• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

June 2012 Manufacturing ISM Report On Business

danarhea

Slayer of the DP Newsbot
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 27, 2005
Messages
43,602
Reaction score
26,256
Location
Houston, TX
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
(Tempe, Arizona) — Economic activity in the manufacturing sector contracted in June for the first time since July 2009; however, the overall economy grew for the 37th consecutive month, say the nation's supply executives in the latest Manufacturing ISM Report On Business[SUP]®[/SUP].

This report is a mixed one. While it does say that the economy is growing (Something that Obama is not responsible for), it also portends troubled days ahead, as it shows a steep drop in manufacturing.

This does not speak about which president is responsible, for either the good or the bad, and I want to, at this point, concentrate on the bad, as that is where we are really headed, despite the rosy numbers on a growing economy (numbers which I believe are only temporary). I firmly believe that neither Obama nor Bush are responsible for the bad here. Should Romney win the election, and the numbers remain the same during his first term, I would not put the blame on him either. These are MARKET forces at work, which no president has control over.

However, this report does give proof to one theory - That it is not billionaires who create jobs. It is demand from consumers, and right now, consumers are just not buying.

So, my friends. How do we get consumers to start buying again? This is the question of the day. Please, no partisan hackery responses from either Democrats or Republicans. I would like this to be a serious discussion, so I don't want to hear any crap about how Obama is a Communist or how Romney hates people who are not millionaires.

Article is here.
 
Last edited:
Uncertainty. People dont spend freely when a lot of things are up in the air. Lately it seems like everything is up in the air.
 
This report is a mixed one. While it does say that the economy is growing (Something that Obama is not responsible for), it also portends troubled days ahead, as it shows a steep drop in manufacturing.

This does not speak about which president is responsible, for either the good or the bad, and I want to, at this point, concentrate on the bad, as that is where we are really headed, despite the rosy numbers on a growing economy (numbers which I believe are only temporary). I firmly believe that neither Obama nor Bush are responsible for the bad here. Should Romney win the election, and the numbers remain the same during his first term, I would not put the blame on him either. These are MARKET forces at work, which no president has control over.

However, this report does give proof to one theory - That it is not billionaires who create jobs. It is demand from consumers, and right now, consumers are just not buying.

So, my friends. How do we get consumers to start buying again? This is the question of the day. Please, no partisan hackery responses from either Democrats or Republicans. I would like this to be a serious discussion, so I don't want to hear any crap about how Obama is a Communist or how Romney hates people who are not millionaires.

Article is here.

They are unemployed, no wonder they are not spending. And as long as consumers remain unemployed they will not spend. So I would say it's not the consumers that create jobs but billionaires, if consumers are not employed they have no money in their pocket to spend.

And how long do you think Bush should be considered for a bad economy?
 
Our economy, unfortunately it seems, will be hinging on Europe's progress and whether or not the eurozone can stay intact. If it does (and probably will) the economic confidence will grow and spending will follow IMO.
 
Our economy, unfortunately it seems, will be hinging on Europe's progress and whether or not the eurozone can stay intact. If it does (and probably will) the economic confidence will grow and spending will follow IMO.

Actually it would be better for the US if the Eurozone breaks up.
 
Actually it would be better for the US if the Eurozone breaks up.

I disagree. It may put us on top competitively but it will boat anchor us as far as trying to export goods when such a strong purchaser of goods goes down.
 
I disagree. It may put us on top competitively but it will boat anchor us as far as trying to export goods when such a strong purchaser of goods goes down.

That's what the Globalists have programmed people to think. In reality it would be better if the Eurozone cities were bombed, not just broken up.
 
This report is a mixed one. While it does say that the economy is growing (Something that Obama is not responsible for), it also portends troubled days ahead, as it shows a steep drop in manufacturing.

This does not speak about which president is responsible, for either the good or the bad, and I want to, at this point, concentrate on the bad, as that is where we are really headed, despite the rosy numbers on a growing economy (numbers which I believe are only temporary). I firmly believe that neither Obama nor Bush are responsible for the bad here. Should Romney win the election, and the numbers remain the same during his first term, I would not put the blame on him either. These are MARKET forces at work, which no president has control over.

However, this report does give proof to one theory - That it is not billionaires who create jobs. It is demand from consumers, and right now, consumers are just not buying.

So, my friends. How do we get consumers to start buying again? This is the question of the day. Please, no partisan hackery responses from either Democrats or Republicans. I would like this to be a serious discussion, so I don't want to hear any crap about how Obama is a Communist or how Romney hates people who are not millionaires.

Article is here.

