Today's Economic News

[madman]

He should have

Not gone to war.

Not dramatically increased the nations debt.

Not allow the dollar to become weak.

 

:thumb::thumb::thumb:

[madman]

How do the Chinese/Middle East/India and many other countries do it successfully? Gas is headed upward to 5 dollars in the near future, something clearly has to be done or this will be the longest recession in history.

 

Amen, brother! Well said.

[AcesFull]

How do the Chinese/Middle East/India and many other countries do it successfully? Gas is headed upward to 5 dollars in the near future, something clearly has to be done or this will be the longest recession in history.

Why do you believe that businesses would continue to sell gasoline and lost money on every gallon sold?

 

The Chinese government owns its oil industry and is subsidizing the cost of oil when it sells gasoline at a low price. In other words, the government is eating the opportunity cost of not selling the gasoline at a fair market cost.

 

The US imports most of the oil that it consumes. Somebody has to pay for that oil. If the oil industry is making a 9 or 10 percent profit on $3.90/gallon gasoline, you cannot simply force them to lose $1.25/gallon and continue to sell gasoline. The could not comply, even if you held the CEOs at gunpoint. Once their cash reserves were depleted, then they would be out of business. That is the Robert Mugabe method of governance.

[cch5432]

One of the things that is always interesting to me is when we talk about Bush's term there is nothing he could do to help the current economic climate. But when Carter was president he was responsible for the recession and ecomiic catastrophe of the late 70's. Then when Reagan's economy began to head north again around '84 it was because of what he did. I really wish everyone would get there stories straight and measure all of them with "it's there reponsibility" or "there's nothing they could do." :sssh:

I don't blame Carter for a recession, but for the fact that it was so bad (FWIW, I am not too informed on Carter, but I know economic theory. Similarily, I don't blame Bush for a recession happening. I also don't blame Bush for high gas prices, so I can't blame him for some of the especially bad factors.

[Hatz]

It is amazing how reluctant liberals are to assess any blame for anything to Carter and how reluctant they are to give Reagan credit for his many successes. Price and wage controls did not work for Nixon. Price controls, tax increases, and mandated thermostat settings did not work for Carter. Reagan pursued a policy of deregulation and lowered taxes, as did Margaret Thatcher in the UK. It worked.

 

Once again, this country is faced with high gasoline prices and a sluggish economy. Not suprisingly, liberals are responding by proposing price controls and/or higher taxes.

 

The economy follows natural cycles that are beyond the control of the president but pursuing bad policies can damage a sound economy. There is a cause and effect relationship between taxes and a weak economy that JFK and Ronald Reagan both understood.

 

First of all it is interesting how quick you are to label people who simply disagree with you in lockstep. I voted for Reagan in '84. And Bush in '88. And Bush in 2000.

 

Secondly, I have no problem blaming Carter or praising Reagan. I just find it humurous that so many say "The economy is in a natural cycle that is beyond the control of any president." Then follow up with how great or poorly this president did or that this president I dislike had nothing to do with a good economy. I just wish it were consistent.

[AcesFull]

First of all it is interesting how quick you are to label people who simply disagree with you in lockstep. I voted for Reagan in '84. And Bush in '88. And Bush in 2000.

 

Secondly, I have no problem blaming Carter or praising Reagan. I just find it humurous that so many say "The economy is in a natural cycle that is beyond the control of any president." Then follow up with how great or poorly this president did or that this president I dislike had nothing to do with a good economy. I just wish it were consistent.

I have been very consistent. I have consistently given JFK credit for sharply lowering taxes to strengthen the economy. I have consistently criticized Nixon and Ford (when I remember to mention Ford's brief and unimpressive term) for their bad tax policies. Nixon's WIN campaign is an example of how a president can make a bad economy worse.

 

The reason that I use Reagan and Carter as examples of the impact that a president can have on the economy is the contrast between the two adjacent periods of time. Carter maintained high tax rates and price controls until he began taking a couple of steps in the right direction late in his term. Reagan almost immediately deregulated domestic oil prices and slashed income tax rates. The economy was the weakest under Carter of my lifetime and by the end of Reagan's second term, the economy was the strongest of my lifetime.

 

(One can argue that the economy continued to improve after Reagan left office, but IMO Reagan was most responsible for setting it on the right course.)

 

I do not give Clinton or George H. W. Bush much credit or blames for the economy because they inherited a strong economy and although both raised tax rates, they were sensible enough not to raise them to anywhere near the pre-Reagan rates.

 

George W. Bush deserves credit for cutting taxes but his failure to effectively use the bully pulpit to push through a sensible energy policy through an inept Congress has left us with gasoline prices that will soon bring economic growth to a halt.

 

Reagan would have rallied public opinion against Congress's obstructionist tactics and ANWR and offshore areas would have been opened for drilling. A recent Gallup poll reported that only 20% of Americans blame gasoline prices on price gouging by oil companies, so this is an issue where strong presidential leadership could have made a difference.

[ladiesbballcoach]

The market cannot correct itself with how things are going right now. Everytime gas rises .25 cents thats another month long of the recession. Gas is the KEY element causing this recession. Something has to be done and will be done at the end of the year. We are so focused on war, war, war, instead of economy, economy, economy.

 

I have heard rumors Obama might cap gas around 2-2.50 like all the middle eastern countries, China, and India. If he does this you can guarantee him 8 years in Washington. I much rather them do this and me take home half of what I do at the end of the year, or even a third. The goal is to make it thru the year.

 

How would he be able to cap it at that price if it costs more than that to produce??????

