Don’t count on it.

Bryan - 03 July 2008 06:28 PM

jls7227 - 03 July 2008 01:59 PM

Meh.  The economy isn’t shrinking now.  But it will start shrinking sooner if the government mandates more expensive energy solutions as the solution to fossil fuel consumption.

Not everybody agree on this, and there is no evidence that the economy is blooming either.

The evidence doesn’t need to indicate a bloom in order to undermine the claim that it is shrinking.

All in all, it is close to shrinking and far from blomming.

Personally, I prefer that my own government mandates more expensive energy solutions rather that some foreign country (in this case, the OPEC countries).

You want your own leaders to hamstring the economy instead of having some foreign nation doing it?

If they [our elected leaders] have a reasonable plan, why not? The OPEC countries are already hurting the U.S. economy, are you happy with that? Would you let your neighbor come into your house and decide how much you have to spend for your furniture, the color of your walls, and maybe the right school for your children?

The national debt is not an indicator of economic strength (though it’s arguably related in some way).  It is an indicator of deficit spending by the government.  You can have the largest economy in the world (the U.S. has that) and the government can run up a huge debt.

Indicator or not, it shows how things really are. Uncle John looks pretty cool driving his Ferrari Testarossa, but when you notice that he owes $10.000 to everyone in his bunch of friends and relatives, well, you feel happy you are not his brother. And no, I do not feel comfortable knowing that every American -babies included- has over $30.000 debt.

Shows how things really are with respect to what? 

It shows that the “strong economy” is false because of the huge debt. If creditors suddendly decide to claim their money back, the “strong” economy is in trouble. Just imagine that China decides to get rid of all the U.S. treasure bonds currently in their hands, and you get the idea.

The U.S. was the largest economy. Not anymore. You can read the sad news here: http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSL1491971920080314. Again, we are overestimating the “strength” of our economy.

Taking the gross domestic product of both economies in 2007, the combined GDP of the 15 countries which use the euro overtook that of the United States when the European currency surged to a record high of more than $1.56 per euro.

Fifteen countries.  You suppose if we add in Canada and Mexico that we retake the lead again?

Europe = fifteen countries, same currency. United States = fifty states, same currency. Adding Canada and Mexico will not compare fairly unless we have the kind of Union like Europe has. This means two things: 1) same currency, 2) no borders for goods and workers. How many election campaigns do you think we’ll have to wait until we see a candidate proposing to open the borders and grant green cards to all Canadians and Mexicans willing to move into the U.S.?

JRM5001 - 04 June 2008 09:51 AM

Easy George, not all conservatives are anti-science.  According to the recent poll below, 74% of Kerry voters in 2004 believed in some form of creationism and 56% wanted creationism taught in the schools alongside evolution. ...

But is that true? I don’t doubt they say this when asked but I’m not convinced that they really believe it. ISTM that many Americans treat religion like a rabbit’s foot - they rub it for good luck before driving but they still wear their seat belts. During WWII many of the fliers would do the weirdest things for good luck - and then they’d pray as well.

A Voice of Sanity - 05 July 2008 12:48 AM

But is that true? I don’t doubt they say this when asked but I’m not convinced that they really believe it. ISTM that many Americans treat religion like a rabbit’s foot - they rub it for good luck before driving but they still wear their seat belts. During WWII many of the fliers would do the weirdest things for good luck - and then they’d pray as well.

Since you bring it up, I think it’s worse than that. I know xtians who feel that a little cheating or stealing will be fine so long as they ask the lord for forgiveness (nobody else needs to know.)

Edited spelling…

jls7227 - 04 July 2008 12:36 PM

All in all, it is close to shrinking and far from blomming.

Just say it’s shrinking, then, if that’s “close” to true.

You want your own leaders to hamstring the economy instead of having some foreign nation doing it?

If they [our elected leaders] have a reasonable plan, why not? The OPEC countries are already hurting the U.S. economy, are you happy with that? Would you let your neighbor come into your house and decide how much you have to spend for your furniture, the color of your walls, and maybe the right school for your children?

I don’t want my neighbor deciding any of those things, but the analogy is out in left field.  You want a “reasonable” plan from our elected leaders to hamstring the economy.  Yet for some reason it is not reasonable for OPEC to manage output in order to get the best possible market price for their oil.  I’d think you’d need a circus going on in your brain in order to reconcile those two viewpoints.

What’s the “reasonable plan,” anyway?  Is it reasonable based on how well it hamstrings the economy, or reasonable based on some other criterion?

Indicator or not, it shows how things really are.

It shows how things really are in terms of debt.  It does not provide any sort of overall picture of the health of an economy.

Uncle John looks pretty cool driving his Ferrari Testarossa, but when you notice that he owes $10.000 to everyone in his bunch of friends and relatives, well, you feel happy you are not his brother. And no, I do not feel comfortable knowing that every American -babies included- has over $30.000 debt.

Nothing to worry about there.  Obama will establish government entitlement programs to enable people to pay off their debt.

It shows that the “strong economy” is false because of the huge debt.

You pulled the “strong economy” quotation out of your butt.

This is what I wrote:
What Obama does not appear to understand, for some reason, is that the U.S. relationship to consumption of the world’s resources is related to the strength of our economy as well as our capacity for scientific advancement.
http://www.centerforinquiry.net/forums/viewreply/40433/

If creditors suddendly decide to claim their money back, the “strong” economy is in trouble. Just imagine that China decides to get rid of all the U.S. treasure bonds currently in their hands, and you get the idea.

