BMW Profit Margin Falls below expectations-US$ v Euro

[imported_MPower]

Originally Posted by Nixon

Don't you dare quote me out of context. I clearly said:

"If you don't understand the direct link between the current Republican war spending and monetary policy to the value of the dollar, please educate yourself about the subject before the next election. You owe it to your nation to make an informed vote."

That clearly implies that if you DO already understand what I was talking about, then you would already be making an informed vote. Don't put words in my mouth. If you want to still vote Rep. after educating yourself on the topic, then nothing I said would imply that your vote would be uninformed as you claim I said. You want to play that game, you play alone. I'm not going to respond to you.

Well, I apologize for taking things slightly out of context. However, understand that from my perspective, your statement could easily be translated as a typical "If you are Republican, you should inform yourself and become a Democrat" statement. Unfortuntately, with the way most people discuss things now-a-days, everything has to be so finite and forced.

Originally Posted by Nixon

There is no comparison between the status of the USD as THE global currency (with the Euro quickly catching up) and the Yuan which is a local currency. There is no comparison between a Chinese currency that is fixed by the Chinese Gov't and a free traded dollar.

True, but the results are comparable. While the values fluctuate, what is true is that what buys one in Europe, is buying you ~1.5 here.

Originally Posted by Nixon

I've already gone over point by point the reasons why the dive in the US dollar isn't triggering an increase in manufacturing the way the models would predict. I've already explained why the US market isn't responding the way it is expected, and thus why it isn't responding the way China's market responded to a devalued and locked Yuan. None of the things that I have already explained that are unique to the US market is happening in China, so any attempt to say it works for China is irrelevant.

It is NOT happening here.

You are correct: the massive inflation that is plaguing the Chinese economy is not occuring here.

Regardless, I should point out that my statements with regards to US manufacturing increasing is a prediction, rather than a status-quo. Hence the recent article stating that VW is considering building a US production plant.

Also, consider that ever since the Euro became the standard currency in the EU, its value comparable to the dollar has risen consistently suggesting that the market is only searching for an equillibrium.

Still, while the value of the dollar is dropping in comparison to other currencies, you must remember that the value of the dollar is not an economic indicator for the strength of the US economy. The indicators are still GDP growth and employment which have all been improving for around the last five years. '

Originally Posted by Nixon

Don't put words in my mouth. I'm not making any such claim. I used GM as a direct counter-example to the company at hand, which is BMW. BMW is a car manufacturer, and GM is a car manufacturer. I contrasted the two because they each represent the same corner of the manufacturing sector in each country. Deal with what I've actually said, and stop building strawmen.

Again, you are right; I can only respond to what you have said. I was only attempting to point out that the problems that GM is suffering has to do with a hundreds of factors and can not be defined purely by a weak dollar. Using GM as an example of the declining manufacturing in the US as a direct result of the dollar simply is not accurate. Sure, it certainly plays a role but you can not tell me that GM is where it is now because the dollar has fallen with respect to the Euro.

Also, I should point out that while US manufacturing may decrease in the future, it should only serve as an indicator as the US economy continuing to transfer into a largely service-based economy. That allows the opprotunity to open the US to foreign manufacturing who receive better value.

Originally Posted by Nixon

Here you are simply wrong on the facts. New plants are not being built in the US at the rate they were being built prior to the drop in the value of the dollar. There is not a mass export market for Merc/VW/BMW/etc cars built in the US, so they produce mostly for the US market. The US market is down and providing less profits per unit so US plant expansion has slowed instead of increasing. The hayday for the building of new US plants for overseas companies predates the drop in the value of the dollar. And here is the kicker --> That whole trend was started not by free market forces, but because of US Gov't regulations!!! That's right. Foreign plants were built here to get around US regulations and tariffs based upon foreign content. These factories did NOT come to the US due to free market pressures, much less the specific market pressure of the drop in value of the US dollar.

Makes you wonder why Democrats continue to harp on increasing governmental controls around the US economy when corporations must pay to work around these restrictions.

Also, with this explanation, you must now agree that there are numerous factors at play with the US economy and that the value of the dollar in no single way is the defining factor.

Originally Posted by Nixon

I recognize that graph. I've seen it before. If this is what I think it is, it is a classic example of right-wing hackery. First, note that it conveniently stops in FY 2003. Before war spending got crazy. Second, if this is what I think it is, this is a graph of the BUDGET for defense spending. That is NOT the same as the actual amount of money spent on the war. The entire war has been paid for OUTSIDE the budget for Defense. The war has been paid for by supplementals outside the normal budget. The true cost of the war has NOT been calculated yet, much less graphed against GDP. Especially when your graph is missing the last 3-4 years of the war including all of the "surge".

Where did you get this graph? I would like to examine the full context of the presentation of this graph to see if I am right about it.

