Footwedge wrote: Compare and contrast the overall economic growth with countries that have seen GDP rates 4 to 5 times higher than the US has seen over the past decade. Vietnam, China, Laos, India....all growing their manufacturing base...and kicking our ass economically. Look it up.

That's not proof of anything. It is impossible for the US to grow as quickly as economies many times smaller and ones transitioning from 3rd world status because they have inherently more untapped potential - and I notice you don't mention the massive downswings those countries have had (we get a 2% contraction and it's a depression, these countries are all prone to hard landings many times worse) Maybe try comparing to places like, I don't know, Germany and Europe that are more unionized and protectionist than the US?

I find no cause for alarm when US Corp ships jobs overseas and retains ownership and the profits. That is wholly different than losing those mfring jobs outright. Sectors expand and contract all the time. Your characterization of financial services as faux growth and inferior to mfring jobs is misguided at best.

The frozen credit markets due to a reduction in risk appetite was as much about investors as it was about the banks. There error for the banks was not so much risk appetite, as you allude, but in a miscalculation of counter-party credit risk which resulted in losses due to default of hedges. Simply put, they had much more risk than they ever realized. There was no reason to believe they would be "too big to fail" when the govt let Bear and Lehman go bankrupt, and when the govt had forced several of the big players to bail out LTCM back in '98. The idea that these guys behaved recklessly, putting reputation and personal wealth at risk, because of security of being "too big too fail" is scapegoating at its finest. It was combination of greed and overconfidence/miscalculation, not unlike millions of homeowners and many, many other companies.

Sounds like some people needed to listen to the guidance counselors when they told you to look for a recession proof job......

gut, So people should be forced into risks like the stock market because the government is stealing from the people through intentional inflation of the money supply?

Gold has been valued for thousands of years and is a commodity people still like to hold for items like jewelry. I'll take that, or something like silver, cooper or iron instead of a sheet of paper with some ink on it.

Who's being forced into the stock market?

Service jobs aren't somehow inferior to manufacturing jobs.

bman618 wrote: gut, So people should be forced into risks like the stock market because the government is stealing from the people through intentional inflation of the money supply?

Gold has been valued for thousands of years and is a commodity people still like to hold for items like jewelry. I'll take that, or something like silver, cooper or iron instead of a sheet of paper with some ink on it.

You shouldn't keep it under your mattress, no. And putting it into tbills, cd's or even just a savings account - which have arguablly less risk than under your mattress - puts you further ahead.

In today's economy, a gold standard would not function all that differently from the current system. People would still be able to borrow money, it would just take the form of IOU's with interest rates charged based on the probability of default, as they are today. Going back to a gold standard simply isn't practical. Most who support the idea due so only out of the belief that it will reign in govt spending, but as I just explained I think that idea is misguided.

Raw material supplier A gives me trade credit to build a tv that I in turn sell to you on credit. Effectively, we just created money to the extent Supplier A and me can now purchase against that credit. That's the way things work now. Most transactions, especially large transactions, involve no physical transfer of actual greenbacks.

I have nothing against any of those investment options to make money. I don't think people should be forced into the options in order to retain the real value of their money because the government is stealing from them through intentional inflation. If I stole money, I'd go to jail. The government steals the real value of the money from the people and can get away with it. This is what our founders called tyranny. People should have the freedom to do what they want with their money. The people stuffing it under the mattresses are worried about the state of our nation. That's on the government, not those people.

The bottom line is the money supply is way out of whack against the real value of our nation which leads to the inflation. There is only so long this will last before the chickens come home to roost and we have a worse collapse than the one they just postponed through all this printing.

gut, you are referring to a risk between private entities. If one side takes out too much credit and can't repay, the damage is limited to the party who dealt out the credit unless it is a systemetic problem as in the derivatives meltdown. When our nation does this, we all pay.

But rather a business lends out credit gotten at the bank that fractionalizes its reserves, there is only so much real wealth that comes from our net production as a nation. The same standard that works for the government also applies to the private sector.

gut wrote: Most who support the idea due so only out of the belief that it will reign in govt spending, but as I just explained I think that idea is misguided.

I know the majority of people who post on here know what I am about to say, but so many people who push for a "gold standard" are very misguided.

