The American Economy is Collapsing!

[Tokenconservative]

According to most major economic indicators, the US econmy is chugging along, growing at a decent 4 or 5% every quarter, unemployment is so low that traditional (leftist) Keynesian econmic models can't work within it (Keynes claimed that an economy could only function with an about 10% unemployment level and would implode if it got much lower). Orders for industry (yes, we still have industry) are up, continental transportation is swamped, air traffic is up, housing pricing is up and down...as always, building starts (residential) are down, but...it's winter!

Retail sales this Christmas season are up. Down, slightly over predictions (but they never take into account weather and a HUGE swath of the nation was socked in on Black Friday AND the week before Christmas).

Still, the left-advocacy "news" media is, at every chance saying that the US economy is in a free fall decline bordering (as it has been for at least the last 6 years...) on collapse.

Who is telling the truth? The economic indicators or the left-advocacy media desperate to help Bill Clinton get another term, and to see the Congress handed over to socialists?

Who should we believe?

Tokie

[Ladyhawk]

I don't believe that the American economy is collapsing...but it's hardly thriving, either! Unemployment is at an overall 4.3% nationally, but, individual states are experiencing unemployment rates of 6.3 to 7.4% (Mississippi, Michigan, Alaska, etc). Remember, too, that once a worker has exhausted his/her unemployment benefits, the presumption is that he/she returned to gainful employment. That is, workers who are still unemployed are no longer figured into the unemployment rate.

There is also no denying that the recent wave of foreclosures and the tragedy of the subprime fiasco has adversely impacted many businesses ...not just the housing industry.

And, the IMF reports that the U.S. dollar's share of global-foreign exchange reserves fell to a record low in the third quarter as demand for U.S. assets waned after the subprime mortgage market collapsed. Source: bloomberg.com

I have an admittedly simplistic philosophy on who to believe when it comes to the nay-sayers or the overly optimistic. I look at my standard of living and see if it has changed dramatically for the best or the worst. I know...that sounds very self centered. But, it works for me.

[Nogbad]

According to most major economic indicators, the US econmy is chugging along, growing at a decent 4 or 5% every quarter, unemployment is so low that traditional (leftist) Keynesian econmic models can't work within it (Keynes claimed that an economy could only function with an about 10% unemployment level and would implode if it got much lower). Orders for industry (yes, we still have industry) are up, continental transportation is swamped, air traffic is up, housing pricing is up and down...as always, building starts (residential) are down, but...it's winter!

Retail sales this Christmas season are up. Down, slightly over predictions (but they never take into account weather and a HUGE swath of the nation was socked in on Black Friday AND the week before Christmas).

Still, the left-advocacy "news" media is, at every chance saying that the US economy is in a free fall decline bordering (as it has been for at least the last 6 years...) on collapse.

Who is telling the truth? The economic indicators or the left-advocacy media desperate to help Bill Clinton get another term, and to see the Congress handed over to socialists?

Who should we believe?

Tokie

I don't believe that the US economy is imploding, there are areas of weakness yes and some sectors like housing may stumble a little but I see nothing that suggests other than a normal periodic tightening of the belt.

Equally, I am not sure I believe the numbers above either. I thought US growth was 4% to 5% per annum not a quarter. Also, I studied Keynes at university and I can't recall him saying that 10% unemployment was essential for anything. I do recall the view that it would be hard to reduce unemployment much below 4 or 5% because there will always be people between jobs, needing new skills, businesses restructuring etc., Do you have a source for this interpretation of Keynes' view on unemployment?

[Loss Leader]

Who should we believe?



Why don't you cite just one single article from the news media that says what you are accusing them of saying? Then, we can look at the specific claims made in that article.

Otherwise, the imagined devils with which you haunt yourself are not nearly as interesting to us as they are to you.

[shadron]

Why don't you cite just one single article from the news media that says what you are accusing them of saying? Then, we can look at the specific claims made in that article.

Otherwise, the imagined devils with which you haunt yourself are not nearly as interesting to us as they are to you.

Tokie has already stated, for the record, that he moves from forum to forum as he is kicked off of them in rotation. I suppose it's unfair of us to expect him to come up to expectations that differ a whole lot from what he's used to. Soooo unfair.

I want to see some backup for that 4 to 5% per quarter thing. Even per year (say, this last year).

[Nogbad]

Tokie has already stated, for the record, that he moves from forum to forum as he is kicked off of them in rotation. I suppose it's unfair of us to expect him to come up to expectations that differ a whole lot from what he's used to. Soooo unfair.

I want to see some backup for that 4 to 5% per quarter thing. Even per year (say, this last year).

Bum! I just responded to random figures from a troll didn't I?

Doh!

[Garrette]

Remember, too, that once a worker has exhausted his/her unemployment benefits, the presumption is that he/she returned to gainful employment. That is, workers who are still unemployed are no longer figured into the unemployment rate. I only discovered this significant fact a year and a half ago when I took a position in which it is relevant. Too few people know this, and more should. If everyone went unemployed today and remained unemployed for a decade, the unemployment rate would be 100% for a few months but would suddenly drop to 0% when the benefits expired. It would, of course, not mean that everyone had found jobs; it would simply mean they are no longer being tracked.

Regarding the OP? I'm far from an economist, but my sense is that the American economy is in trouble but far from a basket case. My concerns are more in the long term regarding the relative value of the US dollar and its role as the currency of standard.

[mgilII]

Imo its not collapsing but is decaying, you see more people paying Burger King with credit cards, Euro keeps going up, I wont even meention the oil, SS is in trouble. Over here 7 major pharmaceutical factory closed leaving unemployed thousands of people. The Real state is not moving. This is just my opinion.

[Tokenconservative]

I don't believe that the American economy is collapsing...but it's hardly thriving, either! Unemployment is at an overall 4.3% nationally, but, individual states are experiencing unemployment rates of 6.3 to 7.4% (Mississippi, Michigan, Alaska, etc). Remember, too, that once a worker has exhausted his/her unemployment benefits, the presumption is that he/she returned to gainful employment. That is, workers who are still unemployed are no longer figured into the unemployment rate.

There is also no denying that the recent wave of foreclosures and the tragedy of the subprime fiasco has adversely impacted many businesses ...not just the housing industry.

And, the IMF reports that the U.S. dollar's share of global-foreign exchange reserves fell to a record low in the third quarter as demand for U.S. assets waned after the subprime mortgage market collapsed. Source: bloomberg.com

I have an admittedly simplistic philosophy on who to believe when it comes to the nay-sayers or the overly optimistic. I look at my standard of living and see if it has changed dramatically for the best or the worst. I know...that sounds very self centered. But, it works for me.

Hmm...how's it work out that 50 states (and Guam and Virgin Islands and PR, too?) are experiencing close to 10% unemployment, but nationally the rate is below 5%?

I'll try the math on that later. After some leftover Christmas nog. I'm guessing that sort of math tends to work better both late at night and after kicking a few empties out'en yore way.

And then there is the old saw: it's only this low because so many unemployed have exhausted their unemployment insurance and are now not even being counted!!!

Um...the selfemployed (I is one) far outnumber those and they are NEVER counted.

More funny mathy kinda stuff to work with, eh?

Hmmm....the home foreclosure RATE (key term that you simply will not hear about in your local "news") is below what it was in 1999 (about 6%). So um...have we been in a "crisis/disaster" since 1999, did it turn around at some point since then and then turn BACK into a crisis/disaster...and why was it not called "THE FORECLOSURE CRISIS!!!" in 1999 when it was about 2% higher than now, when today, it is "THE FORECLOSURE CRISIS" when it's 2% lower?

More funny math?

In actual fact, the payments on around 90% of all home mortgages are being made on time and are not in the "at risk" category that would put them um...at risk to join THE FORECLOSURE CRISIS!!! Of course, some of these may go into foreclosure anyway, as happens in ANY market (like say...in oh, 1999, when the economy was only just beginning to slow down from the boom years of 94-2001). Of the remaining 10%, fewer than 1% (around .5% of that 1%) are mortages which are LIKELY to go into foreclosure over the next year because (from the data) it appears the mortgagee will not be able to afford the bump to the higher rate (this involves ARM and HELOC loans, mostly).

That's not a lot. Nationwide, at the peak of THE FORECLOSURE CRISIS in mid-2008, we may see a maxium foreclosure RATE of around 8%, but it's more likely, all other issues considered, and if the crik don't rise (Hillary will not have been in office long enough to have utterly destroyed the economy), that it will settle in around 6% at it's high, then quickly taper back down to the normal 3-4%.

So um...where's THE FORECLOSURE CRISIS, again?

Tokie

[Tokenconservative]

Imo its not collapsing but is decaying, you see more people paying Burger King with credit cards, Euro keeps going up, I wont even meention the oil, SS is in trouble. Over here 7 major pharmaceutical factory closed leaving unemployed thousands of people. The Real state is not moving. This is just my opinion.

Please tell me you are not this economically ignornant and posting in a forum where economic issues are discussed.

More people are using DEBIT cards at Burger King (and also at Sach's 5th Avenue). Just because you don't, and don't know what this is, does not mean they are buying their Whopper (in the 'Kings that still serve them) on credit.

The dollar has dropped only about 1/3 as much this year against foreign currencies (primarily the Euro, also the Canadiad dollar and the Yen) as it did against currencies including the pound, the yen, the Candian dollar the mark and the Franc in the mid-70s to mid 80s. Gas cost about the same in 1980 as it does today.

The cost of living today, is about 1/3 what it was in the 70s and 80s, too. This won't mean anything to you in relation to these other issues, but there it is, nonetheless.

SS has been in trouble for as long as I have been alive (48 years). Real estate has been both moving and not moving for the same period.

I can't predict anything about next year, because we are about to shift from a free market economy into socialism with the election of Hillary Clinton to the presidency and putting a clear majority of socialists in the Sentate, but if we can get over that quickly enough, and get back to free markets, then real estate will probably, after 4-8 years, again move and not move.

And just because the tire recyclin' plant down t' your town closed down, it does not mean the economy is collapsing.

All OTHER indidcators durable goods, industrial orders, transportation, finance, retail, real estate (even tho down t' yer neigbhorhood the Ol' Johannssen place ain't solt yet!), construction starts (excluding residential), import/export, employment, et al., etc., etc., etc., suggest that the economy (US) is fine and chugging right along.

Tokie

[Tokenconservative]

Why don't you cite just one single article from the news media that says what you are accusing them of saying? Then, we can look at the specific claims made in that article.

Otherwise, the imagined devils with which you haunt yourself are not nearly as interesting to us as they are to you.

Let me see if I understand you: you want me to cite an article from the left-advocacy "news" in which they say "we are the left-advocacy 'news' and we are trying to destroy the US econmy in order to get Hitlery elected and to turn the US Congress over to other socialists."

Say, I have a better idear. Why don't I find a document with Hitler's signature and the term "Final Solution" on it, instead?

It'd be much easier than getting the left-advocacy media to admit that is left-advocacy and that it's trying to influence this election by ginning up fears about the economy and blaming "teh Republicans!!@!!" for the bad econonomy they are saying exists but which actually doesn't.

Better idea: whyn't you run a poll in here and see how many of the people who post in here are doing so from a homeless shelter.

Of course, being a lefty, you will have to push your poll and won't put it like that, you'll say "how many of you 'feel' the economy is in trouble." My, very to the point!

Sheesh.

Tokie

[Wolfman]

Tokie,

You made a claim that "the left-advocacy 'news"' media is, at every chance saying that the US economy is in a free fall decline bordering...on collapse." I believe that Loss Leader's question was in relation to you actually providing proof of that claim by providing links to "left-advocacy news media" that makes such a claim.

Yet your response is even more interesting. First, you say that the "leftist media" is saying these things; then you turn around and, so far as I can make out from your rantings, claim that the leftist media is in fact hiding such information, and not making such claims...and its all linked to some sort of bizarre Hitler-esque kind of logic.

I've gotta' say, I love your style. Here is, essentially, the quintessential TokenConservative argument, all wrapped up for easy consumption.

1) Make a general claim, and state that it is an absolute fact.

2) List various figures, percentages, statistics, etc., that support your argument...but be very careful to never provide any source for such figures. Instead, simply assume that everyone should just take your word for it.

3) When people do not take your word for it, employ a strategy of A) calling them liberals, and/or B) invoking some kind of conspiracy plot. Then refuse to provide any substantiating proof for your claims, because you do not feel any responsibility to answer people who are either liberals or conspiracists.

4) If people actually have the audacity to provide proof that the claims you make are completely wrong, ignore them entirely; or dismiss it as irrelevant. A person who is as dedicated to the truuuuuuuuuuuuuuth as you are does not need to worry themselves over such tiny things as blatant lies, and claims that are proven to be patently false.

5) Return to step 1.

I will now give an example of how this process works.

Step 1 & 2 -- You make a claim that, 'The cost of living today, is about 1/3 what it was in the 70s and 80s, too." True to Tokie form, you provide no evidence of this claim whatsoever, you simply state it as a fact.

Step 3 -- I'm going to ask you to provide some sort of proof of your claim, or a source of where you got your information from. I am very confident that you will entirely fail to do so, most likely by employing one of the same tactics I've listed above.

Step 4 -- Doing just a little bit of research, I found an article (http://www.cbpp.org/8-31-06mw.htm)which quite blatantly contradicts your claim. It says, among other things, that, "While since September 1997 the minimum wage has remained at $5.15 an hour, the cost-of-living has risen by 26 percent. After adjusting for inflation, the value of the minimum wage is at its lowest level since 1955." This provides us with two pieces of information. First, in just TEN YEARS, the cost of living in the US has increased by 26 percent! And the minimum wage has NOT CHANGED AT ALL during that time. Furthermore, the comparable value of the minimum wage has not been this low since 1955!!

Step 5 -- Now, everybody can just sit back and watch as you follow your tried-and-true procedures, and not only fail entirely to back up any of your claims, but will A) dismiss me as a liberal, or other similar negative attributions that seek to make people forget the fact that you can't support a damn thing you're talking about, and B) will turn around and cite even MORE "facts and figures" that will, likewise, have no substantiation or source whatsoever. And the merry little dance starts all over again.

[Michael Redman]

The US unemployment rate is not measured by counting people getting unemployment insurance benefits. This is an age old myth, perhaps perpetuated by the fact that the government often announces the number of new UI benefit applications at the same time it announces other economic indicators, including the unemployment rate.

The US Bureau of Labor Statistics calculates the national unemployment rate via the Current Population Survey, a monthly survey of approximately 60,000 households. The interviewers ask a wide range of questions about each person in the household. People are classified as "unemployed" if they are jobless, seeking work, and available for work. UI benefit status is not considered.

[Nogbad]

Let me see if I understand you: you want me to cite an article from the left-advocacy "news" in which they say "we are the left-advocacy 'news' and we are trying to destroy the US econmy in order to get Hitlery elected and to turn the US Congress over to other socialists."

Say, I have a better idear. Why don't I find a document with Hitler's signature and the term "Final Solution" on it, instead?

It'd be much easier than getting the left-advocacy media to admit that is left-advocacy and that it's trying to influence this election by ginning up fears about the economy and blaming "teh Republicans!!@!!" for the bad econonomy they are saying exists but which actually doesn't.

Better idea: whyn't you run a poll in here and see how many of the people who post in here are doing so from a homeless shelter.

Of course, being a lefty, you will have to push your poll and won't put it like that, you'll say "how many of you 'feel' the economy is in trouble." My, very to the point!

Sheesh.

Tokie

Godwin's Law invoked and we are only on the first page

Sheesh indeed.

[PAC]

Is there any substance to the posts of Tokenconservative? They tend to be filler in order to repeatedly mention his great fear words...liberal, left, democrat. How is any of this to be considered rational thought when the basis is fear?

[Tokenconservative]

Is there any substance to the posts of Tokenconservative? They tend to be filler in order to repeatedly mention his great fear words...liberal, left, democrat. How is any of this to be considered rational thought when the basis is fear?

PAC.

As in MoveOnPAC?

How much are they up to? I mean per-post payment to guys like you?

When will you be moving out of your Mom's basement, by the way?

Tokie

[Tokenconservative]

Godwin's Law invoked and we are only on the first page

Sheesh indeed.

LOL!

What n00bery.

Tokie

[Nogbad]

LOL!

What n00bery.

Tokie

:D

What trollery

[Tokenconservative]

The US unemployment rate is not measured by counting people getting unemployment insurance benefits. This is an age old myth, perhaps perpetuated by the fact that the government often announces the number of new UI benefit applications at the same time it announces other economic indicators, including the unemployment rate.

The US Bureau of Labor Statistics calculates the national unemployment rate via the Current Population Survey, a monthly survey of approximately 60,000 households. The interviewers ask a wide range of questions about each person in the household. People are classified as "unemployed" if they are jobless, seeking work, and available for work. UI benefit status is not considered.

Cool.

So the nonsense about all them po' folk what done got demselves discouraged from all dem "Not Hiring!" signs and has gone home to watch Wheel and sulk, is just that: nonsense.

I can't say that I like the way it's actually done a whole lot, but at least it works better than relying on myths about all dem po' folk.

Tokie

[Tokenconservative]

Tokie,

You made a claim that "the left-advocacy 'news"' media is, at every chance saying that the US economy is in a free fall decline bordering...on collapse." I believe that Loss Leader's question was in relation to you actually providing proof of that claim by providing links to "left-advocacy news media" that makes such a claim.

Yet your response is even more interesting. First, you say that the "leftist media" is saying these things; then you turn around and, so far as I can make out from your rantings, claim that the leftist media is in fact hiding such information, and not making such claims...and its all linked to some sort of bizarre Hitler-esque kind of logic.

I've gotta' say, I love your style. Here is, essentially, the quintessential TokenConservative argument, all wrapped up for easy consumption.

1) Make a general claim, and state that it is an absolute fact.

2) List various figures, percentages, statistics, etc., that support your argument...but be very careful to never provide any source for such figures. Instead, simply assume that everyone should just take your word for it.

3) When people do not take your word for it, employ a strategy of A) calling them liberals, and/or B) invoking some kind of conspiracy plot. Then refuse to provide any substantiating proof for your claims, because you do not feel any responsibility to answer people who are either liberals or conspiracists.

4) If people actually have the audacity to provide proof that the claims you make are completely wrong, ignore them entirely; or dismiss it as irrelevant. A person who is as dedicated to the truuuuuuuuuuuuuuth as you are does not need to worry themselves over such tiny things as blatant lies, and claims that are proven to be patently false.

5) Return to step 1.

I will now give an example of how this process works.

Step 1 & 2 -- You make a claim that, 'The cost of living today, is about 1/3 what it was in the 70s and 80s, too." True to Tokie form, you provide no evidence of this claim whatsoever, you simply state it as a fact.

Step 3 -- I'm going to ask you to provide some sort of proof of your claim, or a source of where you got your information from. I am very confident that you will entirely fail to do so, most likely by employing one of the same tactics I've listed above.

Step 4 -- Doing just a little bit of research, I found an article (http://www.cbpp.org/8-31-06mw.htm)which quite blatantly contradicts your claim. It says, among other things, that, "While since September 1997 the minimum wage has remained at $5.15 an hour, the cost-of-living has risen by 26 percent. After adjusting for inflation, the value of the minimum wage is at its lowest level since 1955." This provides us with two pieces of information. First, in just TEN YEARS, the cost of living in the US has increased by 26 percent! And the minimum wage has NOT CHANGED AT ALL during that time. Furthermore, the comparable value of the minimum wage has not been this low since 1955!!

Step 5 -- Now, everybody can just sit back and watch as you follow your tried-and-true procedures, and not only fail entirely to back up any of your claims, but will A) dismiss me as a liberal, or other similar negative attributions that seek to make people forget the fact that you can't support a damn thing you're talking about, and B) will turn around and cite even MORE "facts and figures" that will, likewise, have no substantiation or source whatsoever. And the merry little dance starts all over again.


I have a question about this rather extraordinary effort directed at lil' ol' me:

Are you a fan?



Or are you a stalker?


Tokie

[Tokenconservative]

:D

What trollery

Do n00bs troll?

Or are trolls given to n00bery?

To-may-to, to-mah-to?

Or, mayhaps, you supply an answer in the affirmative to both?

Tokie

[Nogbad]

Do n00bs troll?

Or are trolls given to n00bery?

To-may-to, to-mah-to?

Or, mayhaps, you supply an answer in the affirmative to both?

Tokie

Anything other than "to mah to" is clearly as flawed as your understanding of Keynesian economics which you have still not sourced I see.

As to noobs and trolls I believe they mix and match but a noob can certainly identify a troll and vice versa.

Did you ever partake in the old Yahoo message boards? I recognise something of the style - although to be fair that place was awash with trolls, trolls of the right, left and just plain confused.

[Tokenconservative]

Anything other than "to mah to" is clearly as flawed as your understanding of Keynesian economics which you have still not sourced I see.

As to noobs and trolls I believe they mix and match but a noob can certainly identify a troll and vice versa.

Did you ever partake in the old Yahoo message boards? I recognise something of the style - although to be fair that place was awash with trolls, trolls of the right, left and just plain confused.

My knowledge of Keynesian economics is minimal, at best. I know enough to know that this flawed theory, one which you on the left wholeheartedly must embrace in order for your worldview to work, regardless of the fact that it's been so thoroughly repudiated time and time again...whatever, right? Mussolini DID make the trains run on time, did he not?

Once does not need to source Keynesian economics any more than one needs to source say, Adam Smith. The identification IS the source.

Why you would assume that my knowledge, limited as it is, would come from someplace to which you might link--LIIIIINNNKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKK!!!--speaks ill of you sir, not I.

I have never been on a Yahoo forum, though I've been kicked out of countless others.

If I was on another forum you frequented, you would know it, as I've been using this monikker for about a decade now.

Tokie

[Trakar]

(...) Um...the selfemployed (I is one) far outnumber those and they are NEVER counted.(...)
Tokie

Bureau of Labor Statistics, Office of Productivity and Technology
Major Sector Productivity and Costs March 31, 2006
Construction of Employment and Hours for Self-employed and other Nonfarm workers and for all Farm workers, using Current Population Survey data for primary and secondary jobs. (http://www.bls.gov/lpc/lprjobsnote.pdf)

[Ladyhawk]

Hmm...how's it work out that 50 states (and Guam and Virgin Islands and PR, too?) are experiencing close to 10% unemployment, but nationally the rate is below 5%?

