Gradually pushing? Didn't Bush encourage people to go shopping after 9/11?
Printable View
Gradually pushing? Didn't Bush encourage people to go shopping after 9/11?
That is totally unfair.Quote:
Originally Posted by Shaggy Hiker
NYC was devastated psychologically from 9/11.
It is a city of shopping, eating, partying, Broadway shows - it all stopped on 9/11. The morale of the people needed to be pushed back into play.
I'm still not over the loss of the twin towers - I drove by them today - saw lady liberty out on the water - but only the Empire State bldg stood out in the city scape as I drove up the NJ turnpike (but gas in NJ was $3.89 today - beats the $4.49 I'm paying in CT!).
Yep, I would not count that towards what I meant as a policy shift. To elaborate, the dwindling interest on savings, the increasing amount of income taxes, availability of cheaper and cheaper credit: Aren't all these pushing up the habit of spending rather than saving?Quote:
Originally Posted by Shaggy Hiker
.
Our US government doesn't create policies or shift policies that change habits of consumers in the ways you have described - we don't get official gvmt documents telling us to spend or do this or do that. I cannot imagine where you get this idea.Quote:
Originally Posted by honeybee
The Federal Reserve board controls the interest rate that it loans large blocks of money to major banks. This allows the banks to lower or raise consumer interest rates.
But they do that to help manage inflation and other aspects of our economy.
http://www.federalreserve.gov/generalinfo/faq/faqei.htm
Right now they should raise interest rates to bring back foreign investment (that left as interest rates fell). Bringing back foreign investment would increase the value of our dollar against other currencies. This is something we drastically need right now - as oil is traded in US $$'s (means low dollar value translates into "more dollars" to buy that barrel of oil). Our low exchange rate means our exports cost less - but all our imports cost more.
But the Fed is stuck - since we are in a moment of high inflation - inflation = products cost more for us then our income increases can attain - a rise in interest rates would hurt the consumer badly (potentially a recession - has it been three months in a row yet?).
US consumer spending accounts for 70% of our gross-domestic product. We are also becoming a "service-based economy". All we do is buy services - buy fast food - have lawn boys cut our grass - domestic people to clean our houses. Back in the 70's we bought products - now we buy services. Back in the 70's we made our own products that we bought!
Our ecomony is a lot more complex then some four year administration in the White House can really effect. I would venture to say that Bush has had absolutely no effect on my personal ecomony - certainly not my pocket-book.
We've also had some truly bad trade policies enacted by our law makers. And that all happened with the prior administration...
This link gives some good info
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?p...mzI&refer=home
The govt sent out these silly "tax rebate checks" - really just giving back to consumers a bit of the taxes they pre-paid (but they will pay that back come tax season). They were hoping to jump-start some buying - which increases production - which increases income
But...
Quote:
Rebate Checks
The extra money may not bring much relief. Households will spend about $90 billion more this year on gasoline if fuel prices remain at current levels, according to a forecast by economists at Credit Suisse Holdings in New York. That will consume about 80 percent of the more than $110 billion in rebate checks being sent.
At the risk of wandering off topic, I would argue that the reason there is little foreign investment is a direct impact of having Bush in power. We (a Canadian company) used to purchase lots of US gas turbines for many countries around the world (and quote in US dollars). Now, about 90% of requests specify European or Canadian engines. This can be put down to a very simple reason (usually).Quote:
Originally Posted by szlamany
Europeans/Middle Easterners don't want to travel to the states and be treated like criminals (at airports) when they come to view the manufacturing plants. It's a simple thing, but suprisingly important to a businessman. So he meets us in Canada or the UK and there is no problem.... We had one of the head honcho's of EDF (look them up, they're a pretty big organisation - their Q1 sales for 2008 where 18.3 billion Euro) detained in US immigration for about 4-5 hours (he is of Middle Eastern extraction), he was let go out of the airport at about 8pm - he had a 4 hour drive ahead of him for a 7am meeting the following day. Now, you can see his point when he says he never wants to go back to the States if he can help it.
Given that these engines are $10 million a pop, and most customers are buying 2 or 3, this alone represents a fair amount of foreign investment that just isn't going to the US.
We are one small company, how many others have similar tales.... and now the US wants 72 hours before foreigners can fly to the states. Many of our deal meetings are set up 24 to 48 hours before travelling (sometimes even less - I was on a plane to Trinidad within 12 hours of getting the call). Honestly, it looks like your government is actively trying to discourage foreign investment.
