Do you gents read The Economist?

[odeezie]

Great articles from The Economist. :thumbsup:

Public debt: The biggest bill in history | The Economist (http://www.economist.com/opinion/displaystory.cfm?story_id=13829461)

Government debt: The big sweat | The Economist (http://www.economist.com/opinion/displaystory.cfm?story_id=13825211)

[chinese dragon]

good stuff i like

[Falcon991]

Fug it; when the Obama administration completes the communization of our country, we'll just get whatever we need from our leader according to our needs. And we'll only have to perform according to our abilities.

"To each according to his need, from each according to his ability." -Karl Marx.

[Demon]

Fug it; when the Obama administration completes the communization of our country, we'll just get whatever we need from our leader according to our needs. And we'll only have to perform according to our abilities.

"To each according to his need, from each according to his ability." -Karl Marx.

drama queen!

[eighttwelve]

interesting articles. I still don't fully understand why all these things work, but it seemed to make sense... ****ing economics. In practical functions, economics seems so useless.

[Derek]

Fug it; when the Obama administration completes the communization of our country, we'll just get whatever we need from our leader according to our needs. And we'll only have to perform according to our abilities.

"To each according to his need, from each according to his ability." -Karl Marx.

lolz. Chill out, silly goose.

[ryan_625]

lolz. Chill out, silly goose.

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_ZarcbbQIJfM/SSYXj91sY1I/AAAAAAAAACE/gBuA-8JNpEM/s400/Big+Silly+Goose.jpg

[CR125guy]

Interesting articles. But what do you guys think of our new commander in chief so far? Does anyone think he can turn the economy around? I know he says he is working on it, but does anyone think he is fixing it while upholding the Constitution? Curious.

[eighttwelve]

Interesting articles. But what do you guys think of our new commander in chief so far? Does anyone think he can turn the economy around? I know he says he is working on it, but does anyone think he is fixing it while upholding the Constitution? Curious.

I don't think he can tuprn the economy around, but I don't think that's a realistic possibility anyways. I think he's doing a great job of upholding the Constitution in many other ways as is by helping to give more equality and by actually understanding people's issues bsefore trying to blindly solve them. I'm curious as to why you think he is not upholding the Constitution? I've often seen conservatives make the argument that's he's trying to socialize the country but I hardly see any evidence of that. If trying to keep American's from poverty and unfair treatment based on broken systems is considered socialism, than I think their definition is uneducated. But I honestly don't know much about economics, so I'm legitimately asking you why you say this? I think he believes in the words of the Constitution as much as any good American does. But not the aggrandized and hyperbolic version many reference.

[CR125guy]

Well he wants a czar to overlook everything and answer only to him. Kinda scary. He has shown he is not bi partisan by allowing ABC to have sex with.... er I mean let them in the oval office to discuss current events but not allow any possible dissenters in the room. He took over GM. He took over Chrysler. I thought we lived in a Capitalist country. Who the hell wants to do business in America anymore when it can be done overseas for cheaper with less regulation. I do not like where he is bringing us. I hear too many people everyday who regret voting him in.

[eighttwelve]

Well he wants a czar to overlook everything and answer only to him. Kinda scary. He has shown he is not bi partisan by allowing ABC to have sex with.... er I mean let them in the oval office to discuss current events but not allow any possible dissenters in the room. He took over GM. He took over Chrysler. I thought we lived in a Capitalist country. Who the hell wants to do business in America anymore when it can be done overseas for cheaper with less regulation. I do not like where he is bringing us. I hear too many people everyday who regret voting him in.

A czar? elaborate please, cuz I've never heard of this.

He didn't take over these companies. He helped these companies out because they're a huge part of the American economy that were collapsing and would put us in worse shape if they closed. If you really want to look at it from that standpoint, fine, but I think his intentions are definitely in the right, not in the wrong. Such is evidenced by his unprecedented speech demonstrating a relatively logical point of view on Islam. It's not a bad religion as many make it out to be, there are just many who exploit it, just as many exploit Christianity and other forms of community organizations that can gather a zombified crowd to do their bidding under the false pretense of it being God's will. He understands that and wants Muslims to understand the difference between that and those who choose to hate America for false reasons. As far as economics go, I can probably see where some people have their disagreements, but as far as morality, I've never seen a politician so honest and so logical.

[odeezie]

Well he wants a czar to overlook everything and answer only to him. Kinda scary. He has shown he is not bi partisan by allowing ABC to have sex with.... er I mean let them in the oval office to discuss current events but not allow any possible dissenters in the room. He took over GM. He took over Chrysler. I thought we lived in a Capitalist country. Who the hell wants to do business in America anymore when it can be done overseas for cheaper with less regulation. I do not like where he is bringing us. I hear too many people everyday who regret voting him in.