I dunno. I never said each of the 50 states had a 10% unemployment rate. You did.

I'll try the math on that later. After some leftover Christmas nog. I'm guessing that sort of math tends to work better both late at night and after kicking a few empties out'en yore way.

I wouldn't know. I'll defer to your self professed experience.

And then there is the old saw: it's only this low because so many unemployed have exhausted their unemployment insurance and are now not even being counted!!!

Um...the selfemployed (I is one) far outnumber those and they are NEVER counted.

More funny mathy kinda stuff to work with, eh?

TShai already caught you on this one.

Hmmm....the home foreclosure RATE (key term that you simply will not hear about in your local "news") is below what it was in 1999 (about 6%). So um...have we been in a "crisis/disaster" since 1999, did it turn around at some point since then and then turn BACK into a crisis/disaster...and why was it not called "THE FORECLOSURE CRISIS!!!" in 1999 when it was about 2% higher than now, when today, it is "THE FORECLOSURE CRISIS" when it's 2% lower?

The number of homes entering some stage of foreclosure -- from notice of default to bank ownership -- increased 45% in January from the same period a year earlier, according to Irvine, Calif.-based RealtyTrac. That was one new foreclosure for every 1,117 U.S. households. The areas of the country with the highest foreclosure rates on a per capita basis were Georgia, Nevada and Colorado. One out of every 422 households was in some stage of foreclosure in Georgia in January -- an 88% jump from the previous year. Georgia also came in at No. 5 for the highest total number of foreclosures.
Nevada was second, with 1,795 properties entering foreclosure; 2 1/2 times the number reported the year before and one for every 483 households.
Colorado came in at No. 3, with a 36% rise to 3,747 properties, or one in every 488 households. (from Msn.realestate)

If you need more proof, I suggest you use 'google'. There are 10 states in 'foreclosure crisis' mode. That's 20% of the country, Tokie. 20%.

In actual fact, the payments on around 90% of all home mortgages are being made on time and are not in the "at risk" category that would put them um...at risk to join THE FORECLOSURE CRISIS!!! Of course, some of these may go into foreclosure anyway, as happens in ANY market (like say...in oh, 1999, when the economy was only just beginning to slow down from the boom years of 94-2001). Of the remaining 10%, fewer than 1% (around .5% of that 1%) are mortages which are LIKELY to go into foreclosure over the next year because (from the data) it appears the mortgagee will not be able to afford the bump to the higher rate (this involves ARM and HELOC loans, mostly).

Ok, first, let's agree that you should stay away from terms like "in actual fact" coz it seems you can never provide a source for these so called facts. Secondly, words like 'some...may...likely.....appears that.', don't exactly boost my confidence level. Hey, I can conjecturize, too. But, that don't make it true....do it??

[PAC]

PAC.

As in MoveOnPAC?

How much are they up to? I mean per-post payment to guys like you?

When will you be moving out of your Mom's basement, by the way?

Tokie

I appreciate your effort to confirm my thoughts!

[DavidJames]

anybody else notice when tokie returned Cicero stopped posting?

[Nogbad]

My knowledge of Keynesian economics is minimal, at best. I know enough to know that this flawed theory, one which you on the left wholeheartedly must embrace in order for your worldview to work, regardless of the fact that it's been so thoroughly repudiated time and time again...whatever, right? Mussolini DID make the trains run on time, did he not?

Once does not need to source Keynesian economics any more than one needs to source say, Adam Smith. The identification IS the source.

Why you would assume that my knowledge, limited as it is, would come from someplace to which you might link--LIIIIINNNKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKK!!!--speaks ill of you sir, not I.

I have never been on a Yahoo forum, though I've been kicked out of countless others.

If I was on another forum you frequented, you would know it, as I've been using this monikker for about a decade now.

Tokie

I would agree that in the run of things one would not need to source Keynes, Adam Smith or Friedman as their writings are widely available and understood. I was more interested in the 10% unemployment figure you quoted as it is not something I have ever seen before (whether from detractors of Keynes or supporters) and assumed that you were quoting some secondary source. I was intrigued as to how they could come to such a conclusion.

As to Mussolini and trains I am less sure - did they run on time or did he just shoot anybody who complained?

The Yahoo boards are alas no more - they were an unmoderated mud pit where anything went (which is why I think they are no more). They could be hugely entertaining though despite 99% of it being very silly (for example no coverage of a space related news item went unsullied by umpteen Uranus jokes).

[bruto]

According to most major economic indicators, the US econmy is chugging along, growing at a decent 4 or 5% every quarter, unemployment is so low that traditional (leftist) Keynesian econmic models can't work within it (Keynes claimed that an economy could only function with an about 10% unemployment level and would implode if it got much lower). Orders for industry (yes, we still have industry) are up, continental transportation is swamped, air traffic is up, housing pricing is up and down...as always, building starts (residential) are down, but...it's winter!

Retail sales this Christmas season are up. Down, slightly over predictions (but they never take into account weather and a HUGE swath of the nation was socked in on Black Friday AND the week before Christmas).

Still, the left-advocacy "news" media is, at every chance saying that the US economy is in a free fall decline bordering (as it has been for at least the last 6 years...) on collapse.

Who is telling the truth? The economic indicators or the left-advocacy media desperate to help Bill Clinton get another term, and to see the Congress handed over to socialists?

Who should we believe?

Tokie

Maybe we should believe the people who actually listen to or read those so-called left-advocacy media, something you have pointedly stated in the past that you do not do. Why should we believe what you report about things of which you are explicitly, arrogantly and proudly declaring your ignorance?

I know you're allergic to links, but why should anybody believe anything you allege. Do you really delude yourself that anybody considers you a reliable source for anything resembling accuracy or truth?

e.t.a. a minimal bit of research, something I realize you find as objectionable as citing links, would, I think, reveal that Mussolini did not actually make the trains run on time.

[mgilII]

Please tell me you are not this economically ignornant and posting in a forum where economic issues are discussed.

More people are using DEBIT cards at Burger King (and also at Sach's 5th Avenue). Just because you don't, and don't know what this is, does not mean they are buying their Whopper (in the 'Kings that still serve them) on credit.

The dollar has dropped only about 1/3 as much this year against foreign currencies (primarily the Euro, also the Canadiad dollar and the Yen) as it did against currencies including the pound, the yen, the Candian dollar the mark and the Franc in the mid-70s to mid 80s. Gas cost about the same in 1980 as it does today.

The cost of living today, is about 1/3 what it was in the 70s and 80s, too. This won't mean anything to you in relation to these other issues, but there it is, nonetheless.

SS has been in trouble for as long as I have been alive (48 years). Real estate has been both moving and not moving for the same period.

I can't predict anything about next year, because we are about to shift from a free market economy into socialism with the election of Hillary Clinton to the presidency and putting a clear majority of socialists in the Sentate, but if we can get over that quickly enough, and get back to free markets, then real estate will probably, after 4-8 years, again move and not move.

And just because the tire recyclin' plant down t' your town closed down, it does not mean the economy is collapsing.

All OTHER indidcators durable goods, industrial orders, transportation, finance, retail, real estate (even tho down t' yer neigbhorhood the Ol' Johannssen place ain't solt yet!), construction starts (excluding residential), import/export, employment, et al., etc., etc., etc., suggest that the economy (US) is fine and chugging right along.

Tokie

Where do you get all this info I would love to start reading the same good news you read. :p

The factories I mentioned are Fotune 500(GSK,Proctle&Gamble,Pfizer,etc) factories closing due to a loss of patents,they have been here for more than 30years.

The unemployement over here(PR) is a record breaking 15% and dont bother searching it on google because the media and the political power here are owned by the same family. You might be right probably Im just lookin at local indicators.

[Tokenconservative]

I dunno. I never said each of the 50 states had a 10% unemployment rate. You did.

I wouldn't know. I'll defer to your self professed experience.

TShai already caught you on this one.

The number of homes entering some stage of foreclosure -- from notice of default to bank ownership -- increased 45% in January from the same period a year earlier, according to Irvine, Calif.-based RealtyTrac. That was one new foreclosure for every 1,117 U.S. households. The areas of the country with the highest foreclosure rates on a per capita basis were Georgia, Nevada and Colorado. One out of every 422 households was in some stage of foreclosure in Georgia in January -- an 88% jump from the previous year. Georgia also came in at No. 5 for the highest total number of foreclosures.
Nevada was second, with 1,795 properties entering foreclosure; 2 1/2 times the number reported the year before and one for every 483 households.
Colorado came in at No. 3, with a 36% rise to 3,747 properties, or one in every 488 households. (from Msn.realestate)

If you need more proof, I suggest you use 'google'. There are 10 states in 'foreclosure crisis' mode. That's 20% of the country, Tokie. 20%.



Ok, first, let's agree that you should stay away from terms like "in actual fact" coz it seems you can never provide a source for these so called facts. Secondly, words like 'some...may...likely.....appears that.', don't exactly boost my confidence level. Hey, I can conjecturize, too. But, that don't make it true....do it??

Um, no...actually someone (maybe you, I am not a stalker) said the unemployment rate in the individual states was (avg.) around 10%. I just rounded and went with that number allowing...limited thinkers to get a better grasp on it.

Caught me on ...um, what "one"?

Foreclosure. The number of homes, while this, obviously, plays into the rate is not the rate of foreclosure. Why do lefty alarmists like you tend to toss around the biggest number you can find "45%!!! Auuuugggghhhhhhhhhh!!!!" rather than working with the numbers the industry uses?

The percentage of homes currently being impacted by the "FORECLOSURE CRISSSIIISSSSSSSSSSSS!!!" is under 5% nationwide (lower than the 6% in 1999 when...gosh, I forget...who was president?) and is not expected to peak at more than 5% at the height of the "FORECLOSURE CRISSSIIISSSSSSSSSSSS!!!" the middle of next year.

I'm sorry these numbers don't gin panic up the way you, as an anti-American, socialist fearmonger would like, but there they are, nonetheless!

But be of good cheer! With the left-advocacy "news" media, as desperate as you to see socialists destroying...er, ruining...damn, RUNNING America, you can only expect more conflation of terms, muddling of numbers and flat out lying running up to the Crowning...er, election of Hillary to the Throne...damn! White House.

Tokie

[Tokenconservative]

Where do you get all this info I would love to start reading the same good news you read. :p

The factories I mentioned are Fotune 500(GSK,Proctle&Gamble,Pfizer,etc) factories closing due to a loss of patents,they have been here for more than 30years.

The unemployement over here(PR) is a record breaking 15% and dont bother searching it on google because the media and the political power here are owned by the same family. You might be right probably Im just lookin at local indicators.

LOL!

Let me see if I follow you here: Tokie must provide links--LIIIIIIINNNKKKKKKSSSSSS!!!!--if he states, "poop stinks," but we need only rely on your assurance that in PR (?) factories are closing left and right, factories that have been there since Moses, by the way, and that the proof of this is being hidden from the public by a mighty conspiracy of "controlled" media eeeehhhiiiivvviiilll industry masters planning it all out in their Star Chamber.

I get my good news from various sources, one is by CAREFULLY reading business reports in readily available sources and understanding that (shocker!) most business reporters know nothing about economics or business and are the same sorts of anti-free market socialists as anyone writing political news.

For example, when a report says "Increase not as much as expected! Insiders leaping from their windows!" what this really means is that a predicted increase in earnings or growth or orders or whatever, is smaller than had been hoped for, but is still bigger than it was last year.

The leftist (your) media, driven by the same desperate need that drives you (destruction of America) report it this way because they know how people read such printed news. Of course in broadcast news they just say "growth down!" and leave it at that.

It's not my fault you are a credulous rube who doen't understand this stuff, and it's also not my fault you believe "they" are out to get you.

Seek help, is all I can offer.

Tokie

[Tokenconservative]

Maybe we should believe the people who actually listen to or read those so-called left-advocacy media, something you have pointedly stated in the past that you do not do. Why should we believe what you report about things of which you are explicitly, arrogantly and proudly declaring your ignorance?

I know you're allergic to links, but why should anybody believe anything you allege. Do you really delude yourself that anybody considers you a reliable source for anything resembling accuracy or truth?

e.t.a. a minimal bit of research, something I realize you find as objectionable as citing links, would, I think, reveal that Mussolini did not actually make the trains run on time.

I'm sort of forced to read--carefully-- the left-advocacy, anti-capitalist, anti-American media. I just have to know HOW to read it. You believe you do, because it tells you what you want to hear: our economy is collapsing.

I look elsewhere, to industry reports and such: transportation: up. Industria (domestic) orders: up. Consumer spending: up. Real estate (commercial) starts: up . Energy prices: down. Retail spending: up. Etc., etc.

You read things in your (leftist, anti-American) media which play into your desires (socialist America is needed) and get out of it what you want to prop up your beliefs.

I read the data and recognize what it means.

I don't care whether you believe me or not. Why would I? Who the hell are you to me?

e.t.a? Are you really this ignorant? I HATE explaining these obvious things. That's an allusion to the fact that everybody knows that he didn't, but that because he said the trains must run on time, they did, or someone got shot. How ignorant of common, everyday colloquialisms are you?

Try to use your brain for something other than a ready repository for leftist platitudes, slogans, screed and cant, won't you?

Tokie

[Miss Whiplash]

I'm sort of forced to read--carefully-- the left-advocacy, anti-capitalist, anti-American media. I just have to know HOW to read it. You believe you do, because it tells you what you want to hear: our economy is collapsing.

I look elsewhere, to industry reports and such: transportation: up. Industria (domestic) orders: up. Consumer spending: up. Real estate (commercial) starts: up . Energy prices: down. Retail spending: up. Etc., etc.

You read things in your (leftist, anti-American) media which play into your desires (socialist America is needed) and get out of it what you want to prop up your beliefs.

I read the data and recognize what it means.

I don't care whether you believe me or not. Why would I? Who the hell are you to me?

e.t.a? Are you really this ignorant? I HATE explaining these obvious things. That's an allusion to the fact that everybody knows that he didn't, but that because he said the trains must run on time, they did, or someone got shot. How ignorant of common, everyday colloquialisms are you?

Try to use your brain for something other than a ready repository for leftist platitudes, slogans, screed and cant, won't you?

Tokie


Someone has been partying with the deaf, bald pillhead and that cocaine fueled closet Lesbian again.

[Tokenconservative]

Someone has been partying with the deaf, bald pillhead and that cocaine fueled closet Lesbian again.

Garshkt!!!

I shorely been done tolded!!

[Zalbik]

Still, the left-advocacy "news" media is, at every chance saying that the US economy is in a free fall decline bordering (as it has been for at least the last 6 years...) on collapse.


I don't believe the media says that at all. Can you back up this assertion with some evidence?

[Tokenconservative]

I don't believe the media says that at all. Can you back up this assertion with some evidence?

Back up which assertion? That you don't believe the media?

Tokie

[UserGoogol]

That the media makes those assertions, obviously. Can you link to an article from a relatively mainstream news source that says that the economy is in a freefall?

[bruto]

I'm sort of forced to read--carefully-- the left-advocacy, anti-capitalist, anti-American media. I just have to know HOW to read it. You believe you do, because it tells you what you want to hear: our economy is collapsing.

I look elsewhere, to industry reports and such: transportation: up. Industria (domestic) orders: up. Consumer spending: up. Real estate (commercial) starts: up . Energy prices: down. Retail spending: up. Etc., etc.

You read things in your (leftist, anti-American) media which play into your desires (socialist America is needed) and get out of it what you want to prop up your beliefs.

I read the data and recognize what it means.

I don't care whether you believe me or not. Why would I? Who the hell are you to me?

e.t.a? Are you really this ignorant? I HATE explaining these obvious things. That's an allusion to the fact that everybody knows that he didn't, but that because he said the trains must run on time, they did, or someone got shot. How ignorant of common, everyday colloquialisms are you?

Try to use your brain for something other than a ready repository for leftist platitudes, slogans, screed and cant, won't you?

Tokie

As usual, you totally misread what I said and what I meant. I am not disputing your view of what the economy is up to. I am saying that you are lying about what the media say, because you are misinformed, misreading what you see, or depending on the lies of others instead of actually looking at what is there. You continue not only to speak nonsense and lies but to misinterpret and misattribute everything I say when I call you on it. If you say all the so-called left liberal media are saying the economy is in collapse, show me where they're saying it. I don't happen to think the economy is doing as well as you do, or as well as it should, but neither do I believe it is in a state of collapse, and I certainly don't hope it is, considering my dependence on capitalism for my continuing prosperity ; In my newspaper I am not reading or hearing messages of collapse and doom, and on the radio I'm not hearing them. If you are, show me where you're seeing this, or stop lying about it. Link it or zip it.

[Zalbik]

Back up which assertion? That you don't believe the media?

Tokie

I would like you to back up the following assertion:

"the left-advocacy "news" media is, at every chance saying that the US economy is in a free fall decline bordering (as it has been for at least the last 6 years...) on collapse."

[Abe_the_Man]

I am certainly no expert on the American economy but we hear a lot about it up here because the Canadian economy is so closely tied to it. Right now the Canadian economy is doing very well but according to the cbc evening news economists are worried about the slowing American economy causing problems for us. It has never been suggested that it is 'on the brink of collapse' but merely slowing down.

[Tokenconservative]

DOW:
2006 close: 12463.15
2007 close: 13264.62
up (+) 6.4%

Nasdaq:
2006 2415.29
2007 2652.28
up (+) 9.8%

S&P 500
2006 1418.30
2007 146.36
up (+) 3.5%

There it is folks, in black and white.

All of them are up over last year.

This can mean only one thing.....


TEOTWAWKI!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Soapy Sam]

...and that's in a year when not one single asteroid impacted the Earth...

[Tokenconservative]

...and that's in a year when not one single asteroid impacted the Earth...

Two words: Al Gore.

Tokie

[SomeGuy]

How many points did they gain if you express this in Euro's?

The extremely weak dollar gives a false impression of growth when there is none.

[Nogbad]

Two words: Al Gore.

Tokie

http://www.illwillpress.com/vault.html

First toon A Gorephobia :D

[egslim]

How many points did they gain if you express this in Euro's?

The extremely weak dollar gives a false impression of growth when there is none.
Quick and dirty readout: (http://finance.yahoo.com/currency/convert?from=USD&to=EUR&amt=1&t=2y)
January 1 2007: $1 = € 0.763
December 31 2007: $1 = € 0.695

Multiplying the points by their respective exchange rates:

DOW:
2006 close: 9509.4
2007 close: 9218.9
down (-) 3.1%

Nasdaq:
2006 1842.9
2007 1843.3
up (+) 0.0%

S&P 500
2006 1082.2
2007 1017.2 (guessed the typo)
down (-) 6.4%

Not so good.

[Nogbad]

Quick and dirty readout: (http://finance.yahoo.com/currency/convert?from=USD&to=EUR&amt=1&t=2y)
January 1 2007: $1 = € 0.763
December 31 2007: $1 = € 0.695

Multiplying the points by their respective exchange rates:

DOW:
2006 close: 9509.4
2007 close: 9218.9
down (-) 3.1%

Nasdaq:
2006 1842.9
2007 1843.3
up (+) 0.0%

S&P 500
2006 1082.2
2007 1017.2 (guessed the typo)
down (-) 6.4%

Not so good.

Those are fair points and I think it would be fair to say that trading conditions are at best volatile but they are a long way from collapse.

Fuel prices are a major problem as they are in real terms almost as high as the hikes in the 70s/80s. However, then we had major recessions each time the prices were hiked and this time we have ridden the tiger rather better (there is still an opportunity to fall off and get a good savaging but it hasn't happened yet). The markets are sensitive to sentiment and sometimes fall based on speculation and rumour rather than economic realities. This could easily happen on the basis of concern about debts, trade, oil and interest rates becoming a self-fulfilling prophecy.

[Francesca R]

I wouldn't call it collapse, but an economic recession (declining real GDP over a couple of quarters) is quite likely for the US. And several other places probably.

15:24 02Jan2008 RTRS-UPDATE 1-U.S. manufacturing sector contracts in December-ISM

NEW YORK, Jan 2 (Reuters) - U.S. factory activity contracted in December, ending 10 consecutive months of expansion, with activity falling to its weakest since April 2003, according to an industry report released on Wednesday.
The Institute for Supply Management said its index of national factory activity fell to 47.7 in December from 50.8 in November, below economists' median forecast for a reading of 50.4. A reading below 50 indicates contraction in the sector.
New orders, a gauge of future growth, fell sharply to 45.7 last month -- its lowest since October 2001 -- from 52.6 in November.
The December employment index rose slightly to 48.0 from 47.8 in November, while the ISM prices paid index, which measures inflationary pressures within the factory sector, rose to 68.0 in December from 67.5.
U.S. Treasury debt prices surged after the release of the report, while U.S. stocks fell sharply.

[egslim]

Those are fair points and I think it would be fair to say that trading conditions are at best volatile but they are a long way from collapse.
No argument from me there. Personally I don't attach that much value to the stock markets as economic indicators anyway. But the fact remains that if you had bought Euros and stuffed them under the bed for a year, you would have been better off than if you had played the stock market and managed to match the DOW's rate. Therefore the DOW's rate is a poor argument if you want to argue that the US economy is doing well, which was my main point.

Fuel prices are a major problem as they are in real terms almost as high as the hikes in the 70s/80s. However, then we had major recessions each time the prices were hiked and this time we have ridden the tiger rather better (there is still an opportunity to fall off and get a good savaging but it hasn't happened yet). The markets are sensitive to sentiment and sometimes fall based on speculation and rumour rather than economic realities. This could easily happen on the basis of concern about debts, trade, oil and interest rates becoming a self-fulfilling prophecy.
True. But I believe a robust economy does not have to be so vulnerable to public sentiment. For example, with a proper savingsrate a stock market crash does far less damage because people have the necessary savings to tide them over. An interest rate hike causes many more defaults if people are heavily in debt.
And I feel that the economy is too important to leave it at the mercy of something as volatile and vulnerable as public confidence.

[Mister Agenda]

Why should I have a higher savings rate when the interest on savings accounts is less than the inflation rate? We are really about due for an interest rate hike to reduce inflation and encourage savings, IMHO.

[Francesca R]

No argument from me there. Personally I don't attach that much value to the stock markets as economic indicators anyway. But the fact remains that if you had bought Euros and stuffed them under the bed for a year, you would have been better off than if you had played the stock market and managed to match the DOW's rate.
Therefore the DOW's rate is a poor argument if you want to argue that the US economy is doing well, which was my main point.

