djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jul 8, 2012 12:50:24 GMT -5
They are acting in ways now that we don't wish. My deer story: We have been supplying a tasty orchard, good supply of water, shrubs and plenty of lawn areas to deer since 1971. Hence, the huge herd of deer we now how have occupying our property (I just saw two sets of new twins under our apple trees). Before we came along the herd would migrate with the seasons to where there was food and water. Now they live on our property year round, mostly because of the water we supply, a supply they normally wouldn't have. The herd has become so over populated that they have consumed all of our un-fenced plants, along with their natural habitat. They are now attempting to break into our fenced areas. If we have a bad Winter, many in the herd will die. In our attempt to help the deer, we inadvertently created this huge problem and we will now need to be the ones to correct it. Although, we easily could, we won't remedy it in one season. It will take years. We will start this season by slowly cutting back their water supply and forcing them to fend for themselves. It will break my heart but if we don't, most could die in one bad Winter. You do realize that deer have never created their own water source. They have always simply found a water source and stayed with it until it dried up or the population became too large for the source to sustain the herd. The fact that they found a very good one just means that they thrived in that location. If/when it is no longer there, they will move on. So you don't supply them the same amount of water. Some of them cross a road to find the water they need to survive. Some of them get killed. Some migrate to areas with other dangers. Some of them die. As it has always been. and just to be clear, people are not deer. they don't make rational choices. they may choose to do things, for example, that are wrong because they see some good in it for them, or that are right because of some higher sense of moral purpose, even if it does them no good. this "if A then B" stuff works for computers, but not people.
|
|
hannah27
Initiate Member
Joined: Dec 26, 2010 10:51:40 GMT -5
Posts: 69
|
Post by hannah27 on Jul 8, 2012 12:51:35 GMT -5
an interesting thought. thanks for sharing. so, how can we get consumers to spend more? I'll stop hoarding cash and start spending as soon as they stop laying people off at my workplace. It seems like a weekly occurrence that I notice yet another person is gone. Until it stops, I will operate under the assumption that I may be next... and I won't spend anything on non-necessities. In other words, the economy is scaring consumers.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jul 8, 2012 12:56:09 GMT -5
an interesting thought. thanks for sharing. so, how can we get consumers to spend more? I'll stop hoarding cash and start spending as soon as they stop laying people off at my workplace. It seems like a weekly occurrence that I notice yet another person is gone. Until it stops, I will operate under the assumption that I may be next... and I won't spend anything on non-necessities. i see this as a big factor, for sure.In other words, the economy is scaring consumers. precisely. the attitude of the consumers is the root of the problem. until they spend more, their employees will keep laying off, which makes them more fearful (self fulfilling prophecy/"death spiral"). so again: what can we do to increase consumer spending?
|
|
billisonboard
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 37,512
|
Post by billisonboard on Jul 8, 2012 12:58:32 GMT -5
No reason to not have such a standard. Just realize that a percentage of the population will not meet that standard. The exact standard will determine what that percentage will be. we can have a two track system. i don't see why we shouldn't do that, actually. some people are going to be incapable of A-Listing not for any reason other than some deficiency on their part, which they are incapable of overcoming. there are TONS of jobs for B listers. the key, imo, is not to have society as a whole slip to the B list. No reason to not have a two track system. Just realize that a percentage of the population will not meet the requirements of track "A" nor "B". But we could do a track "C". And "D" And like an "E" and "F" and Wait, that is what we have now.
