Breaking News! US GDP Spurts 7.2% In Third Quarter Growth
Erik Trammel
--
At the turn of the century (1900)
the immense majority of Germans were
already supporters of radical socialism
and aggressive nationalism.-- Ludwig von Mises
***
This is the highest one- quarter growth increase since 1984. Guess who was U.S.
president then? That's right--supply-sider Ronald Reagan. So again George Bush has
proved that capitalist supply-side economics, when implemented properly, can confirm
economist F.A. Hayek's theories as set out in his book denouncing socialism,
"The Road to Serfdom".
Many Americans have recently been wringing their hands about a "jobless recovery". But a
growth rate of 7.2% just has to create more jobs. And most economists predict that the good
news will continue, not increases in future quarters of 7 or even 6 per cent. But at a healthy
more sustainable rate of about 4.5 %.
Now we wonder what Canada's third quarter will look like. It was not long ago that its
socialist proponent of state capitalism, P.M. Jean Chretien was bragging about Canada's
economic outperformance of the U.S. Canada had a higher GDP growth rate and no deficit, etc.
But at that time one saw that U.S. productivity growth was far outstripping that of Canada.
Now, it appears that the chickens have come home to roost for Chretien's one party socialist state,
Canada. Indeed its leading and wealthiest province Ontario has an announced deficit of $5.8 billion.
This is mainly the result of federal Liberal economic policies.
This does not augur well for Canada and it is all the fault of Canadian "liberals" and socialists who
have had the nation living beyond its means. Now Canada is becoming more and more like a banana republic.
Arved Sandstrom
news:3O9ob.112535$3f.3...@twister01.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com...
[ SNIP ]
> Many Americans have recently been wringing their hands about a "jobless
recovery". But a
> growth rate of 7.2% just has to create more jobs. And most economists
predict that the good
> news will continue, not increases in future quarters of 7 or even 6 per
cent. But at a healthy
> more sustainable rate of about 4.5 %.
And that job creation will make the Mexicans, Chinese and Indians very
happy.
AHS
Anti.Spammer
>This does not augur well for Canada and it is all the fault of
Canadian >"liberals" and socialists who
>have had the nation living beyond its means. Now Canada is becoming
>more and more like a banana republic.
Oh crap! Canada's debt to GDP is 40% headed to 25%!
Some "banana republic"!
Meanwhile the US is at 59%, apparently headed to 160%
just like the Japanese... some "right wing regime"
As for their "growth" figures, is that before or after
you account for a 20% decline in the US$ against all
major currencies, including the C$??? And does
it account for the expected further 40% decline(!)
over the next 12 months? I doubt they did that little
calculation, but major US investors like Templeton
and Buffet have been for over a year now...
TheMan
"Erik Trammel" <tra...@rogers.com> wrote in message
news:3O9ob.112535$3f.3...@twister01.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com...
>
>
> At the turn of the century (1900)
> the immense majority of Germans were
> already supporters of radical socialism
> and aggressive nationalism.-- Ludwig von Mises
>
> ***
> This is the highest one- quarter growth increase since 1984. Guess who was
U.S.
> president then? That's right--supply-sider Ronald Reagan. So again George
Bush has
> proved that capitalist supply-side economics, when implemented properly,
can confirm
> economist F.A. Hayek's theories as set out in his book denouncing
socialism,
> "The Road to Serfdom".
SELL SELL SELL
http://finance.yahoo.com/q/bc?s=^IXIC&t=1d&c=
http://biz.yahoo.com/cbsm-top/031030/de66293e3ac80cd7a4c252794081cd23_1.html
-TheMan-
netvegetable
>
> --
> At the turn of the century (1900)
> the immense majority of Germans were
> already supporters of radical socialism and aggressive nationalism.--
> Ludwig von Mises
>
> ***
> This is the highest one- quarter growth increase since 1984. Guess who
> was U.S. president then? That's right--supply-sider Ronald Reagan. So
> again George Bush has proved that capitalist supply-side economics, when
> implemented properly, can confirm economist F.A. Hayek's theories as set
> out in his book denouncing socialism, "The Road to Serfdom".
>
LMAO!
What on Earth would the Americans know about capitalist economics? They're
among the biggest agragrian socialists and protectionists out there.
--
to email me remove the word "NOT" from my addy
"..... I think what has kept your country safe and sane,
relatively, is that you have an ethic we don't have in America, which
is that if one person is hurting, we're all hurting."
Michael Moore
Cowboy Neal
> This is the highest one- quarter growth increase since 1984. Guess who
> was U.S. president then? That's right--supply-sider Ronald Reagan. So
> again George Bush has proved that capitalist supply-side economics,
> when implemented properly, can confirm economist F.A. Hayek's theories
> as set out in his book denouncing socialism, "The Road to Serfdom".
You do realize that in 1982 Ronald Reagan signed the largest tax increase
in US history, right? So how does the 1984 growth rate in any way validate
supply side economics?
CN
Winston Smith, American Patriot
discovered Cold Fusion.
The Fed holds its open market committee meeting the day before yesterday,
with alleged evidence of right wingers that the economy is almost
overheating, and they don't raise interest rates?????
---------------------
Fed Keeps Short-Term Interest Rate at 1%
By EDMUND L. ANDREWS
Published: October 29, 2003
WASHINGTON, Oct. 28 - The Federal Reserve kept short-term interest rates at
1 percent on Tuesday, the lowest level in 45 years, and suggested that it
would continue to do so until at least sometime next year.
In a statement accompanying the decision, the Fed was optimistic for the
first time this year about job creation and employment, saying, "The labor
market appears to be stabilizing."
But the Fed did not mention that economic growth appears to have
accelerated to a blistering annual pace of 6 percent in recent months, or
refer to a raft of data showing that business spending and investor
confidence has climbed sharply.
Instead, it reiterated its view of the last several months that there is
more risk that inflation will be too low rather than too high, and it
repeated its intention to continue its policy of rock-bottom interest rates
for "a considerable period."
That was a signal that the Fed is not ready even to warn about rate
increases and even less ready to raise rates.
