[quote author=trickster link=board=14;threadid=8722;start=0#msg78971 date=1077426738]
I'm sorry; those charts mean nothing to me, since I know nothing of investments and market shares and stuff. I just know what surrounds me: unemployment and growing restlesness; people saying that the economy is getting better, yet no real sign of it.
[/quote]
Amusing how you ignore the biggest sign of what is going on economically, Wall Street. Wall Street is where recessions are created and stopped; jobs created and lost; money created or lost. The best indicator being the S&P 500. If that grows, the US has grown. If it shrinks, the US ecomomy has recessed.
As for jobs -- its ALWAYS the first to go when troubled water is met. Its ALWAYS the last to get returned when calm water is met. An employer will not jut hire jsut because he has the money. There has to be a need. And having just a need is not sufficient either. The employer must feel safe in accepting certain responisbilities such as 401(k), insurance, and UIB contributions for each employee. Good jobs are hard to just "create" for those reasons. Sure Wal Mart can create jobs left and right, but they dont exactly offer a great benefit protfolio, as would, an IBM semiconductor engineer would.
Plus in the past 6 -8 years, businesses have been forced to become more efficient. We have robots, computers, and electronics that can take over the roles of people. These tools are bought not to have an extra expense, but rather to replace humans, and the responsibilities associated with them.
I'm glad I can amuse you... :Amusing how you ignore the biggest sign of what is going on economically, Wall Street.
I do not say I ignore it. I say I do not know how it works, so I look at signs I can comprehend; friends and family that are out of jobs, businesses all around me closing, CNN saying that Bush backed up on his claims of creating 2.6 million jobs.
Those signs I can comprehend.
ABB
Nader is running again, kinda late in the game but he's still the man
[quote author=trickster link=board=14;threadid=8722;start=30#msg79010 date=1077484239]
I'm glad I can amuse you... :Amusing how you ignore the biggest sign of what is going on economically, Wall Street.
I do not say I ignore it. I say I do not know how it works, so I look at signs I can comprehend; friends and family that are out of jobs, businesses all around me closing, CNN saying that Bush backed up on his claims of creating 2.6 million jobs.
Those signs I can comprehend.
[/quote]
You parroted what I get a kick out of. Nothing personal there. I hope you got where I was going with that.
As for CNN, CNN, Fox, MSNBC are all there for money. They gather money by attracting viewers to raise ad revenue. Thus they must entertain more than deliver useful unbiased info. I generally ignore the biases, and filter (if any) useful info out. Some stories are just flat out fud, used only to inflame a shock, to then have a stupid roundtable babble a thon. Want proof? Geraldo. The guy was Mr. Left up until he got his gig at Fox. Guess what, he is now Mr. Right. Agreeing with Bill O'Reilly on things that he disagreed with vehemontly. That is what I am saying.
Its like taking slashdot verbatim as fact. That place has some intersting articles, but 90% are loaded with biases that sometimes borderline on fanatic zealotry.
Now for the record, I am not a finance guy. I get the jist of stocks, ira's, taxes, and how wealth is generated (and lost, and regained in a timely fashion). But I still wouldnt trust me past doing a 1040a tax form ;D Understanding the basics is not complete comprehension of all details. There is a TON more to the topics I brought out, and in essence I had an abridged overview.
Hopefully you become interested in politics and economics a bit more and read up a bit on your own. I had the fortune of having a High School Econ teacher that knew John Menard (of Menards hardware stores and Menard auto racing) personally. Menard was a god at econ, and applying it. Some of his principles I was taught.
It is true that you have to take it with a bit of salt. However, you cannot discount news just because they do not favor your ideals/beliefs. Less so if you see it in various different medias.As for CNN, CNN, Fox, MSNBC are all there for money. They gather money by attracting viewers to raise ad revenue. Thus they must entertain more than deliver useful unbiased info. I generally ignore the biases, and filter (if any) useful info out. Some stories are just flat out fud, used only to inflame a shock, to then have a stupid roundtable babble a thon. Want proof? Geraldo. The guy was Mr. Left up until he got his gig at Fox. Guess what, he is now Mr. Right. Agreeing with Bill O'Reilly on things that he disagreed with vehemontly. That is what I am saying.