There is a major difference between a pegged currency and a backed currency. A lot of times you will hear somebody advocating for a "pegged" currency, then merely talk about the logistics behind a backed currency, then speak of the ideals of a pegged currency.

I Wear Pants wrote: Who's being forced into the stock market?

Service jobs aren't somehow inferior to manufacturing jobs.

OK...then let me state it in a different way....regarding the issue at hand.

Manufacturing jobs overseas....loss of American jobs
Paralegal work sent overseas...loss of American jobs
Bookeeping jobs sent oversea...l.o.A. j.
Computer software jobs sent oversees...l.o.A. j.

There are many more industries than the 4 I listed.

Today America has a real unemployment figure around 17%. The article that I posted claims that another 29% are going overseas.

If these economists are accurate in their estimation, then you will have roughly 40 to 45% of Americans unemployed.

I take it that you, gut, LJ and others are OK with that scenario.

Footwedge wrote:

I Wear Pants wrote: Who's being forced into the stock market?

Service jobs aren't somehow inferior to manufacturing jobs.

OK...then let me state it in a different way....regarding the issue at hand.

Manufacturing jobs overseas....loss of American jobs
Paralegal work sent overseas...loss of American jobs
Bookeeping jobs sent oversea...l.o.A. j.
Computer software jobs sent oversees...l.o.A. j.

There are many more industries than the 4 I listed.

Today America has a real unemployment figure around 17%. The article that I posted claims that another 29% are going overseas.

If these economists are accurate in their estimation, then you will have roughly 40 to 45% of Americans unemployed.

I take it that you, gut, LJ and others are OK with that scenario.

Why are you bringing me into this? I haven't stated an opinion this whole time. I was merely stating an observation.

LJ wrote:

gut wrote: Most who support the idea due so only out of the belief that it will reign in govt spending, but as I just explained I think that idea is misguided.

I know the majority of people who post on here know what I am about to say, but so many people who push for a "gold standard" are very misguided.

There is a major difference between a pegged currency and a backed currency. A lot of times you will hear somebody advocating for a "pegged" currency, then merely talk about the logistics behind a backed currency, then speak of the ideals of a pegged currency.

We don't have a true pegged currency either. Paper dollars, uros, yen, what have you are today valued as any commodity...such as corn or soybeans.

Reread my post to gut up above regarding the definition of money.

Basically, speculators are the ones putting values to greenbacks. That is a scary, scary environment indeed.

Footwedge wrote:

LJ wrote:

gut wrote: Most who support the idea due so only out of the belief that it will reign in govt spending, but as I just explained I think that idea is misguided.

I know the majority of people who post on here know what I am about to say, but so many people who push for a "gold standard" are very misguided.

There is a major difference between a pegged currency and a backed currency. A lot of times you will hear somebody advocating for a "pegged" currency, then merely talk about the logistics behind a backed currency, then speak of the ideals of a pegged currency.

We don't have a true pegged currency either. Paper dollars, uros, yen, what have you are today valued as any commodity...such as corn or soybeans.

Reread my post to gut up above regarding the definition of money.

Basically, speculators are the ones putting values to greenbacks. That is a scary, scary environment indeed.

huh? That isn't what I said at all.

LJ wrote:

Footwedge wrote:

I Wear Pants wrote: Who's being forced into the stock market?

Service jobs aren't somehow inferior to manufacturing jobs.

OK...then let me state it in a different way....regarding the issue at hand.

Manufacturing jobs overseas....loss of American jobs
Paralegal work sent overseas...loss of American jobs
Bookeeping jobs sent oversea...l.o.A. j.
Computer software jobs sent oversees...l.o.A. j.

There are many more industries than the 4 I listed.

Today America has a real unemployment figure around 17%. The article that I posted claims that another 29% are going overseas.

If these economists are accurate in their estimation, then you will have roughly 40 to 45% of Americans unemployed.

I take it that you, gut, LJ and others are OK with that scenario.

Why are you bringing me into this? I haven't stated an opinion this whole time. I was merely stating an observation.

Because I've had this discussion with you before. That's why.

Footwedge wrote:

LJ wrote:

Footwedge wrote:

I Wear Pants wrote: Who's being forced into the stock market?

Service jobs aren't somehow inferior to manufacturing jobs.

OK...then let me state it in a different way....regarding the issue at hand.

