The difference is that we're provided equal protection under the law as outlined by the 14th Amendment. We're not provided equal access to health care, although in practice this is the case. Also, there are those who do purchase extra security, just as there are those who purchase extra health insurance.
Okay, it's clear we have a fundamental disagreement on what President Bush is capable of doing, so we'll agree to disagree. And when President Obama's plan doesn't work, I won't blame bad intelligence. They know exactly what they're doing. They're not acting on bad intelligence. There is no economic data out there that demonstrates what they're proposing will work.
I said in the long run profits approach zero, they're not zero. When profits become zero, there's no point in making a product or providing a service. As for perfect competition, the very best example I can think of is the stretch of Indian restaurants along First Avenue in Manhattan.
And I was saying, in the oil bidness, profits are not approaching zero. In fact they seem to be going the opposite direction. That is a fine and tasty example. barfo
Which of these shovel ready projects are anything close to the value of the national highway system? Oddly, the left called Ike stupid and Democrats wouldn't get behind building the highways. They had to be built on the guise that they were for military/defense purposes, which only makes a little sense. Now I will consider things from an economics perspective... The larger an organization, the less rational it becomes. In the private sector, decisions aren't made for profit motive, but for other reasons like turf or personal benefit. Or a Walmart will irrationally push for cheaper goods at the expense of slave labor in China and the american worker; while it is those workers who ultimately should be Walmart's biggest customers. In the public sector, appointments are made based upon the size of campaign donations and political favors. Instead of profit motive, the motive is reelection; on the surface reelection might mean the official has done a good job, but in reality it's a horribly corrupt diversion of funds from things we collectively deem important (like education) into things like a private airport for John Murtha or empty govt. office buildings in W Va. There are really two economic theories that are at play here, and they are at odds with one another. One side believes the govt. can ultimately get it right, no matter the evidence to the contrary. The other side sees govt. as the problem and not the solution (thanks, Reagan). All but the actually street smart few Democrats in that party seem to favor the former. The republicans used to favor the latter but somehow got sucked in to the big spending and grow govt. mode. I want govt. to accomplish the big things that the private sector can't. We'd never have gone to the moon or built the highway system without it. On the other hand, I see we are constantly looking back at the bulk of its doings which are miserable failures and saying "govt. could have succeeded if only they did X instead of Y." The reality is that it's too big to be rational and do X instead of Y, and repeatedly does Y instead of X. The reality is that SS is going broke and doesn't provide a dignified lifestyle for people who pay in 15% for 45 years; it's a ponzi scheme (X) that relied on a demographic of a fixed point in time (X) when it could have been an actual annuity (Y) that the govt. couldn't have raided to pay for who knows what (Y). Take a realistic look at the economy now. Regulation after regulation and agency after agency (X) empowered to control the private sector and none of it ever worked. Crisis after crisis since the 1930s and all we did was legislate to fix a crisis once it had passed (X), but never prevented the next crisis. If only we had killed GM's profits years earlier with CAFE standards and the like (Y), they'd be strong now. Yeah right. It's closing the barn door after the horse has bolted, and nothing more. To use another metaphor, it's like the rat in the cage who repeatedly chooses the cocaine over food at the expense of an electric shock each dose. Or it reminds me of a line from the three stooges (Curley): "If at first you don't succeed, keep on sucking until you do succeed." The other philosophy is to let the private sector sort it out, and that seems to be the utlimate answer. We have boom and bust cycles anyway, so if people are left to their own devices, they'll figure out how to deal with the bust times or else. The "or else" means consequences and brings the element of rationality back into the decision process.
I disagree. I don't think WW2 is an example because of how drastically different things are today. And in WW2, the Nazi's didn't really produce any jet fighters, or upgraded subs and allowed their technology to go stale because they didn't think that the war would be longer than a couple years max. Also, if we will use one example from WW2, it would be Germany vs the Soviets. And Germany would have won that if they didn't have to concentrate on anything else (another front opened up by the allies). And the Chinese do not have the largest air force in the world. They don't even have any air craft carriers and they only have 19,000 jets while we have over 2,600. The only thing they beat us at is population size which accounts for them having much more ground troops than us (which isn't a problem if you have air superiority, imo).
