NBC proved to be a media anomaly on July 17, leading its “Nightly News” broadcast with the record-high close on Wall Street and admitting that the stock market does benefit “a majority of Americans.” This historic bull run by the stock market was virtually ignored by other media. Katie Couric briefly mentioned it on the CBS “Evening News,” and ABC “World News” ignored it on July 17. The New York Times buried it on page 10 of the business section July 18.
“Earlier this afternoon, when the closing bell rang on the opposite coast on Wall Street in New York, the Dow Jones industrials hit an all-time high, up again more than 20 points, to close painfully close to that 14,000 mark, having briefly climbed above it earlier in the day,” said anchor Brian Williams.
Williams asked CNBC’s Erin Burnett who is really benefiting from rising stocks. Burnett shot back with “a lot more people than you would think.” With the typical class warfare mindset of journalists, she wasn’t kidding.
“While Wall Street benefits from all that growth, the average American is likely benefiting as well,” said Burnett. “More than half of Americans are invested in the market, whether through a 401k plan, a mutual fund, or buying specific stocks.”
In the past, the media have often provided a “but” in stories about stock market highs. That’s what Dan Harris did on the July 12 “World New Tonight with Charles Gibson.”
“But, and there’s always a ‘but’ with the stock market. If say gas goes to $4 a gallon or interest rates spike unexpectedly, all bets are off. As one investor today, the market is a lot like the weather in New England – if you don’t like it, just wait a day,” said Harris.
But media coverage of Dow milestones has been mostly pessimistic. Every time the Dow broke through a milestone – the 11,000 on Jan. 10, 2006 all the way up to its passing of the 13,000 mark on April 25, naysayers in the media cast doubt on the possibility of a continued climb.
—Julia A. Seymour is an assistant editor for the Business & Media Institute.
Comments Policy
We all know what would of
July 18, 2007 - 21:46 ET by bigtimerWe all know what would of happened if Clinton was still President and this had happened, especially any major milestone after 9/11 withe the stock market...
I remember well when the television would break away with BREAKING NEWS when a new number was hit during the Clinton administration, I also remember the week long or more brouhaha with the msm going on and on....even though some of that stock like the dot.com bubble was false.
Sure can tell the difference can't you?
They must think we can't.
The Dow at 14,000 means
July 18, 2007 - 22:29 ET by BacchusThe Dow at 14,000 means the surge is working. Iraq has energized the economy. More, faster.
Since when did liberal logic ever make sense? :)
Support the troops!
Clinton vs. Bush on Stock Market
July 18, 2007 - 23:01 ET by americandudeAm I supposed to be impressed? Clinton had the DJIA up to almost 12,000 during his term. He handed it to Bush at 11,000 after the roaring 90s. Under Bush the DJIA has a gone up a paltry 4.5% per year. The US poverty rate just hit a 32 year high. The US dollar is at a 26 year low vs. the British pound and near record low vs. the Euro. Real median household income is still below where it was under Clinton.
Ahhh... the glory of
July 19, 2007 - 00:56 ET by mulerider24Ahhh... the glory of statistics. Just like a hammer you can wield it to build up or break down. I've never been a big fan of placing a correlation factor of 1.0 between presiding presidents and market performance. As I'm sure even americandude will admit, with so many lagging and
leading variables it's difficult to say who gets credit (or ridicule)
for what.
I do think economic policy has an effect. But ever since Reagan's massive overhaul of our economic system it seems like the following presidents have been given one ultimatum - Don't F- it up!
Clinton presided over the Internet boom, but did he do anything to create Silicon Valley? Bush got the housing boom, but didn't Greenspan help with that? Clinton's job growth rate was 15.6%, but he took office in the midst of an expansion and left right before the bubble burst. Bush was born into a market meltdown, but managed to better Clinton's unemployment rate thus far into his presidency - albeit with a changing workforce. We could do this all day.
I think the biggest difference can be measured by intangibles. In 1993, Clinton was basically given the head coaching position to the 1985 Chicago Bears. The Soviet Union collapsed, defense spending was cut, Greenspan lowers rates, a Conservative Congress takes office in 1995 and Flooz.com is set to create the next global currency to rival the U.S. dollar. You can make all the Super Bowl Shuffle videos you want, just show up on Sunday.
Bush hadn't even changed the curtains before the Internet bubble burst, a recession hits, 9/11 rocks the country, defense spending ramps up again, Katrina comes through, and a Republican (notice I didn't say Conservative) Congress has no idea how to stop spending. It's no fault to Clinton, but Bush had to deal with a little more adversity to get the economy back in order.
So yes americandude, you can cherry-pick all the stats you want and technically you'll be right. Myself, I would classify the Clinton vs. Bush a wash. But, in my humble opinion, they both take a back seat to Reagan.
Dear mulerider24 - re: Clinton vs. Reagan/Bush
July 20, 2007 - 23:42 ET by americandudeDear mulerider24:
I agree with your first point. About the 1-1 correspondence issue.
