World is Falling Apart Thread (Locked forever)

[Sarge]

Nah, not you, just a general post. I think a bunch of replies came in around the same time, and I didn't modify based on anything that had been posted, because I'm lazy when I'm on a mobile device.

I have heard that those sorts of discussions are not uncommon in Hollywood, that's all. This wouldn't surprise me, given the sort of entertainment that many of them put out, and it also doesn't surprise me that Donald would be a part of that.

The "disingenuous" part is a general reference to many liberals that I clearly remember defending Pres. Clinton for his actions, and yet are expressing moral outrage now at Trump. It's political theater, all in the pursuit of power. I wish we could get to a point where we showed any sort of moral consistency on these matters, but unfortunately, it always seems to boil down to the (R) or (D) by the name.

[prfsnl_gmr]

I agree that this election is terrible, but America is actually doing pretty great right now.

Unemployment is way down, and labor participation is starting to creep back up. The rate of hourly wage growth is also starting to creep back up to pre-recession levels; energy and gas prices remain low; and the stock market is at historically high levels. We are not currently engaged in any foreign wars; and while crime is up slightly this year, it remains at historically low levels.

Despite these statistics, working-class whites in rural areas are facing a public health crisis, and I think that this crisis - coupled with generally lower employment rates, labor participation rates, and wages in rural areas - creates a sense of pessimism in areas outside of major metropolitan areas.

[Sarge]

Economic growth is still pretty pitiful, and the labor force participation rate is a mess, so I'd say it's more of a mixed bag. There's good and bad, and I'm not sure if it means that things are robust and getting better, or that we're in a bubble that's ready to burst again.

[jp1]

I wonder if recent developments in the general attitude of the public are accounted for in those statistics.

Unemployment can be taken in different contexts as well. If a college graduate is working at Mcdonalds they are technically employed. Maybe underemployed is a better term.

I'm not pessimistic so much as observant of issues I see daily in a not so rural environment. By nature I am optimistic, but I can only hold on to those illusions for so long.

[Pulsar_t]

I only said his hands were clean in terms of bloodshed, but that would certainly change, if he were to get elected POTUS. Was there even a single Prez who didn't order foreign intervention inthe past 100 years? Clinton on the other hand has had her fair share of death.. I don't know how those people could sleep at night.

As for the US economy, when Americans start to live by sustainable means that this planet provides them, coexist with the rest of the world rather than police it, only then will we see a turnaround in its colossal debt department, as well as devising new ways of thinking about wealth and its distribution among the populace.

[prfsnl_gmr]

Economic growth is still pretty pitiful.

...only if you compare our economic growth rate to under- or semi-developed nations. Our growth rate of 2.6% in 2015 is better than most developed nations, like Australia, Canada, Germany, Hong Kong, Japan, etc. And, as a developed country that isn't pulling enormous swaths of its population out of rural poverty, a growth rate at this level is very healthy. (If it were much higher, I would be worried that we were experiencing some sort of widespread speculative bubble unrelated to vintage video game prices.) Moreover, we remain the world's largest economy, and a 2.5% increase in our GDP equates to much more actual GDP growth than a 10% increase in an under-developed nation's GDP.

In other words, comparing the rate of our GDP growth with that of under- or semi-developed nations is meaningless. (This includes China and India, BTW.) Even comparing it to historical rates of GDP growth doesn't provide us with much meaningful information because of the different circumstances affecting the U.S. economy at those times. The only meaningful comparison is with other developed nations, and by that measure, we are doing great.

...and the labor force participation rate is a mess, so I'd say it's more of a mixed bag.

Historically, the labor force participation varies between 58% and 67%. Right now, we are hovering at 62%, which is about where we were in the 1980s. This percentage isn't great compared to the 1990s and early 2000s, but it isn't outside of historical norms. Moreover, we've been experiencing a downward trend in labor force participation rates for the past 20 years, indicating that historical highs in labor force participation during the 1990s and early 2000s may have been outside of normal levels.

More importantly, the U.S. economy is adding 150,000 to 300,000 jobs per month for the past years, and we need only 145,000 to "break even" with population growth. Unemployment has nonetheless been holding steady (rather than falling as it has in previous years), indicating a relatively drastic increase in labor force participation this year. (It will take some time to get 2016 statistics from the Depart of Labor.)

Unemployment can be taken in different contexts as well. If a college graduate is working at Mcdonalds they are technically employed. Maybe underemployed is a better term.

This is a great point, and I think that "underemployment" is a systemic issue that our society needs to address ASAP. If the labor market continues to tighten, however, and if the economy continues to grow, underemployment should shake out in a few years. We just have to sustain the growth for as long as possible (and, obviously, avoid another "great recession" crash) to get there.

[Sarge]

Well, specifically, it's where it was in 1978, the worst of the Carter years. That was a terrible economy at that point. If memory serves, things didn't start really turning around until 1983-ish.

That growth rate is still rather terrible compared with where it should be. Since January 2015, we've seen growth rates of 2, 2.6, 2, 0.9, 0.8, and 1.4. That's pretty awful. And there's no question there are folks getting left behind in all this. I don't see the stock market as a great indicator of how the "regular" folks are doing, as it's too easy to prop up with monetary policy.

There are positive signs, of course, and I won't deny it. But this recovery feels extremely fragile. That even a 0.25% increase in interest rates has everyone spooked seems to indicate something's not quite right. (Of course, the markets these days seem to get spooked about everything, so take that for what you will.)

[jp1]

I only said his hands were clean in terms of bloodshed, but that would certainly change, if he were to get elected POTUS.

I thought you were speaking metaphorically. Is there any actual evidence that Hillary is directly related to bloodshed? Or is that all part of the leaked emails?

I haven't seen any direct evidence of her being linked to murder. She is questionable in many ways, but this one seems to be stretching.

Trump on the other hand all but admitted to rape, with statements like "You can't rape your wife" and payoffs for her to drop it and change her statements. His current comments are certainly not a great look for him on this front either. It's perhaps a bit of a jump to say he would certainly have been prosecuted or even convicted, but the allegations along with his reaction are sickening. Enough in itself to keep him off the ballot as far as I'm concerned.

@prfsnl_gmr
Even if things are technically improved from all the damage that Bush Jr. inflicted, I stand by the opinion that people are too apathetic to the very real issues that are emerging in this country. All of these relatively small movements are gaining momentum and can lead to serious issues. Our country is not unified, one could argue that it never was, but the current state of affairs is one that feels more precarious. Especially if they continue to go unaddressed.

[Sarge]

I still find it fascinating that all of our economic issues are still attributed to Pres. Bush. While I certainly wouldn't argue that his response was the best, the policies that led to the housing crisis were in place well before he was President, and he even warned about it. I'm pretty sure he didn't have a whole lot of political capital by that point, though, what with the Iraq war and all that.

[jp1]

I still find it fascinating that all of our economic issues are still attributed to Pres. Bush. While I certainly wouldn't argue that his response was the best, the policies that led to the housing crisis were in place well before he was President, and he even warned about it. I'm pretty sure he didn't have a whole lot of political capital by that point, though, what with the Iraq war and all that.

What of the astronomical amount of military spending he did though? The housing bubble isn't the sole cause of the economic crisis.