OT .... Thoughts on ..

On Feb 9, 5:07*pm, "Tom Littleton" wrote:
"Larry L" wrote in message

...

very well thought out piece, snipped

In a way, Larry, you get to part of what I was trying to get at.....a lot of
the business of job creation depends on the outlook of the potential
customers that are going to drive your(or any) business. Much of what the
current proposals aim at, are a dire attempt to at least stabilize an ever
more pessimistic public mindset, which is driving a downward spiral.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Tom

As usual, the media is leading the way toward doom and gloom. They
can't wait to report the latest failed company or the newest round of
layoffs. Sure, that's all news, and it must somehow be reported, but
do they have to continually hammer home the idea that our economy is
doomed? There must be some positive news somewhere that they could do
2 minutes on at 6:30.

I agree that the "American Dream" must become more realistic, as must
our expectations of a complete recovery. Like Larry, as I approached
retirement, I paid down debt, so now, my mortgage is paid, I have
income from SS, my wife has SS plus a small pension, and I have a
little other income, independent of the stock market. I have a year
left to pay on my car, which should last me until I can no longer
drive, so I am basically a spectator rather than a participant in the
recession.

As far as the stimulus package is concerned, I think that the initial
investments should be in 'shovel ready" infrastructure repair, and
education. Get as many people back to work in worthwhile occupations
as quickly as possible. As the economy improves, low/no interest loans
to small businesses that have realistic business plans would be in
order. Tax cuts take too long to have an effect, haven't proved
effective over the past 8 years, and would be counterproductive, as
the revenue stream will be needed to fund the stimulus. There will be
plenty of time for tax cuts when businesses become profitable.

"george9219" wrote in message
...
As usual, the media is leading the way toward doom and gloom. They
can't wait to report the latest failed company or the newest round of
layoffs. Sure, that's all news, and it must somehow be reported, but
do they have to continually hammer home the idea that our economy is
doomed?

actually, I think the media has been restrained, to some extent, from
presenting some of the more dire scenarios which I have read from
professional economists. I sort of think folks are running scared in large
part not from the press, but opening those envelopes from the Financial
Managers and Retirement/401 statements.
As far as the stimulus package is concerned, I think that the initial
investments should be in 'shovel ready" infrastructure repair, and
education. Get as many people back to work in worthwhile occupations
as quickly as possible. As the economy improves, low/no interest loans
to small businesses that have realistic business plans would be in
order. Tax cuts take too long to have an effect, haven't proved
effective over the past 8 years, and would be counterproductive, as
the revenue stream will be needed to fund the stimulus. There will be
plenty of time for tax cuts when businesses become profitable.

I tend to agree. I just hope it works.......

Tom

On Feb 9, 7:10*pm, "Larry L" wrote:
I ran my own small biz for 30 years and usually had an employee or two, and
for the 10 years before that I was in middle management of a large company
and responsible for budget and staffing of my dept, about 10 peoples job's
were at stake. * *Those 40 years are my entire education in "economics," so
I certainly don't claim to be expert. * * But, I see things posted here that
seem to be little more than blindly repeated, politically inspired, bunk, so
my own contributions can't fall too far below the bar that has been set.

//////////////////////////////////

Thoughts on ..

1) "creating jobs"

Every one of the millions of jobs that have been lost recently was "created"
at some previous time. * * Creating is damn easy, I could create one this
morning by simply hiring a "ranch manager." * *Problem is, I'd have to lay
him off this afternoon because I ran out of funds to support that job.
The "creating" is, at best, worthless unless they can be sustained.

It's true that 'Money' creates jobs, but, in most cases, *that does NOT mean
what people think. * * *Job's created by true venture capitalists are, I'm
sure, a very small % of the total. * * And venture capital does damn little
to sustain those jobs, the ideas, products and people 'capitalized' have to
produce and sell or the jobs soon vanish.

The money *that matters most is the money that inspires and sustains a job.

For a simplistic example, let's say I own a small sto * *The business at
that store gradually grows and I notice lines at the registers, looks of
frustration in the faces of my increasing clientele when help isn't
available quickly. * *THEIR money, that I hope they will spend in my store,
is my inspiration to add an employee .... AND it's the money that will keep
that new guy employed, hopefully for years. * * Any money of my own ( or
borrowed ) that I use to get a new cash register, etc. is only a very short
term investment ... 'money' true, but not the really important money. * *The
important money is the money the average customer is spending, over the long
term.

And that important money must be available in quantity greater than just
enough to pay the new guys salary. * I am a business man and I must recover
that salary, the money I spent on the register and interest, and increase my
profits. * *Tending to the problems associated with employees simply isn't
worth having another one UNLESS he makes me more than he costs me ...
obviously. * * *Most businesses, regardless of size, add employees slowly,
one at a time nearly ( obviously there are seasonal exceptions and very
rapidly growing market ones too ). * It's generally better biz to be a tiny
bit short handed than overstaffed. * *Taking a short term windfall to
'create a new job" unless the prospects of the long term flow of Mr.
Average's money will sustain that job is BAD business ... taking "$300,000
to creat 30 jobs" without a market to support them is pure folly.

