• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

Barack Obama is...

Corporations are killing it right now.

The DOW is up 85% in less than 500 days.

How does decreasing government revenue (ie: cutting public sector jobs) and increasing revenue of corporations help unemployment when the past 2 years have seen huge corporation revenue gains but no corresponding hiring frenzy?
 
DCDeac said:
Corporations are killing it right now.

The DOW is up 85% in less than 500 days.

How does decreasing government revenue (ie: cutting public sector jobs) and increasing revenue of corporations help unemployment when the past 2 years have seen huge corporation revenue gains but no corresponding hiring frenzy?
Click to expand...

Indeed. Most companies bought a new server and fired the 50 yr old account.
 
Oh for Christ's sake... Bernanke is propping up the market. You guys really aren't aware of quantitative easing?
 
DirkTheDeac said:
Oh for Christ's sake... Bernanke is propping up the market. You guys really aren't aware of quantitative easing?
Click to expand...

While it's obvious what the effects of QEI and II are and will be, I prefer it to the alternative of no QE.

I do question whether we really need a QE3. If it happens the SLV and GLD options I'm holding are going to be worth a mint.
 
ArlingtonDeac said:
Good luck with that. Check of Nate Silver's blog regarding the correlation of the unemployment rate to reelection of an incumbent. Or, more specifically, the complete lack thereof.

Obama is doing just fine for the employed and investing portion of the private sector. The fact remains that corporate America has just learned that they don't need most of the staff they laid off to operate effectively, and currently have no intention of restaffing those positions despite strengthening profits. That's why this is a jobless recovery, and that's not something to be laid at the feet of the executive branch. Unless you're advocating for massive government hiring (read: stimulus spending) to provide jobs on a temporary basis. Is that your position?

When I read post like this I often wonder what the right thinks the economy would've look like today under a McCain presidency. I'm going to go with: nearly identical.
Click to expand...

How much debt would the nation be saddled with in the future though? I'm going with...not at all identical.

Some people actually care about the country 30-40 years from now, not just what happens between now and 2012.
 
Liquid Karma said:
While it's obvious what the effects of QEI and II are and will be, I prefer it to the alternative of no QE.

I do question whether we really need a QE3. If it happens the SLV and GLD options I'm holding are going to be worth a mint.
Click to expand...

I wasn't passing judgement on QEI or II, I was simply pointing out that it played a big part in the market recovery. And I also mean to say that there are a lot of companies that are over-valued.
 
ArlingtonDeac said:
The fact remains that corporate America has just learned that they don't need most of the staff they laid off to operate effectively, and currently have no intention of restaffing those positions despite strengthening profits.
Click to expand...

This is so indicative of the liberal perspective on business.

For all the rhetoric about Republicans and big business, the liberal mindset sees effectively no business sector except big business.

I though Obama was a community organizer...were there no small businesses in the community he organized? That seems like the obvious answer to how you solve 9% unemployment when big businesses aren't rehiring. Obama seems to be writing it off as the new "full employment".

Small wonder why. Unemployed people are more vulnerable to the appeals of the Democrat party than are self-employed businesspeople.

President Barack Obama (a subsidiary of Goldman Sachs) isn't about to ruin the big bank gravy train though. Why should they take risk when they don't have to in order to make money?
 
I still love the fact the right says 54,000 new jobs in the private sector is failing. REmind me again what the numbers and trwendxs were when he took office.....
 
DirkTheDeac said:
So, he has no control over unemployment but he owns the Dow.
Click to expand...

I didn't day that. I'd say a net of +750-800,000 jobs in a bad month now versus the situation when he took office is progress. maybe not enough, but it is very serious progress.

Changing -5.8% GDP to even +2% in a bad quarter is also progress.
 
DirkTheDeac said:
So, he has no control over unemployment but he owns the Dow.
Click to expand...