Next, I'll concede that Reagan was not a bad president, much better than all of the other post WWII repubs like Nixon, Ford, and both Bushes. I like how Reagan rolled up his sleeves and worked with Tip O'Neil to get things done and compromised when he had to. But, regarding the Reagan effect on the economy, I would say results are mixed, with huge federal deficits that grew massively on his watch and the deep recession that hit Bush-41 and led to Clinton riding the wave of pessism into two terms in the WH (remember "it's the economy stupid"). Clinton did not have to simply maintain the status quo when he came in, as you suggest. He campaigned on a bold agenda that you can see in his 1992 campaign ads such as raising taxes on the richest Americans, targeted tax cuts for the middle class, passing NAFTA, ending welfare, and creating jobs. Clinton had a laser like focus on passing this agenda and he had great people around him like Bob Rubin, Lloyd Bentsen, and Robert Reich to make it happen. The most important and courageous was the 1993 economic legislation that passed without one single Republican vote: http://en.wikipedia....
This raised the top personal income, corporate, and fuel tax rates, which led Republicans to predict economic disaster; the opposite occurred (21 million jobs created in his 8 years in office). Of course Clinton got much of his other promised legislation through such as Welfare reform, NAFTA, and middle class tax cuts. This was done largely in collaboration with Republicans. Also importantly, Clinton, as promised, focused on reducing waste in govt. With Al Gore's Reinventing Govt initiative, Clinton made govt more efficient. Clinton also had a competent approach to natural disasters with an effective FEMA staff, such as James Lee Witt. Clinton's handling of the great midwest floods in 1993 helped to avert potential economic disaster that could have hit the national economy hard. These are some of the reasons I disagree that Clinton was just a figurehead.
I agree with your point about Bush having to face many challenges. But, the facts are that Bush did many things wrong and has demonstrated incompetence in response to the challenges. Moreover, the Republican-led Congress for the first 6 years did Bush no favors by essentially treating him with kid gloves and letting him do whatever he wanted. Some tough oversight by Congress would have actually helped Bush.
Corrections
July 19, 2007 - 05:58 ET by UnsaneIt must pain you to know that poverty's #1 cause is freewill. Want to solve poverty? Well, it's on the individual...
1) Abstinence before marriage.
2) Get your high school diploma.
3) Save 20% of your income in one of those nifty instruments called a Savings Account.
Gee, guess the Nanny Government can't really help with that, huh?
As for the Euro and the Pound...they aren't too happy right now about it either. To hear you whine Britain should be an economic hyperpower, for only during a brief time in the 1980s was the pound worth less than the dollar. The president of France, for one, is NOT happy about the strength of the Euro and wants it devalued.
In your eager worship of Mr. Greatthings, you seem to have forgotten that in March 2000, the dot-com bubble burst, under Clinton's watch. But then, to hear you gush, Clinton personally filled our tummies and tucked us into bed every single night from 1993-2001 before That Big Meanie Bush came along.
And the DJIA has only gone up 4.5% a year under That Big Meanie Bush? Not my fault you get, and take, crappy investment advice. My mutual funds are waaaaay above that.
Res tantum valet quantum vendi potest.
Trade deficit hits new
July 18, 2007 - 23:25 ET by Space CowboyTrade deficit hits new highs, dollar hits new lows, U.S. budget deficit starting to decrease finally but only after climbing 50% to 9 trillion (yes thats TRILLION with a "T") during the first American war without tax increases under the Bush Administration. Very few on NewsBusters either know these facts or can connect the dots to the overall economy and how this might affect the future.
How did that song go that they sang back in the Roaring Twenties? "Happy days are here again . . . "
Trade deficit hits new
July 18, 2007 - 23:52 ET by Free StinkerTrade deficit hits new highs
No problem. (do I really need to explain this one to you? Click HERE to learn)
dollar hits new lows
Cool! Boeing (as one example) will sell even more 737, 777, and 787 jets than Airbus. ha ha!
U.S. budget deficit starting to decrease finally
It has been decreasing in the last few *years*. Glad to see a Liberal finally noticed.
_______
Fred Thompson and Ann Coulter walk into a bar. The bar is instantly destroyed because that much awesome cannot be contained in one build
_Trade deficit hits new
July 19, 2007 - 00:14 ET by Space Cowboy_Trade deficit hits new highs
No problem. (do I really need to explain this one to you?)
Um, yeah, I guess you do. How exactly is it that buying more than you’re selling is good? Make sure you work in an explanation of how foreign banks – say, like in China – holding dollars from their trade surplus that they may decide to dump someday, is a good thing. I’ve got my popcorn and I’m ready. I’m sure this explanation will be worth a good laugh.
_dollar hits new lows
Cool! Boeing (as one example) will sell even more 737, 777, and 787 jets than Airbus. ha ha!
Cool! only to a simpleton like you. Currencies are like stocks. The fact that ours is in the toilet means that there are more sellers than buyers. You DO understand how markets work, right? The fact that there are more sellers indicates a lack of confidence in the American economy based – not on the great profits flowing to American companies or on low unemployment rates – but on fear of future weakness because of the soaring trade imbalance and the astronomical amount of budget debt. Yes, it helps exports but, at the same time, it undermines the purchasing power of Americans and SHOULD give us some clue that the rest of the world is worried. And, you might want to avoid traveling to – well, just about anywhere – unless you’ve got a suitcase to carry all the cash you’ll need.
_U.S. budget deficit starting to decrease finally
It has been decreasing in the last few *years*. Glad to see a Liberal finally noticed.
