dw57

Japan: Demographic Time Bomb Waiting to Explode

i don't thats what they are saying. what they are pointing out is that if you have a shrinking population (and i have seen where they might die out in 20 or 30 years) you can't have a growing GDP (cause every year there is less demand).


On Nov 05 04:20 PM maff wrote:

> "if we don’t take care to make sure our population is dynamic, healthy
> and growing sooner or later bad economic things will happen"
>
> and if we do manage to engineer continuous population growth and
> ever-increasing consumption everything will end happily?

The Performance of Japanese Companies: A Growing Connection with External Demand

not sure that any country that is dependent on external growth will be a permanent economic superpower. and there is that population problem they have (they are shrinking). which is true of many Asian countries. even China. and it has that dependency on external demand for growth too

Financial Regulation: How Would You Have It Work?

well that was engineered by one person. Phil Graham. and he isn't a democrat


On Nov 05 11:57 AM Techtrader10 wrote:

> The was a great law in place that was removed during the Clinton
> Admiinistration because it was said to "hinder" the banking industries
> competitiveness. The Glass Steagall Act was a way to separate the
> banking and investment firms. It was a good idea and should be reimplimented.

Bailout Nation Mentality: Ford Workers Reject Further Concessions

not sure that Ford wasn't just lucky. they hocked every thing back 2006. for billions. when they could. now maybe that was the right choice (looking back). but at the time every one thought that was a really bad choice. and there a lot of other reasons that F didn't want a bailout. can't forget the Ford family, had they had a bailout, they would loose control of the company. hard to overlook that too. But they have done really well and so should be commended for that. but they are very much a truck company still. and they need new cars. and lucky (and really good timing) they have some of those in the pipe line (and some that came out this year too). but unless the car market gets well (how likely is that?) they too will be in trouble, per their own testimony, under oath

Three more Ford (F) plants reject union contract givebacks, bringing the total to 11 plants and dimming Ford's hopes of getting the concessions granted to GM and Chrysler. "This never happens. It’s a vote of no confidence in the bargaining committee and a vote of no confidence in Ford," says a labor professor. (previously: I, II, III)

can Ford be in trouble? they said they would be if the entire car market wasn't bigger than 10 million? will we hit that? unlikely. but possible. and why should Ford get the same deal as 2 bankrupt companies? the others got a court to do the deed for them. to many have no idea how much these folks get (not 70/hour). not even 50/hour. not do many if us know what they do (its not what it was 30 years ago). and there aren't many of them. so if Ford is doing so well, why do they need the same kid gloves that GM and Chrysler got?

Dollar Forced to Abdicate Its Throne

not sure that the 'weaker' dollar has much more to do with any thing other than falling demand for dollars. after all, we just saw a mad rush to it, driving its value up. and with the panic receding, demand has fallen off. but considering what other countries have done to their budgets (think the US has the highest deficit? think again). or that all that 'printed' has gone into the economy? nope its sitting in the banks going now where (little demand for it any way). and considering that we are the biggest buyer, how likely is it that out countries won't cut their currencies to keep them lower? if they don't, they loose a lot of what they sell to us. and since we just came from an era of tax cuts, and saw how little they helped the economy (which turned out to be based on easy credit than any thing else. what a hoax! after all we had falling incomes in the entire era).

The Hypocrisy and High Stakes of Healthcare Reform

here the thing. if we do nothing at all. in 10 years the average cost of insurance will be 30K per family (if we are lucky).
what are the odds that any business will keep this benefit when its that high?
and business has been dropping this already (down to about 50% of those business that have ever done so).
and why is the rest of the world has solved this problem, but the richest country in the world is helpless to solve it?

The Hypocrisy and High Stakes of Healthcare Reform

how do you figure that? all we lead in is the cost. we don't lead in any of the results of health care.


On Oct 22 12:45 PM CLH wrote:

> This whole reform is unbelievable. America has the best health care
> in the world. Does anyone go to Europe or Canada for health care?.
> Of course not. They all come to America where the health care is
> the best. The only way to cut costs is to privatise Medicare which
> is a bankrupt disaster.

The Hypocrisy and High Stakes of Healthcare Reform

doctor may have used to over treat because of fear. but not any more. and we proved it in Texas. we 'reformed' tort so that it is not economically feasible to sue for malpractice. but it had no impact on health care costs. seems to have gone up just like every where else.
and while patients have no idea about costs and doctor's do either. i doubt very seriously any one ever signed up for surgery because it didn't cost them any thing. or at best they did that once.
and learned that it was painful. and thats true of almost procedures isn't it?

and not every one will be allowed to buy insurance. you can't do that if you have some really minor conditions they won't write the contract for any amount of money. they will also cancel your contract if they can for any reason if they have a major claim coming (even if it will kill you to not have a procedure). happens all the time

and you still can't buy drugs from Canada. they won't allow that.
you can go there to have surgery if you want (they haven't stopped that. in fact your insurance company might suggest you go to India on a medical vacation.
all insurance is regulated. it all has rules as to what can be sold and what has to offered. and do you really think that buying from another state will really help? and how likely will that state be in helping you when the insurance companies fails to do some thing (like pay a claim?). not likely to be much help there at all

