Poll: Are you seeing economic improvements?

[Ilvane]

I hear a lot about the economy getting better..Then I saw this:

High-end retailers delight
This holiday season, high-end stores such as Neiman Marcus, Nordstrom and Sharper Image have enjoyed robust sales, while mid-priced department stores have fared the worst. Even discounters like Wal-Mart Stores Inc. have struggled with muted sales gains, as lower-income consumers still haven't benefited from the economic recovery.

Analysts said many of the luxury retailers were able to sell merchandise at full price, which should protect profits.

Sharper Image Corp., which sells pricey gadgets, said Friday that sales at stores open at least a year were up 21 percent through Christmas Eve, and raised its earnings forecast.

This makes me believe that maybe the richer people are doing better, and it's taking a while for it to "trickle down" to us.

So tell me, how have you seen it?

-A

The spin on that article is simple to see. Higher end stores are always going to make more money when the economy is bad that is a given, because people who already have money are not hurt if they make a little less.

[HarmNone]

Heh. I always loved the "trickle down" economic theory.

Personally, I have never seen money "trickle" in any direction. Think about it. If you have a bunch of money, how did you get it? By letting it "trickle" away? I do not think so.

Them what has, keeps it and gathers more. Them what do not have watch what little they can lay their hands on disappear into the hands of those who already have more than they could ever, rightfully, need. If you look at the statistics regarding the percentage of obscenely wealthy people vs the very poor to those with moderate incomes, world wide, it becomes pretty obvious that the wealthy do not allow their money to "trickle" anywhere. ;)

HarmNone

let us just look at america harmnone where the trickle down effect does work as you can see the economy is growing quite drastcily, let us look alone at the stock market which in the last year has gone up about 3k to where it was pre-clinton economic downturn.
the "rich" in this country... thoes that make over 75k a year are taxed far far more than thoes that make 20k a year or less I can go on and on if i wanted to on this subject but im sure you dont want to hear my rambling

[Ilvane]

When the people who are middle class are working extra hard and not seeing much more for it, and the rich are getting more money for luxury items and expensive toys, there is a problem.

I guess for President Bush at this time it's not so bad to have the rich get richer, he is making sure the people who gave him fat donations are able to do so again.;)

Now as far as trickle down economics, we can only see how well it worked during the Reagan years(take a look at the result with the deficits and crash during Bush the 1st term) During the Clinton years we were able to pay down the national debt, now it's billions and billions again. I don't remember doing worse during his years, I actually remember getting bonuses and increases in pay.

As far as the high tax rates on the rich, they have actually got tax cuts. Our pretty little tax cut we got an extra 300 dollars for? That's contributing to the national debt too..it didn't really stimulate the economy(he says have patience, but I don't know about you, I took mine and paid down some of my debt! :lol: )

Phew..anyway.

-A

[Edited on 12-27-2003 by Ilvane]

[GSLeloo]

I have heard many reports about how next year will be the best year economically in 20 years... but isn't that gone now due to Mad Cow Disease? After that I heard our economy could take a hit since McDonalds went down like three points in one day and countries aren't buying our beef anymore.

[HarmNone]

Here is a quote from David Stockman, Reagan's Budget Director:

"The truth is that 'Trickle-Down' was never intended to help middle income and poor Americans; it was intended to help the wealthy and Corporate America.

The economic policies of the Reagan era increased the trade deficit and provided easier ways for companies to “hide” money.

Today the over 50% of the national income goes to the wealthiest 20% of Americans. In 1980 the top 1% of tax filers received 8.45% of American AGI (Adjusted Gross Income) and in 2000 that figure had risen to 20.81% of the national AGI. Likewise in 1980 the average rate of federal income taxes that was actually paid by filers in the top 1% was 34.47% of income and by 2000 that figure had dropped to 27.45% of income. This is the first time since 1935 that such a large portion of the national income has gone to such a small portion of the population. In 1967 the wealthiest 20% only accounted for 43% of the nation’s income. The trend began in 1982. Between 1967 and 1982 middle-income households were gaining a larger share of the economy. What this means is that between 1982 and 2001 the bottom 80% of Americans have lost share in the nation’s economy. This was the inevitable result of Reaganomics. It was an intended result. Political control and economic control go hand in hand. If the control of the economy is not in the hands of the majority of Americans then neither is political control."