Though not entirely unexpected, the statement helped push up a stock market
that was already climbing in anticipation of more giant mergers like the
one announced on Monday between FleetBoston Financial and Bank of America.
Some economists warned that the Fed is waiting too long to prepare
financial markets for a retightening of monetary policy.
"The upcoming data will soon enough force the Fed to change its stance,"
wrote Ian Shepherdson, an economist at High Frequency Economics in
Valhalla, N.Y. "Otherwise it will begin to look ridiculous."
On Thursday, the Commerce Department is expected to report that economic
growth in the third quarter was the fastest since late 1999. Most
forecasters think the economy grew at an annual rate of 6 percent, and some
think it climbed even faster.
Shortly before the Fed announced its decision, the Commerce Department
reported that orders for durable goods - expensive products with an
expected lifetime of three years or more - climbed 0.8 percent in
September. Excluding orders for transportation goods, which are volatile,
orders climbed 1.2 percent.
"Business pricing power and increases in core consumer prices remain
muted," the central bank's Federal Open Market Committee said. "On balance,
the risk of inflation becoming undesirably low remains the predominant
concern for the foreseeable future."
Tuesday's decision appeared to reflect a lingering concern on the part of
Alan Greenspan, the Fed chairman, that the recent increase in spending
could be short-lived.
Mr. Greenspan won praise during the 1990's for adjusting monetary policy in
advance of changes in the economy. But this time around, Mr. Greenspan
appears to want more concrete verification that unemployment is about to
decline below its current level of 6.1 percent and that consumer prices
will not sink into a downward spiral of deflation.
Minutes from the Fed's August meeting make it clear that Mr. Greenspan and
other Fed officials are paying particularly close attention to companies'
limited ability to raise prices.
Excluding food and energy, which are always volatile, consumer prices are
climbing at an annual rate of about 1 percent, and prices for many
manufactured goods are not increasing at all.
But investors are already starting to bet on rising inflation over the
longer term. Long-term interest rates have climbed significantly since mid-
June, even though the Federal Reserve has kept its overnight rates
extremely low.
The growing divergence between low short-term rates and higher long-term
rates, including rates for home mortgages, reflects a growing tension
between what the Federal Reserve is doing and what investors think the Fed
will do.
In its statement on Tuesday, the Fed repeated previous formulations that
"spending is firming." But John Vail, an economist at Mizuho Securities,
said a more accurate description would be that spending is booming.
The big question is when and how Fed officials will signal a shift in
policy. Mr. Greenspan came in for intense criticism from financial
investors last summer, who had become convinced the Fed was about to push
down long-term interest rates as well as the Federal Funds rate for
overnight loans. When Mr. Greenspan subsequently let it be known that he
did not see a need for such action, long-term rates suddenly jumped and
bond investors lost billions.
Now, analysts and investors are fixated on the Fed's assurances that
monetary policy will remain easy "for a considerable period." Any retreat
from that language could jolt the markets, but most analysts believe a rate
increase is inevitable.
Robert DiClemente, senior United States economist at Citigroup, said it was
still too early to expect a shift. "This language is not window-dressing,
and jettisoning it is not a housecleaning matter," he wrote in a note to
investors on Tuesday. "It is most needed in the present situation when
business confidence has just begun to take root."
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/10/29/business/29fed.html?ex=1068008400&en=cd60
d92e3b83d1aa&ei=5062&partner=GOOGLE
Errant_Eye
I thought a weak dollar was good for the American worker. It means
American goods are cheaper to purchase abroad, it means foreign
workers are more expensive to pay thus more jobs for the American
worker. It does make imported goods more expensive to buy, but your
basic liberal trade protectionism does that too.
David Deilley
news:3O9ob.112535$3f.3...@twister01.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com...
>
>
> --
> At the turn of the century (1900)
> the immense majority of Germans were
> already supporters of radical socialism
> and aggressive nationalism.-- Ludwig von Mises
>
> ***
> This is the highest one- quarter growth increase since 1984. Guess who was
U.S.
> president then? That's right--supply-sider Ronald Reagan. So again George
Bush has
> proved that capitalist supply-side economics, when implemented properly,
can confirm
> economist F.A. Hayek's theories as set out in his book denouncing
socialism,
> "The Road to Serfdom".
Actually - no.
It is a vindication of Keynes observation that you can use huge government
deficits to prime econmimic growth. When Canadian governments did that you
called it "scoialism." You are an economic illiterate and a partisan hack.
Nothing you say is to be trusted.
danny
Arved Sandstrom wrote:
...the fall of the overvalued $US should help to correct some
problems. Not long ago the US had more than full employment.
I think you are overly pessimistic.
danny
danny
netvegetable wrote:
>On Thu, 30 Oct 2003 15:06:39 +0000, Erik Trammel wrote:
>
>
>
>
>>--
>>At the turn of the century (1900)
>>the immense majority of Germans were
>>already supporters of radical socialism and aggressive nationalism.--
>>Ludwig von Mises
>>
>>***
>>This is the highest one- quarter growth increase since 1984. Guess who
>>was U.S. president then? That's right--supply-sider Ronald Reagan. So
>>again George Bush has proved that capitalist supply-side economics, when
>>implemented properly, can confirm economist F.A. Hayek's theories as set
>>out in his book denouncing socialism, "The Road to Serfdom".
>>
>>
>>
>LMAO!
>
>What on Earth would the Americans know about capitalist economics? They're
>among the biggest agragrian socialists and protectionists out there.
>
Bush is certainly no economic genius. However,
to say that the world's most successful capitalist
nation knows nothing about capitalism, perhaps paints
with too broad a brush.
danny
>
>
>
>
danny
Winston Smith, American Patriot wrote:
>Here you have evidence of Bush supporters declaring loudly that they have
>discovered Cold Fusion.
>
>The Fed holds its open market committee meeting the day before yesterday,
>with alleged evidence of right wingers that the economy is almost
>overheating, and they don't raise interest rates?????
>
Things are improving but, in absolute terms,
unemployment is still far too high to raise interest rates.
