May 1, 200818 yr The economy was bad under Nixon. The economy was worse under Carter. The economy was better midway through Reagan's first term and much, much better by the time he left office. Measures of bad, worse, and better are interest rates, unemployment rates, and inflation rates, all of which have been posted in detail in previous threads and may be easily found with Google. Some other factors, such as the growing trade imbalance have spanned multiple administrations and I have never compared Carter to Reagan, Ford, and Nixon on that count. Surely Carter must have held his own on some economic statistic. I know that the U.S. economy was lousy during the Carter years--my question is: why does Carter deserve the blame? What did he do (or not do) that caused those problems? He was only in office for four years--it's hard for me to see how his actions could have had such severe effects in such a short time. I was born in 1971, so I don't remember the Carter years well enough to know if he deserves the blame.
May 1, 200818 yr Why talk about Carter, for some of us he was in office before we were even born... should not our attention be on the policies or the lack their of, by the Mccain, Clinton, Obama. Dad I will help dig... ! You always use a combination history and current events to determine what is going on and try to judge what the future may bring.
May 1, 200818 yr Carter's presidency came at an awkward time in economic history. New ideas were coming about like the Chicago school and Milton Friedman and old ideas didn't seem to work (Remember Nixon's "we are all Keynesian now"). Carter didn't understand economics, but his choice of Volcker to head the Fed wasn't a bad one. The high interest rates and unemployment accompanying Volcker's policies ruined Carter, but eventually proved successful, especially coupled with Reagan's economic initiatives.
May 1, 200818 yr You always use a combination history and current events to determine what is going on and try to judge what the future may bring.[/QUote] I agree! However, people are concerned with Carter, Reagan, George Washington's economic policy, and yet not a canadate in this election has any real solutions... that either side will compromise with... therefore, we as Americans will be stuck in this wonderful/horrible economic conditions for at least four to eight more years. That was the point that I was trying to get at... to many people say my side or their side is right, period the end. I want to know what each canadate will do to help the economy, and then I want to know why this will work. Can anyone answer the last two questions. In other news, just bought a cow, having it slaughter, the garden should be ready by July, Dad, I got the food! How is the shelter...
May 1, 200818 yr Today's headlines: Consumer spending up as prices soar Initial jobless claims rise in latest week Oil prices slide; gas prices extend record Cigna posts lower profit on hefty losses Economy grew by 0.6 percent in first quarter With eye on inflation, Fed lowers rates again Starbucks looks overseas for profit growth GM lost $3.3 billion in the first quarter Millionaires say economy squeezing them too Buffett says recession may be worse than feared On the plus side:Burger King boosts profit 21 percent Other plus side items you could have listed: -P&G's net profit is up -Archer Daniel Midland's profits are up 42% for the third quarter, as are Monsanto's, Cargill's and Mosaic's. -corn and soybean farmers profits are up. -General Mills' profits are up and it just recently raised its 2008 profit forecast. -John Deere's profits are up. -same with Exxon and the other oil companies. -parts manufacturers Visteon and TRW reported improved financial results (admittedly due in part to cost cutting efforts, but also in part due to increased international sales, which is a positive by product of the weak dollar) -Lear Corp's profits reported a 57% increase and it boosted its 2008 sales projections. I could easily list more. Look at today's the Digest of Corporate Earnings Report on page B4 of the WSJ. 62 companies reported an increase in profits of 25% or more and 47 indicated a loss in profits of 25% or more. For an economy supposedly so bad, there are more big gainers than big losers indicated in the report. Again, the economy isn't rosy and I'm not trying to convince any one that it is. My point is that it is not near as bad as the dramatic increase in foreclosures and bankruptcies would indicate. Some segments are really hurting, no doubt (big banks that got involved in the mortgage securitization mess; airlines which have been hurting for years; U.S. automotive manufacturers that have been hurting for years, and the residential home building industry that racked up god awful profits for years and was due for a correction). Plus, and maybe its a fluke, but my corporate clients not in the residential home building industry are doing well, very well. That may not be the case for the last half of 08, but for now they are doing pretty good. We'll see. I'm not trying to sugarcoat the difficulties that the economy is having; then again, I'm not going to run around saying the sky is falling either. I guess that makes me a lemming, but at least I'm not being a Chicken Little. (insert smiley face here).
May 1, 200818 yr Today's headlines: Consumer spending up as prices soar Initial jobless claims rise in latest week Oil prices slide; gas prices extend record Cigna posts lower profit on hefty losses Economy grew by 0.6 percent in first quarter With eye on inflation, Fed lowers rates again Starbucks looks overseas for profit growth GM lost $3.3 billion in the first quarter Millionaires say economy squeezing them too Buffett says recession may be worse than feared On the plus side:Burger King boosts profit 21 percent [/quote Other plus side items you could have listed: -P&G's net profit is up -Archer Daniel Midland's profits are up 42% for the third quarter, as are Monsanto's, Cargill's and Mosaic's. -corn and soybean farmers profits are up. -General Mills' profits are up and it just recently raised its 2008 profit forecast. -John Deere's profits are up. -same with Exxon and the other oil companies. -parts manufacturers Visteon and TRW reported improved financial results (admittedly due in part to cost cutting efforts, but also in part due to increased international sales, which is a positive by product of the weak dollar) -Lear Corp's profits reported a 57% increase and it boosted its 2008 sales projections. I could easily list more. Look at today's the Digest of Corporate Earnings Report on page B4 of the WSJ. 62 companies reported an increase in profits of 25% or more and 47 indicated a loss in profits of 25% or more. For an economy supposedly so bad, there are more big gainers than big losers indicated in the report. Again, the economy isn't rosy and I'm not trying to convince any one that it is. My point is that it is not near as bad as the dramatic increase in foreclosures and bankruptcies would indicate. Some segments are really hurting, no doubt (big banks that got involved in the mortgage securitization mess; airlines which have been hurting for years; U.S. automotive manufacturers that have been hurting for years, and the residential home building industry that racked up god awful profits for years and was due for a correction). Plus, and maybe its a fluke, but my corporate clients not in the residential home building industry are doing well, very well. That may not be the case for the last half of 08, but for now they are doing pretty good. We'll see. I'm not trying to sugarcoat the difficulties that the economy is having; then again, I'm not going to run around saying the sky is falling either. I am glad that you are doing very well!
