Uncertainty
This pretty much sums it up.
“We’ve been operating for the last year and a half in conditions of perfect uncertainty,” said David J. Ward, president of Madison-based consulting firm NorthStar Economics Inc., adding that he has never before seen such economic doubt in his 45 years as an economist.
“Do you know what the estate tax rate is going to be next year?” he asks. “Do you know what the corporate income tax rate is going to be? Do we know what the personal income tax rate is going to be? Do we know any of a number of other issues? The answer is we don’t. And until we resolve that, the economy’s going nowhere.”
So as the political parties snipe at one another with midterm elections approaching, the nation’s gross domestic product is stumbling along at a 1.6% annual growth rate, according to figures released Friday. And the national unemployment rate is holding well above 9%.
“They’re not going to hire a lot of new people until they have a better sense of the direction the economy is going,” Ward said.
Good business people can find a way to earn money in any market, but they have to know the rules of the game. We’re in a place now where things have been changing so fast and so arbitrarily that nobody knows what the rules will look like in 3 months, 6 months, 2 years, etc.
You are correct sir!
Trying to stay in business with weak demand for your product or service PLUS anticipated tax increases of known amounts PLUS new regulations on how you can operate PLUS the threat of more tax increases all mean businesses retrench at best or close up at worst.
Retrenching or at least not expanding is the best you can expect in a business enviornment like we’re in today.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 30, 2010 at 0916 hrs
Many here have been arguing this for some time. When you put this uncertainty on top of the fear that is pervading the entire society about our debt levels, you are left with a horrendous environment for business.
Investors don’t know where to go. Businesses are deathly afraid of the implications of the healthcare-folly. Individuals are pulling investments left and right, buying hard goods and precious metals out of fear for impending inflation…
We’re in pretty deep, and when interest rates begin to rise, we are going to default or monetize…..
Of course the Krugmanites and Obama worshippers among us will continue with their heads in the sand screaming that the stimulus was too small…
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 30, 2010 at 1244 hrs
The uncertainty was created by the democrats to win the Presidency, Congress and Senate.
They thought they could buy it back and never expected the people to reject their socialist policies.
This will not be over until the progressives are replaced, whether they be democrats or republicans.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 30, 2010 at 1515 hrs
I think it’s misdirection at best. The problem with the economy is not “uncertainty” but lack of demand. With this level of unemployment, anything else is beside the point.
But you can for sure count on corporate lobbyists to seize the opportunity to seize an opportunity to forward their agenda of even lower corporate taxes. And you can for sure count on the right-wing political establishment to totally buy it. But I don’t buy it.
Posted by scott on August 30, 2010 at 1820 hrs
Lack of demand? Wow. Ever occur to you that something is causing the lack of demand? Poor confidence is causing lack of demand. Lack of certainty is causing poor consumer confidence…
Posted by Smeety on August 30, 2010 at 1830 hrs
Scott,
Seriously? You need to talk to more people who actually run businesses.
Posted by Owen on August 30, 2010 at 1841 hrs
I thought the reason people weren’t spending money is because they were unemployed.
To be fair, though, the thing that triggered it all was the fact that people suddenly found their houses and retirement accounts were worth a lot less than they previously supposed. Then they started spending less which triggered massive unemployment. Now unemployment (and fear of it) drives demand down which keeps unemployment high, rinse repeat.
Your average American doesn’t know or give a shit about what happens to the inheritance tax or the income tax of millionaires or corporate taxes. What he cares about is whether he has a paycheck and how likely he is to have one next month.
Posted by scott on August 30, 2010 at 1842 hrs
BTW, Scott, this post has absolutely nothing to do with lowering corporate taxes. Nothing. You invented that. It’s about a static set of rules by which everyone can abide. As you say, though, “it’s misdirection at best.”
Posted by Owen on August 30, 2010 at 1843 hrs
Is there “uncertainty” about my taxes, Owen? About yours? My point is that things which generally are “uncertain” right now are in no way driving the unemployment problems we’re seeing.
