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.

(Business Insider)   10 things currently destroying the economy. Not listed: Harping on the wrong economic factors   (businessinsider.com) divider line 73
    More: Unlikely, headwinds, early 2000s recession, Bank of England, rises, productive capacity  
•       •       •

3713 clicks; posted to Business » on 04 Sep 2012 at 1:39 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



73 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-09-04 01:49:24 PM
What I get from the article:

RON PAUL suckered you guys hard.
 
2012-09-04 01:50:54 PM
Can't we just wrap it up in a neat little package and say "capitalism"?
 
2012-09-04 01:57:31 PM
This person has absolutely no idea what he's talking about. We are now all dumber for having read it. I award him no points.
 
2012-09-04 02:01:58 PM
Mike "Mish" Shedlock

Do his friends call him Mishmouth?
 
2012-09-04 02:04:36 PM

Arkanaut: Do his friends call him Mishmouth?


*sits silently and glares at you*
 
2012-09-04 02:09:17 PM
All the "job creators" are sitting on fat stacks of cash waiting for a "job creator enabler" to take back the White House before they unleash their job creating skills. That way the Rethuglicans will get credit for the recovery rather than the evil socialist Dumbocrats.
 
2012-09-04 02:11:51 PM
Obama.
Libs.
Socialism.
Regulation.
Poor people.
Muslims.
Atheists.
Pro-choicers.
Obama.
Obama.
 
2012-09-04 02:18:22 PM

JRoo: Obama.
Libs.
Socialism.
Regulation.
Poor people.
Muslims.
Atheists.
Pro-choicers.
Queer-o-sexuals.
Immigrants.


There. Now it looks like it was written by a Teabagger.
 
2012-09-04 02:18:35 PM

JRoo: Obama.
Libs.
Socialism.
Regulation.
Poor people.
Muslims.
Atheists.
Pro-choicers.
Obama.
Obama.


You must really like Obama :)


Misch: Arkanaut: Do his friends call him Mishmouth?

*sits silently and glares at you*


awkward...
 
2012-09-04 02:22:01 PM
Could be that corporate management although sitting on record profits are failing to use them to actually do something.

1. Hire
2. Create
3. Improve

These are the same leaders who have a "nickle & dime" mindset,
then wonder why people don't trust enough to purchase beyond the basics.
 
2012-09-04 02:27:39 PM
Wow, this guy knows exactly what is wrong with the economy. The whole economy. I can't believe he's just wasting his talents on a blog when he could be saving the world. Why hasn't Obama put him in charge of the economy yet? He knows how to fix the economy.
 
2012-09-04 02:33:15 PM
1.US productive capacity not destroyed in WWII

Given that the longest lived assets have a productive life of about 20 years, methinks Mish is mashed.
 
2012-09-04 02:33:57 PM
Here, I'll give you one.

www.creditwritedowns.com

When you become strapped in debt up to your eyeballs, it is kind of tough to buy shiat and keep the economy goin' round.

/we need to deleverage
//You'll never hear that from a banker, though
 
2012-09-04 02:37:49 PM
Economics should be taught much more prominently in American schools. If we are going to be a prosperous capitalist society people need to understand the basic concepts of how to make and spend money.

/it takes practice and self disipline....
 
2012-09-04 02:47:27 PM
Oh, Lord, one of those nuts!

Central Reserve conspiracies and gold buggery.

Let me put this in terms a dim ten year old, say, Bart Simpson, could understand.

Wall Street went on a debt binge.

The borrowers did not understand the risks they took.
The loaners did not understand the risks.
The regulators did not understand the risks.
The business media did not understand the risks.
The politicians (both Republicans and Democrats) who could not let well enough alone destoryed the safe-guards put in place by Glass-Steagall, among others, because they understand nothing. Americans insist on electing dumbasses because they do not trust anybody smarter than themselves, and dumber is just impossible to find.

