GDP versus net GDP

[RoccoR]

Dr.Who, et al,

This is not meant to be argumentative; but more inductive.

The purpose of gov is to stop people from harming each other. In any capitalism the people who live there would establish a gov to make sure that commerce occurs with a rule of law.

(COMMENT)

I do not necessarily disagree on the intent.

My observation is that, nearly any shifty financial and business slight of hand is ignored by the government just as long as it remains latent. As long as there is an appearance of propriety, then it is allow to continue until it collapses. Examples of scandals are:

• Adelphia Communications
• AOL Time Warner
• Bristol-Myers Squibb
• CMS Energy
• Duke Energy
• Dynegy
• Enron
• Global Crossing
• Halliburton
• Homestore.com
• Kmart
• Merck
• Mirant
• Nicor Energy
• Peregrine Systems
• Qwest Communications International
• Reliant Energy
• Tyco
• WorldCom
• Xerox

This is not to mention the Banking Scandals and Bailouts, the Auto Industry Bailouts and the FannyMae/FreddyMac Scandals.

None of these events were patriotic in nature or subject to proper government oversight. They are a result of the mantra that you "maximize the wealth of the shareholder." They were just plain greedy; and they did not care how many people they hurt in the process. And each one of the principals were pillars of the community, respected names.

The private sector is made up of millions of individuals each with morals and a conscience - and often patriotism. In the US there are literally hundreds of thousands of corporations that exist solely to do good. Additionally there are millions more that have mission statements which include the idea that the company exist in part to do good. Furthermore, companies that do not exist at least in part to do good suffer a disadvantage in a capitalism and might just go out of business. This is why so many of your cereal boxes have little "box tops for education" cutouts on them that are collected by schools and turned in for cash.

(COMMENT)

Understood. Valid point.

The majority of companies in the us do not have shareholders. The majority are small businesses owned by individuals and families who share with the local boy scouts and the local little league teams and the...

(COMMENT)

Today, that is correct. We are in agreement.

But, every time I hear this raised as a point of construct, I what for the unspoken truth to be heard. Most of the large business are gone. That is what makes the small businesses so important. The large industries are gone the way of US Steel,

IBM, Microsoft, Apple Inc. and Intel. --- ExxonMobil, Wal-Mart, Google, Microsoft, General Electric, General Motors, Citigroup and Goldman Sachs, just type in a GoogleSearch Window, any one of these names followed by the word "outsourcing." And remember, Google, Citigroup and Goldman Sachs don't build anything.

However, manufacturing as a share of the economy has been plummeting. In 1965, manufacturing accounted for 53 percent of the economy. By 1988 it only accounted for 39 percent, and in 2004, it accounted for just 9 percent.

The Eradication of the U.S. Industrial Base Worsened by the Crisis
The U.S. military risks not being able to field an army if Congress does not start addressing the loss of the American industrial base by reforming tax laws to encourage domestic production. “The defense of our country is in perilous state,” according to Col. Michael Cole, deputy chief of staff at the Joint Enabling Command of the U.S. Joint Forces Command. “The message of the few who are aware of the problem is not reaching the key government decision makers.”

The loss of industry is going to have an impact on more than just the standard of living and the economy. If the economy doesn't start generating jobs soon, there will not be enough disposable income to support the small businesses that barely keep the US afloat now.

If you owned a business would that statement be true of yours? Would you not care? Do you have a job or have you ever or do you intend to ever have a job? If yes then in a sense you are a business owner. And the purpose of your business is to trade your labor for cash. Did your or would you trade your labor without any care? Or did you, would you, perform your job with morals and as a productive member of society?

(COMMENT)

Your point is well taken. I hope that I will never be that greddy or anti-American.