Yeah, decreasing AFTER climbing 50% - from 6 to 9 trillion dollars – under the money management of the Republicans. They WERE in charge the last six years, right? And note, the deficit is decreasing, NOT in positive territory. It will take many years – if ever – to climb out of the hole the Republicans have put us in. Oh yeah, you DO know that the baby boomers are now retiring and will be putting INCREASED demand on social security and Medicare and making it very unlikely there will EVER be a surplus to help dig us out of the hole with.
But, this IS a great opportunity to make serious money shorting the dollar.
Good luck. People like you are going to need it.
Space
July 19, 2007 - 00:43 ET by Free StinkerI’ve got my popcorn and I’m ready. I’m sure this explanation will be worth a good laugh.
I'll just quote Milton Fiedman (From the Link you apparently didn't bother to read) "He stated that these deficits are not harmful to the country as the currency always comes back to the country of origin in some form or another (country A sells to country B, country B sells to country C who
buys from country A, but the trade deficit only includes A and B). In fact, in his view, the "worst case scenario" of the currency never returning to the country of origin was actually the best possible outcome: the country actually purchased its goods by exchanging them for pieces of cheaply-made paper. As Friedman put it, this would be the same result as if the exporting country burned the dollars it earned, never returning it to market circulation."
indicates a lack of confidence
Actually, there are many factors besides what you listed including Employement rate, intrest rates, and speculation, just to name a few. It's funny how you try to insult people. I'd be offended if I wasn't laughing so hard.
Yeah, decreasing AFTER climbing 50% - from 6 to 9 trillion dollars
That is the *debt* you mentioned, not the deficit. Try to stay focused. Meanwhile, you do recall the dot-com crash, Clinton's corporate scandals coming to roost, and 9/11? Of course not.
Oh yeah, you DO know that the baby boomers are now retiring and will be
putting INCREASED demand on social security and Medicare and making it
very unlikely there will EVER be a surplus to help dig us out of the
hole with.
Glad to see you agree that Social Security is a Ponzi-like scam.
Anything else I can help you with today?
Oh yeah, you DO know that
July 19, 2007 - 00:54 ET by RESTLESS 1Oh yeah, you DO know that the baby boomers are now retiring and will be
putting INCREASED demand on social security and Medicare and making it
very unlikely there will EVER be a surplus to help dig us out of the
hole with.
So Spacey, you would agree with President Bush that social security should be privatized? C'mon, admit it. I know it is hard, but you can do it.
I can demolish that simple
July 19, 2007 - 01:10 ET by Space CowboyI can demolish that simple little concept faster than Homer can down a doughnut.
Private accounts will require BORROWING large amounts of money because they will REDUCE the cash flow into SS just at the time demand is increasing. SS right now is just a giant box of I.O.U.'s and depends on CURRENT income to pay those receiving SS now. The combination of fewer younger workers just as the large demographic buldge of baby boomers retire will already require more money from the general fund. Allowing private accounts would require even MORE.
Because of that - and the fact that we are currently DEEPLY IN DEBT to the tune of 9 trillion dollars - we can't afford to "privitize" SS.
We can't afford to
July 19, 2007 - 01:39 ET by mulerider24We can't afford to privatize it completely, but that wasn't the proposal. Unfortunately the economic fear mongers got ahead of the debate before it could actually be discussed. I vaguely recall the latest figure being close to 10% of SS being privatized.
Space, I'm curious on your opinion of debt maintenance as a percentage of GDP.
Mule--we can't afford NOT to 'privitize' SSI 100%
July 19, 2007 - 05:12 ET by ncstevemIt's not that difficult of a concept.
My employer of 15 years has a traditional pension plan (defined benefit = SSI) and I hate it. My previous employer had a retirement plan whereby each employee received 5 - 15% of their salary in the form of profit sharing which was put into their 401K plan (defined contribution plan). I have numerous friends who retired with over $1,000,000 with that company. And that company was notorious for paying poor salaries. My friends made below average/average pay. But they were getting 5 - 15% of their salary in a retirement account on top of the 10% they put in every year.
Defined benefit programs are going the way of the dinosaur because employers can't afford them in the same way the US government can't afford SSI. If I die I can't pass the $ on to my heirs, I don't have compound interest working for me, and I'm beholden to the politicians who have taken our money and spent it on other things. NO THANK YOU!!
I ran a calculation assuming that I put my SSI tax into a private account bearing 7% interest (I've done better than that since graduating college in 1984) and I would currently have $162,000 in my account.
One flaw in your argument is
July 19, 2007 - 11:43 ET by Space CowboyOne flaw in your argument is that you overlook that Soc. Sec. is NOT just a retirement program. It's a social safety net that takes care of people with dissabilities as well as provide for money in old age.
Mule--we can't afford NOT to 'privitize' SSI 100%
July 19, 2007 - 05:26 ET by ncstevemIt's not that difficult of a concept.
My employer of 15 years has a traditional pension plan (defined benefit = SSI) and I hate it. My previous employer had a retirement plan whereby each employee received 5 - 15% of their salary in the form of profit sharing which was put into their 401K plan (defined contribution plan). I have numerous friends who retired with over $1,000,000 with that company. And that company was notorious for paying poor salaries. My friends made below average/average pay. But they were getting 5 - 15% of their salary in a retirement account on top of the 10% they put in every year.
