OT It could be, it might be, it is !!!
 

"Tom Littleton" wrote in message
...

wrote in message
...
Damned fine speech....

I'm honestly asking - why?

TIA,
R

and, this time, I can't bash you for nitpicking. It was a decent,
politically targeted, Presidential speech. As one who worked to get Obama
elected, and is overall well pleased by his early performance, I still am
a bit uneasy with the 'swoon' level generated by some who support him and
the Democratic Party. I'm sort of made to think of the line by Mr.Wolf in
'Pulp Fiction' in which he admonishes the two hit men about getting too
self-congratulatory. There, it's funny, but this sort of gushing over
routine speeches and such elevates both the public expectations and the
odor of bull**** to dangerous levels, IMO. Good speech, well delivered.
Great? One to be given a cute Pet Name in the history books? Get a grip,
and leave history to be written with the clarity of distance.
Tom


Okay, I'll rephrase that. It was the best presidential speech I have heard
eight years....

john

OT It could be, it might be, it is !!!
 

SNIP

The coverage of it I've seen - all from the business press -
seemed to take two single sentences about whether the economy is getter
better
or not and wind up with diametrically opposed takes on what he said. Top
it off
with the WH Press Secretary openly stating it contained "nothing new."
I'm not
bashing anyone, just observing that there sure seems to be a lot of
differing
opinions about this speech, even from Obama supporters and staff.

TC,
R

Precisely my point!...Here!...Have a beer on me!

Can we posit it as a truth that American thinks voting is some kind of TV
game show? That, If they don't vote for who they think is going to be the
winner - their vote is wasted?

that America, to a large degree, no longer thinks but listens to the 30
second blurb and agrees with whatever sounds good depending on their mood...

Even this was touched on...implying that for far too long American has lived
in the present never giving thought beyond thirty seconds in the future.

Now this does not mean you and our investments, but the general public (and
POLITICIANS) can no longer delay moving to renewable energy, making proper
in vestments in our infrastructure...meeting the health care crisis head on
... We...or rather everybody else, has preferred short term profits over
long term future benefit...

I remember once reading an article about a Japanese business man who bought
a failing business. He was questioned and asked why would he do that? Did
he think he could make any money on it? He Replied, "No, but my children
will."

I found the speech to be intelligent, outlining the broader issues that we
have so long ignored, the faults of our channel surfing/survivor/american
idol mentality.

But Hey....who am I? I'm just an old fisherman who put a new roof on his
house instead of buying a new car, paid his credit cards in full every month
to get the points (and my rates STILL went up) and put in a new high
efficiency furnace/ac unit instead of a flat screen TV....hell what do I
know?

Now let me pour you a shot and you break out some of the fine Cuban cigars
you got stashed while I throw another log on the fire....

(insert smiley face) john

OT It could be, it might be, it is !!!
 

wrote in message
...
I'm not
bashing anyone, just observing that there sure seems to be a lot of
differing
opinions about this speech, even from Obama supporters and staff.

and that was what I noted......on other threads, I stated that I felt you
were a bit nit-picky, but on this one I sense an over-gush from the
Pro-Obama folks.
Tom

OT It could be, it might be, it is !!!
 

On Thu, 16 Apr 2009 09:35:20 GMT, "Tom Littleton" wrote:


wrote in message
.. .
I'm not
bashing anyone, just observing that there sure seems to be a lot of
differing
opinions about this speech, even from Obama supporters and staff.

and that was what I noted......on other threads, I stated that I felt you
were a bit nit-picky, but on this one I sense an over-gush from the
Pro-Obama folks.
Tom

Ah, OK. And I've noticed that yet again, when asked specific questions "the
Pro-Obama folks" doing the over-gushing offer no specifics as to why he is so
marvelous, even when politely and directly asked...

TC,
R

OT It could be, it might be, it is !!!
 

On Apr 16, 5:03*am, wrote:

And why didn't the 58 year old school teacher think to lever her
mortgage 31 times, 3000 percent, like the derivative hucksters did,
and sell so many levels of "tronches" to each other so no could
untangle the mess? But of course that school teacher and her great
grand children are the only ones who can pay to buy the "toxic assets"
because the fat cats are "too big to fail." And that starts the cycle
all over again, if of course the proper "bonuses' are paid to keep the
actual thieves who created the mess in the first place, on the job.