|
|
Peace Of Mind
Senior Associate
[font color="#8f2520"]~ Drinks Well With Others ~[/font]
Joined: Dec 17, 2010 16:53:02 GMT -5
Posts: 15,554
Location: Paradise
|
Post by Peace Of Mind on Jul 8, 2012 13:05:11 GMT -5
Good point! I recently heard that in 1992 we had 1 in 35 of working age on disability, now we have 1 in 15. How can we recover from a depression when so many are not working? this is again putting the cart before the horse. if the consumer spends, people will hire, and the recession will end. the question then becomes: HOW DO WE GET THE CONSUMER TO SPEND?[/quote] ETA: I don't know why the quote button didn't include the above part. Sorry! By shutting up all the gloom and doomers and media. We want to buy a travel trailer/RV for our lake front property so we can spend weekends out there comfortably. I have the cash. But reading about all the "DOUBLE DIP RECESSION! NO FOOD TO FEED THE MASSES! NO SOCIAL SECURITY - IT'S A PONZI SCHEME AND IT WON'T BE THERE AFTER PAYING IN IT FOR YEARS..." ad nauseum I think we'll wait a bit. Other than that we just don't need more crap. And since that is a want - not a need - we'll continue to hold on to the cash for now. I also read an article recently about how much crap Americans have and why they keep buying bigger homes - to store more crap. I think many are starting to get a clue and realize more crap means more stress and more work/maintenance. People are wanting to simplify their lives more. Plus the ones that are extended to the max can't get the credit. That's a good thing IMO.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jul 8, 2012 13:08:24 GMT -5
we can have a two track system. i don't see why we shouldn't do that, actually. some people are going to be incapable of A-Listing not for any reason other than some deficiency on their part, which they are incapable of overcoming. there are TONS of jobs for B listers. the key, imo, is not to have society as a whole slip to the B list. No reason to not have a two track system. Just realize that a percentage of the population will not meet the requirements of track "A" nor "B". But we could do a track "C". And "D" And like an "E" and "F" and Wait, that is what we have now. sorta- except we have "F" trackers that are actually really well suited to running businesses, and "A" trackers who can barely tie their shoes right now. so it is NOT the same thing at all, imo.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jul 8, 2012 13:10:52 GMT -5
Good point! I recently heard that in 1992 we had 1 in 35 of working age on disability, now we have 1 in 15. How can we recover from a depression when so many are not working? this is again putting the cart before the horse. if the consumer spends, people will hire, and the recession will end. the question then becomes: HOW DO WE GET THE CONSUMER TO SPEND?[/quote] ETA: I don't know why the quote button didn't include the above part. Sorry! By shutting up all the gloom and doomers and media. We want to buy a travel trailer/RV for our lake front property so we can spend weekends out there comfortably. I have the cash. But reading about all the "DOUBLE DIP RECESSION! NO FOOD TO FEED THE MASSES! NO SOCIAL SECURITY - IT'S A PONZI SCHEME AND IT WON'T BE THERE AFTER PAYING IN IT FOR YEARS..." ad nauseum I think we'll wait a bit. Other than that we just don't need more crap. And since that is a want - not a need - we'll continue to hold on to the cash for now. I also read an article recently about how much crap Americans have and why they keep buying bigger homes - to store more crap. I think many are starting to get a clue and realize more crap means more stress and more work/maintenance. People are wanting to simplify their lives more. Plus the ones that are extended to the max can't get the credit. That's a good thing IMO. it sounds to me like this starts with a national conversation about where we are at, what we want, and what we hope to achieve. i mean, let's face it, if we want to live in yerts and eat sage soup and drink water from a cactus, there are places we can live and exist practically everywhere. if we want a 54" digital 3-D TV, 9 speaker stereo, and $1M in the retirement account per person, that indicates a totally different path.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 18, 2024 2:17:30 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 8, 2012 13:11:01 GMT -5
"but take it from me, if my customers are busting my balls for product, i hire. period. uncertainty be damned."
Let's consider a hypothetical investment where it takes 3 or more years just to recover the initial investment. You believe the upcoming election increases the uncertainty of that investment (i.e. your risk is higher) or the results of the election might impact the choices you would want to make. Does that impact your decision?
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jul 8, 2012 13:16:59 GMT -5
"but take it from me, if my customers are busting my balls for product, i hire. period. uncertainty be damned." Let's consider a hypothetical investment where it takes 3 or more years just to recover the initial investment. You believe the upcoming election increases the uncertainty of that investment (i.e. your risk is higher) or the results of the election might impact the choices you would want to make. Does that impact your decision? i was talking about hiring, not investment, bob. and no, it would not impact my hiring decisions at all. as far as investment goes, you are talking in the abstract, so i will make it more concrete for you. there is a machine called a waterjet cutter. right now, we are spending between 1.2% and 2.4% of revenue per year on waterjet cutting services. at the upper end of that range, the payback period for having it in house would be about 6 years. if my revenue goes HIGHER, the payback period is even faster. so, i am looking on the used market right now for one. now, the fact that i just went through a little rough patch and am 60 days out with SOME of my suppliers has SOMETHING to do with how actively i am searching- but no- i figure that no matter who is president, my customers are going to be buying somebody's stuff. if i do a better job of selling than my competition, it will have a LOT more to do with my success than which supply side buffoon is in office next. so, for hiring, i won't even think about it. for investment, it will be driven by payback, not by other considerations. how a president IMPACTS payback is one consideration, but it is fairly minor. for the record, i wished that i had bought it in 2009. the incentives that Obama was offering for investment were really amazing back then.