Posted by scott on August 30, 2010 at 1844 hrs
9.Is there “uncertainty” about my taxes, Owen? About yours?
Yes.
And as one who actually hires people, yes, uncertainty is a factor.
Posted by Owen on August 30, 2010 at 1847 hrs
What should I be uncertain about with regard to my taxes?
Posted by scott on August 30, 2010 at 1850 hrs
And by the way, Smeety, consumer confidence is at least partly made up of people’s opinion on the job market. That is, if they are unemployed or afraid they might become so, consumer confidence will be down.
Posted by scott on August 30, 2010 at 1854 hrs
Have you seen any legislation whatsoever related to extending any of the Bush tax cuts? 4 months until they expire and all I’ve seen are vague statements with nothing to back them up. Yes, I know you have faith in your dear leaders, but have you actually seen a piece of legislation?
And I notice you shy away from the actual reasoning behind real hiring decisions. Perhaps if you had to make them you’d be more attuned to the real economic conditions facing hiring.
Posted by Owen on August 30, 2010 at 1856 hrs
I don’t for a minute believe that consumer demand is being held back by people’s concern that the Bush tax cut is going to expire on the middle-class. Not one minute. Frankly, I don’t think you believe it either.
What hiring decisions do you make, Owen? Whether to hire five people or hire none? Or is it just who to hire once the decision to hire is made?
Me, I always thought the decision to hire a worker was made based on whether the additional output of that worker would give greater value than what it costs to employ them. If you can sell more widgets than you’re currently making, you hire more widget makers. If you can’t sell the ones you’re already making, you don’t.
Posted by scott on August 30, 2010 at 1903 hrs
You just have to sit back and shake your head at the denial of the liberals….
Posted by Smeety on August 30, 2010 at 1912 hrs
Me, I always thought the decision to hire a worker was made based on whether the additional output of that worker would give greater value than what it costs to employ them.
Which shows how ignorant you are of real hiring decisions. It’s not that simplistic.
Let me paint a real scenario. You have a team that’s on salary but running at 117% utilization. In other words, they are meeting demand, but running at nearly 50 hours per week. In normal economic conditions, you could justify another person. It takes a minimum of 6 months to ramp up an experienced person (2 years for a newbie). The year has been good, but Q4 looks weak. 2011 is uncertain. The position pays $75k - $120k. Benefits are more, but it’s uncertain how Obamacare will impact the cost of health care. You have a profit target to hit, but it is uncertain how taxes and regulations will impact your industry (in an already heavily regulated industry). It costs $50k to train the person before they add a single dollar to the top line, so your decisions will cost the company well over $100k before you have any idea whether or not the hire will be successful, and your job depends on making the right decision. What do you do? Take the risk? Run your current staff harder? Look for ways to reduce the workload to the current staff? Sacrifice ongoing professional development for your staff? Keep things the same and offer a bonus to improve morale (much less $$$ than a new person)?
The way you phrase your questions makes it obvious that you’ve never actually had to make these decisions.
Posted by Owen on August 30, 2010 at 1920 hrs
Me, I always thought the decision to hire a worker was made based on whether the additional output of that worker would give greater value than what it costs to employ them.
To expand further, your statement is predicated on the theory that it is certain that a new employee will add a certain value. The truth is that hiring decisions are uncertain and many new hires are unsuccessful. For every 3 people you hire, at least 1 of them will not work out and will cost you instead of providing value. That’s the risk. There’s a cost to it. The only way your theory works is if every single hiring decision is the right one. It doesn’t work that way. Furthermore, even a successful hire will have varying values. Not every business is based on a product with a fixed market value (widgets).
Posted by Owen on August 30, 2010 at 1927 hrs
That fits the situation where I work almost perfectly. Increasing regulation that costs money to comply. My CEO mailed statement to employee’s homes about the uncertainty of Obamacare. Ended up hiring engineers on contract basis…
Posted by Smeety on August 30, 2010 at 1932 hrs
Owen, do you make the decision whether to hire new people or not?
