ATTENTION: The Boards will be closed permanently on May 28th, 2014. Posting will be disabled on April 28th, 2014. More Info

This Is Why There Are No Jobs in America

FleetAdmiral_BamBam

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 46314

Report this Jul. 07 2012, 10:15 pm

Quote: Gibmaticus @ Jul. 07 2012, 6:38 pm

>

>Porter Stansberry is a grifter and those who would swallow his pabulum are gulls.  There's always a grifter with a come-on, stroking you, massaging your fears and prejudices, telling you what you want to hear.  Before you know it, he's extracted money from you and you think you actually got something for that cash.  People who read Stansberry are called "marks".  I couldn't make it through the whole piece, it's just such by-the-numbers nonsense.  Big, bad Uncle Sam taking the money of the hard-working entrepreneur, it's not fair!  Regulation - bad, freedom - good!  All I want to do is be in business but the govt. won't let me!  Taxes are unfair!  blahblahblahblah.........

>Listen up,  rear admiral boomboom, whatever your name is.  Tax cuts do not create jobs, wealth is being redistributed upward at a higher rate than ever, entrepreneurs go to banks to get loans to start businesses, they are not risking their own money, all free societies tax their citizens and have always done so, in the past in this nation high tax rates have accompanied high production, tax rates do not depress production, markets create jobs, not politicians, and you and the rest of the wingnuts on this and every other thread don't know what the hell you're talking about!  Your business acumen is straight outta FAUX News, you don't deal in facts, you deal in the same old, tired GOP ideology that has gotten this nation absolutely nowhere.  You want to do something positive for yourself?  You want to understand what's really going on??

>Read Krugman. 

>
Wow.... anyone have any hipwaders for all that BS?


And then s/he ended it with where they got their lobotomy.... Krugman.


 


 


Anyone that wants to learn about economics from people that actually think, read Adam Smith, Dr. Walter Williams, Ludwig von Mises, Professor Thomas Sowell, Friedrich Hayek, Murray Rothbard and Milton Friedman for starters.


K0rN99

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 206

Report this Jul. 07 2012, 11:20 pm

America is best known for its entertainment value. It teaches young girls and boys that you can grow up being a dancer or a singer and has sold this concept throughout the world. I have this theory that america is like a wave to other countries currupting the minds, look at the history of thailand; in a few short years they managed to evolve from traditional values to prostitution and media networking.


There is a debate that China is gaining power by ruling most of consumerism and building factories which sell whole goods (buying low selling high). Americans politicians are quick to say that America too has evolved as a country selling concepts to the world.


America has much to blame for the job lose. There are more foreign investors owning american companies, more people wanting to buy the ideal life and sell their soul to consumerism.

K0rN99

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 206

Report this Jul. 07 2012, 11:38 pm

intersting article that touches on the subject in more detail


INTRODUCTION


As the world is turning into a Global Village and new products from abroad are finding their way into the country, the trend of consumption by our native people is slowly changing. They are becoming more prone to buying


International brands than the local ones since the influence by the western world is getting stronger day by day.The globalization of markets has created complex and intertwined sourcing and marketing strategies. If any bias resulting from these strategies is present in the buying decision, then manufacturers, exporters, importers, distributors, and other channel intermediaries must pay close attention to how this affects their businesses and use proper strategies to respond to this phenomenon (Saeed Samiee, 1994)


The concept called globalization has leaded various firms to operate on a global level which has brought changes in consumer buying behavior and his knowledge. Consumers are now more aware of other cultures, lifestyles and brands due to international travel and satellite television. It has now been observed that consumers buy foreign brands more frequently than the local ones. They feel proud in purchasing imported goods which has increased the power of global brands.


It is a general perception that consumers consider only “made in...” factor while purchasing a foreign brand. But the fact is that there are various other factors involved in the process of product evaluations.


Studies show that consumers of developing countries prefer foreign brands, especially from the west, for reasons not only of perceived quality but also of social status. Thus a brand’s country of origin serves as a “quality halo” or summary of product quality (cf. Han, 1989), and people buy such brands for status-enhancing reasons. Quality is conceptualized in terms of the “superiority” or “excellence” of a product’s performance (Zeithmal, 1988).


Demographics (income, education, occupation and family background) also determine the consumer’s lifestyle and purchase pattern. Magnar and Hulpke (1990) found that demographics substantially determine the exposure to, and thus the purchase of expensive foreign goods.