Defined benefit programs are going the way of the dinosaur because employers can't afford them in the same way the US government can't afford SSI. If I die I can't pass the $ on to my heirs, I don't have compound interest working for me, and I'm beholden to the politicians who have taken our money and spent it on other things. NO THANK YOU!!
I ran a calculation assuming that I put my SSI tax into a private account bearing 7% interest (I've done better than that since graduating college in 1984) and I would currently have $162,000 in my account.
ncstevem
July 19, 2007 - 14:37 ET by mulerider24ncstevem - I think the ultimate goal needs to be a true privatization of SS. However, I'm practical enough to realize that in politics, the tail wags the dog. I would have no problem with a proposal that shifts a portion of SS into taxpayers' hands to minimize the burden and at least delay the impending implosion until a better plan can be constructed. This would allow Americans to dip their toes into the privatization waters and realize the temperature really isn't that bad. It would also break down the fears of the economically challenged that believe the dirty conservatives are out to steal their retirement.
I agree with your assessment of DB vs. DC plans; companies are definitely shifting the responsibility of saving for retirement to their employees (although 412i and 412 split funded plans are still used in very exclusive niches). DBs have historically been very expensive, rigid, and nearly impossible for participants to understand. Look no further than the airline industry to see what kind of albatross those DBs can be on companies. But how easy was it for American Airlines to fight through the unions and reach a common ground when it came to revamping the pensions. Now transpose that type of battle across an entire country and you'll see it won't be a seamless process.
SS is just a different animal with a lot more variables involved. What used to be a retirement safety net is now part of today's entitlement program. Redirecting inertia can be a b**ch sometimes. I also second your statements about potential for greater returns and transportability to heirs. If nothing else, time and compound interest can transform a lot of janitors into millionaires.
Space, when it comes to Social Security....
July 19, 2007 - 04:33 ET by ncstevemshould I as an individual be forced against my will to invest my money into an account that will currently return about 1% on my money (and in a few years younger workers will begin receiving a negative return on their money)? Or should I be allowed to invest my money in a private account that will grow exponentially through the concept of compound interest?
See answer above.
July 19, 2007 - 11:44 ET by Space CowboySee answer above.
Contradictions Collapse
July 19, 2007 - 05:25 ET by UnsaneOh, we can't afford to privatize Social Security...
But we MUST immediately NATIONALIZE 15% of the United States economy?
Contradictions have an annoying and painful habit of collapsing, don't they?
(We shouldn't privatize all at once, but over time. But that's not what horrifies you. You desperately want to be a Ward of the State and cannot understand why everyone else doesn't share in that dream.)
Res tantum valet quantum vendi potest.
Contradict this! Not too
July 19, 2007 - 11:47 ET by Space CowboyContradict this! Not too long ago, for the first time in decades, we started to run a surplus. We can do it again AND provide universal coverage. Are we not at least as smart as the British, Frence, Germans, and Italians?
Ok, maybe not.
You're right, we're incapable of running our own country.
Space
July 19, 2007 - 17:37 ET by Noel SheppardSpace,
Well, let's not be so enthralled with in particular France, Germany, and Italy. After all, their entitlement programs, and their changing population dynamics, threaten their very existence. This is why all three nations are seeing very weak recoveries compared to ours, and are begging their people to have more children.
As for our surplus, it was an illusion caused partially by the unified budget, and partially by a stock bubble that couldn't possibly be recurring. Take out the social security surplus and non-recurring capital gains taxes from the sale of stocks and stock options, and there wasn't one year of surplus.
Furthermore, as the baby boomers begin retiring in the next few years, and the social security surplus goes away, you can say goodbye to any chance of us having a surplus for several decades.
With that in mind, there isn't any money for a universal healthcare system unless we want to further saddle our children and grandchildren with debt and higher taxes. I just say no! :-) ns
Universal coverage already
July 21, 2007 - 05:12 ET by UnsaneUniversal coverage already exists. Even if I didn't have my HMO, I will be stabilized at any hospital I go to free of charge. But of course that won't stop you from whining constantly for immediate, total pampering from the government for being BORN.
The French? The government controls 50% of their economy. President Sarkozy FEARS competition more than you do, and that is saying a LOT. They are Going Nowhere. Germany is enjoying a GDP uptick, but that is due to the global economy doing well and they are finally catching up. They still have MUCH restructuring to do in their economy. Oh, and by the way, for all they spend on coddling their people, they DO NOT have universal Nanny health-care. If you make above 48,000 euros a year or so, the government tells you to get your own damn insurance. But Germany is STILL Going Nowhere.
Italy sure as all hell Going Nowhere as they no longer have a weak lira to fall back on and devalue at will.
Britain...well, it's not my fault you refuse to read. If the NHS is SO GREAT, you can explain why people are so discontented with it, and they show that they are by purchasing private insurance!!! They want to Go Nowhere, and work very hard at that every single day.
You want the U.S. government to coddle you cradle to grave just for being born, even if that means the United States ossifies and Goes Nowhere. How sad.
Res tantum valet quantum vendi potest.
I don't think I'll ever be
July 19, 2007 - 01:24 ET by mulerider24I don't think I'll ever be able to forget Bush's 2006 State of the Union Address. In it he made a statement about Congress not acting on his plan to help save Social Security and immediately all the Democrats shot out of their seats in applause. I wish Bush would have asked them to keep standing so history could judge them when the program goes bankrupt.
