Government Payroll Economy

[trefoil]

Quote from MKTrader:

My, we've mastered the ad hominem, haven't we?

...and you still used a steadily declining part of private employment to make an entirely misleading point.
As relevant as using farmworkers, just like I said. But you didn't pick up on that when you saw the graph, right?
As for my point in that post, yes, you're just another cookie cutter poster around here. Pathetically predictable. If we go up 50% in the next year, this time next year you'll still be a bear, and you'll still be making these same posts.
Here's an actual thought: the 'pubbies are going to win big in November. But you're still bearish anyway.
Is this why I'm bullish? Nope. Politics forms no part of my thought process about the markets, economics only a very small piece. And when thinking short-term, neither matters.
Seems to be two thirds of your analysis, though, and even then, you don't input the data point that the market-friendly (supposedly) party is going to win.

 

[kxvid]

We need to go back to the "old economy". Can you believe that my elderly aunt told me that people in America used to be very proud of the self suffeciency of the economy. She remembers when people used to say of America: "We can take care of ourselves". Now about all we can say is we need China, Saudia Arabia, Mexico, Japan, South America, India,... to take care of us.

 

[denner]

Quote from trefoil:

...and you still used a steadily declining part of private employment to make an entirely misleading point.
As relevant as using farmworkers, just like I said. But you didn't pick up on that when you saw the graph, right?
As for my point in that post, yes, you're just another cookie cutter poster around here. Pathetically predictable. If we go up 50% in the next year, this time next year you'll still be a bear, and you'll still be making these same posts.
Here's an actual thought: the 'pubbies are going to win big in November. But you're still bearish anyway.
Is this why I'm bullish? Nope. Politics forms no part of my thought process about the markets, economics only a very small piece. And when thinking short-term, neither matters.
Seems to be two thirds of your analysis, though, and even then, you don't input the data point that the market-friendly (supposedly) party is going to win.

You are clearly stuck in a time warp. Nobody gives a fuck if the stock market rallies 10% or 50% if the god damn currency goes down the toilet. Better yet, how many people will give a shit if their stock portfolio doubles and then we have some Argentina style confiscation of private assets or mandatory investment in treasuries to offset the lack of demand.

Meanwhile, you sit around here and try to browbeat anybody who rightfully points to the elephant in the room, namely unsustainable public sector obligations. So, in your world, we should just ignore the real world ramifications of forward looking obligations, but instead sit around and wonder what the increasingly irrelevant stock market is going to do?

You are woefully out of step with the times. But then most partisan hacks always are; the tired "I'm right, you're wrong" bullshit that you attribute to everyone else but yourself.

 

[denner]

Quote from kxvid:

We need to go back to the "old economy". Can you believe that my elderly aunt told me that people in America used to be very proud of the self suffeciency of the economy. She remembers when people used to say of America: "We can take care of ourselves". Now about all we can say is we need China, Saudia Arabia, Mexico, Japan, South America, India,... to take care of us.

It's a generational dynamic IMO. One generation prides itself on self sufficiency, sound fiscal policy and the next rebels against those ideals and so on.

 

[CaptainObvious]

Only Manufacturing workers were supposed to suffer from the competition of cheap foreign labor, everyone else was supposed to enjoy the cheap foreign goods. Everone was supposed to be happy, but now everyone begins to suffer the consequences of a depleted industrial base.
I just don’t get how flea markets, beaders, and aroma therapy candle shops will make up for the jobs that generate “real wealth”. Maybe we’re all going to stand around all day working for the government, giving each other flu shots. I just don’t see how dead end service jobs, stoop labor, or government jobs are going to make up for the significant revenues and infrastructure that would have been generated and supported by the manufacturing sector.

 

[MKTrader]

Quote from tradestrong:

Hey bonehead...what does the deficit have to do with government jobs? The deficit is from overall mismanagement. Not because government jobs rose by 4% over 70 years. Nice strawman there dummy.

Because they create a huge class of taxpayer-funded employees with mega-benefits who retire young and are almost impossible to fire. I have a friend at once agency who says no one there does more than an hour of "productive" work a day. And this is hardly an isolated example--I've known of many others. And the work they do doesn't actually produce a good/service anyway.

I guess you have no clue what kind of monstrous liabilities the pensions of gov't workers (federal and otherwise) are growing into.

It's little wonder why you're getting so defensive, though. I'm guessing you're a double-dipper residing in CA.

 

[MKTrader]

Quote from trefoil:

...and you still used a steadily declining part of private employment to make an entirely misleading point.
As relevant as using farmworkers, just like I said. But you didn't pick up on that when you saw the graph, right?
As for my point in that post, yes, you're just another cookie cutter poster around here. Pathetically predictable. If we go up 50% in the next year, this time next year you'll still be a bear, and you'll still be making these same posts.
Here's an actual thought: the 'pubbies are going to win big in November. But you're still bearish anyway.
Is this why I'm bullish? Nope. Politics forms no part of my thought process about the markets, economics only a very small piece. And when thinking short-term, neither matters.
Seems to be two thirds of your analysis, though, and even then, you don't input the data point that the market-friendly (supposedly) party is going to win.

You're making a bunch of assumptions that have no basis. Again--straw man arguments, ad hominem, incessant rambling.

 

[EMRGLOBAL]

MKTrader:

Why continue to argee with OBAMA apologist? 99% of those clowns on this site do not touch a "Trading" button, or Raise Capital, or are involved in M&A, in other words, they have Zero part in the Financial World.

Most are academic, cubical monkies, or outa work.

Your post was a good post and even adjusting for "Population" growth in the US..those of us smart enought to read between the lines, understood the article's point.

Remember, Socialist/Dems love the Ad Hoc arguments that have super weak foundations. Just listen to Obama....and you can see why all his "Disciples" sound the same.

The only way you'r gona win any argument with these assclowns...MAKE THAT MONEY SON! And continue to prosper while the Assclowns try and make ends meet.

It is a sad state but that is what it has come down to. Have's and the HaveNots and its for real this time! I'ts not masked by cheap credit for the Havenots.

 

[TheDudeofLife]

Quote from achilles28:

The budget represents the cost of Government, dumbass.

You can measure it by a head count, or dollar count.

Which is more relevant, moron?

Federal employees earn nearly twice as much as their private sector counterparts.

That explains part of it.

The ponzi-economy explains the rest. Which just so happened because America liquidated it's manufacturing base. Something which, according to you, is irrelevant. After all, we made it up in "tech jobs" (20 years ago) that got outsourced to Chindia (10 years ago). Fucking brilliant. Wake up.

Well said