Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 58 (9173 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: Neptune7
Post Volume: Total: 917,573 Year: 4,830/9,624 Month: 178/427 Week: 91/85 Day: 8/20 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The Current Global Recession
Percy
Member
Posts: 22606
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 4.9


Message 1 of 49 (501990)
03-09-2009 8:37 AM


Last night when I couldn't get back to sleep I listened to the BBC news for a while (paying attention to the news is a rare event for me), and it scared me to death. While it is clear that this is the most severe recession since the depression, is it really so apocolyptic, or is it just that the news media's ability to scare us has improved a great deal since the last severe recession back in the late 1970's (you young'uns under 50 have never experienced a real recession as an adult).
Just wondering what other people think concerning how severe this recession is.
--Percy

  
Shield
Member (Idle past 2939 days)
Posts: 482
Joined: 01-29-2008


Message 2 of 49 (501993)
03-09-2009 9:37 AM


Speaking as a young whippersnapper..
...Who has never had the chance to enjoy a recession, it'll bounce back.
I am not an economist by the way, but i have read more than my fair share of books on the subject.
Things will get worse. Locally, economies might get crushed, but on a global scale, it will become better.
Here in Denmark, our lawmakers just passed a new tax reform that will crush us. It will eradicate the rest of our manufactoring industry thats for sure. Im just hoping that not all lawmakers around the world have their heads so far up in their asses as they do here in denmark.
Edited by rbp, : No reason given.

  
Sarawak
Member (Idle past 5554 days)
Posts: 47
Joined: 03-07-2009


Message 3 of 49 (502153)
03-10-2009 12:51 AM


The economy is really bad. President Obama and the Congress have decided I am wealthy. I run a small business with 5 equivalent full time employees. So my profits, if any, show up on my personal income tax. Between letting Bush's tax cuts lapse and other tax increases, Uncle Sam's tax bite is going to grow considerably, and that doesn't include what my state has in store.
So what am I going to do? I'm closing my business. I do it because I love it, but I don't need it. And if I were considering starting a new business, I'd think long and hard.
I've seen a lot of doom and gloom, with some saying that there's a 30% chance that the world will slip into a depression. I really hope that doesn't happen.
If politicians everywhere would just keep their hands out of people's business, the recovery (and, yes, there will be one, some time) would happen faster and be more robust. But politicians, Left or Right, just can't help meddling and if they meddle badly the recovery could be anemic indeed.
In the right environment, my business could expand. I could add another employee this year. I think there might be enough business to justify that. But the way things are my business is going from 6 to 0 employees. I hate to do it, but now I spend probably 30% of my time dealing with government regulations. Why should I stick around and spend even more time for that instead of seeking new business? And then get penalized at tax time.
It isn't worth it.
Edited by Sarawak, : No reason given.

Replies to this message:
 Message 4 by kuresu, posted 03-10-2009 4:15 AM Sarawak has not replied

  
kuresu
Member (Idle past 2590 days)
Posts: 2544
From: boulder, colorado
Joined: 03-24-2006


Message 4 of 49 (502158)
03-10-2009 4:15 AM
Reply to: Message 3 by Sarawak
03-10-2009 12:51 AM


Typical over reaction from conservatives.
Tell me, do you know when your taxes are going to be raised?
As it stands, 2011.
Do you know by how much?
Your tax rate will increase from 33% or 35% to 36% or 39.6% (individual vs. family filing). Does all your income get taxed at the new rate? Of course not. You're only taxed at the higher rate on income earned beyond the 200,000 or 250,000 level.
And, like Joe the Plumber, do you actually make less than 200,000 (individual) or 250,000 (family)? and thus are just blowing smoke out your ass?
By the way, this whole thing against taxes is really just quite ridiculous. I understand people don't like paying them. I don't like seeing roughly 17% of my paycheck vanish each week either. But you know what? Those roads I drive on? Those schools I go and went to? Those police who help keep society stable and protect my property? Those firemen who do much the same? The judicial system, which allows disputes to be settled peacefully and fairly? That military that's supposed to protect us from attack? Those are all public goods that the private sector either cannot provide or will not provide or should not provide. The government has to provide them, and the government needs money to provide its services. So I'll grumble about my taxes, but I'll pay them. And if I should ever become so successful that I'm actually taxed at the highest rate, I'll pay those too, because without government services I probably would not be so wealthy. And neither would you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by Sarawak, posted 03-10-2009 12:51 AM Sarawak has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 5 by Huntard, posted 03-10-2009 4:37 AM kuresu has not replied
 Message 6 by onifre, posted 03-10-2009 8:22 AM kuresu has replied
 Message 27 by Jon, posted 03-11-2009 11:58 AM kuresu has replied