In developing countries like Pakistan, social classes also show noticeable brand preference. It has been observed that the elite class and the upper-middle class go towards expensive foreign brands more frequently to make a prominent position in the society, as ours is a status conscious society. Lower classes on the other hand, take the international brands as a luxury.


The objective of this study is therefore to examine some of the influences such as consumer ethnocentrism, the role of social influences like advertising, celebrity endorsements, peer groups and family in affecting consumer’s perception and evaluations of these brands.

caltrek2

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 2654

Report this Jul. 08 2012, 6:53 am

[quote]


*Stretch* Morning... Um... Ok, what was going on?


[/quote]


BamBamclaims that he cannot reason with me. He does not accept evidence that I present. He beleives that CRA is to blame for our financial situation:


My response:


Here are the regulations in question.  Please find the language that mandates what you claim:


 


 


http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text/text-idx?c=ecfr&sid=9df80b8a4a49835f74d6b04f2a652ec1&tpl=/ecfrbrowse/Title12/12cfr25_main_02.tpl


 


Here are citations from a variety of linked sources on the subject:


 


“Most analysts see the sub-prime crisis as a market failure. Believing the bubble would never pop, lenders approved risky adjustable-rate mortgages, often without considering whether borrowers could afford them; families took on those loans; investors bought them in securitized form; and, all the while, regulators sat on their hands…


 


CRA applies only to banks and thrifts that are federally insured; it's conceived as a quid pro quo for that privilege, among others. This means the law doesn't apply to independent mortgage companies (or payday lenders, check-cashers, etc.)”


 


Source:


 


 


http://www.prospect.org/cs/articles?article=did_liberals_cause_the_subprime_crisis


 


In reality, the precise opposite of what a CRA-induced collapse should have looked like is what occurred. The 345 mortgage brockers that imploded were non-banks, not covered by the CRA legislation.  The vast majority of CRA covered banks are actually healthy.


The biggest foreclosure areas aren’t Harlem or Chicago’s South side or DC slums or inner city Philly; Rather, it hs been non-CRA regions —  the Sand States - such as  aouthern California,  Las Vegas, Arizona, and South Florida. The closest thing to an inner city foreclosure story is  Detroit -  and maybe the bankruptcy of GM and Chrysler actually had something to do with that.


 


Source:


 


http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2009/06/cra-thought-experiment/


 


 


Although the current problems appear to be rooted in high-risk subprime lending, I would like to dispel the notion that these problems were caused in any way by Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) lending.  The CRA is designed to promote lending in low- to moderate-income areas; it is not designed to encourage high-risk lending or poor underwriting.  Our analysis of the data finds no evidence, in fact, that CRA lending is in any way responsible for the current crisis.  In our analysis of loan originations, we found that approximately 60 percent of higher-priced loans went to middle- or higher-income borrowers or neighborhoods, which are populations not targeted by the CRA.  Additionally, more than 20 percent of the higher-priced loans that were extended in low- to moderate-income areas, or to low- to moderate-income borrowers, were loans originated by lenders not covered by the CRA.  In fact, the analysis found that only 6 percent of all higher-priced loans were made by CRA-covered lenders to borrowers and neighborhoods targeted by the CRA.  This very small share makes it hard to imagine how CRA could have caused, or even contributed in a meaningful way, to the current crisis.  Further support for this conclusion comes from our finding that serious delinquency rates for subprime loans are high in all neighborhood-income categories, not only those in lower-income areas, as might be thought if the CRA were a contributing force to the subprime crisis.


 


Source:


 


http://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/speech/duke20090216a.htm


 


The Community Reinvestment Act, passed in 1977, requires banks to lend in the low-income neighborhoods where they take deposits. Just the idea that a lending crisis created from 2004 to 2007 was caused by a 1977 law is silly. But it’s even more ridiculous when you consider that most subprime loans were made by firms that aren’t subject to the CRA. University of Michigan law professor Michael Barr testified back in February before the House Committee on Financial Services that 50% of subprime loans were made by mortgage service companies not subject comprehensive federal supervision and another 30% were made by affiliates of banks or thrifts which are not subject to routine supervision or examinations. As former Fed Governor Ned Gramlich said in an August, 2007, speech shortly before he passed away: “In the subprime market where we badly need supervision, a majority of loans are made with very little supervision. It is like a city with a murder law, but no cops on the beat.”