Something to think about.

HarmNone

[GSTamral]

Ilvane, once again, you miss the heaviest of points. During Reagan's years, the economy did a whole lot better than you seem to portray. Americans were spending more and more and making more and more money. More importantly, the savings rate was at an all time high, as for every 1 dollar net household income, only 98.x cents was being spent, while the rest was being saved.

It takes Alan Greenspan 6-8 quarters for an economic policy change to take effect. Presidential policy works even slower, having a greater long term effect than adjusted interest rate changes, but also taking much longer to get into effect, historically, anywhere between 3-5 years. We will be feeling the effect of Clintonomics for years to come.

1) Deregulation has fucked america for at LEAST the next quarter century.

2) The upkeeping of the marriage penalty tax when it was not needed has undermined the process of starting a family, as the average age at which people bear children continues to RISE for married couples. When coupled with the decreased savings rate and the heightened taxes to short term and long term gains, the process of saving for a child's education has become increasingly difficult.

3) The M1 money supply, or power money ratio, has been decreasing since 1994, and is still currently decreasing. The velocity of the dollar, at 4.3 during the "burp" in the economy at the end of Bush Sr.'s term, stood at 3.9 at the end of Clinton's second term. If you can't understand how harmful that is to sustained long term economic growth, Ilvane, you need to take at least some basic classes in deterministic modeling.

4) Clinton did turn long term stable growth into a short term burst in the economy, at the expense of the future, and overall expense of this country. By increasing the tax rate to the wealthiest class, as well as using this money to pay off investments owed, it creates a short term cycle effect as defined by the logistics of the Pareto principle. By using the largest spending utility out there, and increasing the size of its public constraints, while at the same time using that constraint to eliminate long term investments by paying off the wrong type of debt (long term notes), you create an influx of money into the system that wasn't meant to be there. While some of that money returns to other long term principle bonds, some of that money creates a double spending, or crowding out effect in the marketplace. Thus, we experienced the "boom" that was 1998. Had Clinton had america's interests in mind, instead of his own party, they would have done the intelligent thing and paid off the short term debts, which would not have had nearly the effect creating an immediate windfall, but rather would not have displaced money from its original purpose.

5) At the end of 1999, the M1 ratio was below the 14% threshold, and the short term windfall had ended. Because of the confidence in the market that had little to no spine supporting the massive short term growth, a slow cycle began in which companies began to address overexpansion into a market that did not have enough dollars to purchase all of the goods made. Inventory storage issues began, as inventory levels, especially in the high tech industries, began to pile up. With these, came inventory control costs, as well as probabalistic market theory, which companies used to determine dump sizes on excess goods. This led to more layoffs, which further decreased the amount of dollars in the system. Americans were now spending more than 1.02 out of every net dollar earned, and the market was simply saturated with things people could not gain additional credit to buy. 1999 and 2000 marked the years with the highest number of bankruptcy claims in the history of america, both in number AND percentage, as the number of chapter 7 and chapter 11 personal cases were literally clogging the courts.

6) Clinton Foreign Policy, aka the random dart game, continued to attempt to strengthen the dollar into a weaker world economy, making imported goods more and more attractive relative to the dollar. Foreign companies, especially ones in Asia, actually began to move manufacturing into third party countries such as India and Chile, in an attempt to dump goods onto the American Market. With the dollar continuing to strengthen, these imports became relatively cheaper and cheaper, and allowed for the decentralization of the manufacturing process for other nations, allowing them to globalize at the United States's expense.

Our government under clinton was getting bigger and bigger and bigger. It falls unto NON government employees to not only make money for themselves, but to pay for the government, as well as pay for any government expansion. Reagan was obsessed with Star Wars and military spending. Bush Sr was uninterested in improving on a good economy, and just let it ride its course. Clinton on the other hand, it may take up to 10 years to fully unfuck everything he's fucked up.

Bush Jr isnt doing very much with the economy other than trying to weaken the dollar, allow for the cycle to complete as painlessly as possible, and lowering taxes to get the M1 supply back up and the savings rate up because people with too much money tend to save those additional dollars. It may seem cold-handed, but its reality. Until those savings rates are back up and the banking sector is back on track without the current deflationary pressures, we are no different than Japan. On a sinking ship built inside of a liquidity trap so bad, there is no garauntee that full recovery is possible without some EXTREME short term losses.

