Economists say that consumers are spending less during this time. Is this really true?
People may not be spending a lot in the shopping malls or taking expensive vacations, but I believe people are spending money on other things that economists don’t see as the normal part of consumer spending.
 After the 9-11 attacks, there was a rise in gun sales, gas mask sales, and other products that made people want to feel safe.  So now that some person just spent $1000 at the gun store, that person has less money to spend at the shopping mall and travel. Did that person spend less this year? No, that person just spent money at [blue]Guns R Us[/blue] rather than at [red]Toys R Us[/red].
 Also people may be spending money on other things rather than material goods.  First, people have given more money to donations like the Red Cross. That sure will take effect in their normal spending habits.  People may be going out to night clubs more often and spending there money drinking ,socializing
and finding ways to relax and have fun rather than spending money at K-Mart.  I went out to a nightclub myself last night and I tell you, with wall to wall people keeping the bartender busy, that place wasn’t hurting for money.

 The system the economists use for monitoring people’s spending habits may be flawed. You can’t just look at what people spend at shopping malls and airports during the holiday season. You have to look what they spend during the whole year and have to include that evil black rifle "Mr. and Mrs. Average consumer" just bought that they wouldn’t of normally purchased instead of the politically correct merchandise that they would of.


[b]ArmaLiter[/b]

 

 

Actually, fewer people are spending more.  

Well, we're definitely going to be unemployed after December, so it makes things interesting as far as spending money goes.  On one hand, I like to spend money on guns and gun related things, as does my wife.  But, when you know you're going to be laid off and there's nothing you can do except pray and hunt for another job, spending money is the last thing on your mind.

The Fortune 500 have laid off over 1,000,000 people this year, myself included, with more layoffs coming in the next few months.  It's kind of hard to have consumer confidence when you don't have a job or job security.  I'd certainly have it if I had a job I knew was going to last.

God Bless Texas

GBT, very sorry to hear of your lay-off.
Most of "job creation" has been done by small companies for a good many years now.
The perennial problem of small business is lack of capital.
If the Democrats have their way this under-funding will continue as small business people are virtually all Republican.

Actually, the problems with the economy can be traced to the Fed. We need to abolish it.
Oh, and don't forget all the red tape and taxes keeping businesses down.

The Chief economist is on the side of the capitalist , not the government. This I can assure you!  He warned everybody time and again. And he warned and he warned and he warned.  Everybody was too busy yelling at him, instead of heading what he said. Now that this has ocurred I have a friend who has lost 600K in the market.  To bad he didn't take an ounce of credance.  Allen Greenspan is not the problem.  People looking to invest in business that one have no chance of success are the problem. The Venture capitalist are doing very well, why because they understand how capitalism works. They lost no money in the dot.com crash, they made money in it. Learn what you are doing and do well. But don't bitch about the FED, he knows what he is doing and he is doing well with it.  I know that I am going to get flamed for this.  Dot.coms are false businesses, sold like so much snake oil and miracle cure.  Some saw it for what it was (a system of making money with no REAL,ie based in reality. Fundamentals (goods,goods,manufacture,real assetts and real capital (both currency and assetts). You cannot finance $100,000,000 with no collateral and three computers sitting in a room. EVERYTHING WAS RIGHT THERE TO ANALYZE. PEOPLE DIDN"T ANALYZE.  If they went belly up , where and how were the creditors going recoup there debt?? Those companies had no assetts.  That was the biggest red flag in history and everyone missed it.  

Benjamin

I am sorry, but in this day and age everyone seems to have forgotten the ROBBER BARONS of OLD. READ YOUR VANDERBUILT, YOUR JP MORGAN, YOUR JPAUL GHETTY. And you will see what true American Capitalism is about. If one of those dot.com guys went to one of those men and asked for cash he would have gotten cussed and laughed at all the way out the front door of the guys mansion built from his (MANUFACTURING,STEAL,OIL, AUTOMOBILES, REAL FRICKIN SHIT THAT YOU CAN TOUCH WITH YOUR HAND, REAL STUFF THAT HOLDS VALUE AND HAS AN OBJECTIVE MEASURE OF VALUE).  JP MORGAN Financed guys like GEORGE WESTINGHOUSE,EASTMAN, ORE OPERATIONS , STEAL OPERATIONS.  They held GOLD as a currency of exchange not a bunch of WORTHLESS SHIT like unbacked currency & digital bits.  The VentureCapitalists of today made a shit load of money on peoples stupidity, but I guess that is how it always works. NEVER FORGET THE FUNDAMENTALS!

Benjamin

The stock market has wrecked even brilliant businessman with a nack for gambling. I have seen it.  Read your history. Even the Steal Tycoons have taken an ass kicking trying to corner the market in some field.  It is risky business.  GOD HOW I LOVE BUSINESS!

What is going to happen you ask, Well I am self-employeed and after december 31st, Come Janruary 1, 2002. I am getting a second job no matter if I am doing well or not. Because Gentleman this ride has just begun.

An OUNCE OF PREVENTION IS WORTH A POUND OF CURE!!

Benjamin

... I always knew that the dot.com phenomenom was nothing more than a pyramid scheme and doomed to fail a bunch of suckers eventually.
Always tried to balance an even distribution of investments with, as Benjamin0001 says, investments heavier in REAL stuff. That's where it's at. How could anyone believe Yahoo was worth $120+ / share when the friggin business didn't even have a "store front".

The reason people started bitching is because they new somewhere inside of themselves that if they didn't keep the hype up the illusions spun for them (mere words, not goods) would dissapear and the gig was up.  Hahahah, you have to fucking laugh!  Greenspan was trying to tell people it was mere illusion , and there is no-one better at spinning an illusion (I CALL IT PLAYING THE "WIZARD OF OZ") then those guys selling that stock. My God.  If you understand a fundamental thing about language and its effect on a human being then you can learn to negate that effect and merely look AT the REAL.  Until you can do that you are begging to be suckered every time.

Benjamin

Who cares whether a business has a "store front" or not??  Yahoo sells services like webhosting and e-mailboxes without having a physical-world shop to drop in at;  they just don't sell enough of them to justify $120/share.  I haven't exactly noticed Microsoft opening up their very own shops anywhere (other than their on-premises employees-only store), but they make a fortune despite that. . . .

And as far as whether people are spending less, hell yes.  The majority of the people I know are holding back on their spending, hoping to keep their jobs but not sure whether they will or not.  The only big purchase I've made since I got dumped in April was a camera that I'd been planning on for two years, and the only reason I bought it was the deep discounting that is going on right now to lure consumers.

The only positive spending news I've heard lately was about people buying new cars during the "zero percent interest" nonsense (meaning the salescreeps just refuse to negotiate as low as they otherwise would have).  Even that just means that people moved their spending forward a few months to buy now instead of next year, IMHO.

I remember the warnings in the early 80's of what would happen to the economy if the U.S. continued to shift from a manufacturing base to a service base. The failed dot coms demonstrated this to a tee.

I used to spend about $300 per person on Christmas presents but no way can I do it this year with no income.