Ka-BOOM!

[Usually Lurkin]

[snark]kg, why would you save? Doesn't the government do that for you?[/snark]

[kg_veteran]

Ha!

The problem with our economy is that we are consuming at an unsustainable pace. Both the government and the people spend more than they make.

[dude1394]

How is that saving determined? Does it include 401ks and the like or just passport saving stuff?

The savings rate is computed by taking the amount of personal income left after taxes are paid, an amount known as disposable income and subtracting the amount of spending. Since the figure has dipped into negative territory, it means consumers are spending all of disposable income and then some.

Personal income after taxes would not account for 401K savings..just fyi.

[kg_veteran]

Originally Posted by dude1394

How is that saving determined? Does it include 401ks and the like or just passport saving stuff?



Personal income after taxes would not account for 401K savings..just fyi.

Thanks for the clarification. Still, it's a somewhat disturbing piece of information.

[dude1394]

Originally Posted by kg_veteran

Thanks for the clarification. Still, it's a somewhat disturbing piece of information.

I can't really figure out what to make of it. I don't "save" a ton of after tax dollars because I put it all in the 401K, or purchase stocks directly. I can borrow against it on a minutes notice, so why stick it in anything taxable.

[Mavdog]

I don't believe you are correct on that dude. your distinction is on taxable v non-taxable earnings, the base ignores that and is total wages plus other income less amount consumed.

on consumption, it's what our economic model is based on. the deficit in the savings rate isn't a problem as long as there are inflows of additional capital. so far the rest of the world likes to provide that service for us, and do so at a fairly cheap rate.

on the stock market, its been a good run. you want to give bush credit for that? why?

[dude1394]

Originally Posted by Mavdog

I don't believe you are correct on that dude. your distinction is on taxable v non-taxable earnings, the base ignores that and is total wages plus other income less amount consumed.

on consumption, it's what our economic model is based on. the deficit in the savings rate isn't a problem as long as there are inflows of additional capital. so far the rest of the world likes to provide that service for us, and do so at a fairly cheap rate.

on the stock market, its been a good run. you want to give bush credit for that? why?

If you are going to give ANY president credit then he gets it one. Secondly he's enacted many pro-growth policies, tax policy as well as capital gains reductions.

[Mavdog]

so you're going to give clinton credit for the 90's , right?

I'm not sure I'd give either credit for their stock market runs. they can be hurt by economic policy, but it is more tied to earnings growth. last time I checked the pres doesn't manage these cos.

[dude1394]

Have to, scoreboard says so. I can't figure out what his economic policies were but he didn't mess it up, so he get cred.

[mcsluggo]

its true, good run. give some credit where it is due... but beware:

Caracas Stocks shrug off threats

Caracas stock shrugged off the threat by the new
Minister of Finance to limit the profits of private
companies by rallying 13.7% during the shortened
week, with the Caracas Stock index closing at a new
all time high of 59,413. The top gainer was Banesco,
which in the first week of the year gained what we
expected it to rise in all of 2007, with the stock gaining
70.7% or Bs. 176 in just a single week to close at Bs.
425. Other strong gainers were Banco provincial which
added another 25.5% this week closing at Bs. 3,000,
Banco Venezolano de Crédito, which rose 15.13% this
week to close at Bs. 4,490, Manpa, up 12.3% at Bs.
210 and Cemex Venezuela I which closed at Bs. 1,345.
All stocks covered by us rose this week, for the second
week in row.

this is my analyst's report on the venezuelan stock-market situation. I would hesitate to give Hugo Chavez the credit for having steered these spectacular returns, with his <shall we say> "peculiar" economic model. Stats are stats. They tell us SOMETHING, but it is not always straightforward pinning down EXACTLY what they are telling us.

[Mavdog]

just read that the savings rate does not include income directed into 401 and ira accounts.

[mcsluggo]

That is just bizzarre. It makes SOME sense, because of accounting NIA (national income accounting) identities, the definitions of all National Income are all set up to net out taxes... but you'd think there would be a hopped-up term to better capture actual savings rates in non-professional settings.

I put $15k a year into a 401-k (like) plan (20k with employer contribution). another 18k into 3 seperate 529 accounts (tax break education savings plans) and the max contribution each year into Roth accounts for me and my wife (I think its $6k/year for EACH of us this year, but I don't remember). That is $50 k of savings, that don't count....? I always thought I was a good saver too!

Still, this definition hasn't changed, and 2005 and 2006 were the ONLY two years other than in the worst period of the great depression that savings rates were negative... it still says something. The normal pattern is for savings to go up in booms, and go down in economic slowdowns.