Besides the fed is worried about deflation so it
wants to increase the rate of inflation, not only
as an end in itself but also to allow it to use negative
interest rates as a tool in the future, should it prove
necessary.
danny
Bruce Roberts
> discovered Cold Fusion.
>
> The Fed holds its open market committee meeting the day before yesterday,
> with alleged evidence of right wingers that the economy is almost
The Fed did not raise interest rates as there is no inflation in the
U.S. This is because of recent incredibly high productivity growth.
And the spurt in productivity has been effected by improved technology
and machinery. Business spending is way up because of Bush's tax cuts
and supply-side economics.
>
>
Bruce Roberts
> called it "scoialism." (sic) You are an economic illiterate and a partisan hack.
> Nothing you say is to be trusted.
Again you are wrong. The 7.2 % GDP growth was broken down and analyzed
on CNBC. Any government spending increase (which would be Keynesian) was
many times lower, virtually negligible, than spending by business in the
private sector. And almost none of the increase was due to inflation.
Business spending on new equipment was up a whopping 11%. This prefaces
more future increases in U.S. productivity.
So you are again shown to be full of shit, Comrade Reilley.
>
>
danny
Bruce Roberts wrote:
> Winston Smith, American Patriot wrote:
>
>> Here you have evidence of Bush supporters declaring loudly that they
>> have discovered Cold Fusion.
>>
>> The Fed holds its open market committee meeting the day before
>> yesterday, with alleged evidence of right wingers that the economy is
>> almost overheating, and they don't raise interest rates????? (snipped)
>
>
> The Fed did not raise interest rates as there is no inflation in the
> U.S. This is because of recent incredibly high productivity growth.
...and even the danger of deflation.
Scott Steel
A renowned economic modelling powerhouse B^P
>Any government spending increase (which would be Keynesian) was
>many times lower, virtually negligible, than spending by business in the
>private sector. And almost none of the increase was due to inflation.
>
>Business spending on new equipment was up a whopping 11%. This prefaces
>more future increases in U.S. productivity.
>
>So you are again shown to be full of shit, Comrade Reilley.
When you've got the triple whammy of hyper stimulation on
the economy with cheap debt, big deficits and a falling
currency, it's hardly surprising that you get a growth
spurt.If it didnt occur there would be a major problem.
But it aint sustainable, yet its a very good thing for all
concerned none the less.
Scott Steel
Winston Smith, American Patriot
Did you even bother to read the article AT ALL????
The reasons the Fed gave were NOWHERE NEAR the reason you put here, which
obviously comes from a GOP "Talking Points" memo.
For those who want the spin-free version of the reasons, the article is
once again quoted:
JAC
<Spam.S...@on.net> wrote:
>As for their "growth" figures, is that before or after
>you account for a 20% decline in the US$ against all
>major currencies, including the C$??? And does
>it account for the expected further 40% decline(!)
>over the next 12 months? I doubt they did that little
>calculation, but major US investors like Templeton
>and Buffet have been for over a year now...
A weak dollar is a positive thing in terms of workers, as it makes US
goods easier to purchase overseas.
JAC
<scott_steel...@iprimus.com.au> wrote:
>When you've got the triple whammy of hyper stimulation on
>the economy with cheap debt, big deficits and a falling
>currency, it's hardly surprising that you get a growth
>spurt.If it didnt occur there would be a major problem.
>
>But it aint sustainable, yet its a very good thing for all
>concerned none the less.
Spurt? We've had positive GDP growth since late 2001, EVERY quarter.
laura_bush_-_america's_kid_killer
wrote:
HAHA. Nobody but you RW sheep believe the economy grew that much.
Everyone knows bush is lying again. Did you see what the stock market
did today?. A huge rally at the start then ended up with losses for
the day as cooler heads realized it's all just another bush lie.
Scott Steel
<techguy71-at-...@remove.com> wrote:
>On Fri, 31 Oct 2003 10:42:10 +1000, Scott Steel
><scott_steel...@iprimus.com.au> wrote:
>
>>When you've got the triple whammy of hyper stimulation on
>>the economy with cheap debt, big deficits and a falling
>>currency, it's hardly surprising that you get a growth
>>spurt.If it didnt occur there would be a major problem.
>>
>>But it aint sustainable, yet its a very good thing for all
>>concerned none the less.
>
>Spurt?
Sure - its what it was.You might even get it next quarter to
boot.Especially if the business sector does one of those
"follow the leader" type things and replenish their
inventories.
> We've had positive GDP growth since late 2001, EVERY quarter.
Sure - its a spurt on top of otherwise sluggish growth.When
you stimulate the shit out of the economy you get a growth
spurt, even if its on top of low but positive economic
growth.
Scott Steel
netvegetable
>>LMAO!
>>
>>What on Earth would the Americans know about capitalist economics?
>>They're among the biggest agragrian socialists and protectionists out
>>there.
>>
> Bush is certainly no economic genius. However, to say that the world's
> most successful capitalist nation knows nothing about capitalism,
> perhaps paints with too broad a brush.
>
>
Frogs are the most successfull amphibians on the planet. Would you consult
one about biology?
America's success as a capitalist nation is due to large demographics, and
plentiful resources support those demographics for most of their history.
It is nothing to with expertise.
If Americans were true capitalists, they would not agree with their
government's traditional policies of rural protectionism and
subsidization. As it is, they're not opposed to a bit of central planning
socialism when it suits them.
This is particularly so of the present government! And economic success
they are having is inspite of this, not because of it.
JAC
<scott_steel...@iprimus.com.au> wrote:
>Sure - its a spurt on top of otherwise sluggish growth.When
>you stimulate the shit out of the economy you get a growth
>spurt, even if its on top of low but positive economic
>growth.
So what are you hoping for, negative growth? No growth? What would
make you happy?
JAC
On Thu, 30 Oct 2003 22:16:44 -0700, Laura Bush - America's kid killer
wrote:
>On Thu, 30 Oct 2003 15:06:39 GMT, "Erik Trammel" <tra...@rogers.com>
>wrote:
>
>HAHA. Nobody but you RW sheep believe the economy grew that much.
