election factor #3

[Annie]

DK I may be missing something here, but it seems to me that the whole freaking country is getting richer, with the poor being slower at doing so. Wouldn't it make more sense to use standard of living data?

 

[tim_duncan2000]

You cannot point to anything which directly supports your assertion that there is a "so called constitutional right to survive" for US corporations. On the contrary, many of them go out of business on a regular basis.

Second, your call to "stop endorsing the 'corporations MUST be allowed to make a profit' agenda" is completely puzzling. First your assertion that there is such an agenda is totally unsupported. Second, profit is the reason corporations exist. Profit is the reason that corporations are able to pay their employees. Perhaps you would be more content if all corporations went out of business.

Good post. I was just about to say that. Why wouldn't we want them to make a profit? If a company never makes a profit, they might not be around much longer.

 

[DKSuddeth]

Most of that statement is nonsensical. Your socialist tendencies are showing again.

sorry you can't make sense of it. try reading this article about the 'constitutional rights' that corporations enjoy. I also didn't realize that trying to adhere to the original meaning of the constitution meant I was exhibiting socialist tendencies, or is that the republican talking point for anyone badmouthing business?

You cannot point to anything which directly supports your assertion that there is a "so called constitutional right to survive" for US corporations. On the contrary, many of them go out of business on a regular basis.

read the above article I posted.

Second, your call to "stop endorsing the 'corporations MUST be allowed to make a profit' agenda" is completely puzzling. First your assertion that there is such an agenda is totally unsupported.

George bush said this in a speech somewhere, i'm trying to find it.

Second, profit is the reason corporations exist. Profit is the reason that corporations are able to pay their employees. Perhaps you would be more content if all corporations went out of business. That way, at least, we could all be equally poor. Is that the socialist idea of utopia?

well no shit sherlock, I realize that corporations exist to make a profit. What I object to is the government stacking the odds in favor of corporations instead of a level playing field. You must be getting defensive about something if you are continuing to address all business related issues as 'socialism'.

The article you sourced from MSNBC is typical of them. First, it is a left-slanted hatchet job and second it is poorly researched. It draws assumptions unsupported by the meager facts it presents. But I'll get back to that later when I have more time.

The old 'Liberal mass media' excuse is really getting tiring. How long will that tired excuse be given by republicans to try and downplay or dismiss even the tinies negativity directed toward a republican?

 

[DKSuddeth]

Under Bush it appears to have decreased. All the MAJOR increase was under Clinton. If you look at the graph closely and without a Partisan eye, you will see that! DOH!

So based on YOUR position, if this trend continues, a REPUBLICAN will most likely be elected AGAIN after Bush's upcoming, next four years!

whoa, theres something to notice. I may have to detract some of this now. damn it all.

 

[DKSuddeth]

Please show me where they're not.

asked you first.

 

[DKSuddeth]

Good post. I was just about to say that. Why wouldn't we want them to make a profit? If a company never makes a profit, they might not be around much longer.

and yet again, I have no problem with a business making a profit. I have issue with the government favoring their ability to do so at the peoples expense, like airline and rail bailouts for example.

 

[Annie]

asked you first.

Why do I think I hear KL's voice coming out of your fingers? :shocked:

 

[DKSuddeth]

DK I may be missing something here, but it seems to me that the whole freaking country is getting richer, with the poor being slower at doing so. Wouldn't it make more sense to use standard of living data?

it would, I wonder why it wasn't done here. correct me if I'm wrong though, but isn't the cost of living increasing higher than the growth of the lower 20%?

 

[freeandfun1]

and yet again, I have no problem with a business making a profit. I have issue with the government favoring their ability to do so at the peoples expense, like airline and rail bailouts for example.

I agree with you on bailouts. I was pissed when we bailed out the airline industry. So on that point, we can agree. I didn't see the government coming in to help me when the Asian currencies devalued in 99. When that happened, I had large orders canceled by Asian customers, couldn't collect on orders shipped and in 2000, our sales were nearly 60% less than they were in 99. My corporation didn't get any government help...... a matter of fact, Clinton cut out export tax credits.