[dude1394]

More terrible, terrible results from the evil dubya tax cuts. Please stop dubya, we might all get richer.

http://corner.nationalreview.com/pos...cxOGUzMzU0ODA=

At $16.76, average hourly earnings are nearly 20 percent above year 2000 levels, and 44 percent above the $11.65 level in the fifth year of the Papa Bush/Clinton business expansion cycle.This is the fifth year of the GWB cycle.

Even in inflation adjusted terms, real average hourly earnings are slightly higher than the 2000 peak, and nine percent above the 1995 fifth year average level.

By the way, since President Bush’s supply side tax cuts in 2003, adjusted household jobs (a BLS combination of non-farm payrolls and the civilian employment household survey) have grown nearly 3 million per year over the past three years.

Incidentally, looking at strong profits and productivity, economist Mike Darda thinks the unemployment rate will fall below 4 percent.

[Mavdog]

Originally Posted by mcsluggo

That is just bizzarre. It makes SOME sense, because of accounting NIA (national income accounting) identities, the definitions of all National Income are all set up to net out taxes... but you'd think there would be a hopped-up term to better capture actual savings rates in non-professional settings.

I put $15k a year into a 401-k (like) plan (20k with employer contribution). another 18k into 3 seperate 529 accounts (tax break education savings plans) and the max contribution each year into Roth accounts for me and my wife (I think its $6k/year for EACH of us this year, but I don't remember). That is $50 k of savings, that don't count....? I always thought I was a good saver too!

Still, this definition hasn't changed, and 2005 and 2006 were the ONLY two years other than in the worst period of the great depression that savings rates were negative... it still says something. The normal pattern is for savings to go up in booms, and go down in economic slowdowns.

looking even deeper...
the income stat does not include appreciation of asset value. that equity in the home? no recognition. stock portfolio up? that's not there either.
but, as many of us who've riden the stock market wave on a stock can attest, that "savings' can go poof darn quick. so far housing values aren't falling, but the growth is questionable.
but you're right, the definition hasn't changed and the numbers have.

the one change is the personal responsibility for retirement. it's not the company anymore who takes care of us.

[dude1394]

Originally Posted by Mavdog

the one change is the personal responsibility for retirement. it's not the company anymore who takes care of us.

Thank goodness. Now if we could only get the dollars going to social security into our own accounts we'd really be cooking.

[mcsluggo]

Originally Posted by dude1394

More terrible, terrible results from the evil dubya tax cuts. Please stop dubya, we might all get richer.

http://corner.nationalreview.com/pos...cxOGUzMzU0ODA=

Dude, these numbers are not really worth bragging over.

(note: I'm just going to use these numbers, and not suppliment or contradict with any others)

a cumulative increase of 9% since 1995? that translates to an anual growth rate of approximately 0.7%. Less than 1% growth is nothing to crow about ESPECIALLY since the second half of the 1990's saw some really rapid earnings growth... so even averaging that pre-W rapid growth in, we only saw less than 1% anual growth?

Second, I wonder if that number embeds non-wage earnings (ie health insurance, vacation, etc...). I doubt it. And I believe that those non-wage earnings have been stagnant or declining since the 1990s.

Third, a real problem is that the distribution has shifted badly as well. A couple of $300million golden parachutes can mask an awful lot of low-wage earners not seeing ANY increases in their wages.

anyway, my 2c

[dude1394]

http://www.bizzyblog.com/2007/02/13/...ne-reports-it/

Both Brian Wesbury at FT Portfolios and yours have to confess to being wrong so far this year on revenue growth. We both have been thinking (Wesbury here, BizzyBlog here) that it’s going to come in at 9%, but as you see, through four months it’s actually pushing 10%.

Even with spending control slipping a bit (up 6.4% in January 2007 compared to January 2006), the deficit is 57% lower through the first four months of FY07 than it was at the same time in FY06. I believe that merits a “Wow.”

There is a very real possibility that the federal budget will be in a surplus situation when President Bush hands over the keys to the White House in January 2009. Four months ago, I first suggested that it might very well happen. Brian Wesbury now agrees. The Skeptical Optimist has seen this happening for an even longer time. (Update — SkepOp’s latest post [Feb. 13; HT Ironman in comment below] is projecting that the budget is on track for balance in June 2008.)

[alexamenos]

Originally Posted by kg_veteran

Ha!

The problem with our economy is that we are consuming at an unsustainable pace. Both the government and the people spend more than they make.

although it's maybe a bit too technical to get into.........