May 1, 200818 yr not really, gas is really hurt me and my family, but we will survive. It might have to mean some cuts such as to this wonderful program of BGP but that is the price we pay...
May 1, 200818 yr not really, gas is really hurt me and my family, but we will survive. It might have to mean some cuts such as to this wonderful program of BGP but that is the price we pay... I hope, and I mean this sincerely, that things get better for you and your family.
May 1, 200818 yr In what ways? Could have a whole thread on it but just for starters: Despite holding majorities in both the house and senate failed to lower taxes or government spending. Stopped exports to Russia. Huge hit to the agriculture economy. Inept handling of the Iranian hostage crises contributed to huge energy price increases from market instabilities Combine these with already high unemployment and inflation that skyrocketed under his watch and you have your answer. That's why I said yes to both parts of your question. He was the wrong man in the wrong place at the wrong time.
May 1, 200818 yr My guess (I'm no economist) is that increased productivity of goods led to more wages, lower prices and stimulated the economy. (again just a guess) I've never heard that before. Well, I have, but I'm certain it's not the same argument you are making. But, manufacturing has indeed been an important part of the economy for decades which may lead to an incorrect causal analysis that manufacturing leads to a good economy when a good economy simply leads to more jobs. As the economy evolves and manufacturing jobs dissolve more jobs are created in other sectors. It is an unfortunate result of a market economy, but people must adapt. I also think the government should play an important role in helping them adapt. I know you've said that your area has been particularly hard hit, but I think with the right governmental response, economic policy, and investment in education it should be short term, relatively. With the way the global economy functions now, I just don't see those manufacturing jobs coming back. What is missing is that many of those manufacturing jobs are no longer here. (Textiles, furniture are the two I'm most familiar with) Entire communities' have underemployed work forces or unemployed ones. Many are trying to retool and reinvent their work force but that takes time and right now people are losing homes, they are struggling to survive and make ends meet with jobs that are paying $10 or less an hour when they used to make $14 or more.
May 1, 200818 yr I've never heard that before. Well, I have, but I'm certain it's not the same argument you are making. But, manufacturing has indeed been an important part of the economy for decades which may lead to an incorrect causal analysis that manufacturing leads to a good economy when a good economy simply leads to more jobs. As the economy evolves and manufacturing jobs dissolve more jobs are created in other sectors. It is an unfortunate result of a market economy, but people must adapt. I also think the government should play an important role in helping them adapt. I know you've said that your area has been particularly hard hit, but I think with the right governmental response, economic policy, and investment in education it should be short term, relatively. With the way the global economy functions now, I just don't see those manufacturing jobs coming back. What is missing is that many of those manufacturing jobs are no longer here. (Textiles, furniture are the two I'm most familiar with) Entire communities' have underemployed work forces or unemployed ones. Many are trying to retool and reinvent their work force but that takes time and right now people are losing homes, they are struggling to survive and make ends meet with jobs that are paying $10 or less an hour when they used to make $14 or more. :thumb: Less welfare, more trade adjustment.
May 1, 200818 yr I know that the U.S. economy was lousy during the Carter years--my question is: why does Carter deserve the blame? What did he do (or not do) that caused those problems? He was only in office for four years--it's hard for me to see how his actions could have had such severe effects in such a short time. I was born in 1971, so I don't remember the Carter years well enough to know if he deserves the blame.Here is a link to a November 28, 1977, article in Time Magazine titled Where the Carter Plan Stands When you read the article, keep in mind that all of the punitive taxes, price control measures, and conservation measures came at a time that there was no real shortage of oil or natural gas. Imposing new taxes and price controls and extending others exasperated the situation. Price controls create shortages. After 3-1/2 years of Jimmy Carter, here is how Americans felt about him, according to Time again: American morale and confidence in the future have plummeted to the lowest point since Yankelovich began charting these elements in 1974. The number of people who think that the U.S. is in serious trouble has swelled to 81%, from 74% of those interviewed in January. At the same time, Carter's image as a strong leader has diminished sharply. A full 70% of the voters think that it is time for a change in the Oval Office. - And Reagan Catches Carter Reagan removed the oil and gas price controls within his first week in office. I do not blame Carter exclusively for the economic mess of the late 70's. The policies of Nixon, Ford, and Carter all played big roles. Those of us who reached adulthood during the Carter administration know just how much damage an inept president can do to this country's economy and overall outlook on life. Carter's pessimism was contagious and so was Reagan's optimism.
May 1, 200818 yr I am sure that the many hundreds of people that Mr. Carter has helped build a home over the years would disagree with you and Lady Liberty. Mr. Carter, the Nobel PEACE prize winner , has been the best ex-President in history and is a true advocate for peace ad democracy around the world. I respect the work he has done to help the many people of need here and around the world. Tremendous American! :rolleyes::rolleyes:SPARE me!:rolleyes:
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.