Big Ol' Smitty

Ah what the hell, I'll have a go. People are always going to profit from war. We profited like hell from WWII, and nobody thinks there was anything wrong with that war. I agree that this is a problem. But it's not like people are being coerced into joining the military. You know the risks going in. I've read that Halliburton is really the only company with the capabilities of doing the type of rebuilding job required in Iraq. Sure, the no-bid contract looks bad, but what are ya gonna do? From what I understand, all the intelligence said they had WMD. A crazy dictator with WMD is a threat. It's been argued that pressure was put on the intelligence community to produce evidence that Iraq had WMD, but this hasn't really been proven. And the guy that Bush removed from power "killed a ton of people." We try pretty hard to prevent civilian casualties. If you want to produce some solid evidence that Bushco waged war "so he and his friends could cash in" I would be open to convincing. Just saying it doesn't make it so, though.

I can't way to see what Kwanza Clause leaves me!

U.S. Economic Outlook Dims Tue Dec 7, 3:51 PM ET Business - Reuters By Alister Bull WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. economic outlook dimmed on Tuesday after reports said business productivity grew more slowly in the third quarter than first estimated, labor costs rose and other indicators signaled softening activity. Chain store sales fell in the crucial shopping period after Thanksgiving, planned job cuts climbed during November and a survey of consumer confidence waned in possible pointers that the economy tempered its pace in the final months of the year. Outstanding U.S. consumer credit swelled to $2.093 trillion in October, the Federal Reserve (news - web sites) said. The Labor Department (news - web sites) said nonfarm business productivity, or worker output per hour, grew at a 1.8 percent annual rate in the July-to-September period -- the slowest clip since the fourth quarter of 2002. It also nudged up growth in unit labor costs to a 1.8 percent pace in a potential boost to inflation. Wall Street had expected an upward revision to productivity growth to a 2.0 percent rate from an originally reported third-quarter pace of 1.9 percent. Productivity in the second quarter grew at a rate of 3.9 percent. "The data tells us that companies have pushed existing workers as far as they can and that is why they are increasing employment. But this is also adding to their labor costs," said Gary Thayer, chief economist at A.G. Edwards & Sons. A preliminary report released last month had shown 1.9 percent productivity growth in the third quarter and a 1.6 percent rise in unit labor costs. Higher unit labor costs also backed views the Federal Reserve will stick with a measured pace of rate increases and lift its benchmark funds rate a quarter percentage point to 2.25 percent at its next meeting on Dec. 14. "The Fed is watching productivity growth very closely and assumes that it is higher (on a trend-basis) than the current pace. If it stays this low it could change the Fed's view of inflation. But not at this stage," Thayer said. The slowdown in productivity was traced to a rise in hours worked, which grew at a rate of 2.4 percent in the third quarter, the fastest pace since third quarter of 1999 as companies ran operations for longer to maintain output. This had been initially reported as a 2.1 percent growth rate. JOBS Productivity growth was also substantially lower compared with a year ago when it rose by 9.0 percent. But this is not necessarily bad news since it also reflects cyclical changes in company hiring and a welcome boost to job creation. Officials had predicted productivity would moderate as companies exhaust ways of boosting output by making existing workers more efficient and instead lifted hiring. During the third quarter over 400,000 new U.S. jobs were created. However, the November employment report said a much weaker than expected 112,000 jobs were created and the impression of a troubled labor market was backed by a report from employment consultant Challenger, Gray & Christmas. It found that U.S. firms announced 104,530 in November, compared with 101,840 in October and warned this could crimp consumer spending at a critical time for the economy. "The biggest worry for the economy is that the large number of lower-middle class and middle-class Americans struggling to make it paycheck to paycheck will be short of discretionary income during the holiday shopping season," said John Challenger, the firm's chief executive, in a statement. A survey of consumer confidence told a similar story, with Investor's Business Daily and TechnoMetrica Market Intelligence reporting that their economic optimism index fell modestly to 54.5 in December after dropping to 55.1 in November. A reading above 50 indicates optimism. Indeed, U.S. retailers continued to report disappointing sales in the key week after the Thanksgiving Day holiday, which kicks off the Christmas shopping season. A report by Redbook Research, an independent company, showed sales in December to-date were down 0.8 percent compared with November. A separate report, from the International Council of Shopping Centers and UBS, found sales fell 1.7 percent last week, compared with a 1.5 percent decline the previous week. Source: Reuters http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=stor.../economy_usa_dc

Wow so you're going to antagonize me just for posting a fucking article. I stand by my "fungal infection" assertion with respect to you.