The risks were not properly evaluated. Wall Street took this massive pile of shiat and knowingly or unknowingly each according to their lights, gift-wrapped each and every turd and sold it on at prices that nobody could understand or justify because that is what Wall Street does--it's a den of gamblers and thieves.

As a result, a lot of banks bought gift-wrapped turds as if they were, well, precious jewels. A lot of banks repackaged their gift-wrapped turds and sold them to other banks. This is how London's City, and the rest of Europe got pulled into the house of cards. Speaking of Europe, it was American banks and investment bankers who created Europe's problems--they not only sold gift-wrapped turds to the rich Europeans, they created NEW gift-wrapped turds and sold them to the wannabees like Spain, Italy and Greece.

Then one day, somebody unwrapped the shiney new gift they received and realized it was a turd. A big fat greasy Wall Street Investment Banker's turd. A sickly green mooshy Wall Street Hedge Funder turd. Or perhaps a teeny tiny Wall Street stock jobber's turd. In any case, somebody realized tha the risk they were all buying and selling at Boom Town Prices were turds and the whole pile of shiat fell down--the Castles being built in Spain were worthless, houses in the boom markets of the US, where nothing else was worth buying any more, were worth a lot less, in short, the giant over-supply of risk blew up sending gift wrapping paper and shiney gold ribbons to Smithereens, Kansas and incidentally to your home town.

Now a massive pile of shiat in the form of unevaluated and over-priced risk had to be shovelled away before anybody could make any money. So the Government saved the asses of all those rich men and women who needed their asses kicked, and you have received the bill.

The rich asses that need kicking are sitting pretty on the biggest pile of money in history, making record profits. They, for the first time in generations, are back on top and they've been handed the keys to the kingdom by two a-holes on the Supreme Court in the form of the Citizens United Scandelous Scam, which allows them to buy the Government out-right. (They already own the GOP and most of the DNC.)

It had nothing to do with that bête-noire, the Federal Reserve System, nothing to do with Obama who was a mere twinkle in somebody's eye at the time, and nothing to do with gold or fiat money. It was all about Business Crime as Usual and a failure to understand the most basic concepts of economics, namely the economy grows on debt, battens on misery, and needs its arse kicked at least once a generation because a bunch of loonies and sociopaths run the system without much public, media or government oversight to kick their farking asses so hard they spin around between their ears at 100 rpm.

Gold is for fools and the super-rich. It is just as easy (and easier) to debase gold coinage as it is a fiat currency. Why should gold miners control the world economy? And what the fark is the use of the stuff any way? Apart from a few industrial or ornamental uses, gold is worthless. It IS a fiat currency. And it costs a lot of money to pile it up and guard it. If you buy gold for any purpose other than speculation, you are paying a lot of money, as much as you pay a real Swiss Bank to keep your loot out of the reach of the tax man, namely around 3-5% a year, at least. It could be more if your needs are "special".

Gold bugs are idiots. They are merchantilist fools, and were already fools in 1785, when Adam Smith was rewriting his Wealth of Nations yet again and there wasn't even the glimmer of a Federal Reserve System.

For rich fools, the year 1913 was the year of doom. The FRB was created, income taxes were made permanent and the middle classes started their climb to economic dominance.

That's all been undone now, and the richest 1% now have more income than the middle classes once again, the taxes are laughably low, especially if you are rich enough to pay not to pay them or collect them and keep them like French Tax Farmers (Yes, America's corporations are collecting taxes for the US Government AND THEY GET TO KEEP THE MONEY!) And the rich can now spend as much as they like, anonymously, to buy up Senators and Representatives and to convert University Economics Departments to the heresy of Randism.

To put it in Simpsonian terms, you can eat their farking shorts.

By the way, rich people and Wall Street hate shorts. It ruins their best pump and dump schemes.

The short seller is History's Greatest Monster (after Obama) because he forces prices to go down as well as up.