My only response is what you are writing about the Chinese was written about the United States before WWI.
Absolutely true, and you make a great point. I would counter that in saying that the world is soo different now, though. And in order for the US to get dominance as the only superpower in the world at the moment, a lot of other countries really had to collapse (Soviets, Germans and even Imperil Japan and lots of other empires/powers since WW1)... I don't think we've truly had a power like the US, in relevency to its dominance compared to the other countries of its present time, since Rome probably. Not often you have one super power, or am I off on that? But lots of people say that the US era of dominance is coming to an end, so we will see. If so, China does seem like one of the likely heirs to the throne along with places like India and such. I mean as of military technology, we are so far ahead of other countries it would probably take years if not decades for others to catch up (assuming we stop advancing our military completely and just roll with what we have). And i'm not saying this because "Oh we rock we are badass we are better than you", but we have a head start already AND we put 10 times the amount of money into defense spending then the next closest country, so you'd think the gap would only get larger. And as for the fact that they have sheer numbers over us, I really think the US military strategy is actually going away from that kind of combat anyway. I think we are looking to make less numbers MORE effective, and use unmanned vehicles in air, sea and land, and arm fewer soldiers much better to cut the number we must have on the front lines and continuing to take soldiers out of harms way. So in that respect, I like our counter to the "overwhelming size" arguement.
Government hired 72,000 last month, I don't think they count in these figures. It'd be even higher. 8.9% unemployment matches 1983, and I think it's the worst it's been since the Depression. http://www.reuters.com/article/domesticNews/idUSTRE5472SK20090508 U.S. sheds fewest jobs in 6 months Fri May 8, 2009 4:36pm EDT By Lucia Mutikani WASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.S. employers cut 539,000 jobs last month, the fewest since October, according to government data on Friday that signaled the economy's steep decline might be easing and gave the stock market a boost. The unemployment rate, however, soared to 8.9 percent, the highest since September 1983, from 8.5 percent in March, and job losses in March and February were a combined 66,000 steeper than previously estimated, the Labor Department said. A 72,000 jump in government payrolls tempered the overall job-loss figure. Government employment was bolstered by the hiring of about 60,000 temporary workers in preparation for the 2010 census and U.S. Labor Secretary Hilda Solis said this figure would fluctuate in the months ahead. Private sector employment fell by 611,000 in April after a 693,000 decline in March, the department said, which curbed some of the optimism over the report. Still, the data was not as bleak as financial markets had expected and offered the freshest sign that the intensity of the recession, now in its 17th month, was starting to fade. "The labor report added to the growing list of data points that imply that the steepest part of the economic contraction is now past," said Brian Fabbri, chief North America economist at BNP Paribas in New York. The payrolls reading, which beat market forecasts for a 590,000 drop, and results of the government's tests on the health of the 19 biggest domestic banks buoyed U.S. stocks. The Dow Jones industrial average ended up 1.96 percent at 8,574.65. Government bond prices ended higher as unemployment was seen still rising well into 2010. President Barack Obama, whose government has rolled out a record $787 billion rescue package of spending and tax cuts, said April's payrolls number was somewhat encouraging, but that the job losses were still a sobering toll. "It underscores the point we're still in the midst of a recession that was years in the making and that is going to be months or even years in the unmaking. We should expect further job losses in the months to come," Obama said. Since the start of the recession in December 2007, the U.S. economy has lost 5.7 million jobs, the Labor Department said. In neighboring Canada, a surprise 35,900 jobs were added to payrolls in April, confounding analysts who had expected the economy to extend its pattern of heavy job losses. GLIMMERS OF HOPE In a hopeful glimmer for the U.S. economy, the rise in the unemployment rate reflected a surge in people joining the labor force, as opposed to a collapse in employment. The report showed job losses across almost all sectors, although at a less steep pace than in previous months. Manufacturing lost 