Economy 2009.

[THATGiRLOVES]

I was listening to the radio just the other night,
I heard that the gas prices are going up again here in New Jersey.

I believe though, that if Obama wants to help the United States,
he should make sure that there are more energy resources availiable at lower costs. Solar Panels now are pretty expensive just to get installed, if they were possibly lowered, then maybe more people would be able to get them. This would lead to eventually lower electricty bills, only problem is that it's a long-term problem.

US Dollar is also losing value.
Going to the Philippines in 2005,
one US dollar = approx. 72 pesos.
I just came back from the Philippines around August 2008,
one US dollar = approx. 42 pesos.
What's happening ?
Is the US government inflating our currency again like in the 1700/1800s ?

[Afrobean]

Originally Posted by THATGiRLOVES

I was listening to the radio just the other night,
I heard that the gas prices are going up again here in New Jersey.

Gas prices fluctuate. If they are plummeting with no end, that would be a time to be worried.

I believe though, that if Obama wants to help the United States,
he should make sure that there are more energy resources availiable at lower costs.

That's not something the president controls.

Solar Panels now are pretty expensive just to get installed, if they were possibly lowered, then maybe more people would be able to get them.

The government doesn't control the free market. The most you could hope for is a tax break or something like that, and that would be Congress's doing.

That said, I do believe there are already tax breaks and things in place for persons who choose to invest in green energy alternatives.

US Dollar is also losing value.
Going to the Philippines in 2005,
one US dollar = approx. 72 pesos.
I just came back from the Philippines around August 2008,
one US dollar = approx. 42 pesos.
What's happening ?
Is the US government inflating our currency again like in the 1700/1800s ?

Of course they're inflating the currency. Do you really think that they print less money than they destroy? And it doesn't help when they're giving handouts to failing banks. Where do you think that money comes from? They print it out of nothing.

The funny thing is that they're willing to give away money to failing institutions that add nothing of value to society, while refusing to LOAN a MUCH smaller amount of money to a failing institution that despite failing, actually provides a valuable service to society by providing the products and jobs that it does.

Don't get me wrong, I don't think the government should be screwing with any of that stuff, but if you're going to give hundreds of billions away to failing banks, why would you refuse a loan to the auto industry?

ps that font is really difficult to read. If you want to be taken seriously, it would be better to use the standard for readability purposes.

[~kitty~]

Afro, you seem to be a very common Critical-Thinking forum goer.

Well, that will probably go same for me as well.

As for the topic...

I don't know much about economy, but I think that certain things won't change as long as there are people in objectivity to things, possibly making a veto to things we may actually want.

I don't REALLY know, but I think in a dumb America, we get dumb laws (in specific cases).

[THATGiRLOVES]

Originally Posted by Afrobean

Don't get me wrong, I don't think the government should be screwing with any of that stuff, but if you're going to give hundreds of billions away to failing banks, why would you refuse a loan to the auto industry?

I agree completely, I don't get why the government is closing down so many companies that actually help our society, yet keep giving money to unnecessary ones that SHOULD be closed.


oh & the font, eh sorry, that's my favorite.
i'll stick to regular now then.

[foilman8805]

Which companies is the government giving money to that should be closed?

[THATGiRLOVES]

Originally Posted by ~kitty~

I don't know much about economy, but I think that certain things won't change as long as there are people in objectivity to things, possibly making a veto to things we may actually want.

People are always going to be objecting to things.
" In order to form a more perfect union " I believe everyone would have to agree completely on the decisions America makes.

& I don't think that will happen anytime soon, unforetunately.

[THATGiRLOVES]

Originally Posted by foilman8805

Which companies is the government giving money to that should be closed?

Well the hundreds of clothing shops that open up everywhere;
more food shops or practical shops should be kept open,
instead of closing them.

[~kitty~]

Originally Posted by THATGiRLOVES

People are always going to be objecting to things.
" In order to form a more perfect union " I believe everyone would have to agree completely on the decisions America makes.

& I don't think that will happen anytime soon, unforetunately.

I think some of what people believe has a lot to do with what was incorporated as values to them when they were being raised...

and what America is doing now for their citizens seems to not be working as to make America a better place... in fact... I think America is declining now.