I’m not an economist, it’s true. I didn’t even stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night. But I know the tell-tale aroma of bullshit when it wafts my way. Whatever uncertainty there may be about government economic and tax policies, it isn’t the crux of the demand hole which is in a feedback loop with unemployment.
I didn’t start this up to convince the unconvincible. I just wanted to register my alternate point of view.
Although, I am curious. If uncertainty about government policy is keeping the unemployment high, what started it to begin with? In your world, I mean.
Posted by scott on August 30, 2010 at 2041 hrs
19.Owen, do you make the decision whether to hire new people or not?
Yes, although with every good organization, I have to justify the decision.
And you make it clear that you have absolutely no idea what you’re talking about. You’re out of your element, Scott.
Posted by Owen on August 30, 2010 at 2045 hrs
Since I have disclosed… Scott, have you ever been responsible for hiring/firing anyone? I’ve done both.
Posted by Owen on August 30, 2010 at 2047 hrs
I have hired and fired. But I don’t make the decision whether to offer a new position, no.
No responses to the rest of comment #19?
Posted by scott on August 30, 2010 at 2053 hrs
No, I don’t believe you. Unless your realm is so limited as to exclude economic realities (like in an academic setting). I call BS.
To this:
If uncertainty about government policy is keeping the unemployment high, what started it to begin with?
Easy. Obama. We have seen radical changes in regulations, taxation, etc. and lots of talk about further “hope and change” that I have no idea what’s coming down the road. At the same time, existing structures (like the Bush tax cuts) are utterly uncertain. If you aren’t seeing uncertainty in your world, then you must work for the government or in academia (oh wait)... the rest of us have no illusions.
Posted by Owen on August 30, 2010 at 2116 hrs
Sorry, but I don’t buy this argument. Things simply aren’t changing very fast at all. The fact is that congress is unlikely to get anything major done by the end of the year. So what will the corporate income tax be? I’d say with 99% confidence it’ll be the same thing it is now. It definitely won’t be higher. As for the Bush tax cuts expiring - they don’t affect corporate earnings. The only thing I can think of that they could possibly be waiting on is an extension of the R&D credit. And maybe accelerated depreciation - do we still have the thing Bush put in place that gave everybody immediate writeoffs for Hummers, I thought it was only good for a year. And the estate tax? Please tell me why any business leader isn’t hiring someone because of the estate tax. I’d love to know. The only business being hurt by uncertainty about that is estate planners.
Look, its fair to say business leaders are being cautious due to uncertainty in the economy or because the recovery sucks and we’re anticipating tepid growth and weak consumer demand for the forseeable future but don’t try to blame this on some overactive congress. Seriously, I could get twice as much done at my job as those folks do at theirs if I showed up for two hours on January 2nd and took the rest of the year off.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 30, 2010 at 2226 hrs
A convincing argument, but since you don’t hire and fire people you are wrong.
Posted by scott on August 30, 2010 at 2242 hrs
We have seen radical changes in regulations, taxation
Really? Which ones?
the Bush tax cuts) are utterly uncertain.
The only thing in contention is the marginal tax rate for earners making a quarter mil or more. And I think that would include, oh, a couple of percent of American earners. I’ll tell you this, though: i’m “utterly certain” that my Bush tax cuts won’t disappear anytime soon. In fact, i’ll give 10 to 1 odds—my $100 against your $10—that I don’t end up paying my old rate come tax time. Interested? That’s good odds for something that is “utterly uncertain,” something that could just go either way, teetering on the edge of a knife. So go ahead and take the money of this out-of-touch academic elitist know-nothing.
Posted by scott on August 30, 2010 at 2249 hrs
And I will, of course, step in to call out the “lack of demand” lie for the lie that it is. “Lack of demand” is merely the pretext for bigger government, which is the entire purpose behind Keynesian economics as practiced in the United States.