God bless the Short Seller is all I can say. He plays an important role in the ecology. He is a scavenger and a predator of greed. He devours the greedy, and even the Greater Fool can not survive when he is on the prowl because the jackels are chased away by this lion of the Wall Street Serengeti.
 
2012-09-04 02:50:19 PM
They had something akin to a point til they started the Federal Reserve and harping about the Gold Standard.
 
2012-09-04 02:52:20 PM

AlgaeRancher: /it takes practice and self disipline....


Or just a tally of all the interest you pay out each month. Being confronted with that number seems to wake folks the hell up.
 
2012-09-04 02:53:38 PM
Since the end of the great depression until the year 2000 the Fed had tailwinds at its back and that made it appear Fed policy was successful.

I love when they talk about 70 years and say that it is was all appearance. LOLOL

Boomers heading into retirement have insufficient savings
Not a problem. they will live off of the socsec checks. farkem.

Untenable pension problems at the city, state, and federal level can no longer be put off.
once again, fark EM. they didnt save. they let people rob from their saving? farkem
there is a lot of room on the sidewalk
 
2012-09-04 02:56:35 PM
What he is talking about, entertainingly explained.

This mumbo-jumbo we call a global monetary system was destined to fail from its inception.

You. Cannot. Grow. Exponentially. Forever. Sorry.
 
2012-09-04 02:57:07 PM

brantgoose: Wall Street went on a debt binge.


Slight clarification - collectively, we all went on a debt binge.

What is funny is when you hear the folks discussing that all we need is to make credit more avaliable. As if more debt will somehow fix the problem.
 
2012-09-04 03:00:34 PM
I'm not even putting this article in my Politics folder. I'm putting it under Entertainment in the sub-folder "Cranks and Outlaws".

I've told you before: my Bookmark folders are a bit eccentric.
 
2012-09-04 03:03:35 PM

HeadLever: brantgoose: Wall Street went on a debt binge.

Slight clarification - collectively, we all went on a debt binge.

What is funny is when you hear the folks discussing that all we need is to make credit more avaliable. As if more debt will somehow fix the problem.


If we keep it up, all new money created (actual value added to the global economy) will go to service existing debt. Its a death spiral, more debt requires more interest payments that quickly dwarf the principle owed. Look how many us already see the majority of our income go to servicing our individual debt (mortgage, car, school, etc.)

The problem isn't lending, its lending as interest.
 
2012-09-04 03:08:41 PM
They should have gone deeper with the robots that replace women angle


/This is the Geek tab, right?
 
2012-09-04 03:18:36 PM

HeadLever: Here, I'll give you one.

[www.creditwritedowns.com image 559x362]

When you become strapped in debt up to your eyeballs, it is kind of tough to buy shiat and keep the economy goin' round.

/we need to deleverage
//You'll never hear that from a banker, though


Read the new Krugman book. You'll learn that deleveraging in this economy will not help but rather hurt even more.
 
2012-09-04 03:37:37 PM

Pincy: Read the new Krugman book.


Paul "never saw a debt I didn't like" Krugman? Don't know about him but I would rather have my income be applied to things that actually go toward supporting me, my family, and those I choose to help rather than some faceless bank.

If the system can't handle folks acting responsibly, it is time to change. I am not saying that we need to outlaw debt as it definaly has its place. However, I'll forcefully disagree with him if he thinks that the answer to our problem is more debt.
 
2012-09-04 03:42:55 PM

AlgaeRancher: Economics should be taught much more prominently in American schools. If we are going to be a prosperous capitalist society people need to understand the basic concepts of how to make and spend money.

/it takes practice and self disipline....


And extremely good luck on who Mommy slept with.
 
2012-09-04 03:45:44 PM

HeadLever: Pincy: Read the new Krugman book.

Paul "never saw a debt I didn't like" Krugman? Don't know about him but I would rather have my income be applied to things that actually go toward supporting me, my family, and those I choose to help rather than some faceless bank.