|
|
Peace Of Mind
Senior Associate
[font color="#8f2520"]~ Drinks Well With Others ~[/font]
Joined: Dec 17, 2010 16:53:02 GMT -5
Posts: 15,554
Location: Paradise
|
Post by Peace Of Mind on Jul 8, 2012 13:17:54 GMT -5
I said simplify not go crazy! We have 3 flat screen TVs. DH loves technology. Now they have a bigger leaner one. Really? Do we need that too because advertiser say so just because we can afford to buy it? Our car runs perfectly. Do we need to buy a new one because it's old? It's in great shape and I love my car. It always starts. Should we buy a new one? Nope. Produce/manufacture something we need or that makes life better and the consumer will buy it.
|
|
hannah27
Initiate Member
Joined: Dec 26, 2010 10:51:40 GMT -5
Posts: 69
|
Post by hannah27 on Jul 8, 2012 13:18:07 GMT -5
precisely. the attitude of the consumers is the root of the problem. until they spend more, their employees will keep laying off, which makes them more fearful (self fulfilling prophecy). so again: what can we do to increase consumer spending? I work for the state, so my job security has little to do directly with consumer spending. I suppose that if more people spent money things would be better all around but I'm not sure because it depends upon the source of the spending capital: cash or credit? I watched people around me spend like drunken sailors pre-2006 and I wondered at the time how on earth they could afford the things they bought, the home renovations, the vacations, the ginormous cars, etc. Now I know that they couldn't afford them and much of it was purchases on credit of some kind. I've seen many people lose their homes and jobs. It may have started with those who lived above their means but now it is clearly impacting people who did not go crazy with money. You want consumers to start spending but I'm hoping you are referring to those who have actual cash in hand. Otherwise, we start the whole credit spiral all over again.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jul 8, 2012 13:25:24 GMT -5
precisely. the attitude of the consumers is the root of the problem. until they spend more, their employees will keep laying off, which makes them more fearful (self fulfilling prophecy). so again: what can we do to increase consumer spending? I work for the state, so my job security has little to do directly with consumer spending. you're right. i should have made a distinction between private and public in my questions. since public employment SHOULD BE by nature counter-cyclic, it should be really good to be in the public sector during recessions and terrible during recoveries. unfortunately, since it is now following rather than leading economic trends, it is actually WORSE in government than in the private sector right now. i have strong misgivings about that, but it is beyond the scope of this thread.I suppose that if more people spent money things would be better all around but I'm not sure because it depends upon the source of the spending capital: cash or credit? I watched people around me spend like drunken sailors pre-2006 and I wondered at the time how on earth they could afford the things they bought, the home renovations, the vacations, the ginormous cars, etc. there is a euphoria that attends late economic rallies that is super unhealthy, and will ultimately lead to the economic hangover we are experiencing now. Now I know that they couldn't afford them and much of it was purchases on credit of some kind. I've seen many people lose their homes and jobs. It may have started with those who lived above their means but now it is clearly impacting people who did not go crazy with money. You want consumers to start spending but I'm hoping you are referring to those who have actual cash in hand. Otherwise, we start the whole credit spiral all over again. precisely. i think you have a really good grip on the problem. did you read the article?
|
|
Peace Of Mind
Senior Associate
[font color="#8f2520"]~ Drinks Well With Others ~[/font]
Joined: Dec 17, 2010 16:53:02 GMT -5
Posts: 15,554
Location: Paradise
|
Post by Peace Of Mind on Jul 8, 2012 13:25:34 GMT -5
If you are close to retirement age and don't have a lot of time to recoup that may be best for you guys. Especially if you have "enough". I'd protect my assets too. But I would not use a mattress.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jul 8, 2012 13:28:48 GMT -5
We are so spooked over the direction our country is taking that we are meeting with our financial adviser this week, and will be talking to him about taking all of our money out of our investments. Not sure what we'll do with it. It might make our mattress firmer. if you are that uncertain, gold is a good place to be.
|
|
|
Post by Savoir Faire-Demogague in NJ on Jul 8, 2012 13:29:41 GMT -5
You want consumers to start spending but I'm hoping you are referring to those who have actual cash in hand. Otherwise, we start the whole credit spiral all over again.