Not surprisingly given the higher degree of supervision, loans made under the CRA program were made in a more responsible way than other subprime loans. CRA loans carried lower rates than other subprime loans and were less likely to end up securitized into the mortgage-backed securities that have caused so many losses, according to a recent study by the law firm Traiger & Hinckley (PDF file here).


Source:


http://www.businessweek.com/investing/insights/blog/archives/2008/09/community_reinv.html


 


Analysis of federal mortgage records shows that only 25% of the subprime mortgages that are now causing the collapse of the credit markets were originated by CRA-regulated institutions.


The remaining 75% of subprime mortgages were originated by independent mortgage brokers such as Ameriquest and Argent, or by lightly-regulated subsidiaries of large banks…


 


In addition, many of the top players in the mortgage crisis that have gone bankrupt or received a government bailout: Bear Stearns, AIG, Lehman, Merrill Lynch, and IndyMac, as well as the failed hedge funds, are not bound by CRA regulations.


 


Source:


 


 


http://www.greenlining.org/resources/pdfs/ForeclosureCrisis.pdf


 


Just to repeat the basic facts here:


1. The Community Reinvestment Act of 1977 was irrelevant to the subprime boom, which was overwhelmingly driven by loan originators not subject to the Act.



Of course, I imagine that this post, like everything else, will fail to penetrate the cone of silence. It’s convenient to believe that somehow, this is all Barney Frank’s fault; and so that belief will continue.


Source:


http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/06/03/things-everyone-in-chicago-knows/


 


 


 


 

caltrek2

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 2654

Report this Jul. 08 2012, 7:02 am

@ KOrN99:


I thought you might find this factoid of interest:


"After Nixon's 1972 trip the first major order the Chinese government placed was for thirteen massive fertilizer factories. Without them, China would probalby have starved"


-Michale Pollan in The Omnivore's Dilema, page 43.


 

I am boldly going

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 1

Report this Jul. 08 2012, 4:44 pm

If only life was that of someone living in the 24 century, it seemed like everyone had something to do.

Invader_Wishfire

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 27518

Report this Jul. 08 2012, 7:56 pm

I'm still waiting for a reason to believe that the initial post is in any way true.

Maybe someone can start by explaining why, if there are no jobs in America, illegal immigrants continue to stream here for work.

Corwin8

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 8468

Report this Jul. 09 2012, 11:39 am

Quote: Invader_Wishfire @ Jul. 08 2012, 7:56 pm

>I'm still waiting for a reason to believe that the initial post is in any way true. Maybe someone can start by explaining why, if there are no jobs in America, illegal immigrants continue to stream here for work.

Let the bridges I burn light the way. You are special, just like everybody else. Calling an illegal alien an ‘undocumented immigrant’ is like calling a drug dealer an ‘unlicensed pharmacist’

Invader_Wishfire

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 27518

Report this Jul. 10 2012, 9:34 am

Quote: Corwin8 @ Jul. 09 2012, 11:39 am

Quote: Invader_Wishfire @ Jul. 08 2012, 7:56 pm

>

>I'm still waiting for a reason to believe that the initial post is in any way true. Maybe someone can start by explaining why, if there are no jobs in America, illegal immigrants continue to stream here for work.


I love how the report itself (linked to in that article) says that figures are based in part on "estimates." These estimates themselves are based on there being fewer apprehension of border crossers at the border itself, which, according to the report, is "a likely indication that fewer unauthorized migrants are trying to cross." Key phrase: likely indication. In other words, they think that's a reason.


The report also says that deportations have risen to record levels: "A growing share of unauthorized Mexican immigrants sent home by U.S. authorities had been in the United States for a year or more—27% in 2010, up from 6% in 2005. Also, 17% were apprehended at work or at home in 2010, compared with just 3% in 2005." In other words, our immigration officers are doing a better job.


Finally, the report says that another reason for the decline of Mexican illegals has nothing to do with us, but with Mexico itself: "As of 2009, a typical Mexican woman was projected to have an average 2.4 children in her lifetime, compared with 7.3 for her 1960 counterpart." Fewer children being born means fewer adults trying to cross later on.


Of course, this deals with only Mexican illegal immigrants; while Mexicans do make up the majority of illegal immigrants, they aren't the only ones.


 photo spok_zps253ab564.gif

FleetAdmiral_BamBam

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 46314

Report this Jul. 10 2012, 11:15 am

How's that "recovery" working out for the ProRegressives????