[Jenisi]

I work retail and let me tell you, people were SPENDING. The profits just for our store alone were millions higher then last year.

[Siefer]

Originally posted by Ilvane
Sharper Image Corp., which sells pricey gadgets, said Friday that sales at stores open at least a year were up 21 percent through Christmas Eve, and raised its earnings forecast.

This makes me believe that the weirdo yuppie idiots who buy their bullshit products need to start dying at a rate of 100 a day. The Ionic Breeze Filter? Air pollution can be worse inside the house? Give me a fucking break. This is exactly whats wrong with the world today. There's bullshit everywhere you look.

To stay on topic I'll add that this has been my worst Holiday season ever, including my job and gifts received. And I sell Christmas fucking trees for Christ sake.

[GSLeloo]

I don't know about the holiday season... but I do know that we are in serious trouble due to Mad Cow Disease (and my god I saw a ten second video of a cow with it trying to walk and I wanted to cry it was so horrible). We're estimated to lose 6 billion dollars and already 90% of our beef exports have been cancelled.

[Betheny]

My financial life still sucks, finding a better job is just about impossible in Minnesota. It's been shitty there economically for a long time though, since 9/11 -- and it doesn't seem to be improving. IT seems like the St. Paul/Minneapolis & metro area is a focal point for crappy economics.

[Scott]

The reason the economy isn't because of Bush. It's because of previous presidents. The economy isn't because of Bush, we have yet to see what Bush did to the economy. We'll find that out in the years to come.

I don't know about you all but I liked my Tax Cut. Nothing like getting a couple hundred back in the mail.

P.S. People need to stop Googling shit to find facts. It doesn't make you seem smarter, so stop.

[Halfsilver]

About 3 months ago, I got a very good job working for a company contracted by Gateway.

I make more money now than I ever have. I'm trading in my car for a new one and I'm looking at bigger apartments and maybe even financing a small house.

This year has been awesome for me financially. I don't think that the bush admin. has anything to do with it, though.

- D

[Ilvane]

I didn't google a thing, I was actually reading a news website..called CNN! :snicker:

-A

[Scott]

not you....

[Ilvane]

Oh good, I was wondering..:grin:

-A

[GSTamral]

Googling shit? You mean to find certain numbers? considering I spent 3 years of my life studying liquidity traps, those numbers I actually know myself from having read them in the past and present as part of everyday life, most of which is available in the IBD.

[Ilvane]

I like to think I'm somewhat educated (being I went to Harvard and all), but I still can't remember fact and figures like that.

That's impressive!

-A

[Scott]

A master of Foreign policy, gangs in cities, and the economy. God you must have a lot of numbers stored up in that head of yours. I wish I could keep the "number of gang related violence in each city" in my head and still have room for economy numbers from 1994 and 1999.

[Warriorbird]

Hell no... and...

"1) Deregulation has f-ed america for at LEAST the next quarter century.
"
Uh...isn't that a conservative goal?


[Edited on 12-28-2003 by Warriorbird]

[Tsa`ah]

I pretty much went numb in the head after reading the first two paragraphs of your post Tam.

While you did point out that Americans now are working more hours and receiving less benefit than they did during the Reagan years, you failed to report that this has been an ongoing trend since what... the 50s? It didn't get any better during Reagan's term, it was just a point in the trend that continues today.


[Edited on 12-28-2003 by Tsa`ah]

[Back]

Cash in pocket sucks, but the market is niiiiice.

[GSTamral]

<<<
Hell no... and...

"1) Deregulation has f-ed america for at LEAST the next quarter century.
"
Uh...isn't that a conservative goal?
>>>

No, deregulation was not in any conservative economic plan.

[GSTamral]

Gemstone101, when did I ever say I knew the gang numbers off the top of my head? I simply posted what I had read in texts I have concerning public policy. Some people take that class as an elective you know....

[Mistomeer]

I got one of them government type jobs so it's kinda different. However, our budget was 35million short last year and I think we're like already looking at about 20million short this year so if the economy is getting better, I'm not seeing it.