I disagree with repsect presidents and the economy. economic policies and exapmples ae set by sitting presidents. When we consider FDR vs Ronald Reagan, we find a mirror image: growth went in totally opposite directions and RR ran up a 10% unemployment rate based on his examples, whlie FDR closed the unemployment rate and economic growth went directly to the wage earners of the country who spent themselves into the highest standard of living in the world. RR's policies sent economic growth away from the wage earner, who without an appropriate rate of expendable income have been retreating ever since. As corporate and 1% incomes have gone sky high, without the propper balance that framers guaranteed, we have seen economic activty in this country drop off to near nothing.

The Democrats for their part, offer a raod to a return to the great days of this country. The Republicans conversely only offer a closed door and a ''members only club". The answer; quite frankly is for the Republian leadership to start setting examples of respect, which they do not offer at all.
 
This report is a mixed one. While it does say that the economy is growing (Something that Obama is not responsible for), it also portends troubled days ahead, as it shows a steep drop in manufacturing.

This does not speak about which president is responsible, for either the good or the bad, and I want to, at this point, concentrate on the bad, as that is where we are really headed, despite the rosy numbers on a growing economy (numbers which I believe are only temporary). I firmly believe that neither Obama nor Bush are responsible for the bad here. Should Romney win the election, and the numbers remain the same during his first term, I would not put the blame on him either. These are MARKET forces at work, which no president has control over.

However, this report does give proof to one theory - That it is not billionaires who create jobs. It is demand from consumers, and right now, consumers are just not buying.

So, my friends. How do we get consumers to start buying again? This is the question of the day. Please, no partisan hackery responses from either Democrats or Republicans. I would like this to be a serious discussion, so I don't want to hear any crap about how Obama is a Communist or how Romney hates people who are not millionaires.

Article is here.

At first, the argument was "a lack of investor confidence" was holding the economy at bay. Now, the argument seems to be it's "a lack of consumer confidence". Well, which is it?

This divergance in compelling arguments tells me that the financiers have gotten their acts together on Wall Street, but aren't quite ready to put money back into the pockets of consumers. But that time is fast approaching and the best way to do that short of going on a massive rebuilding phase which was how FDR was able to spur economic growth is to force the wealth class to live up to the theory of trickle down economics and start paying higher salaries.

Looks, it's very simple: Conservatism claims that the best way for businesses to function unhindered is to remove all (or most) of the obstacles on businesses and the free market system to use their profits to grow or expand their business. Well, most of the hurtles that were once hindering business have been removed, i.e., labor unions and collective bargaining rights being the top two. Taxes are still low (re: Bush tax cuts remain in tact) and the payroll tax cut has been extended. So, what happened? Why is the unemployment rate still hovering at 8.2%?

Answers:

1) The cost of consumer goods increased mainly due to high gas prices. Now that the price of gas is coming down, I expect the cost of consumer goods will also start to come down over time except for food. (See item #2)

2) Natural disasters also play a role in our nation's economy. People want to discount nature's impact, but you can't! A flood, a drought, a tornado, an earthquake - they all play a role in the ebb and flow of our nation's economy especially where our food supply is concerned. Folks tend to think it's just regional, but a drought across the heartland of American can have a devastating impact on food prices across the country. Same can be said of a hurricane that hits the Gulf of Mexico where fuel prices are concerned. (Thank God that hasn't happened yet.) And I havent' even mentioned how homes and businesses have been impacted as well. Consider for a moment how cities in the north-east were affected from the earth quake that hit last year, the tornados that hit along America's mid-section, the raging wild fires in Colorado or the heatwave and drought that's affecting the country right now. Natural disaster do have an impact on our nation's economy. And American has had more than its fair share over the last 2-years.

3) Of course, there's also the issue of free trade agreements between partner nations. Trade agreements between Europe (Germany, Spain, France), S. Korea, India and Central America have begun to kick in, but it's still going to take a few years before we see true benefits.

So, how do you break this gridlock?

It's a very unpopular stance w/Republicans but the wealth-class will have to come off some of their riches. It's just that simple.

Our national economy seems to be feeding from the same economic well called the middle-class. The poor and elderly are making many of their puchases on consumer goods at discount stores or using coupons to extend their purchasing power. But those wage earners in the middle - not yet poor but certainly not rich - aren't shopping too much. They're buying only what they need. You break that gridlock by improving wages thereby providing the middle-class with more disposable income. People will then go out and spend their money. Manufacturers will then be able to produce more goods. Businesses will then be able to expand to more areas.

Looking further into the enterprising side, people are trying to start their own businesses (i.e., homebased mostly) but it's difficult to do when you can't get a business loan or drive consumers to your "doors" (I use the term losely here since many home buinsesses are in eCommerce) to spend money. You want the economy to start moving again? Then you really do need to spread the wealth around some. This isn't a redistributive argument, folks. It's just a practical solution to the problem. Think of it like this: If wealthy millionaires and billionaires can sink millions of dollars into all these political campaigns, why won't they put this money back into their businesses or at the very least in their employee's paychecks?

You want consumers to start spending more, break the gridlock and give a man a raise because clearly the money is there as evidenced by the support Romney has received from the investor/business class. You could make that same argument against Pres. Obama, except he doesn't seem to be getting the same level of donations from the same class of folks, but he doens't get a pass here either. My point here, though, is the money is there for business owners to break this economic gridlock. People will just need to get really pissed off and see the hypocrisy taking place.

Again, if a wealthy individual has the audacity to claim that consumer confidence is low because ordinary people aren't spending money, the logical conclusion as to why that is the case is because people don't have enough disposable income to once again be impose shoppers. So, if you really want to bring back that "wreckless spending" habit and boost consumer confidence, increase salaries of those who do still have jobs.
 
Last edited:
I disagree with repsect presidents and the economy. economic policies and exapmples ae set by sitting presidents. When we consider FDR vs Ronald Reagan, we find a mirror image: growth went in totally opposite directions and RR ran up a 10% unemployment rate based on his examples, whlie FDR closed the unemployment rate and economic growth went directly to the wage earners of the country who spent themselves into the highest standard of living in the world. RR's policies sent economic growth away from the wage earner, who without an appropriate rate of expendable income have been retreating ever since. As corporate and 1% incomes have gone sky high, without the propper balance that framers guaranteed, we have seen economic activty in this country drop off to near nothing.

The Democrats for their part, offer a raod to a return to the great days of this country. The Republicans conversely only offer a closed door and a ''members only club". The answer; quite frankly is for the Republian leadership to start setting examples of respect, which they do not offer at all.

You cannot compare Reagan to FDR, when it comes to unemployment. FDR had WWII to deal with, and drafting millions into the armed forces had a lot to do with bringing the unemployment rate down. On the other hand, Reagan did not have that luxury. One further note: The stock market did not reach the level it had before the crash until 1953.
 
Last edited:
You cannot compare Reagan to FDR, when it comes to unemployment. FDR had WWII to deal with, and drafting millions into the armed forces had a lot to do with bringing the unemployment rate down. On the other hand, Reagan did not have that luxury. One further note: The stock market did not reach the level it had before the crash until 1953.

No; you've missed the point completely. I'm not talking about WWII. The dye was cast before the war. FDR policies; the NRA, the CCCP etc and being pro labor set the paradigm by which the new US foundation was able to set the highest standard of living in the world. The policies and examples that Reagan set, almost immeditately led to 10% unemployment, a new paradigm of "corporate culture" and a bottom line mentality that overrode common sense security issues in America and the ultimate decline of our standard of living: and now we face ruin because of it.

I made the point about presidents setting policy and providing examples; so it was Bush's fault. he knew very well what was going on and he turned a blind eye to it: that's exaclty what happened in 1928 and '29 . . . wall Street was turned loose and the results speak for themselves.
 
No; you've missed the point completely. I'm not talking about WWII. The dye was cast before the war. FDR policies; the NRA, the CCCP etc and being pro labor set the paradigm by which the new US foundation was able to set the highest standard of living in the world. The policies and examples that Reagan set, almost immeditately led to 10% unemployment, a new paradigm of "corporate culture" and a bottom line mentality that overrode common sense security issues in America and the ultimate decline of our standard of living: and now we face ruin because of it.

I made the point about presidents setting policy and providing examples; so it was Bush's fault. he knew very well what was going on and he turned a blind eye to it: that's exaclty what happened in 1928 and '29 . . . wall Street was turned loose and the results speak for themselves.

No, YOU are the one who is missing the point. You give FDR all this credit that HIS policies are responsible for the economy improving, when that is not the case at all. The Great Depression was a double dip, with the second dip happening in the mid 30's, despite FDR's best efforts. It WAS WWII, and the demand for wartime goods, not FDR, that pulled us out of the Great Depression. Republican policies of the day put us there, but it wasn't Democratic policies that got us out.
 
Last edited:
No, YOU are the one who is missing the point. You give FDR all this credit that HIS policies are responsible for the economy improving, when that is not the case at all. The Great Depression was a double dip, with the second dip happening in the mid 30's, despite FDR's best efforts. It WAS WWII, and the demand for wartime goods, not FDR, that pulled us out of the Great Depression. Republican policies of the day put us there, but it wasn't Democratic policies that got us out.