 


Corwin8

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 8468

Report this Jul. 11 2012, 6:00 am

Quote: Invader_Wishfire @ Jul. 10 2012, 9:34 am

Quote: Corwin8 @ Jul. 09 2012, 11:39 am

Quote: Invader_Wishfire @ Jul. 08 2012, 7:56 pm

>

>

>I'm still waiting for a reason to believe that the initial post is in any way true. Maybe someone can start by explaining why, if there are no jobs in America, illegal immigrants continue to stream here for work.

I love how the report itself (linked to in that article) says that figures are based in part on "estimates." These estimates themselves are based on there being fewer apprehension of border crossers at the border itself, which, according to the report, is "a likely indication that fewer unauthorized migrants are trying to cross." Key phrase: likely indication. In other words, they think that's a reason.

The report also says that deportations have risen to record levels: "A growing share of unauthorized Mexican immigrants sent home by U.S. authorities had been in the United States for a year or more—27% in 2010, up from 6% in 2005. Also, 17% were apprehended at work or at home in 2010, compared with just 3% in 2005." In other words, our immigration officers are doing a better job.

Finally, the report says that another reason for the decline of Mexican illegals has nothing to do with us, but with Mexico itself: "As of 2009, a typical Mexican woman was projected to have an average 2.4 children in her lifetime, compared with 7.3 for her 1960 counterpart." Fewer children being born means fewer adults trying to cross later on.

Of course, this deals with only Mexican illegal immigrants; while Mexicans do make up the majority of illegal immigrants, they aren't the only ones.


That's just the first article I grabbed. I could continue to post the results Google found for me, but why bother. On one point however, you seem remarkably uninformed. 


Border enforcement is a joke and everyone, with the exception of 'head in the sand' libtards know this. The border patrol is using beanbags and the drug dealers are using Fast and Furious Hardware we gave them. 


http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/07/10/closure-border-patrol-stations-across-four-states-triggers-alarm/


But it's Fox News so you'll just say it's made up shit, anyway.


http://www.foxnews.com/us/2011/03/03/fbi-report-raises-concerns-border-agents-facing-bullets-bean-bags-609544203/


 


So enjoy the fantasy that the USBP is working fine as they close stations and arm the agents with bean bag guns. 


 


Let the bridges I burn light the way. You are special, just like everybody else. Calling an illegal alien an ‘undocumented immigrant’ is like calling a drug dealer an ‘unlicensed pharmacist’

caltrek2

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 2654

Report this Jul. 12 2012, 6:16 pm

Regarding the graph presented by BamBam:


Remember that "civilian" usually menas "non-military".  So this chart most likely includes non-military government employess.  The chart thus reflects the fact that during the last year of Bush's presidency, employment in both the public sector and the private sector dropped.


During the Obama presidency, gains in private sector employment were offset by losses in public sector employment.  So folks that have advocated shrinking the public sector and growing the private sector now seem to be complaining about the loss of jobs. Didn't they realize the jobs in the public sector count toward employment levels?


 


 

Invader_Wishfire

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 27518

Report this Jul. 12 2012, 8:14 pm

Corwin, I used the very same report the article you linked to used. If you're going to argue against that, then you're arguing against yourself. Fine by me, but I have to ask... Did you even read it?

caltrek2

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 2654

Report this Jul. 14 2012, 7:52 am

Corwin,


If border enfrocement is such a joke, then why does the article you cited state the following:


"A tougher-to-cross southern border, President Barack Obama’s aggressive deportation program, America’s weak economy, Mexico’s sharply-declining birthrate and improved job prospects south of the border are all factors in the dramatically changed migration flow, according to Pew.


Nearly 400,000 illegals, most of them Mexicans, were caught and deported in 2010, a sharp rise.


Meanwhile, heavily fortified sections of the southern border have driven prices charged by ‘coyotes’ – the smugglers who secret illegals across – up as high as $4,000. That not only deters many, but it makes the old pattern of easy, cross-border movement far more expensive."


Invader Wishfire has asked you if you even read the report (I personally have not). I have to wonder whether you even read the article?

xnareshx

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 1

Report this Oct. 31 2012, 6:02 pm

Porter Stansberry released an inforgraphic about this topic... just in time for the Election.


Here's the link to watch the four-minute video, titled, "Why There Are No New Jobs In America."


http://www.stansberryresearch.com/pro/stansberryradio.asp#

Forum Permissions

You cannot post new topics in this forum

You cannot reply to topics in this forum

You cannot delete posts in this forum