You can find it here:

http://www.truthandpolitics.org/mili...size.php#ref-1

Note that according to the website, the figures include spending outside of the DOD. The only other table that I could find went to 2005 and only featured estimates for the future. Also, this table only lists the data for the DOD and only lists the figures in real numbers as opposed to a percentage of GDP.

http://www.mtholyoke.edu/~jephrean/classweb/United%20States.html

Still, in terms of raw numbers, the US government currently spend just as much on the DOD (admittedly, a not complete number, but meaningful none-the-less) as they do on a number of different things.

http://www.kowaldesign.com/budget/budget.html

[Nixon]

That graph was EXACTLY what I thought it was.

You really have to quit quoting these out of date, misleading websites. If you follow the REFERENCES section from the first website you posted, you will see that everything they quote is from the BUDGET, not from any war supplimentals. (that's the part at the bottom of the page that points to the "Budget of the United States of America". It does list items outside of the DOD, but there are always defense related expenses outside of the DOD in every budget. That isn't the same as budget supplimentals that are, by definition, outside of the budget.

All of your web sites quote the Budget over and over. You can't quote budget numbers when it comes to the war.


The wars has been funded by supplimentals, not the budget. The wars do not appear on either of the two BUDGET links from your first web site because you have to go to the supplimentals to find the war spending. That is still true in this year's spending.

If you go to the current budget, and look at the

Table 3.1

—OUTLAYS BY SUPERFUNCTION AND FUNCTION: 1940–2012

on page 54 you will see that the budget for defense for 2007 is 572 billion dollars (listed as 571,869 in millions of dollars)
http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget...8/pdf/hist.pdf

But that's just the budget for defense spending, not the supplimental to fund the war.

Now here is the supplimental that actually funds the "Global War on Terror (GWOT)". This is ON TOP of the already growing Defense spending that appears in the budget I posted above. Page 3 gives the total amount of nearly 200 billion dollars in total. This is on top of the budget.








"These revisions total $45.9 billion, and are in addition to the $150.5 billion you already

requested." (45.9 billion + 150.5 billion =~200 billion in round numbers)
http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget...t_10_22_07.pdf




So the graphs and statistics that your are quoting are way off. They are off by 200 billion dollars, or about 35%.


Where does this extra money come from? We borrow it. All of this 200 billion budget supplimental is borrowed. This is on top of our already huge budget deficit spending which is also borrowed. The more we borrow, the lower the dollar sinks. That's a rule of economics that we haven't been able to avoid in the US.

We went from a budget surplus in 2000 of

86 billion to a buget deficit of 427 billion dollars for 2007.

The supplimentals come in on TOP of that budget deficit. The war is a 50% increase over our budget deficit. We have to borrow 627 billion dollars for 2007 alone. I don't care if you express that as a percent of GDP or as how many Wendy's burgers it would buy. The net effect is the tanking of the value of the dollar, which is in a large part because of the war.

And yes, electing somebody who will stop the war in Iraq will have a significant effect on that 50% increase over our total deficit that comes from the war supplimental. This will in turn help raise the dollar.

Right now there is not a single Republican who will do this, so yes, voting Democrat is the only answer. If there were a Republican who I thought would stop the war, I would consider him too.

And no, the value of the dollar isn't the only consideration for stopping the war. But I think we should agree not to go further into those issues.


I have more to add regarding the rest of your post, but it's bed time.

[imported_MPower]

Originally Posted by Nixon

Right now there is not a single Republican who will do this, so yes, voting Democrat is the only answer. If there were a Republican who I thought would stop the war, I would consider him too.

Believe it or not, the Democrat majority in Congress can put an end to any sort of war funding a number of different ways. They can also vote against the President's budget. To suggest that it is only the Republicans who have been operating through budget deficits is very short-sided. It should also be said that a budget deficit is not the end of the world as the country as operated through a deficit in most of its years. I am not defending out of control spending but there are two things to understand about it:

1. Out of the control spending is a bipartisan issue. If it wasn't, the Democrat-controlled Congress would have put an end to the President's budgets and shut down funding for the war.
2. The mere presence of a budget deficit is not the root cause of a weak dollar. There are hundreds of factors ranging from the Fed dropping interest rates a couple of weeks ago to probable overvaluing of the dollar through the 80s and 90s.

[ibeam81]

There is no doubt that the war is a huge drain on the country's economy (unless you work in the defense sector). And as bad as the numbers seem, there are some fairly significant hidden costs that will probably double the ultimate bill. A lot of the equipment that has been deployed to Iraq will never return to the States and will have to be replaced.

Additionally, the anticipated lifespan of equipment has been severely shortened and will need replacement earlier than originally planned. Maintenance costs are through the roof and again much higher than anticipated. Personnel costs are also increasing due to longer deployments and the use of bonuses to keep soldiers from departing the service.