Anything else I can help
July 19, 2007 - 01:03 ET by Space CowboyAnything else I can help you with today?
Well, actually, no. But, after you quit laughing you MIGHT want to read the article about Friedman that you linked to. Here's the argument - printed in the very next paragraph after the one you post above - to Friedman's logic that you're so enamoured of:
"Friedman's view is seen by many as ignoring the intergenerational or long run consequences of deficits, low savings, and borrowing to fund consumption. If country A has a trade deficit because of large imports of consumer goods, other countries accumulate cash from country A. That money can be used to purchase existing investment assets and government bonds within country A. As a result, the return from those assets will accrue not to citizens of country A but to foreigners. The consumption standard of future generations in country A may therefore potentially decline as a result of the deficit. In particular, Americans are increasingly paying taxes to finance the interest on federal bonds held by foreigners."
That is the *debt* you mentioned, not the deficit. Try to stay focused.
Wow, it's lucky I wasn't drinking anything when I read that. You're REALLY as dumb as a doorknob. I thought you were just pretending, you know, to mess with my mind. YES, the figures I gave is the debt, but HOW DO YOU FREAKING THINK WE GOT THE DEBT IN THE FIRST PLACE, DUMBO? The debt is what has accumulated because of years of deficits. Wow. I mean, well, . . . WOW!!
Economics really isn't your strong suit. Maybe we should talk about baseball. Or, do you know anymore good Fred Thompson/Ann Coulter jokes?
Yes. I did read it.
July 19, 2007 - 01:15 ET by Free StinkerYes, I did read it.
Friedman's view is seen by many as ignoring the intergenerational or
long run consequences of deficits, low savings, and borrowing to fund
consumption.
I ignored it then for the same reason I'm ignoring it now. The "seen by many" comment has no citation, yet the Friendman quote was from his work. Since anyone can edit Wikipedia, that comment would have some weight if there was a valid citation. "seen by many" Many who? How can that remark be taken seriously when you don't have anything backing it up?
You are aware that trade is not a zero sum game, aren't you?
No citation needed. It
July 19, 2007 - 01:48 ET by Space CowboyNo citation needed. It makes perfect sense - or, at least, it's the rebuttal to Friedman's philosophy. It's the counter argument, is it not?
If country A runs a deficit, money accumulates in country B. That imbalance allows B to purchase assets or bonds in country A. The profits and dividends from those investments then flow out of country A to country B forcing future generations to be the worker instead of the owners as well as to have to finance the debt. You're eventually going to end up with a surplus of cash that will be used to purchase real assets in country A (remember the Japanese buying up major Amerian properties?) or a hugh amount of currency that COULD be used to undermine another country in a time of crisis. That was what I was hinting at when I ask if China holding a trillion in dollars is good.
But then, you think a cheap dollar is GOOD so, if China decides to dump dollars and the dollar falls through the floor, you would think that is GREAT.
And, regardless of what Friedman thought, the dollar is at the mercy of the international markets and they are long-term bearish on the dollar because of the twin deficits.
And this is a good thing how . . . ?
if China decides to dump
July 19, 2007 - 01:56 ET by Free Stinkerif China decides to dump dollars and the dollar falls through the floor, you would think that is GREAT.
Why would they intentionally lose money doing that? I supose you truly belive the dollar can fall to zero value? Please, spare us your happy-hour economics.
And, regardless of what Friedman thought, the dollar is at the mercy of
the international markets and they are long-term bearish on the dollar
because of the twin deficits.
All currencies are at the "mercy of international markets"
twin deficits Two budgets now? Is the other one for the "Shadow Govermnet"?
_______
Fred Thompson and Ann Coulter walk into a bar. The bar is instantly destroyed because that much awesome cannot be contained in one build
Contradictions Collapse (h/t, Meshuggah)
July 19, 2007 - 05:30 ET by UnsaneApparently we aren't the only ones who think that a cheap currency is good. The New Zealanders aren't all that happy about having a strong currency right now. Oh, and Nicholas Sarkozy has been whining of late the he believes the Euro is overvalued, and took his bitching to a meeting of finance ministers from Euro-zone countries. He also announced then that France has no intention (again, if ever) of following the budget deficit strictures of the Growth and Stability Pact that is the very underpinning of the Euro.
Do I have to explain everything to you?
Not to mention that yet again you whine, scream, andn throw a tantrum over our deficits/debt, but in the same breath DEMAND the government nationalize 15% of the U.S. economy. Don't contradictions suck when they collapse?
Res tantum valet quantum vendi potest.
Evening Free, I have been
July 19, 2007 - 00:22 ET by shawn228Evening Free,
I have been in Canada for the past week. Not enjoying the week American dollar very much:) Used to get $1:50 about 5 years ago, now it is almost at par:(
What would you posibly want
July 19, 2007 - 00:28 ET by Free StinkerWhat would you posibly want to buy in Canada, anyway? ;-)
Fred Thompson and Ann Coulter walk into a bar. The bar is instantly destroyed because that much awesome cannot be contained in one build
About 5 yrs ago, I
July 19, 2007 - 00:34 ET by shawn228About 5 yrs ago, I probably could bought the BC Lions and the Calgary Stampeders. lol. Seriously though, everytime I go out to eat a restaraunt in kinda sucks to not have the spending power like in the past . I can only imagine what it is like for Americans in Europe.
kinda sucks to not have the
July 19, 2007 - 00:48 ET by Free Stinkerkinda sucks to not have the spending power like in the past
It does always feel better to get a "deal".