Agreed but for different reasons. The opportunity cost of investing (in anything) is relevant and was overlooked in the OP. The S&P500 index return is lower than the interest rate would have been on cash, yet a lot more risky. And it was significantly lower than the return on government bonds.

But I believe a robust economy does not have to be so vulnerable to public sentiment. [ . . . ] And I feel that the economy is too important to leave it at the mercy of something as volatile and vulnerable as public confidence.That sounds like an argument in favour of a very high government share of GDP (consumption and investment). Or do you have another recommendation?

For example, with a proper savingsrate a stock market crash does far less damage because people have the necessary savings to tide them over. An interest rate hike causes many more defaults if people are heavily in debt.
What is a proper savings rate?

[egslim]

Why should I have a higher savings rate when the interest on savings accounts is less than the inflation rate?
Because savings provide a far more reliable safety net against unforeseen difficulties than stocks.

We are really about due for an interest rate hike to reduce inflation and encourage savings, IMHO.
Raising the interest rate is painful, but not raising it weakens the dollar and will make a raise even more painful in the future.

[Zalbik]

DOW:
2006 close: 12463.15
2007 close: 13264.62
up (+) 6.4%

Nasdaq:
2006 2415.29
2007 2652.28
up (+) 9.8%

S&P 500
2006 1418.30
2007 146.36
up (+) 3.5%

There it is folks, in black and white.

All of them are up over last year.

This can mean only one thing.....


TEOTWAWKI!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Strangely, you seem to be the only one who makes the statement "Economic collapse is near!"

Can you provide an example of a mainstream media report that says this? So far, you've started at least 2 threads on (basically) the same topic, without any substantiating evidence.

[egslim]

That sounds like an argument in favour of a very high government share of GDP (consumption and investment). Or do you have another recommendation?
Some quick recommendations:
- Regulations for financial institutions to improve transparency, point out risks to potential customers and restrict loans for people with poor credit.
- Raise the interest rate to make saving worthwile.
- A balanced government budget when the economy does well, either raise taxes or cut expenses. (Balanced without taking money from the social security fund)
Neither of these necessarily raises the government's share of GDP, except to enforce those regulations.

What is a proper savings rate?
One that provides a cushion against financial difficulties because of a recession, medical expenses or other kinds of bad luck.

[Francesca R]

Some quick recommendations:
- Regulations for financial institutions to improve transparency, point out risks to potential customers and restrict loans for people with poor credit.These exist already. But what does extending their reach have to do with making an economy more robust and less vulnerable to public confidence?

- Raise the interest rate to make saving worthwile.
This will make consumption and investment less worthwhile. How will that make an economy less vulnerable to public confidence (since it will depress the growth rate)?

- A balanced government budget when the economy does well, either raise taxes or cut expenses. (Balanced without taking money from the social security fund)Do you think that public confidence is vulnerable because of fiscal deficits? If so, why are government bond yields so low?

Neither of these necessarily raises the government's share of GDP, except to enforce those regulations.I disagree since I think they will shrink the private sector's share.

One that provides a cushion against financial difficulties because of a recession, medical expenses or other kinds of bad luck.But private agents are free to inform themselves of risks and provide a cushion. Do you think that the state can make their decisions for them more effectively?

[egslim]

These exist already. But what does extending their reach have to do with making an economy more robust and less vulnerable to public confidence?
A sudden drop of public confidence can cause a market crisis, but if financial institutions are sufficiently regulated they are forbidden from too risky behaviour that would cause their collapse in such times. Hence the crisis' effects are kept limited, which makes the economy more robust. Since the collapse of a financial institution sends major shockwaves through the economy.

This will make consumption and investment less worthwhile. How will that make an economy less vulnerable to public confidence (since it will depress the growth rate)?
Size does not equal robustness. A higher interest rate leads to higher savings, making people financially less vulnerable to events like market crashes, reducing both the drop in confidence from such a crash and its consequences.

Do you think that public confidence is vulnerable because of fiscal deficits?
In times of war, a major economic crisis or a large natural disaster the government will need far more funds to meet needs, and it is easier to borrow if you're not already a large debtor.

But private agents are free to inform themselves of risks and provide a cushion. Do you think that the state can make their decisions for them more effectively?
People generally suck at estimating risks, especially for cases where the probability is very low but the potential dangers high. We over-react to immediate threats and under-react to long-term threats. Quoted from Daniel Gilbert, psychology professor at Harvard: http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2006/11/perceived_risk_2.html

By setting the interest rate the state is already "making their decisions for them" with respect to the savingsrate. The interest rate does not only affect economic growth, but also the vulnerability due to unexpected crisis. Both should be taken into account when setting the interest rate.

[Gazpacho]

I woulda thought people had learned something when the world failed to turn into a Mad Max movie 8 years ago.

[Tokenconservative]

Those are fair points and I think it would be fair to say that trading conditions are at best volatile but they are a long way from collapse.

Fuel prices are a major problem as they are in real terms almost as high as the hikes in the 70s/80s. However, then we had major recessions each time the prices were hiked and this time we have ridden the tiger rather better (there is still an opportunity to fall off and get a good savaging but it hasn't happened yet). The markets are sensitive to sentiment and sometimes fall based on speculation and rumour rather than economic realities. This could easily happen on the basis of concern about debts, trade, oil and interest rates becoming a self-fulfilling prophecy.

Sorry..you are not supposed to be rational about this.

Repeat after me:

THINGS HAVE NEVER BEEN THIS HORRIFICALLY BAD BEFOREEEEEEEEEE!!!!

THE ECONOMY IS ABOUT TO COLLAAAAPPPSSEEEEEEEEEE!!!!

I MUST VOTE FOR HILLLLARRRRYYYYYYYYYYY!!!

There.
Now, don't you feel more like one of "cool" kids?

Tokie

[Tokenconservative]

I woulda thought people had learned something when the world failed to turn into a Mad Max movie 8 years ago.

Ya woulda thought, but the media has, once again hyped them up into a state where those companies that sell "survival equipment are now making a comeback.

I wonder why the left-advocacy media would be so interested in telling everyone the economy is about to collapse a little less than a year from a national election in the USofA?

Anyone?

Anyone?


Tokie

[Tokenconservative]

How many points did they gain if you express this in Euro's?

The extremely weak dollar gives a false impression of growth when there is none.

I'm sorry, I'm a stickler for precision in this stuff.

What does "extremely weak" mean? Is that in real dollars and in comparison to what and when?

Tokie

[Tokenconservative]

Quick and dirty readout: (http://finance.yahoo.com/currency/convert?from=USD&to=EUR&amt=1&t=2y)
January 1 2007: $1 = € 0.763
December 31 2007: $1 = € 0.695

Multiplying the points by their respective exchange rates:

DOW:
2006 close: 9509.4
2007 close: 9218.9
down (-) 3.1%

Nasdaq:
2006 1842.9
2007 1843.3
up (+) 0.0%

S&P 500
2006 1082.2
2007 1017.2 (guessed the typo)
down (-) 6.4%

Not so good.

LOL!

Yeah...time to start cashing in for gold and burying it in coffee cans in the back yard.

Sheesh.

Tokie

[Tokenconservative]

I am certainly no expert on the American economy but we hear a lot about it up here because the Canadian economy is so closely tied to it. Right now the Canadian economy is doing very well but according to the cbc evening news economists are worried about the slowing American economy causing problems for us. It has never been suggested that it is 'on the brink of collapse' but merely slowing down.

The media here cannot actually come right out and scream from the headlines "ECONOMY COLLAPSING!!! RUN!! SCREAM!!! VOTE FOR HILARY!!!"

They WISH they could, but of course someone might call them on it. The reality is that our economy is chugging along, and not really even "slowing" as your perhaps more circumspect but by no means any less left-advocacy "new" media are reporting.

Here's the list again: wages up, employment up, industrial orders and production up, energy prices down, retail spending up, consumer confidence flagging (no wonder), etc., etc.

The reality is, regardless of those on the left in here who wish to deny it, the media in America is, by an large, an arm of the leftist movement and an advocate for "change." Meaning: get a socialist majority in both houses of Congress and a socialist in the White House. They have been beating Americans over the head with "economy in trouble!!!" reports for 2 years now in the build-up to the election and frankly, you can see that it is having some impact...this is called a self-fullfilling prophesy, and is not the "see!?? SEEEEEE!!!!!!????" moment libs like to believe it is. You beat a dog long and hard enough for piddling on your shoes, eventually it gets the point.

That's what our "objective" media have been doing for a solid 2 years, telling us the economy is a mess and getting worse, and extracting a pound of lies from an ounce of truth. Yes, there are a lot of foreclosures...the foreclosure RATE is still lower an unlikely to go any higher in the next year than it was in 1999. Yes, the dollar is down against other currencies, but much less than it was down against other currencies in the 80s. Yes, gas prices are...not up, but not exactly down, either. They are about where they were in the 1970s, and this has to do more with refining capacity in the US than anything else. Look at reporting on oil pricing: when prices at the pump creep up a couple of pennies, it's front page news. When they drop a dime overnight..mum's the word. They hammer home "OIL AT $100/bbl!!!" today. Prices at the pump continue to fall...this is scaremongering. The headline should be Oil Prices Up, Prices at Pump Continue to Fall (or hold steady).

It does not take a conspiratorial nutcase to see this.

You just have to unscrew the blinders lagbolted to your head.

Tokie

[Tokenconservative]

That the media makes those assertions, obviously. Can you link to an article from a relatively mainstream news source that says that the economy is in a freefall?

No.

I don't access or provide links.

Just read any major newspaper...watch the major newscasts, tonight...they will lead with $OIL HIT $100 a bbl!!!!!!!!" They will not mention that this will probably not impact prices at the pump..nor have the been reporting the steady decline of p-gal prices at the pump as they shrieked about every cent or two increase over the past year.

This means nothing to you, because you are a leftist and cannot see that they are doing this.

So be it. None are so blind as who will not see...

Tokie

[Tokenconservative]

As usual, you totally misread what I said and what I meant. I am not disputing your view of what the economy is up to. I am saying that you are lying about what the media say, because you are misinformed, misreading what you see, or depending on the lies of others instead of actually looking at what is there. You continue not only to speak nonsense and lies but to misinterpret and misattribute everything I say when I call you on it. If you say all the so-called left liberal media are saying the economy is in collapse, show me where they're saying it. I don't happen to think the economy is doing as well as you do, or as well as it should, but neither do I believe it is in a state of collapse, and I certainly don't hope it is, considering my dependence on capitalism for my continuing prosperity ; In my newspaper I am not reading or hearing messages of collapse and doom, and on the radio I'm not hearing them. If you are, show me where you're seeing this, or stop lying about it. Link it or zip it.

Hmmm...my newspaper this morning tells me the Dow, Nasdaq and S&P 500 all closed up , 6.4%, 9.8% and 3.5% on average for the year.

Yet all year, evertime there was a daily dip in the market of a point or two, the broadcasts shrieked "MARKET TANKING!!!!!"

Because this sort of doom and gloom news makes you nod in your sagacity and mumble into your beer, "once we get our'n people in office, all this is gonna change...." you cannot see the left-advocacy (even the NYTimes own ombudsman admitted they slant news to the left...) trees for the leftist scaremongering forest. You are so inculcated in this stuff that you have lost any ability to recognize that when a news story says something like "Economic growth failed to meet expectations this quarter..." followed 13 paragraphs later by a a few words admitting that in actual fact, growth is still up, even though some analyst the leftist news reporter chose as his "expert" said it didn't do as well as it "should" have, that this is left-advocacy bias.

How is your ignorance my fault?

Tokie

[bruto]

Hmmm...my newspaper this morning tells me the Dow, Nasdaq and S&P 500 all closed up , 6.4%, 9.8% and 3.5% on average for the year.

Yet all year, evertime there was a daily dip in the market of a point or two, the broadcasts shrieked "MARKET TANKING!!!!!"Not the ones I heard. You must be listening to the wrong broadcasts.

Because this sort of doom and gloom news makes you nod in your sagacity and mumble into your beer, "once we get our'n people in office, all this is gonna change...." you cannot see the left-advocacy (even the NYTimes own ombudsman admitted they slant news to the left...) trees for the leftist scaremongering forest. You are so inculcated in this stuff that you have lost any ability to recognize that when a news story says something like "Economic growth failed to meet expectations this quarter..." followed 13 paragraphs later by a a few words admitting that in actual fact, growth is still up, even though some analyst the leftist news reporter chose as his "expert" said it didn't do as well as it "should" have, that this is left-advocacy bias.That may well be; it all depends, of course, on whose expectations are being discussed. But it is not the shrieking doom and gloom tanking message that you keep attributing to the press. That remains an unsubstantiated charge, which I think will remain unsubstantiated, because it is a fiction.

How is your ignorance my fault?

TokieMine is not. Yours, however, is.

[bruto]

No.

I don't access or provide links.

Just read any major newspaper...watch the major newscasts, tonight...they will lead with $OIL HIT $100 a bbl!!!!!!!!" They will not mention that this will probably not impact prices at the pump..nor have the been reporting the steady decline of p-gal prices at the pump as they shrieked about every cent or two increase over the past year.

This means nothing to you, because you are a leftist and cannot see that they are doing this.

So be it. None are so blind as who will not see...

TokieThe snippet of NPR Nightly business report that I heard played it down as more or less expected as cold weather hits, no surprise and not to be taken too seriously because trading was light after new year and actions disproportionate as a result. I didn't hear the shrieking. Who shrieked?

[Gord_in_Toronto]

The snippet of NPR Nightly business report that I heard played it down as more or less expected as cold weather hits, no surprise and not to be taken too seriously because trading was light after new year and actions disproportionate as a result. I didn't hear the shrieking. Who shrieked?

The Liberal Socialist Demonic Voices in Tokie's head? :rolleyes:

[Gazpacho]

Token, I know you think you're cutting-edge with this "librul/consurvative" gimmick, but you're not. Try talking about the topic at hand (even in your own threads) rather than ideology, you might get a little more respect.

[coalesce]

Ya woulda thought, but the media has, once again hyped them up into a state where those companies that sell "survival equipment are now making a comeback.

I wonder why the left-advocacy media would be so interested in telling everyone the economy is about to collapse a little less than a year from a national election in the USofA?

Anyone?

Anyone?


Tokie

I'm curious. Which companies that sell survival equipment are making a comeback? And where have you seen/read the left-advocacy media telling everyone the economy is about to collapse?

Michael

[Corsair 115]

I offer the following from today's (Wed. Jan. 2nd) business news:

Dow Jones Industrial Average lost 220.86 points (1.67%), closing at 13,043.96

U.S. manufacturing index fell to 47.7 in December, down from 50.8 in November, according to the Institute for Supply Management (values above 50 indicate growth, values below 50 indicate contraction). Financial analysts were expecting an index number of about 50.5 for the month.

U.S. residential construction spending was down 2.5% in November, and down 17.5% compared to November of 2006, as reported by the Deparment of Commerce and the U.S. Census Bureau.

From Dec. 28th:

New home sales were down 9.0% in November, and were down 34.4% compared to November of 2006, according to the Census Bureau and the Department of Housing and Urban Development.

[UserGoogol]

No.

I don't access or provide links.

Just read any major newspaper...watch the major newscasts, tonight...they will lead with $OIL HIT $100 a bbl!!!!!!!!" They will not mention that this will probably not impact prices at the pump..nor have the been reporting the steady decline of p-gal prices at the pump as they shrieked about every cent or two increase over the past year.

I haven't been hearing too much about that recently, but yeah, newspapers have been reporting on that. But that's not even remotely claiming that the economy is going to go into freefall. Oil hitting $100/bbl IS news. Adjusted for inflation, this is more expensive than oil has been since oil has been in a very long time.

As a general rule of thumb, good things are not news, but bad things are. This is partly because life (and the economy) is generally pretty good, so when things remain good that's not really a big development. Now, I admit that the media may have a tendency to focus on doom and gloom slightly more than is necessary (although I think you're exaggerating like hell) but I think this is simply because news companies want to watch their shows. "WE'RE DOOMED, MORE AT ELEVEN" gets better ratings then "Everything is super, yay!" In my opinion, bad things that do not promote a "leftist agenda" are just as sensationalized as the economy is.

[Tokenconservative]

I haven't been hearing too much about that recently, but yeah, newspapers have been reporting on that. But that's not even remotely claiming that the economy is going to go into freefall. Oil hitting $100/bbl IS news. Adjusted for inflation, this is more expensive than oil has been since oil has been in a very long time.

As a general rule of thumb, good things are not news, but bad things are. This is partly because life (and the economy) is generally pretty good, so when things remain good that's not really a big development. Now, I admit that the media may have a tendency to focus on doom and gloom slightly more than is necessary (although I think you're exaggerating like hell) but I think this is simply because news companies want to watch their shows. "WE'RE DOOMED, MORE AT ELEVEN" gets better ratings then "Everything is super, yay!" In my opinion, bad things that do not promote a "leftist agenda" are just as sensationalized as the economy is.

Thanks for the lessons on how the media works...

Sigh...not sure if you are just ignorant of how this is done, or being purposely obtuse. I will assume the former for now.

There are things called "slant" and "bias." They are with us, no matter what. In the "news" media (please do not make the shrieking leftist claim that pundits and commentators are the same as journalists...they just simply are not), professional journalists are supposed to at least attempt to keep their own views, perspectives and "slant" and "bias" out of their reporting.

Lets take a hypothetical (but happens exactly this way, like clockwork) "news" report on econmic growth (US)--and this includes the "business" sections of most newspapers and other news organs where the "business" reporter is such primarily because the organ needs no other crime beat reporters.

If growth is up say, 1/8th this (hypothetical) quarter it is what it is..UP 1/8 this quarter.

The "news" organ can simply say: US economic growth is up, 1/8th this quarter,and then go on with the details.

Keep in mind that people (generally, sigh) read papers like this: they scan the headline, if it catches their interest they pay a bit of attention to paras 1-3. At that point (sigh..generally) they make a choice:
1. move on, this does not interest me, I already know this, etc.,
2. read more, and closely, I want to know about this,
3. skim this; it intrests me mildly, I want to see what this paper says, vs. another, etc.

I am not making this up and no, I don't have a link--LIIIINNKKKKKK@!!!-- to prove--PROOOOOVEEEEEEEE!!!--it. I studied journalism in school decades ago...it was that way, then, and if anything the skimming has become more pronounced now. Take it or leave, IDGAFF.

Here is how virtually every newspaper (and broadcasters do this EXACTLY the same way, only with fewer words) will report this news:
HL: Growth Lower Than Expected
SH: Economy grows slower than predicted.
"The US economy this quarter, grew at a slower pace than many analysts had predicted. Slow starts in housing, a weak dollar, lower than anticipated retail sales, and faltering consumer confidence are all cited as reasons for this."

Second para will, essentially repeat this in a different order, perhaps offer an "expert" who says the same thing.

Third para will cite another expert saying essentially the same thing, and by the last sentence MAY say "growth overall is up, from last quarter and up from the same time last year, but lower than anticipated."

If the reader gets this far (something on the order of 75% go no further than paragraph 1) he/she learns that wait a minute...the HL, the SH and the first 2-2-5/8ths paras are a bit misleading...now, the reader ONLY comes to this conclusion if he/she does not already have a left-leaning predilection for "all news about the US economy under an R admin. MUST BE BAD!"

If he/she is more objective, he/she MAY (remember, we are thoroughly inculcated against this) be able to discern the slant and bias in the piece, and it's inherently dishonest approach.

Please...tell me you have never read a news article like this. If you do, it means you are among the 90+% of Americans (I am assuming) who don't read news at all, and the 98% who never read the business sections.

Tokie

[Tokenconservative]

I offer the following from today's (Wed. Jan. 2nd) business news:

Dow Jones Industrial Average lost 220.86 points (1.67%), closing at 13,043.96

U.S. manufacturing index fell to 47.7 in December, down from 50.8 in November, according to the Institute for Supply Management (values above 50 indicate growth, values below 50 indicate contraction). Financial analysts were expecting an index number of about 50.5 for the month.

U.S. residential construction spending was down 2.5% in November, and down 17.5% compared to November of 2006, as reported by the Deparment of Commerce and the U.S. Census Bureau.

From Dec. 28th:

New home sales were down 9.0% in November, and were down 34.4% compared to November of 2006, according to the Census Bureau and the Department of Housing and Urban Development.

I offer this: DOW is down on panic-news of OIL AT $100BBL!!!!

If a walrus farts, the Dow drops...or rises. Depends on the stars. And that's...well, let's count..ONE day.

US manufacturing ALWAYS falls in the middle of winter because it includes things that are manufactured for outdoor use, and things that are manufactured outdoors and because um...people take lots of time off in December.

US commercial and multi-unit (apt) construction is up...hmm....

Gee...new home sales down. Meanwhile, resales are up...I wonder what that could mean?

Oh, yeah:

THE US ECONOMY IS COLLAPSIIIINGGGGGG!!!!!

[Tokenconservative]

Token, I know you think you're cutting-edge with this "librul/consurvative" gimmick, but you're not. Try talking about the topic at hand (even in your own threads) rather than ideology, you might get a little more respect.

LOL!

Yep...I come in here to get R-E-S-P-E-C-T from leftist fearmongers and monstershouters.

Yep...

Sheesh.

Look, the left is working desperately to convince Americans that the US economy is in the toilet and "about to get far, far worse!!!" You belive that and probably 80% of the economic morons in here do as well (please note when you rush to file your complaint, that I did not call YOU a moron) because it has been pounded into our heads by a left-advocacy media for at least the last 4 years and that has only heated up the closer we come to the election.

Lay some money on it? In the 2-3 weeks before the election, you will see NO even slightly encouraging news reported about the economy, no matter what. You up for $5k on that?

Tokie

[Tokenconservative]

The snippet of NPR Nightly business report that I heard played it down as more or less expected as cold weather hits, no surprise and not to be taken too seriously because trading was light after new year and actions disproportionate as a result. I didn't hear the shrieking. Who shrieked?

My local twin dailes were shrieking from huge headlines, that's who.

You've said this about Socialiast Public Radio in the past...I may have to give them a listen, then come back in here and hand you your head on a plate if it turns out you are wrong or simply lying.

Tokie

[Tokenconservative]

I'm curious. Which companies that sell survival equipment are making a comeback? And where have you seen/read the left-advocacy media telling everyone the economy is about to collapse?

