The reason why the current recovery is much less impressive than those of the past is that the causes of the recession were different than those of the past--specifically, this recession was caused by over-leverage. That means that companies and business are spending their recovery money paying off debt, rather than using it to consume and start new business. I mean, that's what I understand anyway but it's probably an oversimplification.

Also, however, you have to add to that a secular shift in the economy that's been going on for decades now. People who worked in manufacturing through the 80s shifted to construction as manufacturing jobs went over seas. That resulted in a slow erosion of purchasing power. Things got worse however as the construction boom ended and those construction jobs went away. The problem is those jobs are not going to come back. This is probably why Pacino thinks there will never be a boom again. However, I don't necessarily agree. But people are going to have to develop new skills to cope with economic changes.

Boy, do i wish even more austerity is implemented. It's awesome!

TenuredVulture wrote:The reason why the current recovery is much less impressive than those of the past is that the causes of the recession were different than those of the past--specifically, this recession was caused by over-leverage. That means that companies and business are spending their recovery money paying off debt, rather than using it to consume and start new business. I mean, that's what I understand anyway but it's probably an oversimplification.

Also, however, you have to add to that a secular shift in the economy that's been going on for decades now. People who worked in manufacturing through the 80s shifted to construction as manufacturing jobs went over seas. That resulted in a slow erosion of purchasing power. Things got worse however as the construction boom ended and those construction jobs went away. The problem is those jobs are not going to come back. This is probably why Pacino thinks there will never be a boom again. However, I don't necessarily agree. But people are going to have to develop new skills to cope with economic changes.

you're like Jimmy Carter more words

/jerz

a further challenge is that the Tom Friedman argument - "people are going to have to develop new skills to cope with economic changes" - is inadequate. The math doesn't work. The math underlying the structural problem is akin to a change in effective span of control. Where the "conventional" span was one guy 'supervising' the work of 7, now it's 1/17 - or 1/70, depending on your productivity assumptions.

You can't "train" your way out of that math. No amount of "return of manufacturing", etc will change it. Similarly, we won't go back to an agriculture-based economy. That's over.

So you need a change in what constitutes appropriate economic shares for various social roles and risks of assuming (or being stuck in) those roles.

Now, "market forces" may awaken enough people to the fact - the fact - that a John Paulson isn't "really" entitled to billions per year based essentially on his ability to persuade a relatively small number of other people mostly like him to give him control over a sum of money 50 or more times the amount he himself is infusing into whatever scheme he's come up with. He may earn billions in some other fashion, but he's not earning it (& he's never "really" earned it) by manipulation of leverage.

My feeling is there's no necessary reason to wait and see if market forces will wake enough people up to the incongruity of such assumptions; we could start dismantling these irrational structural elements now.

pacino wrote:Boy, do i wish even more austerity is implemented. It's awesome!

So is blaming "austerity" for the tepid nature of the recovery when we're on track to run a deficit over $1 trillion for the fourth consecutive fiscal year.

jerseyhoya wrote: If you think the fact that the economy is barely treading water means the GOP doesn't have an argument to make against Obama this fall, more power to you. But you're wrong.

lol as if a GOP that has repeatedly attacked obama from the beginning with baseless and, frankly, downright illegitimate claims needs real reasons to build an "argument."

jerseyhoya wrote: The country seeing actual improvement wouldn't be the worst outcome.

[/quote]

this is what it's all about. fucking mitch mcconnell

"Eye of the Tiger"?

jfc

Israel now wants to keep all of Jerusalem and the parts of the west bank it 'temporarily' took.

Sheesh. These guys are amazing.

td11 wrote:

jerseyhoya wrote: If you think the fact that the economy is barely treading water means the GOP doesn't have an argument to make against Obama this fall, more power to you. But you're wrong.

lol as if a GOP that has repeatedly attacked obama from the beginning with baseless and, frankly, downright illegitimate claims needs real reasons to build an "argument."

Arguments build on real reasons are more persuasive to swing voters so it's nice to have them.

jerseyhoya wrote:Arguments build on real reasons are more persuasive to swing voters so it's nice to have them.

and their "real reasons" will be something like "the President destroyed some jobs not previously destroyed by job creators who really didn't, but now there are more jobs but I'll make some more more jobs"

that will be complicated

It's difficult to beat something with nothing.

Granted, "let's cut taxes for the super-rich, resume deregulating like coked-up nihilists, continue disinvesting in human capital and infrastructure, and start more wars with Arabs" isn't literally nothing. But it might be worse, since we've done all these things and know where they lead us.

The Republicans only can win if 1) conditions worsen and 2) they can obscure what they'll actually do as a governing party. Because NONE of it is popular outside Fox/RushWorld. That they've got a poor salesman for this agenda in Willard Mittens doesn't help either.

Did they call FL for Romney yet? This was a little more fun when Newt at least had a theoretical chance of winning.

We don't root for a player's political judgment.

Here's the candidate's website though. http://www.hesterforarkansas.com/ Our lefty alternative paper calls him an extreme right winger, but his website indicates a pretty centrist (for Arkansas) guy. But maybe he's smart enough to keep the really weird shit off the website.

this thing is going for a while. there's still 2k delegates up for grabs

Newt's gotta win a non-crazy state outright before super tuesday or he's toast. (That means winning Arizona doesn't really count.)

Romney's victory speech suggests he's getting the hang of crazy talk. Success!

this guy's just ridiculous

TenuredVulture wrote:The reason why the current recovery is much less impressive than those of the past is that the causes of the recession were different than those of the past--specifically, this recession was caused by over-leverage. That means that companies and business are spending their recovery money paying off debt, rather than using it to consume and start new business. I mean, that's what I understand anyway but it's probably an oversimplification.

Also, however, you have to add to that a secular shift in the economy that's been going on for decades now. People who worked in manufacturing through the 80s shifted to construction as manufacturing jobs went over seas. That resulted in a slow erosion of purchasing power. Things got worse however as the construction boom ended and those construction jobs went away. The problem is those jobs are not going to come back. This is probably why Pacino thinks there will never be a boom again. However, I don't necessarily agree. But people are going to have to develop new skills to cope with economic changes.

Corporations are sitting on a mountain of cash right now, it's the governments that are over leveraged. Until corporations get a clearer picture on how things are going to play out, they'll sit on the sidelines and not make significant capital investment. Governments would be wise to put in place tax policies that will encourage investment (the UK has already started this) once companies are ready to move, and the US corporate tax rate is well behind other countries in this respect.

I also agree that there will be other booms. Technology is advancing so rapidly it's inevitable. The idea is to make sure there's a business and educational environment to take advantage of it.

the uk is crumbling

no one from PA says 'missourah'. dude's pandering. oh rick.

newt's children are over 40. mindblowing