That's hot.

I love Marv. More power to him. He's fucking awesome without all the TO/Joe Horn/Randy Moss bullshit.

Well I dunno about you, but arabs that live in caves do not seem likely to be launching nuclear missles anywhere. Even if they get their hands on Nukes and the proper way to handle and transport them, I seriously doubt it will be conducted in such a way that a ballistic missle system could protect. I think we as a people(not just americans, but everyone) have to come to the realization that if nuclear war ever started, we just have the bite the bullet and die gracefully. I mean the thought of nuclear missles launching all over the place, and having a system in place that MIGHT knock down every 3rd warhead is not kind of heart-warming scenario. Sorry, I wasn't referring to the Star Wars missile defense when I asked that question...I think it's crap already. I was referring to Wildbomb's quote about the administration not knowing how to fight the war on terror.

What would be a better way to fight the War on Terror? I'm not trying to be a smartass, I'm seriously asking this.

No problem. The other interesting thing from the article, I thought, was its questioning of the future of the dollar's reserve status.

More on weak dollar from Economist.com over the next few years it seems an excellent bet that there will be a large drop in the dollar. Since mid-October the dollar has fallen by around 7% against the other main currencies, hitting a new all-time low against the euro and a five-year low against the yen. The dollar has lost a total of 35% against the euro since early 2002; but it has fallen by a more modest 17% against a broad basket of currencies.... Markets have been rattled by concerns that foreign central banks might reduce their holdings of American Treasury bonds. Last week, officials at the central banks of both Russia and Indonesia said that their banks were considering reducing the share of dollars in their reserves. Even more alarming were reports that China's central bank, the second-biggest holder (after Japan) of foreign-exchange reserves, may have trimmed its purchases of American Treasury bonds... might the dollar lose its reserve-currency status? Over the past 2,000 years, the leading international currency has changed many times, from the Roman denarius via the Byzantine solidus to the Dutch guilder and then to sterling. The dollar has been the dominant reserve currency for more than 60 years, delivering big economic benefits for America, which can pay for imports and borrow in domestic currency and at low interest costs.... The requirements of a reserve currency are a large economy, open and deep financial markets, low inflation and confidence in the value of the currency. At current exchange rates the euro area's economy is not that much smaller than America's; the euro area is also the world's biggest exporter; and since the creation of the single currency, European financial markets have become deeper and more liquid.... Those bearish on the dollar are asking why investors will want to hold the assets of a country that has, by its own actions, jeopardised its reserve-currency position. And, they point out, without the intervention of central banks, which have been huge net buyers of dollars, the dollar would already be lower. If those same central banks were to begin to sell some of their $2.3 trillion dollar assets, then there would be a risk of a collapse in the dollar.... The [trade] deficit is at the heart of this issue. Various economists have put forward at least four arguments why the deficit does not matter and the dollar's reserve status is safe. First, the deficit is a sign of America's economic might, not a symptom of weakness. Second, sluggish demand overseas is a big cause of the deficit, so it is reversible. Third, the deficit exists largely because of multinationals' overseas subsidiaries. And fourth, central-bank demand for dollars creates, in effect, a stable economic system. It is not difficult to demolish each argument in turn.... Worse still, in recent years capital inflows into America have been financing not productive investment (which would boost future income) but a consumer-spending binge and a growing budget deficit. A current-account deficit that reflects a lack of saving is hardly a sign of strength.... For almost two decades, economists have worried about America's current-account deficit and predicted a plunge in the dollar and a hard landing for the economy. The dollar did indeed fall sharply in the late 1980s, but with few ill effects on the economy. So why worry more now? One good reason is that the current-account deficit, currently running at close to 6% of GDP, is almost twice as big as at its peak in the late 1980s, and on current policies it will keep widening. Second, in the 1980s America was still a net foreign creditor. Today it has net foreign liabilities and these are expected to reach $3.3 trillion, or 28% of GDP, by the end of 2004 (see chart 2).... America has enjoyed another huge advantage in its ability to borrow in its own currency. A normal debtor country, such as Argentina, has to borrow in foreign currency, so while a devaluation will help to reduce its trade deficit, it will also increase the local currency value of its debt. In contrast, foreign creditors carry the currency risk on America's $11 trillion-worth of gross liabilities.... In any case, the current-account deficit cannot be corrected by a fall in the dollar alone: domestic saving also needs to rise. The best way would be for the government to cut its budget deficit.... Sterling maintained a central international role for at least half a century after America's GDP overtook Britain's at the end of the 19th century. But it did eventually lose that status. If America continues on its current profligate path, the dollar is likely to suffer a similar fate.... if America continues to show such neglect of its own currency, then a fast-falling dollar and rising American interest rates would result. It will be how far and how fast the dollar falls that determines the future for America's economy and the world's. Not even Mr Greenspan can forecast that.