Michael

Beats me. I just know from other forums that morons are buying this stuff again.

Every left-advocacy "news" organ is reporting the imminent meltdown and inevitable collapse of the US economy...why do you ask?

Tokie

[Francesca R]

US manufacturing ALWAYS falls in the middle of winter because it includes things that are manufactured for outdoor use, and things that are manufactured outdoors and because um...people take lots of time off in December.The ISM is seasonally adjusted (http://www.ism.ws/about/mediaroom/newsreleasedetail.cfm?ItemNumber=15838&navItemNumber=12946). Thus is it not explainable by "winter"

[Jaggy Bunnet]

Quick and dirty readout: (http://finance.yahoo.com/currency/convert?from=USD&to=EUR&amt=1&t=2y)
January 1 2007: $1 = € 0.763
December 31 2007: $1 = € 0.695

Multiplying the points by their respective exchange rates:

DOW:
2006 close: 9509.4
2007 close: 9218.9
down (-) 3.1%

Nasdaq:
2006 1842.9
2007 1843.3
up (+) 0.0%

S&P 500
2006 1082.2
2007 1017.2 (guessed the typo)
down (-) 6.4%

Not so good.

Not sure what the justification is for translating indices by currency rates. Does this not simply double count currency effects? After all if there is a reduction in the value of a company due to changed exchange rates this will already be reflected in the index and does not require conversion?

[Jaggy Bunnet]

My local twin dailes were shrieking from huge headlines, that's who.

Then it should be no problem for you to provide evidence of this.

[Francesca R]

Not sure what the justification is for translating indices by currency rates. Does this not simply double count currency effects? After all if there is a reduction in the value of a company due to changed exchange rates this will already be reflected in the index and does not require conversion?I think the (flimsy IMO) justification is: The US stock market went up, but this might simply be the result of US companies benefiting from a fall in the USD.

But no, it doesn't double-count currency effects. It shows what return a EUR-based investor would have made in EUR assuming she/he did not hedge the FX risk.

[coalesce]

Beats me. I just know from other forums that morons are buying this stuff again.

Every left-advocacy "news" organ is reporting the imminent meltdown and inevitable collapse of the US economy...why do you ask?

Tokie

I agree that people who buy survival gear fearing either the collapse of the economy or the New World Order taking over are a few sandwiches short of a picnic.

I ask which left-advocacy news organization reported the imminent collapse of the US economy because I listen to NPR fairly regularly, and I have yet to hear them report that the US economy collapsing as a statement of fact as opposed to an opinion. They've reported about the sub-prime mortgage situation, but haven't made the leap that this--or anything else--is going to lead to the US economy collapsing. I am curious about where you heard this from.

Michael

[Jaggy Bunnet]

I think the (flimsy IMO) justification is: The US stock market went up, but this might simply be the result of US companies benefiting from a fall in the USD.

But no, it doesn't double-count currency effects. It shows what return a EUR-based investor would have made in EUR assuming she/he did not hedge the FX risk.

But if, for example, the value of US companies has fallen because they have a cost base denominated in Euros but sell in Dollars, then this would already be reflected in the index.

And of course it is worth asking what percentage of the US market is held by Euro investors.

[Francesca R]

And what proportion of companies have what extent of foreign sales, or foreign costs, and what their extent of corporate FX hedging is.

Whatever, if one is looking for evidence that the US economy is fine OR collapsing, single-digit returns from mega-cap equities over the preceding 12 months is not it.

[Tokenconservative]

From Wofgang Munchau, Economic Times (emphasis Tokie's to poke fun at the fearmongers and monstershouters):

I would expect the credit crisis to get worse before it gets better, that persistently high inflationary expectations will place constraints on central banks and that there will be no dollar crisis.

From John M. Berry, Bloomberg News

Given the turmoil n financial marketsts, the risk of recession is hardly zero. Nevertheless, the current state of the economy simply doesn't show the signs usually associated with one...

Many of the forecasts calling for a recession are based on an assumption that large losses associated with subprime mortgages and the securities backing up by them will force banks to reduce lending big time...(t)here are scant signs of that happening.

Tokie

[The Atheist]

Methinks you're confusing reality - the US economy may be headed for recession - with a disaster fantasy.

[UserGoogol]

Thanks for the lessons on how the media works...

Sigh...not sure if you are just ignorant of how this is done, or being purposely obtuse. I will assume the former for now.

[snip]

I'm fully aware of how bias works, I'm fully aware of how people skim. In fact, I fully agree that there is a bias towards reporting bad news and to a point, that this is a bad thing. But this is not the same as claiming that the economy is DOOOOOMED, and this is also not something that need be explained by an evil liberal conspiracy.

Part of it, again, is that bad news is inherently more newsworthy. The weather reports spend more time talking about blizzards than sunny days because it's blizzards that people are worried about, even though most days are not storms. Similarly, people care more about economic recessions than economic booms, even though most of the time the economy is growing. That said, I agree that things probably go too far in focusing on bad things.

However, to assume that whenever something bad happens it must be the fault of evil people is conspiracy theorist thinking, and generally illogical. Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity, because stupidity is far more common than malice and therefore satisfies Occam's Razor. When I look at the media, I see sensationalism, not leftist advocacy. As I said in the previous post, the media sensationalizes problems which do not particularly encourage liberalism.

For instance, if you look at the news (local news in particular) you will see TONS of stories about violent crime. Historically speaking, violent crime is at fairly low levels, but if you let your opinions be guided by skimming (or even carefully watching) the news, you would think that things were going to hell, but that is not the case. But (if you generalize somewhat) it is Republicans who generally focus more on being "tough on crime." Why would a leftist advocacy media focus on something like that?

For those who skimmed this post: The media focuses on bad news because bad news is more important and because it puts people in a mood which encourages them to not change the channel, not because of some liberal conspiracy.

[Tokenconservative]

I'm fully aware of how bias works, I'm fully aware of how people skim. In fact, I fully agree that there is a bias towards reporting bad news and to a point, that this is a bad thing. But this is not the same as claiming that the economy is DOOOOOMED, and this is also not something that need be explained by an evil liberal conspiracy.

Part of it, again, is that bad news is inherently more newsworthy. The weather reports spend more time talking about blizzards than sunny days because it's blizzards that people are worried about, even though most days are not storms. Similarly, people care more about economic recessions than economic booms, even though most of the time the economy is growing. That said, I agree that things probably go too far in focusing on bad things.

However, to assume that whenever something bad happens it must be the fault of evil people is conspiracy theorist thinking, and generally illogical. Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity, because stupidity is far more common than malice and therefore satisfies Occam's Razor. When I look at the media, I see sensationalism, not leftist advocacy. As I said in the previous post, the media sensationalizes problems which do not particularly encourage liberalism.

For instance, if you look at the news (local news in particular) you will see TONS of stories about violent crime. Historically speaking, violent crime is at fairly low levels, but if you let your opinions be guided by skimming (or even carefully watching) the news, you would think that things were going to hell, but that is not the case. But (if you generalize somewhat) it is Republicans who generally focus more on being "tough on crime." Why would a leftist advocacy media focus on something like that?

For those who skimmed this post: The media focuses on bad news because bad news is more important and because it puts people in a mood which encourages them to not change the channel, not because of some liberal conspiracy.

Hmm...I guess I was not being clear or you really are being obtuse.

The news I was mentioning was good. Inherently. The rate of economic growth is up...but by clever use of language (I believe you are the one who said "conspiracy" not me..)--these are people who craft words for their meager livings--they make it appear as if the good news they are reporting on is actually bad.

They do this on purpose, though you believe one must believe in some Great Conspiracy Theory to believe that that goes on. Is there just the slightest possibility that the overwhelming majority of "news" reporters, as they regularly self-report, are, as they call themelves, "liberals" and therefore have, to go along with their self-reported "liberal" leanings, liberal perspectives?

Any chance at all?

Even the NYTimes own ombudsman admonished the paper for it's left-bias in NEWS reporting....I guess you missed it when I said that before?

It's not neccesary for the headline to scream "DOOOOMED!" As libs learned so well first from Lenin and then from Herr Doktor Goebbels, the lie told often enough becomes the truth...as the Nazis (Godwin!!! GODWIIINNNNNNNNN!!!!) perfected it, the lie told quietly at first, whispered in an ear here, and ear there, soon becomes a fact that can easily be repeated even in more moderate press.

I am sorry you don't understand how this works and are ignorant of the history and lack, apparently, any familiarity with communication theory. Understanding language, history and communcation are useful things in our modern society.

And yet, the leftist insistence that GW Bush is the cause of the DOOOOM!!! facing the economy is somehow...NOT CT thinking?

How does that calculus work in your world? If a conservative says "evil people use melon ballers to remove the eyes of children in front of their parents" (Saddam's torturers did this) that is CT thinking. When someon shrieks "Bush has destroyed the US economy in order to enrich a select, secret cabal of his rich Oil Buddies!!!" that's entirely rational?

You live in an...interesting world.

Tokie

[UserGoogol]

Hmm...I guess I was not being clear or you really are being obtuse.

The news I was mentioning was good. Inherently. The rate of economic growth is up...but by clever use of language (I believe you are the one who said "conspiracy" not me..)--these are people who craft words for their meager livings--they make it appear as if the good news they are reporting on is actually bad.

No it isn't. The economy growing less than was expected is bad news. Hell, there is no such thing as purely good news. A good news media will look at news and carefully analyze it to find every facet of it and see the upsides and downsides of the story and report accordingly, with perhaps a slight skew towards the downsides for the reason I said. A sensationalist news media will take those shortcomings and hype them like hell to make people watch their shows. Neither is liberal advocacy.

[rjh01]

May I suggest the sky is falling rather than the economy? That would make more sense. The evidence for what I am suggesting is all in this thread.

Yes, the sky is falling.

[Corsair 115]

It's a shame Tokenconservative only enjoys playing the role of über-conservative provocateur rather than someone actually interested in having a meaningful and rational discussion on a given topic.

[Cuddles]

Three threads on the same subject have been merged. The posts will be mixed up, so sorry if this causes any confusion.

Token, do not spam multiple threads on the same subject.

[Jaggy Bunnet]

It's a shame Tokenconservative only enjoys playing the role of über-conservative provocateur rather than someone actually interested in having a meaningful and rational discussion on a given topic.

Well he has the necessary "skills" to play an uber-conservative....

[egslim]

Not sure what the justification is for translating indices by currency rates.
Mainly I was responding to SomeGuy's question what would happen if you expressed Tokie's numbers in Euros.

Does this not simply double count currency effects? After all if there is a reduction in the value of a company due to changed exchange rates this will already be reflected in the index and does not require conversion?
No, because the two mechanisms define a company's value in different ways. One depends on the bookkeeping effects of differences in exchange rate, the other on shareholder's sentiments about future returns. The two are not equivalent.

[egslim]

Whatever, if one is looking for evidence that the US economy is fine OR collapsing, single-digit returns from mega-cap equities over the preceding 12 months is not it.
I agree, and for the record, I never intended to use the post as an argument for one of those positions.

[Jaggy Bunnet]

Mainly I was responding to SomeGuy's question what would happen if you expressed Tokie's numbers in Euros.


No, because the two mechanisms define a company's value in different ways. One depends on the bookkeeping effects of differences in exchange rate, the other on shareholder's sentiments about future returns. The two are not equivalent.

But would the shareholders sentiments about future returns not include an assessment of the potential impact of changed exchange rates? If not, why not?

[Francesca R]

Just for the heck of it . . .
WASHINGTON, Jan 4 (Reuters) - U.S. employers added a scant 18,000 jobs in December and the national unemployment rate kicked up to five percent, its highest in more than two years, according to a government report on Friday that underlined the economy's rapidly slowing momentum. The Labor Department said December's pace of job creation was the weakest since August 2003 when 42,000 jobs were cut. It was far below the median estimate of analysts surveyed by Reuters who had forecast that 70,000 non-farm jobs would be added last month. The unemployment rate jumped to 5 percent, its highest since it matched that rate in November 2005, from 4.7 percent in November. The department said that for all of 2007, payroll employment growth averaged 111,000 a month, down from 189,000 a month in 2006.

[egslim]

But would the shareholders sentiments about future returns not include an assessment of the potential impact of changed exchange rates? If not, why not?
Only partially, because most US shareholders use the dollar as a baseline. A weaker dollar boosts exporters and hurts importers, and that is taken into account by shareholders. But a weakening dollar also decreases the relative value of everything valued in dollars compared to rising currencies, and that is not taken into account except by currency speculators.

[Corsair 115]

For the trading week ending today:

Dow Jones down 4.2%
S&P500 down 4.5%
NASDAQ down 6.6%

And that's in a holiday-shortened trading week. Not exactly an encouraging start to the year.

[bruto]

Just for the heck of it . . .Reuters=lefty liberal shriekers. Tokie knows better, I'm sure.

[edteach]

Watch the news now, the economy is slipping bad. even the schrub is looking at it. He looks like a deer cought in the head lights but looking non the less. The neocons keep saying there is no problem and all the time the news keeps getting worse. I guess they would deny it if you could show them any thing they did not want to beleive.
Things are going to be bad this winter.

[Tokenconservative]

For the trading week ending today:

Dow Jones down 4.2%
S&P500 down 4.5%
NASDAQ down 6.6%

And that's in a holiday-shortened trading week. Not exactly an encouraging start to the year.

OMG!!!!!!!

PANIC!!!!

TEOTWAWKI!!!!!!

FIND ME A WINDOW TO JUMP OUT OF!!!!!!!!

Sheesh.

Now, when they all shoot back up, 7-8% next Tuesday, or whenever, will you be sure to update us?





Yeah....din't think so.

Tokie

[Tokenconservative]

I agree that people who buy survival gear fearing either the collapse of the economy or the New World Order taking over are a few sandwiches short of a picnic.

I ask which left-advocacy news organization reported the imminent collapse of the US economy because I listen to NPR fairly regularly, and I have yet to hear them report that the US economy collapsing as a statement of fact as opposed to an opinion. They've reported about the sub-prime mortgage situation, but haven't made the leap that this--or anything else--is going to lead to the US economy collapsing. I am curious about where you heard this from.

Michael

AP, NYTimes wire service, Scripps wire and my local "news"papers all report it.

Oh, wait..you meant "where are the screaming headlines!?"

Look up these terms: "bias" and "slant."

Tokie

[Tokenconservative]

And what proportion of companies have what extent of foreign sales, or foreign costs, and what their extent of corporate FX hedging is.

Whatever, if one is looking for evidence that the US economy is fine OR collapsing, single-digit returns from mega-cap equities over the preceding 12 months is not it.

And yet...the "business" reporters in most US "news" organs will come on or write very somberly that this is EXACTLY the sort of snapshot "news" that tells us the economy is nearing collapse, and throught that, implying that if you don't vote socialist this November, expect to be on a breadline by 01/22/09.

Tokie

[Tokenconservative]

Methinks you're confusing reality - the US economy may be headed for recession - with a disaster fantasy.

There have always been those out there hoping for TEOTWAWKI (look at the Y2k nonsense). Now, add to that the 24-hour news cycle, run mostly by socialists intent on destroying the US economy as a means of destroying the US, and you encounter a real perception problem, one that the Nazis (Gowin!!! GODWIN!!!!) exploiteds expertly in their time: the lie told often and loudly enough becomes the truth.

This is why so many Americans (see: JREF forums) believe that at minimum, "we" are headed to "tough times" (gee...when has it NOT been the case that SOME people are experiencing tough times? The foreclosure rate in booming 1999 was higher than it is today....) and many believe these tough times will rival the Great Depression and a lot of them believe they will make the Great Depression pale in comparison.

Where are they getting this idea? Is it just something they pluck, fully-fledged from their own backsides? I doubt it. Most of them are not bright enough.

No, they get it from the "news" media who, at every downward nudge of the Dow, Nasdac and/or S&P, scream "MARKETS ARE FALLING!!!" At every upward jot of a penny or two at the pump they shriek "GAS PRICES ROCKET TOWARD NEW HIGHS!!!"

Meanwhile, when the markets actually do rocket up 1000 pnts in a day....mum's the word. It's reported in the back pages of the business section. When gas DROPS 10-12 cents in a week....no mention at all.

And of course, n00bs who are buying white, food-grade plastic buckets don't read the back pages of the biz section and even if they did, would not understand what they are reading (besides, it's ALWAYS couched in biased terms...the "news" will always say..."markets edged up"..BUT NOT AS FAR AS EXPECTED!!!! and it's the slanted "news" that registers wth them, because they so desperately WANT to see a real collapse that will permit them to live off that garage-full of expensive dehydrated foods and laugh at their "rich" brother-in-law who is now living in his Mercedes sedan.

In short, they are ignorant, credulous fools.

Tokie

[bruto]

AP, NYTimes wire service, Scripps wire and my local "news"papers all report it.

Oh, wait..you meant "where are the screaming headlines!?"

Look up these terms: "bias" and "slant."

Tokie

So all you have to do to hold your point is to redefine screaming as anything that you don't like?

[Tokenconservative]

So all you have to do to hold your point is to redefine screaming as anything that you don't like?

No, I just have to be able to think.

It's not a matter of what I "don't like" I don't like headcheese. It's a matter of being objective enough (no lib is) to recognize legitimate slant and bias in "new" reports for what they are.

Of course, that means that you can't be a lib, because no lib will admit that it is POSSIBLE for a fellow lib to slant or to present his or her bias...by definition, to a lib, if a lib says it it cannot be slanted or biased.

Tokie
Keep in mind the Membership Agreement and do not use personal attacks or insults to argue your point.

[bruto]

No, I just have to be able to think.


TokieOne of these days you should consider connecting thought to what you post.

I should add that I am not attempting to say that people do not have biases, or that the press does not reflect those biases, although I do doubt that the biases are as you see them. What I am saying is that you continually accuse the so-called liberal press of "shrieking" and "screaming," and then when it is demonstrated that they are not, you say that they are sending subtle messages if bias and slant, and equating that with shrieking and screaming. You cannot have it both ways. A subliminal message is not a shriek. Muttering is not screaming. Find what you wish, say what you believe, lie or misconstrue as much as you please, but do not insult our intelligence by dynamically redefining the obvious to suit your own bias.

[coalesce]

AP, NYTimes wire service, Scripps wire and my local "news"papers all report it.

Oh, wait..you meant "where are the screaming headlines!?"

Look up these terms: "bias" and "slant."

Tokie

OK, I can buy a bias in news reporting. However, what I cannot buy is a bias in calling out that type of perceived over-the-top, hysterical news reporting with equally as hysterical, over-the-top hyperbole, such as:

"Now, add to that the 24-hour news cycle, run mostly by socialists intent on destroying the US economy as a means of destroying the US, and you encounter a real perception problem..."

Do you know who these socialists are? Is it Rupert Murdoch? Is it Don Hewitt? Is it Brian Williams? Is it Mortimer Zuckerman? Is it Ted Turner? Is it Anderson Cooper? Is it John Micklethwait? Do you have their names? I guess you must, as you have given the impression that you know who they are and what their agenda is. I mean, you wouldn't resort to using Eugene McCarthy-like tactics of throwing out names and agendas without any real proof simply to advance your own agenda?

I do agree that every major news organization has slant and bias. For example, Fox News is to the right, CNN and NPR are both to the center-left, but to say that either of the three is bent on destroying the US economy is ridiculous. I agree that the news organizations should do a better job of explaining why things happen as opposed to just saying what happened (case in point: the real effect that oil refineries have on the price of gas, not just how much oil is trading for on a particular day.)

Michael

[Tokenconservative]

One of these days you should consider connecting thought to what you post.

I should add that I am not attempting to say that people do not have biases, or that the press does not reflect those biases, although I do doubt that the biases are as you see them. What I am saying is that you continually accuse the so-called liberal press of "shrieking" and "screaming," and then when it is demonstrated that they are not, you say that they are sending subtle messages if bias and slant, and equating that with shrieking and screaming. You cannot have it both ways. A subliminal message is not a shriek. Muttering is not screaming. Find what you wish, say what you believe, lie or misconstrue as much as you please, but do not insult our intelligence by dynamically redefining the obvious to suit your own bias.

You can term it however you like. At this point, it's verging on hysteria...for one reason, because the economy is stubbornly refusing to collapse, and since the media view themselves as the primary movers and shakers in our society, they are not at all happy that we've not all stopped buying anything save LTSF and white, food-grade plastic buckets.

Your own liberal bias prevents you from recognizing the extreme bias and slant presente by your fellow travelers. And it's not "so-called." It's beyond the doubt of any reasonable person. No, I don't have link proving that. I also don't have a link proving water is wet. The evidence so so overwhelming, it's no longer necessary for anyone asserting that to provide long, drawn out dissertations on it. It is what it is.

If you can find me a news story discussing at rise in growth, or uptick in this that or the other average or some such, I can guarantee it will be prefaced or closely followed by a "yeah, but."

That, whether you choose to recognize it or not, is bias. It is, in the back pages of the biz section subtle. When they shriek from the front page GAS PRICES SKYROCKETING!!! that's um...well, shrieking when compared to the muted reporting, again buried in the back pages of the biz section, when gas prices drop.

Your failure to recognize that the sky is up does not mean the sky is down. It just means your perspective is flawed.

Tokie

[Tokenconservative]

OK, I can buy a bias in news reporting. However, what I cannot buy is a bias in calling out that type of perceived over-the-top, hysterical news reporting with equally as hysterical, over-the-top hyperbole, such as:

"Now, add to that the 24-hour news cycle, run mostly by socialists intent on destroying the US economy as a means of destroying the US, and you encounter a real perception problem..."

Do you know who these socialists are? Is it Rupert Murdoch? Is it Don Hewitt? Is it Brian Williams? Is it Mortimer Zuckerman? Is it Ted Turner? Is it Anderson Cooper? Is it John Micklethwait? Do you have their names? I guess you must, as you have given the impression that you know who they are and what their agenda is. I mean, you wouldn't resort to using Eugene McCarthy-like tactics of throwing out names and agendas without any real proof simply to advance your own agenda?

I do agree that every major news organization has slant and bias. For example, Fox News is to the right, CNN and NPR are both to the center-left, but to say that either of the three is bent on destroying the US economy is ridiculous. I agree that the news organizations should do a better job of explaining why things happen as opposed to just saying what happened (case in point: the real effect that oil refineries have on the price of gas, not just how much oil is trading for on a particular day.)

Michael

I love this kind of argument.

