dw57

U.S. Job Losses Demystified

the problem is that private enterprise will not and has not invested in any of the things that made the US economy go. without roads there is not trade. thats government infrastructure
and from the last 8 years, we can't exactly show much good investment from the private sector either. it was all smoke and mirrors


On Nov 16 10:33 AM Zmartmoney wrote:

> Who is America in your equation? It sounds like you equate America
> with Government. That is our problem - America is not equal to Government.
> Government shouldn't be doing all this "investing" to begin with
> - they invest badly, almost without exception, and then give the
> "profits" to those who didn't earn them. This is all about power.
> Wake up! Waging wars??? No doubt. Let's just wait here - the jihadists
> will eventually come to us. Anyway, it's more fun street-fighting
> on your own block - you can go home for lunch. Sheesh. You still
> think the govt is the solution.

U.S. Job Losses Demystified

not sure there is much mystery here. after all we have been getting rid of as many jobs as we could for a decade now. all the job that were created in the last 8 years were not permanent ones, they only lasted as long as the consumer (employee) could get credit. once that was gone, there was no way to keep those jobs any more. thats why they are gone, and they may even be permanently gone as incomes is the US have been collapsing for a decade now. and without US jobs, there will not be much in the way of profit for business in the US as they no longer have customers.

Chinese Exports: Can Emerging Markets Replace the U.S. Consumer?

I think you over looked that its easy to grow some thing fast if its small. but its a lot harder to grow some thing if its really large.
I.E. that 40% growth in EM, maybe relate to 5% growth in US or EU growth. or less

On Nov 13 05:45 PM HaavBline wrote:

> The author raised an interesting question but failed to dig into
> it meaningfully.
>
> By volume and value terms, China-EM trade is and will continue to
> be only a fraction of China-US trade. But China is pursuing this
> trade because from China's viewpoint, they see much opportunity that
> foreign observers can not see from trade volume stats alone.
>
> China-EM trade is growing at a much faster pace then China-US or
> China-EU trades. For example, China-Africa trade grew at 40% pace
> in 2008 while trades to OECD countries were tanking. So the China-EM
> trade growth volume could be comparable in the near future even though
> total trade volume remains much smaller. This is the part stat
> and chart readers can easily project and comprehend.
>
> The qualitative element is this: China enjoy much better terms and
> quality in its China-EM trades comparing to China-US or China-EU
> trades. China-US trades, for example, consist of a very high percentage
> of foreign owership, in the form of brand names, sales channels,
> IP, even export factory management. In this trade relationship,
> US gets the tuna steak while China gets the fish bones, so to speak.
>
>
> In China-EM trades, on the other hand, much of Chinese owership is
> involved. From financing, infrastructure service to brands, to
> IP to factory, there are much less western involvement ('taxing'
> from Chinese standpoint). It may be lowly smelts, comparing to
> pricey tuna, but China gets much of the fish meat rather than just
> the bones.

Chinese Exports: Can Emerging Markets Replace the U.S. Consumer?

they also having an aging population, similar to Japan.
to drive growth either they find another large market (EU) or they grow internally. some thing that their culture seemly won't do


On Nov 13 05:17 PM silver-bug wrote:

> Good charts and diagrams, but I would like to see the demographics
> of the Chinese population, because that is the driving force of their
> economy. China has a growing middle class, as opposed to the shrinking
> middle class in America. It has a labor force of over 800 million
> people, and these are hard-working people who save money to buy things
> instead of using credit. China has $2.3 trillion worth of reserves
> to spend, and it spends this money wisely, developing infrastructure
> and obtaining vast amounts of natural resources for growth. And
> Chinese government is also providing a fiscal stimulus for it's people,
> which is also being spent wisely by the people.
>
> So, I think China has the ability to soak up the export slack with
> an increase in domestic consumption. It may slow down a bit, but
> it won't be significant. Most of the economic growth in the world
> will be driven by China and then followed by India, and other smaller
> eastern emerging market nations.
>
> I would put my bets on China.

Oracle Fights Back as EU Tries to Tilt Database Market Playing Field

maybe. maybe not. if they give customers a path to migrate their data to Oracle, they can try to sell it. but others might not offer that, especially if they have no money to make from it


On Nov 10 04:51 PM BeachRider wrote:

> Apart from being slightly inflammatory, there is one key issue: Can
> Oracle kill MySQL in an attempt to have Oracle reign supreme? The
> answer is "not-really". The nature of an Open Source System is MUCH
> more than simply being a standards-based Open System. If Maria (or
> any database provider) wants to alter MySQL to it needs, they can
> do it without "MySQL's Owner's" consent. If ORCL tried to kill-off
> MySQL they would essentially write-off the $1Bn investment and become
> a by-line for future Maria releases.
>
> What is scaring the EC here? It is important to note that the EC
> is KILLIN MySQL with this delay.