We lack investment in supply, and have since before the start of the recession.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 30, 2010 at 2313 hrs
Me, I always thought the decision to hire a worker was made based on whether the additional output of that worker would give greater value than what it costs to employ them. If you can sell more widgets than you’re currently making, you hire more widget makers. If you can’t sell the ones you’re already making, you don’t.
In this, you’re actually leading right up to one of the issues but just won’t connect the dots. Sure there are a lot of sales/revenue related unknowns. But these are always there and people who know what they’re doing…well…know what they are doing. I can tell you what my sales are going to be for the next 12 months - and I’d be shocked if my projection is off by more than 10%. I can’t speak for everyone, but it’s got nothing to do with demand since I’m actually turning down work. Having worked my @ss off to build up a customer base, scrounged for scraps and lived mostly off my savings & 401k in the first few years, it’s really hard to do that. But I’ll trade turning away work for a missed deadline & unhappy customer every time & there’s only so many hours in a day. What I cannot predict with very much certainty, is how much hiring a new employee will cost me. I don’t know what the heck the healthcare reform will cost because despite the bill passing into law, the details are still to be written. I’m fearful that when the administration moves on to energy and cap & trade or whatever, my energy “rates will necessarily skyrocket.” I have no idea where taxes will be - except I do know that though my income is under 6 figures, if the Bush tax cuts expire, I’ll pay somewhere between $3000-4000 more in taxes. I do have the luxury of taking more profits out of my company as salary to compensate for that, so I’m shielded a little bit. But there’s a reason I’m not taking more out now - it’s because I’m still trying to grow the company, build it’s assets up.
Anyway, at least for me, it’s not the demand/sales side at all - it’s just how uncertain the expenses side of things is.
The other thing holding me back is that some companies (though they’re mostly the larger ones) shift their staffing quickly. Business picks up, they add on fast. Things drop off, they cut. I have neither the interest nor (to be honest) the stomach for that approach. My guys are like family & that’s part of why I love what I do. I’m not about to hire somebody only to have to let them go.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 30, 2010 at 2319 hrs
Lets not forget about the amt My acountant sent me a letter that said if the congress does not pass the yearly patch I will owe an extra $4300. Now thats $4300 that I can not spend because I may needed to pay taxes. Thats uncertainty.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 31, 2010 at 0531 hrs
The only thing in contention is the marginal tax rate for earners making a quarter mil or more.
Really? Well, that’s a load off my mind. I’m glad to hear that the Democrat Congress has stepped in and passed legislation on this issue, and that their president has signed it.
Apparently I missed it in the news though… Could you provide me some link to this legislation? Bing can’t seem to find it at all.
We have seen radical changes in regulations, taxation
Really? Which ones?Well, off the top of my head I’d say that Obamacare and the new diversity heavy financial regulations might be considered radical changes. The taxes, costs and fines associated with O-Care are certainly on the minds of businesses right now. The cap and trade hurricane is sitting just over the horizon as well. No action has been taken on our current tax structure, so no one has any clue what taxes will look like in 4 months.
Is that enough to start with?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 31, 2010 at 0830 hrs
Although, I am curious. If uncertainty about government policy is keeping the unemployment high, what started it to begin with? In your world, I mean.
The credit crisis. Same as in your world.
People are uncertain about the value of their homes, uncertain about where their investments are going to be when the inflation starts, or the defaulting begins.
This causes consumers to reign in spending, reducing demand, as you say. BUT, stimulus was ineffective at replicating demand. In fact, it did not replicate demand AT ALL. So here we are. We have been sold a pack of lies by Barack and Co. and we have people like you running around telling others that if we would have spent more it would have worked, and because some people are inclined to trust your perspective the myth is propagated.
