2004 Democratic Primary

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

Well, yes, I admit I'm guilty of not being willing to take the risk of working for $1/hour.

I explicitly referred to the risk of starting your own business instead of waiting for someone to offer you a job.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

Its called a Market.  If you're selling something for $20 an hour I can get for $1 an hour somewhere else, I'd be an ass to pay your inflated rate.  You'ld be quite literally ripping me off.

And consumers will always buy the cheapest product they can of equivalent quality, whoever was employed making it.  

Neither companies nor individuals live by your Mercantilist philosophy.

Correct.  Only a fool pays more than neccessary.  These liberals believe they should have the right to demand a higher price than the going rate.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

All I am asking is that the Republicans do what I do. I pay my debts. The Republicans should be paying off the debt, not increasing it.

No, you're asking for something, success, for which you are unwilling to pay the price.

And FYI, I am a Republican and I pay more taxes than the vast majority of Democrats.  The national debt transcends parties, it is owed by all of us, but it will be paid by the most productive of society.

You also act like you have no clue of history.  During WWII this country ran deficits equal to 30% of GDP, dwarfing the 4-5% we're now running by fighting the War on Terror and trying to stimulate the economy.

Yes, I will pay my taxes.  I always have.  And along with paying taxes, I will continue to search out opportunities while constantly retooling my skills.  I work 60-70 hours a week on the job and another 10 hours a week improving my skills through self study.  

I don't wait around hoping for a change in administrations, I work for my living.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

"Whoever watches the wind will not plant; whoever looks at the clouds will not reap." (Ecc 11:4)

Mark 8:36   "For what will it profit a man if he gains the whole world, and loses his own soul?

I don't see your point for the passages are not in conflict with each other.  But the bible does have a lot to say about whiners and those that are unwilling to work day and night to provide for themselves.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

No, because it is not foolish to be willing to pay more to support a cause that you believe in. I would be willing to pay slightly more for an American made product than for a foreign made product, even if they were of the same quality, because I want to support American workers.

Not everything should revolve around the almighty dollar. There are moral principles involved in how you spend your money, too. I don't think that it's too much to ask the corporations to have some morals as well.

You show favoritism by paying more for American products yet you invoke morality?  Don't you know that the bible explicitly forbids favoritism?

Also, tell me how it is immoral for a company to outsource work to areas where people are willing to do the same work at lower wages?  What gives you the right to control the way a company spends its own money?

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

The point is obvious.

No, I don't believe it is and I would like you to explain your understanding of the verses that you quoted.

Are you under the impression that:

1) that all those who pour themselves into their careers only do so for the "love of money"?
2) that God does not wish for his people to prosper?
3) that a man can not be rich in wealth and please God?

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

"The point is that those who are well off should be willing to help those who are not. That is the morality of the Bible. It is very clear on that. "

No, I don't think rich people are 'evil'. I just am saying that I believe in a progressive tax.

First, the idea of a progressive tax does NOT come from the bible, rather it is contrary to scripture.  The bible's tax is a flat tax so that everyone gives back the same percentage according to how they have prospered.

Second, unless you are hungry or naked or don't have a roof over your head, the bible does ask NOT anyone to provide for you, unless you are truly helpless.  Also, the bible's commands are at the individual and church level - the bible never attempts to impose its code at a national secular level.

Also, the Good Samaritan helped someone who truly could not help himself and even then only provided for one night of the most basic of needs.  This temporary help is also verified by:  “if anyone gives EVEN a cup of cold water to one of these little ones because he is my disciple, I tell you the truth, he will certainly not lose his reward." (Mat 10:42)

There is no biblical requirement for me to pay higher taxes to keep you, during hard economic times, from having to scale down from a three-bedroom-house to an efficiency apartment.  And if you think you have the right to expect that kind of help, then you are the one idolizing your possessions.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

Favoritism? Do you mean that it would somehow be immoral to buy a product that is not the cheapest possible?

No, but it is certainly wrong trying to invoke morality while championing favortism, like Nym90 did.  

After I have given back to God and provided for my family, the bible gives me free reign to do whatever I want with my money.  I can be cheap and only buy the least expensive goods, or I can run the corner convience store every time I need a loaf of bread and pay top dollar.  Morality doesn't play a role is such things.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

Also, regarding a flat tax, what is truly "flat"? Is it all income, or just disposable income? The differences in income between the rich and poor are much greater when you take away necessary expenses such as food, shelter, and clothing. So a flat tax on all income would actually be a regressive tax on disposable income.

From a biblical perspective, the tithe was on everything.  If they raised a pumpkin crop of ten pumpkins, then one pumpkin (the highest quality one of the crop) would be given back to God.  