The problem with your doomsday scenario is that China would be taking a huge hit at the same time.  It’s all very well and good to call in a debt, but at the same time they’ll be without their top market for goods.  In short, a U.S. economy capable of buying from China is good for China.  They don’t want to mess with that unless they have designs that are so malevolent that they are willing to see their own population suffer for the sake of hurting the United States.  Not that I think that’s impossible.

Fifteen countries.  You suppose if we add in Canada and Mexico that we retake the lead again?

Europe = fifteen countries, same currency. United States = fifty states, same currency. Adding Canada and Mexico will not compare fairly unless we have the kind of Union like Europe has.

Isn’t that kind of an arbitrary definition of “fairly”?  An economy is an economy regardless of the type of monetary units involved.  Many nations trade in U.S. dollars in addition to the native currency.

Europe is doing something akin to what OPEC is doing, and we can’t compete fairly with the EU unless we do the same kinds of things.  You may need more than three rings.

This means two things: 1) same currency, 2) no borders for goods and workers. How many election campaigns do you think we’ll have to wait until we see a candidate proposing to open the borders and grant green cards to all Canadians and Mexicans willing to move into the U.S.?

It’s much easier to just throw out your arbitrary notion of fair comparison.  It’s fair to lump countries together, but only if x, y, and z.  You should check out the debt in Germany and France sometime, BTW.

Bryan - 05 July 2008 09:23 AM

jls7227 - 04 July 2008 12:36 PM

All in all, it is close to shrinking and far from blomming.

Just say it’s shrinking, then, if that’s “close” to true.

Seems that jls7227 has the right to state his thoughts in his own way. You offer no stellar statements yourself. Why do you see the speck in your brother’s eye but fail to notice the beam in your own eye?

You want your own leaders to hamstring the economy instead of having some foreign nation doing it?

If they [our elected leaders] have a reasonable plan, why not? The OPEC countries are already hurting the U.S. economy, are you happy with that? Would you let your neighbor come into your house and decide how much you have to spend for your furniture, the color of your walls, and maybe the right school for your children?

I don’t want my neighbor deciding any of those things, but the analogy is out in left field.  You want a “reasonable” plan from our elected leaders to hamstring the economy.  Yet for some reason it is not reasonable for OPEC to manage output in order to get the best possible market price for their oil.  I’d think you’d need a circus going on in your brain in order to reconcile those two viewpoints.

What’s the “reasonable plan,” anyway?  Is it reasonable based on how well it hamstrings the economy, or reasonable based on some other criterion?

The analogy wasn’t in left field - as you have said of your own analogies, none is perfect.

Indicator or not, it shows how things really are.

It shows how things really are in terms of debt.  It does not provide any sort of overall picture of the health of an economy.

Uncle John looks pretty cool driving his Ferrari Testarossa, but when you notice that he owes $10.000 to everyone in his bunch of friends and relatives, well, you feel happy you are not his brother. And no, I do not feel comfortable knowing that every American -babies included- has over $30.000 debt.

Nothing to worry about there.  Obama will establish government entitlement programs to enable people to pay off their debt.

Your ill-informed opinion only, bryan.

It shows that the “strong economy” is false because of the huge debt.

You pulled the “strong economy” quotation out of your butt.

This is what I wrote:
What Obama does not appear to understand, for some reason, is that the U.S. relationship to consumption of the world’s resources is related to the strength of our economy as well as our capacity for scientific advancement.
http://www.centerforinquiry.net/forums/viewreply/40433/

Well, you also said the economy is not shrinking. Perhaps that is where the strong economy comment came from (and not his butt), no? Why must you be rude?

If creditors suddendly decide to claim their money back, the “strong” economy is in trouble. Just imagine that China decides to get rid of all the U.S. treasure bonds currently in their hands, and you get the idea.

The problem with your doomsday scenario is that China would be taking a huge hit at the same time.  It’s all very well and good to call in a debt, but at the same time they’ll be without their top market for goods.  In short, a U.S. economy capable of buying from China is good for China.  They don’t want to mess with that unless they have designs that are so malevolent that they are willing to see their own population suffer for the sake of hurting the United States.  Not that I think that’s impossible.

Since you have offered no evidence that you have any particular expertise in this area, do you have a credible source for any of this? (And as PM requested earlier in this thread - no conservitive “think” tank links please.)

Fifteen countries.  You suppose if we add in Canada and Mexico that we retake the lead again?

Europe = fifteen countries, same currency. United States = fifty states, same currency. Adding Canada and Mexico will not compare fairly unless we have the kind of Union like Europe has.

Isn’t that kind of an arbitrary definition of “fairly”?  An economy is an economy regardless of the type of monetary units involved.  Many nations trade in U.S. dollars in addition to the native currency.

Europe is doing something akin to what OPEC is doing, and we can’t compete fairly with the EU unless we do the same kinds of things.  You may need more than three rings.

An economy is an economy? You are oversimplifying, bryan in order to dismiss another’s thought.

I don’t really blame you for your approach to reason here. You appear to aspire to Rush Limbaugh who tried college, but flunked out. His success and hundreds of millions of dollars come simply from his outspoken, yet ignorant appeal to others like him. It’s not against the law to be an ahole. The world needs not the one Rush, however; much less two.