Manufacturing jobs overseas....loss of American jobs
Paralegal work sent overseas...loss of American jobs
Bookeeping jobs sent oversea...l.o.A. j.
Computer software jobs sent oversees...l.o.A. j.

There are many more industries than the 4 I listed.

Today America has a real unemployment figure around 17%. The article that I posted claims that another 29% are going overseas.

If these economists are accurate in their estimation, then you will have roughly 40 to 45% of Americans unemployed.

I take it that you, gut, LJ and others are OK with that scenario.

Why are you bringing me into this? I haven't stated an opinion this whole time. I was merely stating an observation.

Because I've had this discussion with you before. That's why.

No you haven't. I've never discussed outsourcing.

LJ wrote:

Footwedge wrote:

LJ wrote:

gut wrote: Most who support the idea due so only out of the belief that it will reign in govt spending, but as I just explained I think that idea is misguided.

I know the majority of people who post on here know what I am about to say, but so many people who push for a "gold standard" are very misguided.

There is a major difference between a pegged currency and a backed currency. A lot of times you will hear somebody advocating for a "pegged" currency, then merely talk about the logistics behind a backed currency, then speak of the ideals of a pegged currency.

We don't have a true pegged currency either. Paper dollars, uros, yen, what have you are today valued as any commodity...such as corn or soybeans.

Reread my post to gut up above regarding the definition of money.

Basically, speculators are the ones putting values to greenbacks. That is a scary, scary environment indeed.

huh? That isn't what I said at all.

You stated your opinion, and then I countered with mine. Why is that a problem?

Footwedge wrote:

LJ wrote:

Footwedge wrote:

LJ wrote:


huh? That isn't what I said at all.

You stated your opinion, and then I countered with mine. Why is that a problem?

You didn't respond to my opinion at all.

LJ wrote:

Footwedge wrote:

LJ wrote:

Footwedge wrote:

I Wear Pants wrote: Who's being forced into the stock market?

Service jobs aren't somehow inferior to manufacturing jobs.

OK...then let me state it in a different way....regarding the issue at hand.

Manufacturing jobs overseas....loss of American jobs
Paralegal work sent overseas...loss of American jobs
Bookeeping jobs sent oversea...l.o.A. j.
Computer software jobs sent oversees...l.o.A. j.

There are many more industries than the 4 I listed.

Today America has a real unemployment figure around 17%. The article that I posted claims that another 29% are going overseas.

If these economists are accurate in their estimation, then you will have roughly 40 to 45% of Americans unemployed.

I take it that you, gut, LJ and others are OK with that scenario.

Why are you bringing me into this? I haven't stated an opinion this whole time. I was merely stating an observation.

Because I've had this discussion with you before. That's why.

No you haven't. I've never discussed outsourcing.

Whatever dude...if you say so. But for the record, we have discussed international markets (oil and other commodities) and minimum wage issues....which are not independent subjects from outsourcing. They are intertwining issues.

LJ wrote:

Footwedge wrote:

LJ wrote:

Footwedge wrote:

LJ wrote:


huh? That isn't what I said at all.

You stated your opinion, and then I countered with mine. Why is that a problem?

You didn't respond to my opinion at all.

Yes I did. You attempted to "educate" those who stand by being pro gold standard..."correcting" them in stating your opinion regarding the "peg standard".

And then I "corrected" you in explaining that we don't abide by a peg standard either.

You stated your opinion...and then I stated my opinion. Again, I ask you...what's the problem with that?

Footwedge wrote:

LJ wrote:
No you haven't. I've never discussed outsourcing.

Whatever dude...if you say so. But for the record, we have discussed international markets (oil and other commodities) and minimum wage issues....which are not independent subjects from outsourcing. They are intertwining issues.

Kind, kind of not. I am very on the fence about outsourcing jobs. Doing business with international companies that deal with jobs that never existed in the U.S. is not the issue. It's the taking of jobs from Americans that I am on the fence about, my three "roles" tear me in separate ways as a business owner, consumer and economist.

But to say you know my feelings on actual outsourcing is false, because I have never discussed my opinion on it in depth.

Footwedge wrote:

LJ wrote:

Footwedge wrote:

LJ wrote:

Footwedge wrote:

LJ wrote:


huh? That isn't what I said at all.

