Forbes: "Recession has now arrived"

[Timothy Leary]

"The latest data suggest that recession has now arrived, or will shortly," said Goldman economists Jan Hatzius, Ed McKelvy, Andrew Tilton, and Seamus Smyth said. "The unemployment rate has now risen by more that 1/3 percentage point from the cycle trough. Historically, this has invariably been associated with recession, typically starting immediately and almost always within three months."

The technical definition for recession is two consecutive quarters of negative economic growth as measured by a country's gross domestic product.

Although the economists think it will last 2-3 quarters, with a cumulative decline of only about 0.5%, the slowdown will be mild by historical standards.

http://www.forbes.com/markets/2008/01/09/goldman-sachs-recession-markets-econ-cx_cg_0109markets31.html

This is what happens after 8 years of reckless economic policies in an allegedly conservative administration. If we're lucky, this is all we'll have to deal with.

[Philosophickle]

"The latest data suggest that recession has now arrived, or will shortly," said Goldman economists Jan Hatzius, Ed McKelvy, Andrew Tilton, and Seamus Smyth said. "The unemployment rate has now risen by more that 1/3 percentage point from the cycle trough. Historically, this has invariably been associated with recession, typically starting immediately and almost always within three months."

The technical definition for recession is two consecutive quarters of negative economic growth as measured by a country's gross domestic product.

Although the economists think it will last 2-3 quarters, with a cumulative decline of only about 0.5%, the slowdown will be mild by historical standards.

http://www.forbes.com/markets/2008/01/09/goldman-sachs-recession-markets-econ-cx_cg_0109markets31.html

This is what happens after 8 years of reckless economic policies in an allegedly conservative administration. If we're lucky, this is all we'll have to deal with.

And you think that Hillary's healthcare plan is going to make things better?!

[nickcopernicus]

And you think that Hillary's healthcare plan is going to make things better?!
Nick:
I'm not even sure if she is going to win the Democratic nomination at this point. But I think that her so called plan to provide everyone with healthcare reminds me of prohibition. "You want people to stop drinking? Just outlaw it!" I've heard that they did that required healthcare plan thing in MA, but the health insurance costs actually rose instead of fell. My own healthcare insurance went up about 30% at the beginning of this year. Hillary is full of crap.....but so are her conservative opponents.


cheers,

Nick

[Timothy Leary]

I'm not even sure if she is going to win the Democratic nomination at this point. But I think that her so called plan to provide everyone with healthcare reminds me of prohibition. "You want people to stop drinking? Just outlaw it!" I've heard that they did that required healthcare plan thing in MA, but the health insurance costs actually rose instead of fell. My own healthcare insurance went up about 30% at the beginning of this year. Hillary is full of crap.....but so are her conservative opponents.

It'll cost between 100-120 billion dollars to socialize our healthcare system.
We could pay 40 billion dollars of that just by legalizing, regulating, and taxing Marijuana -and that's recreational use alone. If you consider how much we'd save by freeing our jails of harmless smokers, and the additional taxation we could get from industrial hemp which makes the cheapest and highest quality paper known to man (that's why the logging industry lobbied for its prohibition) not to mention the fact that it can be used to make ethanol three times more efficient than corn (it wouldn't need to be subsidized) - imagine the additional taxation from that - well, it really doesn't seem to hard of a goal.

Are we really going to complain about whatever small tax increase we'll have to deal with when there are children out there who desperately need health care? Are we really that selfish?

[Philosophickle]

It'll cost between 100-120 billion dollars to socialize our healthcare system.
We could pay 40 billion dollars of that just by legalizing, regulating, and taxing Marijuana -and that's recreational use alone. If you consider how much we'd save by freeing our jails of harmless smokers, and the additional taxation we could get from industrial hemp which makes the cheapest and highest quality paper known to man (that's why the logging industry lobbied for its prohibition) not to mention the fact that it can be used to make ethanol three times more efficient than corn (it wouldn't need to be subsidized) - imagine the additional taxation from that - well, it really doesn't seem to hard of a goal.

Are we really going to complain about whatever small tax increase we'll have to deal with when there are children out there who desperately need health care? Are we really that selfish?

IMO, the cost isn't the only problem with universal healthcare (or socialized anything for that matter).