This administration came into office and began making ad hoc changes to things that people really weren’t expecting. People were pissed about healthcare costs, and now they are even more pissed about the healthcare bill which is likely to increase costs. People were pissed about wall-street and the credit card companies. Now it costs more to open a credit account, with more hidden fees, and the guys on wall street are still getting their bonuses, many of them on the government dime.
As with the entirety of liberalism. This President and his boys did not take the time to think through the consequences of their actions. They acted impulsively on the notion of “good and fairness”, and now we are stuck with some legislation that is fundamentally unfair, and didn’t help the economy at all, with more to come.
Even your boy Howard Dean is telling Obama to fire his advisors to save his image before the election.
President Barack Obama = Worst 1 term President ever.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 31, 2010 at 0907 hrs
it did not replicate demand AT ALL.
It did, though. It just a) wasn’t enough and b) too much of it was ineffective tax cuts. There’s plenty of expert opinion on the subject to back that up.
his President and his boys did not take the time to think through the consequences of their actions.
No, their chief problem is that instead of acting boldly and decisively (and without GOP support), they elected to go with weak policies that gave us a weak result. If Democrats had started negotiations with Single Payer we would have the public option. If they’d asked for a really outsized stimulus package we’d have had an effective-sized one. But they always pre-negotiate themselves to the middle and end up with the short end of the stick.
Posted by scott on August 31, 2010 at 0913 hrs
Finally, our anemic stimulus spending has given us an anemic recovery.
They’re going to tell you that we’re in this fix because we have such a high deficit and debt. Or because businesses are scared of healthcare reform. But don’t you smell something? I do.
Scott - On his own blog.
Of course the Krugmanites and Obama worshippers among us will continue with their heads in the sand screaming that the stimulus was too small…
Me, here. Post #2. A day earlier.
How very, very predictable. You’d think the left would see that their tired old FDR rehash isn’t working now either, and try to come up with some innovative solutions…. Nah. I mean, seriously, why do you guys even call yourselves “progressives” any more. Your ideology hasn’t progressed beyond the late nineteenth/early twentieth century.
And you guys knock us for having “old” ideas.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 31, 2010 at 0921 hrs
Actually, I’d cheer if Obama acknowledged that the stimulus was too small. As far as I know, nobody in the administration has ever said this. Of course, it’s neither here nor there. Politics being what it is in America, a second crack at it is all but impossible. The opportunity is gone. We’re pretty screwed. That’s my assessment.
Posted by scott on August 31, 2010 at 0924 hrs
Well, I didn’t predict that response…
It did, though. It just a) wasn’t enough and b) too much of it was ineffective tax cuts. There’s plenty of expert opinion on the subject to back that up.
Really, so then Scott, what would have been bold and decisive? Spending twice as much? Where would unemployment be then? Since the prediction was “no higher than 8% for what we spent and we are still stuck at 10%, I guess maybe if we’d spent double it would have come down to 8%, huh?
There’s plenty of expert opinion to back up any idea any of us could throw out there, Scott. Paul Krugmann is an ideologue positing opinion, just like you and I, the only difference is his “pedigree”. Unfortunately, REALITY, doesn’t reflect that opinion.
Seriously, how big should the stimulus have been? What would the effect have been? Seriously, come on, FDR is counting on you!
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 31, 2010 at 0929 hrs
We’re pretty screwed. That’s my assessment.
Yeah, and that is politically fortunate for me, because you guys really brought us home, didn’t you.
Your ardent adherence to what is clearly bunk theory is amazing. History repeats itself, especially when it comes to “progressive” ideology… Hey, maybe Obama can start a war with N. Korea and Iran to get us out of this pickle?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 31, 2010 at 0933 hrs
Yes, we probably should have spent twice as much. And it should have been spent smarter, too. Tax cuts, for example, are among the least stimulative, dollar for dollar. If we had, unemployment might be another 2% lower than it is. Maybe more. At some point the feedback loop stops feeding back, I imagine. I don’t pretend to know a specific answer.