Unfortunately even if the U.S. decided to end the war tomorrow, the pull-out would take at least a year if not longer. Everyone is looking for easy answers, but the situation in Iraq is a longterm problem that we will be dealing with (and paying) for years to come.

I'm not sure if the Democrats will be any more successful than the Republicans in dealing with Iraq, but the country really wants a change. Because there is a Republican currently in the White House, I suspect that party will be a casualty of the desire for change.

Regardless of the outcome, I'm just hoping that the country is better off come 2009. YMMV.

[Nixon]

Originally Posted by MPower

Believe it or not, the Democrat majority in Congress can put an end to any sort of war funding a number of different ways. They can also vote against the President's budget.

Yes, the Democratic majority of the Congress CAN turn the switch off to ALL funding to our troops. Actually it only takes 41 Senators (not even a majority) to shut down all funding. All they have to do is filibuster any war funding measures that come before the Senate, both supplemental and budgetary. They can flip that switch off with 41 Senators alone. They don't need control of the House, the Senate, or the Executive Branch to do that.

This would result in a very disorderly and hasty withdraw from Iraq. It would best be described as an emergency evacuation under fire. It WILL result in a substantial number of US soldiers dying. Do you think this is an acceptable solution? I don't. An orderly withdraw is the only answer. An orderly withdraw cannot be accomplished by turning the switch off for all military spending like you are suggesting the Democrats could do.

But shutting off the funding like a light switch is the ONLY way that Democrats alone can currently stop the war. They do not even have the 60 votes to defeat a filibuster in the Senate, much less enough votes to override Bush's veto with a 2/3 vote in both houses. You are in dream land if you think there are enough Democrats to force through legislation against the will of the Republican President and his Republican supporters in both the House and Senate.

There is no way for Democrats alone to legislate an orderly withdraw. The Democrats have NOT been able to legislate an orderly withdraw for one reason, and one reason alone: Republicans blocking their legislation. This is not a bipartisan issue. Don't try to push off the blame on Democrats. That just isn't supported by the facts.


So there are 3 choices:

1) Shut off ALL funding like you suggest, which would be a disaster.
2) Stay the course with the Republican agenda by electing more Republicans. Republicans who's platform position is to support Bush's agenda of more wars.
3) Elect either a pro-withdraw Democratic President, or elect a 2/3 majority of pro-withdraw Democrats to Congress. This is the ONLY way and orderly withdraw can be legislated and and safely executed over the will of pro-war Republican officials.

There are no other options, as there are no Republicans running on a platform to end the war.

Responsible people who want to see an orderly end to the war have only one option. Vote Democratic.

If you are one of the few who want the war to continue, vote Republican. But don't then try to put the blame on Democrats for not stopping the war. Because it will be YOUR Republican vote for pro-war Republicans that will keep Democrats from getting the Congressional votes and/or control of the veto required for an orderly withdraw to happen.

Take responsibility for the consequences of your own vote.

[imported_MPower]

I'm not getting into voting for or against the war. But if you think Democrats are doing everything fine, you are living in a delusional world.

In case you have not been following this discussion, the problem here is excess spending. Again, believe it or not, the Democrats do not have to pull out of Iraq to fix that. I guess the millions of dollars that Democrats float into the budget for pork cooling (or whatever strange things they are paying for now) are perfectly acceptable but because you have a personal problem with the war, the ONLY course of action to fix the problems is to get out of Iraq. Ignore everything that we fight for and your point starts to make sense but I am not ignoring those things.

Originally Posted by Nixon

Take responsibility for the consequences of your own vote.

This statement again pisses me off so much. What the hell makes you think that I don't? Or you? Dont even try and say that I am jumbling words on this one because clearly, here, you are putting yourself on some sort of political podium.

[ibeam81]

Both parties appear to be content on waiting until after the presidential election before making any major changes in Iraq. So we're talking 2009. In the meantime as MPower said above there are plenty of other areas to address with excess spending.

If you really want a wake-up call check out the GAO's report on the challenges that the country is facing:

http://www.gao.gov/21stcentury.html

[Nixon]

Originally Posted by MPower

the problem here is excess spending. Again, believe it or not, the Democrats do not have to pull out of Iraq to fix that. I guess the millions of dollars that Democrats float into the budget for pork cooling (or whatever strange things they are paying for now) are perfectly acceptable but because you have a personal problem with the war, the ONLY course of action to fix the problems is to get out of Iraq.

Are you claiming that 200 billion dollars of war spending can be offset by "millions of dollars" of pork? OK, let's do the math using 999 million dollars of pork. Republican and Democratic pork. Pork is definitely a bipartisan issue. So with bi-partisan cooperation, lets cut 999 million dollars of pork:

200,000,000,000
-999,000,000
------------------
199,001,000,000

Great! only 119 billion dollars to go! And only 427 more billion dollars of pork to get back to a balanced budget.

