Final-Fan said: fkusumot said: FishyJoe said: I don't consider the dollar losing a third of its value part of the natural business cycle. Why not? Really, I'm asking this as a serious question. I guess I'm asking for the underlying prolegomena of what is meant by "The Natural Business Cycle" and introduction and defnition of the terms that will be used for further discussing of whatever polemics you are advocating. I mean really, why is this not a part of a natural business cycle? When I see people saying "it's just the natural business cycle", I see them trying to say that the present goings-on are ORDINARY, as in "the economy isn't fucked". It's possible that I'm misinterpreting.

OOOOOOOOoooooooooohhhhh.

I see.

NATURAL doesn't mean the same thing as ORDINARY. 

If that's the general gist of the mis-understanding then I retract my question. Perhaps discussing the distinction between natural and ordinary business cycles would be fruitful but the relation between economics and etymology would end up being tenous and practically irrelevant to this discussion.

cwbys21 said: kazadoom said: All you people blaming George Bush, please name one thing that he specifically has done to cause this? It is amazing to me that you think that one man has all this power. Please name one thing that he himself did specifically that caused Japan's bad market, if it really is that bad. Plus the US market other than the housing market is not bad anyway.  The Iraq war comes to mind.  That causes the price of oil to go up (just as it does whenever fighting breaks out in the Middle East), costs to fill tank to go to work/store/family goes up, cost to transport everything goes up, cost of electricity goes up in areas where they burn oil in power plants goes up, wages stay the same.

I disagree with it

In the long term, the Iraq war will keep the oil price down. This war secured the oil supply from Iraq

 

kazadoom said: All you people blaming George Bush, please name one thing that he specifically has done to cause this? It is amazing to me that you think that one man has all this power. Please name one thing that he himself did specifically that caused Japan's bad market, if it really is that bad. Plus the US market other than the housing market is not bad anyway.

 Bush encouraged the Federal Reserve to print excess money to pay for the massive yearly budget deficit in America and lower interest rates.  America has the problem because he cut taxes and continues to increase spending year after year.  The printing of excessive money encourages the dollar to fall.  The lowering of interest rates encouraged banks to lend money to more people.  The falling dollar encourages oil to rise, which hurts the economy and the US stock market.  I don't care to chase it to Japan but Bush's policies are even worse than Clinton's (which were also bad and hurtful).  Interest rates need to go up several percent, government spending needs to massively drop, and regulations need to be reduced to fix things in America.  Chances are, even doing these things, America will see a recession.  America is by far the most important country in the global economy.  Until recently, the US dollar was much more important than every other curreny in the world.  It still is to some extent and when the Fed messes with it, problems happen on a global scale. 

 

stclam said: cwbys21 said: kazadoom said: All you people blaming George Bush, please name one thing that he specifically has done to cause this? It is amazing to me that you think that one man has all this power. Please name one thing that he himself did specifically that caused Japan's bad market, if it really is that bad. Plus the US market other than the housing market is not bad anyway. The Iraq war comes to mind. That causes the price of oil to go up (just as it does whenever fighting breaks out in the Middle East), costs to fill tank to go to work/store/family goes up, cost to transport everything goes up, cost of electricity goes up in areas where they burn oil in power plants goes up, wages stay the same. I disagree with it In the long term, the Iraq war will keep the oil price down. This war secured the oil supply from Iran

I disagree. The economic turmoil will ensure that commodity prices keep rising as the markets move into what is perceived as the only safe haven for capital.

stclam said: I disagree with it In the long term, the Iraq war will keep the oil price down. This war secured the oil supply from Iraq

The Iraq war caused a lot of oil to be burned in Iraq and greatly increased the cost of oil.  There any many people that agree with your thought.  I am pretty sure the vast majority of them live in America and still think AOL is the internet :)

Greatly reducing the amount of oil around for 10 years or so (like Bush has done) means that less oil may be used now so there will be more in the future so you are correct.  However, from a practical standpoint, if Clinton was still President oil would likely be under $65.

 

stclam said: cwbys21 said: kazadoom said: All you people blaming George Bush, please name one thing that he specifically has done to cause this? It is amazing to me that you think that one man has all this power. Please name one thing that he himself did specifically that caused Japan's bad market, if it really is that bad. Plus the US market other than the housing market is not bad anyway.  The Iraq war comes to mind.  That causes the price of oil to go up (just as it does whenever fighting breaks out in the Middle East), costs to fill tank to go to work/store/family goes up, cost to transport everything goes up, cost of electricity goes up in areas where they burn oil in power plants goes up, wages stay the same. I disagree with it In the long term, the Iraq war will keep the oil price down. This war secured the oil supply from Iraq

I'm almost at a loss of words.  I simply don't know how anyone can be so blind.  It's been 5 years since the war ended in Iraq and they still aren't back up to 50% of their pre-war oil production.  WHAT THE FUCK DID WE SECURE?  I want to rip my hair out and throw it at you for being so daft.  It's going to take 5 more years before they are close to having the production they used to and another 5-10 more after that before they get back onto the track we derailed them from.