• The US has lost approximately 42,400 factories since 2001.
• As of the end of 2009, less than 12 million Americans worked in manufacturing. The last time less than 12 million Americans were employed in manufacturing was in 1941.
• Manufacturing employment in the U.S. computer industry is actually lower in 2010 than it was in 1975.
• The U.S. Census Bureau says that 43.6 million Americans are now living in poverty and according to them that is the highest number of poor Americans in the 51 years that records have been kept.

SOURCE: http://theeconomiccollapseblog.com/...alization-of-america-that-will-blow-your-mind

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[Gipper]

I can understand and agree with much of what you state RoccoR.

But, America is STILL the largest manufacturing nation on the planet. Yes, we have lost much in manufacturing. This is due to a number of factors including improvements in technology and burdensome costs and regulations imposed by an omnipresent federal government forcing big business to find friendlier locales.

And, before you jump off the cliff realize that Chinese imports to America is very small in relation to the entire economy. According to Mish's calculations Chinese imports only make up about 3% of total US spending.

http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com/2011/08/made-in-china-only-27-of-us-spending.html

 

[ProudLefty]

I can understand and agree with much of what you state RoccoR.

But, America is STILL the largest manufacturing nation on the planet. Yes, we have lost much in manufacturing. This is due to a number of factors including improvements in technology and burdensome costs and regulations imposed by an omnipresent federal government forcing big business to find friendlier locales.

And, before you jump off the cliff realize that Chinese imports to America is very small in relation to the entire economy. According to Mish's calculations Chinese imports only make up about 3% of total US spending.

http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com/2011/08/made-in-china-only-27-of-us-spending.html

I like your graph and what it is saying. America is not broke, and America is not broken. The recent crisis was totally and completely a wacko job designed to scare the soccer moms.

We need demand, which means we need spending money being spent.

 

[Gipper]

I like your graph and what it is saying. America is not broke, and America is not broken. The recent crisis was totally and completely a wacko job designed to scare the soccer moms.

We need demand, which means we need spending money being spent.

Designed to scare the soccer moms????

Spend money??? Well it depends on where that money comes from and how it is spent. If the money being spent is by government, it will fail just as BO's stimulus plan failed. Keynesian economic policy is a complete failure, but BO and his friends are not bright enough to figure that out. All they know is Keynesian economics...that is the only economic theory they teach at the Ivy League....

So, the money must be spent by the private sector. They will not spend when the government is too big, powerful, and unpredictable...

 

[Dr.Who]

My observation is that, nearly any shifty financial and business slight of hand is ignored by the government just as long as it remains latent. As long as there is an appearance of propriety, then it is allow to continue until it collapses. Examples of scandals are:

• Adelphia Communications
• AOL Time Warner
• Bristol-Myers Squibb
• CMS Energy
• Duke Energy
• Dynegy
• Enron
• Global Crossing
• Halliburton
• Homestore.com
• Kmart
• Merck
• Mirant
• Nicor Energy
• Peregrine Systems
• Qwest Communications International
• Reliant Energy
• Tyco
• WorldCom
• Xerox

Looking at that list and taking one more or less at random I found that regarding Global Crossing: There are charges of dishonest accounting, fraudulent swapping of assets and liabilities...

If the company broke the law and is harming people then it is the govs job to prosecute them. If you believe that most cases of unlawful harmful scandal are not being prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law then that shows us that government is not doing its job. Should we extend the reach and authority of gov which cannot handle the job it is tasked with doing now? Or should we limit its role more precisely so that it can focus like a laser beam on doing what it should be doing?

When the police fail to catch the robbers do we expand the job of policemen to include more visits to teach kindergardeners about condoms or do we tell the police to focus on walking the beat?

 

[RoccoR]

Dr Who, et al,

I often don't make the proper connections in these discussions. In this case my point was the the rich and powerful, having influence over government leadership, misdirect legislation that would focus resources on the issues at hand. The sheer number of events demonstrates that this is a systemic problem, and not just a random criminal act. Through these influences, government leaders have demonstrated misfeasance, malfeasance and nonfeasance over a sustained period.