 

[freeandfun1]

it would, I wonder why it wasn't done here. correct me if I'm wrong though, but isn't the cost of living increasing higher than the growth of the lower 20%?

Nope. Here is CPI data for 1984 - 2003

(I had to get the info from http://stats.bls.gov/opub/hom/homch17_itc.htm
and therefore could not link the image)

 

[DKSuddeth]

ok, heres what I see, someone critique or support.

the income gap DID decrease between 2000 and 2002 (good catch on that one free), we can attribute that to the downturn and 9/11, right?

A seriously meager jobs report for July (32,000?) but MAYBE we can attribute that to the pre interest rate boost to stave off inflation? If august has a better jobs report, things look better.

energy costs, is high or low energy costs good? obviously high is bad for consumer, what about market and economy in general?

consumer costs decreased 0.1% as well as fuel and food costs, housing is up. whats the outlook for the housing market if it continues to swell like it has?

 

[Annie]

it would, I wonder why it wasn't done here. correct me if I'm wrong though, but isn't the cost of living increasing higher than the growth of the lower 20%?

I dunno, I saw this:
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&e=1&u=/ap/20040817/ap_on_bi_go_ec_fi/economy

Consumer Prices Fall, Housing Rebounds

15 minutes ago

By MARTIN CRUTSINGER, AP Economics Writer

WASHINGTON - Consumer prices fell by 0.1 percent in July as gasoline prices dropped while output at factories and housing construction posted healthy rebounds, offering hope the economy has escaped this summer's "soft patch."

The Labor Department (news - web sites) said Tuesday that the decline in its closely watched Consumer Price Index (news - web sites) was the first decrease since a 0.2 percent drop last November. The CPI had been up 0.3 percent in June and an even sharper 0.6 percent in May, reflecting big jumps in energy costs.

Meanwhile, the Federal Reserve (news - web sites) reported that output at the nation's factories, mines and utilities rose by 0.4 percent in July, nearly erasing a 0.5 percent plunge in June. The increase was led by a sharp 1.2 percent jump in mining activity, a category that includes oil production, and a 0.6 percent rise in manufacturing activity, the biggest increase in this category three months.

In other good economic news, the Commerce Department (news - web sites) reported that construction of new homes and apartments rose by 8.3 percent in July. The bigger-than-expected gain pushed housing construction to an annual rate of 1.978 million units last month, making up lost ground from a 7.7 percent decline in housing starts in June.

The rebounds in both industrial production and housing starts provided evidence that a slowdown in economic activity in June, which Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan (news - web sites) termed a "soft patch" will not deepen into something worse.

Again, I think that just throwing up a 20% and calling that the 'poor' may be missing something-kind of like using a bell curve to grade. Within that % I would guess would be some that are there temporarily and then there are those that are 'fixed' in poverty for a variety of causes. Yet I would think that we would find that nearly all in that 20% have a higher standard of living than most of the 'poor' in other countries, why? Because of capitalism.

"Never mind the low wages and harsh living conditions of the early years of capitalism. They were all that the national economies of the time could afford. Capitalism did not create poverty -- it inherited it. Compared to the centuries of precapitalist starvation, the living conditions of the poor in the early years of capitalism were the first chance the poor had ever had to survive. As proof -- the enormous growth of the European population during the nineteenth century, a growth of over 300 percent, as compared to the previous growth of something like 3 percent per century." -- Ayn Rand

 

[DKSuddeth]

Nope. Here is CPI data for 1984 - 2003

LINK

that didn't work for me, all I got was this.

Sorry, survey does not exist. If you need to contact someone about the program or its data, please send a message to the data questions e-mail address below or call the phone number below.

 

[DKSuddeth]

I dunno, I saw this:
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&e=1&u=/ap/20040817/ap_on_bi_go_ec_fi/economy

this explains that drop though.