[nickcopernicus]

It'll cost between 100-120 billion dollars to socialize our healthcare system.
We could pay 40 billion dollars of that just by legalizing, regulating, and taxing Marijuana -and that's recreational use alone. If you consider how much we'd save by freeing our jails of harmless smokers, and the additional taxation we could get from industrial hemp which makes the cheapest and highest quality paper known to man (that's why the logging industry lobbied for its prohibition) not to mention the fact that it can be used to make ethanol three times more efficient than corn (it wouldn't need to be subsidized) - imagine the additional taxation from that - well, it really doesn't seem to hard of a goal.
Nick:
I've got no qualms about legalizing MJ.
Agent Yoshi
Are we really going to complain about whatever small tax increase we'll have to deal with when there are children out there who desperately need health care? Are we really that selfish?
Nick:
Yes, we are. If a child has no health care then it is the parent's fault for having children that they could not afford. I'm not paying to raise irresponsibile parents' children. Doing so only encourages them to continue being irresponsibile. The answer to national healthcare is actually very simple and very cheap.

Stop eating like crap and watching so much television Make your children go outside and play instead of buying them the latest Nintendo Wii. Way too many Americans are overweight and obese. Some people can't help it. But I doubt if the majority of people who are overweight and unhealthy are so because of genetic discrepancies.

Perhaps people should get of their lazy butts and take their children to the emergency room instead of ordering a $1000 taxi cab in the form of an ambulance.

Besides, there's not such thing as "free" health care. AND you get what you pay for (if you're lucky)

What happens when we get a "Hurricane Katrina" of illness? All these insurance companies can just file bankruptcy....

On the subject, though. I find it hilarious that GW is busy trying to make peace in the middle east while his own country's economy is in the hurt locker partially because of his and congress' frivolous use of taxpayer's money.

Cheers,

Nick

[$cirisme]

Looks like a good thread for economics.

[$cirisme]

It'll cost between 100-120 billion dollars to socialize our healthcare system.

Source? We're already $46 trillion short (http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?t=107112) because of our last socialization attempt, a number that's surely going to bankrupt us. And our demographics are hugely different than Europe with fewer people working and more boomers retiring everyday.

Are we really going to complain about whatever small tax increase we'll have to deal with when there are children out there who desperately need health care? Are we really that selfish?

Do you really think that the only way to help the poor is by nationalizing the whole system? When your only solution is a hammer, all your problems look like nails.

[Timothy Leary]

Yes, we are. If a child has no health care then it is the parent's fault for having children that they could not afford.

And so in response, let's let the children die! Brilliant man!

Stop eating like crap and watching so much television Make your children go outside and play instead of buying them the latest Nintendo Wii. Way too many Americans are overweight and obese. Some people can't help it. But I doubt if the majority of people who are overweight and unhealthy are so because of genetic discrepancies.

After all, people get cancer and lukemia (sp?) because they're fat.

Besides, there's not such thing as "free" health care. AND you get what you pay for (if you're lucky)

Strawman ;)

What happens when we get a "Hurricane Katrina" of illness? All these insurance companies can just file bankruptcy....

Sounds like a good reason to socialize healthcare

I find it hilarious that GW is busy trying to make peace in the middle east while his own country's economy is in the hurt locker partially because of his and congress' frivolous use of taxpayer's money.

Look on the bright side - that means he can't do as much damage back home :wink:

[Jim_Casy]

It'll cost between 100-120 billion dollars to socialize our healthcare system.
I'm curious where these figures come from.

Also, I didn't think any viable candidate was proposing a socialized health care system - just Kucinich and Gravel, I thought.

We could pay 40 billion dollars of that just by legalizing, regulating, and taxing Marijuana -and that's recreational use alone. If you consider how much we'd save by freeing our jails of harmless smokers, and the additional taxation we could get from industrial hemp...
Agreed on all three points.

which makes the cheapest and highest quality paper known to man (that's why the logging industry lobbied for its prohibition) not to mention the fact that it can be used to make ethanol three times more efficient than corn (it wouldn't need to be subsidized)
I was familiar with the amazing advantage of using hemp or kenaf in paper-making, but I hadn't heard the "three times more efficient than corn" ethanol figure. I assumed that maize has a higher quantity of sugar per plant, so where does the extra efficiency come from?

- imagine the additional taxation from that - well, it really doesn't seem to hard of a goal.
My financial understanding of moving to a single-payer health care system had more to do with the efficiency of clearing away the infrastructure and overhead imposed by the multiplicity of private profit-seeking carriers. The tax benefits added by cannabis legalization is just gravy.

