennies on the dollar, dump whatever you like into the water, and if someone starts talking "union", your "security force" can "disappear" them. These nations often have radically different anti-trust regulations (if any exist at all). There's no OSHA, no EPA.

That's what the US has to compete with; an environment roughly akin to the late-19th/early-20th century US. Tax policy's relevance pales in comparison to those factors. I'm not taking a stand on what the appropriate tax policy is, but to claim that tax policy drives business overseas is absurd.


Which is why we should legislate that any company based in the U.S. must have 65% or more of their workforce inside the U.S.

They want to leave? Good, their market absence will provide someone else opportunity.
 
2011-03-15 08:45:07 AM

MurphyMurphy: Which is why we should legislate that any company based in the U.S. must have 65% or more of their workforce inside the U.S


Congratulations, you've just created a market for 2hr/wk. jobs paying minimum wage and made it difficult for companies to compete overseas.

My employer, for example, has many factories in China and Malaysia (and Europe, and several other regions). Why? Because they sell product in those parts of the world, and due to the nature of the product, it's just plain easier to minimize shipping.

There's no way 65% of the workforce is based in the US, even though nearly everything they sell in the US is produced in the US.
 
2011-03-15 08:45:14 AM
'70s? Why do I always miss the "free love" era?
 
2011-03-15 08:48:16 AM
Why the fark does anyone listen to economists? They're right less than half the time. They could flip a quarter and do better.

An economics degree is the biggest scam on the planet.
 
2011-03-15 08:59:23 AM
Remember when Jimmy Carter was president for the entire decade of the 70's?
 
2011-03-15 09:00:01 AM

Crosshair: Sergeant Grumbles: Blairr: The left seem more inclined to wealth-redistribution not as a means to an end but an end in itself. Sure it may garnish votes, but it's not an economic plan.

And you just affirmed his argument by spewing stupid bullshiat. Stop listening to Limbaugh.

Sometimes I wonder if 90% of Limbaugh's listeners are liberals because I sure as hell don't know anyone who listens to him except the liberals I know.

How is it stupid? That basically IS the liberals economic plan, raise taxes and spend spend spend. (Then wonder why jobs flee overseas to places where those policies have been abandoned.) Which is not that much different than Neo-Con Bush's print-n-spend policy. Both at their core is Keynesian thinking, which has been debunked for well over half a century.

Failure of the 'New Economics' (new window)

The government is working to eat the rich and shocked to find when they and the jobs they produce leave for elsewhere. Leaving behind only the political entrepreneurs who only stay in business because of government handouts. When you vilify and punish the producers, they go elsewhere.


And if you reward them with tax cuts they *GASP* go elsewhere anyway. Taxes have fark-all to do with it. It's all about labor costs.

/why do you think they want to kill the unions so bad?
 
2011-03-15 09:00:03 AM

Janusdog: Why the fark does anyone listen to economists? They're right less than half the time. They could flip a quarter and do better.

An economics degree is the biggest scam on the planet.



Methinks the Social Sciences are not that scientific
 
2011-03-15 09:03:46 AM
Rememeber when Carter inherited a post-Vietnam economy from Republicans?
 
2011-03-15 09:06:36 AM

Crosshair: The government is working to eat the rich and shocked to find when they and the jobs they produce leave for elsewhere. Leaving behind only the political entrepreneurs who only stay in business because of government handouts. When you vilify and punish the producers, they go elsewhere.


If you want an efficient, less volatile market, you enact policies that even out the distribution of capital. You don't enact policies that favor capital's accumulation in the hands of a few.

Also, when are "producers" the capital owners?
 
2011-03-15 09:15:59 AM

the_falling_duck: You don't enact policies that favor capital's accumulation in the hands of a few.


Which, it's important to note, any economy based on the exchange of capital is going to be an economy containing a positive feedback loop- money tends to attract more money. Positive feedback loops are unstable, which means negative feedback has to be applied to keep that from spiraling out of control. Hence things like inheritance taxes, progressive taxation, etc.
 
2011-03-15 09:16:49 AM

PghThermal: Janusdog: Why the fark does anyone listen to economists? They're right less than half the time. They could flip a quarter and do better.

An economics degree is the biggest scam on the planet.


Methinks the Social Sciences are not that scientific


Well, YOU know that, and I know that, but apparently economists don't know that and the people that hire them to read their tarot cards don't know that.
 
2011-03-15 09:21:40 AM
I don't care what happens, I'm not wearing bell bottoms!

//could use a little free love though
 
2011-03-15 09:37:40 AM
I remember how Clinton was the next Carter. Same shiat, different talking head, new decade.

If it weren't so predictable, I wouldn't have as poor an opinion of the populous at large, but they eat it up time and time again.
 
2011-03-15 09:44:20 AM
Sort of reversed a little ain't it? Reagan policies made the economy do a nose dive and they blamed it Carter, who came before. Bush policies made the economy do a nose dive and they blamed it on Obama, who came after.
 