Looking at that list and taking one more or less at random I found that regarding Global Crossing: There are charges of dishonest accounting, fraudulent swapping of assets and liabilities...

(COMMENT)

True, and were helped by major accounting firms.

These slights of hand demonstrate just how far the American Business Practice has sunk in terms of honest, integrity and moral values. The magnitude of the damage doe, shows just how dangerous unrestrained capitalism (maximize the wealth of the shareholder) has become.

If the company broke the law and is harming people then it is the govs job to prosecute them. If you believe that most cases of unlawful harmful scandal are not being prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law then that shows us that government is not doing its job. Should we extend the reach and authority of gov which cannot handle the job it is tasked with doing now? Or should we limit its role more precisely so that it can focus like a laser beam on doing what it should be doing?

(COMMENT)

There are two issues here:

• What is in the best interest of the nation as a whole?
• Is honesty, integrity, moral values and patriotism part of a sound business practices?

Government generally does not intervene because "people" run the government. These are people that have something to gain. We (as a nation) bailed-out the Auto Industry and the Banking Industry - FreddyMac and FannyMae because the rich and powerful had too much to lose.

In the recent debt ceiling struggle, there were many outspoken and influential people that advocated defaulting on the debt payments. This is a far cry from the ethics of my father who taught me a hand shake and my word were the bond of a man.

When the police fail to catch the robbers do we expand the job of policemen to include more visits to teach kindergardeners about condoms or do we tell the police to focus on walking the beat?

(COMMENT)

Your implication is true; no question. We change the focus (to Walking the Beat). Having acknowledged that, my point is different.

Business and Capitalism --- reinvestment in the nation, instilling honesty, patriotism, and integrity need to be revitalized. We should not not have to police it, we need a nation of people that want to rebuild America --- awaken the sleeping giant!

We need to replace these aging and crony fostering political elite members of Congress that have not one interest in making America strong.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[Dr.Who]

Dr Who, et al,

I often don't make the proper connections in these discussions. In this case my point was the the rich and powerful, having influence over government leadership, misdirect legislation that would focus resources on the issues at hand. The sheer number of events demonstrates that this is a systemic problem, and not just a random criminal act. Through these influences, government leaders have demonstrated misfeasance, malfeasance and nonfeasance over a sustained period.

​

(COMMENT)

When a rich company approaches or is approached by a congressman and the two strike a deal to line their own pockets at the expense of the American people who is to blame? And who can we prosecute. There are millions of businesses in this country and what was said to whom is very hard to prove. But there are only a few hundred congressmen and it is much easier and ethical to watch them for criminal acts and to prosecute them (and then the business) for criminal acts rather than to regulate every aspect of business in the country.

These slights of hand demonstrate just how far the American Business Practice has sunk in terms of honest, integrity and moral values. The magnitude of the damage doe, shows just how dangerous unrestrained capitalism (maximize the wealth of the shareholder) has become.

​

(COMMENT)

When a business commits fraud or other harm by being dishonest, etc then let's prosecute them. But what we cannot do is to legislate or regulate integrity and values - after all we all disagree on just what those values are.

• What is in the best interest of the nation as a whole?

• 
  
  Our constitution was created for a moral and religious people and can serve no other. What is best for America is for all citizens to be genuine Christians.
  
  But since we can't and should not regulate that the sole purpose of gov is to stop people from violating each others rights.
  
  
  

  [*]Is honesty, integrity, moral values and patriotism part of a sound business practices?

I would agree that patriotism is a sound business practice but if a company choses not to be partriotic it would be wrong to regulate it into them.

In the recent debt ceiling struggle, there were many outspoken and influential people that advocated defaulting on the debt payments. This is a far cry from the ethics of my father who taught me a hand shake and my word were the bond of a man.

I doubt there were hardly any who wanted to default. We were never in danger of defaulting. It was always just rhetoric.