Global Recession really over?

[Otto_Weddigen]

Ok

The other night I was attending a meeting with my mum at Upper Hutt Cossie club which was arranged by her manager who is in charge of Mitre 10 Mega Upper Hutt.At the meeting,it was discussed that the shop might close due to declining business and also my dad who works with KiwiRail which is owned by the New Zealand Government at the Hutt Workshops that around 180 - 400 staff may face the sack.Really is the recession over?

[magic452]

It's over for the rich people, they all got bailout money.

But us poor folks have got a long way to go. :damn:

Magic

[UnderseaLcpl]

The recession is most certainly not over. The market is currently being fueled by speculation as wealthy investors struggle to find some kind of stability in the commercial freefall.

The Dow is over 10,000 again, and it may even reach 12,000, but it will collapse without the economic structure to support it. The most recent stimulus package in the US has virtually guaranteed a collapse. There is absolutely no way that the US economy will be able to outpace the rapid influx of currency. As the currency supply expands, the value of the dollar and all foreign invesmtents in the dollar will plummet, leaving only real production values and a vastly inflated currency. The result will be a depression.

Stimulus packages from nations around the globe will provide temporary relief, to some extent, but only until the market catches up. Injection of currency only works if there is a matching increase in production or demand. Thus far, we have seen very little of either. The US, in particular, is going to suffer from the effects of an artificial "green" industry with no buyers.

I swear to God, there couldn't be a worse time to introduce "green" protocols. Is a world in the midst of recession likely to buy more expensive products that use experimental technologies? Of course not! People will be looking for the cheapest stuff they can buy, and they will readily opppose tax-funded subsidies. After all, we have to provide for our families and dependants, do we not?

If anything, this unprecedented amount of global "stimulus" will ultimately bring the world economy to a lower state. They will simply expand the currency supply whilst encouraging very little production, resulting in inflation. The limited measures taken thus far have done very little to relieve the crisis, are we to expect more from further "currency injections"?

I think not.

An economic stimulus program must encourage production. That means making production more profitable and therefore viable, which means cutting taxes and legal restrictions. If goods are cheaper more people will buy them and the industries which produce them will require more employees who then have more purchasing power etc... etc...

The mechanisms of supply, demand, and incentive are relatively apparent here. I'm just shocked by how few people seem to comprehend them. Most people seem incensed by the idea of " I lost crap, I want the state to give it back to me, using rich people's money, even though those people gave me my job. " It's utter madness.

[PeriscopeDepth]

Nope. The numbers just aren't there. While they're are a very very small improvement from "Run for the hills!", they do not at all indicate the downturn is over.

Short the market if you have the balls to be in it now.

PD

[Freiwillige]

One lesson learned by the great depression that was not really learned by the masses is this, you have to spend your way out of a depression not save your way out of it.

Money spent in hard times guarantee's jobs that would otherwise be lost due to closings. In fact despite all the buzz about the recession being over more and more company's are closing their doors. Not a good sign for the near future I say.

[bookworm_020]

Australia doesn't seem to be doing to bad at the moment. We have had a downturn, and an increase in jobless, but it hasn't been as bad as everyone had expected. We just got lucky that demand from India and China has get the economy going here.
Are we out of the woods? Heck NO! A lot of what caused it is still there and it can happen again.

[Blacklight]

The recession is definitely not over. In my state, layoffs and jobless rates are increasing at rediculous rates. It's getting to a point here that you're competing with at least six other people even for menial low paying jobs now according to the news earlier this week.
Heck, My wife has a masters degree. She got laid off and now it's been two years and no one wants to hire her for anything other than temp work (She keeps hearing "Overqualified" a lot but I think "Overqualified" actually meand "We aren't hireing and we're just humoring you.").
She's now working as pretty much a minimum wage temp, in the same job she got laid off from, doing the same thing she was doing when she wasn't a temp. She says that 90% of her office is now temps. Oh.. and that means that she has no benefits, no health insurance, and we barely make enough money to even scrape by and we're having trouble even affording the tiny apartment we live in and it's pretty damn cheap for rent. The next step lower would be a homeless shelter. And god forbid something should happen where she needs to be hospitalized. I could use this time to rant about how much we need universal healthcare because we are EXACTLY the kind of people that it would help, but I won't.

[Platapus]

An economic stimulus program must encourage production.

or an economic stimulus program must encourage demand. There are two schools of thought here.