Excluding energy and food, consumer prices rose a tiny 0.1 percent in July, matching the June increase.

Again, I think that just throwing up a 20% and calling that the 'poor' may be missing something-kind of like using a bell curve to grade. Within that % I would guess would be some that are there temporarily and then there are those that are 'fixed' in poverty for a variety of causes. Yet I would think that we would find that nearly all in that 20% have a higher standard of living than most of the 'poor' in other countries, why? Because of capitalism.

still trying to determine what the cost of living has done, and are we really going to try to compare our lower class cost of living to the 'poor' in other countries?

 

[freeandfun1]

I saw that so I had to copy the graph image and upload it. You have to build your own data request, so you cannot link it. If you go back to that original post, you will see an image of the graph and a link where you can get the CPI data if you want to verify what I posted.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/forums/showpost.php?p=143633&postcount=30

 

[freeandfun1]

this explains that drop though.

It explains the drop because that is the only thing that has been causing the recent increase in the CPI. A matter-of-fact, many economists will say that we have been in a period of deflation for many years now. Hence the need for the fed to cut interest rates in the past.

We have to remember that A LOT of the jobs created under Clinton were NOT permanent jobs. They were jobs that were created during a lot of scandals that ran up stocks. Companies kept hiring, giving an indication that things were good, when they weren't and that made people want to buy their stock.

PurchasePro here in Vegas is a good example. They went into business, build this HUGE campus, hired HUNDREDS of Las Vegans to work in the company, ran the stock up to something like $200 a share, the founders cashed out, laid off all the employees, went BK and now are running from the feds.

That is just ONE example. Thinks of the thousands laid off by Worldcomm, Enron, PurchasePro, etc., etc. I could go on an on. Those corporations NEVER really could afford all those employees. It was all just part of the game to get the stocks ran up.

So again, at least the job growth under Bush, while slow, is reasoned, principled and therefore, probably more stable.

 

[DKSuddeth]

I saw that so I had to copy the graph image and upload it. You have to build your own data request, so you cannot link it. If you go back to that original post, you will see an image of the graph and a link where you can get the CPI data if you want to verify what I posted.

thanks for the graph, is that just for CPI? and do we know that the bottom 20% dropped from from 4.2 percent to 3.5 percent overall, according to the article. I can't find a percentage for salary increases yet.

 

[DKSuddeth]

It explains the drop because that is the only thing that has been causing the recent increase in the CPI. A matter-of-fact, many economists will say that we have been in a period of deflation for many years now. Hence the need for the fed to cut interest rates in the past.

We have to remember that A LOT of the jobs created under Clinton were NOT permanent jobs. They were jobs that were created during a lot of scandals that ran up stocks. Companies kept hiring, giving an indication that things were good, when they weren't and that made people want to buy their stock.

PurchasePro here in Vegas is a good example. They went into business, build this HUGE campus, hired HUNDREDS of Las Vegans to work in the company, ran the stock up to something like $200 a share, the founders cashed out, laid off all the employees, went BK and now are running from the feds.

That is just ONE example. Thinks of the thousands laid off by Worldcomm, Enron, PurchasePro, etc., etc. I could go on an on. Those corporations NEVER really could afford all those employees. It was all just part of the game to get the stocks ran up.

So again, at least the job growth under Bush, while slow, is reasoned, principled and therefore, probably more stable.

good example. thanks.

 

[freeandfun1]

thanks for the graph, is that just for CPI? and do we know that the bottom 20% dropped from from 4.2 percent to 3.5 percent overall, according to the article. I can't find a percentage for salary increases yet.

There is a LOT of good info on that site. You can categorize by clerical versus factory workers, etc., etc. Pretty interesting. You'll probably have a lot of fun looking at all the graphs you can make!! I know I did! lol

 

[freeandfun1]

thanks for the graph, is that just for CPI? and do we know that the bottom 20% dropped from from 4.2 percent to 3.5 percent overall, according to the article. I can't find a percentage for salary increases yet.

It is just CPI and it is adjusted.