You can still go to Brazil where you can feed a party of 4 for about $30, and that is at a good place with a Healthy Tip.
50 cents on the dollar
July 19, 2007 - 01:04 ET by shawn22850 cents on the dollar is a little more than a deal it is a "blowout sale" I'm sure you can buy lots of "meat on sticks" Brazil but with the dollar at a all time low in Europe. Im sure American travellers there are feeling the pinch. You are right about selling more Boeings, but we are also paying 50 percent more for the oil we are buying from Canada, which is creeping up to an all time high.
Ok. The dollar is at an
July 19, 2007 - 01:21 ET by Free StinkerOk. The dollar is at an all time low against the Euro. So what? Tourism costs more, that hurts the European tourist industry more than anyone else.
If Canadian oil is so much more expensive, I'm sure we'll start buying it elsewhere.
And if high Oil prices bother you, then I guess you support drilling in ANWR, off the coast of Florida, and more Nukes electric plants?
_______
Fred Thompson and Ann Coulter walk into a bar. The bar is instantly destroyed because that much awesome cannot be contained in one build
I tentatively agree
July 19, 2007 - 01:29 ET by shawn228I tentatively agree with with electric plants and maybe some new oil refineries. Not educated on on Anwar.
If Canadian oil is so much more expensive, I'm sure we'll start buying it elsewhere.
Where? the middle east? If oil was so available elsewhere I would imagine it would not be 75.00 a barrel
The problem isn't the
July 19, 2007 - 01:38 ET by Free StinkerThe problem isn't the availability, it's the demand. China has become a large user of Oil and increased demand means increased price. The oil is available, for a price. If the price is too high, we'll have to do without or come up with an alternative.
That is one of many reasons why I'm planning on buying Honda's Fuel Cell car once it's in my price range.
FS
July 19, 2007 - 01:49 ET by shawn228Exactly, oil is in demand, especially from India and China. Which is why America cannot be choosy about who it buys its oil from. Which is brings me back to what I asked before, who would we get our oil from instead of Canada. Only so much oil available to us from countries friendly to us like Mexico. What can we do to get more bang for our buck. A stronger dollar perhaps:)
Even most "unfriendly"
July 19, 2007 - 01:50 ET by Free StinkerEven most "unfriendly" coutries will sell us their oil. They don't have to like us, as long as they like getting paid.
FS
July 19, 2007 - 01:55 ET by shawn228So what unfriendly country would you get cheaper oil from than Canada? Wouldn't you have to pay the same $75 a barrel to Hugo Chavez?
Shawn, I guess I haven't
July 19, 2007 - 01:58 ET by Free StinkerShawn,
I guess I haven't been clear. I do not think it would necessarily be cheaper to buy elsewhere. In fact it may very well cost more,
But if things cost more, then they just do. That's how markets are. You either pay more, do without, or find an alternative.
fs
July 19, 2007 - 02:12 ET by shawn228But if things cost more, then they just do. That's how markets are. You either pay more, do without, or find an alternative.
True FS. Except I don't want things to cost more. I do not think an alternative for gasoline for cars will be available for mass distritution for at least a decade.
If we had a strong dollar and a great economy like the mid ninties, things would be much better for us
Except I don't want things
July 19, 2007 - 02:30 ET by Free StinkerExcept I don't want things to cost more
No one does, but it's what we have. :-(
If we had a strong dollar and a great economy like the mid ninties
The economy is good, if you doubt it, look in the help wanted section of your local paper, or read some more of Noel's Blogs. The dollar is down, that doesn't mean the economy is in the toilet. Believe me, I'm at my third job in the financial industry and I can see when the economy stinks. Late hours car service - gone, free breakfast - gone, free beverages - gone, coworkers - gone. I saw that Nov 2000 thru June 2002.
_______
Fred Thompson and Ann Coulter walk into a bar. The bar is instantly destroyed because that much awesome cannot be contained in one build
Now if only that darn
July 19, 2007 - 02:34 ET by mulerider24Now if only that darn compliance department will make some cutbacks.
LOL!
July 19, 2007 - 02:35 ET by Free StinkerLOL!
fs
July 19, 2007 - 02:43 ET by shawn228I never said the economy was bad, I just said having both a great economy and strong dollar is a good thing.
Sorry to be changing topics but re: your thread re: the Iraq war. if we found wmd why would the Secretary of Defence be admitting we did not find them
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jnLERW7snUQ
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MInHphR4zBg
I have been meaning to ask you this for while Free, sorry again for changing the topic. I"m off to bed, have a great night.
Beats me. You can clearly
July 19, 2007 - 03:03 ET by Free StinkerBeats me. You can clearly see in the articles that BBC, CNN, Fox, MSNBC, and the New York Times all have an article about Sarin or Mustard Gas, etc. It would be interesting to hear what they have to say.
fs
July 19, 2007 - 14:21 ET by shawn228It is obvious you put lots of work in your links for going to war with Iraq and it is a topic you know alot about, but if we really found the WMD, Rumsfeld would have at least said we found them instead of saying "it appears we did not the the weapons we were searching for" or something like that, I am paraphrasing.