And that's IF they can get back on track.  If you haven't heard, Iraq has an electricity crisis going on, and if they can't get electricity to the oil rigs how in the hell are they going to get their production back up?  Seriously, read some news.  http://electroniciraq.net/news/aiddevelopment/The_Iraqi_electricity_crisis-3231.shtml  Read anythign, for god's sake.

We've done nothing to secure the flow of oil from Iraq, and really done most of the things we could to STOP it.  And threatening to attack Iran 4 years after they quit their nuclear weapons program didn't help the cost or supply of oil any, either.  You'd have to be a complete fucking moron to think we've got anything secure in Iraq.  We can't even keep our troops from throwing puppies off of cliffs and torturing people, let alone run their entire country.

The war will not keep oil prices dow in the future, that's a silly statement to make actually. First off, the oil doesn't belong to america, it belongs to iraq. Second, iraq may join OPEC in the long run, and believe me, they will not want oil prices to be low.

Even more annoying are statements that European central banks have to help america. Just why should we help? Truth be told, America is not the power that it wants itself to be percieved. As far as economics go, it would be wiser to let you guys handle your own problems, while the rest of the world concentrates on Asia and Africa. The first is a booming economical wonderland while the second has potential, that is hampered by constant rebellions, wars etc., but it can be ended.

Additionally, it would be a lot better if the world turned away from the dollar now, making the Euro the new dominating currency. It's a lot more stable than any other while still holding a lot of worth.

Why alienate you americans and your country during this mess? Well, maybe if we just do that, you'll finally change the way you economy works, and just maybe you'll stop trying to act like the saviours of the world ( your politicians anyway) trying to invade more middle east countires.

Wojtas, while it's true that the US isn't the power it once was, if you take that stance it'll end up hitting your pocketbook. Frankly, the major world economies are so reliant upon eachother that it doesn't even have to be a US problem for everyone else to feel it. We sure felt waves when the Japanese had their recession in the 90s. The US is much, much bigger than Japan, economically, and you've probably already felt the troubles we're having creep up into your country.

Also, give up on Africa. They have the same problem as the middle eastern countries: You can't give them stability, they have to kill eachother until they find it for themselves just like the rest of us did. We can't just walk into these countries, depose the old governments, then say: "here's democracy, have a nice day. Oh, and get organized asap, we still need your natural resources to keep flowing!"

Really, it IS time we stop meddling in social evolution and just see if these 3rd world countries can pull themselves up on their own, like the rest of us did a long time ago. India has done it on its own, for the most part, so it's not like it can't be done.  Really, people call the US the self-appointed policemen of the world, but what it really acts like is the parent of the world.  We spend too much time trying to help these messy countries (which is to say almost everything in Africa, half the Middle East, most of South America, and good size chunk of Asia) and that is just as bad for our (and the world's) economy as any of these misguided wars.  We shouldn't stop helping altogether, but damn we sure need to be more cautious and considerate.  And that includes the European countries, too. 

That's your big failing, Wojtas, because what you're really saying there is "I don't care how much we mess with other countries, as long as we don't let the Americans do it by force."  It doesn't matter if we use weapons to do it or not, when you play around with an under-developed nation like it's your plaything you are bound to get bitten.

i remember my roommate telling me once that his church endorsed bush because he was a christian and that people like Osama Bin Ladin and Al Gore were godless and antichrists.

Whups.

This is exactly why religion needs to stay out of the way of politics.

Wojtas said: The war will not keep oil prices dow in the future, that's a silly statement to make actually. First off, the oil doesn't belong to america, it belongs to iraq. Second, iraq may join OPEC in the long run, and believe me, they will not want oil prices to be low. Even more annoying are statements that European central banks have to help america. Just why should we help? Truth be told, America is not the power that it wants itself to be percieved. As far as economics go, it would be wiser to let you guys handle your own problems, while the rest of the world concentrates on Asia and Africa. The first is a booming economical wonderland while the second has potential, that is hampered by constant rebellions, wars etc., but it can be ended. Additionally, it would be a lot better if the world turned away from the dollar now, making the Euro the new dominating currency. It's a lot more stable than any other while still holding a lot of worth. Why alienate you americans and your country during this mess? Well, maybe if we just do that, you'll finally change the way you economy works, and just maybe you'll stop trying to act like the saviours of the world ( your politicians anyway) trying to invade more middle east countires.

 

 Iraq is a founding member of OPEC