Pork sucks, I'm all for cutting pork. But pork is a rounding error on the bill to pay for the war in Iraq. Your claim that the problem of excess spending can be fixed by cutting pork is just laughable. There is no where near 200 billion dollars of non-military Pork that can be cut from spending. You are simply wrong on the numbers again. Wrong by a couple orders of magnitude.

Oh, and by the way, what category of spending do you think represents the largest sector of Pork spending? It's the DoD. Defense. The military. You know, the guys fighting the war you support. These come in what the Gov't calls "Defense Appropriations Earmarks". This is followed up quickly by Homeland Security. That's what you are talking about cutting when you talk about cutting pork. Defense and Homeland Security. Know what you are cutting.

Originally Posted by MPower

Ignore everything that we fight for and your point starts to make sense but I am not ignoring those things.

Now it is MY turn to be pissed off, because I SPECIFICALLY addressed going beyond the question of money in my own post above. (repost of my quote below) I'm not ignoring anything.

Originally Posted by Nixon

And no, the value of the dollar isn't the only consideration for stopping the war. But I think we should agree not to go further into those issues.

I just disagree with anyone who claims that the "War on Terror" is reducing the total number of global terrorists. If we want to talk about the 1,700% INCREASE in the number of terrorists between 2004 and the point that the US military stopped publishing that statistic, we can talk about that. Yes, I said seventeen-thousand percent increase in the number of terrorists. That is according to US military stats, not some lefty hacks. The war in Iraq being the biggest recruiting propaganda gift we could have ever given the terrorists.

There is a recruiting pool of 1.4 BILLION muslims world-wide for the terrorists. We MUST "win the war for hearts and minds", and that cannot happen through continued Iraqi occupation. Let's get out of the middle of the Iraq civil war and actually get down to winning the war on terror, starting with Afghanistan and winning the "war for hearts and minds".

So don't you dare try to paint me as somebody who would "ignore everything we fight for" just because I think attacking a nation that had nothing to do with the 9/11 attack, or WMD's, or al-Quaida prior to us invading them, was a bad tactical move in the War against Terror. And I take ownership of the Democratic bums I voted for that helped make that war happen. The mistake of invading Iraq was a bipartisan act.

BTW - it was you who opened the door on this going this direction. I asked that we should agree not to go this direction. So don't come back and say I'm the one getting away from finances.


As for my statement about taking responsibility for your own vote. I now more than ever stand behind that statement. Especially after that little stunt you tried -- telling me I'm ignoring what we fight for, and standing up on a pedestal and saying YOU do.

You now have repeatedly tried to push off all the blame on Democrats. Blame them for pork, Blame them for not stopping the war, blame them for not reducing the overspending. Did you vote Democrat? I know you didn't, so don't pretend you did. You are trying to shift blame from the folks you voted for to the people you didn't vote for. When you try to shift the blame away from the people you voted for, you ARE NOT taking responsibility for your own vote.

[imported_MPower]

Originally Posted by Nixon

Are you claiming that 200 billion dollars of war spending can be offset by "millions of dollars" of pork? OK, let's do the math using 999 million dollars of pork. Republican and Democratic pork. Pork is definitely a bipartisan issue. So with bi-partisan cooperation, lets cut 999 million dollars of pork:

200,000,000,000
-999,000,000
------------------
199,001,000,000

Great! only 119 billion dollars to go! And only 427 more billion dollars of pork to get back to a balanced budget.

Pork sucks, I'm all for cutting pork. But pork is a rounding error on the bill to pay for the war in Iraq. Your claim that the problem of excess spending can be fixed by cutting pork is just laughable. There is no where near 200 billion dollars of non-military Pork that can be cut from spending. You are simply wrong on the numbers again. Wrong by a couple orders of magnitude.

Oh, and by the way, what category of spending do you think represents the largest sector of Pork spending? It's the DoD. Defense. The military. You know, the guys fighting the war you support. These come in what the Gov't calls "Defense Appropriations Earmarks". This is followed up quickly by Homeland Security. That's what you are talking about cutting when you talk about cutting pork. Defense and Homeland Security. Know what you are cutting.

Congratulations on wasting probably 15 minutes of your time!

If you SERIOUSLY think that I was saying that 200 million in pork spending offsets 200 billion, you must think I am some sort of rolling ball of Jello (which you might anyway, but, at this point, I could really care less).

My point was addressing something you completely seem to want to ignore: the War on Terror is NOT (repeat: NOT) the only aspect of government's spending. To suggest that it is the ONLY area where excess spending can be eliminated is beyond laughable. The budget that the Democrats introduced for 2008 was so ridiculous it included billions of dollars for a vast number of different things. The excess spending that the Democrats have introduced in this Congress, the Congress that told us they were put into office to end the war, totals 2.9 trillion dollars, including increases in defense spending.