I'm doing my Master's degree in MIS. That means a shiload of Economics/Management classes, besides the usual tech class.Hopefully you become interested in politics and economics a bit more and read up a bit on your own. I had the fortune of having a High School Econ teacher that knew John Menard (of Menards hardware stores and Menard auto racing) personally. Menard was a god at econ, and applying it. Some of his principles I was taught.
I probably will learn some. However, I hope I won't learn to discount what I see; If the stock market numbers say the economy is good, and everyday examples show me it is not, I am not going to believe stock quotes and disbelieve what I see every day.
I haven't a choice yet... I'm not a political person really. So I really don't know about the candidates. I know very minimal but so far I can say I'm not going to vote for Bush. Who will I vote for then? I don't know...
ABB I am not. I'm sure there is a candidate above the rest that will catch my attention and seem worthwhile. I am hoping that those who chose this are planning on still make an educated vote and not just dropping the pencil on any name that isn't Bush. I'm sure you will. You seem like intelligent people.
I find the presentation of charts both fascinating and bothersome. Mostly because I haven't once seen someone say "okay, that's fine. you vote how you like, I'll vote how I like" It just seemed like a bit of bickering. But I could have been mistaken... that's probably why politics is one of the things you don't talk about in public.
My stance on Bush is that I don't like what he's done. I want to give someone else a chance. He can run again later if he likes and maybe prove himself a bit more worthy. I think a bit too much attention was given to outside the country. While our troops were dying to make some people's lives miserable and some people's lives happy... it seems a great many back home were being miserable too. Sure, some happiness too after all. Some people are still making it and things may be going up... or they may be leveling off. But I just wanna see what someone else can do right now. I'm a bit tired of Bush.
He can't be the only one who has 'somewhat capable hands' for heading up this country.
Oh and a final, rather unrelated note I thought to come up... Clinton lied about something personal. I don't blame him for trying to protect himself and his marriage. The whole ordeal sickened me. What more important issues could we have focused on... lots, I'm sure.
[quote author=Dusk_Knight link=board=14;threadid=8722;start=0#msg78949 date=1077410466]
Bush. If democrats would stop blaming everything on him, then you would all see he isn't so bad.
[/quote]
Unfortunatly, thats the political game. It's stupid and anoying at best, but whenever someone is in office he gets attacked by the other side(s).
At the same point a lot of conservative republicans are mad at Bush for not being a conservative and have blasted Bush about it the last six months. Drudge did it. Rush did it. Glenbeck did it. I'm sure others are too and thats why I think this is worth discussing. The dissatisfaction sin't jsut comming from the normal bashing of party versus party ... it's coming from people being upset at current practices even within the party.
Well, what you can see around you is often deceptive. For instance, someone who is poor isn't going to be out at the plays or baseball games. If you are at lots of events like that, you could assume incorrectly that the economy is a lot better than it really is, because your eyes didn't see that person. Out of sight out of mind. When it comes to the economy, things like the stock market (but not only the stock market.. I think too many people rely solely on it, when it can become overvalued or undervalued.. overvalued in the late 90's) are important. Otherwise you have someone living in a poor neighborhood who says the economy sucks and someone in a rich neighborhood who says it's never been better and the truth lies somewhere between.
[quote author=vvx link=board=14;threadid=8722;start=30#msg79056 date=1077596720]
Well, what you can see around you is often deceptive. For instance, someone who is poor isn't going to be out at the plays or baseball games. If you are at lots of events like that, you could assume incorrectly that the economy is a lot better than it really is, because your eyes didn't see that person. Out of sight out of mind. When it comes to the economy, things like the stock market (but not only the stock market.. I think too many people rely solely on it, when it can become overvalued or undervalued.. overvalued in the late 90's) are important. Otherwise you have someone living in a poor neighborhood who says the economy sucks and someone in a rich neighborhood who says it's never been better and the truth lies somewhere between.
[/quote]
great POV
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks