Originally Posted by KatzPajamas

OK, I hear you. Can you support these statements?

There is a net outflow of cash. The net outflow is called the current account. This is money that ceases to circulate in the United States. Hence less opportunity. Purchases of T-bills by the Chinese and others can't compete with our massive purchases of Saudi Oil and foreign cars.

The current account is published weekly in the Economist on the last page.

I invite your questions. I would be glad to research this further.

Originally Posted by tonyafd

Now that I have your attention.
You passed judgement before you read it. That is why I faulted you.
I submit to you that the growth is taking place overseas.

First; you tossed an insult at me that implies more venom on your part than in relation to this particular thread, and that was uncalled for and a rather classless move on your part. No matter how you want to try to wiggle out of it, you tossed an gratuitous and personal insult my way.

Second, there was enough information proffered by VK about the article to give me a good synopsis of what the subject was about, and after reading the complete article I was proved correct in what I expected was the erroneous and partisan conclusion of Mr. Reich.

I don't know what your thinking is on about where the "growth" is taking place. Growth can happen anywhere. It can and will happen here if the Federal Government would get out of the way of business. Because "I" have money doesn't mean there is less for "you". That's just plain ridiculous.

Originally Posted by RichieLion

First; you tossed an insult at me that implies more venom on your part than in relation to this particular thread, and that was uncalled for and a rather classless move on your part. No matter how you want to try to wiggle out of it, you tossed an gratuitous and personal insult my way.

Second, there was enough information proffered by VK about the article to give me a good synopsis of what the subject was about, and after reading the complete article I was proved correct in what I expected was the erroneous and partisan conclusion of Mr. Reich.

I don't know what your thinking is on about where the "growth" is taking place. Growth can happen anywhere. It can and will happen here if the Federal Government would get out of the way of business. Because "I" have money doesn't mean there is less for "you". That's just plain ridiculous.

So you are right and Robert Reich a professor of economics at Brandeis, Harvard and UCLA is wrong. You've got to be kidding.

This growth that I am talking about is taking place in China, India, Malaysia, and other Asian nations at the expense of the American middle class. There is a finite amount of demand for goods and services and those are decreasingly being provided by Americans. It's not government regulation, it's the fact that Indians will work for a fifth of what Americans will work for.

You want to solve complex economic problems with FOX News bytes. That just doesn't cut it.

I got you angry. I have your attention. Give me solid economic reasons why I should accept your arguments as realistic.

Originally Posted by tonyafd

So you are right and Robert Reich a professor of economics at Brandeis, Harvard and UCLA is wrong. You've got to be kidding.

This growth that I am talking about is taking place in China, India, Malaysia, and other Asian nations at the expense of the American middle class. There is a finite amount of demand for goods and services and those are decreasingly being provided by Americans. It's not government regulation, it's the fact that Indians will work for a fifth of what Americans will work for.

You want to solve complex economic problems with FOX News bytes. That just doesn't cut it.

I got you angry. I have your attention. Give me solid economic reasons why I should accept your arguments as realistic.

Oh, so you think that someone who has spent his whole life in an Ivy Tower should know how to solve world's financial problems? Did you know that 8% of Obama cabinet has private sector experience? How is that working out?

Originally Posted by tonyafd

So you are right and Robert Reich a professor of economics at Brandeis, Harvard and UCLA is wrong. You've got to be kidding.

This growth that I am talking about is taking place in China, India, Malaysia, and other Asian nations at the expense of the American middle class. There is a finite amount of demand for goods and services and those are decreasingly being provided by Americans. It's not government regulation, it's the fact that Indians will work for a fifth of what Americans will work for.

You want to solve complex economic problems with FOX News bytes. That just doesn't cut it.

I got you angry. I have your attention. Give me solid economic reasons why I should accept your arguments as realistic.

I'm through with any meaningful discussion with you until you apologize for your boorishness. End of story.

I haven't laughed this much on this forum since...EVER!

Originally Posted by KatzPajamas

I haven't laughed this much on this forum since...EVER!

I know, it is a hoot tonight, huh? My face is hurting from laughing so much.

Originally Posted by villagegolfer

I know, it is a hoot tonight, huh? My face is hurting from laughing so much.

What the difference between a liberal and the rear end of a horse?
I don't know either.

Q: What's the difference between Obama's cabinet and a penitentiary?

A: One is filled with blackmailers, tax-evaders, and threats to society. The other's for housing prisoners.

Originally Posted by villagegolfer

Q: What's the difference between Obama's cabinet and a penitentiary?

A: One is filled with blackmailers, tax-evaders, and threats to society. The other's for housing prisoners.

Oh, that's so hateful! but funny as heck!

Originally Posted by villagegolfer

Oh, so you think that someone who has spent his whole life in an Ivy Tower should know how to solve world's financial problems? Did you know that 8% of Obama cabinet has private sector experience? How is that working out?

He certainly knows more than his critics on this thread. Does anyone know that Karl Rove was calling some of the economic shots in the Bush administration? It's in Paul O'Niel's book. Really.

Originally Posted by RichieLion

I'm through with any meaningful discussion with you until you apologize for your boorishness. End of story.

Good.

By the way did Morse screw you for the 355 million yet?

Originally Posted by tonyafd

He certainly knows more than his critics on this thread. Does anyone know that Karl Rove was calling some of the economic shots in the Bush administration? It's in Paul O'Niel's book. Really.

So who is Paul O'neil? Do you believe everything you read?

Originally Posted by tonyafd

Good.

By the way did Morse screw you for the 355 million yet?

???????????

Originally Posted by villagegolfer

So who is Paul O'neil? Do you believe everything you read?

OK, One question at a time. No I don't believe everything that I read. Karl Rove had a tremendous amount of influence in the Bush White House. O'Neil's words ring true.

Paul O'Neil was Bush's first Secretary of the Treasury. He was CEO of Alcoa, and turned that company around. I think that he was CEO of Scott paper for a while. Paul O'Neil and Alan Greenspan recommended putting triggers into the "Tax Cut for the Rich". These triggers would protect the budget surplus from getting frittered away. They were ignored. This was corroborated in Greenspan's book "Age of Turbulence". O'Neil's book was "The Price of Loyalty".

It really is worth a read.