We're getting there (albeit slowly). This was a somewhat unique recession because it was essentially due to the banking industry almost collapsing. When banks will not lend, businesses cannot expand. That reluctance of banks to lend appears to be ending in the US (though not in Europe). So,yeah, I think the news is getting better.

freeman3 wrote:We're getting there (albeit slowly). This was a somewhat unique recession because it was essentially due to the banking industry almost collapsing. When banks will not lend, businesses cannot expand. That reluctance of banks to lend appears to be ending in the US (though not in Europe). So,yeah, I think the news is getting better.

Food and energy prices are going up. Wages are stagnant. The overall job market is not great. I talk to headhunters. I deal with real people every day. It's better than it was 6 years ago, but it's not "good." There's little optimism and there is no sense that we're on the cusp of anything good.

In a bumpy "recovery," this is one of the better "bumps," but there will be more mixed news coming.

fate

Food and energy prices are going up. Wages are stagnant. The overall job market is not great. I talk to headhunters. I deal with real people every day. It's better than it was 6 years ago, but it's not "good." There's little optimism and there is no sense that we're on the cusp of anything good.
In a bumpy "recovery," this is one of the better "bumps," but there will be more mixed news coming

.

What fundamentals have been changed? The taxation system still favors the very wealthy. (Who despite getting all kinds of tax breaks haven't been "job creators: as was predicted by those who pedalled the favorable treatment for the wealthy.
There is little to no involvement in the world wide market place by the US govenrment to balance the subsidies that China, Japan and South Korea provide their industries. So American industry has trouble competing.
The poor and middle class have fewer benefits from taxation than the prople of most western nations and cope with the highest education and health care costs in the Western world. The modern economies are middle class economies, and where the rules make it harder on the middle class, rather than easier, you have economies subject to long busts ad short booms. (Pinketty's thesis)

And the US trails other western economies in transitioning from the oil/coal based energy economy. Meaning energy insecurity is likely in the years ahead.

Obama accomplished something with the bail out. He saved the complete collapse but really has made head way otherwise. But changing the fundamentals of the last 30 years is required for a return to previous sustained prosperity like the 30 years post ww2.

For that to happen myths have to be thoroughly debunked. Myths like
"people stay on UI because they don't want to work... "
"taxation that helps job creators keep more money, helps everyone" (trickle down)
'socialiized health care is wasteful"

rickyp wrote:fate

Food and energy prices are going up. Wages are stagnant. The overall job market is not great. I talk to headhunters. I deal with real people every day. It's better than it was 6 years ago, but it's not "good." There's little optimism and there is no sense that we're on the cusp of anything good.
In a bumpy "recovery," this is one of the better "bumps," but there will be more mixed news coming

.

What fundamentals have been changed?

I'm talking basic facts of life--food is much more expensive, so are energy costs.

The taxation system still favors the very wealthy. (Who despite getting all kinds of tax breaks haven't been "job creators: as was predicted by those who pedalled the favorable treatment for the wealthy.

Maybe Democrats should have gone full socialist when they had all the levers of power. Hint: everyone says they favor overhauling the tax code, but without Presidential leadership, it is NOT going to happen. He's whined about it, but he's put nothing forward publicly. He's insulted the GOP plenty, but he's never put forth a comprehensive tax reform plan.

There is little to no involvement in the world wide market place by the US govenrment to balance the subsidies that China, Japan and South Korea provide their industries. So American industry has trouble competing.
The poor and middle class have fewer benefits from taxation than the prople of most western nations and cope with the highest education and health care costs in the Western world. The modern economies are middle class economies, and where the rules make it harder on the middle class, rather than easier, you have economies subject to long busts ad short booms. (Pinketty's thesis)

Pinketty meh. Marxism repackaged.

And the US trails other western economies in transitioning from the oil/coal based energy economy. Meaning energy insecurity is likely in the years ahead.

Yeah, we better panic.

The U.S. will remain the world’s biggest oil producer this year after overtaking Saudi Arabia and Russia as extraction of energy from shale rock spurs the nation’s economic recovery, Bank of America Corp. said.

U.S. production of crude oil, along with liquids separated from natural gas, surpassed all other countries this year with daily output exceeding 11 million barrels in the first quarter, the bank said in a report today. The country became the world’s largest natural gas producer in 2010. The International Energy Agency said in June that the U.S. was the biggest producer of oil and natural gas liquids.

Obama accomplished something with the bail out. He saved the complete collapse but really has made head way otherwise. But changing the fundamentals of the last 30 years is required for a return to previous sustained prosperity like the 30 years post ww2.