1. Increased production will result in increased demand = increase in the economy
2. Increased demand will result in increased production = increase in the economy

There is no clear one is always right and the other is always wrong. Depending on the circumstances one may work while the other may not. This is why economics is more an art than a science in my opinion.

Personally, I favour option 2, but there are many who favour option 1. And that's what makes the economic world go around.

[Castout]

The recession is definitely not over. In my state, layoffs and jobless rates are increasing at rediculous rates. It's getting to a point here that you're competing with at least six other people even for menial low paying jobs now according to the news earlier this week.
Heck, My wife has a masters degree. She got laid off and now it's been two years and no one wants to hire her for anything other than temp work (She keeps hearing "Overqualified" a lot but I think "Overqualified" actually meand "We aren't hireing and we're just humoring you.").
She's now working as pretty much a minimum wage temp, in the same job she got laid off from, doing the same thing she was doing when she wasn't a temp. She says that 90% of her office is now temps. Oh.. and that means that she has no benefits, no health insurance, and we barely make enough money to even scrape by and we're having trouble even affording the tiny apartment we live in and it's pretty damn cheap for rent. The next step lower would be a homeless shelter. And god forbid something should happen where she needs to be hospitalized. I could use this time to rant about how much we need universal healthcare because we are EXACTLY the kind of people that it would help, but I won't.

Sorry to hear that

[Platapus]

The recession is definitely not over. In my state, layoffs and jobless rates are increasing at rediculous rates. It's getting to a point here that you're competing with at least six other people even for menial low paying jobs now according to the news earlier this week.
Heck, My wife has a masters degree. She got laid off and now it's been two years and no one wants to hire her for anything other than temp work (She keeps hearing "Overqualified" a lot but I think "Overqualified" actually meand "We aren't hireing and we're just humoring you.").
She's now working as pretty much a minimum wage temp, in the same job she got laid off from, doing the same thing she was doing when she wasn't a temp. She says that 90% of her office is now temps. Oh.. and that means that she has no benefits, no health insurance, and we barely make enough money to even scrape by and we're having trouble even affording the tiny apartment we live in and it's pretty damn cheap for rent. The next step lower would be a homeless shelter. And god forbid something should happen where she needs to be hospitalized. I could use this time to rant about how much we need universal healthcare because we are EXACTLY the kind of people that it would help, but I won't.

That really sucks when corporations use Temps as a way to get cheap labour without having to pay benefits. So much for loyalty from corporations huh?

Very sorry to read about this. We have been very lucky. Both of us are in pretty secure positions (knock on wood). With the prices the way they are here in Virginia, I don't think we could survive on one paycheck for very long (one of the many reasons I can't wait to move out of VA)

[Blacklight]

That really sucks when corporations use Temps as a way to get cheap labour without having to pay benefits. So much for loyalty from corporations huh?


This kind of crap is RAMPANT right now. Several of my friends work in the insurance industry or have office jobs and their offices are all turning more and more into temps very VERY quickly.

[UnderseaLcpl]

or an economic stimulus program must encourage demand. There are two schools of thought here.

Out of that entire post, you pick that one sentence to quote?:DL The whole point of the post, and the rest of the paragraph you quoted, was to suggest that trying to legislate artificial demand is a futile effort. Why take it out of context like that?

Perhaps I wasn't being clear. What I intended to say was that state interference in the form of monetary injections and atempts to create production that is without demand is a recipe for failure. When I said that a stimulus program must encourage demand I meant that the business environment must be made more favourable.

Like you, I am more in favor of option 2, but.........


1. Increased production will result in increased demand = increase in the economy
2. Increased demand will result in increased production = increase in the economy

...there are a lot more than two schools of thought when it comes to economics. I see what you are saying here, and you are correct to some degree (marketing professionals deal with these principles all the time), but a general positive trend in economic activity can only be brought about by leaving the market alone. There is no amount of state finance or manufactured demand that can significanty affect the free market in anything but a detrimental fashion.

There is no clear one is always right and the other is always wrong. Depending on the circumstances one may work while the other may not. This is why economics is more an art than a science in my opinion.

Economics is neither a science nor an art. Economies consisting of millions or billions of individual transactions with an untold number of motives do not lend themselves to categorization or artistic interpretation as a whole.