The 'money' that is going to make my theoretical new guy's job possible as a
practical matter isn't MY "rich guy creating jobs' money, it's Joe Average's
money he spends and puts into the economy, partly via my store. * * I have
customers from all levels of the economy, the wealthy ones are steady
shoppers buying about the same in good times and bad, but it's the "Joes"
that buy when they can, don't when they have to cut back, that make the new
guys job secure, or not.

/////////////

other thoughts may follow in other posts

Some of the realities of global economics;

http://www.nlcnet.org/article.php?id=613

TL
MC

Let's see....... Obama wants 3,000,000 jobs, and it's gonna cost us
$900,000,000,000.00. Sounds like a fair return on the buck, eh?

Unemployment is now 7.5%. It was double digits in the late 70s.
Inflation is still low. It was double digits in that late 70s.
Interest rates are very low. They were double digits in the late 70s.

It's nowhere near as bad as the Chicken Littles in the nuthouse would
have you believe. The sky ain't falling, Larry. Go fishing.

On Feb 10, 1:02*am, Dave LaCourse wrote:
Let's see....... Obama wants 3,000,000 jobs, and it's gonna cost us
$900,000,000,000.00. *Sounds like a fair return on the buck, eh?

Unemployment is now 7.5%. *It was double digits in the late 70s.
Inflation is still low. *It was double digits in that late 70s.
Interest rates are very low. *They were double digits in the late 70s.

It's nowhere near as bad as the Chicken Littles in the nuthouse would
have you believe. *The sky ain't falling, Larry. *Go fishing.

Nope, Obama only wants one job, president, and he got it.

"Dave LaCourse" wrote



Go fishing.




I was planning to today, but it was windy here, I'll get out one day this
week .... hopefully

We've had a bit of rain and the rivers may get muddy, so it may be
stillwater fly fishing for planters, but that is still better than more of
this trolling on UseNet ;-)

"Dave LaCourse" wrote in message
...
It's nowhere near as bad as the Chicken Littles in the nuthouse would
have you believe.

dude, this is the starting point. Where it ends up could very well be worse
than you apparently seem capable of imagining.
Tom
p.s--Chart out the job losses from last October to the present, on a monthly
basis. Do you really think this is the end of the cycle, David??

"Tom Littleton" wrote in message
...

"Dave LaCourse" wrote in message
...
It's nowhere near as bad as the Chicken Littles in the nuthouse would
have you believe.

dude, this is the starting point. Where it ends up could very well be
worse than you apparently seem capable of imagining.
Tom
p.s--Chart out the job losses from last October to the present, on a
monthly basis. Do you really think this is the end of the cycle, David??

An addendum for you, David:
Along with the unemployment problem, we also have a large level of
underemployment; people working, but not able to get full time work. In my
county, we have 7.1% unemployment(slightly better than average), but close
to another 11% underemployed. This is something not seen since the Great
Depression crisis. You must see this sort of thing in MA as well, especially
working, as you do, with a food bank(a truly creditable activity on your
part, and a great example of why I expressed disappointment at your position
in this financial mess).
Tom

On Tue, 10 Feb 2009 02:20:19 GMT, "Tom Littleton"
wrote:

An addendum for you, David:
Along with the unemployment problem, we also have a large level of
underemployment; people working, but not able to get full time work. In my
county, we have 7.1% unemployment(slightly better than average), but close
to another 11% underemployed. This is something not seen since the Great
Depression crisis. You must see this sort of thing in MA as well, especially
working, as you do, with a food bank(a truly creditable activity on your
part, and a great example of why I expressed disappointment at your position
in this financial mess).

No, I haven't seen it. In fact, Joanne just hired two new electronic
engineers, while laying off a graphic artist. She will hire a couple
of more engineers in a few months after a reorg.

There are always underemployed people, and probably always will be.
Like I said, if you take the money being spent and divide it by the
number of jobs being "created", the answer is mind boggling.

If Obama gave me $300,000, I would buy a truck, get a loan and build
another income property. Think how YOU could influence the economy of
this country if YOU were given $300,000 to spend on it. This is not a
stiumuls package, Tom.

Dave

"Dave LaCourse" wrote in message
...
No, I haven't seen it.

Either your local economy is wildly different from ours, or you ain't
looking too hard.

Like I said, if you take the money being spent and divide it by the
number of jobs being "created", the answer is mind boggling.

If Obama gave me $300,000, I would buy a truck, get a loan and build
another income property. Think how YOU could influence the economy of
this country if YOU were given $300,000 to spend on it.

Where in the dickens do you come up with $300,000 per person, David?? Here's
how your math works: 300,000
times 300,000,000 US residents equals 90 TRILLION dollars. I will guess that
more stimulus will be needed, but I suspect it will fall a bit short of $90
trillion. Maybe that is what has pushed you view of this package, your own
calculations!g
Tom


Dave