Oracle Fights Back as EU Tries to Tilt Database Market Playing Field

why would they? if the source is open, they make no money from doing so. after all, the code is in the public domain. they have no incentive to do so. Oracle on the other hand does. if they drop it, they can provide a path to get customers to run Oracle. and charge money for it too


On Nov 10 08:16 PM RK wrote:

> If Oracle drops MySQL, I am pretty sure another company will pop
> up to support MySQL. The source code of MySQL is after all public.
>

Oracle Fights Back as EU Tries to Tilt Database Market Playing Field

The transaction does not threaten to reduce competition in the slightest, including in the database market.

not really sure thats true. if Oracle were to drop MYSQL it would reduce competition. and they both run on the same platforms don't they? while bad produces reduce the amount of competition its not quite so drastic as a competitor dropping out all together


"Approve this or Oracle is out of Europe. Who needs your dying statist economy anyways?"

I suspect the last argument would only get them kicked out of Europe. one of the 7 largest economies on the planet.

Oracle: EC Has 'Profound Misunderstanding' of Database Market

move along nothing to see here.
sounds like Oracle is going to learn the same lesson MS did.

Corporations Win Again - This Time It's Healthcare

while it might not do any thing. its impossible to accomplish any thing that will. nobody will allow a disinterested 3rd party to review doctor's opinions. today insurance companies are only interested in reducing what they cover, raising premiums, or canceling the policy for any reason imaginable before you get care. thats where they make their money and they have monopolies in most ares they serve. doctors only care to provide care that they get paid for. they have figured out that if they own the labs and other medical providers they can make even more by prescribing tests and other such procedures/ and they have monopolies in most areas they serve. but there are places in the US that don't seem to have those problems. but in those rare areas doctors are on salary.

U.S. Healthcare Legislation Investment Impact

while one might complain that SS is a ponzi. the replacements for pensions are more like frauds that any thing else


On Nov 09 02:59 PM Gedankonomist wrote:

>
> Yes, just like social security. The definition of "insanity" is
> essentially the idea that, after trying something and finding out
> you are wrong, you go and try the same thing again, expecting a different
> result.
>
> Roosevelt promised you "social security" and what you got instead
> was a Ponzi scheme. Actually, it is worse than a Ponzi scheme, since
> most Ponzi schemes are VOLUNTARY. So my apologies to Charles Ponzi.
>
>
> Anyway, now the same monstrosity in DC is promising you "free health
> care." You fools, you are about to find out the hard way that "free
> health care" is actually stealing. Although you think your neighbor
> will be paying for your "free health care," you will be getting robbed
> at the same time.
>
> On Nov 09 11:21 AM Michael D. wrote:
>
> healthcare won't be only available

Don't Believe Long-Term Oil Forecasts

not sure that the dollar has declined that much has it? after all oil is up what 100% or more? but you are correct it has had very little to do with supply and demand
and the export countries desperately need the US consumer to buy their stuff, and that consumer is dollar based. make the dollar decline and they stop buying. raising interest rates may or may not have any impact at all. didn't before now in the last 8 years.


On Nov 09 09:47 AM ringo3khan wrote:

> I think it's important to remember that as much as the price of the
> commodity is determined by supply/demand considerations, it's also
> determined by the value or lack thereof of the U.S. dollar as same
> is held in vast quantities by the producing countries. Thus, oil
> has, in many ways become the new "Currency" and will be for as long
> as it's valued primarily in "dollars"; it's natural that as the instabilities
> in the U.S. financial and economic models become ever more violent
> and less predictable that the dollar will continue to fall in value.
> There is of coure the "model" out there that would indicate that
> if the Fed was to begin to raise interest rates, the dollar might
> begin to strengthen. However, the increased instability and inefficiencies
> of the U.S. society, political system and financial systems may well
> put us in a place where despite interest rate increases, the dollar
> doesn't appreciate significantly in value because, just as may now
> be the case with the currency of Zimbabwe, other countries and central
> banks won't want to be holding dollars in reserve. To the extent
> that this is the case, until such time as a more stable world reserve
> currency can be found, there may be no forseable ceiling on the price
> of oil.

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