....the reason the government and the people spend more than they make is a product of our monetary system. that is to say, it is mathematically impossible as well as irrational not to spend more than you make given our system of money, and no amount of character or will can change the status quo without a marked change to the monetary system.

it's ultimately a ruinous system, although its impossible to say how long it will be before the worst ramifications manifest themselves.

cheers

*edit...hmmm...perhaps I should have said monetary policy rather than system, even tho our policy (I believe) is inevitably a product of the monetary system.

[dude1394]

Continuing to Ka-Boom...Better cash out the stock market before the dems raise taxes.

WASHINGTON -- Just as many economists were shifting down their estimates of economic growth, the Labor Department blindsided them today with a report of an uncommonly strong job market in March.

Businesses took on 180,000 more workers in March, only slightly short of the 200,000 per month average during the last two months.

The unemployment rate fell by 0.1 percentage point to 4.4%, equaling its level of last October. Joblessness hasn't been lower since May 2001, just before the last recession.

Wages also continued their recent upward march. Average hourly earnings of production workers advanced six cents to $17.22, and have risen 4% over the past year. Average weekly earnings rose even faster -- 4.4% during the year.

[dude1394]

Fred Thomson weighs in on tax cuts. Hmm...maybe there will be a contender besides giulliani.

The results of the experiment that began when Congress passed a series of tax-rate cuts in 2001 and 2003 are in. Supporters of those cuts said they would stimulate the economy. Opponents predicted ever-increasing budget deficits and national bankruptcy unless tax rates were increased, especially on the wealthy.

In fact, Treasury statistics show that tax revenues have soared and the budget deficit has been shrinking faster than even the optimists projected. Since the first tax cuts were passed, when I was in the Senate, the budget deficit has been cut in half.

Remarkably, this has happened despite the financial trauma of 9/11 and the cost of the War on Terror. The deficit, compared to the entire economy, is well below the average for the last 35 years and, at this rate, the budget will be in surplus by 2010. ...

The reason for this outcome is that, because of lower rates, money is being invested in our economy instead of being sheltered from the taxman. Greater investment has created overall economic strength. Job growth is robust, overcoming trouble in the housing sector; and the personal incomes of Americans at every income level are higher than they've ever been.

Democrats scream!!! Tax the rich!! Tax the rich!! Oh...we are...hmmm.....Tax SOMEONE DAMMIT!

[Usually Lurkin]

Tax receipts at 48 billion. A record.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070425/...ury_taxes_dc_1


Dow is over 13000. A record.


Man those Dems are good.

[mcsluggo]

This has become the single most moronic thread on this board. I frankly can't tell at this point if y'all are TRYING to be funny (you know, say the same thing over and over enough, and it becomes funny, no matter WHAT it is.)

Potato.

I'm curious, Do you think there has there EVER been a president that didn't have record tax reciepts during his term? Ever? even once? How about the Dow?

these are both measures that grow over time. period. How many times does this have to be said in one thread?

Potato

lets look at the DJIA. It is at 13000, a new high. This is good, and I am happy. The last little run has been nice to see, and I'm glad to see that also. But..... the DJIA on April 27, 2001 was 10,735

so going forward that gives us an unual growth rate of less than 3.3% to get to 13,000 today.

I'm sorry, but that sucks.

Unlike y'all I'm not going to try to blame Bush. It happens. But to CROW about it as if it is some magnificient achievement....?

Don't be idiots. At least try to KNOW wtf you are "bragging" about.

[mcsluggo]

Potato.

(is it funny yet?)

[Usually Lurkin]

Originally Posted by mcsluggo

I'm curious, Do you think there has there EVER been a president that didn't have record tax reciepts during his term? Ever? even once?

I bet if you asked a hundred people, a majority would say G. W. Bush is such a president.

these are both measures that grow over time. period. ...

are you saying policy doesn't affect these measures?

lets look at the DJIA. It is at 13000, a new high. This is good, and I am happy. The last little run has been nice to see, and I'm glad to see that also. But..... the DJIA on April 27, 2001 was 10,735

so going forward that gives us an unual growth rate of less than 3.3% to get to 13,000 today.

I'm sorry, but that sucks.

Remember how it took a little dip? Remember the political link between the economy and the politicians that was repeated ad nauseum?

Call this thread a marker. I'm not hearing the good news elsewhere like I did in the 80s and 90s. I think there are people who need to know that the economy is allright. There are people who still blame the current "poor state" of our economy on Bush's tax cuts for the rich. If you already realize that the economy is doing well, and that it's stupid to focus on an administration only when the economy dips, then why do you read the thread?