149,000 jobs in April after shedding 167,000 in March. Economists were heartened by a slight increase in hours worked in manufacturing, where the average work week inched up to 39.6 hours from 39.4 in March. "The very good news is that the hours in the manufacturing sector were up, which implies that we are going to have some production increases soon, if not in April for industrial production, perhaps in June at the latest," said Kurt Karl, chief U.S. economist at Swiss Re in New York. Government data last week showed a record $103.7 billion drawdown in inventories in the first quarter. Analysts reckon this created a platform for a recovery in manufacturing. Construction, among sectors hit hardest by the housing-led recession, shed 110,000 jobs in April, the Labor Department said, after losing 135,000 the previous month. The service-providing industry slashed 269,000 positions after cutting 381,000 in March, while in education and health services they rose 15,000 after increasing 10,000 in March. Despite the slowdown in the pace of job losses, the unemployment rate will continue to rise until at least the first quarter of 2010, peaking anywhere between 9.5 and 10.5 percent, according to economists. "It does look as if we are falling more slowly and we are likely to hit bottom reasonably soon, at least when it comes to economic growth," said Joel Naroff, chief economist at Naroff Economic Advisors in Holland, Pennsylvania, but added: "We are looking at rising unemployment rates for quite some time even as job losses moderate." The length of the average work week was unchanged at 33.2 hours in April. Average hourly earnings edged up to $18.51 from $18.50 in March, which analysts said was a reminder that incomes remained under pressure. "The figures gave a cautionary warning about consumer incomes," said Nigel Gault, chief U.S. economist at IHS Global Insight in Lexington, Massachusetts. "(The modest rise in) hourly earnings, which combined with the heavy loss of jobs signals a continuing decline in overall wage and salary incomes, is bad news for purchasing power." A separate report from the Commerce Department showed wholesale inventories dropped 1.6 percent to $411.7 billion, the lowest since November 2007, after falling a record 1.7 percent in February. (Additional reporting by Lisa Lambert and Doug Palmer; Editing by James Dalgleish)
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/251/story/67789.html Posted on Sat, May. 09, 2009 Job losses slow, but is it from government hiring? Kevin G. Hall | McClatchy Newspapers last updated: May 08, 2009 03:35:24 PM WASHINGTON — Friday's better-than-expected employment report from the Labor Department gave another sign that the U.S. economy may be bottoming out, but the jump in the unemployment rate is a reminder for millions of Americans that the outlook for jobs will remain bleak for some time. The pace of job losses eased in April, with employers shedding 539,000 jobs, bringing the total jobs lost since the recession began in December 2007 to more than 5.7 million. April's employment numbers were better than expected by most mainstream economic forecasters, who'd projected upward of 620,000 lost jobs. Even as those numbers were seen as trending positive, they were offset by the uptick of the unemployment rate to 8.9 percent, the highest level since 1983, from 8.5 percent in March. "The job market is bad, but as bad as expected, and headed in the right direction. Monthly job losses averaged 700,000 in the first quarter and appear on track to lose (an average of) 500,000 in the second quarter," said Mark Zandi, the chief economist for forecaster Moody's Economy.com. "There will be another 2.5 million in job losses and unemployment will peak at 10 percent by this time next year." April's net job loss total actually was somewhat misleading: Private-sector employment actually fell by 611,000 jobs, but government hiring, which added 66,000 jobs, mostly for the upcoming census, offset some of them. Although April's job numbers reflect a welcome slowing of the downturn, a deeper look suggests that it will be a long, hard climb back to full employment. The number of long-term unemployed — those out of work for 27 weeks or longer — continues to rise alarmingly. Some 498,000 more Americans moved into the ranks of the long-term unemployed in April, the Bureau of Labor Statistics reported, bringing the total to 3.7 million. Of that large pool, some 2.4 million joined those ranks since the recession began in December 2007. "It really points to the nation's economic challenge, this big idled work force and most people have been out of work for a very long time," said Andrew Stettner, the deputy director of the National Employment Law Project, an advocacy group that promotes expanded unemployment benefits. "It means they really haven't been able to