USA & World Economics

[QUOTE=Tiny12;438035]I wish you thought his take on Obama were as good as gold. He recognizes Obama is delusional and worries his policies may bankrupt the country and / or lead to high inflation.

The Stock Exchange of Thailand index is at about the same level as the 4th quarter of 2012, and stocks aren't cheap, like they were in 1998 to 2003 or 2008/2009. Toyota is threatening to move production to Indonesia because of the political instability. But this is probably better discussed in one of Giotto's threads.[/QUOTE]The only market I am involve in Bangkok is the fresh market, where I purchase fish, vegetable, fruits and spices. Thai stocks have had a very good run, but I was not involved. Rodgers' take is that Thai politic & economy have had similar cycles of conflict and regeneration. So if you are a student of history and have a long term goal, your returns could be very rewarding.

These days, I only buy ripe bananas for immediate consumption. Waiting for green bananas to ripen when you are a senior citizen is taking an unnecessary gamble.

As for America's slide to bankruptcy, it has been going on for a few decades and presidents. Obama gets a reprieve due to the financial crisis. So once more, may I repeat: Employment & Economic Recovery in the Short Term, Deficit Reduction Long Term.

The SuperBowl was a slaughter, as was O'Reilly by Obama on Fox. Never saw such desperation by O'Reilly. And now, his groupies are stroking his burned ego. In fact, Hannity is trying to salvage that embarassing interview right now on Fox.

This is maybe where some of our families started or maybe You.

[URL]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_Summer[/URL]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H2RBDtmM_TI

[URL]http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/03/23/british-pubs-may-be-becom_n_178086.html[/URL]

Or like the British Empire, will the English pub become a relic of the past?

[URL]http://www.gailfosler.com/singapores-lessons-an-interview-with-tharman-shanmugaratnam[/URL]

Does this mean that Singapore is a liberal or conservative government? Neither, just a clean, responsible and capable government.

The question is can Americans live under such a government? I doubt it very much.

[QUOTE=RevBS;439031][URL]http://www.gailfosler.com/singapores-lessons-an-interview-with-tharman-shanmugaratnam[/URL]

Does this mean that Singapore is a liberal or conservative government? Neither, just a clean, responsible and capable government.

The question is can Americans live under such a government? I doubt it very much.[/QUOTE]

Interesting article, thanks, especially the parts about the government being forced to balance its budget over 5 year periods, and people being paid to work instead of being paid for unemployment. I admire Singapore. Fifty years ago it was dirt poor and had no natural resources. Today, per capita, it's one of the wealthiest countries in the world.

The question isn't as much whether Americans could live under such a government, but whether politicians could provide it. Some states and localities in the USA probably could, but our federal government is way too inefficient. The maximum income tax rate in Singapore is 20% at the individual level and 17% at the corporate level, and there's no tax on capital gains and dividends. Yet the government runs budget surpluses instead of budget deficits. There is substantial withholding from paychecks and contributions from employers (like social security / medicare in the USA) for individual accounts that can be used for retirement, medical costs, housing and education. This goes against my Libertarian instincts. However, the system appears to work. And admittedly some people are going to spend every dime they make, so this is a way to cope with that.

[QUOTE=Tiny12;439037]The question isn't as much whether Americans could live under such a government, but whether politicians could provide it. There is substantial withholding from paychecks and contributions from employers (like social security / medicare in the USA) for individual accounts that can be used for retirement, medical costs, housing and education. This goes against my Libertarian instincts.[/QUOTE]American culture will never allow the state (government) to dictate their social behavior in the positive manner that Singapore does. Like housing and education. And American social behavior is dictated by their spending habits which is stimulated by the mafia financial sector in conjuction with their cohorts in Congress. Back to the drawing boards.

[QUOTE=RevBS;439046]...dictate their social behavior in the positive manner...[/QUOTE]My God, I don't think you realize how scary those words are!

[QUOTE=RevBS;439046]...American social behavior is dictated by their spending habits...[/quote]Yes, we call that "[I]freedom[/I]", as opposed to what you would advocate...

"[I]American social behavior is dictated by their [U]government's[/U] spending habits[/I]".

Think about it.

Thanks,

Jax

[QUOTE=Jackson;439053]My God, I don't think you realize how scary those words are!

Yes, we call that "[I]freedom[/I]", as opposed to what you would advocate...

Think about it.Jax[/QUOTE]I did think about it. As the joke goes, Castro gave Cubans equal oportunity to be poor. And now, we can say this about USA, Freedom has given us equal opportunity to be dysfunctional.

May I reprint the last 2 paragraphs for you.

WHAT ARE THE GREATEST CHALLENGES THAT LIE AHEAD?

The more successful we are in achieving social mobility in one generation, the harder it is to sustain mobility in the next. Meritocracy helps in preserving social mobility, but there are diminishing returns over time. That has been true in the advanced societies, and we see it beginning to happen in Singapore.