  
Huntard
Member (Idle past 2372 days)
Posts: 2870
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


Message 5 of 49 (502159)
03-10-2009 4:37 AM
Reply to: Message 4 by kuresu
03-10-2009 4:15 AM


Only 17%?
I pay 42% taxes. And still can afford my own appartment in the middle of a city.
I really don't understand what the big deal is in paying taxes, the things we get back for it are in no way possible if everyone would have to pay for it themselves.

I hunt for the truth

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by kuresu, posted 03-10-2009 4:15 AM kuresu has not replied

  
onifre
Member (Idle past 3028 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 6 of 49 (502173)
03-10-2009 8:22 AM
Reply to: Message 4 by kuresu
03-10-2009 4:15 AM


But you know what? Those roads I drive on? Those schools I go and went to? Those police who help keep society stable and protect my property? Those firemen who do much the same? The judicial system, which allows disputes to be settled peacefully and fairly? That military that's supposed to protect us from attack? Those are all public goods that the private sector either cannot provide or will not provide or should not provide. The government has to provide them, and the government needs money to provide its services.
Wow, really?!
Is that all it takes to get liberals on board, a slight change from old policies and you're jumping on a soap box about the government needed more tax money? Christ dude!
Americans truly are blinded by advertisment.

"I smoke pot. If this bothers anyone, I suggest you look around at the world in which we live and shut your mouth."--Bill Hicks
"I never knew there was another option other than to question everything"--Noam Chomsky

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by kuresu, posted 03-10-2009 4:15 AM kuresu has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 7 by ramoss, posted 03-10-2009 8:43 AM onifre has replied
 Message 9 by kuresu, posted 03-10-2009 9:37 AM onifre has replied

  
ramoss
Member (Idle past 689 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 08-11-2004


Message 7 of 49 (502174)
03-10-2009 8:43 AM
Reply to: Message 6 by onifre
03-10-2009 8:22 AM


You know what?
Way back when, my niece was born with a cord around her neck, and had developmental issues. She got put a program from age 2 to 4 to help her develop her motor skills, paid for by the state. Those are taxes I will be more than willing to pay for any child in similar circumstances.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by onifre, posted 03-10-2009 8:22 AM onifre has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 8 by onifre, posted 03-10-2009 8:56 AM ramoss has not replied

  
onifre
Member (Idle past 3028 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 8 of 49 (502178)
03-10-2009 8:56 AM
Reply to: Message 7 by ramoss
03-10-2009 8:43 AM


Way back when, my niece was born with a cord around her neck, and had developmental issues. She got put a program from age 2 to 4 to help her develop her motor skills, paid for by the state. Those are taxes I will be more than willing to pay for any child in similar circumstances.
What about all of the neglected kids in inner cities where social programs lack governemnt funding? The people, many of them children, who lack health care, decent living, food, education...I'm glad your niece was able to get the treatment she needed, but many don't get any support, and now they want more money? Fuck them.
Until our government, AS A WHOLE, shows fiscal responsability the tax payers should not be asked for more money.
Should we all line up bent over as well? - bring your own lub, the government lacks lub funding.