The market cannot ever really be controlled. It can be hindered, and it can be stifled, but it cannot be stopped or directed with any certainty. It is human nature itself, expressed in the forms of competition and mutually beneficial transactions. We can attempt to control it with the intent of supporting an ovveriding purpose, but we will not be successful. All we will ever really achieve is to drive the market underground, which results in a black market and the associated criminal activity.

Our best bet is to just leave it alone. Beneficial enterprises will take root and prosper, and bad ones will die. Smart consumers will benefit, and dumb consumers will have to rethink their behaviour. One way or the other, the economy will reach a kind of homeostasis.

The worst thing we could do is to entrust economic policy to economic "scientists" or politicians. Talk about having the fox guard the henhouse:nope:

[onelifecrisis]

On a related note, maybe...
I'm doing technical market analysis for a living these days. I'm kinda new to it so I'm no expert, but I find it interesting that at the moment most of the indicators are saying "sell everything" and they've been doing that for six months now. That's very unusual. It's almost as if the indicators see the current (upward) market trend as false. :hmmm:

[THE_MASK]

They say that the docks are the indicator of how the country is going . I would say in australia it is not going to get any better any time soon .

[NeonSamurai]

I dunno, I think government can help stimulate the economy and bring a country out of a depression. But its not by bailing out the large corporations and banks (who frankly should be let to die out if they mismanaged themselves).

One of the most effective programs launched during the great depression was the US government starting massive public works jobs. One of the big ones was rebuilding the infrastructure of the country (roads and the like). This did a lot of good things for the country at the time. It put money in average people's pockets so they could spend again (and afford to eat), and it greatly improved the US's infrastructure which it was in need of at the time.

Ironically some parts of US infrastructure are in real need of repair/improvement right now, and if things continue it would be a very good idea for the US gov to implement such programs.


On another note I really don't think the western world is going to return so quickly to their excessive spending ways. Demand has been vastly over inflated in the west by marketing, particularly when it comes to technology. People were convinced by marketing that they needed all this new crap, that they needed a brand new state of the art cell phone every 6 months, that they need to spend 1000$ on computer video cards every year. Large numbers of rather foolish people were getting heavily into debt trying to keep up with the trends and technology. On top of it we have the "i am entitled to everything I want" generations who see no difference between borrowed money and money in hand.

[mookiemookie]

On another note I really don't think the western world is going to return so quickly to their excessive spending ways. Demand has been vastly over inflated in the west by marketing, particularly when it comes to technology. People were convinced by marketing that they needed all this new crap, that they needed a brand new state of the art cell phone every 6 months, that they need to spend 1000$ on computer video cards every year. Large numbers of rather foolish people were getting heavily into debt trying to keep up with the trends and technology. On top of it we have the "i am entitled to everything I want" generations who see no difference between borrowed money and money in hand.

I agree wholeheartedly on this point. We're seeing a secular, as a opposed to cyclical, change in consumer behavior here. They are being buoyed by government stimulus, but that's a temporary distortion and, long term, I expect we're going to see some reckoning. In this current recession, people have lost the "use your home as an ATM" option - home values have been slashed, and still have a long way to go, and credit is still tight from banks ravaged by bad loans. People are re-learning to spend what they have instead of running up purchases on credit. I don't believe that we can have recovery, at least for America, can truly be over until the consumer leads us to it. Consumer spending accounts for, on average, 2/3rds of domestic GDP.

Is the recession over, meaning have we stopped cliff diving in every measurable barometer of the economy? Yes, probably so. Does the end of a recession equate to recovery? No. It's going to take years to replace the job losses that we're seeing and will continue to see for a while. So if you want to call it a "jobless recovery" I think that'd be pretty close to accurate. And if things turn sour again over the next year, they're probably going to look at it as a continuation of the Great Recession instead of a second one.

[Platapus]

I can only speak for my family, but even after the economy recovers, our spending habits will remain low. We were VERY VERY lucky this recession, my family only suffered a little and we have recovered.

However it was a wake up call (especially for The Frau) that we don't need to constantly buy new stuff just because it is new and to really think about our discretionary spending.

I doubt I am the only one thinking like this.

Unfortunately, this means the businesses that catered strictly to luxuries and discretionary spending by the consumers, may not recover to their past levels as people, no longer in a recession, are not as eager to borrow money and/or splurge on that 50" Plasma that we simply "HAVE" to have.

[Onkel Neal]

Out of that entire post, you pick that one sentence to quote?:DL The whole point of the post, and the rest of the paragraph you quoted, was to suggest that trying to legislate artificial demand is a futile effort. Why take it out of context like that?