The term czar has been used in many administrations, it is not new. Bush had "czars" its just the term they have adopted recently for the head of a department. I do not know about the ABC thing, so I cannot comment on that. Obama has not taken over any corporations. If you are a student of economics you will see the reasoning (as the article points out) for pumping money into the financial and manufacturing industries. The reason he (and the government) is so involved with what is happening in these corporations are for your sake. In that I mean that it is yours as well as my tax dollars that have been invested to prop-up and push the economy out of recession. In this sense, I think he is doing the responsible thing, by making sure that the taxpayers are not being taken advantage of, and will indeed see a return on their investment. In my opinion, this is a welcome break from the first big financial bailout, where hundreds of billions were given to the banks and it was never accounted for. You remember that dont you...when they were giving out huge bonuses and throwing lavish parties? Obama is making sure this sort of thing is not happening, which is a protection of the taxpayers interests, which is what ought to be happening.
We do live in a capitalist society, but it has been shown time and again that without regulation (see the banking collapse and subsequent recession) the system will not work. If you read the article, you noticed that the United States still have room to gain revenue through taxes, when in contrast, most European countries do not have this option because their taxes are already over 10% higher than ours. I am not saying taxes are the answer, I am just pointing out that I think you are misguided in your observation about companies are movie for the reasons you mentioned.
I do not regret that he is in office. Like 812 mentioned, I think he is the most logical politician I have seen in a long time. Times are rough right now, and I think they will get worse before they get better. I think had McCain won the election we would be in a much worse position than we are now.

[CR125guy]

I did read the f****ing article. Thanks Obama for using my tax dollars to prop up a failing fricken business for my good. You guys are ridiculous!!!!!

[eighttwelve]

I did read the f****ing article. Thanks Obama for using my tax dollars to prop up a failing fricken business for my good. You guys are ridiculous!!!!!

so basically you would prefer TONS of americans losing jobs as well as a huge part of our GDP being lost. for the sake of your very slanted view on capitalism... This is why America fails. Random selfishness for the sake of self-defined 'freedom.'

[odeezie]

I did read the f****ing article. Thanks Obama for using my tax dollars to prop up a failing fricken business for my good. You guys are ridiculous!!!!!

You read the articles, but you do not understand economics. You are ridiculous!!!!! :-D

[CR125guy]

so basically you would prefer TONS of americans losing jobs as well as a huge part of our GDP being lost. for the sake of your very slanted view on capitalism... This is why America fails. Random selfishness for the sake of self-defined 'freedom.'

Yes I would, it is not the duty of the government to take my money and pick which businesses fail and succeed with that money. I'm not selfish, I just work for what I get, I work hard at it actually, and I don't like having my money stolen from me to support crooked CEO's and Politicians. WTF do you know about capitalism?

Not my job to support lazy people and failing businesses. that sh*t is for Europe.

[odeezie]

Yes I would, it is not the duty of the government to take my money and pick which businesses fail and succeed with that money. I'm not selfish, I just work for what I get, I work hard at it actually, and I don't like having my money stolen from me to support crooked CEO's and Politicians. WTF do you know about capitalism?

Not my job to support lazy people and failing businesses. that sh*t is for Europe.

You read the articles, but you do not understand economics. You are ridiculous!!!!! :-D

Thanks for proving my point....again.

[146]

Yes I would, it is not the duty of the government to take my money and pick which businesses fail and succeed with that money. I'm not selfish, I just work for what I get, I work hard at it actually, and I don't like having my money stolen from me to support crooked CEO's and Politicians. WTF do you know about capitalism?

Not my job to support lazy people and failing businesses. that sh*t is for Europe.

jesus ****ing christ

[Falcon991]

so basically you would prefer TONS of americans losing jobs as well as a huge part of our GDP being lost. for the sake of your very slanted view on capitalism... This is why America fails. Random selfishness for the sake of self-defined 'freedom.'

812, tons of Americans losing jobs is the nature of a free market economy. It happened when Edsel, Tucker, Hudson, and countless other car companies went belly up. Those people found employment elsewhere, and so will this generation. There is a natural order in a free market, and it is survival of the fittest. If GM and Chrysler cannot build a product that sells well enough to support their operations, then LET THEM FAIL. In a simplistic view, either they are paying too much for their employees (thanks, UAW) or they aren't able to charge enough for their product and the profitability isn't there.

I do not want to own stock in either Chrysler or GM, and thankfully the bailout that you, I, and every other American is paying for won't provide me any shares. Hmmm, I guess I paid for stock in GM anyway. :thumbsdown::thumbsdown::thumbsdown::thumbsdown::t humbsdown::thumbsdown::thumbsdown::thumbsdown::thu mbsdown::thumbsdown::thumbsdown::thumbsdown::thumb sdown:

[odeezie]

812, tons of Americans losing jobs is the nature of a free market economy. It happened when Edsel, Tucker, Hudson, and countless other car companies went belly up. Those people found employment elsewhere, and so will this generation. There is a natural order in a free market, and it is survival of the fittest. If GM and Chrysler cannot build a product that sells well enough to support their operations, then LET THEM FAIL. In a simplistic view, either they are paying too much for their employees (thanks, UAW) or they aren't able to charge enough for their product and the profitability isn't there.