There is nothing wrong with the level of consumer spending. It has recovered to levels just prior to the meltdown. What has not recovered is business investment spending.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jul 8, 2012 13:31:14 GMT -5
I said simplify not go crazy! i was intentionally using an extreme example. but it is not hard to envision a future that is based on such minimal expectations.We have 3 flat screen TVs. DH loves technology. Now they have a bigger leaner one. Really? Do we need that too because advertiser say so just because we can afford to buy it? Our car runs perfectly. Do we need to buy a new one because it's old? It's in great shape and I love my car. It always starts. Should we buy a new one? Nope. Produce/manufacture something we need or that makes life better and the consumer will buy it. we have no flatscreen tv's. we have one old 32" enormous thing. i drive a 1996 Miata. the wife has a new car. we live in a 1300 SF house. everything is in moderation. it is not hard to sustain that lifestyle.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 18, 2024 2:17:30 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 8, 2012 13:31:21 GMT -5
www.gallup.com/poll/112723/gallup-daily-us-consumer-spending.aspxDoesn't look pretty. "In other words, the economy is scaring consumers." Yes, it's sort of a chicken and egg thing. I think it comes down to purely psychological factors that eventually drive the increase in confidence. These days we have all sorts of "media" outlets where people can go and read "news" about how horrible things are. I think that helps contribute to the lack of confidence and slow recovery.
|
|
|
Post by Savoir Faire-Demogague in NJ on Jul 8, 2012 13:32:23 GMT -5
We are so spooked over the direction our country is taking that we are meeting with our financial adviser this week, and will be talking to him about taking all of our money out of our investments. Not sure what we'll do with it. It might make our mattress firmer. You can go 5 year bank CDs, what are those bad-boys paying? .65% if that. Money Market funds are one hundredth of one percent. You'll be going broke safely. Me, I am remaining full invested as I did right through the downturn and continued to DCA into the market.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jul 8, 2012 13:32:24 GMT -5
www.gallup.com/poll/112723/gallup-daily-us-consumer-spending.aspxDoesn't look pretty. "In other words, the economy is scaring consumers." Yes, it's sort of a chicken and egg thing. I think it comes down to purely psychological factors that eventually drive the increase in confidence. These days we have all sorts of "media" outlets where people can go and read "news" about how horrible things are. I think that helps contribute to the lack of confidence and slow recovery. so, we have two votes for gearing up the ministry of propaganda. any other suggestions?
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jul 8, 2012 13:33:34 GMT -5
We are so spooked over the direction our country is taking that we are meeting with our financial adviser this week, and will be talking to him about taking all of our money out of our investments. Not sure what we'll do with it. It might make our mattress firmer. You can go 5 year bank CDs, what are those bad-boys paying? .65% if that. Money Market funds are one hundredth of one percent. You'll be going broke safely. Me, I am remaining full invested as I did right through the downturn and continued to DCA into the market. very wise thing to do, SF. after all, if you are making less than inflation, you are actually LOSING money. it is far better to borrow at 0.65% than to invest at that rate.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jul 8, 2012 13:35:49 GMT -5
if you are that uncertain, gold is a good place to be. Thought of that, but is that a good idea with the price so high? Wish I had a time machine. the price is down 20% from peak. and yes, that is a very good time, imo. i am about 1/3 in metals, 1/3 in foreign currency, and 1/3 in small cap value right now.
|
|
Peace Of Mind
Senior Associate
[font color="#8f2520"]~ Drinks Well With Others ~[/font]
Joined: Dec 17, 2010 16:53:02 GMT -5
Posts: 15,554
Location: Paradise
|
Post by Peace Of Mind on Jul 8, 2012 13:38:28 GMT -5
I said simplify not go crazy! i was intentionally using an extreme example. but it is not hard to envision a future that is based on such minimal expectations.We have 3 flat screen TVs. DH loves technology. Now they have a bigger leaner one. Really? Do we need that too because advertiser say so just because we can afford to buy it? Our car runs perfectly. Do we need to buy a new one because it's old? It's in great shape and I love my car. It always starts. Should we buy a new one? Nope. Produce/manufacture something we need or that makes life better and the consumer will buy it. we have no flatscreen tv's. we have one old 32" enormous thing. i drive a 1996 Miata. the wife has a new car. we live in a 1300 SF house. everything is in moderation. it is not hard to sustain that lifestyle. No it's not hard but if that's what people are doing that is why consumer spending is down. We DO have the larger house, etc. (and can afford it) but how much more do we need? I think this is part of the problem. Prior peaks were not sustainable and if we keep using these peaks as a model of what growth should be (including housing prices) then we'll never be happy with the numbers. Things are moving - just slowly. I think we need to get used to that.
