Unemployent - 10.2% - Page 2

BCEagle91 · 11-06-2009, 11:40 PM

I had a look at Berkshire Hathaway's report this afternoon. Operating profits were flat which is pretty good in the current economy. They've been helped by the lack of natural disasters in their insurance businesses.

What's eye-popping is their profits in derivatives and investments. I guess you can make money shuffling paper with weapons of mass financial destruction.

soccerguy315 · 11-06-2009, 11:44 PM

it's ok guys... I read Krugman the other day and he simply explained that the government needs to spend way way way more, because the spending they are doing so far has been very helpful, but not enough.

And Krugman has a nobel prize, so he obviously knows what is good.

BCEagle91 · 11-06-2009, 11:52 PM

> And Krugman has a nobel prize, so he obviously knows what is good.

Just like John Meriwether, Myron Scholes, and Robert Merton.

catahoula · 11-07-2009, 12:29 AM

Krugman's found a nice niche and intends to hold on to it.

Quote:

Why should the government cut taxes or provide other stimulus to companies that aren't economically viable? Why don't we just let the businesses go under? Why is it the government's job to pick and choose who should make it?

Giving money is much more of a stimulus than not taking it in the first place, isn't it? Add in the satisfaction of picking and choosing and it's no contest at all.

GM, for instance, got the nod, while the little folks got the greater satisfaction of being on the tracks for the Cap and Trade train.

DocT · 11-07-2009, 12:30 AM

"My questions are really meant for Kentuckymom, Doc T, and those that believe in small government."

Who said anything about small government - I'm for government that utilizes money to get the most bang for the buck.

rds248 · 11-07-2009, 11:15 AM

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/07/bu...FlXdpkeO24IctA

By a broader measure, unemployment is now 17.5%.

Good thing we have the health care bill to take everyone's attention away from the fact that the economy is not recovering as expected.

The administration continues to spin nonsense about how many jobs have been "saved".
But what is apparent is that the stimulus package is an unmitigated failure as expected. Since it was a boondoggle of liberal handouts and entitlements, it really could not create new jobs, and that is quite apparent. The administration will continue to claim that it is "working", just more slowly than expected. But that is a big lie. The whole point and purpose of it was to create jobs quickly, and it did not do that.

Pelosi's health care bill is similar. It is another huge entitlement plan disguised as "health care reform" that will cost a fortune, benefit the have nots at the cost of the haves, and do little to improve health care, and nothing to save money. Fortunately the final bill is likely to be closer to the Senate version, which is still not great, but at least is restrained a bit with regard to the amount of spending. Pelosi still doesn't have enough votes in the House to pass her bill.... only 208 from what I last heard. This would be a crushing defeat for her and Obama if it gets knocked down. The fact that she can't even get all the Democrats to vote for it should be a clue as to how bad this bill really is. The moderate Dems should hang in there and not give in. They should realize if this thing passes they will be saddled with all the responsibility when people realize what's really in it.

Just as an example... do you all know that the bill FORBIDS any private health insurance company from offering individual coverage after 2013? That means all individuals that aren't in a group plan through their employer will be forced into the public option at that time.

dstark · 11-07-2009, 11:23 AM

Why should the government help any business. If the business can't make it on its own, it should go kaput. Let the private sector do it. The government doesn't create any jobs. Only the private sector creates jobs.

OMG I won't be able to buy individual private health insurance anymore. Next thing I know, bubble gum ice cream wil be banned. Better go watch Fox so I can stay informed.

Consumer Credit Plunges

BCEagle91 · 11-07-2009, 11:42 AM

> Why should the government help any business.

One could interpret help as not harming. The discussion about adding small business tax
credits to create jobs would be partial relief or some relief to the damage done by the large proposals by the Administration.

> If the business can't make it on its own, it should go kaput. Let the private sector
> do it.

Business does not operate in a vacuum.

> The government doesn't create any jobs. Only the private sector creates jobs.

Correct. But the government sure can get in the way.

> OMG I won't be able to buy individual private health insurance anymore. Next thing
> I know, bubble gum ice cream wil be banned. Better go watch Fox so I can stay
> informed.

I self-insure for homeowners insurance (haven't had a policy since the 1990s). It would
seem reasonable for those that wish to do the same thing. Companies do it routinely.

> I know, bubble gum ice cream wil be banned. Better go watch Fox so I can stay
> informed.