If the system can't handle folks acting responsibly, it is time to change. I am not saying that we need to outlaw debt as it definaly has its place. However, I'll forcefully disagree with him if he thinks that the answer to our problem is more debt.


Well, I generally prefer the uniformed opinions of anonymous idiots on the Internet to experts in their field. But I have a severe mental disability: I am an American, and therefore think being ignorant is a virtue.
 
2012-09-04 03:51:11 PM

CheatCommando: But I have a severe mental disability: I am an American, and therefore think being ignorant is a virtue.


This issue is much more than an economic question. It is also (and much more importantly) a moral question. As I stated, if the current system cannot handle folks acting responsibly, it is time to change.

/And don't think for a second that I am the only one that questions Krugman's arguments.
 
2012-09-04 03:58:59 PM

HeadLever: Here, I'll give you one.

[www.creditwritedowns.com image 559x362]

When you become strapped in debt up to your eyeballs, it is kind of tough to buy shiat and keep the economy goin' round.

/we need to deleverage
//You'll never hear that from a banker, though


Correct symptom. Now Doctor, what's the treatment?

More income. For the past 30 years, the money generated from increased productivity has almost entirely gone to the owners of capital, in the form of share price increases, dividends, etc.

graphics8.nytimes.com


Start taxing capital gains like ordinary income - which would allow us to lower rates on ordinary income. Put in a couple of new brackets for incomes over $1 million and $5 million. Raise the minimum wage and get rid of the "server wage". Probably a few other things could be done to nudge income gains towards the middle class and away from the investor class.
 
2012-09-04 04:13:28 PM

HeadLever: CheatCommando: But I have a severe mental disability: I am an American, and therefore think being ignorant is a virtue.

This issue is much more than an economic question. It is also (and much more importantly) a moral question. As I stated, if the current system cannot handle folks acting responsibly, it is time to change.

/And don't think for a second that I am the only one that questions Krugman's arguments.


I don't. Morons travel in packs. They also tend to see pragmatism as immoral.
 
2012-09-04 04:26:31 PM
Policy discussions are nothing but talking about which band-aid to put on the severed leg. This has not been a political discussion for a couple of decades. Note that the ONLY two elements the writer talked about that had relevance to the 21st Century was introduction of women in the workforce and technology increasing production.

We have a somewhat static pool of "jobs" in this country, whether you are talking about service or manufacturing [about 154Million]. We have a growing population and by extension number of people who would fill those jobs [312Million]. With a global economy we in the US have labor rates that support our standards of living. Some like to blame unions for lost jobs but really we have less than 12% union participation in our manufacturing/service industries. What we do have is competition from $0.17-$0.90/hr labor rates in emerging countries. No amount of "hiring, job creating" will solve the puzzle of global labor. We like our low prices too much.

Then we add technology and the internet...CAD/CAM has reduced labor, increased productivity, inventory control programs has reduced warehousing and made JIT manufacturing reality, office automation streamlines every aspect of business [even while making a snowstorm of useless work] and brick and mortar stores and their jobs leave as Amazon and 100,000 .coms become commerce, removing retail from the the jobs market.

Now go back and look at policy doctrine from any politician and see where they address this. Everyone talks about being "job creators"...their stockholders demand profits, and profits come from $0.17/hr labor. That conundrum is never once addressed by either politicians or those who discuss economic doctrine.
 
2012-09-04 04:34:52 PM

Omnivorous: 1.US productive capacity not destroyed in WWII

Given that the longest lived assets have a productive life of about 20 years, methinks Mish is mashed.


Absolutely. And if I remember correctly, it was the fact that the industrial capacity of Europe and Japan WAS destroyed during WWII that was used to explain why those countries were kicking our tail in the 80's and early 90's.
 
2012-09-04 04:36:20 PM

MisterRonbo: Now Doctor, what's the treatment?

More income.