Oh - and then there's the whole middle eastern countries not wanting to give the US money so they can buy more weapons and bomb the daylights out of their neighbours.... :ehh:
You have a different perspective.Quote:
Originally Posted by szlamany
I live on the far side of the country. Out here, I have never before heard anybody suggest that Bush was trying to boost NY morale, though your explanation certainly makes sense. Instead, that statement has always been discussed in the context of boosting the sagging economy by "spending our way out of it".
I have no idea which is right, but I have heard the statement discussed dozens, if not hundreds, of times, and yours is the first time I have seen it being given a positive interpretation rather than a cynical consumer one. I have no idea which is right, but I think it is fairly safe to say that my interpretation is the more common one in the bulk of the country.
I guess you are pretty ok with your knowledge of economics, but if you think your government does not influence anything and everything that goes on in the Fed Reserve, you will fail a politics paper for sure. Though Greenspan or Bernanke may be the people announcing the policies, they have been appointed by the government and have to seek prior approval to whatever they plan/announce/implement.Quote:
Originally Posted by szlamany
On SD's views, I can echo the same feeling. My cousin sister who married and is now in Germany, recently went on a Europe tour and she too reports that the people from Asian countries (or those who look like they are Asian) are discriminated against. She went through all immigration/security checks without a hitch as she passed off as a Latino, but her sister-in-law was made to open her baggage and was thoroughly checked every time because she definitely looked Asian.
.
My "ecomony" - what I've got in my pocket and what my life costs is more in the hands of my senator's and rep's. They fight to get another contract for Sikorsky - who has a bigger impact on our local econony then the Fed setting interest rates up or down 1/2 point. They employee thousands in our area.
I always get the feeling that those who don't live in the US judge us as a whole. Some mid-west crop producing state doesn't have the same formula as a highly populated corporate state. Those mid-west states are hoping for their senator's and rep's to fight for breaks on their bottomline. And there are 50 variations on each of these themes.
Bush has had 0 impact on what I spend - how I do or don't save. The path I've been stuck on has been on auto-pilot for 30 years. If some president wanted to be visionary they should have fixed our energy dependence in the 1970's. But instead they get 4 or 8 years in office and the world thinks we actually start following a different "lead". Half the laws congress and the president can agree on are worthless - and the other half barely make a difference.
Al Gore is now backing Obama and Obama's praising him as the ecological idea man to follow. He was in the white house 10 years ago - why didn't he start thinking about our economy in relation to oil/ethanol/world food consumption? Because they really just don't care...
That's true! We in Idaho, for instance, are just hoping our senator will leave our bottom line alone, though he takes a wide stance on the issue.Quote:
Originally Posted by szlamany
Bush didn't directly impact the economy, nor has any president. However, they have all had impacts on the economy. Starting a war that has sucked up a huge amount of cash will impact the economy, though depending on the war, the impact can be positive or negative in the long run. However, if you look far enough down the road, we all impact the economy thoroughly. It may take years for the economy as a whole to reflect the impact of an individual, yet chaos theory states that the impact must be there.
On the other hand, we have just been receiving that economic stimulus check. Most economists I have heard have suggested that the check has boosted something, they just can't seem to agree on what. Wal-Mart was cashing the checks for free, and it appears to have boosted their sales during the time the checks came out. Was it the checks? Maybe, but Wal-Mart sells lots of imported goods, so who got the money in the end? If they sell more, they ship more, so warehouse and shippers gain more...or not, if they are paid the same regardless of whether they move five trucks or twenty. The stimulus had an impact. The remaining question is where it had an impact, and how big was it?
:lol:Quote:
Originally Posted by Shaggy Hiker
Too bad our foreign friends probably don't get that joke...
szlamany probably will. I really should lay off our senator, there isn't anything new in that story. He was involved in that congressional page scandal back in the 80's, and stories have just kept bubbling up for all the years inbetween, but there are so many parts of that toe tapping story that are ripe for comedy that it's hard to pass up.
From wiki
I think he just wanted to say "naughty boy" :DQuote:
In 1999, Craig became sharply critical of U.S. President Bill Clinton for the Monica Lewinsky scandal. Speaking on NBC's Meet The Press, Craig told Tim Russert: "The American people already know that Bill Clinton is a bad boy - a naughty boy. I’m going to speak out for the citizens of my state, who in the majority think that Bill Clinton is probably even a nasty, bad, naughty boy.”
Interesting, the careers of every person mentioned in that article are over.
Well, if you were to ask the honest opinion of any sane person around, they would echo your feelings: it's best if the politicians played their own dirty games in their backyards and left the public at large alone. But sadly it's the public out of whom the politicians earn their bread and butter (or cakes and wine?).Quote:
Originally Posted by Shaggy Hiker
.