And the tithe was always the first 10% of the crop, not the last, meaning that God didn't accept leftovers, he wanted your best.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

Well, but if you would not want to buy genetically modified food, for example, and bought a more expensive type that wasn't. Would that be immoral favoritism?

You're taking it out of context.  The favoritsim the bible forbids is towards people, not products.  Meaning it would be a sin for me to give a job to a white person simply because he is white.  

Likewise, if I found a two starving people, one American and one foreigner, it would be a sin for me to show favoritism towards the American while ignoring the foreigner.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

<<After I have given back to God and provided for my family, the bible gives me free reign to do whatever I want with my money.>>

How do you financially give back to god?

Lol...you burn the bills on an altar, didn't you know?

That's about the size of it.

I find it strange that you two mock the fact that churches need money to keep the lights on.  Everything takes money.  Church is no different.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

I didn't know that you had such an altruistic view towards the world, the whole "foreigner shuoldn not be on the forum" and "we are the envy of the world" business had led me to believe otherwise.

My statements about foreigners on this forum had to do with being busybodies.  That's a different subject than showing favoritism.  My statements regarding both subjects are in no way contradictory.

---

But I am also in favour of free trade, I just think that it OK to show support to different ideas through consuming. I try to buy from my local shop, b/c I like to have a local shop, even though the prices aren't that good.

The corner stores around me sale products made from all over the world (except food items), therefore the corner store is going to remain regardless of which items, domestic or foreign, I buy.

But I understand what you are saying and certainly you have a moral right to spend money in the way that most benefits yourself.  After all, it is your money.  

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

But I am also in favour of free trade, I just think that it OK to show support to different ideas through consuming. I try to buy from my local shop, b/c I like to have a local shop, even though the prices aren't that good.

The corner stores around me sale products made from all over the world (except food items), therefore the corner store is going to remain regardless of which items, domestic or foreign, I buy.

But I understand what you are saying and certainly you have a moral right to spend money in the way that most benefits yourself.  After all, it is your money.  

In fact the corner stores around me aren't even owned by Americans!  LOL!

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

Unempolyment drops to 5.6% as January added either 112k new jobs or 496k new jobs!

The establishment survey said payrolls outside the farm sector grew by 112,000 jobs, compared with an upwardly revised gain of 16,000 in December.

The household survey -- which includes the self-employed -- said employment grew by nearly 496,000 people in January.

The average work week expanded to 33.7 hours from 33.5 in December, indicating businesses increased activity.



http://money.cnn.com/2004/02/06/news/economy/jobs/index.htm

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

6 seconds apart?  scary

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

Some economists think hiring really is occurring in the economy, but it is not being reflected in the Labor Department's monthly survey of business payrolls. In the separate survey of households, employment jumped by 496,000 last month.

The household survey counts self-employed workers and contract workers, which are increasing. The survey of businesses does not.

"They're not recording the outside contractors - they're not reflecting something that is tremendously fundamental now to the American corporate scene, and that's outsourcing to outside contractors," said Ken Mayland, president of ClearView Economics.

Friday's report showed that workers are indeed putting in longer hours, with the average work week climbing by 0.2 hour to 33.7 hours. The manufacturing work week increased by 0.3 hour to 40.9 hours.

"Employers are working their workers longer hours instead of hiring more bodies. For the economy, that counts," Mayland said, noting that it produces more income for consumers to spend, keeping the economy afloat. "This is telling you the economy really is growing very fast."

About 8.3 million people remained unemployed in the United States last month.

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20040206/D80HRJ080.html

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

jmf vs. JNB: Early Conclusions at end of Jan04...

Unemployment:

JNB's Unemployment prediction of 5.8-6.3% for 2004 is slightly above the reported 5.6% for Jan04.

jmf's Unemployment prediction of 5.3-5.7% for Oct04 is in agreement with the reported 5.6% for Jan04.

---

Job Growth:

JNB's Job Growth prediction, while slightly lower than the  reported actual numbers, is matching well with the Establishment report.

jmf's Job Growth prediction is matching well with the Household survey.

---

GNP Growth:

JNB's 2004 2.0% GNP prediction covering 2004Q1-2004Q4 cannot yet be elavuated.  2004Q1 numbers will be out at the end of April.

jmf's GNP prediction covering 2003Q4-2004Q3 of >4% growth is roughly in line with the 4.0% reported for 2003Q4.  The Q4 number will be revised at the end of Feb and again at the end of March.