If you want to increase income, give consumers the ability to pay for these items with money derived from income, not debt. Basing your consumerism on credit is what got us in this issue to begin with. Deleveraging allows families to keep more of their income instead of the bank. This additional money from reduced interest obligations can be viewed as increased discretionary income that will typically be spent or invested. This rising tide will lift the boats much more than just temporarily freeing up more credit so that your middle class can fall deeper into debt. However, be prepared for a sluggish economy for a while as this happens.

Sorry folks. We are currently out of good options.

Put in a couple of new brackets for incomes over $1 million and $5 million. Raise the minimum wage and get rid of the "server wage". Probably a few other things could be done to nudge income gains towards the middle class and away from the investor class

Not sure how you go from increased taxes on one sector to increasing income to another. Pretty sure that there are a few more steps than this. Increased taxes will typically result to greater income to the federal government and has nothing to do with increasing middle class incomes. As much as the government is in debt, and as huge as the deficits are, I would argue that they would likely keep this money for deficit reduction.

In any case, if the middle class did somehow get their hands on all of this money and just used it to increase their access to more and more credit (again this just as much a 'living within your means' issue) you would be just continuing the bubble/bust cycles that we have been seeing for the last several decades. IMO, the solution starts with the realization that our greatest way to increase your own standard of living would be to first live within your means.

You want to stick it to the man? Well, quit giving him most of your paycheck.
 
2012-09-04 04:44:02 PM

CheatCommando: Morons travel in packs.


I think that most folks agree that those who think more and more debt is the answer for us can safely be called the morons. Or bankers.

Here is what this type of thinking looks like for the federal government.

endoftheamericandream.com
 
2012-09-04 04:46:39 PM
Well, we're at a standstill. The top 1% own and control most of the resources. They're certainly not going to go for any plan that will jeopardize the way they got this windfall, and they're certainly not going to give money back in any way, shape, or form. What to do?
 
2012-09-04 04:52:05 PM

HeadLever: CheatCommando: Morons travel in packs.

I think that most folks agree that those who think more and more debt is the answer for us can safely be called the morons. Or bankers.

Here is what this type of thinking looks like for the federal government.

[endoftheamericandream.com image 640x466]


What does the graph look like if the bush tax cuts expire?
 
2012-09-04 04:57:38 PM

Bonkthat_Again: Well, we're at a standstill. The top 1% own and control most of the resources. They're certainly not going to go for any plan that will jeopardize the way they got this windfall, and they're certainly not going to give money back in any way, shape, or form. What to do?


From the banking standpoint, they got most of that money from us dumbasses that kept send them more and more of our income. Why should we contintue to give them even more?
 
2012-09-04 05:08:28 PM

Carth: What does the graph look like if the bush tax cuts expire?


Assuming that all of that additional revenue (around $200B/year, average) is applied to deficit reduction and not rolled into additional spending, that yellow area would be slightly smaller by probably 10% to 15%. This item is pretty small compared to other policy issues we currently face. Right now, if we could assume that this $200B would be generated with no other impact to the federal ledger, we would be reducing our deficit by about 15%.
 
2012-09-04 05:11:35 PM
Getting economic advice from Business Insider is almost as painful as getting your comedy from Cracked.com.
 
2012-09-04 05:21:30 PM

rogue49: Could be that corporate management although sitting on record profits are failing to use them to actually do something.

1. Hire
2. Create
3. Improve

These are the same leaders who have a "nickle & dime" mindset,
then wonder why people don't trust enough to purchase beyond the basics.


Ding muthafarking ding!!!

The corporate shills saying, "well, we have to hold on to all that cash because we don't now what Obama is going to do with taxes". If they would have been re-investing in their employees and R&D during the last 3 years instead of wringing their hands about Obama, the economy would have already been fixed.
 
2012-09-04 05:26:00 PM

HeadLever: Here, I'll give you one.

[www.creditwritedowns.com image 559x362]

When you become strapped in debt up to your eyeballs, it is kind of tough to buy shiat and keep the economy goin' round.