I do not want to own stock in either Chrysler or GM, and thankfully the bailout that you, I, and every other American is paying for won't provide me any shares. Hmmm, I guess I paid for stock in GM anyway. :thumbsdown::thumbsdown::thumbsdown::thumbsdown::t humbsdown::thumbsdown::thumbsdown::thumbsdown::thu mbsdown::thumbsdown::thumbsdown::thumbsdown::thumb sdown:


Funny that you guys in Cali get all worked up for GM and Chrysler but dont bat an eye about the financial companies. :nuts: If it was simply a matter of letting bad business fail, that would be one thing, but the economic impacts that would have been sustained would put this country in a depression, and possibly have a profound impact on national security. You guys who continue to harp on this issue are not looking at the big picture. Why are you worried about the car companies getting less than 1% of all bailout funds? Arent there bigger fish to fry?

[Demon]

I'd rather spend billions on a failing American company that hires Amercians than one penny on some ****ty third world country thats never gonna do anything for me. I can't understand how some of you are so against spending money here in the states but busted out your flags and Toby Keith cd's the moment that stupid chimp Bush sent us on this retarded f**king crusade half a world away in some ****hole that hasn't been a decent place to visit since Alexander the Great bought the farm there 2300 years ago.

[O'Brien#12]

Yes I would, it is not the duty of the government to take my money and pick which businesses fail and succeed with that money. I'm not selfish, I just work for what I get, I work hard at it actually, and I don't like having my money stolen from me to support crooked CEO's and Politicians. WTF do you know about capitalism?

Not my job to support lazy people and failing businesses. that sh*t is for Europe.
What the **** has this got to do with europe?
From what i can see you don't truly grasp the concepts being discussed by your peers in this thread and now you are trying to rope in the euro's because you know of the "rivalry" between europe and the US will cause a big enough arguement to cover up your previous posts of stupidity. I do hope you are fishing for a bite here otherwise you have the logic and comprehension of a 13 year old.

[DBerg649]

It is funny that people complain about the car companies so much when the banks received LOTS more money. The banks and ignorant people started this, and yet people were more willing to give them WAY too much money that was unaccounted for in the end, and yet a company like GM who has Buick, Cadillac, Chevrolet, GMC, GM Daewoo, Pontiac, Saab, and Saturn under them, and over 250,000 jobs directly associated with GM. If they go out, it also turns into a big hit for every manufacturer that produces parts for the company, and I'm sure many of those same manufacturers work with Chrysler as well. So if GM and Chrysler fail, the companies that provide parts for them will also take a big hit and/or possibly go under.
I think if they wouldn't have thrown so much money away trying to help out the banks and other random bull**** companies, it wouldnt' have been such a big deal what the govt is doing with the car manufacturers. But as far as someone's comment about gvt. picking which company fails and which doesn't... ya that totally makes sense. When you have a lot of people that are reliant on a company, compared to a company with fairly small employement and little effect on the big picture, it should be obvious which company deserves more help.
In the end though. Obama is NOT going to fix the economy. Hell, the economy isn't even broken. It's merely a matter of supply and demand. Right now we are in a period of very low demand for products, which results in a low supply of products, which results in a low demand for employees, finally resulting in a low supply of jobs. So Obama can't fix something that's not broken, all he and his staff can do is try to give big pushes (helping big companies survive) in order to get the economy rolling faster again (or atleast try to avoid it slowing down more).
If you really want to know how to keep the govt from giving out more money to these companies, convince yourself and everyone you know to quit saving money and being afraid, and go spend it instead. Obviously easier said than done, but it is completely, 100%, no other way around it, impossible for our economy to bounce back without money coming out of your pockets. That's what the economy is.

[CR125guy]

That was I who made the comment about picking which businesses fail or succeed. That's not how capitalism works, no matter how many people rely on this company, it immoral and illegal, but since its "helping" no one seems to care. File bakruptcy and take the hit, that's what its for. You have a bucket filled with water thats leaking, do you fix the hole or keep filling it with water? Our gov seems to think you just keep filling it with water (throwing money at problems)

[DBerg649]

Ya I totally understand what you're saying. I also think the govt. has thrown out entirely too much money on stupid stuff. My point was just that I think it's ok for govt to lend a helping hand if it's in order to avoid a huge loss in jobs, and perhaps it wouldn't be such a burden to taxpayers if govt wouldn't waist so much of our money on the countless ignorant grants handed out to, basically investments with little to no returns. But if I'm not mistaken, GM has recently filed for bankruptcy right? It might have been in the article posted, but I didn't feel like reading it.

[Falcon991]

DBerg, you're right about us needing to spend more money. And Odeezie is right about the banks being a larger fish to fry (don't even get me started on those guys.) I'm still going to call a spade a spade though, even if the car company bailouts are a lesser evil.

[Demon]

Dont worry the economy will turn around later this summer when WWIII breaks out in Iran and N Korea

[O'Brien#12]

cool, look forward to then.....i hope the UK doesn't decide to stick it's underfunded and ill equipped armed forces in the action....that means national service and they can stick that up their ass!!