find anything. For many people it's a mismatch between skills and (available) jobs. It's going to take a really major approach to get these workers back to work." The long-term jobless now are more than 27 percent of all the unemployed, the highest ever since records began in 1948, Stettner said. In response, President Barack Obama announced a plan Friday to help the unemployed enter college for retraining without losing unemployment benefits, which usually happens when they enter school. This plan will depend on state participation. Obama said he also wants colleges to consider using their federal Pell Grants to help unemployed workers retool for the new economy. "The idea here is to fundamentally change our approach to unemployment in this country, so that it's no longer just a time to look for a new job, but to prepare yourself for a better job," Obama said, adding that a new Web site, www.opportunity.gov, would be a resource for the unemployed to find out what options are available to them. Obama tapped the vice president's wife, Jill Biden, a longtime community college teacher who has a doctorate in education, to lead a national publicity campaign about community colleges. The president also said he was asking every American to commit to at least one year of higher education or job training. "Every American will need to get more than a high-school diploma," he said. Obama said that those without college degrees are now more than twice as likely as degree-holders to be unemployed, and that "so many of the Americans who have lost their jobs can't find new ones because they simply don't have the skills and training they need for the jobs they want." Unstated but implied in the Obama initiative is the fact that the U.S. economy will look much different once it emerges from this recession. There will be fewer construction jobs and far fewer financial sector jobs, and numerous other shifts. The economy is always in a state of transition to something new, and more so after a deep downturn such as the one gripping the nation now. On another economic front, the Commerce Department reported Friday that wholesalers reduced inventories by another 1.6 percent in March, the seventh straight month that they've done so. That's a drag on growth but carries a silver lining: The more inventories are reduced, the closer the nation comes to a rebound in production as retailers and manufacturers restock to meet new consumer demand. "At some point once we clear out excess inventory and sales pick up, and employment will have to pick up," said Kim Whelan, an economic analyst for Wachovia. "It will hopefully start adding to GDP slowly going forward," she said. In addition to government, health care was another rare sector that added jobs, up 17,000. Employment in manufacturing fell by 149,000 jobs in April, while construction companies shed another 110,000 jobs. The professional and services industry saw employment fall by 122,000 last month, and retailers cut 47,000 positions. Transportation and warehousing fell by 38,000. "The hiring of census workers is obscuring a continued steep decline in private-sector jobs. I think we have to start facing up to the fact we're headed for an unemployment rate above 10 percent that will stay high for quite a while," said Lawrence Mishel, the president of the liberal Economic Policy Institute. Some Wall Street analysts agreed. "Taking into account the downward revisions to the prior months and the sharp increase in government employment . . . this is a weaker-than-expected report," wrote John Ryding and Conrad DeQuadros, partners in the research firm RDQ Economics, in a research note. "The employment data do not yet corroborate the extent of the diminishment of the intensity of the recession suggested by other economic indicators." The Bureau of Labor Statistics also revised job losses reported in February downward by 30,000, while losses in March were revised upward by 36,000. Still, taken together with rising consumer confidence, manufacturing indexes getting close to levels seen during economic expansion and even a slight rise in construction, Friday's jobs report gives support to analysts who see the glass as half full. "Large pools of 'pent up demand' are forming and will soon begin to be transformed into actual spending. First quarter (growth) estimates indicate that consumer spending is coming back," William Dunkelberg, the chief economist for the National Federation of Independent Business, said in a survey of small businesses released Friday. "Growth could be positive in the third quarter and 4 percent higher in the fourth (compared with the third quarter). It would appear that the reduction in employment . . . has gone too far, raising the possibility of a faster-than-expected recovery in employment later this year." (Margaret Talev contributed to this article.)