Are we really going to complain about whatever small tax increase we'll have to deal with when there are children out there who desperately need health care? Are we really that selfish?
I agree.

[Timothy Leary]

I'm curious where these figures come from.

Also, I didn't think any viable candidate was proposing a socialized health care system - just Kucinich and Gravel, I thought.

I don't have the sources in front of me, but as I understand it she wants to start with universal coverage first and then socialized healthcare by the end of her 2nd term (should she win the election in the first place.) It would cost between 100 and 120 billion, depending on the amount of govt. subsidies. According to this *site* (http://www.doughroller.net/2007/09/26/hillary-clintons-health-care-plan-is-slick-so-watch-your-step/) (I just pulled it up via google, i don't know how accurate it is and it is very obviously against the plan) here's how it is supposed to work:

Cost Savings: The Clinton plan claims to save $56 billion annually through the phase-out of excessive Medicare overpayments ($10 billion), savings from unnecessary Medicare and Medicaid spending ($7 billion), constraining prescription drug costs ($4 billion), and modernizing the health system with Health Information Technology (HIT) ($35 billion). Tax Increases: The tax increases will come from raising the top two income tax rates and reducing deductions for health insurance on those making $250,000 a year or more. For everybody else, she claims no new taxes and lower health insurance premiums.

I was familiar with the amazing advantage of using hemp or kenaf in paper-making, but I hadn't heard the "three times more efficient than corn" ethanol figure. I assumed that maize has a higher quantity of sugar per plant, so where does the extra efficiency come from?

You can produce 1200 gallons of ethanol from an acre of sugarcane (which isn't feasible to grow economically in the states for ethano, importing isn't feasible either as our sugar tariffs prevent us from importing sugarcane from brazil for ethanol which could compete with Big Oil), between 900-1200 gallons from hemp, and 328 gallons per acre from corn (the loser crop we are unwisely subsidizing today).

According to the University of Hawiaa's Natural Energy Institute (see *this page* (http://www.globalhemp.com/Archives/Essays/Biofuel/biomass_resources.html), not an unbiased source, but an excellent read), 95k acres of hemp crops would produce 449,000,000 gallons of methanol a year (with extra left over to make other products)

In cellulose based ethanol, hemp is also better - with about 77% of cannabis being cellulose.

[anarchonoclast]

While the present administration has certainly assisted in driving up our national debt to beyond an actual $74 trillion they continue to receive "able" assistance from their friends at the Federal Reserve, and our Congress.

This enslaving of the American citizens has been going on at least since the mid 30's and then kicking into high gear in the early 70's. Keynesian economics builds a house of cards with counterfeit money and enable the elite and powerful to gain more wealth, and control those little people who actually think that by saving, or playing the stock market they might break free. Add to those notions the one about getting ahead by working hard...how many jobs can you fit into a 168hr week?

I almost puke each time any candidate of either party begins talking about what they're going to do to stabilize or grow the economy. The rascals have known for years what they are doing to the rest of us, and play on our ignorance, or silence to keep putting it to us! We need a true populist movement that isn't represented by either Huckster-berry or Obama. Mc Cain can talk all he wants about "pork barrels" being vetoed...but be sure that after 22yrs in the Senate he knows plenty about what's been going on. As for Ms. Clinton I think if I were in or from AR I'd be asking that the water be tested. Something seems definitely wrong with the policiticans that are coming out of "Hope"??? :ahem:

Get as far out of debt as you can plenty fast...snooker down...get ready for more war and call up of troops...and the continual juggling act of the criminals that lead us and control our worhtless money.

The Anarchonoclast

[Teallaura]

...It'll cost between 100-120 billion dollars to socialize our healthcare system.
We could pay 40 billion dollars of that just by legalizing, regulating, and taxing Marijuana -and that's recreational use alone. ...

Are we really going to complain about whatever small tax increase we'll have to deal with when there are children out there who desperately need health care? Are we really that selfish?Strawman - there's no actual reason we couldn't cut something else entirely. And you realize the reverse would also be true - are you (general) really so selfish as to provide demand for an illegal substance thereby insuring the continued need for enforcement? Stop using the stuff and the need for enforcement vanishes.

