Whelp, some more details would be nice.

 

No.

...

Okay.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-...nal-descent-into-a-renewed-u-s-recession.html

 

I say, screw worrying about the US economy. Italy and Spain are scaring me a hell of a lot more than the US slipping back into a recession.

 

If unemployment goes up Obama will get blamed, and the Republicans will sweep the next election. It does not seem fair. Republican economic policies got us into this mess. Since the election of 2010 the Republican Party has been in the way of what Obama needed to do to restore the economy. Nevertheless, that is the way things work.

 

The immanent collapse of the Eurozone, eh?

 

The U.S. economy will stay in the crapper until Obama is out of office. In all the time he's been in office, he's yet to take a single action to help the economy. Quite the opposite, he's done everything he can to suppress it.

He's a Marxist idealogue. Everything that needs to be done to help the economy recover flies directly in the face of his utopian Marxist ideology. Some day he'll be gone and a new president will take the steps needed for a recovery.

 

The Eurozone is already in collapse...

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/artic...LPCZX00D9L3501-6PIIMH9VJLTJ6S7QV1OSO0AG28.DTL

 

Surely you don't believe that lower taxes will automatically translate to more jobs?

Other than that, the Republicans got no real plans for boosting demand. Lack of demand is the number one thing causing uncertainty in the market.

 

Since at least 1932 lower taxes have not benefited the economy. Higher taxes have not harmed it.

 

which is a common and incorrect misconception.

the more money bureaucrats have to play with the more they will spend.

the year they started the income tax the US treasury had a windfall income. they budgeted with that same windfall the next year because bureaucrats ALWAYS plan on building their tax payer funded fiefdoms and the fed ran a DEFICIT, because people figured out what 'deductions' were.

 

You obviously have never known a Marxist. You do not seem to know much else, either.

 

taxes transfer funds from the consumer and business to the government

business and industry create 3-12 jobs for ever job created. Government creates one job for every one created. that means for every 'job' (in dollar amount) taxed out of the private sector the govt gains one and replaces 3-12 jobs with ONE

Taxes DECREASE net jobs in the economy ECON 101 people. . .

(by industry)
Heavy (auto - ship building - manufacturing) 10-12 related jobs added
med (Aerospace (Airlines and NASA)) 7-10 related jobs added
Banking and Finance (duh. . .) 5-7 related jobs added
Transportation (trucks trains and such) 3-5 related jobs added

 

Actually, no. Not Econ1302. The only thing that definitely impacts the economy in a drastic manner are interest rates. Taxes are a little more subjective. Sometimes you could raise them without harming the economy. Most times, raising them would negatively affect demand. But who's to say that lowering them ALWAYS equals increased demand?

http://www.mea.org/tef/pdf/2toptenreasonswhytaxdontgroweconomy.pdf

 

Markets themselves are not economic indicators.

Markets are an imperfect judge of EXPECTATIONS not reality. Panic and instability drop market prices ('OMG! the sky is falling sell everything!'). success stability and profits improve expectations ('perpetual growth forcast!')

Parts of the market can give long term views on what is happening, but it is not clear which way it is going (reality or expectations) unless you understand the markets.

1) UPS and FedEx quarterly corporate orders indicate economic activity that retail and manufacturing business is forcasting for the next 6-12 months as they pre-order parts and inventory in LTL amounts. This is a reality.

or

2) Interest rates drive all the sector's rotation in the DJIA. Manufacturing, transport and home building all operate on independent and cyclical sector rotations based on the interest rates that the fed sets. If you understand those rotations you can get ahead of the large institutional market movements and make money in equities. But this does not DETERMINE the health of the economy, only where institutions (your IRA and Universities) are rotating their money. It is an example of profit taking on someone else's (the institutions) expectations.

 

Tax cuts do not grow the economy because rich people only hire people when they have more customers. They will do that even if they have to borrow money to do it.

 

Check your source, here's a hint it's at the bottom. . .

The NEA is a pack of Bureaucrats! They live on the money they squeeze out of the private sector. Their rational self interest is VESTED in insuring that the taxes on productive members of society fund their soft leather chairs and 15 secretaries.

So YES Economics 101. . .

E = C + B + G + (Ex-Im) * db

Seriously people! That NEA crap is based on marketing 101 and Psych 101 (specifically the sections on 'managing expectations'). If someone off the street tells you should give them all your money you would think they were idiots. But if some union based political action group markets it right, and puts it on the web you all suck it up like mother's milk and write the checks like so many fiscal lemmings!

 

I've never heard that before, though I'm interested in where you got those numbers.

 

There was nearly as much economic growth during Franklin Roosevelt's first term as during the two terms of of Warren G. Harding and Calvin Coolidge.
http://www.singularity.com/charts/page99.html

By giving lower income people more money than they would get from the law of supply and demand, Democratic economic policies make them better consumers. When they buy more employers hire more, causing reductions in the unemployment rate.

Right now corporations have plenty of money. They are not hiring because people are not buying. People are not buying because they are unemployed, under employed, or they fear they will become that way.

 

Macro-Economics 101, Syracuse University, 1996, Freshman year core requirement for business school. It has since been reflagged to Econ 402 or some such.

I have the books boxed away in storage but I retain that type of stuff pretty well.

The problem is that there are several different and competing economic theories. Groups like the NEA use on that is closely aligned with 'Marxist economic' theory stating that all money is property of the state since they are part of the state they have vested interests in seeing that happen. The opposite is called the 'Austrian Economics', where everything is freewheeling and there is no regulation or interference.

I'm closer to the Austrian theory because the idea that personal labors belong to the people who produce them makes more sense and harbors fewer systemic inefficiencies. The problem with 'Pure Austrian' is that people are crooks if given the opportunity they will cheat, therefore you need guidelines, rules of the road and such, and when people blow through red lights they need to be stopped and put in time out for the safety and well-being of society. Same as economics which is why I shy from the 'Pure Austrian'.