/we need to deleverage
//You'll never hear that from a banker, though


Your chart ends in 2007. One of the effects of the credit crunch was massive deleveraging of household debt as banks tightened standards, people borrowed less, and debts were erased through bankruptcy. The fact that there has been a recent rise in consumer debt is actually a positive as it's indicative of greater demand.

The main problem which your chart illustrates, is that wage stagnation has resulted in an inability to maintain a desired standard of living. Solving wage stagnation solves the problem.
 
2012-09-04 05:29:20 PM

HeadLever: MisterRonbo: Now Doctor, what's the treatment?

More income.

If you want to increase income, give consumers the ability to pay for these items with money derived from income, not debt.


Well, yes, that's why I said income and not debt.


MisterRonbo:Put in a couple of new brackets for incomes over $1 million and $5 million. Raise the minimum wage and get rid of the "server wage". Probably a few other things could be done to nudge income gains towards the middle class and away from the investor class

Not sure how you go from increased taxes on one sector to increasing income to another.


Because what matters is net income. Shift some of the tax burden from the middle class to the wealthy. Provide more funding for things like public universities and you lower tuition costs. More highway funding means fewer toll roads. More home heating oil subsidies for the poor, keeping longer terms of unemployment benefits, raising the per day food stamp allocation to something more than $4.36. Bringing in more tax revenue from the wealthy lets you lower both taxes and other kinds of costs for the middle class in myriad ways.

Wealth transfer - I know in this country its like class warfare, it only exists when it goes in one direction, not both.


Pretty sure that there are a few more steps than this. Increased taxes will typically result to greater income to the federal government and has nothing to do with increasing middle class incomes. As much as the government is in debt, and as huge as the deficits are, I would argue that they would likely keep this money for deficit reduction.

History says you're wrong. Politicians setting money aside for long term benefit rather than voting in something popular today? Uh, no. Right now our debt is around I think 80% of GDP (and heading towards 90% pretty quickly). 1947 it was 120%. Did we pay that off?

Nope. What we did was keep the dollar amount the same, while the economy grew, and lo and behold, in 20 years it was 60% of GDP without paying down any of the principle.

You want to stick it to the man? Well, quit giving him most of your paycheck.

I have no desire to "stick it to the man". The man has been very good to me. The friends of mine who are in the 1% all got there without inheriting a dime, working hard, and contributing value to the economy.

I want a populace that is healthy and has growing incomes and a reasonably secure future. The past few decades have had us growing the economy, but without growing the wealth of working people. Government has aided that, and can address it.

Tax the rich more so you can tax the middle class less.

Provide more subsidies for higher education.

Provide tax incentives to keep jobs and profits within the US.

Strengthen the hand of unions.

Look at regulations that may discourage hiring and in some cases encourage automation instead.

Provide more vocational training, especially in areas with high structural unemployment (i.e., big plant closures create a lot of unemployed workers). Turn auto workers and back-office paperwork shufflers in to HVAC technicians and database admins and pastry chefs and a million other things.
 
2012-09-04 05:36:06 PM

Stile4aly: Your chart ends in 2007. One of the effects of the credit crunch was massive deleveraging of household debt as banks tightened standards, people borrowed less, and debts were erased through bankruptcy. The fact that there has been a recent rise in consumer debt is actually a positive as it's indicative of greater demand.


Correct. We are currently going in the right direction. However, much of that is due to the millions of forclosures that we have seen in the last few years. What is going to be interesting is to watch if this trend can continue as the housing sector slowly gets back on its feet. That will be the proof in that pudding.
 
2012-09-04 05:41:58 PM

Stile4aly: The main problem which your chart illustrates, is that wage stagnation has resulted in an inability to maintain a desired standard of living. Solving wage stagnation solves the problem.