>Everyone knows bush is lying again.
Um....genius.....Bush doesn't determine the GDP.
>Did you see what the stock market
>did today?. A huge rally at the start then ended up with losses for
>the day as cooler heads realized it's all just another bush lie.
And the stock market is tied to GDP exactly how?
Arved Sandstrom
news:2ad5qvo6e67fdu9od...@4ax.com...
You have a point here. It doesn't seem like the stock market is more than
tenuously connected to anything real at all.
AHS
By the way, if some guy at some spammer's business hasn't already modified
his email harvesting program to deal with email addresses like yours, I'd be
very surprised.
Scott Steel
3.5 to 4% annualised and sustainable growth combined with a
15-20% reduction in the value of the USD over the next 4 to
6 quarters.
Scott Steel
danny
netvegetable wrote:
>On Thu, 30 Oct 2003 21:12:29 +0000, danny wrote:
>
>
>
>>>LMAO!
>>>
>>>What on Earth would the Americans know about capitalist economics?
>>>They're among the biggest agragrian socialists and protectionists out
>>>there.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>Bush is certainly no economic genius. However, to say that the world's
>>most successful capitalist nation knows nothing about capitalism,
>>perhaps paints with too broad a brush.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>Frogs are the most successfull amphibians on the planet. Would you consult
>one about biology?
>
Scientists do all the time. That's how
what makes a successful
animal is understood. See 'What the
Frogs Eye Tells the Frog's Brain'
>
>America's success as a capitalist nation is due to large demographics, and
>plentiful resources
>
Like Nigeria or Saudi? Canada has nothing
but resources. Russia has resource
coming out its ass.
>support those demographics for most of their history.
>It is nothing to with expertise.
>
You are dead wrong.
>
>If Americans were true capitalists, they would not agree with their
>government's traditional policies of rural protectionism and
>subsidization. As it is, they're not opposed to a bit of central planning
>socialism when it suits them.
>
No modern nation is purely capitalist.
If they were you'd be
the first to complain.
>
>This is particularly so of the present government! And economic success
>they are having is inspite of this, not because of it.
>
>
Must be a 300 year run of good luck.
danny
Hugh Jazz
Oh crap, we have a leftist liar - must correct his false arithmetic.
The American Debt to GDP is less than 40% right now. It is at 37.5%
and is estimated to peak in 2006 at 40% (with the current defecits)
and will start to decrease. Also, this announcement leads me to
believe that the american economy is growing faster than expected
which means their debt-to-GDP will be lower than expected.
http://www.nationalreview.com/nrof_malpass/malpass072203.asp
The real problem is the increased government spending which is rising
by 8% this year. And I am not going to get into a debate about the
necessity of the Iraq invasion, but that also has increased the costs
of government.
netvegetable
>>Frogs are the most successfull amphibians on the planet. Would you
>>consult one about biology?
>>
> Scientists do all the time. That's how what makes a successful animal is
> understood. See 'What the
> Frogs Eye Tells the Frog's Brain'
>
So if we disected an American that might tell us something about
capitalism?
You are now stretching the analogy into the realm of the absurd.
>>America's success as a capitalist nation is due to large demographics,
>>and plentiful resources
>>
> Like Nigeria or Saudi? Canada has nothing but resources. Russia has
> resource
> coming out its ass.
>
>>support those demographics for most of their history. It is nothing to
>>with expertise.
>>
> You are dead wrong.
>
>
I don't know who told you that Arabia has resources. If not for the oil,
which they had to wait 'till the modern era to exploit, they have little
but camel dung and sand. They have a significant agricultural sector these
days, but only due to modern irrigation which again, they had to wait
'till the modern era for.
Canada is indeed a prosperous nation, but without the US's demographic
advantage.
Russia is a region as arid as Australia, but with an infinitely more
hostile climate. The rigours of agriculture bound the overwhelming
majority of people to the land, for most of her history, and that remained
the case up until the Stalin era. (Compare this to the Great Plains in the
US, which was, and still is, fertile enough to easily support a large
population with surpluss.) Russia also had/has another huge historical
disadvantage, that the country has very few large viable ports. This is
partly what lead them into the Crimean War, the First World War and a few
others, all in desperate attempt to get closer to the mediterranean. That
severely limited her capacity as a trading nation (unlike the United
States, which had access to both the Atlantic and Pacific). And through a
large part of her history, she shared a border with hostile Prussia and
Austria, then later Germany.
>>If Americans were true capitalists, they would not agree with their
>>government's traditional policies of rural protectionism and
>>subsidization. As it is, they're not opposed to a bit of central
>>planning socialism when it suits them.
>>
> No modern nation is purely capitalist.
Very true, but some are less so than others. In particular the United
States is less. Suprising, given they tend to have the ideological outlook
of true social darwinists.
>If they were you'd be the first
> to complain.
>
>
>>This is particularly so of the present government! And economic success
>>they are having is inspite of this, not because of it.
>>
>>
> Must be a 300 year run of good luck.
>
Indeed. America's geographical isolation has also played a big part. Her
dominance in the C20th was largely due to fact that at the end of the war
her factories were still intact.
danny
netvegetable wrote:
>On Sat, 01 Nov 2003 00:27:46 +0000, danny wrote:
>
>
>
>>>Frogs are the most successfull amphibians on the planet. Would you
>>>consult one about biology?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>Scientists do all the time. That's how what makes a successful animal is
>>understood. See 'What the
>>Frogs Eye Tells the Frog's Brain'
>>
>>
>>
>So if we disected an American that might tell us something about
>capitalism?
>
>You are now stretching the analogy into the realm of the absurd.
>
No! I am demonstrating the meaning
of your analogy.
>
>
>
>
>>>America's success as a capitalist nation is due to large demographics,
>>>and plentiful resources
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>Like Nigeria or Saudi? Canada has nothing but resources. Russia has
>>resource
>>coming out its ass.