Congress need never be involved - right up your 'smaller government' alley, isn't it? :wink:

The folks that really fall through the cracks are single men. Virtually no programs exist to aid them whereas most states (if not all) have both M'caid and Allkids type programs to provide children with needed medical care (ESPDT is the best thing since white bread if you are on M'caid). Charities pick up the slack - when was the last time you heard of a kid dying because no one would help pay for needed medical procedures/meds? I won't dispute that it may have happened but it would be the extreme exception, not the rule.

Adult single men fall through the cracks all the time - getting aid for them out of a government program other than SSI is near impossible unless they have HIV (and that includes other social services not normally available to single men). Communicable disease health departments will handle but there aren't many government resources for single men and charities already pick up most of that slack (the problem being men are less likely to seek aid).

I actually am not hysterically 'anti-tax' but we created this monster originally with M'care. Health care costs can skyrocket simply because insurance will pick up the tab (not without fits and starts, granted). Hospital billing is extremely suspect for price gouging (done not to mess with the uninsured but to artificially inflate insurance payments) as are other medical sectors. Pumping more money in might not be the best solution to the problem - it sure as heck hasn't worked for education.

[Jim_Casy]

are you (general) really so selfish as to provide demand for an illegal substance thereby insuring the continued need for enforcement? Stop using the stuff and the need for enforcement vanishes.
If it weren't illegal in the first place, the need for enforcement would vanish as well. I don't use marijuana, but I don't see why we should be squandering our resources in criminalizing it. Much ado about nothing, and we're filling our broken prison system with petty users.

Health care costs can skyrocket simply because insurance will pick up the tab (not without fits and starts, granted). Hospital billing is extremely suspect for price gouging (done not to mess with the uninsured but to artificially inflate insurance payments) as are other medical sectors.
My experience suggests the opposite. Insurance does not pick up the tab, but providers are still required to treat people, money or not. When insurance does pick up the tab, it's a negotiated rate a fraction of billed costs. Hospitals raise their prices a) to make up for services rendered that insurance didn't pay or accrued by uninsured, and b) to counteract the low negotiated rate (e.g. insurance will only pay 25% of typical regional cost, so hospitals raise regional costs to keep from losing money).

Pumping more money in might not be the best solution to the problem - it sure as heck hasn't worked for education.
When did we pump more money into education?

[Teallaura]

If it weren't illegal in the first place, the need for enforcement would vanish as well. I don't use marijuana, but I don't see why we should be squandering our resources in criminalizing it. Much ado about nothing, and we're filling our broken prison system with petty users.Um, I merely pointed out that the reverse of his assertion was also true.


My experience suggests the opposite. Insurance does not pick up the tab, but providers are still required to treat people, money or not. Only emergency rooms are required by law to treat anyone regardless of the ability to pay.

When insurance does pick up the tab, it's a negotiated rate a fraction of billed costs. Hospitals raise their prices a) to make up for services rendered that insurance didn't pay or accrued by uninsured, and b) to counteract the low negotiated rate (e.g. insurance will only pay 25% of typical regional cost, so hospitals raise regional costs to keep from losing money).Yup - that's what helps inflate the prices and what would not occur without insurance.


When did we pump more money into education?We've been throwing money at education for the last forty years - try your local news and see how often they discuss new education appropriations.

[Vigilante]

Forget insurance companies (i.e. thieves)

Just have the government buy out all hospitals and put everybody on reasonable salaries and make them free public resources.

Woohoo! Bye bye insurances companies (i.e. thieves).


Peace

[Timothy Leary]

Strawman - there's no actual reason we couldn't cut something else entirely.

That's true. But the way polyticks works, do you really think someone is going to want to give up their precious programs? :tongue:

And you realize the reverse would also be true - are you (general) really so selfish as to provide demand for an illegal substance thereby insuring the continued need for enforcement?

Providing demand? Hardly, Teal. I'm not providing demand, I'd simply be taking advantage of the demand that already exists. Consider this : studies amongst teenagers say that its easier for them to get grass than it is to get alcohol. What does that say about demand? Besides, moderate pot smokers have a lifespan 2 years longer than the average person. :hehe:

Stop using the stuff and the need for enforcement vanishes.