---

it's still early in the race, so stay tuned

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

Interview with jmf…

Reporter:  How are you feeling at the end of Jan04 about your competition with JNB?

jmf:  JNB gets his outlook from financial rags mostly written from the other side of the pond; whereas I get my outlook from actually being in touch with the pulse of the US economy.

Reporter:  And what exactly is your outlook?

jmf:  The US is going through a structural change in which individuals will have to start viewing and managing their careers as if it were their own personal business, as companies offload risks to workers by using more and more contractors.  

Reporter:  And what do you see as the result of such a structural change?

jmf:  I think we are already seeing it:  high GDP growth, high productivity growth, high corporate profits, increased self-employment, increased home ownership rates, low inflation, and lower unemployment.

Reporter:  And what will happen to those workers who are unable or unwilling to cope with the pressures of having to be more proactive in selling their skills and keeping their skills fine-turned?

jmf:  They will be left behind.

Reporter:  Is that a theological statement?

jmf:  No, I’m not a pretribber.

Reporter:  Getting back to your contest with JNB, how do you feel about your current standing and would you change any of your predictions?

jmf:  I’m feeling good.  I was a little disappointed with December’s performance, but the economy has resumed it’s a faster rate of growth in January and has picked up even more steam in February.  I think the 4% growth reported for 2003Q4 will be revised upward to around 4.5% and we’ll see 4% growth for the next couple of quarters as the second phase of the tax cut kicks in as people receive their refund checks.

Reporter:   Any advice for JNB?

jmf:  Yeah.  He mentioned he reads The Economist magazine.  I suggest he read The Economist article entitled “Crystal Balls UP” in the 9/28/02 issue.  He’ll find the article praises the Economic Cycle Research Institute as one of the most successful forecasting groups on the planet, successfully prediction the US recessions of 1990 and 2001.  JNB can find their forecasting index represented in a chart at the top of the first post of this thread.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

Employment as measured by the business survey of non-farm businesses had fallen by 716,000 since the recession ended in November 2001, while the household survey showed employment growth of about 2.2 million over that period.

Part of the discrepancy is due to differing definitions of employment. For example, the household survey measures farm workers and the self-employed, while the business survey does not.

cnnfn.com

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

One question the Neo-Cons have to ask themselves, why is Bush behind Kerry in the polls at this point? Why despite a imporving economy?

Because capital is currently cheaper than labor; therefore, companies find it easier and smarter to increase productivity by spending capital on things other than labor.

Companies are simply increasing their productivity so rapidly (which is the best measure of economic health and the ONLY "free lunch"), there is no need to hire new workers.

The problem has been forecasting when this extremely high rate of productively will slow.

So, this high rate of productivity may be bad for Bush politically, but it is certainly a blessing for the economy.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

My own opinion is the Bush admin is lost in a echo chamber convinced the WSJ editorial pages and the Weekly Standard reflect reality.

What is "reality"?  Is it not true corporate profits are at an all-time high?

An economy with the highest productivity in 50 years, the lowest inflation and interest rates in 40 years, and the highest corporate profits on record....is going to produce jobs.  The question of "when" depends on when the growth of productivity slows.

But that is a guessing game, and noone guessed that these levels of productity gains were sustainable this long.  

That IS the economic "reality", regardless of the political perception of the overall public.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

As for overall corporate profits, they still are under their 1997 peak.

I don't know where you get your info from, but that is simply not the case.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

JNB,

The government estimated profits topped $1 trillion at the end of the 3rd quarter for the first time, up from $771 billion one year earlier. The latest profit surge was the best in 19 years.  Companies are simply flush with cash:

“Newly revised government figures show that American businesses earned a record $1.1 trillion in the third quarter, up 25 percent from the same quarter a year earlier. More impressive still, the slice of the economic pie that went to profits -- after-tax profits as a share of gross domestic product -- reached 9.1 percent, the best performance in the 55 years the government has been tracking such numbers.”

http://www.boston.com/business/globe/articles/2004/01/11/good_corporate_times_havent_trickled_down_to_employee_paychecks?mode=PF

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

Gas prices could badly hurt Bush

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

The problem is, poltical perception becomes reality. As for overall corporate profits, they still are under their 1997 peak.

Corporate profits with inventory
   valuation and capital consumption
   adjustments............................. $845.3B(1997)

http://www.bea.gov/bea/newsrelarchive/2000/gdp499f.htm

Corporate profits with inventory
   valuation and capital consumption
   adjustments............................. $927.1B(2003Q1)    $1,022.8B(2003Q2)    $1,124.2B (2003Q3)

http://www.bea.doc.gov/bea/newsrelarchive/2003/gdp303f.htm