The dirty little secret in Washington is that anyone could end the budget deficit right here, right now. But they do not because of ridiculous commitments to programs like the Gay Cows Society which infuse close to 30 billion in earmarks alone.

To repeat: excess spending is not an issue unique to the War on Terror. Excess spending is an issue that has far more to do with the political "corruption" the occurs every day in the homeland rather than the War on Terror.

Originally Posted by Nixon

I just disagree with anyone who claims that the "War on Terror" is reducing the total number of global terrorists. If we want to talk about the 1,700% INCREASE in the number of terrorists between 2004 and the point that the US military stopped publishing that statistic, we can talk about that.

Hell, we dont even know how a reliable number for the amount of illegal immigrants in this country and you trying to tell me that we know the exact the number of terrorists in the world?

Originally Posted by Nixon

So don't you dare try to paint me as somebody who would "ignore everything we fight for" just because I think attacking a nation that had nothing to do with the 9/11 attack, or WMD's, or al-Quaida prior to us invading them, was a bad tactical move in the War against Terror.

Clearly you do when you say ridiculous things like this. The next thing you are going to tell me is that Iraq is worse off now than it was in 2002 with Saddam Hussein.

Originally Posted by Nixon

As for my statement about taking responsibility for your own vote. I now more than ever stand behind that statement.

The arrogance of the Democrats continues... If you do not vote Democrat, you are considered uninformed and "not taking responsibility".

Originally Posted by Nixon

You now have repeatedly tried to push off all the blame on Democrats. Blame them for pork, Blame them for not stopping the war, blame them for not reducing the overspending.

Forgive me if I sound a bit obvious here, but you are saying that I should vote Democrat to stop these things. So why on earth is it a problem that when they have the opportunity to do these things and dont do them, that I blame them for not following through with their promises?

[Nixon]

If you want to get back on topic, let's get back on topic. Here is the original quote of yours that I believe is false:

Originally Posted by MPower

A weak dollar certainly has its disadvantages but, as you say, it brings more manufacturing to the US which brings more jobs and increasing overall output.

Just as a reminder, here is my position:

Originally Posted by Nixon

Don't believe it when they tell you that the weak dollar isn't all that bad because it will revive the US manufacturing industry. It isn't that simple, and it isn't happening.

When we last talked about that, here was your defense for your statement:

Originally Posted by MPower

Regardless, I should point out that my statements with regards to US manufacturing increasing is a prediction, rather than a status-quo. Hence the recent article stating that VW is considering building a US production plant.

Which do you think is a better predictor of the near future for growth in the manufacturing sector? The OMB stats I presented showing the number of manufacturing jobs dropping by 3 million down to the levels back from the 1950's? Or the fact that VW is considering building a US production plant?

Based upon the evidence, I think it is more likely than not that the US manufacturing sector will continue to react to the fall of the dollar the same way it has over the last 7 years. Chances are slim for the rosy upside for US manufacturing that you predict happening in the near future, since the exact opposite has happened over the last 7 years. The numbers are undeniable.

Originally Posted by MPower

Still, while the value of the dollar is dropping in comparison to other currencies, you must remember that the value of the dollar is not an economic indicator for the strength of the US economy. The indicators are still GDP growth and employment which have all been improving for around the last five years. '

The value of the dollar IS ONE of the economic indicators of the strength of the US economy. That is ECON 101. In fact it is an integral part of GDP

Do you understand what GDP is measured with?GDP is calculated in dollars. That means when the value of the dollar slides, GDP slides with it. You cannot talk about GDP independently from the value of the US dollar, because GDP is measured in dollars. Since the value of the dollar has dropped by 50%, the real value of the GDP has also gone down in real value relative to other currencies by that same amount. The gains in GDP have not kept up with the drop in the value of the dollar.

Growth (or stagnation) in the economy does not back your claim that the weak dollar will bring more manufacturing jobs to the US.

Originally Posted by MPower

Using GM as an example of the declining manufacturing in the US as a direct result of the dollar simply is not accurate. Sure, it certainly plays a role but you can not tell me that GM is where it is now because the dollar has fallen with respect to the Euro.

I'm not saying that. I'm not saying that manufacturing is falling due to the fall of the dollar. I'm saying that it is a fact that manufacturing jobs have NOT risen like your rosy predictions claim they will with the fall of the dollar. GM is one example out of a trend of 3 million lost jobs. I'm not claiming a causal relationship between the value of the dollar and these facts on the ground. I'm just providing the statistics and an example that proves your theory wrong.

Nothing you have said here supports your claim that a decline in the dollar will lead to and increase in US manufacturing.

Originally Posted by MPower

Also, I should point out that while US manufacturing may decrease in the future, it should only serve as an indicator as the US economy continuing to transfer into a largely service-based economy. That allows the opprotunity to open the US to foreign manufacturing who receive better value.