[mcsluggo]

Originally Posted by Usually Lurkin

I bet if you asked a hundred people, a majority would say G. W. Bush is such a president.


are you saying policy doesn't affect these measures?

no. What I'm saying is that crowing about record tax revenues or record djia is meaningless to ANY discussion. It is equivelent to walking up a hill and then commenting about how tall you are relative to the people down below. You MAY be taller than them... or you MAY not. Comparing whose head is closer to the sky doesn't answer the question.

Remember how it took a little dip? Remember the political link between the economy and the politicians that was repeated ad nauseum?

Call this thread a marker. I'm not hearing the good news elsewhere like I did in the 80s and 90s. I think there are people who need to know that the economy is allright. There are people who still blame the current "poor state" of our economy on Bush's tax cuts for the rich. If you already realize that the economy is doing well, and that it's stupid to focus on an administration only when the economy dips, then why do you read the thread?

is THAT what I said ????

Who knew!

[Usually Lurkin]

Originally Posted by mcsluggo

no. What I'm saying is that crowing about record tax revenues or record djia is meaningless to ANY discussion. It is equivelent to walking up a hill and then commenting about how tall you are relative to the people down below. You MAY be taller than them... or you MAY not. Comparing whose head is closer to the sky doesn't answer the question.

I don't understand your metaphor. Didn't you have to walk up the mountain? If policy does relate to these measures, wouldn't that be like walking up the mountain (which does seem like something to brag about)

is THAT what I said ????

Who knew!

uh, the only thing I attributed to you was this (and I stated it as a hypothetical): "If you already realize that the economy is doing well, and that it's stupid to focus on an administration only when the economy dips, then why do you read the thread?" The rest of what you quoted, I attributed to "people," by which I mean to generally designate those that think the things I attributed to them (I really don't care if you place yourself under that general designation).

Do you not realize that the economy is doing well, and that its stupid to focus on an administration only when the economy dips? Cause if not, I've been misreading your posts, and I apologize for overestimating your intelligence. If you do, then what are you sniping at?

[Mavdog]

Originally Posted by Usually Lurkin

Tax receipts at 48 billion. A record.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070425/...ury_taxes_dc_1


Dow is over 13000. A record.


Man those Dems are good.

it's just as important to mention that the federal deficit was double those record tax receipts, about $96 billion.

as mentioned in my previous threads, give some credit to the current administration for the economic growth and for the most part increased employment levels. however we will pay for these policies, and pay dearly.

I don't believe that any administration should be given credit for the DJIA, that is a function of earnings and expected earnings. with today's multinational cos. those earnings have as much to do with the world economic situation as the domestic one.

while giving the credit, let's give the other side as well. our national debt has increased over 30% during the tenure of our current administration, and the debt service on that additional debt is a freight train coming down the tracks for the future administrations/generations to deal with. the debt service will end up consuming over 25% of the federal budget soon.

to take the title of this thread a step further, that debt service will be the "ka-boom"....

[Dirkadirkastan]

Who cares about politics? It's PLAYOFF TIME!!! World War III can wait.

[dude1394]

Looks like Europe is finally catching on to the KA-BOOM strategy. I wonder why Europe would ruin their economy and give all of those tax-cuts to the rich?

http://www.signonsandiego.com/uniont...d28bottom.html

It is an article of faith in the progressive community that American corporations get away with murder – in how they treat their employees and the environment, and in the (allegedly) low taxes they pay. Oh, if only we were more like Europe, goes this familiar lament.

In its first two claims, this view has never held up. A recent University of Michigan survey was only the latest to show job satisfaction is higher in the United States than Europe, and we've seen decades of steady, incremental gains in U.S. air and water quality.

Now the third tenet of liberal Europhilia is disappearing as well. Following the example of Ireland and some eastern European nations, Spain cut its tax rate on corporate profits from 35 percent to 30 percent. Britain cut its rate from 30 percent to 28 percent. Germany is cutting its rate from 39 percent to 30 percent. Nicolas Sarkozy, the front-runner to be the next French president, wants France's rate cut from 33 percent to 25 percent.

The net result of the continent's tax-cut craze, according to The Wall Street Journal: Corporate tax rates among European Union nations now average 26 percent. Once state-level taxes are included, the U.S. rate is far higher: nearly 40 percent.

This isn't to say that the heavily regulated economies of Europe suddenly have become more business-friendly than the United States. We just think it's striking that on taxes as on nuclear power, Europe's “social democrats” seem so much less dogmatic than their U.S. peers.

Good for these folks. As many pundits like to say of conservative politicians who drift from their old views, they're “growing.”