|
|
Peace Of Mind
Senior Associate
[font color="#8f2520"]~ Drinks Well With Others ~[/font]
Joined: Dec 17, 2010 16:53:02 GMT -5
Posts: 15,554
Location: Paradise
|
Post by Peace Of Mind on Jul 8, 2012 13:39:30 GMT -5
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 18, 2024 2:17:30 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 8, 2012 13:47:50 GMT -5
dj--You're just one of thousands of businesses. And for some businesses, investing and hiring are the same. Plus one business' investment is another business' sale. The #1 component of business spending is labor. So more spending = more jobs.
|
|
Peace Of Mind
Senior Associate
[font color="#8f2520"]~ Drinks Well With Others ~[/font]
Joined: Dec 17, 2010 16:53:02 GMT -5
Posts: 15,554
Location: Paradise
|
Post by Peace Of Mind on Jul 8, 2012 13:49:32 GMT -5
Lone - Stocks have different values at different times. When you DCA you are buying during highs and lows. That's all it really means. Dollar cost average is the value of those highs and lows averaged out.
If you buy when they are up by 10% and then down at 5% the DCA would be 7.5% (did that in my head so I may be off a bit) but you get the idea.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jul 8, 2012 13:50:16 GMT -5
dj--You're just one of thousands of businesses. And for some businesses, investing and hiring are the same. Plus one business' investment is another business' sale. The #1 component of business spending is labor. So more spending = more jobs. you asked- i answered. i am not extrapolating what others do, nor whether i am wise or not. but as a niche marketer, i don't really give a rat's behind what the overall trends are. i am looking for ways to capitalize on downturns, as a general rule.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jul 8, 2012 13:51:20 GMT -5
Lone - Stocks have different values at different times. When you DCA you are buying during highs and lows. That's all it really means. Dollar cost average is the value of those highs and lows averaged out. If you buy when they are up by 10% and then down at 5% the DCA would be 7.5% (did that in my head so I may be off a bit) but you get the idea. (10-5)/2 = 2.5%
|
|
Peace Of Mind
Senior Associate
[font color="#8f2520"]~ Drinks Well With Others ~[/font]
Joined: Dec 17, 2010 16:53:02 GMT -5
Posts: 15,554
Location: Paradise
|
Post by Peace Of Mind on Jul 8, 2012 13:52:15 GMT -5
I was right then! Yay!
|
|
billisonboard
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 37,512
|
Post by billisonboard on Jul 8, 2012 13:54:39 GMT -5
You do realize that deer have never created their own water source. They have always simply found a water source and stayed with it until it dried up or the population became too large for the source to sustain the herd. The fact that they found a very good one just means that they thrived in that location. If/when it is no longer there, they will move on. So you don't supply them the same amount of water. Some of them cross a road to find the water they need to survive. Some of them get killed. Some migrate to areas with other dangers. Some of them die. As it has always been. And the alternative in continuing to supply them their needs is what? Are we talking deer or people now? If deer: If we are talking people:
|
|
fairlycrazy23
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 27, 2010 23:55:19 GMT -5
Posts: 3,306
|
Post by fairlycrazy23 on Jul 8, 2012 14:06:07 GMT -5
Okay, I Googled it and still don't understand what it means. I think it means you spead the risk over time. Instead of buying 1200.00 worth of a stock at once, you buy 100.00 a month. So say the stock was worth 10.00 a share , if you buy all at once you would have 120 shares and if the stock dropped .50 a share per month after 12 months, the stock price would be 4.50 and your investment would be worth 540. But if you DCA and but $100 dollars worth per month you would end up with about 176 shares worth about 792.00, and your average cost per share would be about 7.25
|
|