For that to happen myths have to be thoroughly debunked. Myths like
"people stay on UI because they don't want to work... "
"taxation that helps job creators keep more money, helps everyone" (trickle down)
'socialiized health care is wasteful"

Those aren't "myths." However, they aren't "standalone truths" either. However, as you are the king of straw men, I'm not going to bother interacting with your caricatures.

What exactly is stopping US businesses right now? Deficits are under control, the banking industry has been stabilized, taxes aren't going up, businesses have a better idea of the effects of the ACA...it is up to the private sector to drive growth at this point. That's our more free-market oriented model, anyway. The government has done a pretty good of creating the conditions allowing the economy to thrive and hopefully we're seeing that start to occur. If the economy is still struggling, I am not sure what the government could have done differently. Lower taxes? That would mean higher deficits and we can't afford that. Obama has avoided foreign entanglements (meaning more money spent on military and higher deficits). No ACA? Growth in health care costs would still be a major problem for businesses. If our economy is not that great, the rest of the world is not doing that great, either. I think you would have an extremely hard time proving a causal link between Obama's policies and a lack of growth. It is up to the private sector to do something, now.

freeman3 wrote:What exactly is stopping US businesses right now? Deficits are under control, the banking industry has been stabilized, taxes aren't going up, businesses have a better idea of the effects of the ACA...it is up to the private sector to drive growth at this point.

1. Deficits are not "under control." They're still very high. That they're down from the economic collapse is not an indication that they're "under control," especially when you have a President whose every other word is about "investment" or "common sense proposal," which always means "spend more money."

2. The ACA is not even fully in effect yet, so no.

3. Energy costs are going up, so costs on nearly everything is going up as well.

4. Regulation from the Federal government is increasing. EPA regs and just about everything the Administration can do to make business conditions less predictable regarding expected costs.

Basically, the Obama Administration has business in a chokehold and is waiting for it to take off at a sprint. It's not going to happen. The economy will remain sluggish as long as Obama is President--because of his policies.

Blaming the private sector is pretty funny. The "greedy corporations" don't want to make money?

Um, right. Maybe it's more like they're not sure they can.

fate

I'm talking basic facts of life--food is much more expensive, so are energy costs.

How is that Obama's fault?
These are simply market conditions. (Although the price of food is driven by climate change effects like drought... thats not a fast turn around.)

The problem with the recovery is that, the domestic economy drove the success of the US for many years. That requires a healthy prosperous middle class. And a working class that has room for some spending besides essentials. But there has been little on offer from Obama other than health insurance that really affects these things.
And republicans are against m,ost things that beenft the middle class, or a healthy working class. (Like a higher minimum wage, or stronger employment law)
So the recovery in employment has been mostly in low wage jobs. ...meaning the middle class economy that drove the US, has still not bounced back.

T

here continues to be an imbalance between the industries where the recession’s job
losses occurred and the industries experiencing the greatest growth four years into the
recovery.
 Lower-wage industries accounted for 22 percent of job losses during the recession, but 44 percent
of employment growth over the past four years. Today, lower-wage industries employ 1.85 million
more workers than at the start of the recession.
 Mid-wage industries accounted for 37 percent of job losses, but 26 percent of recent employment
growth. There are now 958,000 fewer jobs in mid-wage industries than at the start of the recession.
 Higher-wage industries accounted 41 percent of job losses, but 30 percent of recent employment
growth. There are now 976,000 fewer jobs in higher-wage industries than at the start of the
recession.

http://www.nelp.org/page/-/Reports/Low- ... df?nocdn=1

rickyp wrote:fate

I'm talking basic facts of life--food is much more expensive, so are energy costs.

How is that Obama's fault?

You've got a bad case of DFDS. I never said food costs are his fault. Energy costs? Well . . . for my point, it's immaterial. Those expenses are holding the economy back.

These are simply market conditions. (Although the price of food is driven by climate change effects like drought... thats not a fast turn around.)

Food costs are more impacted by high fuel costs than "climate change." Oh, and idiotic Federal policies that restrict water delivery to farms in CA. Massive swaths of farmland are in disuse thanks to Uncle Sam.

The problem with the recovery is that, the domestic economy drove the success of the US for many years. That requires a healthy prosperous middle class. And a working class that has room for some spending besides essentials. But there has been little on offer from Obama other than health insurance that really affects these things.

In "Murica, we don't have Central Planning. The government does not build the middle class, no matter how much Mr. Obama drones on about it.

And republicans are against m,ost things that beenft the middle class, or a healthy working class.

Straw.

Man.

You make me want to rewrite the lyrics of Bowie's "Star Man." "Build your Straw Man, then burn it to the ground; You'd like to make a point, but you just can't get around . . . so you build your Straw Man"

(Like a higher minimum wage, or stronger employment law)
So the recovery in employment has been mostly in low wage jobs. ...meaning the middle class economy that drove the US, has still not bounced back.