You don't keep up on global
July 19, 2007 - 05:35 ET by UnsaneYou don't keep up on global events very much.
Nicholas Sarkozy went to a ministerial meeting a week or to ago bitching and moaning that the Euro was waaaay overvalued. And he promised to break once again (has France EVER heeded it?) the Growth and Stability Pact that is the very underpinning of the Euro.
We in fact have a strong economy. Don't believe me? Check out the Dow sometime. So what if the dollar is weak? If that was the sole measure of economic performance, ALL the nations of the world would STILL be looking up to Britain.
Res tantum valet quantum vendi potest.
fs
July 19, 2007 - 02:15 ET by shawn228double post
Fred Thompson and Ann
July 19, 2007 - 00:38 ET by Space CowboyFred Thompson and Ann Coulter walk into a bar. The bartender says, "Hey, what is this, some kind of joke?"
SC
July 19, 2007 - 00:59 ET by Noel SheppardSC,
You really shouldn't be so arrogant at the same time you are displaying such an abysmal understanding of the federal budget.
For instance, the budget deficit isn't $9 trillion, and hasn't climbed by 50 percent since the war began.
You really ought to learn the difference between the budget deficit and the federal debt before you go to websites calling people fools. You should think about that in the future if thinking is indeed something your capable of.
Though this likely is futile, let me try to help you out. First, please visit the following link and educate yourself: http://www.whitehous....
This is the historical database for all federal budgets since 1789. For myself, I've been studying it for years, and daresay I am more familiar and conversant with its contents than likely 99.99 percent of Americans, including the cretins you likely hold in esteem concerning such matters.
If you would forward to pdf page 26 of 336, you would find that the projected deficit for FY 2007 (which means fiscal year to your ilk that is quite illiterate when it comes to such things!) is $244 billion. This is expected to come in much lower, conceivably as low as $150 billion. Regardless, in FY 2003 when the war started, the deficit was $378 billion.
As such, even by estimate without looking at the better numbers coming in, the deficit will decline by a minimum of 35 percent, and conceivably up to over 60 percent since the war began. Therefore, your contention the "U.S. budget deficit starting to decrease finally but only after climbing 50% to 9 trillion (yes thats TRILLION with a "T") during the first American war without tax increases under the Bush Administration" is absolute nonsense.
Sadly, like much of your ilk, you have no idea what the difference is between the deficit and debt. Why is that? Is it really such a difficult concept to grasp that the deficit is a yearly issue based upon how much tax revenues are received during a 12-month period versus what the idiots in Washington spend, and the debt is an ongoing tally of all the outstanding bills, notes, and bonds issued by the treasury throughout American history? Honestly, can you explain to me why so few folks on your side of the aisle seem to be able to understand this distinction? Please? Pretty please? With sugar on top?
When you can prove to me that you understand this rudimentary aspect of our budget, I will attempt to explain the trade deficit to you, as well as currency fluctiuations. However, as these are much more complex issues, I need evidence that you are actually bright enough to learn before I bother wasting any more of my time.
As such, if you can identify for me the last year the debt actually decreased, and tell me by how much, I will try to help you understand fiscal issues that are clearly beyond you at this point in time. If not, please do others a favor and stop going to websites professing a knowledge about matters that you are clearly lacking.
Fair enough? ns
Noel, trying to educate Sarcasmo is like unto hair on a frog.
July 19, 2007 - 01:08 ET by acaiguanaI'm not sure who it was who asked me to contribute to the MRC economic/business site but I declined because of the vast mountain to be climbed over the bodies of Sarcasmo and the natural tendency to 'blame' something for nothing.
Libertarians are failing because of their lack of cohesive roots in basic understanding of how things work. That leads to tractors in front of the Federal Reserve building where I stared down at the guys with $150K tractors protesting the Fed for farm price issues.
Next you have Ruby Ridge.
Now I know that isn't fair, but the same psychology applies. Since Sarc is smart enough not to be an anarchist, he falls back on the Gold Standard.
Um...
Right.
ACA
...
Quoted from: 'Acaiguana Notes from the Bomb Shelter' (soon to be a movie at theaters near you)
AC
July 19, 2007 - 01:16 ET by Noel SheppardAC,
Good evening. Actually, this is Space Cowboy. Sarcasmo is much more aware of these issues than this guy. In fact, it's not even close.
How's life? We getting ready for some Thai food soon? Or, should we try something different? ns
Noel, well, the same spiel goes for sarc - whom I love dearly.
July 19, 2007 - 01:42 ET by acaiguanaTo answer space cowboy is more than I can bear.
Thai is good or we can do really radical in Lafayette!!!
Anyhoo, peace is as peace does. Check out my 'solution' to the human race.
ACA
...
Quoted from: 'Acaiguana Notes from the Bomb Shelter' (soon to be a movie at theaters near you)
AC
July 19, 2007 - 01:49 ET by Noel SheppardAC,
What would be really radical in Lafayette? Is there anything radical there? Please advise. :-) ns
ACA
July 19, 2007 - 01:18 ET by Dave RPsst-Noel's responding to Spacely_the_Broken_Sprocket
Help Fred defeat the RINOs, along with the Hitllary-Obama Axis, & win the White House in '08.