You stated your opinion, and then I countered with mine. Why is that a problem?

You didn't respond to my opinion at all.

Yes I did. You attempted to "educate" those who stand by being pro gold standard..."correcting" them in stating your opinion regarding the "peg standard".

And then I "corrected" you in explaining that we don't abide by a peg standard either.

You stated your opinion...and then I stated my opinion. Again, I ask you...what's the problem with that?

HUH?!?!

I know we don't abide by a peg standard, I never said we did. You didn't correct shit.

I didn't state my opinion on a pegged currency or a backed currency. I stated that I have noticed that many people do not know the true definition of either of them.

What is your problem?

I'm not going to get involved in the argument, but I'll say this: I'm not sure that many Americans appreciate the number of jobs that are insourced to the U.S. My wife works for a London-based company. I have a great buddy that works for Credit Suisse....and another that works for DB. Taking a trip to Alabama a couple of weeks ago we drove by the HUGH BMW auto plant just outside Greenville, SC that employs thousands of Americans and looked pretty damn impressive from the interstate. On the whole outsourcing/insourcing debate, the U.S. does very, very well. I don't think it is a good idea to be isolationist and piss off foreign companies that have invested so much here.

Outsourcing creates jobs here in the long run. If a company can't afford to hire labor in the US, and if they are not allowed to outsource their jobs to cheaper labor, they will cease to do business forcing everyone out of a job. However, outsourcing allows a company to continue operations, save money, and then if and when they are ready, they can create more jobs here in America.

People that don't like outsourcing are part of the problem, not the solution.

bman618 wrote: I have nothing against any of those investment options to make money. I don't think people should be forced into the options in order to retain the real value of their money because the government is stealing from them through intentional inflation.

Hard to argue when you make such profound, ridiculous statements like "the govt is stealing". It's not stealing and it makes sense to provide incentive to invest, nor is inflation solely the result of govt actions on the money supply (actually, if you want to start getting technical we should be talking about real interest rate parity). If you want to understand this relatively simple concept of the value of minimal inflation, do some reading on deflation. There is a cost to holding cash dollars, as there should be. I don't see the great harm in people needing to put their money into a simple savings account, which is riskless (up to $100k).

bman618 wrote: gut, you are referring to a risk between private entities. If one side takes out too much credit and can't repay, the damage is limited to the party who dealt out the credit unless it is a systemetic problem as in the derivatives meltdown. When our nation does this, we all pay.

But rather a business lends out credit gotten at the bank that fractionalizes its reserves, there is only so much real wealth that comes from our net production as a nation. The same standard that works for the government also applies to the private sector.

It doesn't matter. Credit, whether it comes from a bank, or a business, or the govt has the same effect on money supply. As I said, physical money rarely actually moves in transactions any more. We have one currency, but this is a sort of competing currency. And some economists have actually advocated open competition in currency (issues by banks and other financial institutions), so you argument about fractionalization does not fully address the underlying workings.

Whatever you use as "currency", it's value is going to be driven by interest rates and risk of default. If you fix the money supply with something like a gold standard, ultimately you have to have deflation of goods & services, which is bad for growth.

Footwedge wrote:

I Wear Pants wrote: Today America has a real unemployment figure around 17%. The article that I posted claims that another 29% are going overseas.

If these economists are accurate in their estimation, then you will have roughly 40 to 45% of Americans unemployed.

I take it that you, gut, LJ and others are OK with that scenario.

The quoted scare tactic does not work on me. Jobs have been going overseas for years while new jobs and new industries are being created here. When management, CEO and other high level jobs start going overseas in any significant way, I'll be worried. Until then, in many cases the growth of the multi-national is creating new and better jobs at a pretty good pace with the lower level jobs shipped overseas.

The unemployment figure is mainly because of economy wide job CUTS (wholly different than job losses). Many of those jobs will come back, others will be replaced in a leaner economcy. Great time to be a protectionist and blame 17% unemployment on jobs going overseas. But the protectionist will once again look like an idiot in a few years when the economy recovers.

You keep hammering on jobs being "lost", and when it's pointed out we had record low unemployment at various times the last two decades you dismiss it as "fake growth". But the record unemployment is a fact. As I said, we see transition, winners and losers in various sectors at various times.