[Mavdog]

Originally Posted by dude1394

Looks like Europe is finally catching on to the KA-BOOM strategy. I wonder why Europe would ruin their economy and give all of those tax-cuts to the rich?

http://www.signonsandiego.com/uniont...d28bottom.html

surely you know the difference between corporate taxes and personal taxes dude...

[dude1394]

You can't expect them to get it all right at once now can you?

[dude1394]

http://polipundit.com/index.php?p=17633

I thought it would be a real kick to see how the stock market has performed since Congress passed the 2003 Bush tax cuts on May 23, 2003. (The Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act accelerated the 2001 tax cuts and cut taxes on capital gains and dividends.) Since then, the Dow is up 52 percent, the S&P 500 60 percent, and the Nasdaq 69 percent. (Overall, the stock market has created some $6.8 trillion in new wealth since then as the size of the economy has grown by some $2.8 trillion, not adjusted for inflation.)

Now the U.S. House passed the tax cuts in 2003 by 11 votes, 211 to 200. In the Senate, Vice President Cheney had to cast the tie-breaking vote for the bill to pass, 51 to 50.

[dude1394]

Dang dubya, can't you do anything right?

June 25 (Bloomberg) -- Among the markets that say President George W. Bush is doing ``a heck of a job,'' the one he can take the most satisfaction from is U.S. Treasury bills.

That's because the unexpected surge in tax receipts may pare the budget deficit by 39 percent to $150 billion this fiscal year, causing a relative scarcity of four-week, three-month and six-month bills. The result is the biggest bull market for Treasury bills since the terrorist attacks on Sept. 11 drove investors to the safety of the securities.

Individual and corporate income tax revenues are growing for a fourth straight year in spite of five rounds of Bush tax cuts totaling about $2 trillion from 2001 to 2006. With less need to borrow, the government has cut sales of bills. The supply, which peaked in March 2005 at $1.06 trillion, fell to $919.1 billion at the end of May and will drop by about $160 billion this quarter, a record.

[dude1394]

Damn dubya...keeps screwing up the economy. He's been at it for the last 5 years, taking away all of our prosperity. Oh woe is us.

[mcsluggo]

yeah, interesting choice of endpoints, dude.

How about these endpoints instead: I chose jan 1 1978 to mid year 2006 (just the last point the source I had had data from--- but there has been some nice growth since then--- but still!!!) The other line shows the close from the begining of the year, 2001.


perspective is everything, no?

[dude1394]

Originally Posted by mcsluggo

yeah, interesting choice of endpoints, dude.

How about these endpoints instead: I chose jan 1 1978 to mid year 2006 (just the last point the source I had had data from--- but there has been some nice growth since then--- but still!!!) The other line shows the close from the begining of the year, 2001.


perspective is everything, no?

So you think dubya should get credit/blame for the direction the economy is going the first minute he's in office? O'kay..

[mcsluggo]

nope.

I just think the constant, "whoo-hooo-fugahoo! stocks reached a new high!" crap is monotonous and misleading. You'll notice I did NOT start the graph wih the begining of his term. I just showed a several decade perspectiv, (to counter the unquestionably completely miopic viewpoint you showed in the previous post)

Stocks are doing fine. Over bush's term, they have been fine. Not the orgasmic load of spew you keep on crowing about... fine.

(PLUS they are a damn awful indicator of overall policy)

[dude1394]

Hmm...well obviously they are just one of the indicators. GDP, Unemployment, Inflation, Intertest rates, Debt/GDP are all important.

Hmm...all pretty good as well. Go figure since the economy is in such shambles.

[Mavdog]

dude, it's not the economy that "is in shambles".

it's our country's fiscal policy and future financial condition that "is in shambles".

[dude1394]

I guess this marks another bad trend.

Deficit Falls to $205 Billion
Jul 11 08:52 AM US/Eastern


WASHINGTON (AP) - The nation's budget deficit will drop to $205 billion in the fiscal year that ends in September, less than half of what it was at its peak in 2004, according to new White House estimates.

President Bush planned to discuss the figures in an afternoon appearance.

The new figure is considerably smaller than original estimates. In February, the White House predicted that this year's deficit would be $244 billion because of stronger-than-expected revenue collections. The deficit hit a peak of $413 billion in 2004 and was $248 billion last year.

I think if we are actually going to talk about this we need to come to some sort of agreement on what constitutes the metrics? Can't be the deficit as it's coming down faster than expected.

So what is it? Is it just the SS and Medicare dollars that you are talking about? If so then the dems imo have much more to do with no solution there than dubya, yet I expect dubya would get your ire?

So what are the metrics that we can use to gauge how crummy the economy is?