Support the Blog — Buy This Book!
For Kindle and with free ePub version. Only $9.49 Great reading.
Here is what Gary Shapiro CEO of the Consumer Electronics Association (CEA) said: Dvorak's writing sings with insight and clarity. Whether or not you agree with John's views, he will get you thinking and is never boring. These essays are worth the read!
Put this ad on your blog!
Syndicate
Subscribe to Main Blog feed here:
Subscribe to Comments too (below):
Junk Email Filter
Great graphic, and a mesage which liberals ought to heed.
To wit, if “anybody but Bush” were a workable strategy, we would be mocking President Kerry’s ineffectual policies here today.
Honestly, I think that if the GOP can make the case that this graphic makes more loudly and clearly, they might just retain the White House in ’08, it would mask the pure hatred of HIllary Clinton they harbor so deeply.
Yes!!! The Democrats are going after the 911 perpetrators while Bush goes after the scapegoats!!! Bravo!!!
#34 – To wit, if “anybody but Bush” were a workable strategy, we would be mocking President Kerry’s ineffectual policies here today.
Except that Kerry’s policies would not be ineffectual.
#32 – iGW,
We certainly agree on that. In recent years, the biggest difference has been at the tail of your identical statements. Repugnicans borrow the money to give to their friends and let the next administration pay it back. Democraps charge us right up front. By some bizarre logic, this actually makes the Democraps MORE fiscally conservative than the Repugnicans.
When we have a true liberal (i.e. not a deregulating friend of business wimp) running against a true fiscal conservative (i.e. not a deregulating borrow and spend maniac), then we’ll have a real race. Perhaps then, there would be candidates to vote FOR instead of candidates to vote AGAINST. Oh, and how about someone with enough vision to understand that we depend, quite literally, for our lives on having a habitable biosphere??!!?
For now, vote Cthulhu, why settle for a lesser evil?!
#33 – bobbo,
The Repugnicans have been a plague on more than JUST national security. They’ve been a plague on the environment, the middle class, the national debt, our energy supply (tightly coupled with national security, of course), our civil liberties, education, health care, etc., etc., etc.
The Democraps have been dramatically better just by being less good at being bad. I still hold a bit of a grudge with them for destroying the Liberal party in their effort to eliminate the competition and alienate the working class that traditionally formed their base of support. However, they are still less bad than the others.
Remember, if we don’t vote for a lizard, the wrong lizard might get in.
(OK, actually I like lizards more than I like most people, but that’s just me.)
#36
He was being kind. You are correct however that Kerry’s policies would have likely been deleterious rather than just ineffectual,
#39 – Thomas,
Kerry’s policies would have likely been deleterious rather than just ineffectual,
More so than the current administration??!!? I find that difficult to even imagine. What do you really genuinely believe would be worse and for whom (please limit this list to people making under say $10MB/yr)?
#40 – me,
Sorry, redundant punctuation. Please replace $10MB with the words “ten megabucks”.
#33 … “trade deficits, trade deals with our major competitors in this world–IE–China, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan too although thats more complicated.”
You’re long on rhetoric, but short on analysis. Perhaps instead of investing so much time in those witty titles you apply to the U.S. and political parties, more time spent reading economic material would help you to present a more persuasive argument. Why is the deficit a problem? What trade deals are you referencing? How are these “problems” the fault of the President Bush?
If Kerry had raised taxes like he promised to do, our economy would be far worse off than it is now. Granted, the Fed’s actions under Bernanke haven’t helped.
43–Max==you are quite right, but sometimes I feel like a rant, and who wants to provide detail when such feelings overcome?
When it comes to how disasterous and hypocritical Bushco has been, details don’t matter to those who agree, nor to those who don’t.
Thats a problem with our national discussion.
#44
That argument sounds familiar… now where did I hear it before? Oh yes! I remember now… it was being made by the Republicans in the early 90s when Clinton proposed raising taxes on the wealthy in order to enact policies to help the middle class and lower gain a little ground.
You’re right… who wants to go back to the economies of the 90s? How much budget surplus, low unemployment and booming economy can we take. It’s much better now… right?
k
#46 – You’re right… who wants to go back to the economies of the 90s? How much budget surplus, low unemployment and booming economy can we take. It’s much better now… right?