Yes, if the current trends for the last 7 years continue, US manufacturing jobs will decrease. This is in direct contradiction of your claim that they will increase with the fall of the dollar.

A shift to a service-based economy would indicate that the manufacturing industry is not in the position to increase US production and take advantage of the weaker dollar. A shift to the service industry does not support your claim that the manufacturing economy will gain from a weaker dollar. The service industry traditionally does not see a boost due to currency changes in traditional models. Service is not sensitive to currency changes in traditional market models.

Originally Posted by MPower

Also, with this explanation, you must now agree that there are numerous factors at play with the US economy and that the value of the dollar in no single way is the defining factor.

"numerous factors at play with the US economy" has been MY claim from the beginning. Go back and read my first post. I'm the one saying from the beginning that there are numerous factors in play that are keeping YOUR original statement from being true. I listed 3 factors that is keeping US manufacturing from benefiting from a drop in the dollar. You ignored them all. You have not contradicted any of them. You have not acknowledged that these numerous factors contradict your claim that us manufacturing will gain from a weak dollar.


In conclusion. At best you have just helped me prove my point. In no case have you provided any support for your initial claim that:

Originally Posted by MPower

A weak dollar certainly has its disadvantages but, as you say, it brings more manufacturing to the US which brings more jobs and increasing overall output.

therefore, I stand 100% behind my position of:

Originally Posted by Nixon

Don't believe it when they tell you that the weak dollar isn't all that bad because it will revive the US manufacturing industry. It isn't that simple, and it isn't happening.

In the meantime, you have shown a complete lack of understanding of what is actually happening on the ground, in the market, and with statistics. You've presented faulty and incomplete data/charts. I think I'm done. I've proven my point.

[Nixon]

mpower - you are a completely worthless waste of skin.

In your last post you completely went through and misrepresented everything I said.

The increase in the number of terrorists is not MY number. The US MILITARY published those numbers. IF YOU DON'T LIKE THEIR STATS, TAKE IT UP WITH THE US MILITARY!!!

As for the rest of your post, "Gay Cows Society" taking 30 billion in earmarks? What the hell? No such thing exists. I guess if you have NO statistics to back yourself up, just make them up, eh? You have completely discredited yourself. Go hump yourself you worthless hack.

You KNOW I'm talking about cutting 200 billion dollars, and you decide to intentionally bring up pork that can never get anywhere near that amount. Why? Were you intentionally going completely off topic just to fuck with me?

Then you MAKE UP bullshit numbers and stuff like the "Gay Cows Society" in an attempt to claim that you really did believe there were 200 billion dollars in cuts elsewhere?

Go pork yourself.

[imported_MPower]

Originally Posted by Nixon

Which do you think is a better predictor of the near future for growth in the manufacturing sector? The OMB stats I presented showing the number of manufacturing jobs dropping by 3 million down to the levels back from the 1950's? Or the fact that VW is considering building a US production plant?

Based upon the evidence, I think it is more likely than not that the US manufacturing sector will continue to react to the fall of the dollar the same way it has over the last 7 years. Chances are slim for the rosy upside for US manufacturing that you predict happening in the near future, since the exact opposite has happened over the last 7 years. The numbers are undeniable.

I said that it should bring more manufacturing the United States. That has nothing do with what is happening now or in the last few years. And, as I mentioned before, the United States for the last few decades has been transitioning from a manufacturing-based economy to a technology and service-based economy. Surely you will not bemoan the demise of raw agricultural workers since the 1950s?

Regardless, we have had 50 straight months of job growth in the United States (a record). If the all powerful dollar was killing these businesses, you would not see unemployment rates below those of the "great" Clinton years.

The reason I originally mentioned manufacturing was because it was most prevalent to the topic at hand: cars. I then cited foreign businesses investing in the United States. I did not mention anything with regards to what has happened in the past in terms of numbers of manufacturing jobs. The phrase "it will bring more manufacturing to the US" denotes this. Again, what buys you 1 in the Europe, buys you 1.5 here.

A "weak" dollar also decreases on imports, and increases exports. I could be wrong, but some party continues to harp on a trade deficit. A weak dollar addresses that.

Originally Posted by Nixon

The value of the dollar IS ONE of the economic indicators of the strength of the US economy. That is ECON 101. In fact it is an integral part of GDP

You just admitted here that the value of the dollar is not an economic indicator. It is a unit of accounting which values GDP. But it is has ALWAYS been GDP (of course, measured in real dollars, not nominal) and employment that have been the main economic indicators. The value of the dollar (and the value of the dollar alone, not when used to calculate real GDP) does not indicate economic performance. Just because the dollar is down in value, it shows no correlation with economic performance. Hence, GDP up 4% in the last quarter and, again, 50 straight months of job growth.