I think some things need to be set straight before America can actually become a country that doesn't receive so much criticizing from enemy countries.

EDIT: Shey, since I know you're new to the forums... Click here for the forum rules

[AquaTeen]

The economy is in such bad shape that 100's-1000's of dollars are lost in stocks. But bad news for all of you Aeropostale lovers... Aeropostale announced recently that they may be closing their stores down because the economy is killing their sales because the pricing of their clothing is so expensive.

[devonin]

You don't actually lose money when the value of stocks goes down. You only lose money if because of the lowering in value, you decide to sell your shares. This is the issue that has led to most of the problems in the first place. People are treating a lowered stock like immidiate physical loss of capital, which it isn't. You still own the same number of shares of stock, you just would get less right now if you sold them right now. Clearly the economy is going to recover, so if people simply hold onto the stocks they have (heck this is a GREAT time to invest more money INTO stocks) half the problem would solve itself.

(And now Carbo will show up and tell me how my economics are all wrong)

[lord_carbo]

Originally Posted by devonin

(And now Carbo will show up and tell me how my economics are all wrong)

Good timing; I just entered the thread at 5:55!

Originally Posted by THATGiRLOVES

I believe though, that if Obama wants to help the United States,
he should make sure that there are more energy resources availiable at lower costs.

How so? The government can't really make any competitively made good cheaper, per se, in terms of total costs for the economy. There are a few exceptions but I can't find one in this case. The costs would get spread out amongst taxpayers, and combined with the deadweight loss of a subsidy, the total cost that taxpayers play plus the consumer would exceed that if it were not subsidized. Because everyone consumes energy, this would actually mean everyone pays more.

Originally Posted by THATGiRLOVES

Solar Panels now are pretty expensive just to get installed, if they were possibly lowered, then maybe more people would be able to get them.

Again, government does not control this, just like the government has no control over the price of iPods.

Originally Posted by THATGiRLOVES

Is the US government inflating our currency again like in the 1700/1800s ?

You're crying "fire" on Noah's Ark.

Most economists predict deflation (if left unchecked), because the rate at which the value of the dollar inflates usually decreases during recessions. This usually means that inflation lowers during recessions, but we may be looking at a pretty big recession while the interest rate is virtually 0% so inflation may lower to the point that there's a little deflation. During the Great Depression, there was a ton of deflation. Let me emphasize: a ton. Well chances are we're not going to see double digits deflation like in the Great Depression, but if the changes in the inflation rate of the '80s are an indicator of anything, we may see roughly 4% deflation if it's left unchecked.

Originally Posted by devonin

You don't actually lose money when the value of stocks goes down.

Kind of. Well, you're right that there is a distinction; technically the total value of your assets goes down, not the money you have on hand. The thing is, for some people (short term traders) this distinction doesn't really matter. For everyone else, a lowered value of stocks means a lowered expected amount of cash to have in the future. It doesn't change the money you have now, but it changes what you expected you'd have later. The only important reason to point out this distinction is to emphasize when you're able to spend that money.

Originally Posted by devonin

You still own the same number of shares of stock, you just would get less right now if you sold them right now. Clearly the economy is going to recover, so if people simply hold onto the stocks they have (heck this is a GREAT time to invest more money INTO stocks) half the problem would solve itself.

You're making it out as if it is obvious that people at an individual level should just simply hold onto their shares. That is not the case because if it were, people would be holding onto their shares. You're not adjusting for expectations and the opportunity cost of saving. What if I feel that a certain company is not going to recover? This has happened in a few cases.

More commonly, what if I don't think a company will recover a lot, or that the amount it recovers by is not worth the time I have to keep my money in the company? Even if a company is bound to recover, as John Maynard Keynes once said: "In the long run, we're all dead." Do you want $10 right now, or do you want $11 dollars in 20 years? (adjusted for inflation) Probably the $10 right now, because the 20 years to most people is not worth that additional $1. The mere fact that returns are expected to go down in the long run is what drives down the value of most of these stocks, and for some people, holding out for a long time to make a couple bucks is not worth it when at the time they bought the shares, they expected to make much more in the long run, which is why they held on up to that point.