You must think I'm either a pretty low-wattage bulb, or that I am what, 8 or so?

The Agreement-followed-by-slash-and-burn approach.

First, let's dispense with any silly notion that you agree with me. It's clear that you are a leftist, and therefore the last thing in the world you are going to to do is agree with me, especially on this topic.

As I responded to someone else previously, left-bias in the mainstream "news" media is no longer a matter of contention...the consensus is in: it exists. I no longer need to follow every statement of that fact with a long dissertation containing names, dates and instances.

It is what it is.

And then the comparison to McCarthy. Personally, I take that as a compliment, one I am hardly deserving of. McCarthy was a great American who did wonderful work exposing communists at high levels in our government. I'm just a mook on the 'net.

I am pretty sure that you, as a lefty, did not intend that as a compliment, howmsoever.

It's not necessary, by the way, for every member of a "conspiracy" to be a founding or even pivotal member. It's only necesary that they do their part. Turner is the only one you name here who is a pivotal or elite personage. Not sure why you threw in Murdoch....that was a strange choice.

To say that CNN is "center-left" tells me much about your perspective? And what about Noam Chomsky, slightly left? Howard Zinn? A tad more?

It's not "hysterical" to note a fact, that fact being that the left has been bent on destroying Western democracy and Western free market capitalism for some time (at least since Marx). To you, of course, the left in America are the "good guys." Why, JFK was a libearal!

Yes, well not the kind of liberal you are. While there are individual JFK or Scoop Jackson "Liberals," here and there today (Lieberman, for example), mainstream "liberalism" today is socialism. It's not simply a few policy differences with conservatives, it's a matter of kind, not degree.

And sine you are today, more leftist than liberal, you have to own what you are. As a leftist, you are quit comfortable lying and denying that you are what you are.

That's okay. That's what I do. I shine the brutal, bright light of day on you and call a spade a spade.

So it's not "hysterical" to state that a leftist organization (media) within the leftist (socialist) movement in the US is simply carrying forward a long-term goal of international leftism (socialism-communism) and that's the destruction of the US as the biggest barrier to bringing socialism to the entire world.

Again, it simply is what it is.

Tokie

[Tokenconservative]

One of these days you should consider connecting thought to what you post.



I said basically the same thing to some shrieking lib a few posts before this and I got a public spanking (and a warming in my PM).

Curiously, you calling me stupid does not generate the same sort of thing.

I wonder why?

Tokie

Stop calling names. Last warning before you get a time-out.

[bruto]

I said basically the same thing to some shrieking lib a few posts before this and I got a public spanking (and a warming in my PM).

Curiously, you calling me stupid does not generate the same sort of thing.

I wonder why?

TokiePerhaps because I did not call you stupid. Your continual misreading of almost everything I write could, of course, be caused by honest stupidity, but I doubt it.

[coalesce]

I love this kind of argument.

You must think I'm either a pretty low-wattage bulb, or that I am what, 8 or so?

The Agreement-followed-by-slash-and-burn approach.

First, let's dispense with any silly notion that you agree with me. It's clear that you are a leftist, and therefore the last thing in the world you are going to to do is agree with me, especially on this topic.

As I responded to someone else previously, left-bias in the mainstream "news" media is no longer a matter of contention...the consensus is in: it exists. I no longer need to follow every statement of that fact with a long dissertation containing names, dates and instances.

It is what it is.

And then the comparison to McCarthy. Personally, I take that as a compliment, one I am hardly deserving of. McCarthy was a great American who did wonderful work exposing communists at high levels in our government. I'm just a mook on the 'net.

I am pretty sure that you, as a lefty, did not intend that as a compliment, howmsoever.

It's not necessary, by the way, for every member of a "conspiracy" to be a founding or even pivotal member. It's only necesary that they do their part. Turner is the only one you name here who is a pivotal or elite personage. Not sure why you threw in Murdoch....that was a strange choice.

To say that CNN is "center-left" tells me much about your perspective? And what about Noam Chomsky, slightly left? Howard Zinn? A tad more?

It's not "hysterical" to note a fact, that fact being that the left has been bent on destroying Western democracy and Western free market capitalism for some time (at least since Marx). To you, of course, the left in America are the "good guys." Why, JFK was a libearal!

Yes, well not the kind of liberal you are. While there are individual JFK or Scoop Jackson "Liberals," here and there today (Lieberman, for example), mainstream "liberalism" today is socialism. It's not simply a few policy differences with conservatives, it's a matter of kind, not degree.

And sine you are today, more leftist than liberal, you have to own what you are. As a leftist, you are quit comfortable lying and denying that you are what you are.

That's okay. That's what I do. I shine the brutal, bright light of day on you and call a spade a spade.

So it's not "hysterical" to state that a leftist organization (media) within the leftist (socialist) movement in the US is simply carrying forward a long-term goal of international leftism (socialism-communism) and that's the destruction of the US as the biggest barrier to bringing socialism to the entire world.

Again, it simply is what it is.

Tokie

It's curious you came to the conclusion that I think you're a dim bulb or are below the age of 12. I don't. You age is immaterial to me, your viewpoints and conclusions are. I think you are intelligent, you have your views and that we disagree of some things--simple as that. I am not a leftist liberal, either. I tend to be middle of the road. There are some things I am conservative about, there are some things I am liberal about.

In answer to your question, I mentioned Rupert Murdoch because of his ownership of the Fox News and the Wall Street Journal. They are both certainly heavyweights in American journalism, both print and broadcast, and since you think that there is a leftist conspiracy to bring down the U.S., well then, the owner of two of the largest news outlets in the U.S. must be in on it, right? And yes, I do ask the names of these socialists in the news organizations because after a while, all the repeating of "I have here in my hand a list of names..." when none exists, does not constitute the truth, no matter how many times it's repeated. You either know who these people are or you don't. It is what it is: you either have the proof or you don't.

Michael

[Corsair 115]

OMG!!!!!!!

PANIC!!!!

TEOTWAWKI!!!!!!

FIND ME A WINDOW TO JUMP OUT OF!!!!!!!!

Sheesh.It's a shame Tokenconservative only enjoys playing the role of über-conservative provocateur rather than someone actually interested in having a meaningful and rational discussion on a given topic.

Oh, and by the way, the TSX was only down 0.3% for the week. It would seem investors were more confident in the fundamentals of the Canadian economy than the American economy.

AP, NYTimes wire service, Scripps wire and my local "news"papers all report it.

Oh, wait..you meant "where are the screaming headlines!?"

Look up these terms: "bias" and "slant."It's a shame Tokenconservative only enjoys playing the role of über-conservative provocateur rather than someone actually interested in having a meaningful and rational discussion on a given topic.

And yet...the "business" reporters in most US "news" organs will come on or write very somberly that this is EXACTLY the sort of snapshot "news" that tells us the economy is nearing collapse, and throught that, implying that if you don't vote socialist this November, expect to be on a breadline by 01/22/09.It's a shame Tokenconservative only enjoys playing the role of über-conservative provocateur rather than someone actually interested in having a meaningful and rational discussion on a given topic.

I'd continue but the trend is rather clear.

[David Wong]

Token is using the comical exaggeration to make his posts more entertaining and to get more replies to his thread, but I truly don't think he realizes that it's only in the exaggeration that there is disagreement.

Everybody agrees that the news media gravitates more toward bad news, and polling shows that journalism tends to attract types who are left of center (often idealistic "change the world" types who don't go into business) and so you sometimes get bias in that direction.

But when you take that grain of truth and, to get the post read, juice it up so that the press is "SCREAMING" about a "COLLAPSE" and they're all "SOCIALISTS", you've literally made the claim factually wrong.

Remember that Rush Limbaugh (and Thom Hartmann and before, Al Franken) phrase things this way because primarily their job is to be entertainers. They WANT to be quoted, they WANT blogs from the other side to get outraged. That's how they get the word out, and keep the ratings up, and make their house payment.

But you can't think that their inflammatory language is somehow conveying the factual truth; it's a pro-wrestling version of journalism. Adopting their tone in your own conversations gains you nothing. No one here will be convinced by it; it just makes you come off like a rabid zealot and surely you realize that's not the path to be taken seriously.

[Prometheus]

Has anyoned pointed out that Tokie acts a lot like one would expect him to act if he were actually a Liberal double-agent shill, paid to post by some leftist group like MoveOn to whip up their fan-base and provide them with a practice dummy? I mean, wouldn't a real conservative actually have at least one source to quote, even if it's not an accurate one? Whereas a pseudo-conservative who's actually a leftist at heart would remember the accusations he'd heard coming from the right, but wouldn't necessarily remember their sources, wouldn't he? Just asking.

[Abe_the_Man]

As a Canadian I am surprised that the red scare is still going strong in the US. I thought it was supposed to have ended in the 50s. Ours ended during WWI. Is this a common viewpoint? I have seen a lot of this in conservative blogs and news media as well as on forums. And before it's said NO Canada is NOT a SOCIALIST country. We have socialized medacine because of a man named Tommy Douglas (look him up) thought it was bad that people with no money were dying because they couldn't afford healthcare.

[Tokenconservative]

Perhaps because I did not call you stupid. Your continual misreading of almost everything I write could, of course, be caused by honest stupidity, but I doubt it.

Um...no, I think something else is going on here...

Care to lay some $$ on how much longer you see my pretty face?

Tokie

[Tokenconservative]

It's curious you came to the conclusion that I think you're a dim bulb or are below the age of 12. I don't. You age is immaterial to me, your viewpoints and conclusions are. I think you are intelligent, you have your views and that we disagree of some things--simple as that. I am not a leftist liberal, either. I tend to be middle of the road. There are some things I am conservative about, there are some things I am liberal about.

In answer to your question, I mentioned Rupert Murdoch because of his ownership of the Fox News and the Wall Street Journal. They are both certainly heavyweights in American journalism, both print and broadcast, and since you think that there is a leftist conspiracy to bring down the U.S., well then, the owner of two of the largest news outlets in the U.S. must be in on it, right? And yes, I do ask the names of these socialists in the news organizations because after a while, all the repeating of "I have here in my hand a list of names..." when none exists, does not constitute the truth, no matter how many times it's repeated. You either know who these people are or you don't. It is what it is: you either have the proof or you don't.

Michael

1. "low-wattage/8 yrs-old": Sorry, I thought you were a native English speaker who would understand this: it's common in English speaking countries to sort of play around with the language. I can't say the "s" word without getting a warming or worse in here, but that's why you are implying in your posts. That's fine, I don't really care. I would be the last to argue that I am NOT "s," in fact. The older I get the more "s-ider" I find myself to be, to say nothing of the level of my "i".

2. Anyone whose perspective allows them to conclude that CNN is anything but very much to the left of center is either not being honest, or not very perceptive. Not sure what ownership of either of these news organs has to do with anything...do you know who owns the NYTimes? Does that organ tend to slant its "news" in any particular direction that YOU can determine, or is it pretty much down the middle objective?

By the way, if you think that NEWS reporting in the WSJ is far, far right because Murdoch owns the paper, it indicates you are basing your view on the lagical falacy of guilt by association. The EDITORIAL (I hope to hell you know the difference) page lean hard right. Not the news pages of that publication.

3. Hmmm...let me see if I follow your logic here:
If A, then
orange?

It's no more necessary for Murdoch to be "in"on it than it was for Churchill to be "in" on Nazi conquest of Europe. Just because Churchill was a leader of his country at the same time Hitler was the leader of his, does not mean they had (necessarily) the same goals.

4. Once again, the names are not as imporatant as their acts (by the way...McCarthy DID have a list and it DID have names...just because those very same communists prevented him from ....sharing, does not make the list any less real). Now, are you saying that Dan Rather (gone but not forgotted) was a stalwart of the right? Katie Couric? Brian Williams? The other guy? What about the publisher of the NYTimes? The LA Times? What about the fact that something on the order of 98% of all news journalists in America admit they are Democrats and that they are "liberal"?

Now I want you to THINK before you shriek :LIMBAUGH!!! HANNITY!!!

Think about what they DO before saying anything, okay?

Tokie

[Tokenconservative]

As a Canadian I am surprised that the red scare is still going strong in the US. I thought it was supposed to have ended in the 50s. Ours ended during WWI. Is this a common viewpoint? I have seen a lot of this in conservative blogs and news media as well as on forums. And before it's said NO Canada is NOT a SOCIALIST country. We have socialized medacine because of a man named Tommy Douglas (look him up) thought it was bad that people with no money were dying because they couldn't afford healthcare.

Yeah well, ahem...how to put this.... Well, bluntly is, I guess, the best way: in Mooseland...the Reds um...well, they won.

Tokie

[Tokenconservative]

May I suggest the sky is falling rather than the economy? That would make more sense. The evidence for what I am suggesting is all in this thread.

Yes, the sky is falling.

It does seem rather more likely.

Why, for the last couple or three weeks where I live, the evidence for you assertion has been falling and piling up in great white heaps.

Given, I would expect all this sky covering the ground to be blue....but that's probably got a sciency explanation.

Tokie

[Tokenconservative]

Has anyoned pointed out that Tokie acts a lot like one would expect him to act if he were actually a Liberal double-agent shill, paid to post by some leftist group like MoveOn to whip up their fan-base and provide them with a practice dummy? I mean, wouldn't a real conservative actually have at least one source to quote, even if it's not an accurate one? Whereas a pseudo-conservative who's actually a leftist at heart would remember the accusations he'd heard coming from the right, but wouldn't necessarily remember their sources, wouldn't he? Just asking.

LOL.

Good point. I've actually run into a number of MoveOnPAC paid-posters of this sort.

They are a little more shrill and a little less genuine than me. Those I've run into are all ardent Keynesians, for example (hell, a few champion Malthus). They'll also, regularly claim "I AM a conservative!" and then go about shoehorning all sorts of typical leftist cant into their statements while claiming that "famous conservatives!!" have agreed with this or that bit of cherry picking.

Now, while I will agree that I can by pretty hyperbolic, that's on purpose. I am not doing it on accident as I would be were I a lib...shriekng that the sky is falling because oil is going up in price or the dollar is dropping in value, etc., etc., etc.

You may be new to the political forum game, so I can see how this might confuse you.

Tokie

[bruto]

4. Once again, the names are not as imporatant as their acts (by the way...McCarthy DID have a list and it DID have names...just because those very same communists prevented him from ....sharing, does not make the list any less real).

Tokie

Are you serious? How do you think the communists prevented McCarthy from revealing his list? Or should we be moving this thread to Conspiracy Theories?

[coalesce]

1. "low-wattage/8 yrs-old": Sorry, I thought you were a native English speaker who would understand this: it's common in English speaking countries to sort of play around with the language. I can't say the "s" word without getting a warming or worse in here, but that's why you are implying in your posts. That's fine, I don't really care. I would be the last to argue that I am NOT "s," in fact. The older I get the more "s-ider" I find myself to be, to say nothing of the level of my "i".

2. Anyone whose perspective allows them to conclude that CNN is anything but very much to the left of center is either not being honest, or not very perceptive. Not sure what ownership of either of these news organs has to do with anything...do you know who owns the NYTimes? Does that organ tend to slant its "news" in any particular direction that YOU can determine, or is it pretty much down the middle objective?

By the way, if you think that NEWS reporting in the WSJ is far, far right because Murdoch owns the paper, it indicates you are basing your view on the lagical falacy of guilt by association. The EDITORIAL (I hope to hell you know the difference) page lean hard right. Not the news pages of that publication.

3. Hmmm...let me see if I follow your logic here:
If A, then
orange?

It's no more necessary for Murdoch to be "in"on it than it was for Churchill to be "in" on Nazi conquest of Europe. Just because Churchill was a leader of his country at the same time Hitler was the leader of his, does not mean they had (necessarily) the same goals.

4. Once again, the names are not as imporatant as their acts (by the way...McCarthy DID have a list and it DID have names...just because those very same communists prevented him from ....sharing, does not make the list any less real). Now, are you saying that Dan Rather (gone but not forgotted) was a stalwart of the right? Katie Couric? Brian Williams? The other guy? What about the publisher of the NYTimes? The LA Times? What about the fact that something on the order of 98% of all news journalists in America admit they are Democrats and that they are "liberal"?

Now I want you to THINK before you shriek :LIMBAUGH!!! HANNITY!!!

Think about what they DO before saying anything, okay?

Tokie

Really? 98% of all news journalists? In America? I suppose you have proof--not necessarily names, as you have shown yourself to be adverse to providing--but an attribution somewhere that factually states that 98% of all news journalists in America admit they are Democrats and that they are "liberal." Inquiring minds want to know.

Oh, you're right. I am not a native English-speaking person. Why, being born and raised in Brooklyn, New York to two first-generation, English-as-a-native-language-speaking and living there for 41 years counts for nothing. You have shone the brutal, hard light of day on me and ascertained through this discussion that I do not have a proper grasp of English. Tell me then, what words would incur a "warming or worse" from the moderators in response to you? Perhaps I "forgotted" some.

Michael

[Tokenconservative]

Are you serious? How do you think the communists prevented McCarthy from revealing his list? Or should we be moving this thread to Conspiracy Theories?

If you are a mod, I guess you can move it wherever you want...

What sort of question is that?

Anyway, they prevented it in the same way as they made our victory in Vietnam, at Tet, into a loss, and in the same way as they attempted to do the same thing in Iraq. Both times.

Any other questions?

Tokie

[volatile]

If you are a mod, I guess you can move it wherever you want...

What sort of question is that?

Anyway, they prevented it in the same way as they made our victory in Vietnam, at Tet, into a loss, and in the same way as they attempted to do the same thing in Iraq. Both times.

Any other questions?

Tokie

Sorry, are you saying that communists have distorted the trajectory of the Iraq War? Communists? Seriously? Do you even know what a communist is?

[Tokenconservative]

Really? 98% of all news journalists? In America? I suppose you have proof--not necessarily names, as you have shown yourself to be adverse to providing--but an attribution somewhere that factually states that 98% of all news journalists in America admit they are Democrats and that they are "liberal." Inquiring minds want to know.

Oh, you're right. I am not a native English-speaking person. Why, being born and raised in Brooklyn, New York to two first-generation, English-as-a-native-language-speaking and living there for 41 years counts for nothing. You have shone the brutal, hard light of day on me and ascertained through this discussion that I do not have a proper grasp of English. Tell me then, what words would incur a "warming or worse" from the moderators in response to you? Perhaps I "forgotted" some.

Michael

Do I have a list of the names of the journalists in America who are liberals?

Since you are lib, and libs are prone to...hysterics, I have a hard time discerning when they are being fascetious, and when it's serious.

I suppose I can tell you where to LOOK for such lists, but no...LOL...of course I possess no such list.

Well, Brooklynese has long been suspect, at any rate.

As youse have so plentifully demonstrated just now in youse last few woids to me....

Sheesh. Look, in all seriousness....it's not a good idea to respond to someone's legitimate concern that an American colloquialism is misunderstood by someone on a 'net forum--this one does not exclude ferrigners....far's I know, with a jumbled, confused, non-syntactic snarl of wordage such as you just finished with.

Settle down. Wipe the foaming spittle from your chin, maybe go out for an egg cream...then come back and give it another go?

Tokie

[Tokenconservative]

Sorry, are you saying that communists have distorted the trajectory of the Iraq War? Communists? Seriously? Do you even know what a communist is?

Yeah...sure, if that's the way you read that.

Who am I to argue with your perceptions?

Tokie

[volatile]

Do I have a list of the names of the journalists in America who are liberals?

Guess that's a no, then, huh?

Name names. Who's in on this?

[dann]

How do you think the communists prevented McCarthy from revealing his list?
In the past tense? We're still doing it!
Or should we be moving this thread to Conspiracy Theories?
Conspiracy REALITIES! :)

[Prometheus]

LOL.

Good point. I've actually run into a number of MoveOnPAC paid-posters of this sort.

They are a little more shrill and a little less genuine than me. Those I've run into are all ardent Keynesians, for example (hell, a few champion Malthus). They'll also, regularly claim "I AM a conservative!" and then go about shoehorning all sorts of typical leftist cant into their statements while claiming that "famous conservatives!!" have agreed with this or that bit of cherry picking.

Now, while I will agree that I can by pretty hyperbolic, that's on purpose. I am not doing it on accident as I would be were I a lib...shriekng that the sky is falling because oil is going up in price or the dollar is dropping in value, etc., etc., etc.

You may be new to the political forum game, so I can see how this might confuse you.

Tokie

So what you're saying is you've learned from the mistakes of other liberals, and it's made you a far more skillful and subtle double-agent leftist shill? :D

[bruto]

If you are a mod, I guess you can move it wherever you want...

What sort of question is that?

Anyway, they prevented it in the same way as they made our victory in Vietnam, at Tet, into a loss, and in the same way as they attempted to do the same thing in Iraq. Both times.

Any other questions?

Tokie

Yes, the obvious question: what on earth do you mean by this? What does the Vietnam war or the Iraq war have to do with your suggestion that communists somehow prevented McCarthy from revealing the names on his putative lists? Are you suggesting that McCarthy was the victim of some communist conspiracy? Do you have some facts at your disposal with regard to this, or are you just parroting goofballs like Anne Coulter?

[Abe_the_Man]

Yeah well, ahem...how to put this.... Well, bluntly is, I guess, the best way: in Mooseland...the Reds um...well, they won.

Tokie

I'm not entirely happy with you implying Canada is a communist nation. We have an elected government and a multi party system with 4 major parties and several growing minor parties. Also we can easily bring down the government with a "vote of no confidence" (I believe your president can only be removed if he is indicted though I may be wrong) which is what happened to our previous Liberal minority government which was replaced with our current conservative minority government. Politics is always exciting here when the elected party does not have a majority in the house of commons.

I don't mean to hijack the discussion but I was interested in how prevalent the "Red Scare" (for lack of a better term) mentality was in the US and was kind of offended with your reply, though not entirely surprised. I have watched fox news before and am surprised with how much negativity our universal healthcare is viewed (though I have seen the same kind of "Oh no socialist commies!" reaction on cnn as well though I think it was only once or twice).

