USA, Canada, Australia Have The Most Companies Running Losses

[Lord Temptation 11,209]

2 minutes ago, Economy said:

Yeah... Seems like the best times were between 1950s and 1970s in the sense that the worst of wars were behind and the economy had low unemployment and a thriving middle class

 

Not sure I'd be willing to give up today's gadgets and entertainment to live back then tho not to mention social rigidness

If i could go back ANYWHERE and be stuck there I would go to the 1980s. It sort of sits exactly halfway between the “old economy” and the “new economy”. It was the beginning of the end AND the end of the beginning 

[Economy 52,857]

2 minutes ago, Lord Temptation said:

If i could go back ANYWHERE and be stuck there I would go to the 1980s. It sort of sits exactly halfway between the “old economy” and the “new economy”. It was the beginning of the end AND the end of the beginning 

A Gaga spin haha

 

If anything I think the 90s is the new economy begging. It's when the information revolution happened when computers started to be used and companies began using networks like the internet

 

The 1990s saw a big boom in GDP as the digital era was born and information began to be processed much more efficiently and much more quickly

 

It also led to the .com bubble which if I'm not mistaken was in 2001 

 

People got overhyped with tech stock, the internet and the new digital age and investors started pricing in stocks on a lot of growth that hadn't happened yet which led to a recession

[Lord Temptation 11,209]

3 minutes ago, Economy said:

A Gaga spin haha

 

If anything I think the 90s is the new economy begging. It's when the information revolution happened when computers started to be used and companies began using networks like the internet

 

The 1990s saw a big boom in GDP as the digital era was born and information began to be processed much more efficiently and much more quickly

 

It also led to the .com bubble which if I'm not mistaken was in 2001 

 

People got overhyped with tech stock, the internet and the new digital age and investors started pricing in stocks on a lot of growth that hadn't happened yet which led to a recession

Yeah the 90s had the internet (albeit in a slow and not as diverse form) so that alone makes it more like today than the 80s. The 80s was just a no mans land. When i look back at pictures of 1980-1983 it still looks very old: browns and earth colours, grainy footage, disco, old vinyl records, flicked hair, houses with wallpaper. But then by the late 80s you start to see many 90s tendencies appear: neons, colour computer screens, mobile phones, house music and hip hop becoming popular. I think after the Wall Street crash in 1987 - the biggest fall in history - that society changed very dramatically. By 1989 the Berlin Wall had fallen and the 40 year Cold War was over. By 1990 the world wide web was born. 

If the 90s were a “mini golden age” of high growth and low unemployment then it was the late 80s that set it all up, culturally and economically.

[Economy 52,857]

Just now, Lord Temptation said:

Yeah the 90s had the internet (albeit in a slow and not as diverse form) so that alone makes it more like today than the 80s. The 80s was just a no mans land. When i look back at pictures of 1980-1983 it still looks very old: browns and earth colours, grainy footage, disco, old vinyl records, flicked hair, houses with wallpaper. But then by the late 80s you start to see many 90s tendencies appear: neons, colour computer screens, mobile phones, house music and hip hop becoming popular. I think after the Wall Street crash in 1987 - the biggest fall in history - that society changed very dramatically. By 1989 the Berlin Wall had fallen and the 40 year Cold War was over. By 1990 the world wide web was born. 

If the 90s were a “mini golden age” of high growth and low unemployment then it was the late 80s that set it all up, culturally and economically.

Yup I agree with all this

 

On another note We need more productivity gains like in the 90s tho. We have been stuck in weak productivity gains for the past 10-15 years and that becomes even worse with an aging population and more retirees

 

It's making incomes stagnant for the middle class and it's a problem

 

Tho I often suspect modern day laziness and bad work ethics are at least a part of the explanation why productivity gains have been so low for quite a few years now

[Lord Temptation 11,209]

4 minutes ago, Economy said:

Yup I agree with all this

 

On another note We need more productivity gains like in the 90s tho. We have been stuck in weak productivity gains for the past 10-15 years and that becomes even worse with an aging population and more retirees

 

It's making incomes stagnant for the middle class and it's a problem

 

Tho I often suspect modern day laziness and bad work ethics are at least a part of the explanation why productivity gains have been so low for quite a few years now

Agreed, too many “jobs” out there are effectively redundant. Like they could disappear tomorrow and nothing would change. Many of us can all become more productive if jobs allowed us greater flexibility in movement. But there is too much legal crap (our work contracts, HR rules etc) that forbid thinking outside the box. We can’t depend on another invention like the internet to save us. We have to save ourselves.

[Economy 52,857]

13 minutes ago, Lord Temptation said:

Agreed, too many “jobs” out there are effectively redundant. Like they could disappear tomorrow and nothing would change. Many of us can all become more productive if jobs allowed us greater flexibility in movement. But there is too much legal crap (our work contracts, HR rules etc) that forbid thinking outside the box. We can’t depend on another invention like the internet to save us. We have to save ourselves.

Agreed

[Woolfsmck 2,763]

Companies can operate in the negative , on the books as to avoid taxes.  Net company value when viewed from the liquid (cash) can look awful.  But acquisitions and holdings, inventory and demand for goods and services aren't necessarily factored when a number is calculated.     Also, the credit standing is huge since big companies tend to be founded on it in the first place and simply keep a running balance.   The exception being the companies that don't ever lower the debit and eventually get to where they don't earn enough to pay the interest.    

[Economy 52,857]

11 hours ago, Woolfsmck said:

Companies can operate in the negative , on the books as to avoid taxes.  Net company value when viewed from the liquid (cash) can look awful.  But acquisitions and holdings, inventory and demand for goods and services aren't necessarily factored when a number is calculated.     Also, the credit standing is huge since big companies tend to be founded on it in the first place and simply keep a running balance.   The exception being the companies that don't ever lower the debit and eventually get to where they don't earn enough to pay the interest.   

The so called zombie companies... Seems we have a lot of those here in Canada

 

Also a new survey shows 46% of Canadians are within $200 a month of insolvency...

 

Looks like the highly indebted consumers aren't reacting to rising rates so well