Get rid of the laws, and the need for enforcement vanishes. This would even cheaper - no need to cut down the trees to print the laws on! :wink:

Congress need never be involved - right up your 'smaller government' alley, isn't it? :wink:

But that's only going half the way, isn't it? Get rid of the laws, and Congress never need be invovled ever again (yeah, right... congress not getting involved in something? Who am I kidding? :teeth:)

Charities pick up the slack - when was the last time you heard of a kid dying because no one would help pay for needed medical procedures/meds?

Last week. Perhaps you haven't heard about the 17 year old girl in New York, I think it was. I heard about it on NPR & a local TV station.

I actually am not hysterically 'anti-tax' but we created this monster originally with M'care. Health care costs can skyrocket simply because insurance will pick up the tab (not without fits and starts, granted). Hospital billing is extremely suspect for price gouging (done not to mess with the uninsured but to artificially inflate insurance payments) as are other medical sectors. Pumping more money in might not be the best solution to the problem - it sure as heck hasn't worked for education.

Neither am I. But consider this - even if we legalized industrial hemp alone, imagine the economic and tax benefits it would provide to our nation. With the economic stresses we're going through right now - and especially small farmers - legalizing industrial hemp would go a long ways towards helping our economy in the short & long run.

[Timothy Leary]

Forget insurance companies (i.e. thieves)

Just have the government buy out all hospitals and put everybody on reasonable salaries and make them free public resources.

Woohoo! Bye bye insurances companies (i.e. thieves).


Peace

I'm not for abolishing the private sector - I think private healthcare institutions are essential for progress. Ideally, I'd like to see a dual system - socialized healthcare for everyone, and private healthcare for those who desire it. The private institutions and public institutions would, to an extent, compete with each other.

[Teallaura]

That's true. But the way polyticks works, do you really think someone is going to want to give up their precious programs? :tongue:I think you're talking about such a small drop in the bucket that it would never be seriously considered as excluding health care from financing. Congress rarely works this way anyway - cost cutting is usually followed by new programs, not improving old ones. No net benefit in that.


Providing demand? Hardly, Teal. I'm not providing demand, I'd simply be taking advantage of the demand that already exists. Consider this : studies amongst teenagers say that its easier for them to get grass than it is to get alcohol. What does that say about demand? Besides, moderate pot smokers have a lifespan 2 years longer than the average person. :hehe:You are part of the problem, dude. Tiny drop though it be you are still contributing to the demand for the product - and you know it. People stopped wearing fur to protect fuzzy little animals - is asking them to stop using marijuana to save children really too much to ask?

Get rid of the laws, and the need for enforcement vanishes. This would even cheaper - no need to cut down the trees to print the laws on! :wink: This would be even more expensive - alcohol already has enough associated indirect societal costs. Legalization will increase use and increase indirect costs - that's not going to be as readily apparent but it will still be there.

Just be a law-abiding responsible adult and encourage your friends to be and the costs of enforcement go down. Get everyone to quit using the stuff and those costs vanish entirely - unlike legalization which will not reduce associated crime.

But that's only going half the way, isn't it? Get rid of the laws, and Congress never need be invovled ever again (yeah, right... congress not getting involved in something? Who am I kidding? :teeth:)Nope, simply stop using and Congress need never be involved - even Congress needs a reason. No reason; no congressional involvement - simple.

Last week. Perhaps you haven't heard about the 17 year old girl in New York, I think it was. I heard about it on NPR & a local TV station.No, I hadn't heard. Even allowing this to be true (I'm skeptical because I know how many resources there are) it's still the rare exception, not the rule. Adding an additional layer of cushion can deal with those cases without the exorbitant costs and questionable service of socialized medicine.

Neither am I. But consider this - even if we legalized industrial hemp alone, imagine the economic and tax benefits it would provide to our nation. With the economic stresses we're going through right now - and especially small farmers - legalizing industrial hemp would go a long ways towards helping our economy in the short & long run.The problem is that proponents won't stop there - and in this instance I think it extremely unwise to give the proverbial inch despite potential benefits.

[Teallaura]

I'm not for abolishing the private sector - I think private healthcare institutions are essential for progress. Ideally, I'd like to see a dual system - socialized healthcare for everyone, and private healthcare for those who desire it. The private institutions and public institutions would, to an extent, compete with each other.Then you're already dead in the water - it's unconstitutional. I think it was a dumb ruling but that's the present law of the land - government may not compete seriously with the private sector.

Wouldn't it be easier to just fund having a doctor in every local health department? That will pick up the slack that would otherwise not go to physician - hence no serious competition.