Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : GOPwinger Lies/Distortions/Omissions/Perversions of Truth -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: CalculatedRisk who wrote (1295)	2/10/2004 12:02:47 AM
From: PartyTime	Respond to of 173976

Well stated, both of you.

To: CalculatedRisk who wrote (1295)	2/10/2004 12:45:42 AM
From: Lizzie Tudor	Respond to of 173976

Most "conservatives" refuse to even listen to discussions of wealth inequality, and how it leads to slower growth, Well, the prior 6 year period is a testament to the fact that wealth inequality affects core markets. So I would like to see some discussions of this as we get closer to the elections from Kerry's side, assuming economics are discussed in depth by the democrats. We had a stronger retail, stock and job market in the 90s than now, even though labor cost more (much more), and because the labor force was highly valued and expensive, capex spending was a necessity... and of course these wealthy workers were great spenders in the US tradition. Now the whole system is hollowed out. The problem is that some government statistics like GDP are skewed in their measurement of "growth" as it pertains to offshore product so there is an illusion that this period (fall 03) is stronger economically than the 90s. Economists are surprised when Cisco says no spending or Circuit City shuts stores. Or maybe it is just RIGHT WING economists that are surprised, I don't know.

To: CalculatedRisk who wrote (1295)	2/10/2004 7:20:18 AM
From: Bill Jackson	Respond to of 173976

CalculatedRisk , Yes, the great realization of the industrial revolution was that it created consumers. As for wealth distribution, the unions want it for themselves and want the rest of us poor. This is very short sighted, as soon they find they can only sell to other union people. So the city unions need to be starved for cash so that the voters eventually fire them en masse and then hire more cost effective workers that do more for less money. same for teachers. The car makers are dying on their feet. Their unions and their management have agreed to such bad contracts that they are doomed to lose their jobs to automation and offshore car makers. The car unions now try and kill the offshore car makers....how?, by making their unions want the same wages as US unions. At which point the US market would be lost to those foreign car makers. Unions are monopoly practices and need to be limited. I can see a car makers asking three unions to compete for, say 3000 jobs in a factory for 5 years. Best union offer wins. After 5 years there is another competition. Bill