Perhaps I wasn't being clear. What I intended to say was that state interference in the form of monetary injections and atempts to create production that is without demand is a recipe for failure. When I said that a stimulus program must encourage demand I meant that the business environment must be made more favourable.

Like you, I am more in favor of option 2, but.........


...there are a lot more than two schools of thought when it comes to economics. I see what you are saying here, and you are correct to some degree (marketing professionals deal with these principles all the time), but a general positive trend in economic activity can only be brought about by leaving the market alone. There is no amount of state finance or manufactured demand that can significanty affect the free market in anything but a detrimental fashion.



Economics is neither a science nor an art. Economies consisting of millions or billions of individual transactions with an untold number of motives do not lend themselves to categorization or artistic interpretation as a whole.

The market cannot ever really be controlled. It can be hindered, and it can be stifled, but it cannot be stopped or directed with any certainty. It is human nature itself, expressed in the forms of competition and mutually beneficial transactions. We can attempt to control it with the intent of supporting an ovveriding purpose, but we will not be successful. All we will ever really achieve is to drive the market underground, which results in a black market and the associated criminal activity.

Our best bet is to just leave it alone. Beneficial enterprises will take root and prosper, and bad ones will die. Smart consumers will benefit, and dumb consumers will have to rethink their behaviour. One way or the other, the economy will reach a kind of homeostasis.

The worst thing we could do is to entrust economic policy to economic "scientists" or politicians. Talk about having the fox guard the henhouse:nope:


Man, I love reading your stuff! :up:

[XabbaRus]

What bugs me is when companies, like my own who are doing very well, use it as an excuse to not give much of a bonus or a rise.

My company for 2008/09 on a turnover of £30million made £20million profit.

OK even if you deduct the amount of the debt the company has taken on to fund one of our projects we are still making lots of money.

I can bet the directors are taking their cut.

Any way as it stands I'm looking for a new job.

[Blacklight]

What bugs me is when companies, like my own who are doing very well, use it as an excuse to not give much of a bonus or a rise.

My company for 2008/09 on a turnover of £30million made £20million profit.

OK even if you deduct the amount of the debt the company has taken on to fund one of our projects we are still making lots of money.

I can bet the directors are taking their cut.

Any way as it stands I'm looking for a new job.

This was actually ALWAYS the case with EVERY company I ever worked for. The company would make record profits, topping itself each year. The CEO's and top brass getting BIGGER AND BIGGER bonuses and raises while at the same time, slashing our benefits and telling us that we're not getting raises anymore (and or laying people off to make the profit) by claiming "These are troubled times". This happened EVERYWHERE I EVER worked from the time I was 16 till now with several different companies. Even when the economy was good, they always claimed "We're just not making the money anymore and recession... etc..". Yet.. the CEO's and upper management are getting big bonuses and raises. Heck. In my last job, they even did a major construction project on their corporate office just to put in a "Top Brass Only" fitness center, lounge, pool hall, in ground indoor swimming pool. :nope:
I've never had an experience working for a company where ANYTHING trickled down to the lower employees. Add to that the fact that each year, they'd always expect us to do the work of more and more people as they laid off more and more and cut benefits and health insurance...
Meanwhile.. the upper guys are enjoying their indoor pool and such.:x

This is the corporate culture.

[Oberon]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N-ToGVwO8Q4

[nikimcbee]

I'll say no. Salvation Army (locally) announced the were hiring for bell ringers (50 positions) for the holidays and they had A LOT of people apply for the job.:o

There must be a lot of desperate poeple out there looking for any work.:-?

[Onkel Neal]

Who knows, maybe the worst is over?
Coming Soon: Jobs! (http://www.slate.com/id/2235477/)

We've just witnessed the fastest two-quarter productivity surge since the first year of the Kennedy administration. Economists can read these omens the way Roman priests read chicken entrails. And here's one of their explanations: Just as investors and businesspeople don't believe things could ever go wrong at the peak of the boom, they have difficulty imagining things can get better at the trough of the bust. And so they respond to rising demand not by hiring new employees but by coaxing existing employees to work harder. But just as hamsters can run only so fast on their treadmills, there are limits to productivity growth.