"I smoke pot. If this bothers anyone, I suggest you look around at the world in which we live and shut your mouth."--Bill Hicks
"I never knew there was another option other than to question everything"--Noam Chomsky

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by ramoss, posted 03-10-2009 8:43 AM ramoss has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by kuresu, posted 03-10-2009 9:59 AM onifre has replied

  
kuresu
Member (Idle past 2590 days)
Posts: 2544
From: boulder, colorado
Joined: 03-24-2006


Message 9 of 49 (502191)
03-10-2009 9:37 AM
Reply to: Message 6 by onifre
03-10-2009 8:22 AM


Um, overreact much?
Did I say the government needed more tax revenue? I told Sarawak what his tax increase was going to be, when it would happen, and how it would work.
I then railed against the attitude against paying taxes, because there are public goods that only the government can, should, and will provide. Did you know that the IRS misses about 350 billion dollars in taxes each year? Partly that's from mistakes: personally, I'm confused about how my tax obligations work thanks to stock in foreign markets. Mostly, though, its from people who game the system because they don't feel that they should pay the government for services rendered. And quite frankly, every time you drive on a road, or go to school, or buy medicine that's been approved as safe by the FDA, or any other of the numerous public goods, you are using government services. I don't know about you, but I rather like having roads, schools, agencies that, when not controlled by ideology and business interests, work to ensure the safety of my food, medicine, or any of several hundred thousand products, agencies that protect my property and person through enforceable laws.
True, I think taxes should be raised, but I never said that in my previous post. Why should taxes be raised? A little something called a national debt that we do need to bring under control at some point in the future. Current tax revenues won't cut it. And then there's only paying for programs such as veteran's benefits that are consistently underfunded.
Edited by kuresu, : getting names right is good

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by onifre, posted 03-10-2009 8:22 AM onifre has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 17 by onifre, posted 03-10-2009 12:30 PM kuresu has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22606
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 4.9


Message 10 of 49 (502196)
03-10-2009 9:47 AM


How the Crash Will Reshape America
I just read the March issue of The Atlantic last night. It had a long article about the long-term effects of the current recession on various regions of the United States:
It speculates that New York and other similar metropolitan regions like Boston, San Francisco and Los Angeles would fare pretty well. New York will maintain its status as financial capital of the world.
The rust belt will get rustier as the manufacturing sector of the US economy continues its decline, with manufacturing jobs continuing to flow overseas. For those outside the US, the rust belt is the central part of the US around Chicago, Detroit, maybe as far east as Pittsburgh, etc., that is dominated by car and other heavy manufacturing.
The southwest will also suffer, particularly cities like Phoenix and Las Vegas. I'm not sure I followed the rationale on this one.
Suburbia will also take a hit if, as the author speculates, the government deemphasizes policies that encourage home ownership. He reasons that private home ownership is actually a bad thing because the illiquidity makes workers less mobile, and it's a poor allocation of resources and capital.
--Percy

  
kuresu
Member (Idle past 2590 days)
Posts: 2544
From: boulder, colorado
Joined: 03-24-2006


Message 11 of 49 (502197)
03-10-2009 9:59 AM
Reply to: Message 8 by onifre
03-10-2009 8:56 AM


Until our government, AS A WHOLE, shows fiscal responsability the tax payers should not be asked for more money.
You realize you contradicted yourself? How can the government become fiscally responsible without tax revenue?
Tell me, how do you balance your budget? You can either cut back, or increase your earnings. Well, the government cannot cut back right now (a spending freeze alone is folly, so imagine what cutting spending would do to the economy). The only option is to at some point in the future increase tax revenue. And quite frankly, cutting taxes from their current rates is not going to increase government revenue.
You want the government to be fiscally responsible? Start paying up.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by onifre, posted 03-10-2009 8:56 AM onifre has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 12 by dronestar, posted 03-10-2009 10:12 AM kuresu has replied
 Message 16 by onifre, posted 03-10-2009 11:58 AM kuresu has replied

  
dronestar
Member
Posts: 1425
From: usa
Joined: 11-19-2008
Member Rating: 5.5


Message 12 of 49 (502201)
03-10-2009 10:12 AM
Reply to: Message 11 by kuresu
03-10-2009 9:59 AM


