Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder <a href="http://money.cnn.com/galleries/2007/fortune/0709/gallery.subprime_blame.fortune//index.html?cnn=yes" target="_blank">http://money.cnn.com/galleries /2007/fortune/0709/gallery.subprime_blame.fortune//index.html?cnn=yes</a> One reason I've stayed out of this thread is it isn't in my area of expertise, or even layman's knowledge. Nonetheless, I found the above article somewhat interesting, if not a Cliff's Notes version of the situation.
Originally Posted By Sport Goofy << Bush has hung his hat on "economic stability" as a buffer for his utter failures as a "world leader". Now, the economy might just go into the trash thanks to him. >> Don't worry, Bush will continue to have his minions massage the economic data so that the reports don't get too bad. They've been doing it with the unemployment numbers for years. Remember the horrible negative savings rate figure? The government changed their calculation method two months ago and they now report that savings isn't negative anymore.
Originally Posted By Jiko and the Man 1 Give it 10 years and we will be at the economic mercy of the China men(and China women)and Indians. This off-shoring of Red Whit and Blue jobs scares even the likes of me. I'll tell you what, the Clintons didn't fix the problem nor has our beloved sitting President G. Bush. That Texan better get a handle on the off-shoring fast or we might be speaking Chinese very soon. My good buddy from Texas better do two things fast: one, find the elusive Bin Laden and two, issue an emergency presidential executive order prohibiting sending USA jobs overseas. He has already proven his leadership to the world now it is time to continue his excellence in those other two areas to shut those liberals up.
Originally Posted By vbdad55 <(Countrywide looking at firing a full 20% of their workforce! That's a huge WOW!< this is the kind of thing that devastates entire neighborhoods or suburbs as a lot of people live near the large offices
Originally Posted By vbdad55 < issue an emergency presidential executive order prohibiting sending USA jobs overseas.< this would cause isolationalism - so you really can't do that - but you CAN make it a lot less attractive financially for companies to do this. Major corporations are already finding out that the productivity rates from many of these countries are significantly lower ( as measured in revenue generated per hour) -than in the US. BUT, they can still hire 3 for 2 or even 4 for 2 and still be very profitable because they contribute nothing towards health care or insurance in most places , no social security etc. Make them contribute social security for the salaries off shored where that worker is working on US revenue/work only. The corps hide behind the 'globalization, BS label -- it is not globalization if you move US work there. If the workers are hired there because there is increased business, in Brazil, India or whereever, no issue with that -. Right now companies are 'incented' to move jobs, take that away and you take away the job movement.
Originally Posted By jonvn That's right. Make them pay taxes. Right now, if you were a corporation, you have to be pretty resolute to keep jobs in this country. The government is doing everything it can to drive them out. I was watching a couple of news shows the last few days about the credit crunch. It seems that more than just a few economists are forseeing not just a recession, but an actual depression because of these issues. SO, in a depression, you take your money out of stocks and put them where? Muni bonds?
Originally Posted By Sport Goofy << SO, in a depression, you take your money out of stocks and put them where? Muni bonds? >> In a depression, cash or other hard currency is usually the safest bet. Depressions are accompanied by prolonged price deflation. This benefits the people who already have their cash in the bank and really harms those who are in debt. In a deflating economy, people get paid in fewer dollars while having to pay back the high debts priced in yesterday's dollars. Imagine paying back your over-priced mortgage when your salary has been cut by 10, 20, or even 30%!! Normally, bonds would be a good bet for a recession, but all bets are off in a depression. Our government's deficits come under severe pressure in an economy that has no inflation -- deflation would probably be the straw that sends the U.S. government to total bankruptcy with the looming entitlements burden on the horizon. Those U.S. T-Bills aren't worth a whole lot when Uncle Sam doesn't have the money to pay back the debt. Municipal bonds will probably come under even great pressure since our local government played a high stakes game with real estate developers to expand the tax base into the suburbs even though cities don't have the wherewithal to pay for services across such a large swath of territory. The Wall Street Journal ran a short article this week on how a number of local governments are already suffering the consequences of unfettered growth, delinquent taxpayers (also the same ones in foreclosure), and the end of the suburban sprawl Ponzi scheme that was never sustainable in the first place. All those vacant homes on the outskirts of town don't help pay back the debt on municipal bonds.