[Torvald Von Mansee]

This was actually ALWAYS the case with EVERY company I ever worked for. The company would make record profits, topping itself each year. The CEO's and top brass getting BIGGER AND BIGGER bonuses and raises while at the same time, slashing our benefits and telling us that we're not getting raises anymore (and or laying people off to make the profit) by claiming "These are troubled times". This happened EVERYWHERE I EVER worked from the time I was 16 till now with several different companies. Even when the economy was good, they always claimed "We're just not making the money anymore and recession... etc..". Yet.. the CEO's and upper management are getting big bonuses and raises. Heck. In my last job, they even did a major construction project on their corporate office just to put in a "Top Brass Only" fitness center, lounge, pool hall, in ground indoor swimming pool. :nope:
I've never had an experience working for a company where ANYTHING trickled down to the lower employees. Add to that the fact that each year, they'd always expect us to do the work of more and more people as they laid off more and more and cut benefits and health insurance...
Meanwhile.. the upper guys are enjoying their indoor pool and such.:x

This is the corporate culture.

I remember a professor of mine gave an example of how Reagan's corporate tax cuts were used by one Baltimore company for PURELY the benefit of the executives, e.g., more and better corporate jets, golden parachutes, etc. There was absolutely NO trickle down; no upgrading in manufacturing infrastructure, hiring more workers, and so on.

It would seem only sociopaths become the leaders in private enterprise.

[Otto_Weddigen]

Go figure in NZ,I applied for a $35NZD an hour job and there are over 700 applicants for train driving

[NeonSamurai]

Not at all surprising about corporate behavior. You have to remember why corporations are formed. To make money for the principle stockholders/inverters (who are also often upper management). That is their only reason to exist; to turn as much of a profit as they possibly can for the shareholders. Also, investors in corporations are highly protected legally should the company screw up or break the law.

This is why they do all the hideous things they do in the world, and get away with it too. They don't care at all about their employees, or sustainability, or the harm they do, be it environmentally or economically (or both). Their structuring is one of diffused responsibility "I'm not responsible, I am just a shareholder" "I'm not responsible, the shareholders dictate what I do", and thus utterly lacking in ethics or care as well. If they can get labor cheaper someplace else, they will go there. If they can use the local government to further exploit their workers, even better still.

This is the basic nature of capitalism (of which corporations are the spawn of). You exploit those with much less capital (money/power) than you to make you self more capital. You provide the money, they do all the hard work, and you reap the reward. Ideally to make the most capital from your workers you try to find a way of making them totally dependent on you, that way you can dictate what ever terms you like as far as wages and benefits. This is even easier if there is a large pool of unemployed persons available as they in an effort to survive will try to undercut your existing employees. Lastly to keep the workforce from eventually revolting against you, you convince them that if they work hard enough, they can become you (aka the American dream).

This is not to say that all companies and corporations are like this. But unfortunately most of them are. Not a new phenomenon either, this started right at the dawn of capitalism during the industrial revolution.


Oh and no, communism is not a better system either, the money/power people will exploit that system to their own ends just as much as any other system.

[Torvald Von Mansee]

NeonSamurai - Have you seen this film?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Corporation

[NeonSamurai]

NeonSamurai - Have you seen this film?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Corporation

No I can't say I have. My comments tend to be based on my own observations and analysis. But it looks interesting, so I will look into it. Thanks for letting me know about it.

[Torvald Von Mansee]

No I can't say I have. My comments tend to be based on my own observations and analysis. But it looks interesting, so I will look into it. Thanks for letting me know about it.

It basically confirms what you've written.

BONUS: it's Canadian!! :D

[Platapus]

Their structuring is one of diffused responsibility "I'm not responsible, I am just a shareholder" "I'm not responsible, the shareholders dictate what I do", and thus utterly lacking in ethics or care as well.

This reminds me of a story I read about Coleman Lanterns.

Evidently shortly after WWII, there was a rash of fires caused by Coleman Lanterns due to a defect.

There was a big meeting where the corporate lawyers were discussing how to address this problem without actually admitting fault and the engineers were discussing how to gradually makes the changes while keeping profits up, and the marketing people were worried about how to spin this so that sales would not drop.

In walks William Coffin Coleman (Old Man Coleman himself!) to this meeting. This was unusual as by now Mr. Coleman was getting up there in years (he died in the late 1950's) and was having less to do with the details of the corporation.

After the lawyers, engineers, and market people had their say, Old Man Coleman, according to this story, stood up and said

"Are you telling me that MY lanterns are hurting MY customers?

(Nods from the people around the table)

"Fix the problem now!" and he walked out.