Because government should assign wages. That's "efficient" and helps build the middle class? Didn't the Soviets do that?

#governmentcan'tdothis

fate

In "Murica, we don't have Central Planning. The government does not build the middle class, no matter how much Mr. Obama drones on about i

What do you think built the American Middle class Fate?

rickyp wrote:fate

In "Murica, we don't have Central Planning. The government does not build the middle class, no matter how much Mr. Obama drones on about i

What do you think built the American Middle class Fate?

I know what's decimating it--the current policies. You yourself note how the rich are doing just fine. In part, it's because of the Fed. But, the President has been very careful to take care of the "donor class."

The ACA is very much anti-middle class. Its purpose is to "spread the wealth around." However, it has little impact on the wealthy, and a disparate impact on the middle class. They're the ones who receive little or no subsidy, but see their costs rising.

When the government picks winners and losers, those who can afford to game the system always survive. Those who are living paycheck to paycheck are the ones who get hurt the most.

What built the American Middle Class? The American system coupled with the Industrial Era. There is no government program that "built the middle class."

fate

What built the American Middle Class? The American system coupled with the Industrial Era

What American System?

Here's what generally gets credit for the growth of the middle class.
Unionization which drove up the value of labour from thw 1870s and forced industry to provide familiy freindly working hours and safe working conditions.
And a progressive tax system that funded infrastructure, education and investments in sience and early stage inudustry development.

The progressive income tax was a key pillar of this middle class “golden age.” Fiscally, the nation’s steeply graduated tax rates raised the revenue that bankrolled new programs and services that opened doors into middle-class life. Culturally, these same steeply graduated rates sent the message that American society frowned on incomes that towered too high over the nation’s economic and political landscape.
Looking back on those years now, the historical record is clear: America works best when we tax progressively — and significantly so

.
http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2 ... dle-class/

rickyp wrote:fate

What built the American Middle Class? The American system coupled with the Industrial Era

What American System?

Here's what generally gets credit for the growth of the middle class.
Unionization which drove up the value of labour from thw 1870s and forced industry to provide familiy freindly working hours and safe working conditions.
And a progressive tax system that funded infrastructure, education and investments in sience and early stage inudustry development.

The progressive income tax was a key pillar of this middle class “golden age.” Fiscally, the nation’s steeply graduated tax rates raised the revenue that bankrolled new programs and services that opened doors into middle-class life. Culturally, these same steeply graduated rates sent the message that American society frowned on incomes that towered too high over the nation’s economic and political landscape.
Looking back on those years now, the historical record is clear: America works best when we tax progressively — and significantly so

.

The missing link: http://www.businessinsider.com/why-amer ... ax-2013-10

fate

What built the American Middle Class? The American system coupled with the Industrial Era

What American System?
No seriously, I'd really like to know what you mean by American System? Its such a vague statement, and I wodner if you have a clear idea of what you mean?
Do you mean capitalism? Thats not American and besides capitalism was solidly entrenched and operating in the US long before a large prosperous middle class developed.
If not capitalism generally, than what do you mean?

rickyp wrote:fate

What built the American Middle Class? The American system coupled with the Industrial Era

What American System?
No seriously, I'd really like to know what you mean by American System? Its such a vague statement, and I wodner if you have a clear idea of what you mean?
Do you mean capitalism? Thats not American and besides capitalism was solidly entrenched and operating in the US long before a large prosperous middle class developed.
If not capitalism generally, than what do you mean?

American capitalism is, oddly enough, American. It's different. Why? Because we have a combination of people, government, taxation, regulation, and mindset (among other things) that is different than anywhere else. No country is exactly like ours.

We didn't have a strong middle class before . . . industrialization, widespread electricity and water, and how many other things? You want to make it the product of liberalism. Knock yourself out, but you'll have to do a lot more than a paragraph or two from a slanted article.

This is the kind of thing entire libraries are devoted to, so I doubt you can reasonably expect to "prove" much.

I can counter that liberalism has created generational poverty. That's the legacy of "The Great Society."

Anyway, have fun. Don't let me stop you because we can all use a laugh. After all, if all it takes is a unionst and progressive taxation to create a vibrant middle class, you've got to explain a lot of countries who have those things and don't have a strong middle class.

fate

After all, if all it takes is a unionst and progressive taxation to create a vibrant middle class, you've got to explain a lot of countries who have those things and don't have a strong middle class.

Its not all it takes, but they were the key factors in the growth of the American middle class. If you have examples of |a lot of coutnries" ..... offer them up.