Right there with you pal. I heard a talking head on NPR say the other day that Bush hasn’t been able to ride any of the good waves from the strength of the economy.
That’s because the economy sucks.
Who are these people who think America is in a strong position? Once again we have a situation like we had in the 80s where the Reagan policies gave us the illusion of a good economy because we looked at the price of the suits on the backs of traders, and not at the millions of rank and file labor jobs leaving our shores. It sucked then and it sucks now.
In other news, I got a 10.5% raise today. Yesterday I earned the smallest income I’ve earned in 10 years. Today is just like yesterday except I earn the second smallest income I’ve earned in 10 years. WOO HOO! I’m sure glad my kid is old enough to fend for himself.
Hahaha! This is so true. Instead of ousting the executive branch, shouldn’t the Dems be concern with actually winning in Iraq?
#46
The 90’s had two things we do not have now:
1. Fiscal conservatives in Congress
2. The Dot com boom.
Now that the dot com era is over, no President is going to have that crutch to build the economy. Raising taxes certainly would have had the opposite effect.
To the first item, the Democrats are now in Congress and I see no more fiscal conservatism from them than I did from the previous Republican Congress.
#47
You say the economy sucks and yet up until the last month, almost the entire tenure of Bush’s Presidency has been a bull market.
#48 – Max,
As was obvious before we went over there, there is no such thing as winning. Saddam was horrifically bad. Still though, it was obvious long before we went there that anything we did would only leave things even worse. If that wasn’t obvious to you before, it should be by now.
Saddam was terrible. But, by the standards of the region, at least he was a secular dictator and left women with far greater rights than they have in some of our “friendly” nations, e.g. Saudi Arabia.
#46
And these fiscal conservatives twice attempted to force Clinton to sign budgets that cut taxes on the wealthy and reduce programs that benefited those who were not rich. Both times Clinton called their bluff and it was these conservative heroes of yours who backed down so they can in no way claim credit for the robust economy of the 90s.
The dot.com boom helped but was certainly not the only fuel for the economy. By the way, have you looked at tech companies lately? The money is flowing to them again in huge amounts.
As for the “bull market”… contrary to what conservatives believe… the market is not the economy. If we were in such a bull market and things were going swimmingly for the non-rich then why are foreclosures and business bankruptcies higher than they have been for decades?
Conservaties are left with trying to claim credit for the Clinton economy. Small wonder since they have gotten *everything* wrong for the last six years. Come back when you guys get something… *anything* right.
K
#49 – Thomas,
… almost the entire tenure of Bush’s Presidency has been a bull market.
You are kidding right??!!? This has to be sarcasm. Have you seen where the money is coming from, hint: the future.
Check the debt clock.
http://www.brillig.com/debt_clock/faq.html
Notice how the debt declined during the Clinton years and economy was good anyway. Now, the economy sucks, despite stealing money from future administrations. What else would you call it when one administration racks up enormous debt, as Reagan/Bush Sr. did and left the debt for someone later to pay back? What do you think W has done? Who do you think has all the borrowed dollars now? (hint:Halliburton)
The economy is completely awful now. What you call a bull market is just the economy slightly prying itself up from the floor of 9/11. A really bull market looks much more like the entire 90s.
#52, Scott,
What you call a bull market is just the economy slightly prying itself up from the floor of 9/11.
I disagree. This market is one where all the gains are paper gains. There is no upward movement. There is no actual expansion of the economy, only an expansion of those with the money are telling us what it is worth.
Until our manufacturing sector can get going strong again, there is nothing. We are all just spending the same dollar in the service industries until that dollar ends up in China. A nations wealth depends upon what it can sell in the world, be it cars, computers, or plastic toys. Banking services don’t count because they can only recycle that same dollar.
The rest of your post is right on !!!
#43, Chcknhwk03
You’re long on rhetoric, but short on analysis. Perhaps instead of investing so much time in those witty titles you apply to the U.S. and political parties, more time spent reading economic material would help you to present a more persuasive argument. Why is the deficit a problem? What trade deals are you referencing? How are these “problems” the fault of the President Bush?
Yup, as always, long on rhetoric and very deficient on any answers. So perhaps, instead of investing so much time trying to show everyone you know one or two polysyllabic words, you actually write some insight. Otherwise, it is just empty blather.