Its republican policies that got us here now also....manufacturing is doing just SWELL in china...and thats why manufacturing numbers here suck...but for the life of the right wing they cant bring themselves to ADMIT that that is the reason for most of our UNEMPLOYMENT here.....they lubs them some china man
 
No, YOU are the one who is missing the point. You give FDR all this credit that HIS policies are responsible for the economy improving, when that is not the case at all. The Great Depression was a double dip, with the second dip happening in the mid 30's, despite FDR's best efforts. It WAS WWII, and the demand for wartime goods, not FDR, that pulled us out of the Great Depression. Republican policies of the day put us there, but it wasn't Democratic policies that got us out.

Yes, it is true that war created a manufacturing boom. The point however is that FDR's policies laid the foundation for the accomplsiments that I have named. The NRA and CCCP got people out and working during the dpression: it was deficit spending, but it was showing people (who had a much different work ethic) that we were getting to work. FDR's support for labor escorted in the economcic balance, coupled with the GI bill, that created the American Dream.

Now, Ronald Reagan's policies were the antithesis of those accomplismements and his policies escorted in the ruin we have reaped through a corporate culture and and emphasis on the return of contollable investment. The dichotomy is amazing and it's all on the record. So presidents do indeed effect changes in the country and can be blamed for both national successes and failures.
 
No, YOU are the one who is missing the point. You give FDR all this credit that HIS policies are responsible for the economy improving, when that is not the case at all. The Great Depression was a double dip, with the second dip happening in the mid 30's, despite FDR's best efforts. It WAS WWII, and the demand for wartime goods, not FDR, that pulled us out of the Great Depression. Republican policies of the day put us there, but it wasn't Democratic policies that got us out.

Actually

A) The US was already moving out of the Great Depression before the war hit

B) It was our competitors factories being bombed, not manufacturing bombs, that improved the economy. If the US had actually stayed out of the war, all things being equal and the outcome didn't change, than the US economy would have even more healthy in the 1950's.
 
and drafting millions into the armed forces had a lot to do with bringing the unemployment rate down.

So the unemployment number is the be-all end-all economic indicator huh.

Unemployment low, everything is hunky dorey.

Unemployment high, doomsday.

So by that logic, if put everyone that was unemployed on a ship and then put them out to sea, then the economy would just totally improve overnight. Except for the part where aggregate demand is decreased in direct proportion to the population decrease, then more unemployed people are created, then we could put them on a ship. Aggregate demand would decrease again, making more unemployed people, put them on a ship. So on and so forth.
 
I have a theory about this. We just had the worst recession since the depression. Now, it wasn't as bad as the Great Depression but it was pretty bad.

This has had 2 possible consequences:

1) Just as my parents were scarred by the Great Depression, maybe this recession did something similar. My parents were incapable of spending money. The drove the cheapest AMC product and drove it until the wheels LITERALLY fell of. They bought what little clothing they had in thrift shops. They never owned a luxury of any kind and they didn't have a TV (until I delivered one 20 years ago). They saved up $3 million dollars and my Mother donated every bit of it to the most unlikely charity you can imagine. My father, 100, is still alive and he counts every penny 20 times. He has a retirement salary of $9,000.00 a month. Yeah, scarred.

A little of that wore off on me but I had phases where I made, and spent, a lot of money. In my dotage, I'm back n my thrifty personality.

So, I have observed how ludicrous most peoples spending habits are. What in the name of the flame dancer would you need a Rolex for? People buy mountains of **** that they do not need and does not fulfill anything in their lives.

So, my postulation is that maybe consumers have learned a little bit and they just won't buy crap at th same pace as before.

2) I have friends, younger than I, who work for big Corporations in a variety of positions. None of them has had a raise for 4 years - only CEO bonuses go up. This must put a bit of fear in the consumer mind as well. Cost of living is going up (unless you ask the USG) because EVERYTHING IS MORE EXPENSIVE now.

So, maybe they are inclined to stick to necessities and thus consumerism is going down. The CEO can only buy so many yachts but hundreds of thousands of workers aren't getting raises.

OK, just my theory. It has nothing to do with politics.
 
They are unemployed, no wonder they are not spending. And as long as consumers remain unemployed they will not spend. So I would say it's not the consumers that create jobs but billionaires, if consumers are not employed they have no money in their pocket to spend.

And how long do you think Bush should be considered for a bad economy?

I disagree. If a billionaire creates a company and manufactures a kajillion widgets that nobody buys, he is out of business.
 
Back
Top Bottom