Also as for McCarthy being unable to release his list because of a commie conspiracy doesn't make sense. Couldn't he have just read it aloud when he revealed he had the list? Or at a later date during one of his other speeches? He could easily have mailed dozens or hundreds of copies in secret to other people to reveal.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McCarthyism

"Joseph McCarthy's involvement with the ongoing cultural phenomenon that would come to bear his name began with a speech he made on Lincoln Day, February 9, 1950, to the Republican Women's Club of Wheeling, West Virginia. He produced a piece of paper which he claimed contained a list of known Communists working for the State Department. McCarthy is usually quoted as saying: "I have here in my hand a list of 205—a list of names that were made known to the Secretary of State as being members of the Communist Party and who nevertheless are still working and shaping policy in the State Department."[9] This speech resulted in a flood of press attention to McCarthy and set him on the path that would characterize the rest of his career and life."

[coalesce]

Do I have a list of the names of the journalists in America who are liberals?

Since you are lib, and libs are prone to...hysterics, I have a hard time discerning when they are being fascetious, and when it's serious.

I suppose I can tell you where to LOOK for such lists, but no...LOL...of course I possess no such list.

Well, Brooklynese has long been suspect, at any rate.

As youse have so plentifully demonstrated just now in youse last few woids to me....

Sheesh. Look, in all seriousness....it's not a good idea to respond to someone's legitimate concern that an American colloquialism is misunderstood by someone on a 'net forum--this one does not exclude ferrigners....far's I know, with a jumbled, confused, non-syntactic snarl of wordage such as you just finished with.

Settle down. Wipe the foaming spittle from your chin, maybe go out for an egg cream...then come back and give it another go?

Tokie

Actually, an egg cream now would be a great treat, but it's a bit late now.

Anyway, the word is "facetious." Still trying to figure out what "ferrigners" are, though.

So, just how was McCarthy prevented from reading the names on his list? Did the communists rush the stage, take the microphone and perform the death scene from "Camille," thereby distracting the throngs of reporters who hung on the junior Senator's every word? As Abe_the_Man points out, nothing stopped McCarthy from reading the names when he spoke, yet he never did. And speaking of lists, where precisely may I look for the names of the liberal American journalists, seeing as how you don't have them. It must be a big list, seeing as how you said that 98% of American journalists are liberals.

Michael

[Tumblehome]

We have socialized medacine because of a man named Tommy Douglas (look him up) thought it was bad that people with no money were dying because they couldn't afford healthcare.

in Mooseland...the Reds um...well, they won.


There's our nugget of wisdom for today: compassion = communism!

[Prometheus]

There's our nugget of wisdom for today: compassion = communism!

I knew there was something fishy about the Red Cross!

[dann]

There's our nugget of wisdom for today: compassion = communism!
Was that ever a secret to anyone? :)

[Abe_the_Man]

There's our nugget of wisdom for today: compassion = communism!

*Off Topic*

I just wanted to add that when universal healthcare was first being implemented it was a very big controversy which divided the country. There was an "OMG Commies!" oppinion, many more just thought it would ruin our economy by raising taxes and taking money away from other services. Today it is a non issue. You'd be unable to find a Canadian who wanted to get rid of it. If the government tried to get rid of it there would be a revolt.

*On Topic*

This is from the CBC (Canadian Broadcasting Coporation) "Recession fears grow as U.S. job market stalls"

http://www.cbc.ca/money/story/2008/01/04/usjobs.html

And in advance I would like to point out that YES the CBC was invented not to provide news and programming to Canadians but as part of the leftwing conspiracy to destroy America! Because if we can destroy America's economy and implement a destructive anti-capitalist socialist government then we will have destroyed our biggest trading partner! Mwahaha! Then when the US economy is destroyed.... um... wait a minute... A flourishing US economy is beneficial to our economy. Hmmm. If the US tanks so do we. Hmm. Perhaps it's not a left wing conspiracy on behalf of EVERY NEWSCASTER IN CANADA. Maybe our economists are actually telling the truth and there are "fears of a recession" (notice I didn't say "OMG economy in toilet! Everybody starves!") because looking at the data there seems to be a (slight) downward shift (which happens before a recession). No one has suggested a depression I might add (recession and depression are different things).

And I highly doubt our economists get all there data from american news outlets. I think that perhaps they may actually do there jobs and analyze the publicly available financial data about companies and markets.

But then again I'm probably wrong and it probably is just a massive international socialist conspiracy to destroy America. That makes more sense.

Why has X occured?..... "Socialist leftwing conspiracy caused it!".

Why don't the majority know about X?... "Socialist leftwing conspiracy has hidden the details!".

Why is there no evidence for X?... "Socialist leftwing conspiracy is preventing the release of the evidence!".

See how easily it answers all of the questions? Conspiracies fricken' Rock my Socks!

[Tokenconservative]

There's our nugget of wisdom for today: compassion = communism!

Well, yeah...take the Chicom, for example. When they send the bill for the bullet used to execute a political criminal to his family, that's simply good economics.

What, you think bullets grown on trees!?

And the Soviet Gulag? Just a form of "tough love." Nothing like being forced to work with no protective gear and not even good boots in a lead or uranium mind to remind you of how much your government loves you!

Tokie

[Tokenconservative]

Guess that's a no, then, huh?

Name names. Who's in on this?

Open your daily screed. Turn on the daily agitprop broadcast.

See a name anywhere?

That one.

Tokie

[volatile]

Open your daily screed. Turn on the daily agitprop broadcast.

See a name anywhere?

That one.

Tokie

Everyone? Every journalist at every newspaper and TV station in the Western World? Every newspaper magnate, every media tycoon, every columnist, editor and diarist, is a "liberal"?

Really? :confused:

[Tokenconservative]

Actually, an egg cream now would be a great treat, but it's a bit late now.

Anyway, the word is "facetious." Still trying to figure out what "ferrigners" are, though.

So, just how was McCarthy prevented from reading the names on his list? Did the communists rush the stage, take the microphone and perform the death scene from "Camille," thereby distracting the throngs of reporters who hung on the junior Senator's every word? As Abe_the_Man points out, nothing stopped McCarthy from reading the names when he spoke, yet he never did. And speaking of lists, where precisely may I look for the names of the liberal American journalists, seeing as how you don't have them. It must be a big list, seeing as how you said that 98% of American journalists are liberals.

Michael

Yes...well, is that what youse was tryin' to be? Facetious? And ferrigners is them as ain't Amaricans.

Why ...yes! That's EXACTLY what happened!

Since you know this, why ask?

Actually, Tailgunner Joe, a great American hero, was prevented from reading the list only by his own doubts. He was a highly ethical and moral man who was on something of a bush-beating expedition to see what he could flush out.

His list contained names, but he was not 100% sure all of them were card-carrying members of the CPUSA, and since the CPUSA was not...forthcoming in it's members list, he held his tongue at the risk of tarring and feathering the innocent.

He took the same view with sympathizers, too.

Of course, this was taken by the leftist media (filled to the brim with socialists, sympathizers and communists as well) as license to shriek (as they do today) "see!? SEEEEEEE!!!!?????"

It does not change the fact that he was right. That our government was filled to overflowing with communist, socialist and sympathizer actors attempting to sell our government to the Soviets.

Yes, yes...I know, that now gives you the right to hoot 'n holler (do you Brooklynites do that?) and shriek that I see a "commie behind every bush" and that I am a CT Wooist, or whatever is currently en vogue.

Or you can cleverly take shots at my spelling...but none of this changes the facts, huh?

Yeah...it doesn't.

And that always sorta sucks for you lefties, huh?

Tokie

[volatile]

Sorry, are you saying that communists have distorted the trajectory of the Iraq War? Communists? Seriously? Do you even know what a communist is?

Yeah...sure, if that's the way you read that.

Who am I to argue with your perceptions?

Tokie

You're claiming I'm misrepresenting you? Or basing my conclusions on a false perception? Your posts are here for everyone to read, Tokie:


Are you serious? How do you think the communists prevented McCarthy from revealing his list? Or should we be moving this thread to Conspiracy Theories?


If you are a mod, I guess you can move it wherever you want...

What sort of question is that?

Anyway, they prevented it in the same way as they made our victory in Vietnam, at Tet, into a loss, and in the same way as they attempted to do the same thing in Iraq. Both times.

Any other questions?

Tokie


This is you, saying that "[communists] made our victory in Vietnam, at Tet, into a loss, and in the same way as they attempted to do the same thing in Iraq. Both times."

Are you insane? Do you even know what a communist is?

[Prometheus]

Everyone? Every journalist at every newspaper and TV station in the Western World? Every newspaper magnate, every media tycoon, every columnist, editor and diarist, is a "liberal"?

Really? :confused:

Of course! Why do you think Rupert Murdock hired 'em? :cool:

[Tokenconservative]

You're claiming I'm misrepresenting you? Or basing my conclusions on a false perception? Your posts are here for everyone to read, Tokie:



This is you, saying that "[communists] made our victory in Vietnam, at Tet, into a loss, and in the same way as they attempted to do the same thing in Iraq. Both times."

Are you insane? Do you even know what a communist is?

Since I am not sure what you are saying for most of this, let's skip to the last.

Yes, that's what happened at Tet. The communist sympathizers in our media were, outside the high military commands on both sides, the only ones who knew that we had utterly crushed the VC, had driven the NVA out of the south and had crippled the North's ability to supply it's forces in the south.

Oh...the NVA generals knew it. This is what brought N Vietnam to the peace talks, and years later, after the war was over, this is exactly what these generals said.

But that's not what Americans learned about the war. No, instead, Uncle Walter stood, walked to that map, looked into the living room of Mr. and Mrs. America and lied for his communist bosses.

Any other questions on that one?

Tokie

[volatile]

I'll slow this down. You said, in as many words, that "communists" (via their control of the media) made our "victory in Iraq into a loss".

Are you insane? You believe that the American media is written, staffed and run by communists?

You've said some weird things in your time, but that's up there with the stupidest.

[Tumblehome]

I knew there was something fishy about the Red Cross!


:D

Those sneaky, conniving bastards! Spreading their subversive influence with unspeakably good deeds.

Was that ever a secret to anyone? :)


But now that Tokie has engraved it in stone, we can do something about it. Bring back the Pepsi Cola Kid!

*Off Topic*

I just wanted to add that when universal healthcare was first being implemented it was a very big controversy which divided the country. There was an "OMG Commies!" oppinion, many more just thought it would ruin our economy by raising taxes and taking money away from other services. Today it is a non issue. You'd be unable to find a Canadian who wanted to get rid of it. If the government tried to get rid of it there would be a revolt.


I lived through that time in Saskatchewan, although at ten years of age, I was pretty much oblivious to what was going on. My attention was focused on another Commie conspiracy that summer: baseball.

[coalesce]

Yes...well, is that what youse was tryin' to be? Facetious? And ferrigners is them as ain't Amaricans.

Why ...yes! That's EXACTLY what happened!

Since you know this, why ask?

Actually, Tailgunner Joe, a great American hero, was prevented from reading the list only by his own doubts. He was a highly ethical and moral man who was on something of a bush-beating expedition to see what he could flush out.

His list contained names, but he was not 100% sure all of them were card-carrying members of the CPUSA, and since the CPUSA was not...forthcoming in it's members list, he held his tongue at the risk of tarring and feathering the innocent.

He took the same view with sympathizers, too.

Of course, this was taken by the leftist media (filled to the brim with socialists, sympathizers and communists as well) as license to shriek (as they do today) "see!? SEEEEEEE!!!!?????"

It does not change the fact that he was right. That our government was filled to overflowing with communist, socialist and sympathizer actors attempting to sell our government to the Soviets.

Yes, yes...I know, that now gives you the right to hoot 'n holler (do you Brooklynites do that?) and shriek that I see a "commie behind every bush" and that I am a CT Wooist, or whatever is currently en vogue.

Or you can cleverly take shots at my spelling...but none of this changes the facts, huh?

Yeah...it doesn't.

And that always sorta sucks for you lefties, huh?

Tokie

"Ferrigners"...that's a new term for those who aren't "Amaricans"?

Interesting colloquialism.

So Senator McCarthy had doubts as to the veracity of the names on his list. These doubts didn't prevent him from shrieking that these unnamed names were indeed Communists, did they? However, it seemed these same aforementioned doubts only ever conveniently crept up when it came time for him to reveal the names to prove that they were indeed Communists. Imagine that: someone boldly and unequivocally makes a claim, is asked to prove the claim and then backs out or ignores the question because of "self-doubt." Sounds a bit cowardly.

And yes, I will continue to point out your grammatical errors, because for someone who claims to be a stickler for details to make the assumption of who is or isn't a native-English speaker without ever having the benefit of meeting them in person, to then run roughshod over that language is comical at best.

Lastly, I wouldn't know if it sucks to be a leftie, as I am not one. Neither do I think you are a conspiracy theorist. I think of you as someone who has differing opinions than I do, that's all. I must admit, though, I am enjoying this dialogue immensely.

Michael

[Tumblehome]

Well, yeah...take the Chicom, for example. When they send the bill for the bullet used to execute a political criminal to his family, that's simply good economics.

What, you think bullets grown on trees!?

And the Soviet Gulag? Just a form of "tough love." Nothing like being forced to work with no protective gear and not even good boots in a lead or uranium mind to remind you of how much your government loves you!

Tokie


If that's a typical example of ultra-right comprehension, it's no wonder The World's Mightiest Military Machine Ever finds itself handcuffed by some ragged peasants.

[coalesce]

But that's not what Americans learned about the war. No, instead, Uncle Walter stood, walked to that map, looked into the living room of Mr. and Mrs. America and lied for his communist bosses.

Any other questions on that one?

Tokie

William S. Paley was a communist?

Michael

[Corsair 115]

The Dow Jones average lost 238.42 points at the close of trading today (Tue. Jan. 8). That's a loss of 1.86% on the day.

So far, in just the first eight days of 2008, the Dow Jones is down 5.1%. This comes close to wiping out the 6.4% gain that it made in the entire year of 2007, the gain that Tokenconservative was so proudly proclaiming in post #42.

So far, in the first eight days of 2008, the S&P500 index has lost 5.3%. This more than wipes out the 3.5% gain made in all of 2007 that Tokenconservative was so proudly proclaiming in post #42. Indeed, the index is now 2% below the value with which it started 2007.

So far, in the first eight days of 2008, the NASDAQ index is down 8%. This comes close to wiping out the 9.8% gain that it made in all of 2007, the gain that Tokenconservative was so proudly proclaiming in post #42.

Investors do not seem to be brimming with confidence at the moment.

[Abe_the_Man]

The Dow Jones average lost 238.42 points at the close of trading today (Tue. Jan. 8). That's a loss of 1.86% on the day.

So far, in just the first eight days of 2008, the Dow Jones is down 5.1%. This comes close to wiping out the 6.4% gain that it made in the entire year of 2007, the gain that Tokenconservative was so proudly proclaiming in post #42.

So far, in the first eight days of 2008, the S&P500 index has lost 5.3%. This more than wipes out the 3.5% gain made in all of 2007 that Tokenconservative was so proudly proclaiming in post #42. Indeed, the index is now 2% below the value with which it started 2007.

So far, in the first eight days of 2008, the NASDAQ index is down 8%. This comes close to wiping out the 9.8% gain that it made in all of 2007, the gain that Tokenconservative was so proudly proclaiming in post #42.

Investors do not seem to be brimming with confidence at the moment.

The only reason investors are not brimming with confidence is because of the leftist socialist conspiracy remember? Or maybe they are brimming with confidence but the leftist socialist conspiracy doesn't want us to know? Oh shucks these conspiracies are so confusing! Maybe some of the leftist socialist conspirators on this site (you know who you are) could explain which. I don't get the leftist socialist conspiracy newsletter any more because I wasn't meeting my monthly quota of gay marriages and american flag burnings.

[Prometheus]

The Dow Jones average lost 238.42 points at the close of trading today (Tue. Jan. 8). That's a loss of 1.86% on the day.

So far, in just the first eight days of 2008, the Dow Jones is down 5.1%. This comes close to wiping out the 6.4% gain that it made in the entire year of 2007, the gain that Tokenconservative was so proudly proclaiming in post #42.

So far, in the first eight days of 2008, the S&P500 index has lost 5.3%. This more than wipes out the 3.5% gain made in all of 2007 that Tokenconservative was so proudly proclaiming in post #42. Indeed, the index is now 2% below the value with which it started 2007.

So far, in the first eight days of 2008, the NASDAQ index is down 8%. This comes close to wiping out the 9.8% gain that it made in all of 2007, the gain that Tokenconservative was so proudly proclaiming in post #42.

Investors do not seem to be brimming with confidence at the moment.

I don't really understand the stock market, so please forgive my ignorance, but doesn't that just mean that right now is likely a good time for long-term investors to buy stocks?

[Francesca R]

I don't really understand the stock market, so please forgive my ignorance, but doesn't that just mean that right now is likely a good time for long-term investors to buy stocks?It's all relative. It's a better time to buy than a week or two ago, and better than last June, but it is un-knowable whether it is a "good" time.

Even with the 2008 to date fall, equity markets are not very far from the highs reached in mid 2007 following a four year bull-market (which itself was somewhat surprising so soon after the last equity boom of the 1990s popped itself in 2000-2002). Reported profits and earnings are very elevated and well above their long term trend. Should earnings recede it is not likely that stock prices can stay where they are.

Some stocks (such as big banks, or "diversified financials" as they are known) have fallen more than others. Some are 40% off last summer's peaks. Those are a better bet I suppose (like Citigroup)

[joobie]

I knew there was something fishy about the Red Cross!

it was then i discovered red stripes on the american flag!

(betsy ross!)

-bob dylan

[Tokenconservative]

William S. Paley was a communist?

Michael

I don't believe anyone ever called him "Uncle Walter."

Tokie

[bruto]

I don't believe anyone ever called him "Uncle Walter."

TokieYou did not allege that Cronkite was a communist. You said that Uncle Walter "lied for his Communist bosses." If you're going to make this crap up at least try to keep it sorted out.

[coalesce]

I don't believe anyone ever called him "Uncle Walter."

Tokie

Whether or not anyone called Walter Cronkite "Uncle Walter" is immaterial. You seem to think so, given that you and you alone chose that particular nickname to refer to Mr. Cronkite.

Nonetheless, are you saying that William S. Paley was a communist? Simple question, really.

Michael

[UserGoogol]

You did not allege that Cronkite was a communist. You said that Uncle Walter "lied for his Communist bosses." If you're going to make this crap up at least try to keep it sorted out.

Perhaps he might mean "Communist bosses" in the slightly metaphorical sense that Cronkite was "working for the Soviets," rather than in the sense that he was "working for NBC."

[bruto]

Perhaps he might mean "Communist bosses" in the slightly metaphorical sense that Cronkite was "working for the Soviets," rather than in the sense that he was "working for NBC."Maybe, and of course he can always claim it was metaphorical so as to dodge the need for any kind of corroboration or evidence, but unless Tokie is a bigger fool than I suspect he is, he at least must have understood coalesce's question, making his reply to coalesce not only needlessly snide but dishonest. Uncle Walter, by the way, worked for CBS.

[volatile]

Maybe, and of course he can always claim it was metaphorical so as to dodge the need for any kind of corroboration or evidence, but unless Tokie is a bigger fool than I suspect he is, he at least must have understood coalesce's question, making his reply to coalesce not only needlessly snide but dishonest. Uncle Walter, by the way, worked for CBS.

I don't buy the metaphorical take, especially in the light of his conspiracy theory that the media is run by a cabal of leftists intent on destroying the American economy.

[chris epic]

Regardless of how good it looks (which it does when you observe everything you stated) is that the dollar is definately shrinking dramatically, and I've experienced this first-hand with my three recent trips to the Philippines over 2007 between Philippine Pesos and US Dollars:

Peso to Dollar
February: 48 to 1
July: 44 to 1
December: 41 to 1

That's pretty dramatic, and I've lost a few hundred dollars here and there as a result.

[KoihimeNakamura]

1. "low-wattage/8 yrs-old": Sorry, I thought you were a native English speaker who would understand this: it's common in English speaking countries to sort of play around with the language. I can't say the "s" word without getting a warming or worse in here, but that's why you are implying in your posts. That's fine, I don't really care. I would be the last to argue that I am NOT "s," in fact. The older I get the more "s-ider" I find myself to be, to say nothing of the level of my "i".

2. Anyone whose perspective allows them to conclude that CNN is anything but very much to the left of center is either not being honest, or not very perceptive. Not sure what ownership of either of these news organs has to do with anything...do you know who owns the NYTimes? Does that organ tend to slant its "news" in any particular direction that YOU can determine, or is it pretty much down the middle objective?

I'm sure you can provide evidence of this claim.

4. Once again, the names are not as imporatant as their acts (by the way...McCarthy DID have a list and it DID have names...just because those very same communists prevented him from ....sharing, does not make the list any less real). Now, are you saying that Dan Rather (gone but not forgotted) was a stalwart of the right? Katie Couric? Brian Williams? The other guy? What about the publisher of the NYTimes? The LA Times? What about the fact that something on the order of 98% of all news journalists in America admit they are Democrats and that they are "liberal"?

I'm sure you have evidence for both of these claims.

[SezMe]

... though, I am enjoying this dialogue immensely.
Having just read through it, I cannot say I am enjoying it. I must admit to absolute morbid curiosity. I wrote down numerous claims he has made that I was initially going to challenge him on but by this point in the thread I know how he would respond to such a challenge so I'm not going to bother.

Token's world is truly foreign to me. It is utterly black and white. There are good guys (and they are all on his side) and there are bad guys who, of course, are on the other side. He is still invoking the specter of communism in 2008. In spite of persistent requests, he has not backed up his numerous claims with one single citation; evidence is apparently a worthless concept to him. Exaggeration is a valid argumentation technique. So is ad homs. And name calling. And non sequitur.

His world is strictly and cleanly divided into conservatives and liberals. It seems that every issue gets framed in this manner - which leads to some quite bizarre conclusions.

I cannot imagine operating in such a manner. But, again, it is fascinating to watch, much like a train wreck is morbidly fascinating.

[SezMe]

Oh, and to the topic of the OP, this (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/money/main.jhtml?xml=/money/2008/01/07/bcnuseco107.xml) would seem quite relevant:

The US has entered its first full-blown economic recession in 16 years, according to investment bank Merrill Lynch.

Token, however, might not accept this reporting since it cites Merrill Lynch, surely a leading member of the left-wing cabal that wants to destroy the USA.

BTW, Token, see how one uses links to provide evidence and to allow readers to draw their own conclusions? It's fun - a barrel of monkeys, actually. You might want to give it a try some time.