OK, I got it. Boot Camp has so tired you out you can’t think of any rebuttal to bobbo’s points. Just think, pretty soon you won’t be a Chicken Hawk anymore when they ship your butt over to Iraq.
#53 – Ralph,
Actually, good point now that you mention it. And, I missed the whole bit about market indicators looking higher because the dollar we keep spending is worth less, and soon to be worthless with our current debt level. If we look at our market indicators converted to euros, there’s probably not even an apparent gain.
#52
Debt is not the measure of economic strength. Real GDP has risen over 3.5% each year since 2003 when Bush’s tax cut was put into place. Hourly earnings for non-supervisory wage earners rose 20% from 2000 to 2006 and 64% compared to 1990. From 2002 until now, the Dow has increased over 50%. We have been in the midst of one of the most remarkable Bull markets in history due to its longevity.
> A really bull market looks much more like the entire 90s.
Check. You mean where a majority of the economic boom is due to a frenzy in one industry which is built on a house of cards? You mean like that? Without the dot com boom, the 90’s would have been at best mundane economic growth. The current unemployment rate (about 4.5%) is lower than Clinton’s best years (I believe about 4.7%).
Be honest here. You want to think that the economy is bad because you do not like Bush.
#53
> Until our manufacturing sector can
> get going strong again, there is nothing.
By this thinking, the British economy, which is almost entirely serviced based, has been in the tank for the past 100 years. It is also this sort of thinking that told us that we cannot survive without the gold standard.
Economies can expand on more than manufacturing. A collegue of mine from the UK came out to the US recently. We got to talking economics and the subject of coal came up. The British Isles are sitting on one of the world’s largest coal deposits yet they import all of their coal from the Ukraine. Why? It is more expensive to pay British workers to mine coal in England than it is to purchase and ship it from overseas. The British economy which once dominated the world in manufacturing does almost none now and yet their economy is one of if not the strongest in the world. In the same way, the US is becoming more service-based
56–Thomas–how can you post such specific figures and not provide a site! That is only permitted when you are unpardonably and ignorably vague- – – like me!!
I know you are full of “rhetoric” when you confuse “the market” with “the economy”==they are wildly disctinct. But, for fun I tried to confirm your optimistic wage figures. I couldn’t do it. Closest I got was a flat cycle from 2000 to 20005 for non-supervisory folks.
http://tinyurl.com/2wxc8o
But to be fair, any statement of wages without comparing same to inflation, really is rigging the discussion? Not unexpected for someone sitting around clipping his coupons, but others actually work for a living.
#56 – Thomas,
GDP is not an indicator of anything. Take this admittedly imperfect, but IMHO quite relevant, analogy. Shares in XYZ corp are selling for $100. Last year, they did a billion dollars worth of transactions. Are you buying or selling?
Personally, I’d need some more information. Forget about the obvious question of how many shares are outstanding, which is where this analogy has it’s imperfection, the government has no shares.
Here’s some information you might ask about XYZ corp, all of which are pieces of information that you will never get from the GDP.
1) What percentage of the dollar value of the transactions were income?
2) What percentage of the dollar value of the transactions were expenses?
3) What assets does the company have?
4) What debt does the company have? (We know this figure at 8 trillion. However, it’s not in the GDP.)
So, the GDP is almost meaningless. All it is is a count of transactions. When Exxon spilled oil in Valdez, the $10 billion cleanup was ADDED to the GDP. That should have been counted as an expense and been SUBTRACTED. This type of thing makes the GDP among the worst indicators of the economy.
A number of alternatives are being suggested for the GDP.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genuine_Progress_Indicator
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Happy_Planet_Index
I think there are others, but I’m short on time at the moment.
But, since you seem to like the GDP so much, here’s a little fact. Before we went to war in Iraq, yes before, not even including the huge debt racked up in the war, this country’s debt to GDP ratio reached a new high. It topped the old record … set way back in … you guessed it … October 1929!!! You think the debt from the war has improved things any?
#56 – Thomas,
To clarify a bit further, one of the reasons we do such stupid things as giving away 800 year old trees for a dollar a piece is because the GDP does not assign value to resources until they are dug up, chopped down, or otherwise made into a product. How much is an 800 year old tree really worth? Well, that’s difficult to say. Let’s start by asking, “how much would it cost to grow one.”