"splat"
kuresu,
message 320 in "Expectations For The New Obama Democrat Government":
So the [Iraqi] war is certainly not illegal.
Message 323 in "Expectations For The New Obama Democrat Government":
You contend that Afghanistan is going to be a Vietnam. I showed you how it will not be so long as our strategy changes.
Message 9 above:
True, I think taxes should be raised . . . A little something called a national debt
Message 11 above:
How can the government become fiscally responsible without tax revenue?
{insert the sound of my head exploding from your reality disconnect}

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by kuresu, posted 03-10-2009 9:59 AM kuresu has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 13 by kuresu, posted 03-10-2009 10:35 AM dronestar has not replied
 Message 14 by kuresu, posted 03-10-2009 11:19 AM dronestar has not replied

  
kuresu
Member (Idle past 2590 days)
Posts: 2544
From: boulder, colorado
Joined: 03-24-2006


Message 13 of 49 (502205)
03-10-2009 10:35 AM
Reply to: Message 12 by dronestar
03-10-2009 10:12 AM


Re: "splat"
Reality disconnect? What is it with you people?
How is stating that the Iraq war is not illegal (hello, UN mandates and now the SOFA?) connected with showing how Afghanistan might just not be a repeat of Vietnam? What do either of those statements really have to do with this topic, other than our expenditures related to the wars?
How is being fiscally responsible disconnected from the idea that our tax revenues have to increase to pay for our national debt?
You understand where are national debt comes from: largely a result of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. But even if we pull out of those wars today, we still have to pay off the debt incurred by them.
How do you do that? Increase tax revenues to pay off the bond holders. How do you increase tax revenues? Shrink government expenditures, which for economic reasons right now is asinine, or raise taxes. Those tax hikes will be occurring in 2011 (unless Pelosi can get them earlier, which could be asinine, as Hoover so aptly proved).
Really, do you all even try to think through what you say?
Let me say it once more:
We want fiscal responsibility. That means fully paying for your programs and incurred debts. That means increasing tax revenue. Which means either cutting government spending in toto, and/or raising taxes.
I'm glad you see a disconnect with reality, because I sure can't see what's so wrong with the picture above.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by dronestar, posted 03-10-2009 10:12 AM dronestar has not replied

  
kuresu
Member (Idle past 2590 days)
Posts: 2544
From: boulder, colorado
Joined: 03-24-2006


Message 14 of 49 (502216)
03-10-2009 11:19 AM
Reply to: Message 12 by dronestar
03-10-2009 10:12 AM


Re: "splat"
I realize there's another way to interpret what you were saying. Possibly more likely than what I initially thought (see above post). That is, every quote attributed to me is an individual example of my disconnect from reality, and not that they are connected in any substantive manner. To this I respond:
I stand by my arguments regarding each statement. You never had the opportunity to rebut my counter-arguments in any substantive manner in the Obama expectations thread. If you start threads or find old ones regarding the two wars individually, I will defend my arguments there. As it is, there is no disconnect with reality in my arguments.
As to the final two, I again stand by my arguments. I fail to see how raising taxes to pay off the national debt is a disconnect from reality. See posts above for arguments as to why we should raise taxes if we want to pay off the debt. Further, to claim that my statement about fiscal responsibility requiring tax revenues in order to pay for government services is an example of disconnecting from reality, well, I'd really like to see how you define fiscal responsibility.
The bats are out tonight, that's for sure.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by dronestar, posted 03-10-2009 10:12 AM dronestar has not replied

  
Sarawak
Member (Idle past 5554 days)
Posts: 47
Joined: 03-07-2009


Message 15 of 49 (502224)
03-10-2009 11:57 AM


I don't want to get in a Left-Right squabble, both sides have their fingerprints on our necks. I am in business. I can't afford to look forward just one year. I need to be at least 5 years out. The facts are simple, rollback of Bush's tax cuts, tax increases on people making over $250,000/family and a release of the limit for FICA taxes. Simple calculations show that in a few years time, my taxes will exceed 50%.
I will not operate a business in that environment. I can survive quite well without my business. If the government needs to fiscally responsible, how about spending less?
It's really simple. I cannot survive by being fiscally irresponsible. Why should Washington be any different?

Replies to this message:
 Message 25 by Jazzns, posted 03-11-2009 11:40 AM Sarawak has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024