Fact: over 85% of the revenues of a typical thieves den like Goldman
Saks . . . is paid out in salaries, commissions, and bonuses. Do you
think it goes to the clerical staff, or the back office staff in
Manila or Bangalore? Do you think these guys pay income taxes on the
derivative income? Nope, they paid lower capital gains, that is they
paid little on the income that was not shuttled thru off-shore
accounts. Lets not talk about how many of these fat cats hold dual
citizenship, and work visas. Wouldn't be prudent.

Oh, and by the way, Goldman Saks wants to "pay back" the TARP loans
from the Govt, with the $17 billion Goldman got from AIG. Remember
when AIG wouldn't say where the money THEY got from the BUSHIES went?
Well $17 billion was scooted thru the fat cat network to Goldman. Oh,
do we want to look to see if some of the same names appear on both
rosters? Nope. Wouldn't be prudent.

Rick, I am fully expecting one of your upcoming screeds to blame this
whole thing on some old black lady down the lane who got a loan to fix
her roof back in '01. Just give you the time and the fiction will
surely get fluffed out. Sheeeeez

Dave
These banks are trusts
Trusts do not add real value as this fiasco proves.
Trusts and monopolies smother enterprise and real investment.
Teddy Roosevelt knew what to do with Trusts and monopolies.
Break em up and you unleash American enterprise.

OT It could be, it might be, it is !!!
 

On Apr 15, 2:27*pm, "Tom Littleton" wrote:
"DaveS" wrote in message

... For example, the old

equations defining the relationships between consumer spending and
employment, domestic manufacturing orders, capital goods orders, etc

no longer hold.

Really? Explain your thinking, if you could, because I doubt that many of
those relationships have changed greatly.


Simply put, the amount of domestic manufacturing (USA) labor in
imported goods is very small. When a high proportion of manufactured
goods consumed in the country are imported, the old labor input
coefficients in the equations used in the econometric models overstate
the effect of consumption on the size and composition of employment.
Consumer driven recovery from a recession in the USA may be a thing of
the past.

I am fairly sure that the econometric models still take the basic
input-output form they have had for the last half century. Essentially
they are matrices and are manipulated as Markov Chains. But each cell
in the labor sub matrices, requires a labor coefficient which defines
the level of relationship to other key cells. For example, take
employment in a basic industry like autos. Cells for employment in
rubber, steel, electronics, etc.., would all be related to the level
of employment in manufacturing autos, and the number of jobs in autos
would be related to the number of cars produced. (Holding productivity
etc constant for example sake). Cars produced has a relationship to
sales, and sales is related in turn to national incomes and lots else.

Anyway, import the goods and the models all need to be re-calibrated.
Speed up the rates of change in the markets, the origins of goods,
technology etc and the models become very difficult to keep current.
So then the forecasters start treating larger and larger parts of the
models as "black boxes" and . . . well thats enough. Bottomline is
that the detail is lost and the relationships are lost and the models
become less and less valid.

Dave
I am retired. my book is almost 30 yo and out of print, and besides
its only my ...IMHO.

OT It could be, it might be, it is !!!
 

"DaveS" wrote in message
...
Simply put, the amount of domestic manufacturing (USA) labor in
imported goods is very small. When a high proportion of manufactured
goods consumed in the country are imported, the old labor input
coefficients in the equations used in the econometric models overstate
the effect of consumption on the size and composition of employment.
Consumer driven recovery from a recession in the USA may be a thing of
the past.

OK, I can accept that. Still, the basic rules of economics apply....what you
say has changed is the position we have left ourselves in, collectively. My
view of a lot of the current mess is that a lot of folks managing assets in
this country forgot or chose to ignore the basic rules. They felt that
historical models were not accurate guideposts and that 'everything is
different today'. They were wrong. While on the economic subject, IMO what
RDean and some others suggest is valid as well. We have developed a broad,
national culture of overconsumption and self-absorbed feelings of
entitlement, without the corresponding need to actually earn and pay for
stuff. A lot of very irresponsible consumers did their part to inflate some
of the recent bubbles. Avoiding the prospect of those folks taking a hit for
their foolishness is avoiding the very real possibility that we go through
the same nonsense all over again. Simply blaming those in business who were
irresponsible leaves half of the equation unsolved......
Tom

..