[Hatz]

I have been very consistent. I have consistently given JFK credit for sharply lowering taxes to strengthen the economy. I have consistently criticized Nixon and Ford (when I remember to mention Ford's brief and unimpressive term) for their bad tax policies. Nixon's WIN campaign is an example of how a president can make a bad economy worse.

 

The reason that I use Reagan and Carter as examples of the impact that a president can have on the economy is the contrast between the two adjacent periods of time. Carter maintained high tax rates and price controls until he began taking a couple of steps in the right direction late in his term. Reagan almost immediately deregulated domestic oil prices and slashed income tax rates. The economy was the weakest under Carter of my lifetime and by the end of Reagan's second term, the economy was the strongest of my lifetime.

 

(One can argue that the economy continued to improve after Reagan left office, but IMO Reagan was most responsible for setting it on the right course.)

 

I do not give Clinton or George H. W. Bush much credit or blames for the economy because they inherited a strong economy and although both raised tax rates, they were sensible enough not to raise them to anywhere near the pre-Reagan rates.

 

George W. Bush deserves credit for cutting taxes but his failure to effectively use the bully pulpit to push through a sensible energy policy through an inept Congress has left us with gasoline prices that will soon bring economic growth to a halt.

 

Reagan would have rallied public opinion against Congress's obstructionist tactics and ANWR and offshore areas would have been opened for drilling. A recent Gallup poll reported that only 20% of Americans blame gasoline prices on price gouging by oil companies, so this is an issue where strong presidential leadership could have made a difference.

 

 

If memory serves the economy took a little dive the year before election in '91 or early '92. While it might have been on the uptick by the time Clinton took office in '93 it was far from being "inherited a good economy."

 

As to Reagan's time it seems I remember one of the all time worse days for the Stock Market was in '87 under his watch and after all the de-regulation took place. I also recall that those de-regulations allowed the Keating 5 to get away with stealing. So how much of Reagan's economy was built on the junk-bond market and other factors that led to problems later?

[AcesFull]

If memory serves the economy took a little dive the year before election in '91 or early '92. While it might have been on the uptick by the time Clinton took office in '93 it was far from being "inherited a good economy."

 

As to Reagan's time it seems I remember one of the all time worse days for the Stock Market was in '87 under his watch and after all the de-regulation took place. I also recall that those de-regulations allowed the Keating 5 to get away with stealing. So how much of Reagan's economy was built on the junk-bond market and other factors that led to problems later?

Most of us judge an economy on interest rates, the unemployment rate, and the inflation rate. The before and after snapshots of these key economic indicators during Reagan's 8 years are unmatched by any other president in my lifetime.

 

Keep trying to diminish Reagan's role in an extremely successful two terms, but the numbers are going to make your task a difficult one.

 

As a challenger, Reagan asked voters if they were better off than they were four years ago. Most answered "No," and Reagan trounced Jimmy Carter. Reagan asked voters the same question four years later, and the overwhelming majority responded, "Yes."

 

There is no better evidence for the positive power that a president can exercise over the economy that Ronald Reagan. The dramatic four-year turnaround of the economy is why he carried 49 of 50 states, losing only Mondale's home state of Minnesota by a narrow margin.

[John Anthony]

Are we better off than we were 4 years ago... I have to say no to that by a long shot.

[TeddyBear]

Are we better off than we were 4 years ago... I have to say no to that by a long shot.

 

If you're like me, our investments aren't in oil or Exxon, etc. :lol:

 

If you're like me, you're plodding along with your annual 4% raise which doesn't even begin to keep up with the rises in costs in fuel, goods and transportation.

[Hatz]

Most of us judge an economy on interest rates, the unemployment rate, and the inflation rate. The before and after snapshots of these key economic indicators during Reagan's 8 years are unmatched by any other president in my lifetime.

 

Keep trying to diminish Reagan's role in an extremely successful two terms, but the numbers are going to make your task a difficult one.

 

As a challenger, Reagan asked voters if they were better off than they were four years ago. Most answered "No," and Reagan trounced Jimmy Carter. Reagan asked voters the same question four years later, and the overwhelming majority responded, "Yes."

 

There is no better evidence for the positive power that a president can exercise over the economy that Ronald Reagan. The dramatic four-year turnaround of the economy is why he carried 49 of 50 states, losing only Mondale's home state of Minnesota by a narrow margin.

 

 

Here's an interesting site that does some contrasts and comparisons between Reagan and Clinton. http://zzpat.tripod.com/graphs.htm

 

 

BTW, I have nothing against Reagan (as I stated before I voted for the man '84). I just don't think he's above reproach as any president is not. For what it's worth, I remember the '84 election well (see above) and don't need you to remind me about his election tactics (which were superb and above board in each election). I don't need a memory jar from someone about that decade. :lol:

[GaViking]

If you're like me, our investments aren't in oil or Exxon, etc. :lol:

 

If you're like me, you're plodding along with your annual 4% raise which doesn't even begin to keep up with the rises in costs in fuel, goods and transportation.

 

I've heard this before

[ladiesbballcoach]

Are we better off than we were 4 years ago... I have to say no to that by a long shot.

 

I am! Very much so.

Tax breaks over the past years have added about $2700 to my pocket and ended up my spending habits meaning I am putting it back into the economy.

[ladiesbballcoach]

If you're like me, our investments aren't in oil or Exxon, etc. :lol:

 

If you're like me, you're plodding along with your annual 4% raise which doesn't even begin to keep up with the rises in costs in fuel, goods and transportation.

 

I'm not. Invested in Exxon with my retirement portfolio in the mid-90's.