To everyone else it was just a corporation with, what NeonS wrote, a feeling of diffused responsibility.

To Old Man Coleman, they were still HIS lanterns... and HIS customers... and therefore HIS problem.

They recalled the faulty lanterns, fixed the design problem and re-issued new lanterns for the customers. Lost a ton of money, but got a ton of customer loyalty. Perhaps this was why Coleman had such a good reputation after that.

You don't find too many Old Man Colemans around these days. Pity.

[Onkel Neal]

Not at all surprising about corporate behavior. You have to remember why corporations are formed. To make money for the principle stockholders/inverters (who are also often upper management). That is their only reason to exist; to turn as much of a profit as they possibly can for the shareholders. Also, investors in corporations are highly protected legally should the company screw up or break the law.

This is why they do all the hideous things they do in the world, and get away with it too. They don't care at all about their employees, or sustainability, or the harm they do, be it environmentally or economically (or both). Their structuring is one of diffused responsibility "I'm not responsible, I am just a shareholder" "I'm not responsible, the shareholders dictate what I do", and thus utterly lacking in ethics or care as well. If they can get labor cheaper someplace else, they will go there. If they can use the local government to further exploit their workers, even better still.

This is the basic nature of capitalism (of which corporations are the spawn of). You exploit those with much less capital (money/power) than you to make you self more capital. You provide the money, they do all the hard work, and you reap the reward. Ideally to make the most capital from your workers you try to find a way of making them totally dependent on you, that way you can dictate what ever terms you like as far as wages and benefits. This is even easier if there is a large pool of unemployed persons available as they in an effort to survive will try to undercut your existing employees. Lastly to keep the workforce from eventually revolting against you, you convince them that if they work hard enough, they can become you (aka the American dream).

This is not to say that all companies and corporations are like this. But unfortunately most of them are. Not a new phenomenon either, this started right at the dawn of capitalism during the industrial revolution.




Agreed. I'm currently writing a paper on corporate social responsibility and how (minimal) govt. regulations and oversight are necessary for the sake of the free market system. Greed is good, but every game must have rules to ensure fair play, or the game collapses.

And in other news, Motor Trend named the 2010 Ford Fushion the Car of the Year, and Ford hit a 2 year high of $9 a share (http://money.cnn.com/news/newsfeeds/articles/reuters/MTFH41559_2009-11-17_20-09-29_N1732600.htm). Drinks are on me :()1:

[bookworm_020]

Go figure in NZ,I applied for a $35NZD an hour job and there are over 700 applicants for train driving

A relative stable job, that's why. When Railcorp here in NSW did a ad for suburban train drivers, they were hoping to find enough applicants to fill 75 positions. They had 3500 apply.:o That was in January this year. The first started their year long training this week.

[Otto_Weddigen]

A relative stable job, that's why. When Railcorp here in NSW did a ad for suburban train drivers, they were hoping to find enough applicants to fill 75 positions. They had 3500 apply.:o That was in January this year. The first started their year long training this week.

If I get in,the next year's class ain't due to start till 10/1/2010

[CaptainHaplo]

Good Luck Otto.

As for corporations, there are 2 schools of thought. Profits... now... without worry about the long term"cost" vs Responsible corporate behavior with a quality product or service will translate into long term profits.

It is PERSONAL greed that drives the first philosophy. A corporation is not evil, because it isn't alive. However, the drives behind it, from those in leadership positions and those who hold sway as stockholders, creates a climate where irresponsible and often unethical "corporate behavior" is rewarded.

This is why I get so tired of people who say "corporations are evil". No they are not. Tell that to the majority of the workers and see what response you get. What is on the wrong side of the tracks is the personal greed at the expense of the customer base, and society, for the profit.

It is companies like Coleman that demonstrate why the other philosophy is the long term winner every time.

[onelifecrisis]

Agreed. I'm currently writing a paper on corporate social responsibility and how (minimal) govt. regulations and oversight are necessary for the sake of the free market system. Greed is good, but every game must have rules to ensure fair play, or the game collapses.

So you don't really think laissez faire is the answer then? Or by "minimal" do you mean only the protection of rights (such as intellectual/physical property rights)?

[Onkel Neal]

So you don't really think laissez faire is the answer then? Or by "minimal" do you mean only the protection of rights (such as intellectual/physical property rights)?