[Skeptic Ginger]

According to most major economic indicators, the US econmy is chugging along, growing at a decent 4 or 5% every quarter, unemployment is so low that traditional (leftist) Keynesian econmic models can't work within it (Keynes claimed that an economy could only function with an about 10% unemployment level and would implode if it got much lower). Orders for industry (yes, we still have industry) are up, continental transportation is swamped, air traffic is up, housing pricing is up and down...as always, building starts (residential) are down, but...it's winter!

Retail sales this Christmas season are up. Down, slightly over predictions (but they never take into account weather and a HUGE swath of the nation was socked in on Black Friday AND the week before Christmas).

Still, the left-advocacy "news" media is, at every chance saying that the US economy is in a free fall decline bordering (as it has been for at least the last 6 years...) on collapse.

Who is telling the truth? The economic indicators or the left-advocacy media desperate to help Bill Clinton get another term, and to see the Congress handed over to socialists?

Who should we believe?

TokieI just skimmed this thread and while a couple people commented they were unaware Keynesian economic theory said anything about 10% unemployment being needed for the economy to function :rolleyes: , I couldn't see that anyone looked into Token's BS claim here.

So allow me, it is an easy matter to find a summary of Keynesian economic theory on the Net.

The Concise Encyclopedia of Economics (http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/KeynesianEconomics.html)4. Keynesians do not think that the typical level of unemployment is ideal—partly because unemployment is subject to the caprice of aggregate demand, and partly because they believe that prices adjust only gradually. In fact, Keynesians typically see unemployment as both too high on average and too variable, although they know that rigorous theoretical justification for these positions is hard to come by. ...

...For example, an economist need not have detailed quantitative knowledge of lags to prescribe a dose of expansionary monetary policy when the unemployment rate is 10 percent or more—as it was in many leading industrial countries in the eighties.

6. Finally, and even less unanimously, many Keynesians are more concerned about combating unemployment than about conquering inflation. They have concluded from the evidence that the costs of low inflation are small. However, there are plenty of anti-inflation Keynesians. Keynesian economics recommends the government should intervene on the people's behalf when unemployment is too high though micro-managing doesn't work. For the most part, the market self corrects.

Milton Friedman OTOH, prefers to put everything in the hands of the corporatocracy and doesn't give a **** about the consequences to the little people.

Token, if you are going to bad mouth the liberals, the least you could do is get your facts straight.

[Skeptic Ginger]

And we've addressed this liberal media lie many times including a recent thread. (I'll edit in a link when I find it.)

In short, the evidence the media is liberal is based on surveying the news room employees who are a majority liberal.

The evidence the media is conservative is based on actually surveying the news content. There was one discredited study to the contrary. There is also evidence the owners and top editors are majority conservative.

[Tokenconservative]

You did not allege that Cronkite was a communist. You said that Uncle Walter "lied for his Communist bosses." If you're going to make this crap up at least try to keep it sorted out.

Hmm.....see if you can follow the converstation ...for a refreshing change.

I as asked whether anyone called Paley "Uncle Walter." I responded in the negatory, good buddy!

Tokie

[Tokenconservative]

Perhaps he might mean "Communist bosses" in the slightly metaphorical sense that Cronkite was "working for the Soviets," rather than in the sense that he was "working for NBC."

There was a difference?

And lots of people today call "the most trusted man in America" Uncle Walter as a term of lasting endearment.

Just as so many Viet vets call Jane Fonda...oh, wait...I've already been warned 6-7 times today.

Never mind what they call Hanoi Jane.

Tokie

[Tokenconservative]

Maybe, and of course he can always claim it was metaphorical so as to dodge the need for any kind of corroboration or evidence, but unless Tokie is a bigger fool than I suspect he is, he at least must have understood coalesce's question, making his reply to coalesce not only needlessly snide but dishonest. Uncle Walter, by the way, worked for CBS.


LOL!

Nice conflation...using somebody ELSE's post to make it seem as if I said that Uncle Walter worked for a broadcaster other than Dan "the evidence is false but the story is real" Rather.

Very nicely done!

The very peak of honest discourse!

Tokie

[Tokenconservative]

Regardless of how good it looks (which it does when you observe everything you stated) is that the dollar is definately shrinking dramatically, and I've experienced this first-hand with my three recent trips to the Philippines over 2007 between Philippine Pesos and US Dollars:

Peso to Dollar
February: 48 to 1
July: 44 to 1
December: 41 to 1

That's pretty dramatic, and I've lost a few hundred dollars here and there as a result.

So...because money which on the int'l markets changes value (hourly, often) against other currencies that means...

OMG!!!

THE US ECONOMY IS COLLAPSING!!!!

[Tokenconservative]

I'm sure you can provide evidence of this claim.



I'm sure you have evidence for both of these claims.

No, I can't provide evidence for my clearly nutcase claim that native speakers of English or any other language develop colloquialisms.

So I guess you are right as rain, and that dog won't hunt.

Tokie

[Tokenconservative]

Having just read through it, I cannot say I am enjoying it. I must admit to absolute morbid curiosity. I wrote down numerous claims he has made that I was initially going to challenge him on but by this point in the thread I know how he would respond to such a challenge so I'm not going to bother.

Token's world is truly foreign to me. It is utterly black and white. There are good guys (and they are all on his side) and there are bad guys who, of course, are on the other side. He is still invoking the specter of communism in 2008. In spite of persistent requests, he has not backed up his numerous claims with one single citation; evidence is apparently a worthless concept to him. Exaggeration is a valid argumentation technique. So is ad homs. And name calling. And non sequitur.

His world is strictly and cleanly divided into conservatives and liberals. It seems that every issue gets framed in this manner - which leads to some quite bizarre conclusions.

I cannot imagine operating in such a manner. But, again, it is fascinating to watch, much like a train wreck is morbidly fascinating.

Another fan?!

Well, let's try and keep it on that level.

I'm all stocked up an stalkers at the moment.

Tokie

[Tokenconservative]

I just skimmed this thread and while a couple people commented they were unaware Keynesian economic theory said anything about 10% unemployment being needed for the economy to function :rolleyes: , I couldn't see that anyone looked into Token's BS claim here.

So allow me, it is an easy matter to find a summary of Keynesian economic theory on the Net.

The Concise Encyclopedia of Economics (http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/KeynesianEconomics.html)Keynesian economics recommends the government should intervene on the people's behalf when unemployment is too high though micro-managing doesn't work. For the most part, the market self corrects.

Milton Friedman OTOH, prefers to put everything in the hands of the corporatocracy and doesn't give a **** about the consequences to the little people.

Token, if you are going to bad mouth the liberals, the least you could do is get your facts straight.


Um...yeah, there's that 10%...in black and Wiki...um, you might try reading and (nifty trick) comprehending before posting.

But at least you agree libs are Keynesians...that's a start.

Now, apparently there's something wrong with my computer because you said some things that I see no links--LIINNNKKKKSSSSS!!!--or other references for, something about a "corporatocracy" (?!), not giving a "****" about the "little people."


Tokie

[Tokenconservative]

And we've addressed this liberal media lie many times including a recent thread. (I'll edit in a link when I find it.)

In short, the evidence the media is liberal is based on surveying the news room employees who are a majority liberal.

The evidence the media is conservative is based on actually surveying the news content. There was one discredited study to the contrary. There is also evidence the owners and top editors are majority conservative.

So...the it's the pressmen who are the libs...

Oh, okay.

Glad we got that whole thing straightened up!

Tokie

[SezMe]

Token, I noticed you ignored my Post #166, the only recent post directly responding to the topic in your OP. You wanna get back on topic?

[bruto]

LOL!

Nice conflation...using somebody ELSE's post to make it seem as if I said that Uncle Walter worked for a broadcaster other than Dan "the evidence is false but the story is real" Rather.

Very nicely done!

The very peak of honest discourse!

Tokie

I did not mean to imply that you were unaware of which network uncle Walter worked for. I was correcting the error in the post to which I was actually responding. That said, I don't see what Dan Rather has to do with anything. Your statement was that Cronkite's bosses were communists at a time when, as far as I know, Dan Rather was much Cronkite's junior. Rather should, of course, be ashamed of himself for being so ready to accept false evidence to back up what he felt sure was true. It's a common fault, too common, but I think a bit of objective observation would show that it crosses party lines.

[pvicente]

Um...yeah, there's that 10%...in black and Wiki...um, you might try reading and (nifty trick) comprehending before posting.

Excuse me???
The only part where "10%" (or something like it) shows up in that page is this one:
Yet many Keynesians still believe that more modest goals for stabilization policy—coarse-tuning, if you will—are not only defensible, but sensible. For example, an economist need not have detailed quantitative knowledge of lags to prescribe a dose of expansionary monetary policy when the unemployment rate is 10 percent or more—as it was in many leading industrial countries in the eighties.
And you claimed that:
Keynes claimed that an economy could only function with an about 10% unemployment level and would implode if it got much lower
This not the same, not even close, either there was some terrible mistake here, or you're one of the worst liars that I've ever seen...

[Skeptic Ginger]

So...the it's the pressmen who are the libs...

Oh, okay.

Glad we got that whole thing straightened up!

TokieEmployees, Token, not "the pressmen". Look at the actual data. If you survey the employees in the major cities where national broadcast news is produced, surprise surprise, more Democrats work in the building than Republicans. The studies supporting the false claim that the current news media has a liberal bias are based on the false premise that the employees in the business influence the news content.

Well here's another surprising fact, the OWNERS have more say over the news content than the employees. Survey the OWNERS and you find more conservatives.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Excuse me???
The only part where "10%" (or something like it) shows up in that page is this one:

And you claimed that:

This not the same, not even close, either there was some terrible mistake here, or you're one of the worst liars that I've ever seen...Thanks for saving me the time. I thought the links I posted would have been enough. Silly me. I thought perhaps Token would actually look at my source. I should have figured if he was going to look at the actual facts he might have already done so.

It just boggles the mind how people ignore reality and live in the worlds they simply make up for themselves.

[bruto]

Thanks for saving me the time. I thought the links I posted would have been enough. Silly me. I thought perhaps Token would actually look at my source. I should have figured if he was going to look at the actual facts he might have already done so.

It just boggles the mind how people ignore reality and live in the worlds they simply make up for themselves.Tokie's appetite for truth is untainted by gluttony.

[chris epic]

So...because money which on the int'l markets changes value (hourly, often) against other currencies that means...

OMG!!!

THE US ECONOMY IS COLLAPSING!!!!

Bit of a drama queen, are we? I was just sharing tangible evidence of a recession, not a COLAPSE!!!! silly. The value of the dollar is falling steadily, not troughing and peaking; and placing it against other currencies for observation is the only way I personally have been able to "see for myself."

[coalesce]

Hmm.....see if you can follow the converstation ...for a refreshing change.

I as asked whether anyone called Paley "Uncle Walter." I responded in the negatory, good buddy!

Tokie

I'm afraid you misunderstood the original question.

I asked you if Walter Cronkite's boss, William S. Paley, was a communist. Why you brought up the nickname "Uncle Walter" is beyond me, but, oh well.

So, was William S. Paley, Walter Cronkite's boss at the time, a communist?

If yes, please explain how you know. If not, please tell us what lead you to that erroneous conclusion.

Michael

[coalesce]

Never mind what they call Hanoi Jane.

Tokie

And well deserved! She was wrong to go to North Vietnam and pose with the North Vietnamese army, no matter how she felt about the war.

Michael

[Tokenconservative]

Employees, Token, not "the pressmen". Look at the actual data. If you survey the employees in the major cities where national broadcast news is produced, surprise surprise, more Democrats work in the building than Republicans. The studies supporting the false claim that the current news media has a liberal bias are based on the false premise that the employees in the business influence the news content.

Well here's another surprising fact, the OWNERS have more say over the news content than the employees. Survey the OWNERS and you find more conservatives.

Hmm....let me see if I follow your assertion...the ink-stained wretches writing and editing the "news" have very, very little control over individual wording, story placement, paragraph structure, etc.

The guys in $2000 suits sitting in an office, maybe 2000 miles from the newsroom..THEM's the guys what gots the last word!

Do you have a link showing this?

Tokie

[Tokenconservative]

Bit of a drama queen, are we? I was just sharing tangible evidence of a recession, not a COLAPSE!!!! silly. The value of the dollar is falling steadily, not troughing and peaking; and placing it against other currencies for observation is the only way I personally have been able to "see for myself."

Ah...and...how would we say, "guage" the "fall" of the dollar in real terms?

Tokie

[Tokenconservative]

And well deserved! She was wrong to go to North Vietnam and pose with the North Vietnamese army, no matter how she felt about the war.

Michael

But she was still really hot back then.

Still is, actually.

Tokie

[Tokenconservative]

I'm afraid you misunderstood the original question.

I asked you if Walter Cronkite's boss, William S. Paley, was a communist. Why you brought up the nickname "Uncle Walter" is beyond me, but, oh well.

So, was William S. Paley, Walter Cronkite's boss at the time, a communist?

If yes, please explain how you know. If not, please tell us what lead you to that erroneous conclusion.

Michael

I have no idea. You brought up Paley, apparently believing that someone called/calls him "Uncle Walter." I said nothing about Paley.

Not sure what your conflated argument here is intended to imply.

You'll have to fill in those blanks, yerself!

What you've done here, by-the-by (if you know, then you know, if you are working in utter ignorance, thank me later) is both begging the question and presenting a false dilema sprinkled with a side of red herring and wrapped in a tortilla of non sequitur.

Now, while I (and maybe you...depends on at what level you work as a leftist operative) know that this is what you are doing, and that therefore, the rules of rational discourse do not demand that I even continue at this point (or the original point when you brought up the name Paley) I have been playing along to see where you'd go.

Please ...go someplace now, because otherwise this is just getting repetition and boring to me.

Make whatever extraordinarily clever point it is you believe you are going to "slam" me with about Paley, in this extraordinarily cleverly constructed approach, and let's move on, shall we?

Tokie

Tokie

[coalesce]

I have no idea. You brought up Paley, apparently believing that someone called/calls him "Uncle Walter." I said nothing about Paley.

Not sure what your conflated argument here is intended to imply.

You'll have to fill in those blanks, yerself!

What you've done here, by-the-by (if you know, then you know, if you are working in utter ignorance, thank me later) is both begging the question and presenting a false dilema sprinkled with a side of red herring and wrapped in a tortilla of non sequitur.

Now, while I (and maybe you...depends on at what level you work as a leftist operative) know that this is what you are doing, and that therefore, the rules of rational discourse do not demand that I even continue at this point (or the original point when you brought up the name Paley) I have been playing along to see where you'd go.

Please ...go someplace now, because otherwise this is just getting repetition and boring to me.

Make whatever extraordinarily clever point it is you believe you are going to "slam" me with about Paley, in this extraordinarily cleverly constructed approach, and let's move on, shall we?

Tokie

Tokie

I brought up William S. Paley because you said in a previous post that Walter Cronkite had communist bosses. I asked if you thought William S. Paley was a communist or not. No mention was made of his or anyone's nickname, until you brought up the term "Uncle Walter."

So, was William S. Paley a communist or not? If yes, then how do you know? If no, then what led you to that conclusion? My aim is not to "slam" you. I would like to know how you came about this conclusion.

And thank you for mentioning tacos. You just gave me a great idea for lunch later today! There's a Maui Taco place closeby that I haven't been to in a while.

Michael

[bruto]

I have no idea. You brought up Paley, apparently believing that someone called/calls him "Uncle Walter." I said nothing about Paley.

That is quite simply not true. Read your own posts. You said that Cronkite's bosses were communists. Paley was Cronkite's boss. Coalesce did not, in any way, suggest that "uncle Walter" was Paley. From the first, he was addressing the question of whether Cronkite's boss, Paley, was a communist. You misunderstood. Read it again. You were mistaken.

[Tokenconservative]

That is quite simply not true. Read your own posts. You said that Cronkite's bosses were communists. Paley was Cronkite's boss. Coalesce did not, in any way, suggest that "uncle Walter" was Paley. From the first, he was addressing the question of whether Cronkite's boss, Paley, was a communist. You misunderstood. Read it again. You were mistaken.


LOL!


What a comedy of pedantry!

Uncle Walter's bosses live in Vietnam, (and Moscow and Peking) not Manhattan.

Tokie

[Tokenconservative]

I brought up William S. Paley because you said in a previous post that Walter Cronkite had communist bosses. I asked if you thought William S. Paley was a communist or not. No mention was made of his or anyone's nickname, until you brought up the term "Uncle Walter."

So, was William S. Paley a communist or not? If yes, then how do you know? If no, then what led you to that conclusion? My aim is not to "slam" you. I would like to know how you came about this conclusion.

And thank you for mentioning tacos. You just gave me a great idea for lunch later today! There's a Maui Taco place closeby that I haven't been to in a while.

Michael

OH!

MY!

I has been trapped!

God I love the pedantry and disengeniousness of lefties.

Uncle Walter's bosses were not those people who signed his paycheck.

Tokie

[bruto]

LOL!


What a comedy of pedantry!

Uncle Walter's bosses live in Vietnam, (and Moscow and Peking) not Manhattan.

TokieThat does not change the fact that you conspicuously misread coalesce's post and are unable to admit to it.

[coalesce]

OH!

MY!

I has been trapped!

God I love the pedantry and disengeniousness of lefties.

Uncle Walter's bosses were not those people who signed his paycheck.

Tokie

Then how were the communists half a world away his bosses? At what point did Cronkite stop taking direction from CBS and instead follow the directives from the communists?

Michael

[SezMe]

Do you have a link showing this?
Sure do (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Santa_Barbara_News-Press_controversy).

Wait a minute. Token's been banned. Wha happened? I'm gonna have to head over to Darat's lair to check it out.

[Abe_the_Man]

Sure do (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Santa_Barbara_News-Press_controversy).

Wait a minute. Token's been banned. Wha happened? I'm gonna have to head over to Darat's lair to check it out.

You mean banned from the jref? What for?

[volatile]

You mean banned from the jref? What for?

Not banned, but suspended for three days due to breaches of Rule 11 following a warning to desist. Rule 11 is the rule which says that posts must be on topic.

[SezMe]

Speaking of staying on topic:

Token, I noticed you ignored my Post #166, the only recent post directly responding to the topic in your OP. You wanna get back on topic?

So, Token, I noticed you ignored my Post #166, the only recent post directly responding to the topic in your OP. You wanna get back on topic? :)

[Abe_the_Man]

Speaking of staying on topic:



So, Token, I noticed you ignored my Post #166, the only recent post directly responding to the topic in your OP. You wanna get back on topic? :)

Oh....snap!

And the economy isn't collapsing and stuff (phew.... on topic. They'll never notice. heh heh heh)

[Skeptic Ginger]

Hmm....let me see if I follow your assertion...the ink-stained wretches writing and editing the "news" have very, very little control over individual wording, story placement, paragraph structure, etc.

The guys in $2000 suits sitting in an office, maybe 2000 miles from the newsroom..THEM's the guys what gots the last word!

Do you have a link showing this?

Tokie[Forgive the off topic drift] You can speculate all you want, Token. How about looking up the facts and addressing those instead? Wiki has some links to get you started. But try to actually look at the facts, don't just read the section that supports your already preconceived view.

Media bias in the United States

Knowing those suggestions are probably lost on you but may have some meaning to other thread readers, I need to add a bit more. What makes the news media biased against my personal liberal point of view is not some vast right wing conspiracy. Rather it is the result of many factors.

First and foremost is who owns the sources. The vast majority of news outlets are owned by fewer and fewer and larger and larger conglomerates. Those owners naturally prevent a lot of stories that reflect badly on their businesses which makes the media more and more pro-corporate interests.

Second, and almost as important is the fact the news in the US is not an information service. It is a for profit business. That means more and more junk news and formula news has come to crowd out the actual important news of our times. Hours and hours of commentary, sports, weather, missing white girls, polls, press conferences and so on make for very cheap production costs. To send out investigative reporters which used to be the staple of the news a few decades ago is just not profitable today. All the network has to do is broadcast the latest press conference, no need to bother actually reporting on the factual nature of the politician's claims.

Third, the government and corporations have become news savvy. Certainly the lessons learned by our government from the Vietnam war were not, don't get involved in a civil war. Rather, the lessons learned were, control the news coming out of the battlefield. Sanitizing the war and controlling the flow of information is easily recognized in Bush's Iraq war. Not only are there no pictures of returning flag draped coffins and plenty of embedded reporter reports, there is no effort by our news media to question no pictures of returning coffins or try to get those pictures anyway. And there is little effort by the mainstream news to get reports from non-embedded sources either.

Corporations have become just as savvy. People don't trust commercials? Simple, make the commercial look like a news report. You can read all about Video News Releases on your own and while you are at it, take a look at how much money the Bush administration has put into producing those video news releases. That's an eyeopener for anyone really interested in the topic of bias in the news. Millions and millions of your tax dollars go to promote the NeoCon agenda.[/end of derail]

[amb]

Of course the American economy is collapsing, and what worries me, is America sneezes, Australia catches a cold.
It was evident when Bush and co. invaded Iraq while still fighting the Taliban in Afghanistan. Not to mention tax cuts for the rich, using the discredited theory of the trickle down effect. The rich don't spend their money. That's why their rich. It's the working class who keep the economy turning. There is allways a slow down towards the end of a Republican term in office.

[Francesca R]

Of course the American economy is collapsing, and what worries me, is America sneezes, Australia catches a cold.Oh really?
SYDNEY, Jan 17 (Reuters) - Employment in Australia recorded another solid rise in December while the jobless rate fell by more than expected, underlining a domestic case for a rise in interest rates, even as a troubled global outlook argued against one.
Net new employment increased by 20,100 in December, in line with forecasts of a 20,000 gain and a robust result after November's hefty 47,500 rise.
The jobless rate dropped back to 4.3 percent, more than reversing November's surprise increase to 4.5 percent which was caused by a big jump in the number of people looking for work.
"The message here is pretty straightforward. The domestic economy is in good shape and the labour market is tight," said Michael Blythe, chief economist at Commonwealth Bank. "On the figures we've seen up until today the domestic case for a rate rise seems to be pretty much in place."

[amb]

Give it time acuity. If the American economy collapses, the Americans stop buying Chinese made goods which in turn makes the Chinese buy less of our gas, iron ore, ect, ect. effecting the Chinese rate of growth, which in turn effects our rate of growth.
Australia was not affected by the South Eastern Asian recession a while ago because of our mineral wealth which China at present can't get enough of, to manufacture goods made for, mainly the American buying public.