>>
>>
>>
>>>support those demographics for most of their history. It is nothing to
>>>with expertise.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>You are dead wrong.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>I don't know who told you that Arabia has resources. If not for the oil,
>which they had to wait 'till the modern era to exploit, they have little
>but camel dung and sand. They have a significant agricultural sector these
>days, but only due to modern irrigation which again, they had to wait
>'till the modern era for.
>
>
A fortune in oil is all ya need.
>
>Canada is indeed a prosperous nation, but without the US's demographic
>advantage.
>
>Russia is a region as arid as Australia, but with an infinitely more
>hostile climate. The rigours of agriculture bound the overwhelming
>majority of people to the land, for most of her history, and that remained
>the case up until the Stalin era. (Compare this to the Great Plains in the
>US, which was, and still is, fertile enough to easily support a large
>population with surpluss.) Russia also had/has another huge historical
>disadvantage, that the country has very few large viable ports. This is
>partly what lead them into the Crimean War, the First World War and a few
>others, all in desperate attempt to get closer to the mediterranean. That
>severely limited her capacity as a trading nation (unlike the United
>States, which had access to both the Atlantic and Pacific). And through a
>large part of her history, she shared a border with hostile Prussia and
>Austria, then later Germany.
>
>
You are beating a dead horse,
pissing into the wind, ie. waiting your
time. Japan, Singapore and Hong
Kong have no natural resources and are
rich. It is culture that brings riches.
>
>
>
>>>If Americans were true capitalists, they would not agree with their
>>>government's traditional policies of rural protectionism and
>>>subsidization. As it is, they're not opposed to a bit of central
>>>planning socialism when it suits them.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>No modern nation is purely capitalist.
>>
>>
>
>Very true, but some are less so than others. In particular the United
>States is less. Suprising, given they tend to have the ideological outlook
>of true social darwinists.
>
... and perhaps that is closer to the right amount.
The last time I looked they were the richest and
most powerful.... oh, but that's cause they've got
natural resources. Like I said above... what about
japan etc?
>
>
>
>>If they were you'd be the first
>>to complain.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>This is particularly so of the present government! And economic success
>>>they are having is inspite of this, not because of it.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>Must be a 300 year run of good luck.
>>
>>
>>
>Indeed. America's geographical isolation has also played a big part. Her
>dominance in the C20th was largely due to fact that at the end of the war
>her factories were still intact.
>
>
Someone once said that good luck
was the ability to take advantage of
opportunity
danny
>
>
>
Sultan
> >Erik Trammel wrote:
> >This does not augur well for Canada and it is all the fault of
> Canadian >"liberals" and socialists who
> >have had the nation living beyond its means. Now Canada is becoming
> >more and more like a banana republic.
>
> Oh crap! Canada's debt to GDP is 40% headed to 25%!
> Some "banana republic"!
> Meanwhile the US is at 59%, apparently headed to 160%
> just like the Japanese... some "right wing regime"
>
> As for their "growth" figures, is that before or after
> you account for a 20% decline in the US$ against all
> major currencies, including the C$???
Huh!?? The value of growth figures do not feflect the value of the US
dolla except in so far as the depreciating dollar might encourage more
export production.
And does
> it account for the expected further 40% decline(!)
> over the next 12 months?
You must off with the fairies.
MHirtes
business to.
Americans however, are still without jobs.
netvegetable
>>Russia is a region as arid as Australia, but with an infinitely more
>>hostile climate. The rigours of agriculture bound the overwhelming
>>majority of people to the land, for most of her history, and that
>>remained the case up until the Stalin era. (Compare this to the Great
>>Plains in the US, which was, and still is, fertile enough to easily
>>support a large population with surpluss.) Russia also had/has another
>>huge historical disadvantage, that the country has very few large viable
>>ports. This is partly what lead them into the Crimean War, the First
>>World War and a few others, all in desperate attempt to get closer to the
>>mediterranean. That severely limited her capacity as a trading nation
>>(unlike the United States, which had access to both the Atlantic and
>>Pacific). And through a large part of her history, she shared a border
>>with hostile Prussia and Austria, then later Germany.
>>
>>
> You are beating a dead horse,
> pissing into the wind, ie. waiting your time. Japan, Singapore and Hong
> Kong have no natural resources and are rich. It is culture that brings
> riches.
I've just demonstrated my original thesis - that the success of the United
States as a capitalist nation is largely due to historical circumstances.
You are either dodging the point or are too stupid to see it.
Graham Innocent
> growth rate of 7.2% just has to create more jobs. A
Unfortunately not. The way in which GDP growth is calculated includes
all sorts of dubious comeponents such as the assumption that Moores
law (the doubling of transistors per given chip area every 2 years)
automatically equates to increased worker productivity. That's right,
the government statisticians actually make assumptions _that_ flakey.
Mises must be spinning in his grave.
I do agree with your basic comparison between free-market economies
and socialistic ones such as Canada and the EU, but the Bush
administration's free-market credentials aren't that clear-cut either.
Bush may be cutting taxes and labour market regulations, but taxation
and labour market regulations aren't the only ways in which a
government can distort and burden an economy. The burden of a
government is what it spends and Bush has let spending sky-rocket.
He's just funding it with debt(future taxes) and inflation (shafting
would-be first-time homebuyers and those retired on fixed incomes)
instead of present taxation. He's also taken some ill-conceived
protectionist measures for the US steel industry which have simply
caused US steel purchasers to carry the some of the load of
inefficient US steel producers in the form of artificially higher
input prices.
Bush does have some interventionist instincts, it's just that he
intervenes on behalf of well-connected steel, oil and defense
interests rather than working & lower-middle class famillies.
danny
netvegetable wrote:
>On Sun, 02 Nov 2003 02:15:40 +0000, danny wrote:
>
>
>
>>>Russia is a region as arid as Australia, but with an infinitely more
>>>hostile climate. The rigours of agriculture bound the overwhelming
>>>majority of people to the land, for most of her history, and that
>>>remained the case up until the Stalin era. (Compare this to the Great
>>>Plains in the US, which was, and still is, fertile enough to easily
>>>support a large population with surpluss.) Russia also had/has another
>>>huge historical disadvantage, that the country has very few large viable
>>>ports. This is partly what lead them into the Crimean War, the First
>>>World War and a few others, all in desperate attempt to get closer to the
>>>mediterranean. That severely limited her capacity as a trading nation
>>>(unlike the United States, which had access to both the Atlantic and
>>>Pacific). And through a large part of her history, she shared a border
>>>with hostile Prussia and Austria, then later Germany.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>You are beating a dead horse,
>>pissing into the wind, ie. waiting your time. Japan, Singapore and Hong
>>Kong have no natural resources and are rich. It is culture that brings
>>riches.