No, not complete laissez faire. I'm a Roosevelt Republican (Teddy, not that other guy), I contend that anything that has an impact on the people should have some regulations to ensure fair play. Corporations can make all the money they want, that's fine, but in some cases, the bright minds who manage them will resort to fraud and theft to increase their gains, and that hurts the people and businesses that play fair. We need rules, but may they always be as few as possible.

Did anyone watch the Frontline program I posted last week? Just wondering, never saw any feedback on it. :hmmm:

[Otto_Weddigen]

Just watched the news tonight,the news presenter said "ECONOMIC RECESSION IS OVER FOR NEW ZEALAND",how is it over,Hanover Finance has collapsed and lots of housing money lenders have collapsed

[kiwi_2005]

Just watched the news tonight,the news presenter said "ECONOMIC RECESSION IS OVER FOR NEW ZEALAND",how is it over,Hanover Finance has collapsed and lots of housing money lenders have collapsed


I doubt it very much, well un-employment wise its not as its still increasing by the week, i know of people who have lost everything including their home due to never been unemployed always had a job for 20 yrs or more no worries financially till this recession came about and their job goes under and they're in that age bracket where your either too old or to experienced.

I don't know how i do it sometimes, i just manage to keep my head above water each month, its amazing when your psyche kicks in and you find out things about yourself you thought you were never capable off doing.

As long as the internets up and running im pretty much happy :rotfl2:

[nikimcbee]

They just had a news story that the recession is over (almost):har: in oregon. Nevermind that there's no job growth here and we have the second highest un-employment in the nation.
I think they say the same thing every month:shifty:

[Platapus]

I guess it all depends on what definition you use for "recession" and how you measure it.

[Otto_Weddigen]

From a German newspaper:Greece teeters on the verge of bankruptcy

http://www.spiegel.de/international/europe/0,1518,617915,00.html

[Snestorm]

Over? It hasn't even begun yet.
Recession? No. The start of a Depression.

Supply and Demand.
Workers are being imported in massive quantities, while jobs are being exported in massive quatities. (They call that Free Trade.) The longterm result is:
More available workers + Less available work = Lower wages.
Translation: Mass poverty, the further erosion of the middle class, a more easily controled peasant class.

A country that no longer produces it's own goods, and imports more than it exports, is on the fast track to the Third World. The reality is that we've been sold out.

Personaly, I always have, and continue to do very well in a bad economy.
Overall, the bad news is that it's going to get alot worse. The only way to turn it around is to restart to produce our own goods and curb immagration. Nobody needs any more competition for the available jobs than they already have.

High tarrifs provide an alternative to government funding from the abused high income tax. They also give domesticly produced goods an advantage over imports. Another plus is that high tarrifs place the tax burden on those corporations, and individuals, that created the present situation, and take it off the individuals who are already struggling to survive.

[nikimcbee]

They just had a news story that the recession is over (almost):har: in oregon. Nevermind that there's no job growth here and we have the second highest un-employment in the nation.
I think they say the same thing every month:shifty:

I figured out where OR and WA are spending all of their stimulus dollars, making highway signs saying how many jobs the state has created.:shifty:

[Skybird]

Let'S put it that way: the next bubbles is already being fabricated. Banks have learned nothing and alraedy act as unscrupellous - if not more - as before. National debts are skyrocketing. Dubai.

the only positive thing I see is the Chinese. Although they may be motivated by self-interest (like all others, too), their resistance to American pressure to change their currency policy, in the end adds a stabilising effect to the global financial market, while it would be highly destabilising if they comply and start to make the same mistakes America has done.

Not only is Mandarin the language of the future, but the Yuan could become the currency of the future, too. I think it could even leave the Euro behind.

The euro is a paradox. It is strong, stronger than the dollar. And by that it works to the disadvantage of europe. A result is that many major production companies have started to relocate production capacities from Europe to the US, especially carmakers. I think this effect was not what they aimed at when introducing the Euro. Reminds of the boomeranging of globalisation.

[Otto_Weddigen]

I got a call from KR (New Zealand's Railway) that my application to become a EMU driver has been declined and to make it even more obvious one of the steel companies in New Plymouth have decided to hire immigrants and started sacking NZ'ers working in the factory since the beginning of the year,now how do I survive in NZ without a job,the option is you can get on the dole but it stinks.I have heard from other NZ railfans that the NZ railways have even taken to recruiting immigrants and illegals as well,lots of NZ'ers are already out of work and on the dole (benefit)