I realize you have a hard on for Paul Krugman. But I’m also talking about the CBO, Moody’s, other economists and financial prognostication firms. Most of the people saying it didn’t work are right-wing politicos as far as I can tell.
Heh. “Reality.” You speak of it as if you had more than a passing familiarity with it.
Posted by scott on August 31, 2010 at 0935 hrs
But they always pre-negotiate themselves to the middle and end up with the short end of the stick.
I can assure you that the negotiations are not what get those feeble minded wannabe’s the short end of the stick.
That goes to most congresspeople on both sides of the aisle.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 31, 2010 at 0938 hrs
Most of the people saying it didn’t work are right-wing politicos as far as I can tell.
CNN disagrees. So does their poll.According to a CNN poll released Sunday, 56 percent of the public opposes the stimulus, with 42 percent supportive of the plan. Last March, just weeks after President Obama signed the stimulus bill into law, a CNN survey indicated that 54 percent supported the program, with 44 percent opposed.
This poll is from January 2010, the numbers are skewed even more heavily against your nonsense now.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 31, 2010 at 0942 hrs
Here’s one from Rasmussen. (I know)
A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 38% of U.S. voters believe the stimulus helped the economy, identical to the level of confidence in the plan when Congress passed it in February of last year and the highest level of confidence since then. But 36% say it has hurt the economy. Twenty-one percent (21%) believe it has had no impact.
That’s 57% of Americans say stimulus has done nothing/hurt to 38% think it helped.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 31, 2010 at 0946 hrs
How ‘bout this tidbit?
In latest quarterly survey by the National Association for Business Economics, the index that measures employment showed job growth for the first time in two years — but a majority of respondents felt the fiscal stimulus had no impact.
NABE conducted the study by polling 68 of its members who work in economic roles at private-sector firms. About 73% of those surveyed said employment at their company is neither higher nor lower as a result of the $787 billion Recovery Act, which the White House’s Council of Economic Advisers says is on track to create or save 3.5 million jobs by the end of the year.
That sentiment is shared for the recently passed $17.7 billion jobs bill that calls for tax breaks for businesses that hire and additional infrastructure spending. More than two-thirds of those polled believe the measure won’t affect payrolls, while 30% expect it to boost hiring “moderately.”
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 31, 2010 at 0949 hrs
Rasmussen again. (I know, again)
The new survey found that just 29% believe last year’s economic stimulus plan has helped the economy while 43% believe it hurt. Not surprisingly, there is little appetite for another round. By a 69% to 15% margin, voters believe tax cuts is a better way to create jobs rather than more government spending.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 31, 2010 at 0951 hrs
CBS/NY Times,
A CBS News/New York Times poll released a few days ago, before the one-year anniversary of the passage of the so-called “stimulus” bill, shows that only 6 percent of repondents believe Keynesian-style spending has “created” jobs.
Comparing this to some other polls, Rob at Say Anything points out that back in 2006 a third of respondents to a Scripps Howard believed that 9/11 was an inside job. On the 25th anniversary of Elvis Presley’s death, 7 percent of respondents to a CBS News poll believed he was still living.
Do you believe Elvis is still alive Scott? Because thats about where your opinion polls….
It appears that in comparison to public opinion you are in tinfoil hat territory with your radical beliefs.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 31, 2010 at 0954 hrs
Pulling your head out of the sand yet?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 31, 2010 at 0959 hrs
In another poll, 100% of the Bootsandsabers.com readers feel Scott Feldstein is lower than “fucking moron” on an IQ scale.
94% polled feel that Scott has been divorced multiple times because no woman will tolerate a man that is on the rag more than she is. The other 6% were lesbians and said they would not touch Scott Feldstein with a 10-foot double-headed pole.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 31, 2010 at 1029 hrs
I just love the talking point from the left that despite control of the White House and total control of both houses, it’s all still the right’s fault. Obama’s stepped to the right to appease Republicans & just wants to be friends & those mean nasty Republicans won’t go along.