It means we have to work harder at it. We have to intervene in new ways and start earlier in a child's life. The real challenge is not in the dollars, but in intervening effectively. We are developing specialist capabilities to redress learning difficulties, developing the social work profession, and encouraging community action to help those who start with less. It does require more resources, but it is also about innovation in social schemes.

I worry, too, about the tendency that has trapped almost every mature democratic society: the way governments made commitments to today's voters that grew with each electoral term, at the expense of future generations. Political horizons got shorter. The game of building up debts for the future, or building up unfunded commitments, has reached its limits, and now has to be unwound. But the cutbacks, too, are in many cases privileging today's voters, at the expense of the young. It is plain inequitable.

We want to avoid that. We want to keep thinking long term, avoid the drift into governing for one electoral term at a time, and strike a fair balance between the needs of today's generation and their children's, and indeed their grandchildren's.

[QUOTE=RevBS;439055]I did think about it. As the joke goes, Castro gave Cubans equal oportunity to be poor. And now, we can say this about USA, Freedom has given us equal opportunity to be dysfunctional.

May I reprint the last 2 paragraphs for you.

WHAT ARE THE GREATEST CHALLENGES THAT LIE AHEAD?

The more successful we are in achieving social mobility in one generation, the harder it is to sustain mobility in the next. Meritocracy helps in preserving social mobility, but there are diminishing returns over time. That has been true in the advanced societies, and we see it beginning to happen in Singapore.

It means we have to work harder at it. We have to intervene in new ways and start earlier in a child's life. The real challenge is not in the dollars, but in intervening effectively. We are developing specialist capabilities to redress learning difficulties, developing the social work profession, and encouraging community action to help those who start with less. It does require more resources, but it is also about innovation in social schemes.

I worry, too, about the tendency that has trapped almost every mature democratic society: the way governments made commitments to today's voters that grew with each electoral term, at the expense of future generations. Political horizons got shorter. The game of building up debts for the future, or building up unfunded commitments, has reached its limits, and now has to be unwound. But the cutbacks, too, are in many cases privileging today's voters, at the expense of the young. It is plain inequitable.

We want to avoid that. We want to keep thinking long term, avoid the drift into governing for one electoral term at a time, and strike a fair balance between the needs of today's generation and their children's, and indeed their grandchildren's.[/QUOTE]Who are you quoting? Give the real author of your statement the credit.

Tres3.

[QUOTE=Tres3;439058]Who are you quoting? Give the real author of your statement the credit.

Tres3.[/QUOTE]Can you be more specific?

The language and sentence structure of your post is not consistent with your other posts.

Tres3.

[QUOTE=Tres3;439063]The language and sentence structure of your post is not consistent with your other posts.

Tres3.[/QUOTE]But I will submit to your correction. As stated, I reprinted the conclusion of an article I posted a link to in Post #191. As the resulting posts were responses to that post, I did not see the need to post a reference. I apologize for overlooking the obvious.

"The facts are, the stock market is basically at its all-time high, corporate profitability is at its all-time high, and corporate balance sheets have essentially never been in better shape. Financial obligations have been pushed out for a long time and the economy bottomed two months after President Obama took office and may be on an upswing until he is out of office. Now, before we start a riot from my right-wing readers and colleagues, we want to make sure people understand my point. Economies and markets rise and fall nearly independently of our Presidents. We were at a political debate / show many years ago between conservative Bill Bennett and then-comedian, now liberal Senator Al Franken. When they were discussing the success of the economy under the Clinton administration, Bennett said, "I take my dog to the beach and we watch the sunrise, I just don't give him (my dog) credit for it." That's how we feel about blaming or giving credit to Presidents for market or economic success.".

We were studs, but now we are still studs that need a dose of viagra.

[URL]http://www.nytimes.com/2014/05/04/opinion/sunday/bruni-america-the-shrunken.html?partner=rssnyt&emc=rss[/URL]

Remember a time when there was a thread in AP named, Will China Lead the World? I still remember the die-hards & the patriots and the abusive language they used. And just as you are about to say that the Black Messiah is leading us down the ravine.

[URL]http://www.nytimes.com/2014/05/04/opinion/sunday/friedman-its-not-just-about-obama.html?partner=rssnyt&emc=rss[/URL]

About Frank Bruni & Thomas Friedman, yes I know, they know shit!

[QUOTE=RevBS;439268]We were studs, but now we are still studs that need a dose of viagra.

[/QUOTE]Too much fat in the arteries Rev! The USA is waddling around lit up on booze and crystal meth, fingering their revolver, and jerking off to pictures of Justin Bieber and V. Stiviano. The die has been cast. Better they switch to cialis from viagra and avoid "the big one".