Mountaintop removal is another such failure to value our resources. The mountain has no value until we level it to get out all the coal. And, since it had no value before being dug up and now has value, it’s an infinite return on investment.
Imagine that you have 100 pounds of gold under your bed. It has no value. So, you lift the bed and dig it out from under there to sell it. Now it has value. So, you sell it for a dollar a pound and it’s pure profit. You made money on it, right?
Back to the 800 year old tree for a dollar, actually, a dollar minus the cost to the U.S. government of cutting the roads to make it easier for the buyer (thief? con man? scam artist?) to get the tree out. So, the timber industry then cuts the tree and puts it on a truck “creating jobs” (how many? 3, 2 to cut the tree; 1 to drive the truck? Or, do we get at least a couple more than that?).
Then we drive the tree, still in one piece and unprocessed, over to the shore to load onto a boat bound for Japan. We may be the only country in the world that sells raw lumber this way. Japan then uses this once great tree not to make housing or useful furnishings, but to make a useless temple. What a tragic end to a beautiful life. I guess it’s a tad better than the old growth forests in Canada being used by Kimberly Clark to make Kleenex and Scott Tissues and Toilet Paper.
But, the point is that the GDP does not reflect the loss of a precious asset. It does not reflect any hint of an actual balance sheet with assets, liabilities, and capital. It doesn’t even reflect an income statement, since everything on the list is treated as positive, even when it’s a superfund cleanup. This is just plain wrong. And, it causes us to make really amazingly stupid economic choices.
#47 – You say the economy sucks and yet up until the last month, almost the entire tenure of Bush’s Presidency has been a bull market.
I stand corrected. The economy sucks for those who didn’t already have money in the first place.
#57
I got the data from an article, however on requesting more information I went to the Bureau of Labor Statistics and confirmed the number. Lookup data for the average hourly earnings of production workers. In January of 2000 that number was 13.75. In January of 2006 it was 16.43 which is a 19.5% increase (in 2007 it reports 17.10). You can also look at the same data in 1982 dollars (so adjusted for inflation) and the numbers still show an increase since 2000.
So, explain to me how the economy is awful even though all the market indicators and general economic indicators say otherwise.
#58
GDP is one factor in measuring the strength of a given country’s economy. It should be abundantly obvious that NO statisic or indicator can be viewed in a vacuum. GDP *is* a valid indicator when viewed in tandum with other indicators.
#59
> how much would it cost to grow one.
No MS, that is not how you value a tree even one that is 800 years old. You value it based on the expected amount you can get by selling it. If you cannot sell that 800 year old tree for any more than $1 a board foot, then that is what is worth. If you can sell it for a thousand dollars a board foot, then that is what is worth.
#56 – Be honest here. You want to think that the economy is bad because you do not like Bush.
I’ll be honest. I do not like Bush. But the economy sucks because I work harder than I ever have before and I earn less than I ever have before. And that seems to be true for most people I know and is reflected in most stats and numbers I see and read.
I’m sure Bush policies are only marginally to blame, but his wholesale disregard for the poor and middle class is damnable.
So no, I don’t say the economy sucks because I dislike Bush. You merely infer that because it serves your agenda.
#60
Perhaps we should approach this question differently. If the economy were rosy by your definition, what indicators would you use to substantiate that claim and what would the value of those indicators be?
#61 – Thomas,
Actually, your assessment of the value of a tree is wholly incorrect. That is one way, and a very bad one at that, to value a tree. Another would be to value the services provided by the tree, including the erosion it prevents, the oxygen it produces, the carbon it sequesters, the food it provides for any species that depend on it, the increased health of the biosphere, etc., etc., etc.
Plus, if you grant moral considerability to either the tree or any of the species that depend upon it, then there is also a moral issue to be considered in cutting it.
These are the types of things people are attempting to account for. Further, the GDP, by assigning the value of the tree at literally zero until it is cut down and processed is actually worse than useless as an indicator. It is actively destructive. So, no the GDP is not one indicator of the economy. It is a complete and utter farce. It is not useful, even in tandem with other indicators since nothing negatively affects it.