Non-sequitur.

rds248 · 11-07-2009, 11:49 AM

Quote:

Under section 202 of the proposed House tri-committee legislation, in year one (2013), individuals and employers with 10 employees or fewer are eligible for the exchange. In year two (2014), individuals and employers with 20 employees or fewer become eligible. In year three (2015), the "Health Choices Commissioner"--a presidential appointee tasked with heading a new executive-branch agency called the Health Choices Administration--is granted the authority to expand employer eligibility with the "goal of allowing all employers access to the Exchange."[6] The commissioner can phase in eligibility "based on the number of full-time employees" and "such other considerations as the Commissioner deems appropriate." But clearly, different assumptions about how, or when, the commissioner might act could significantly alter estimates of enrollment in the public plan. When discretion is left to public officials, it is often difficult to know exactly how they might exercise their power. In this case, it is even more difficult to predict what the commissioner--an unknown official overseeing an entirely new agency--would do.

That's the whole trick of the plan. Guess which employees are going into the public option in 2013? All companies with 10 or fewer employees and all individuals. Then the next year everyone who works with a company of 20 or fewer. And then... who knows after that? The Government could make ALL businesses eligible for the plan, and guess what happens then? If the public option is cheaper, do you know of any firms that won't dump their employees into it? I don't. And the public option might be OK, and then again it might not. Of course you as the employee won't have a choice of staying in your private plan, even if you like it. We will all be in the public plan.

It's a stealth plan for Nationalized health care. If that's what you want then you should be happy, as that's what you will eventually get. I don't think most Americans want that.

dstark · 11-07-2009, 11:49 AM

BCEagle91, you're not getting it, because you're too rigid. The same people that don't want to help people who don't have health care want government support of their causes. I'm trying to point out a little hypocricy here.

People want the government to help them but not others. And when they are helped it's good for the economy. And when others are helped, it isn't. We could save $5 trillion or more and everybody gets healthcare. But its not really about saving money, is it? It's about what's in it for me.

As far as the jobs go, that die was cast in 2005-2006.

People are really worried about the economy? We could save $5 to $10 trillion. Better than a tax cut. Better than stimulus. Not going to happen either.

dstark · 11-07-2009, 11:51 AM

If the public option is better, we should use the public option.

We should really save $5 to $10 trillion and redo the health care system in this country. But the public option is better than nothing.

BCEagle91 · 11-07-2009, 11:59 AM

> BCEagle91, you're not getting it, because you're too rigid. The same people that don't
> want to help people who don't have health care want government support of their
> causes. I'm trying to point out a little hypocricy here. People want the government to
> help them but not others.

Your help is looked at as less harm.

> And when they are helped it's good for the economy. And when others are helped,
> it isn't. We could save $5 trillion or more and everybody gets healthcare. But its not
> realy aboiut saving money, is it? It's about what's in it for me.

The healthcare bill will be a boondoggle for insurance companies. It will not lower costs.
I guess one benefit of the healthcare bill is that it will be incredibly inflationary.

> As far as the jobs go, that die was cast in 2005-2006.

Back in 2002 my opinion was to let companies crash and burn and let the jobs go with
them. Let the country get back to real demand without all of the props. Well, we didn't.
Carter provided the example of how not to get reelected and every President from then
on, with the exception of President Bush I, has had the pedal to the metal.

dstark · 11-07-2009, 12:00 PM

BCEAgle91, I'm not really trying to debate these points.

BCEagle91 · 11-07-2009, 12:14 PM

> I'm not really trying to debate these points.

That's pretty obvious.

On another note, as I don't want to open another thread, the theme on the financialsenseonline.com radio show this weekend is the dollar carry trade. The dollar has replaced the yen as the currency for borrowing cheap and buying debt in other countries that pay a higher rate of return. I never thought that this would happen to the dollar. Back in 2001, I recall the song, Turning Japanese, on trading boards.

The issue of the carry trade, of course, is related to the FOMC report this past Wednesday. At the moment, the US central bank is attempting to jawbone commodity inflation downwards. A few other countries are raising interest rates but some countries are too weak (or it is politically unacceptable) to raise them.

I haven't seen gold behave this way in all the time that I've been trading it (back to 2000). The dips are relentlessly bought and other central bankers are joining the buying crowd.

The dollar is holding up reasonably well and I conclude that other countries (though not all) are also printing away. It may be time to stuff some money in those countries that are raising rates. I looked at my money market accounts and couldn't believe how little I'm getting per month on large sums. The Fed is chasing people out of money market funds.

razorsharp · 11-07-2009, 01:04 PM

it is sad to see so many people with so much talent sitting around doing nothing. Much of this could have been avoided had been Democrats actually passed a stimulus plan instead of merely doubling the size of government while borrowing money from future generations to pay for it.