Comments on: A Sucker Born Every Minute

By: Hand Winch ·

Hand Winch · — Sun, 14 Nov 2010 11:59:18 +0000

there are many engineering jobs that are available both online and offline because there are great demands for it these days -;~

By: Jimmie

Jimmie — Thu, 27 Apr 2006 12:55:05 +0000

Tom, no worries. It makes sense when you explain the Rove comment.

I'd take issue with the main point of your contention – that's we've borrwed in order to grow economically. We really haven't. We've borrowed to fuel a Federal government that is a huge drag on our economic growth. We've borrowed to do things that we could do more cheaply, more efficiently, and better, with more accountability, on the state and lcoals levels. We haven't borrowed to fuel the pretty spectacular growth we've seen in the past few years.

We do have solid growth, compared to the latter Clinton years, but without the volatile tech bubble to worry about. Yes, debt is a concern, but compared to our overall GDP, we're doing much better now than we have at other points in our historyand we didn't suffer disaster then. I would say that if we could pare the Federal government back by 20 percent, our debt problems would disapper very quickly. The issue isn't that we're undertaxed. It's that we overspend.

By: Tom

Tom — Wed, 26 Apr 2006 22:29:54 +0000

Sorry about the Rove coment. I had intended 'you' in the more general form and not you, Jimmie, personally. But it sure doesn't read that way does it? My bad. I should have used 'us'. Honestly, I really didn't think you were just blindly following the White House numbers. It was really intended as a jab at Rove for doing what all political advisors do: fudge the numbers. But let's consider some numbers from the Bureau of Econimic Analysis. In 2001 Q1 we had an annual GDP of 9.88 trillion in 2000 dollars. In 2005 Q4 it was 11.25 trillion, a 14% increase. Pretty good. The previous 19 Quarter period went from 8.30 to 9.88, a 19% increase. A little better. Sorry about the 19 Quarter thing, but I am trying to divide at 2001 Q1 and keep the periods the same size. Picking the same periods and same 2000 dollars, the federal debt increased from 5.7 trillion to 7.1 (25% increase) in the recent period. The previous period saw the debt go DOWN from 5.8 trillion to 5.7 trillion (2% decrease). These number are from US National Debt Clock. So, our economy produces 1.4 trillion more annually, but we went 1.4 trillion further in debt to do it. Essentially, we have borrowed most of our growth, not produced it. The numbers look a little better when we use the current dollar figures, but I couldn't find current dollar debt tracking. These numbers say that, yes our growth is now similar to Clinton's later years, but our debt picture is much worse. What is saving us is that interest rates have not climbed with the debt, which is something of a mystery to both me and Alan Greenspan. My mortgage broker has an interesting theory. He thinks that Asian lenders have become more willing to loan to US borrowers, so our rates are being held down by Asia's traditionally low interest rates. He thinks that our grace period will last another three years and then our interest rates will climb rapidly (they creeping up now, but slowly). Then, the real problems occur. With a higher percentage of variable rate and interst only loans, there will be a large increase in foreclosures and home prices will plummet. So, I don't really see the 'more durable' thing about our growth. I see us putting ourselves more at the mercy of foreign lendors without much to show for it.

By: Jimmie

Jimmie — Wed, 26 Apr 2006 12:13:36 +0000

Well, Tom, we've also accomplished that with above 3 percent GDP per quarter (with, I believe only one or two quarters below that) for the past four years.

And I don't get my economic picture frm Karl Rove. I get it from the economic data, which says, right now, our economy is as strong as it was during the go-go 90s and more durable. The latest quarterly growth prediction I've seen (which have been low this year, mind you) was over 4 percent. Home sales are up, consumer confidence is up, durable goods ordering is up, and productivity is up.

Why did you have to mar a conversation I was enjoying with that Rove statement, by the way? That was flatly insulting and beneath the level of discourse you've displayed to this point.

By: Tom

Tom — Wed, 26 Apr 2006 11:51:52 +0000

I guess I should comment on the supposed "visible freefall" of the European economy. Europe grew 1.5% last year, which is a visible rise, not a freefall. And most economists predict that Europe will do better in the coming years. True, our economy is growing faster, but we have accomplished that with massive borrowing. Given that our net borrowing is increasing much faster than our growth. it seems the we, not Europe, are in the freefall. We just borrow enough to make it look like we are growing. As for their enemployment, I think we should place the blame for that on their welfare policies, not environmental policies. But we should also consider the fact that our unemployment rate does not count many of the people out of work. I am out of work, and I don't get counted because I was self-employed. Also, everyone who has been out of work long enough for their unemployment insurance to expire is not counted. Ditto for those who never signed up for unemployment insurance. Then, of course, we can consider those who traded their engineering job for a job at Walmart, which I will soon do. Overall, our employment picture is not the rosy picture Karl Rove would have you believe.

By: Tom

Tom — Wed, 26 Apr 2006 09:27:23 +0000

Jimmie, good point on why the regulations haven't helped. The problem is that emissions did finally fall last year after two years of increase. Although it seems warmer weather is the main cause. Still, it seems the regulations are starting to help. And the regulations are helping with a realtively small time delay, which is impressive. There are two big problems in Europe. First, they have yet to set fuel efficiency standards for their cars. Second, they are expanding the use of cars much faster than the US. The US can't expand the use of cars much more because almost everyone already owns one. The growth in this aspect of emmissions is limited to population growth. So we get a break there as it applies to emissions increases. Also, California sets our emissions standards, not the federal government, and they are doing a good job.

By: JoeSnow

JoeSnow — Tue, 25 Apr 2006 20:44:41 +0000

"What doesn't exist, and what I meant to say at the time, was that we do not have is any real idea how much we contribute to global warming nor how much effect we can have to slow or stop it."

???

Who edits this thing?

By: Jimmie

Jimmie — Tue, 25 Apr 2006 11:17:59 +0000

Tom, I can understand your position. You haven't really addressed how, if countries like France and Germany are supposedly complying with the more rigorous restrictions of Kyoto, their emissions have increased more than ours in the time they've been under those restrictions.

I, personally, would rather not bring the regulations of my nation in line wiht those of nations which pollution levels have been steadily rising, wich unemplyment rates are double or triple ours, and which economies are in a visible freefall. We seem to be doing quite well without Kyoto and without adopting regulations that seem to be doing nothing beneficial in those countries that have adopted them.