Originally Posted by Nixon

II'm saying that it is a fact that manufacturing jobs have NOT risen like your rosy predictions claim they will with the fall of the dollar.

You must have some sort of crystal ball that allows you to see into the future. Because if you dont, I dont know how you are going to know for a fact that manufacturing will not increase in the next five years. Again, I do not make any statements about manufacturing jobs in the last five or ten years. I only say that a weak dollar encourages foreign industry to invest in the US economy because their currency allows them more purchasing power in the US than it did decades ago.

Originally Posted by Nixon

Yes, if the current trends for the last 7 years continue, US manufacturing jobs will decrease.

Riddle solved. I never knew "if" provided proof of a theory.

Originally Posted by Nixon

A shift to a service-based economy would indicate that the manufacturing industry is not in the position to increase US production and take advantage of the weaker dollar. A shift to the service industry does not support your claim that the manufacturing economy will gain from a weaker dollar. The service industry traditionally does not see a boost due to currency changes in traditional models. Service is not sensitive to currency changes in traditional market models.

I am making no correlations between service and currency, only explaining that the US has been transitioning to a service and technology based economy and the decline in manufacturing is indicative of that shift (note: nothing there relating currency and service industries).

Originally Posted by Nixon

"numerous factors at play with the US economy" has been MY claim from the beginning. Go back and read my first post. I'm the one saying from the beginning that there are numerous factors in play that are keeping YOUR original statement from being true. I listed 3 factors that is keeping US manufacturing from benefiting from a drop in the dollar. You ignored them all. You have not contradicted any of them. You have not acknowledged that these numerous factors contradict your claim that us manufacturing will gain from a weak dollar.

You continue to confuse my statements. I am not defending US industry. I am not here to say that GM is going to wake itself up because of the weak dollar. I am saying that the weak dollar will encourage foreign corporations to invest in the US economy because of their greater purchasing power. Here is what you said:

Originally Posted by Nixon

EU and Asian companies have chosen to combat the effect of a lower dollar by reducing their profit margin, reducing cost of production, and reducing financial overhead.

The last two are all inherent factors of any business that exists in competition. They are NOT unique to EU and Asian companies. Are you trying to tell me that companies like GM are NOT trying to reduce the cost of production?

Originally Posted by Nixon

In the meantime, you have shown a complete lack of understanding of what is actually happening on the ground, in the market, and with statistics. You've presented faulty and incomplete data/charts. I think I'm done. I've proven my point.

The typical liberal response to someone disagreeing with them: I won and my flip charts are better than yours!

Originally Posted by Nixon

mpower - fuck you.

You completely went through and misrepresented everything I said.

I'm not claiming the increase in terrorists. The US MILITARY published those numbers. And I said that. IF YOU DON'T LIKE THEIR STATS, TAKE IT UP WITH THEM!!!

Do you need a tissue or something?

I can't believe how fragile people's personalities are. You have really shown what kind of person you are here. You can not have a civil discussion with someone unless that someone agrees with you on everything. It is a shame that this type of discussion is resulting at every stretch of the country.

[imported_MPower]

Originally Posted by Nixon

As for the rest of your post, "Gay Cows Society" taking 30 billion in earmarks? What the hell? No such thing exists. I guess if you have NO statistics to back yourself up, just make them up, eh? You have completely discredited yourself. Go hump yourself you worthless hack.

You KNOW I'm talking about cutting 200 billion dollars, and you decide to intentionally bring up pork that can never get anywhere near that amount. Why? Were you intentionally going completely off topic just to fuck with me?

Then you MAKE UP bullshit numbers and stuff like the "Gay Cows Society" in an attempt to claim that you really did believe there were 200 billion dollars in cuts elsewhere?

Go pork yourself.

It's a joke! It's called exaggeration; have you ever heard of it? I can not believe that you would think that I seriously meant that the Gay Cows Society actually exists. I was expressing the point Congress is spending billions in completely random operations and that these problems are the tip of the iceberg for excess spending (again, pointing to the WOT not being the only place to solve the excess spending problem). The 30 billion in earmarks can be found here (incidentally, more pork):

http://www.heritage.org/Research/Budget/wm1541.cfm

This was part of the Democrat's record setting 2.7 trillion dollar budget for 2008.

[Bourne]

You guys crack me up. I have never seen a thread move so far off topic on any board with such BS.
I will see if I can come up with another topic and see if you can move it in a similar fashion.
BTW
George Soros believes in One World Order where currency will have no significant roll to play. He should have stayed behind the Iron Curtain. Oh yea, I forgot, that system collapsed.

[Nixon]

Originally Posted by MPower

I could be wrong

Yup, you are. Your long list of fallacies, flip-flops, and outright lies in your last 2 posts are too long to bother with. And by the long list of personal messages I've received agreeing with my statements, I'll end it here.