[Corsair 115]

I don't know if the American economy is collapsing, but at present stock markets around the world are in a major decline.

The U.S. market was closed Monday for the holiday, but elsewhere, the news was not good. In Toronto, the TSX index fell 605 points (4.75%), the largest single day loss in nearly seven years, and the index is down 12.3% so far this year in just 14 trading days. In London, the FTSE-100 fell 5.5%; in Germany, the DAX lost over 7%; in France, the CAC 40 was down 6.8%. In Hong Kong, the Hang Seng lost 5.5% on the day; in Japan the Nikkei dropped 3.9%; the Australian ASX 200 lost 7%. Things weren't much better in the Indian or Chinese stock exhanges.

So far in Tuesday's trading, the Hong Kong market was down another 5.3% by midmorning, and the Nikkei was down a further 4.4% by the end of the morning session. Trading on the Indian stock markets was halted for an hour as stocks plunged over 9% shortly after the markets opened; the Chinese markets were down over 4% at the end of morning trading.

It looks to be a grim day on Wall Street when trading opens later this morning.

[Francesca R]

It looks to be a grim day on Wall Street when trading opens later this morning.
You know what? Shares will probably bounce today ;)

[Francesca R]

And . . . the Fed just cut rates by three-quarters of a point, before their scheduled FOMC meeting. Go equities!

[amb]

Well, today is the 28th and shares are almost back to before the 21st.
It still doesn't mean the American economy is buoyant.
Bush still has a year to go, heaps of time to give the fatal blow.

[Francesca R]

It still doesn't mean the American economy is buoyant. It means that in a week where the following happened:

1) The most US agressive rate cut in 25 years
2) A likely 1% of GDP tax cut
3) A (somewhat circular) rescue for monoline insurers (in that they are recalitalised by the banks who have bought the bonds that were insured by the monilines in the first place; not that these banks are awash with capital at the moment by the way . . .)

Stock markets can be sort-of steadied.

[a_unique_person]

So Asia decides to go for a dip.

[amb]

While the world waits whether America goes into reccesion or not, the local banks here are raising their interest rates. Making home ownership all that much harder for the battler. All because of the home lending practises of American banks. It's like a dog chasing it's tail isn't it? The battler always cops it.

[Francesca R]

While the world waits whether America goes into reccesion or not, the local banks here are raising their interest rates. Which also indicates that the Australian economy has not caught a cold yet. :)

Making home ownership all that much harder for the battler. All because of the home lending practises of American banks. It's like a dog chasing it's tail isn't it? The battler always cops it.Well your government reports that average house prices rose more than 12% last year, whereas in the US they fell on average.

What is a "battler" in this context?

[edteach]

You know, I have listened to Limbaugh spew out how this economy is so strong. And every time he uses a number like jobs or gdp or housing sales, then that number collapses, he just skips over that fact and jumps to some other fact. Now that all the numbers are NEG. he just spews as does the shrub, that "it is a natural correction" Why is it that the media is the ones that you say are spinning things, when it is obviously the right wing spinning like hell trying to tell us "do you believe us our your own eyes?"
Give me a break, the right is going down one way or another, you will most likely have a choice this nov. of a centrist McCain or a leftist Hillary,Oboma.
The reason is clear, we are sick of the war,of the trickle down economics that works only for the rich,the pandering and bowing down to big business and the so called "free market", The scare tactics of "Socialized medicine is communism and will collapse the best health care system in the world."
They wooo hooo and try to scare people in to believing this crap and this time I don't think it is going to work. They and the shrub though they were going to hang on to congress and they got spanked hard. Now lets complete the punishment and take back the white house and increase our lead in congress. But lets keep a few connectives around just so we can remember why we do not give them power.

[amb]

Which also indicates that the Australian economy has not caught a cold yet. :)

Well your government reports that average house prices rose more than 12% last year, whereas in the US they fell on average.

What is a "battler" in this context?A battler is someone struggling to pay their mortage. To keep a roof over the family's heads. The 12% raise in home values is delusional. OK, your home is worth 12% more, but you pay 12% more for another home you purchase. So where is the reward? You get more, but pay more. I fail to see logic in that.

[a_unique_person]

Which also indicates that the Australian economy has not caught a cold yet. :)

Well your government reports that average house prices rose more than 12% last year, whereas in the US they fell on average.

What is a "battler" in this context?


Blowing all his money on rent. There are people having to live in tents short term now.

[amb]

You know, I have listened to Limbaugh spew out how this economy is so strong. And every time he uses a number like jobs or gdp or housing sales, then that number collapses, he just skips over that fact and jumps to some other fact. Now that all the numbers are NEG. he just spews as does the shrub, that "it is a natural correction" Why is it that the media is the ones that you say are spinning things, when it is obviously the right wing spinning like hell trying to tell us "do you believe us our your own eyes?"
Give me a break, the right is going down one way or another, you will most likely have a choice this nov. of a centrist McCain or a leftist Hillary,Oboma.
The reason is clear, we are sick of the war,of the trickle down economics that works only for the rich,the pandering and bowing down to big business and the so called "free market", The scare tactics of "Socialized medicine is communism and will collapse the best health care system in the world."
They wooo hooo and try to scare people in to believing this crap and this time I don't think it is going to work. They and the shrub though they were going to hang on to congress and they got spanked hard. Now lets complete the punishment and take back the white house and increase our lead in congress. But lets keep a few connectives around just so we can remember why we do not give them power.
Centrist Mc Cain. You have to be joking. That man is to the right of Ghengis Khan. Why, he is more right wing than Bush. I sincerely hope the American people are a bit more intelligent than to elect this guy. Remember, this man backed the Iraq invasion, and still does so. And from what I read in the newspapers, this guy whole heartly backs more tax cuts for the rich.
We in Australia just voted out of office a similar thinking Goverment. Now it's your turn. :(

[edteach]

Did you see Oboma he swept the last 4 states. He is running ahead of Hillary. I can tell you if he gets in things will change in this country for the better. we need to boot out those republicans who only care about how much money they can put into their back pocket. Maybe we can finaly get national health care, pull out of Iraq. Focus on Afganastan.
Repair our broken image around the world. and start to really do something about the energy problem.
We need to stop giving oil companys gov. money. and start to windfall tax them. so many things need to change. We also need to stop people like huckabee who think the constitution needs to conform to the bible. holy crap. this guy is nuts.

[Francesca R]

A battler is someone struggling to pay their mortage. To keep a roof over the family's heads. The 12% raise in home values is delusionalDelusional in what sense? Are all changes in wealth delusional?

[amb]

Delusional in what sense? Are all changes in wealth delusional? Of course they are. A million dollars ten years ago would have made you seriously rich. Compared to today you need at least 5 times that amount, even taking inflation into account. There is no doubt about it, Conservative governments all over the world a good for the rich, disaster for the poor.

[Flo]

A battler is someone struggling to pay their mortage. To keep a roof over the family's heads. The 12% raise in home values is delusional. OK, your home is worth 12% more, but you pay 12% more for another home you purchase. So where is the reward? You get more, but pay more. I fail to see logic in that.


There's an excellent article on just that in Harpers Magazine February Nr ... "The Next Bubble; Priming the markets for tomorrow's big crash (http://www.harpers.org/archive/2008/02/0081908)" by Eric Janszen

(you must be subscribed to get it online, I've read the paper version)

[amb]

Without reading the whole article as I'm not subscribed, the odds are always stacked against the worker. I'm no socialist, but blind Freddy can see the writing on the wall.
That is the Capitalist system we have, and the alternative does not work either because of corruption and greed. It's man's nature. Until someone discovered a better way, it's a survival of the richest.

[Toro]

The American economy is not "collapsing." We are probably going into a recession, but that is not a "collapse." We haven't even had a contraction in growth yet.

[Toro]

There's an excellent article on just that in Harpers Magazine February Nr ... "The Next Bubble; Priming the markets for tomorrow's big crash (http://www.harpers.org/archive/2008/02/0081908)" by Eric Janszen

(you must be subscribed to get it online, I've read the paper version)

I've read this. Anyone who invests more than just passively such go buy this month's Harpers and read it. It is excellent.

[amb]

The article in Harpers is only common sense. Logically, we cannot go on using the worlds resources at the willy nilly pace we are at present. One day soon, the big crunch will occur. The supply of money will dry up, as the working man has been squeezed to death.
Then the sales of LCD and plasma TVs won't have any more buyers. China will have an over supply, prices will drop further, profits will suffer all around. That will be a reccession.

[edteach]

My home state is colapsing [michigan] because of high oil prices. The us auto industry just does not get that things have changed and they keep trying to push the big muscle car charger,corvet, or esclade on us. mostly because they make money on the big cars.

If you get a chance you need to watch this movie,,,,
http://www.stage6.com/user/WakeUpNowAmerica/video/2230646/THE-END-OF-SUBURBIA

The oil industry is peaking out while demand is rising. Oil is involved in every aspect of your life, from the food you eat, to the clothes you wear.
We are headed for big problems around the world.

We have a government that has no energy polocy, because there are no easy sound bit answers to this big question they just ignore it. The people of the usa just ignore it because they are not into life change, and believe me there will be life change if we want it or not.

It is impossible to grow an economy forever, not possible, we live on a limited recesoruce planet, and we gobble them up as if there is no tomorrow.

[Abe_the_Man]

My home state is colapsing [michigan] because of high oil prices. The us auto industry just does not get that things have changed and they keep trying to push the big muscle car charger,corvet, or esclade on us. mostly because they make money on the big cars.

If you get a chance you need to watch this movie,,,,
http://www.stage6.com/user/WakeUpNowAmerica/video/2230646/THE-END-OF-SUBURBIA

The oil industry is peaking out while demand is rising. Oil is involved in every aspect of your life, from the food you eat, to the clothes you wear.
We are headed for big problems around the world.

We have a government that has no energy polocy, because there are no easy sound bit answers to this big question they just ignore it. The people of the usa just ignore it because they are not into life change, and believe me there will be life change if we want it or not.

It is impossible to grow an economy forever, not possible, we live on a limited recesoruce planet, and we gobble them up as if there is no tomorrow.


I heard something like 74,000 jobs being cut by GM is this true? The already cut 5000 jobs in Ontario last year.

[amb]

My home state is colapsing [michigan] because of high oil prices.[quote] The us auto industry just does not get that things have changed and they keep trying to push the big muscle car charger,corvet, or esclade on us. mostly because they make money on the big cars. You'r forgetting that all new models of cars a planned 4-5 years in advance. The big cars now in production were probably planned 3-4 years ago. In 3-4 years time, there will be very little gas guzzlers around, because people will not buy them. You guys complain about petrol prices?
We in Australia are currently paying $ 1.40 per litre.

[a_unique_person]

Bloodbath! according to Australian banker in comment on state of US banking.



Global banking bloodbath

On the industry front, Mr Smith said the Australian banking system was standing up to the international credit crunch much better than European and US lenders.

"I would recommend all of you to visit London and New York in the near future just to see the effect of what is really happening there," he said.

"This is a financial services bloodbath. The Australian banking system is in remarkably good shape in comparison.



http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,23231948-2,00.html

[Francesca R]

Well I live and work in London's "square mile", and while some bankers are losing their jobs, it's not quite a "bloodbath" . Actually the fact that--horror of horrors--some people still got bonuses was recently cause for some official discontent.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/7249523.stm

[CriticalThanking]

As acutiy noted, it can be an odd time for investment banks. A relative is a director at a large investment bank in the US. Her comment was "our bonus pool by itself was greater than [competing company]'s net profit, yet [competing company] still paid bonuses."

CT

[Deus Ex Machina]

My home state is colapsing [michigan] because of high oil prices. The us auto industry just does not get that things have changed and they keep trying to push the big muscle car charger,corvet, or esclade on us. mostly because they make money on the big cars.

If you get a chance you need to watch this movie,,,,
http://www.stage6.com/user/WakeUpNowAmerica/video/2230646/THE-END-OF-SUBURBIA

The oil industry is peaking out while demand is rising. Oil is involved in every aspect of your life, from the food you eat, to the clothes you wear.
We are headed for big problems around the world.

We have a government that has no energy polocy, because there are no easy sound bit answers to this big question they just ignore it. The people of the usa just ignore it because they are not into life change, and believe me there will be life change if we want it or not.

It is impossible to grow an economy forever, not possible, we live on a limited recesoruce planet, and we gobble them up as if there is no tomorrow.

total crap - study history.

Yours is just the same old tired mantra about resources and commodities that has been proven wrong time and again.

It aint a linear projection of increasing demand and decreasing supply - as supply decreases price increases demand decreases and alternatives become viable.

[amb]

Bloodbath! according to Australian banker in comment on state of US banking.



http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,23231948-2,00.htmlThat is probably right. The banks here report billions of dollars profit each year. O.k if you happen to have shares in them. No good if do your banking with them. They actually charge you for banking with them.

[jmercer]

total crap - study history.

Yours is just the same old tired mantra about resources and commodities that has been proven wrong time and again.

It aint a linear projection of increasing demand and decreasing supply - as supply decreases price increases demand decreases and alternatives become viable.

Without passing judgement either way... you have to be VERY careful about making blanket statements like this. Studying history also shows that you can't drive forward by only looking in the rear-view mirror. In example, the collapse of the stock market during the Great Depression was unprecedented, and has since been repeated (albeit in a more tempered way due to changes).

The thing about history is that it's full of "firsts" the further back you look.

It's entirely possible that fuel costs rising at unprecedented rates have pushed local (weaker) economies underwater due to an inability to respond quickly enough to ride it out. Whether or not that's true - or if they can be resusitated if it is true - is another question.

[Francesca R]

That is probably right. The banks here report billions of dollars profit each year. O.k if you happen to have shares in them. No good if do your banking with them. They actually charge you for banking with them.Do you want to bank with a firm that doesn't make profits (or just not beeeellionnns of dollars)? In respect of them requiring you to pay for their services, who would you rather stick with that cost?

[Matthew Best]

I don't know who pays whatever cost my banking activities incur, but it isn't me. I bank for free - yet my bank still seems to make a profit.

[Francesca R]

You probably get less interest than the bank can make with your funds.

[Matthew Best]

So they don't need to charge me for the privilege of banking with them.

[jmercer]

Try Credit Unions; they're non-profit institutions, and so (usually) have less or lower fees. In addition, they *tend* to be localized, so your money in them generally serves to stimulate the local economy. (As local people take out car loans, mortgages and so forth it's financed by your money.)

Shop around because not all CU's are managed well, just like not all banks are. :)

[Matthew Best]

How can you have a lower fee than zero?

[jmercer]

By having a zero fee while getting higher interest rates on savings and lower interest rates on loans. In other words - dividends. :)

[amb]

There's a new book about to be released here that compares modern day America to the great Roman empire. I didn't catch the title. It claims America, like the Roman empire before it is stretched to thin across the world, just as Rome was before it collapsed and died. The adventure in Iraq is the straw that broke the camels back. Bush and co. have probably set the collapse in concrete.

[Tokenconservative]

There's a new book about to be released here that compares modern day America to the great Roman empire. I didn't catch the title. It claims America, like the Roman empire before it is stretched to thin across the world, just as Rome was before it collapsed and died. The adventure in Iraq is the straw that broke the camels back. Bush and co. have probably set the collapse in concrete.

I think I read that new book...sometime in the 1980s

Sheesh.

Tokie

[Tokenconservative]

[Forgive the off topic drift] You can speculate all you want, Token. How about looking up the facts and addressing those instead? Wiki has some links to get you started. But try to actually look at the facts, don't just read the section that supports your already preconceived view.

Media bias in the United States

Knowing those suggestions are probably lost on you but may have some meaning to other thread readers, I need to add a bit more. What makes the news media biased against my personal liberal point of view is not some vast right wing conspiracy. Rather it is the result of many factors.

First and foremost is who owns the sources. The vast majority of news outlets are owned by fewer and fewer and larger and larger conglomerates. Those owners naturally prevent a lot of stories that reflect badly on their businesses which makes the media more and more pro-corporate interests.

Second, and almost as important is the fact the news in the US is not an information service. It is a for profit business. That means more and more junk news and formula news has come to crowd out the actual important news of our times. Hours and hours of commentary, sports, weather, missing white girls, polls, press conferences and so on make for very cheap production costs. To send out investigative reporters which used to be the staple of the news a few decades ago is just not profitable today. All the network has to do is broadcast the latest press conference, no need to bother actually reporting on the factual nature of the politician's claims.

Third, the government and corporations have become news savvy. Certainly the lessons learned by our government from the Vietnam war were not, don't get involved in a civil war. Rather, the lessons learned were, control the news coming out of the battlefield. Sanitizing the war and controlling the flow of information is easily recognized in Bush's Iraq war. Not only are there no pictures of returning flag draped coffins and plenty of embedded reporter reports, there is no effort by our news media to question no pictures of returning coffins or try to get those pictures anyway. And there is little effort by the mainstream news to get reports from non-embedded sources either.

Corporations have become just as savvy. People don't trust commercials? Simple, make the commercial look like a news report. You can read all about Video News Releases on your own and while you are at it, take a look at how much money the Bush administration has put into producing those video news releases. That's an eyeopener for anyone really interested in the topic of bias in the news. Millions and millions of your tax dollars go to promote the NeoCon agenda.[/end of derail]

I've studied bias in the news media for nearly two decades now.

Even the NYTimes own ombudsman chastised The Gray Lady for slanding NEWS coverage (you seem to talk a lot about commentary) to the left.

Of course, arguing with a leftie on this issue is pointless. You demand that I offer proof--links--LIIINNKKKSSSSSSSS!!!!--proving the sun rises in the east, and will accept nothing short of...well, nothing, period, offered as anything but itself "biased by the rightwing corporate news industry!!!" so I no longer bother.

But tell me: Katie Couric: a conservative? Dan Rather?

Tokie

[Tokenconservative]

Of course the American economy is collapsing, and what worries me, is America sneezes, Australia catches a cold.
It was evident when Bush and co. invaded Iraq while still fighting the Taliban in Afghanistan. Not to mention tax cuts for the rich, using the discredited theory of the trickle down effect. The rich don't spend their money. That's why their rich. It's the working class who keep the economy turning. There is allways a slow down towards the end of a Republican term in office.

Are you a parrot or are you really this ignorant?

Tokie

[Tokenconservative]

Well, today is the 28th and shares are almost back to before the 21st.
It still doesn't mean the American economy is buoyant.
Bush still has a year to go, heaps of time to give the fatal blow.

Right...we should pay attention to the hour-by-hour volume and everytime it drops .00000001%, we should all run around waving our arms over our heads shrieking "TEOTWAWKI!!!!!"

Ah.

Good plan!

Tokie

[Tokenconservative]

The American economy is not "collapsing." We are probably going into a recession, but that is not a "collapse." We haven't even had a contraction in growth yet.


Um..recession, by definintion IS a retraction in growth...

What crystal ball are you using?

Tokie

[Tokenconservative]

Well I live and work in London's "square mile", and while some bankers are losing their jobs, it's not quite a "bloodbath" . Actually the fact that--horror of horrors--some people still got bonuses was recently cause for some official discontent.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/7249523.stm

You have to understand that to the eager doomsayers, ANYbody losing ANY job is TEOTWAWKI!!!!!!!

That's what they are doing here with our "foreclosure crisis." It's like Stalin said: one death is a tragedy, a million is a statistic.

While it's not fun losing your home, I am sure, it's also not the case that our 5-7% forclosure RATE (the important number, not the actual number of foreclosed houses) is nowhere near "crisis" level and in fact, only just a little more than it was in 1998-99...nobody declared it a "crisis" then, because a 3-5% rate is NORMAL--people lose their homes for all sorts of reasons, and they do it in boom and bust economies.

So when 20 bankers lose their jobs, the left-advocacy, fearmongering media leaps on this and screams "CRISIS IN BANKING!!!!!" They did the same thing this year here, when the unemployment rate spiked upward a bit on normal seasonal trending, in early fall (when summertime jobs go away in cold parts of this temperate climate nation)...shrieking "see!!? SEEEEEEE!!!!??? WE TOLDJA BUSH WAS WRECKING THE ECONOMY!!!!!!"

They are either economic morons speaking TO economic morons (liberals) or very cynical gamesplayers trying to tilt things in the left's favor in this political year in the US.

Tokie

[Tokenconservative]

My home state is colapsing [michigan] because of high oil prices. The us auto industry just does not get that things have changed and they keep trying to push the big muscle car charger,corvet, or esclade on us. mostly because they make money on the big cars.

If you get a chance you need to watch this movie,,,,
http://www.stage6.com/user/WakeUpNowAmerica/video/2230646/THE-END-OF-SUBURBIA

The oil industry is peaking out while demand is rising. Oil is involved in every aspect of your life, from the food you eat, to the clothes you wear.
We are headed for big problems around the world.

We have a government that has no energy polocy, because there are no easy sound bit answers to this big question they just ignore it. The people of the usa just ignore it because they are not into life change, and believe me there will be life change if we want it or not.

It is impossible to grow an economy forever, not possible, we live on a limited recesoruce planet, and we gobble them up as if there is no tomorrow.

Are you really this ignorant?

Michigan is suffering the way it is because of your liberal taxation. You are chasing businesses out of there with a firehose...you, being a lib, of course believe the way to "fix" this problem is to "tax the rich!!!" but of course, you already are doing that, and those "rich" (like small business owners) are fleeing in vast herds for places that will allow them to keep just a little bit of the money they earn through their hard work.

As a lib, you probably believe these "parasites" should be FORCED to remain in Michigan, or maybe sent to some sort of camp, maybe on the Peninsula...to mine oh...uranium, or lead?

Sheesh.

Tokie

[Toro]

Um..recession, by definintion IS a retraction in growth...

What crystal ball are you using?

Tokie

I'm an investor working for one of the largest pools of capital in the country.

[Toro]

Are you really this ignorant?

Michigan is suffering the way it is because of your liberal taxation. You are chasing businesses out of there with a firehose...you, being a lib, of course believe the way to "fix" this problem is to "tax the rich!!!" but of course, you already are doing that, and those "rich" (like small business owners) are fleeing in vast herds for places that will allow them to keep just a little bit of the money they earn through their hard work.

As a lib, you probably believe these "parasites" should be FORCED to remain in Michigan, or maybe sent to some sort of camp, maybe on the Peninsula...to mine oh...uranium, or lead?

Sheesh.

Tokie

This is not a serious comment.

Michigan is in a slump because the American auto industry is losing share. Full-stop.