The underwear of female conquests.

I bought some tartar control toothpaste the other day. I still have tartar; but it's under control.

Sports and shooting=XBOX

I agree. But it would not be politically prudent to do so. Moral conservatives are a major part of the Republican coalition at the present.

You--->

I've read that if the dollar continues to stay low our standard of living will probably go down.

Fascinating. Nevertheless, I think the Democratic Party needs to look back to Truman and FDR--these two cats were ballsy and not afraid to pursue an agressive foreign policy.

Fag. My favorite Christmas came when I was in college. I was getting ready to leave for my 6 a.m. - 2 p.m. shift at the gas station when my one grandma called, claiming she was "sick," thus making me wake my mom up, which she wasn't happy about. I left, goofed off for 6 hours, made fun of a stupid customer whose $1 lottery ticket we couldn't cash because the lottery machine was on the fritz. He got all pissy at my co-worker, who made a joke toward him after he was leaving, claiming never to come back to our story. Then I started laughing at him, as did the rest of the people in line. His self-esteem was ruined that day... And that, my friends, is the reason for the season. God bless us, everyone.

Hey, while we're pimping...I have a ghey blog, too.

I pretty much agree with his premise: that social conservatism and economic liberalism are somewhat contradictory ideologies.

I saw them back in '86. They kicked ass!

http://www.dw-world.de/dw/article/0,1564,1403660,00.html

I wasn't really trying to argue that he was a moderate. He was definitely a liberal--but not a radical--that is what I was trying to say. The New Deal has been harshly criticized not only by conservatives but by leftists such as Howard Zinn.

Wrong...Wrong... The economy was in shambles throughout Roose's first term. His new deal policies did nothing economically of any worth. What Roose contributed was his charisma, he convinced the public they would work, and expectations matter, which allowed things to be not as bad as they were. The ramping up of the war engine was the only thing that pulled the US out of it. Central planning (aka the queue system) never is an efficient or good solution to any problem. What was "wrong...wrong..." as you so condescendingly stated? Did GNP not grow during Roosevelt's first term? And during 5 out of 7 pre-WWII years? Did the economy grow during Hoover's term? Did Sweden not begin to recover from the depression as early as '34 due to Keynesian spending? I am not trying to be a smartass, I'm legitimately asking these questions. Roosevelt cut spending in '37 in order to try and balance the budget and another recession began. From wikipedia: Maybe he should have stepped down. But the two-term limit then was just that--de-facto. And he was democratically elected. If he was approaching dictatorial status it was because of the will of the people. I agree though that his attempts at court packing were shameless and wrong.

The economy continually shrank throughout Hoover's entire term. Under Roosevelt's New Deal, it grew five out of seven years. It's hard to know whether the New Deal would have been successful in totally ending the depression since it was interrupted by WWII. However, the first nations to come out of the depression pre-WWII did so by adopting similar Keynesian deficit-spending economic policies (e.g. Sweden). Roosevelt lived in a time when the only options in world politics seemed to be fascism (hard right) or communism (hard left). He took a much more moderate and effective route--many workers of the period considered his policies toward labor too conservative. Likening him to a dictator is silly, in my opinion.