Dirk, just as a heads up, the next Republican President is going to have to answer the same unemployment questions, and a computer costs 1K, an employee costs more.
 
RJKarl said:
I still love the fact the right says 54,000 new jobs in the private sector is failing. REmind me again what the numbers and trwendxs were when he took office.....
Click to expand...

RJ, you know there is not any difference between drowning in 50' of water and 100'.
 
KanhojiAngre said:
This is so indicative of the liberal perspective on business.

For all the rhetoric about Republicans and big business, the liberal mindset sees effectively no business sector except big business.

I though Obama was a community organizer...were there no small businesses in the community he organized? That seems like the obvious answer to how you solve 9% unemployment when big businesses aren't rehiring. Obama seems to be writing it off as the new "full employment".

Small wonder why. Unemployed people are more vulnerable to the appeals of the Democrat party than are self-employed businesspeople.

President Barack Obama (a subsidiary of Goldman Sachs) isn't about to ruin the big bank gravy train though. Why should they take risk when they don't have to in order to make money?
Click to expand...

Seems like small businesses are learning to do more with fewer employees as well. Not sure how that belongs only to big business.

The real challenges of unemployment don't have to do with this petty squabbling about tax breaks. The money is there to hire people. We're not doing it.

Three things I'd like to see added to the discussion:
1. Making hiring more attractive. I won't begrudge an employer not hiring when he doesn't need to hire. The question I want answered is why doesn't he need to hire? Technology is one of the culprits. I don't think people have kept up with technology. If human capital doesn't keep up with technology, it makes sense that human capital will become less valuable over time. So how do we improve human capital accordingly? What stops employers from taking on risks and adding jobs?

2. Making American workers more attractive without sacrificing American standards. We can't compete with workers in poorer countries with similar education, but lower standards of living. If we still want to have a global marketplace, we have to figure out how American workers can compete for American jobs from what is essentially a structural disadvantage of requiring wages necessary to actually live in America.

3. Moving health care away from employment. It will be interesting to follow what happens in Vermont as they put together their single payer system. Will Vermont be more attractive to businesses who know they'll have to pay less in Vermont to hire new workers?
 
Guess no new businesses can be started either that would then employ people...whether it's many or a couple.

What stops employers from taking on risk? Uncertainty, fear over the economic future in light of higher prices, stealth inflation that isn't showing up in the official numbers but sure is showing up in the checkout line, banks that aren't lending, degraded national credit, weak real estate markets that have left many people underwater, and many people that would rather take a check from the government than even look for a job or make themselves more marketable as potential employees.

The only way to make American workers more attractive without trading down is vastly improved education. Unskilled labor in this country is finished. That should be obvious. Technical or trade schools and a GED is the bare minimum. Our public schools have completely failed.

It will be interested to see how the court cases against Obamacare affect other government health care ideas. It seems likely that the ruling/precedent will be that it's illegal to force people to pay for insurance. I wonder if the affect to businesses would be negligible though because if you don't have to pay for insurance, are you still going to get tax abatements/incentives like they do now? Never mind that Vermont is not exactly a low-cost state in which to do business.
 
ONW said:
Dirk, just as a heads up, the next Republican President is going to have to answer the same unemployment questions, and a computer costs 1K, an employee costs more.
Click to expand...

And if he spends the country into a deep hole under the promise that it'll bring down unemployment, and then unemployment doesn't go below the number cited, that next Republican president will certainly deserve those questions.

What's Obama's plan to pay down 14 trillion dollars? Preferably before we default and without robbing the American people by inflating the currency.
 
KanhojiAngre said:
And if he spends the country into a deep hole under the promise that it'll bring down unemployment, and then unemployment doesn't go below the number cited, that next Republican president will certainly deserve those questions.

What's Obama's plan to pay down 14 trillion dollars? Preferably before we default and without robbing the American people by inflating the currency.
Click to expand...

Start 2 new wars, cut taxes, and increase corporate tax breaks?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top