OT It could be, it might be, it is !!!
 

On Apr 16, 3:35*pm, "Tom Littleton" wrote:
SNIP .

Tom, I hope you are excluding the millions of low wage workers from
your conclusions. And the 45-55 million uninsured people who consume
few health services. And where do the undocumented workers and their
families fit who constitute a third to a fifth of all workers in some
major industries like construction, and the majority in seasonal
agriculture. I have some relatives in Michigan who come from places
that don't look like folks are over consuming. So my guess is that
your analysis doesn't account for the Flints and Youngstowns too,
right? Been to many VA hospitals or Vets employment programs? Get
around much in the rust belt? You've been to small town New Mexico
right? Northern New England? The Iowa and Nebraska meat packing towns?
The Florida veg patches? And you are aware that the minimum wage laws
are seldom enforced in Southern California right? I guess rusty Penn
and upstate NY must be lots more prosperous than I remember.

Sorry I cannot agree that WE ALL are into the culture of over-
consumption, and therefore WE ALL share the blame for whatever. When I
was still working I was involved in helping clean up maybe a dozen
mill closures. When I started in the business 30 odd years before I
was involved in a smelter closure and the closure of 3-4 mines
(Kennecott included). Ive worked in almost every state and most of the
hell holes in this capitalist paradise. I am sorry. I cannot agree
with your broad WE when it comes to who does all this over-consumption
that you see as half the problem.

Do some people over-consume? Sure. But its not that half of the
country that lives hand to mouth. It is mostly a problem for the
coddled elite, the Coasts, and the well trained, the well educated,
the hard working and lucky, and the many who forgot where they came
from and what those of us who have done well, owe to our fellow
Americans.

I think we have an under production problem, a fair trade problem, a
greed problem, and an immoral fat cat problem.

Dave
Teddy Roosevelt knew what to do with the trusts and the monopolies

OT It could be, it might be, it is !!!
 

"DaveS" wrote in message
...
Tom, I hope you are excluding the millions of low wage workers from
your conclusions. And the 45-55 million uninsured people who consume
few health services. And where do the undocumented workers and their
families fit who constitute a third to a fifth of all workers in some
major industries like construction, and the majority in seasonal
agriculture. I have some relatives in Michigan who come from places
that don't look like folks are over consuming. So my guess is that
your analysis doesn't account for the Flints and Youngstowns too,
right? Been to many VA hospitals or Vets employment programs? Get
around much in the rust belt? You've been to small town New Mexico
right? Northern New England? The Iowa and Nebraska meat packing towns?
The Florida veg patches? And you are aware that the minimum wage laws
are seldom enforced in Southern California right? I guess rusty Penn
and upstate NY must be lots more prosperous than I remember.

Sorry I cannot agree that WE ALL are into the culture of over-
consumption, and therefore WE ALL share the blame for whatever. When I
was still working I was involved in helping clean up maybe a dozen
mill closures. When I started in the business 30 odd years before I
was involved in a smelter closure and the closure of 3-4 mines
(Kennecott included). Ive worked in almost every state and most of the
hell holes in this capitalist paradise. I am sorry. I cannot agree
with your broad WE when it comes to who does all this over-consumption
that you see as half the problem.

Do some people over-consume? Sure. But its not that half of the
country that lives hand to mouth. It is mostly a problem for the
coddled elite, the Coasts, and the well trained, the well educated,
the hard working and lucky, and the many who forgot where they came
from and what those of us who have done well, owe to our fellow
Americans.



I am not excluding anyone, nor including specific individuals. Yes, I do get
out a fair bit, and Reading can be considered "rust belt". Still, I see
plenty of decent, hardworking folks WAY outspending their realistic means.
And yes, I realize there are lots of folks who don't. Still, as I said, we
have pushed a culture, and expectations, that are unrealistic and
materialistic, so in a sense there is a collective issue here.
Tom

OT It could be, it might be, it is !!!
 

Tom Littleton wrote:

... Still, as I said, we
have pushed a culture, and expectations, that are unrealistic and
materialistic, so in a sense there is a collective issue here.

That's like saying after being hit with nuclear bombs, "well, we
have a culture that plays with firecrackers, so in a sense there's
a collective issue here."

--
Ken Fortenberry