>>
>>
>
>I've just demonstrated my original thesis - that the success of the United
>States as a capitalist nation is largely due to historical circumstances.
>
>You are either dodging the point or are too stupid to see it.
>
You have demonstrated nothing.
If resources are necessary to
make a capitalist nation rich,
why do Japan, Singapore, and
Hong Kong do so well?
danny
Stan Pierce
"Graham Innocent" <grah...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:83fdc882.03110...@posting.google.com...
I think you are right. But you have to allow a President the right also
think of the consequences of letting the steel industry, or any major
industry, go to the wall. Economics is not all of the responsibility he
has. You have to be prepared for war. This entails having access and use
of steel making. Don't just 'cost' steel on the basis that you can get it
cheaper from Europe or wherever. Do you trust the Europeans to deliver if
you were in desperate need. These are not the Europeans of 1940. They
have no memory, and certainly no conception of gratitude. These are with-it
Marxist europeans. Cheapness could mean death for America. Do a deal with
Australia, we have heaps of the stuff, and loyal.
Stan Pierce.
ausstu
> On Sun, 02 Nov 2003 02:15:40 +0000, danny wrote:
> >>
> > You are beating a dead horse,
> > pissing into the wind, ie. waiting your time. Japan, Singapore and Hong
> > Kong have no natural resources and are rich. It is culture that brings
> > riches.
>
> I've just demonstrated my original thesis - that the success of the United
> States as a capitalist nation is largely due to historical circumstances.
>
> You are either dodging the point or are too stupid to see it.
Does the vegetable in netvegetable refer to your brain? The US is the
most successful countries economically because of their free market
capitalist approach. Farm subsidies which are to the detriment of the
American consumer, only represent a small percent of GDP. Most of
their wealth is due to yankee ingenuity and rewarding success.
Arved Sandstrom
news:iUfpb.262139$6C4.68029@pd7tw1no...
>
[ SNIP ]
> You have demonstrated nothing.
> If resources are necessary to
> make a capitalist nation rich,
> why do Japan, Singapore, and
> Hong Kong do so well?
The resources don't need to be on your own territory. You just need to be
able to buy them.
AHS
Greg Macdonald
<tpi...@bigpond.net.au> spake:
>I think you are right. But you have to allow a President the right also
>think of the consequences of letting the steel industry, or any major
>industry, go to the wall. Economics is not all of the responsibility he
>has. You have to be prepared for war. This entails having access and use
>of steel making. Don't just 'cost' steel on the basis that you can get it
>cheaper from Europe or wherever. Do you trust the Europeans to deliver if
>you were in desperate need. These are not the Europeans of 1940. They
>have no memory, and certainly no conception of gratitude. These are with-it
>Marxist europeans. Cheapness could mean death for America. Do a deal with
>Australia, we have heaps of the stuff, and loyal.
The hell with Europe or Australia. Just keep buying Canadian. They
already do...
http://www.steel.org/news/pr/2003/pr031028_imp.htm
I cannot conceive of a realistic scenario where Canada would cut off
steel to the US. As for resource protection in case of war, why isn't
the US promoting conservation of its domestic oil supplies in that
case? I would think they are far more vulnerable in that area...
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Life is just one damned thing after another.
-Elbert Hubbard
Stan Pierce
"Greg Macdonald" <mr_mac_...@SPAMSUCKShotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3fa5cf85...@news.cogeco.ca...
> The hell with Europe or Australia. Just keep buying Canadian. They
> already do...
>
> http://www.steel.org/news/pr/2003/pr031028_imp.htm
>
> I cannot conceive of a realistic scenario where Canada would cut off
> steel to the US. As for resource protection in case of war, why isn't
> the US promoting conservation of its domestic oil supplies in that
> case? I would think they are far more vulnerable in that area...
According to the imported finished product figures I would say that America
has Canada, Europe and Turkey by the balls...just as a good American
president should keep them.
See, what I'm saying is, for America to survive the coming sovietization
of Europe by stupidity, and the disregard for America's welfare by Canada's
contempt for it, it has to be able to hold a few economic aces in it's
hands. And I see you depend on America for exports of steel. I would take
notice of that when America needs help politically.
If you look at Australia's position in the steel stakes, We could supply
ALL of America's needs, and do it willingly and with good faith... to good
friend...because we have a memory...and a sense of gratitude.
Graham Innocent
> think of the consequences of letting the steel industry, or any major
> industry, go to the wall. Economics is not all of the responsibility he
> has. You have to be prepared for war. This entails having access and use
> of steel making. Don't just 'cost' steel on the basis that you can get it
> cheaper from Europe or wherever. Do you trust the Europeans to deliver if
> you were in desperate need. These are not the Europeans of 1940. They
> have no memory, and certainly no conception of gratitude. These are with-it
> Marxist europeans.
Actually I'm a Brit. I hope you don't count us amongst _that_ sort of European.
Arved Sandstrom
news:3fa5cf85...@news.cogeco.ca...
> I cannot conceive of a realistic scenario where Canada would cut off
> steel to the US. As for resource protection in case of war, why isn't
> the US promoting conservation of its domestic oil supplies in that
> case? I would think they are far more vulnerable in that area...
I have wondered about that myself more than once. Exactly what are the US
pharmaceutical and agricultural industries going to do once petrochemicals
disappear? How is the US military machine going to continue to operate? All
of the planes, land vehicles, and surface ships except for carriers, need
petrochemicals. How about trucks and trains? What about commercial air
travel...those planes are going to have little nuclear reactors or fuel
cells? Not bloody likely. People will heat themselves with what, precisely?