On Oct 22 07:32 AM fwi wrote:

> The central problem with health care expenditures is that consumers
> think of their insurance like an all-you-can-eat buffet. They overconsume,
> primarily because "it is already paid for", and they do not know
> what anything costs. Doctors often over-treat because of fear of
> grotesque lawsuits. And insurers only compete within a state, often
> with very few players.
>
> We no more need the Federal Government to take over our healthcare
> than we need a Federal bureaucrat picking out our clothes. Wholesale
> overhaul is complete madness. We need only address the above three
> issues in the following ways:
> 1. Each consumer uses his own allowance to buy his own insurance.
> For those employers who want to provide , fine, but not in purchased
> insurance, but with money to the employee. For the person who cannot
> afford insurance, the government provides the consumer with a cash
> allowance, with the freedom to use it as he would any other life
> sustaining purchase. For example, food stamps allow the consumer
> to purchase his own food choices. If food stamps were run like a
> public option, then the Feds would tell the consumer what brand of
> bacon to buy, how often he could buy it, and what store he was required
> to use. How long would anyone stand for that?
> 2. Doctors would stop over-prescribing procedures and tests if they
> told the patients what each cost, and what the dangers were if the
> tests were not done. The two then decide how best to manage the
> risks and benefits. Out of control lawsuits would be capped. One
> thing that everyone has forgotten is that the practice of medicine
> is as much an art as a science. To hold doctors to a standard of
> infallibility is unfair, as politicians and money managers are clearly
> not.
> 3. We are in a global economy and insurance cannot be purchased
> across state lines. The consumer then overpays to an insurer who
> is under challenged by the marketplace. This crazy law must be overturned.
> If you live in Florida and can buy controlled drugs in Canada, why
> cannot you buy cheaper insurance from Georgia?
>
> None of these reforms cost a dime, no new bureaucracies and entitlements
> created. Consumers take control of their own health care, insurers
> would have a more competitive marketplace, and doctors would practice
> more common sense medicine and less "defensive" medicine.
>
> If the Federal Government has decided that the citizens of this country
> cannot handle their own healthcare decisions, then what is the next
> thing they will decide we cannot handle? We must be beware of the
> unthinkable, because it is already happening.

Trading executives warn sweeping rule changes meant to shed light on so-called dark pools could ultimately hurt the investors regulators are trying to empower. SEC meets on Wednesday, and is expected to force off-exchange dark pools to display more quotes and reveal more data.

is this the case of the bank robber with the gun to the head of the guard saying if you take my picture you will hurt the banks customers?

The Debt-Equity Clock Is Ticking - Morgan Stanley

i wonder what they sell? it couldn't be they are brokers could it?

How GE Beat Our Consensus

so sales tanked. earning from sales are up based on cost cutting. not a good sign for the future

A Different Take on September's Employment Numbers

and they were altered yet again under Bush. the birth/death 'jobs' were created. and they have been numbering the 100K plus range. even if they never existed


On Oct 06 09:23 AM TeresaE wrote:

> Your analysis does not take into account the millions that have gone
> from fully unemployed, to working part time for little pay and no
> benefits.
>
> The BLS stats can pretend that a guy that used to make $50k a year
> with vacations and health care, is fully employed when he goes to
> work part time at Home Depot with crappy, if any, benefits. But
> to his local businesses, he is still fully unemployed.
>
> These counts/stats were intentionally altered under Clinton, the
> criteria changed but the analysis stayed the same.

Employment in Crisis

how can we know that this is true? Its just as likely that its the unemployed giving up looking as the jobs aren't there


On Oct 06 07:10 AM tedstr wrote:

> This is not so complicated folks. The social change that is happening
> is that the dual income home is fading. More women are finding that
> they do not need or want to work as much. Some men are finding they
> do not need or want to work as much. Some of this takes the form
> of early retirement. Some is just moms staying home. Some is discouragement,
> some is just making choices.
>
> To be sure unemploymnent is high, but not all of the non-employment
> seeking workers are still discouraged workers. This is a very significant
> social change that will have profound effects on consumption and
> savings for the next generation.
>
> The past 25 years of runaway consumption in the US was fueled by
> the two income home and disproportionate wealth in the upper middle
> class (ie "mass affluence"). This will be replaced by increasing
> hourly wages for a reduced labor force, reduced consumption and increased
> savings rate.

Maybe the "New Frugality" isn't a sure-thing culture shock, says James Surowiecki. Could be that people are spending less just while they have less - and not even that much less. Most of the consumption drop can be traced to gas and cars, and spending's been rising for four months.

another possible reason for the new frugality becoming permanent. part 1, the boomers are starting to retire. years ago many were worried about needing new employees (they fixed that by sending jobs offshore). well now they are more concerned with saving for retirement (or making up for that big hole that just showed up). part 2, the follow on generations make a lot less than the boomers (and make less when compared to the same boomers at the same age). so they spend a lot less. combine that with different spending habits ( they tend top be more interested in electronics as opposed to transportation). you will end up with a lot less spending (as electronics tend to drop in price over time)