[imported_MPower]

Originally Posted by Nixon

And by the long list of personal messages I've received agreeing with my statements, I'll end it here.

Nothing beats a night at the computer like reading the classic "my friends are better than your friends" comment.

Listen, you may be right; you may be wrong. But rant like you have for the last few posts is ridiculous. This is just a discussion. I did not come into this discussion to "win" or "lose" but apparently you can not live with the fact that someone disagrees with you.

Get a tissue and grow up.

[abc]

nixon, i'm not well versed in currency history but i'm curious, would you know, did the value of the US dollar tank during past US 'wars/conflicts' during which the US had to fund a war? selling US bonds, etc?
in high school here we're taught (i was) wars help the economy... why isn't it helping in this case? also didnt Bush decide to not publish the M3 money supply figures any more? this is to hide how much USD is being printed into circulation isn't it.

[ibeam81]

Originally Posted by abc

nixon, i'm not well versed in currency history but i'm curious, would you know, did the value of the US dollar tank during past US 'wars/conflicts' during which the US had to fund a war? selling US bonds, etc?
in high school here we're taught (i was) wars help the economy... why isn't it helping in this case? also didnt Bush decide to not publish the M3 money supply figures any more? this is to hide how much USD is being printed into circulation isn't it.

Unfortunately saying that wars are good for the economy is a little simplistic. Although there can be an economic expansion during a war, normally it's after the war where you can see the biggest gains. Witness the "Roaring 20's" after the Great War (although ultimately there was the Market Crash and Great Depression) and better yet the boomtimes of the post-WWII era.

The current war is obviously good for the defense industries and contractors, but the taxpayers will ultimately have to foot the bill and I'm not expecting much of a post-war expansion due to other issues with our economy.

The lack of M3 data is disconcerning to say the least. I suspect that this period will provide vast amounts of cannon fodder for future econ dissertations.

[Garrett]

Originally Posted by WolfsburgerMitFries

I can't wait to see how pissed off everyone is gonna be when the real pricing hits. The dollar is tanking like a bitch, and its getting ready to screw alot of things up, not just Euro car prices.

Just be sure to go out and vote today, like me...

It's moot!

Only when BMW transfers the monies over to Germany, does it loose it's value. Since BMW will be building a few new plants here in the US, tthe profits gained will build those manufacturing facilities with NA revenue.

Thats why BMW is investing heavily in the US... it's cheaper for them to do so!





-Garrett

btw, people are buying more American goods, now that they are the cheapest available. A few years of this and we can re-establish that sector of our economy... Wall Street can wait a few years while the US builds itself back up!

[135i_]

It's sad to me how you want to make this war into an economic issue. It's not. That's not to say that the economic effects of the war should not be taken into account, but there are much more important things at stake here.

You are right that the Iraq war has become a recruiting tool for the radical islamists. What you failed to point out however, is that according to the NIE, a perceived victory for the extremists in Iraq would do far more damage than what we have already done to begin with.

Actually apparently some for the NIE from a while ago was declassified so I can post it here. Here you go:

"Should jihadists leaving Iraq perceive themselves, and be perceived, to have failed, we judge fewer fighters will be inspired to carry on the fight."

The thing is, our past weakness as perceived by the Jihadists is precisely what encouraged further attacks. Our failure to act in response to all of the attacks in the 90's is what made them believe that 9/11 would cripple us for good. The frequency of a major terrorist attack on a US target prior to 9/11 was about once a year. Since we went on the offensive after 9/11? None.

Also, you said that the Iraq war was funded entirely by supplementals. That is not true. For starters, those of us in the DOD get salaries that were part of the budget, I'd go into more detail but I have to go to work. I'll be back to continue the discussion later.

[Garrett]

Originally Posted by MPower

Forgive me if I sound a bit obvious here, but you are saying that I should vote Democrat to stop these things. So why on earth is it a problem that when they have the opportunity to do these things and dont do them, that I blame them for not following through with their promises?

+10

How people forget:
The USS Cole, the World Trade Towers and Embassy... all were bombed by Bin Laden... Don't remember Bill Clinton doing a damn thing about it. Should've sqashed that tyrant before he got cult leader status. So blame the Democrates for not going in and and circumventing this whole war...!

[imported_MPower]

Originally Posted by abc

in high school here we're taught (i was) wars help the economy... why isn't it helping in this case?

What indicators are you using to define economic performance? If your only justification for saying the "war isnt helping the economy" is that the value of the dollar is going down, that really is not saying much about the economy itself. Inherently, wars help the economy because government increases spending. Government spending is good for GDP.

And, if you do go back to the dollar as an indicator of "not helping the economy", understand that the war is not the only part of the government's budget, a point that I have been making throughout this thread. You can still fight the war and take the reigns on out of control spending.