Nuclear plants aren't too popular.
In the meantime you see conspicuous consumption of gas. Why walk to work or
to the store when you can drive (and preferably in a gas guzzler). No need
to carpool - gas is cheap. Evenings and weekends, let's take out the Jet
Ski/pickup/bass boat/ATV/dirt bike and burn up more gas. In fact, let's
drive to the local track and watch NASCAR.
I'm not worried about me - I'll be dead before severe shortages and then the
final absence finally hits. Probably even my nephews and young cousins and
friends' kids will be OK. But I do wonder about people 50 years down the
road or more.
We'll go back to coal first, naturally. And more use of wood. That will be
great for the environment.
AHS
Stan Pierce
"Graham Innocent" <grah...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:83fdc882.03110...@posting.google.com...
Well, I was a Brit too...and yes I do count Brits now among _that_ sort of
European. You didn't have to go down that path but you chose to. Nobody
_made_ you go that way. I follow what you do every day. It's not pretty
from a distance. In fact I feel ashamed so many of you wouldn't stand
behind America when it needed you. Disgusting display of ingratitude. I
predicted the french doing it but not my own people. If you're not one of
the marxist left, then for God's sake do something to stop them taking your
sovereignty away.
Graham Innocent
> pharmaceutical and agricultural industries going to do once petrochemicals
> disappear? How is the US military machine going to continue to operate? All
> of the planes, land vehicles, and surface ships except for carriers, need
> petrochemicals. How about trucks and trains? What about commercial air
> travel...those planes are going to have little nuclear reactors or fuel
> cells? Not bloody likely. People will heat themselves with what, precisely?
> Nuclear plants aren't too popular.
In the most desperate circumstance (i.e. the oil runs out whilst all
that other stuff is still built to run on it) there will be the
following options available :-
1) Biodiesel (processed cooking and vegetable oils) can be run by most
diesel engines. Limited supply.
2) Synthetic oil. Yes, fuel petrochemicals can be synthesized. It's
just absurdly expensive and energy inefficient relative to pumping
them out of the ground. But given no other option, petrochemicals
could be synthesized using the energy from nuclear reactors.
The first option would only meet a fraction of the need, the second
isn't pretty environmentally.
Let's hope some more palatable technologies get up and running before
that day comes (like really high-performance electrical vehicles
charged up with the energy from cleaner fusion or solar plants).
Robert Holland
> --
> At the turn of the century (1900)
> the immense majority of Germans were
> already supporters of radical socialism
> and aggressive nationalism.-- Ludwig von Mises
>
> ***
> This is the highest one- quarter growth increase since 1984. Guess who was U.S.
> president then? That's right--supply-sider Ronald Reagan.
And what happened to the US economy after Reagan saddled it with the
largest-ever deficits? George HW Bush got stuck with that legacy and
lost his job.
Taking on huge deficits to stimulate the economy is misguided.
Frittering that borrowed money on the top 1% is even worse.
> So again George Bush has
> proved that capitalist supply-side economics, when implemented properly, can confirm
> economist F.A. Hayek's theories as set out in his book denouncing socialism,
> "The Road to Serfdom".
Bush has delivered only *one* quarter, and this at taxpayer expense.
He has just set himself a high benchmark against which he must deliver
for the remaining 4 quarters before November 2004, or he, too, will
get the sack.
> Many Americans have recently been wringing their hands about a "jobless recovery".
That would be the more than 3 million persons who have lost their
good-paying jobs on Bush's watch, and have seen many of these jobs
permanently moved across the border.
> But a
> growth rate of 7.2% just has to create more jobs.
Wishful thinking. You will see massive IT job movement out of the US
to a country full of highly-educated, low-paid workers. Why, India
alone could absorb every IT job in the US, and have people to spare.
Factor in productivity gains and the under-utilized factory capacity
and Bush is faced with perhaps stronger sales and continuing weaker
payroll.
> And most economists predict that the good
> news will continue, not increases in future quarters of 7 or even 6 per cent. But at a healthy
> more sustainable rate of about 4.5 %.
Economists also predicted that the labor shortage due to baby-boomer
retirements would return us to the labor shortage days of the Internet
boom.
Voters decide on results.
> Now we wonder what Canada's third quarter will look like. It was not long ago that its
> socialist proponent of state capitalism, P.M. Jean Chretien was bragging about Canada's
> economic outperformance of the U.S. Canada had a higher GDP growth rate and no deficit, etc.
> But at that time one saw that U.S. productivity growth was far outstripping that of Canada.
> Now, it appears that the chickens have come home to roost for Chretien's one party socialist state,
> Canada. Indeed its leading and wealthiest province Ontario has an announced deficit of $5.8 billion.
> This is mainly the result of federal Liberal economic policies.
Uh-huh. Why is Canada's deficit so much smaller--percentagewise--than
Bush's US deficit, not to mention the deficits in just about every
state in the Union?
> This does not augur well for Canada and it is all the fault of Canadian "liberals" and socialists who
> have had the nation living beyond its means. Now Canada is becoming more and more like a banana republic.
Riiiight. This is the result of your muddy thinking.
Arved Sandstrom
news:83fdc882.03110...@posting.google.com...
And ethnically I am an Estonian. We got some useful help from the British
back during our War of Independence in 1918-1920. I'd like to think that
past and present Estonians are not _that_ sort of European either.
AHS
netvegetable
>>I've just demonstrated my original thesis - that the success of the
>>United States as a capitalist nation is largely due to historical
>>circumstances.
>>
>>You are either dodging the point or are too stupid to see it.
>>
> You have demonstrated nothing.
> If resources are necessary to
> make a capitalist nation rich,
> why do Japan, Singapore, and
> Hong Kong do so well?
>
> danny
Singapore's resource is its position. It is on a vital trade route between
India, China, Indochina and the Indonesian Archipelago. It has always been
a prosperous nerve center of trade, people coming from all over Asia to
trade goods. Sure, how do you think the population ended up mostly
Chinese? Why do you suppose so many Chinese hopped on a boat and went
all the way down there? Because there was money to be made.