I guess it’s gotta be difficult when your savior…isn’t. But fact is, there’s been less bipartisan work going on than when Bush was President. The big bills passed have been largely, F you, we’re doing this & don’t your votes or to listen to you at all. A reminder from the WSJ back in January:
“Never let a serious crisis go to waste. What I mean by that is it’s an opportunity to do things you couldn’t do before.”
So said White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel in November, and Democrats in Congress are certainly taking his advice to heart. The 647-page, $825 billion House legislation is being sold as an economic “stimulus,” but now that Democrats have finally released the details we understand Rahm’s point much better. This is a political wonder that manages to spend money on just about every pent-up Democratic proposal of the last 40 years.
We’ve looked it over, and even we can’t quite believe it…
It continues on at:
A 40-Year Wish ListRead it including the list of where funding went & try to tell me with a straight face that they had any care in the world for what those who disagreed with them had to say it. It was a money grab pure and simple - an opportunity to fund a bunch of things they hadn’t been able to get support for. Anybody with a brain knew it wasn’t going to work to stimulate the economy - since that wasn’t really it’s intention anyway, that was just the cover. Your guys screwed the pooch on this one Scott & deserve to pay hefty price come November.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 31, 2010 at 1114 hrs
Pollster, that personal attack on Scott was unnecessary and rather dickish. There are plenty of facts on which to argue the issues, you don’t need to stoop to that level, do you?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 31, 2010 at 1246 hrs
So a potential 3% increase in the personal income tax rate has caused our economy to grind to a halt? The possibility that the estate tax could sunset back to its 2001 form is enough to completely eliminate hiring? Seriously? How did our economy ever survive new administrations in the past?
This isn’t about economic indicators or hard numbers, it’s about a general unease that has sunk consumer and entrepreneurial confidence. It’s not based on any significant, accepted economic signifiers, but on suspicious whispers about what the Muslim Kenyan is up to, and screaming talk radio rhetoric about how these people are socialists who will destroy America (for real this time, unlike the last socialists who turned out to be pretty good for our economy).
The whole thing is just ridiculous. If we’re this stupid and petty then we deserve to have our economy collapse.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 31, 2010 at 1407 hrs
I agree with Wendy. There is really no need for that kind of stuff.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 31, 2010 at 2013 hrs
As a business guy who has been hiring and firing through many uncertain times (oil embargo, S&L crisis, dot com bust, 9/11), I’d have to say that the recent near collapse of the banking system was the scariest. That is ultimate uncertainty.
Money is not a thing or a quantity, it is a concept. The flow of money is economy. When that flow is seriously disrupted, the Feds across the world must act. We are lucky it’s not much worse.
For the record, I’m happy to report that I’m in a hiring mood.Posted by Charlie Hillman on September 01, 2010 at 0040 hrs
I realize that the scumbag troll-poster really brought this discussion to a halt, but I just caught this.
I realize you have a hard on for Paul Krugman.
My wife and I agree… He’s not really my type.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on September 02, 2010 at 0942 hrs
Good business people can find a way to earn money in any market, but they have to know the rules of the game.
Posted by juicy couture outlet online on September 08, 2010 at 2212 hrs
Hi,
I am from Bangladesh. How can I write about anything and earn from online? Or, how can I write for the newspapers and earn? Can anyone say of any such websites where I can blog and earn money per post?Posted by teletrabajo on September 23, 2010 at 0343 hrs
Total Entries: 19654
Total Comments: 129829
Most Recent Entry: 02/10/2012 02:32 pm
Most Recent Comment on: 02/11/2012 12:30 pm
Total Members: 9751
Total Logged in members: 0
Total guests: 98
Total anonymous users: 0
Most Recent Visitor on: 02/11/2012 01:36 pm
The most visitors ever was 538 on 12/01/2007 02:11 pm
Protected and licensed under a Creative Commons License (some rights reserved).