Noel,
July 19, 2007 - 01:15 ET by Dave RPlease? Pretty please? With sugar on top?
You, sir, are far too kind.
And did I mention you have the patience of Job?
:-)
Help Fred defeat the RINOs, along with the Hitllary-Obama Axis, & win the White House in '08.
Dave
July 19, 2007 - 01:21 ET by Noel SheppardDave,
Well, as you've probably noticed, my patience for these high and mighty know-it-alls who think they possess economic acumen all due to reading a couple of articles by Paul Krugman is wearing thin.
None of these people actually looks at raw economic data, or has visited OMB or CBO to learn anything about the budget. Instead, they get snippets from morons in the media, and come to sites like this feigning superiority.
Honestly, it's enough to drive one to drink. Speaking of which.... :-) ns
Noel
July 19, 2007 - 01:26 ET by Dave RLOL-Yeah, I've noticed you've had a bit of an itchy trigger finger of late.
I'll ahh, endeaver to keep my head down, as it has been getting a mite breezy in this corner of the blogosphere recently. :)
Help Fred defeat the RINOs, along with the Hitllary-Obama Axis, & win the White House in '08.
Dave
July 19, 2007 - 01:37 ET by Noel SheppardDave,
Well, it's really getting sad. For instance, check out the cretin's reply. He comes to a website feigning superior knowledge about economics while stating that the deficit has climbed to $9 trillion, and now he's calling that a "typo."
Excuse me, but a typo is a misspelling. Mistaking debt and deficit is idiocy.
However, these are the same people who will call something a "botched joke" when they publicly state non sequiturs. As such, what should we expect?
Yes, Dave, I'm growing weary of bothering with these people. As you know, I've been extraordinarily polite and cordial to our liberal members for almost two years. Unfortunately, their behavior is making it much more difficult lately.
Any suggestions? ns
Reading Comprehension
July 19, 2007 - 01:45 ET by Free StinkerNoel,
Sorry to interject on your comment or Dave, but regarding Space Cowbow, I don't think you'll be able to teach him anything.
He made the same deficit / debt mistake with me, and he also can't seem to tell the diffrence between me and the user known as "Free Thinker."
He's having some issues with reading comprehension it would seem.
FS
July 19, 2007 - 01:56 ET by Noel SheppardFS,
Wait a minute. There's a difference between you and Free Thinker?
HHEEEEEEEELLLLLLLPPPPPPPP!
:-)
I'm not sure it's a reading comprehension issue. I think he probably doesn't really know the difference, and has been able to interchange the two at liberal websites where folks are similarly ignorant for years.
However, here, where people do know the difference, he was caught -- twice, mind you -- and had to tap-dance between the raindrops.
What was beautiful was how he made his mistake our fault for not just accepting what he meant. Quite a position to take as you're feigning intellectual superiority, wouldn't you agree?
Alas, I used to take this all in stride. Maybe I need to stay off the message boards for a while and just write articles. ns
Noel
July 19, 2007 - 02:00 ET by Free StinkerMaybe I need to stay off the message boards for a while and just write articles.
Please, no. I wouldn't want to miss your insightful comments. :-)
_______
Fred Thompson and Ann Coulter walk into a bar. The bar is instantly destroyed because that much awesome cannot be contained in one build
Actually, Free Stinker, I
July 19, 2007 - 03:02 ET by Space CowboyActually, Free Stinker, I owe you an appology. I went back and read my post which I copied below, and realized that I fumbled my typing twice regarding the debt and the deficit - once in my original post and in the post I copied below. I DO know the difference but I can see that it doesn't show from what I posted. And, then, I laughed at you. Oh, the humiliation.
----
_U.S. budget deficit starting to decrease finally
It has been decreasing in the last few *years*. Glad to see a Liberal finally noticed.
Yeah, decreasing AFTER climbing 50% - from 6 to 9 trillion dollars – under the money management of the Republicans. They WERE in charge the last six years, right? And note, the deficit is decreasing, NOT in positive territory.
---
I meant to say that, even though the deficit is falling, it's only after THE DEBT had climbed to 9 trillion dollars.
OK, I did this TWICE so I can see how you thought I was confused. I was so clear in my own mind that I didn't proof read what I had typed and then accused YOU of not understanding.
Ok, I'm going to quit now - while I'm behind.
Note to self: proofread, proofread, proofread
You owe Noel an apology.
July 19, 2007 - 03:42 ET by Free StinkerYou owe Noel an apology.
((edit/update)) I see you did so, further down in the posts.
Um, Noel, you seem to be
July 19, 2007 - 02:11 ET by Space CowboyUm, Noel, you seem to be goofing off instead of doing your homework. Weren't you going to explain all that stuff about trade deficits and budget deficits being good. Oh yeah, and the crashing dollar?
Are those cricket sounds I hear? I'm waiting with bated breath. Oh, and the popcorn is getting cold.
Cut out the chatter and get to work. I want this explanation and I want it NOW. A smart guy like you should be able to crank that out and carry on five or six other conversations without even breaking a sweat.
Now that you are done condesending and know that I was thinking faster than I was typing on my first post, I would think you would be eager to dazzle the poor, uneducated, unwashed peons on NewsBusters with one of Professor Noel's erudite discourses on economics.
Now, how does that go? The twin deficits and the falling dollar are good because . . . ?