I think that we may be discussing a chicken and egg problem here. The issue is that lowering standard of living is one of the main tools to deleveraging in order to get back to fiscal health. It is a logical conclusion once one is overextended. And again, increasing wages is not necessarily the same as getting back to good economy. If that additional income is only used as a justification for additional credit and you only serve to increase houshold debt, I would argue that we are no better off. We are simply propagating the boom and bust cycles that have plagued us for the last 30 years.
 
2012-09-04 05:57:55 PM

MisterRonbo: Shift some of the tax burden from the middle class to the wealthy.


OK, you are not just proposing a tax increase to the upper class but a corresponding tax cut to the middle class. That is a different scenario and one that I am not necessarily against.

Uh, no. Right now our debt is around I think 80% of GDP (and heading towards 90% pretty quickly). 1947 it was 120%. Did we pay that off?

Try almost 105%. some of it we sure did. Back in the day, we used to run budget surpluses every once in a while. Inflation was also a big help. In any case, those days are a distant memory when it comes to current budgetary policy.

What we did was keep the dollar amount the same,while the economy grew, and lo and behold, in 20 years it was 60% of GDP without paying down any of the principle.

lolwat? The 3 years after the war, average inflation was over 10%. IN addition, between 1947 and 1960, we had 7 years of surpluses. Not sure where you are getting your info, but you may want to start double checking your statements.

The rest of your statements, I have no big issues with and I mostly agree.
 
2012-09-04 06:03:07 PM

HeadLever: Pincy: Read the new Krugman book.

Paul "never saw a debt I didn't like" Krugman? Don't know about him but I would rather have my income be applied to things that actually go toward supporting me, my family, and those I choose to help rather than some faceless bank.

If the system can't handle folks acting responsibly, it is time to change. I am not saying that we need to outlaw debt as it definaly has its place. However, I'll forcefully disagree with him if he thinks that the answer to our problem is more debt.


Umm, I'll remind you that the Republicans have never seen a deficit they didn't like either. Remember, "deficits don't matter". Also, as he argues and as I'm sure you realize as well, managing an economy isn't the same as managing your individual family budget.
 
2012-09-04 06:05:49 PM

rogue49: Could be that corporate management although sitting on record profits are failing to use them to actually do something.

1. Hire
2. Create
3. Improve

These are the same leaders who have a "nickle & dime" mindset,
then wonder why people don't trust enough to purchase beyond the basics.


That is because Profits Uber Alles, and hiring new employees (here in America) would reduce profits, creating new products (here in America) would reduce profits, and improving existing products (here in America) would reduce profits. All Americans are good for, according to our Corporate Overlords, is buying their cheaply-made foreign products at vastly-overvalued prices to inflate their already-inflated profits
 
2012-09-04 06:08:09 PM
What's holding the economy back?

The laws of thermodynamics for one. And the fact that continuous growth is the philosophy of the cancer cell, for another. Nobody is noticing how everything went BANG! after oil spiked to $147 a barrel during the playschool presidency of Bush II and it's never improved since then.

This is called the Bumpy Plateau, people. Enjoy the ride down the tubes of history.
 
2012-09-04 06:09:51 PM

Pincy: Umm, I'll remind you that the Republicans have never seen a deficit they didn't like either.


Oh, I'll agree 100% here. There are quite a few Republicans that call themselves conservatives, but not many that truely fiscal conservatives.

/WWIkeD?
 
2012-09-04 06:17:37 PM

HeadLever: Pincy: Umm, I'll remind you that the Republicans have never seen a deficit they didn't like either.

Oh, I'll agree 100% here. There are quite a few Republicans that call themselves conservatives, but not many that truely fiscal conservatives.

/WWIkeD?


Slash the defense budget to 50% of its current level, repeal the Bush tax cuts, and tell the House to STFU and GBTW (and tell the Senate to STFU, GTBW, and quit whining about the House), all before heading to Camp David to recover from his latest "cold" *cough*heart attack*cough*.
 
Displayed 50 of 73 comments

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

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report