Q. Details have not been added because I feel they might skew the answers.
How might you rephrase the question so as to get possible solutions and to be as neutral as possible.
Yahoo answers put wanted to put this question in ' Business & Finance > Personal Finance' , where would you have posted it?
The list yahoo answers suggested:
# Business & Finance > Personal Finance
# Entertainment & Music > Polls & Surveys
(# Politics & Government > Politics) where I posted it
# Politics & Government > Government
# Politics & Government > Other - Politics & Government
How might you rephrase the question so as to get possible solutions and to be as neutral as possible.
Yahoo answers put wanted to put this question in ' Business & Finance > Personal Finance' , where would you have posted it?
The list yahoo answers suggested:
# Business & Finance > Personal Finance
# Entertainment & Music > Polls & Surveys
(# Politics & Government > Politics) where I posted it
# Politics & Government > Government
# Politics & Government > Other - Politics & Government
A. The problem doesn't have to do with this particular recession, it's a structural problem.
First of all, unemployment is a 'lagging indicator'. At this time in Reagan's first term, things were improving, on paper, as they are now. But unemployment was still high. Reagan's popularity numbers were even lower than Obama's are now. At every press conference Reagan reminded everyone that unemployment was a lagging indicator, that it improves only after everything else improves. And he was right about that, maybe the only time he was right in 8 years. Of course when the president is a Democrat, the Republicans blame him for not boosting employment faster.
But the reason employment is coming back more slowly than in past recessions is that over the last 30 years (since Reagan's time) we have systematically removed all the good-paying jobs from our economy. We have exported all our good paying jobs overseas. This was a very short-sighted strategy. Manufacturing companies have made big profits for a few years, but now they're finding that nobody makes enough to buy their goods.
The trend of 'globalization' started by Reagan and furthered by every president since, in both parties, has made national borders porous to capital but forced labor to stay in the same place. So 'global capital' is allowed to roam the globe in search of the cheapest labor, leading to a 'race to the bottom' for every country to cheapen labor.
So I think it's time to begin moving back in the other direction, to see employment as a national resource. Rather than -subsidize- mfg. companies to move jobs overseas (which we've been doing) we should try to discourage them. Perhaps sneak back in some import tariffs. Decide which industries help us the most when kept at home, and do what we can to keep them home.
We've had 30 years now to learn that Reagonomics don't work. It's been nothing but a failure. Cutting taxes for the rich, for instance, does not stimulate the economy, it just further concentrates wealth. Tax cuts do not pay for themselves. 'Globalization' is not a bad idea, but the way we've been doing it hasn't been good for the 95% of us who have to work for a living. Trickle Down economics hasn't worked for 30 years, now it's time to try 'trickle up'.
In the meanwhile we should extend unemployment benefits (which we're doing) because people SPEND that money and it stimulates the whole economy. Obama could have shifted the bailouts to the people who are losing their homes. They would have paid the banks and the banks would have done well, and people would have kept their homes and the price of houses wouldn't have dropped so precipitously because there wouldn't have been so many homes in foreclosure. Instead Obama gave the money directly to the banks, so they did well anyway but everyone else lost out.
First of all, unemployment is a 'lagging indicator'. At this time in Reagan's first term, things were improving, on paper, as they are now. But unemployment was still high. Reagan's popularity numbers were even lower than Obama's are now. At every press conference Reagan reminded everyone that unemployment was a lagging indicator, that it improves only after everything else improves. And he was right about that, maybe the only time he was right in 8 years. Of course when the president is a Democrat, the Republicans blame him for not boosting employment faster.
But the reason employment is coming back more slowly than in past recessions is that over the last 30 years (since Reagan's time) we have systematically removed all the good-paying jobs from our economy. We have exported all our good paying jobs overseas. This was a very short-sighted strategy. Manufacturing companies have made big profits for a few years, but now they're finding that nobody makes enough to buy their goods.
The trend of 'globalization' started by Reagan and furthered by every president since, in both parties, has made national borders porous to capital but forced labor to stay in the same place. So 'global capital' is allowed to roam the globe in search of the cheapest labor, leading to a 'race to the bottom' for every country to cheapen labor.
So I think it's time to begin moving back in the other direction, to see employment as a national resource. Rather than -subsidize- mfg. companies to move jobs overseas (which we've been doing) we should try to discourage them. Perhaps sneak back in some import tariffs. Decide which industries help us the most when kept at home, and do what we can to keep them home.
We've had 30 years now to learn that Reagonomics don't work. It's been nothing but a failure. Cutting taxes for the rich, for instance, does not stimulate the economy, it just further concentrates wealth. Tax cuts do not pay for themselves. 'Globalization' is not a bad idea, but the way we've been doing it hasn't been good for the 95% of us who have to work for a living. Trickle Down economics hasn't worked for 30 years, now it's time to try 'trickle up'.
In the meanwhile we should extend unemployment benefits (which we're doing) because people SPEND that money and it stimulates the whole economy. Obama could have shifted the bailouts to the people who are losing their homes. They would have paid the banks and the banks would have done well, and people would have kept their homes and the price of houses wouldn't have dropped so precipitously because there wouldn't have been so many homes in foreclosure. Instead Obama gave the money directly to the banks, so they did well anyway but everyone else lost out.
What is the average interest paid on a money market deposit account?
Q. This is for a personal finance class but I can't seem to find an answer specifically naming average interest paid.
A. You can get this at www.bankrate.com. This is a trustworthy site that may answer some of your other banking questions as well.
How long is a check without a "valid until/cash by" date good for?
Q. Seniors, I call on your knowledge. I posted this Q in the Personal Finance section and didn't get a single sensible answer. I've gotten several refund checks and none have a "good until" date. How long do I have to cash them?
A. The Uniform Commercial Code tells us that a check that is over six months old is "stale" and in most cases it need not be paid. Because of today's automated environment, it is recognized that if a stale-dated check is paid, the bank is not at fault if it did so in good faith.
Contact the company that wrote you the check and ask that you swap them out with them. Give them the stale-dated item and get a new one your bank will handle without question.
JM
Contact the company that wrote you the check and ask that you swap them out with them. Give them the stale-dated item and get a new one your bank will handle without question.
JM
I have a question I need help with in Personal Finance?
Q. I do NOT want to cheat. I just want someone to help me understand how to calculate this finance question. If you wanted to save 5,000 in 3 years and you already had 1000. With an interest rate of 8%, how would you go about calculating the equal year end deposits?
A. I have a handheld financial calculator but that's not practical for answering your question. I did a quick search and found this calculator online that should answer your question. It won't tell you HOW to do it but it may help you understand how to do it: http://www.lfg.com/LincolnPageServer?LFGPage=/lfg/lfgclient/plntls/fincal/index.html&LFGContentID=/lfg/lfgclient/plntls/fincal/calc2/savings
Powered by Yahoo! Answers
No comments:
Post a Comment