Hong Kong is also an important trading center. Originally, people there
got immensely rich trading British Opium for Chinese tea. Nowadays, they
get immensely rich trading dollars, pounds and Euros for cheap Chinese
goods.
Americans could learn a thing or two about real capitalism from the
Overseas Chinese. They don't believe in poofy subsidies courtesy of the
taxpayer, they just believe in making money and get on with it.
The Japanese also appear to be an extraodinarily hard working people when
it comes to making money. They were the first "Asian Tiger" economy. It is
true, however, that they were helped in that all their factories were
demolished in WWII - this enabled them to build newer, modern factories in
the postwar period, and later flood the world with Japanese electronic
goods. During the 80s however, it was discovered that their economic boom
was being propelled by infinite credit - a stack of Japanese banks were
found to be trading while technically insolvent. Japan went into
recession, and has only recently started to recover.
netvegetable
>
> Does the vegetable in netvegetable refer to your brain? The US is the
> most successful countries economically because of their free market
> capitalist approach.
Bullshit. They are successfull due to a combination of historical
cirumstances including, geography, demographics resources available for most of their
history to support those demographics.
> Farm subsidies which are to the detriment of the
> American consumer, only represent a small percent of GDP.
You'll get no argument from me there. I'm just using farm subsidies and
stell tarrifs as an example of where they talk the talk, but don't walk
the walk.
This is in response to the OP's assertion that the recent growth spurt is
a victory for "supply-side economics". Their present government, and the
majority of seppos would'nt know a free market if it bit them.
> Most of their
> wealth is due to yankee ingenuity and rewarding success.
--
David Reid
Lubricants.
It was published recently in an Amsoil related news letter.
Regards,
David
www.synthetic-solutions.com
October 15, 2003
European Vehicles Require High End Oils European vehicles are designed
to use higher quality European lubricants, often posing problems for
American owners.
Many popular North American engine oils may actually be harmful to
European engines. European automobile manufacturers design vehicles to
use specific high quality lubricants with specific properties and
additives. Most motor oils offered in America do not meet the
demanding specifications, and the European lubricants are not readily
available. As a result, problems such as premature wear and engine
sludge develop.
"Europeans build their cars and impose higher requirements on the
type of oil than we are used to here in North America," remarks an oil
industry source. "They have more of a multi-tier system within their
specifications, whereas the API uses the lowest common denominator as
a guideline. It is by its own admission, within API 1509, a minimum
spec."
While the American Petroleum Institute (API) sets oil standards in
America, the Automotive Manufacturers Association (ACEA) sets them in
Europe. "ACEA standards reflect a wider complexity of the offering of
engines on the market right now," says Ilerve Blanquart, VP Automotive
of Motul North America. "On top of that, manufacturers have
introduced their own standards, most of which start with the ACEA
standards, and go further in specific tests to solve specific problems
and address specific issues."
In the U.S., the API adopts one standard for all engine oils. "For
example they are working on ILSAC GF-4, and the problems they are
running into is that this oil will be too thin for a lot of older
engines," explains Blanquart. "In Europe, they decided from the
beginning that they would not adopt a linear standard - rather a
standard for each type of application -- gas, diesel, turbo, etc."
European vehicle manufacturers keep tight control over which
lubricants they allow to be used in their vehicles. Inner-company
bureaucracies are in charge of keeping the approved lubricant lists
up-to-date with the latest requirements, and a few companies apply
some of the regulations to North America. European aftermarket service
stations must stock different lubricants for different automobile
brands. Sometimes different models put out by the same manufacturer
require different lubricants.
Do-it-yourselfers are less prevalent in Europe. Qualified repair
shops, franchised or tightly controlled by the vehicle manufacturers
in order to dictate the type of oil being used, typically perform most
of the oil changes.
The high quality oils used in Europe allow Europeans to enjoy longer
drain intervals. However, when European vehicles are exported to the
United States, the concept becomes distorted.
"There is in general a longer drain associated with the higher tier
oils in the European system," remarks the oil industry source. "So the
thought process is - if we don't allow the longer drain in North
America, consumers should be able to get by with APl spec oils - but
it leaves manu- facturers open to the type of problems Mercedes-Benz
recently experienced."
A recent class—action lawsuit brought forward by owners of certain
1998 through 2001 Mercedes-Benz vehicles claimed they weren't informed
that synthetic motor oil was required in order to take advantage of
the extended drain intervals afforded through the use of the vehicles'
Flexible Service System (FSS). Many using conventional oils
experienced premature wear problems, and the settlement cost the
company over $32 million.
"The long drain indicator used by Mercedes is predicated on using
Mercedes-Benz-approved oil, which is a very top quality synthetic
oil," explains the oil company source. "When those vehicles came to
the States, somehow dealerships weren't impressing upon the consumer
the need to use the right oil. And whether or not the dealers were
doing so, some consumers were putting in regular API spec oil,
resulting in problems."
Although synthetic motor oils are generally of higher quality than
conventional oils, not all synthetics can meet the stringent European
specifications. "A good quality synthetic could solve the problem,"
says the source, "but in the case of Mercedes-Benz, for example,
you're dealing with an extremely high-spec oil. Not every synthetic
is going to meet that spec. Some only meet the baseline API specs.
Just because it's a synthetic doesn't mean it's a top tier product.
"Shop owners must keep in mind that there are numerous special
requirements for European vehicles and that they shouldn't always be
knee-jerking to the stuff in the big tank. If you call Mercedes-Benz,
Volvo, or VW, for example, they should be telling you that their
vehicle needs ACEA spec products."
Although it's easy to assume that the more expensive the vehicle, the
better quality the lubricant it needs, that's not always the case. For
example, the mid-priced Volkswagen TDI requires a very specific, high
spec lubricant.
danny
broad that they are meaningless.
danny
netvegetable
> Veggie, The arguments you make are so broad that they are meaningless.
>
> danny
Sure they are. That's why you just spent four days arguing with them.