2011-03-15 09:45:49 AM
So, it'll be a little tough but the government will go green again and we'll begin weening ourself off of our oil dependency?

Sure, I'll take that.

Jimmy Carter got a bum rap.
 
2011-03-15 09:45:55 AM
OH PLEASE INTEREST RATES GO UP SO WE'LL BE RIGHT OH PLEASE INTEREST RATES GO UP SO WE'LL BE RIGHT OH PLEASE INTEREST RATES GO UP SO WE'LL BE RIGHT OH PLEASE INTEREST RATES GO UP SO WE'LL BE RIGHT OH PLEASE INTEREST RATES GO UP SO WE'LL BE RIGHT OH PLEASE INTEREST RATES GO UP SO WE'LL BE RIGHT OH PLEASE INTEREST RATES GO UP SO WE'LL BE RIGHT OH PLEASE INTEREST RATES GO UP SO WE'LL BE RIGHT OH PLEASE INTEREST RATES GO UP SO WE'LL BE RIGHT OH PLEASE INTEREST RATES GO UP SO WE'LL BE RIGHT OH PLEASE INTEREST RATES GO UP SO WE'LL BE RIGHT OH PLEASE INTEREST RATES GO UP SO WE'LL BE RIGHT OH PLEASE INTEREST RATES GO UP SO WE'LL BE RIGHT
 
2011-03-15 09:52:12 AM
The 70s? Yay! Flared sleeves, Pink Floyd and sex for everyone!
 
2011-03-15 10:00:42 AM

AlgertMan: Sort of reversed a little ain't it? Reagan policies made the economy do a nose dive and they blamed it Carter, who came before. Bush policies made the economy do a nose dive and they blamed it on Obama, who came after.


I've listen to so many of them blame the entire housing collapse on Barney Frank for comments he made in 2002.

PS
Please ignore the fact Republicans had control of the House and Senate for six years straight, it's all the Democrats fault.
 
2011-03-15 10:01:14 AM

Crosshair:
The government is working to eat the rich and shocked to find when they and the jobs they produce leave for elsewhere. Leaving behind only the political entrepreneurs who only stay in business because of government handouts. When you vilify and punish the producers, they go elsewhere.


Who is John Galt?
 
2011-03-15 10:06:36 AM
There is no farking way that I am going back to that 78 degree summer thermostat shiat again.

No farking way.
 
2011-03-15 10:06:55 AM

AlgertMan: Sort of reversed a little ain't it? Reagan policies made the economy do a nose dive and they blamed it Carter, who came before. Bush policies made the economy do a nose dive and they blamed it on Obama, who came after.


Actually, the country was experiencing "stagflation" DURING Carter's administration, so Reagan had nothing to do with it. I'm not saying it was Carter's fault, but it definitely wasn't Reagan's. There's plenty of other things to blame him for.
 
2011-03-15 10:50:44 AM
I'd argue that our main economic problem is that both sides of the aisle are cherry picking specific parts of the whole to make their arguments and craft their "solutions". Democrats like to cite the stock market as an indicator that we're all fine, and then blame unemployment solely on the last administration. Republicans like to play the doom-and-gloom game because they don't currently have Executive power, so they pick out things like deficits and unemployment to prove Obama is evil.

The truth is somewhere in the middle and no one is addressing the larger issue at hand. Sure large companies are doing okay, but that's because they have major revenue streams abroad. Small companies are having trouble making a buck. Unemployment is high - but not for educated, mobile people. For the uneducated the jobless rate is more like 15-20%. Why? Because their counterpart in China will work for 1/20th of their wage.

The proposed solutions? Democrats want to tax and spend and/or tax and give the money to poor people. But I'm not sure how giving money to people who evidently aren't good with money helps. Republicans want to cut everything and lower taxes. Those two don't really work that well, since they're going after these 1/100% of the budget programs that won't make a dent.

The real solution? Medicare/Medicaid and SS are ~50% of the budget. I'd focus there and use the savings to educate the people to do something other than sit around unemployed because they lack marketable skills.

/But that doesn't fit on a campaign bumper sticker...
 
2011-03-15 10:50:46 AM

aearra: You idiots are killing your selves every time you put republicans in power. The world has no sympathy for you.


Be fair.

We're also killing the rest of you every time we put Republicans in power.
 
2011-03-15 10:56:34 AM
0:25 If you look at the last 600 years, the big story was the rise of the west. But that's ending, and has been from the 1970s. Now with industrialization in Asia, it's happening quickly. And change and collapse in the west could happen very quickly.


Short question: Why?
Long question: If the East is industrializing by copying the models of the West, why does that mean the West is doomed to collapse? It's our model. Why is it no longer usable for us? And if we collapse, won't they collapse? Who's going to buy all of these manufactured products?

Difficulty: Good luck convincing the Germans of the "collapse of the West"
 
Displayed 50 of 86 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report